Government needs to show better grip on the economy – Letters

Boris Johnson’s billions aren’t enough, says a reader
LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 01: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson leaves 10 Downing Street to attend the weekly Prime Ministers Questions on July 01, 2020 in London, England. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 01: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson leaves 10 Downing Street to attend the weekly Prime Ministers Questions on July 01, 2020 in London, England. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)
LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 01: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson leaves 10 Downing Street to attend the weekly Prime Ministers Questions on July 01, 2020 in London, England. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

Watching the TV press conference at which Boris Johnson flailed his arms about throwing billions of pounds at the health service, education and building industry projects one wondered, who worked out how and where the extra nurses and doctors, teachers, and building trade workers required will be recruited and trained and how their placements are to be carried out?

We do want and need to see things happening, but unless the Prime Minister – or rather, Dominic Cummings – comes up with plans to put them into effect we are simply witnessing pie in the sky politics.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Some 11 million workers are now being funded by the government. Even when the economy does pick up so many jobs will have gone, especially in retailing, and they are not likely to return. The government must show a better grip in its handling of the economy and on those employment issues ahead – not simply churn out billion pound figure promises.

Jim Craigen, Downie Grove, Edinburgh

Trying it on

Boris Johnson is at it again, trying to delude the public by claiming “there will be no return to the austerity of ten years ago.” Who is he kidding? Has the statistic of the UK economy contracting by over a fifth in April flown right over his head?

Covid-19 will see everyone pay a hefty price, whether that is due to job loss, increased utility bills, the cost of local government services and higher taxation. Mr Johnson promises a raft of infrastructure schemes which will require increased borrowing, which in turn increases national debt which needs to be paid back by the UK taxpayer via higher taxes. Those who are looking at the harsh reality and thinking clearly are fully aware of the hardship to follow, it is only Mr Johnson who is deluding himself at the country’s expense.

Catriona C Clark, Hawthorn Drive, Banknock, Falkirk

The Boris Bridge

May I be the first to suggest that should the PM be successful in his desire to build a bridge between Scotland and Ireland, it be named The Boris Bridge? Mainly because it’s going somewhere few people in either Scotland and Northern Ireland want to go and its effectiveness will regularly be hampered by excessive wind.

D Mitchell, Coates Place, Edinburgh

Let’s drive to Norway!

I see that Boris Johnson’s initiative for the UK to “triple build” its way out of the economic crisis precipitated by Covid-19 will start with a new bridge across the North Channel, linking Scotland with Northern Ireland. To me, this lacks vision and ambition. Why not build a flyover across the whole of Ulster and head straight for Greenland where new markets and opportunities await to be exploited by a post-Brexit Britain?

It could even incorporate a new HS3 route which would not only keep the construction industry gainfully employed way beyond the completion of HS2, but also cut at least 20 minutes off the journey time between Edinburgh and Nuuk.

Andy Davey, St Andrews Road, Peebles, Scotland

Hot topic

In response to Dr Charles Wardrop (Letters, 1 July), in my letter (30 June) I made it clear that Scotland alone could not change the world’s climate and I explained why it should nevertheless make an effort. The failure of other countries to curb their greenhouse gas emission is why I advocate geoengineering. Otherwise we face an environmental crisis.

Geoff Moore (Letters, 1 July) points to the strange change of heart by environmentalist Michael Shellenberger. The latter claims to base his change on the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but this is still issuing dire warnings about the future of the planet. Anyone who believes that global warming is a hoax or a mistake is deluded and should note the recent statement from the Met Office (your report, 1 July) about the prospect of the UK regularly suffering heat waves of 40C by 2100 unless greenhouse gas emissions are driven down. Only geoengineering can stop that.

Steuart Campbell, Dovecot Loan, Edinburgh

Reel eyesore

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mark Cousins writes about the proposed new Filmhouse to be built in central Edinburgh (Perspective, 23 June). I had a close look at the artist’s impression and, honestly, could not believe my eyes. I feel that any architect should, when designing a new building, take account of the aesthetic effect this building will have on the surrounding area. I am afraid that this proposal does not do this. In fact, the design is reminiscent of the previously proposed hotel beside Haymarket.

Although Mark Cousins is very enthusiastic about the internal facilities to be provided in the building I can only feel that the external design will detract from the interior, however luxurious it is. Would it not be possible to extend the present Filmhouse to provide the extra screens (the enormous building proposed has just three more screens) and build in more office space, etc? Since the land is available to build this, could it not be attached to the existing building, with the entrance in Festival Square, as appears to be the case in the new building.

I realise that my views will carry no weight but as someone who was born in Edinburgh I can only look in disappointment at the architectural vandalism that has taken place over many years in a city I love.

Colin J Oliver, Parklands, Broxburn, West Lothian

Split difference

There seems to be some confusion about the term, ‘separatism’ in PM Dryburgh’s mind (Letters, 1 July). He clearly regards it as some sort of insult to separatism to be so-called. He sounds a trifle miffed and suggests that the USA should be persuaded to call Independence Day ‘Separatism Day’.

However, separatism is about the splitting of existing states and America was a group of colonies, not part of Great Britain, whereas the American Civil War was a case of separatism – and look where it got them.

His example of Norway breaking away from the enforced Swedish union is another case of separatism from a unified state, which led to Norwegian independence. The same applies to the Finns and the Baltic States vis-à-vis Russia. All these states, however, differ from Scotland’s place in Britain. They were taken into union by force. Scotland and England agreed a union between their respective parliaments which has been confirmed by a sizeable margin (almost a quarter more voted to remain in the UK than voted to leave) in 2014.

Separatism is an aspiration. independence is that aspiration made a fact.

Andrew HN Gray, Craiglea Drive, Edinburgh

Get money back

Several weeks ago, through the letters page, I asked the question of why the Scottish Government chose to set up the Scottish Investment Bank with a donation of £2 billion during one of the worst pandemics in modern times.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

I now read that Nicola Sturgeon, Ian Blackford, Kate Forbes and Fiona Hyslop are asking the UK government for more financial support on top of that already provided to enable the Scottish economy to get through the Covid 19 crisis and beyond.

Why do they not do what I consider to be the most obvious and ask the Scottish Investment Bank to return the £2bn.

It would cover the amount they are demanding and also provide almost a third of the sum recommended by their own most recent commission into the state of the Scottish economy... but perhaps the SNP Government have an ulterior motive in not asking for its return.

May I also say, I am most disappointed that it would appear that not one of the opposition parties at Holyrood has asked this question of the First Minister at First Minister’s questions.

William Hope, Kings Avenue, Longniddry

Drop of sense?

Munich’s famous Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics found droplets travelled only up to 0.5m from singing test subjects. The fact is singing doesn’t expel a large volume of air in jerks like coughing or sneezing.

However, our First Minister suspects nonagenarian members of Kirk choirs can eject droplets over vast distances and endanger low-flying aircraft. She dismissed inconvenient scientific research and will rely again on policy wonks.

French churches took Emmanuel Macron before the Supreme Court, which told him to back off because interfering with religious services is illegal. But politicos north and south of the Border need fear neither of our national churches. Both are pretty feeble and usually engrossed in supporting fashionable causes such as global warming or the collectivisation of Third World farms.

(Rev Dr) John Cameron, Howard Place, St Andrews

Knee-jerk

Nicola Sturgeon has said that she is “extremely underwhelmed” by Boris Johnson’s post-lockdown spending plans. Could this possibly be the first time she has been dismissive of a sensible proposal from a UK Prime Minister just for the sake of it?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

I’m unsure, but you’ll have to excuse me, there appears to be a bear ambling into the woods over there.

David Bone, Hamilton Street, Girvan, South Ayrshire

People who write

Anent Murdo Fraser’s excellent article on liberalism (Perspective 1 July), and in the time-honoured introduction to such letters in the press, am I alone in preferring to describe us as “men” rather than “people who ejaculate” – just as I fully support J K Rowling’s use of the word “women” instead of “people who menstruate”?

Moreover, it would be quite complicated to change all those legal documents where the preamble states that, in interpreting its clauses, it should be taken as read that “man” embraces “woman”.

John Birkett, Horseleys Park, St Andrews

Write to The Scotsman

The Scotsman welcomes letters for publication – 300 words maximum – from all sides of public debate. Include date and page when referring to an article, avoid ‘Letters to the Editor’ in e-mail subject line. No attachments. We reserve the right to edit letters. No correspondence will be entered into. Send submissions, with full address and phone number, to: [email protected]

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

The dramatic events of 2020 are having a major impact on many of our advertisers – and consequently the revenue we receive. We are now more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription to support our journalism.

Subscribe to scotsman.com and enjoy unlimited access to Scottish news and information online and on our app. Visit https://www.scotsman.com/subscriptions now to sign up.

By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Joy Yates, Editorial Director

Comments

 0 comments

Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.