Readers' Letters: It's time for Anas Sarwar to make some honest choices of his own

A reader says it’s time for Scottish Labour to stop deploying ‘the chicanery of easy answers’

On Monday, ahead of the Budget, the PM said: “The time is long overdue for politicians in this country to level with you, honestly, about the trade-offs this country faces.” He demanded that opposition parties were open and honest about the choices they would make in setting a budget, rather than indulging in “the chicanery of easy answers.”

Scottish Conservatives, to their credit, are upfront about cutting Scottish “freebies” in pursuit of lower taxes. But what of Scottish Labour?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It is a reasonable expectation that they follow their leader’s demands and explain to the public, openly and honestly, what they would make of the hard choices which face the SNP government. All the needed financial detail will emerge in the next week.

Anas Sarwar should clarify what he means when he says the Scottish Government has made the 'wrong choices', a reader suggestsAnas Sarwar should clarify what he means when he says the Scottish Government has made the 'wrong choices', a reader suggests
Anas Sarwar should clarify what he means when he says the Scottish Government has made the 'wrong choices', a reader suggests

This might clarify what Anas Sarwar has called the “wrong choices” previously made which, as best I understood it, were ones for which Sarwar and colleagues voted. Would they now reverse improved welfare benefits and better pay for Scottish public sector staff? Or do they still support these choices and still demand that even more is spent?

Will we finally know the Scottish Labour position on income tax? They once demanded a 50 per cent top rate but apparently disagree with the mildly progressive changes made by the SNP.

Perhaps now they are against any distinctive Scottish taxes, simply following whatever is decided by Labour at Westminster – we really deserve to know, rather than the usual “chicanery of easy answers”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It used to be common practice in Scottish local government that, every year, the opposition parties produced their own budgets, setting out details on where they would spend or cut and how their choices would be funded.

It is not a big ask of Scottish Labour to produce a “shadow” budget making clear their own tax and spend choices. Surely there are a few ex-councillors in the ranks who might remember how to do this?

Robert Farquharson, Edinburgh

Proper scrutiny

Jackie Baillie (Scotsman, 30 October) is guilty of double standards as Labour were quick to blame the Tories at Westminster for the much worse NHS performance in Wales under Labour, where, pro rata, the waiting list is almost twice as high as in Scotland. NHS waiting lists won’t be helped by Labour’s cuts to the winter fuel payment and the consequential £160 million cut to Scotland’s budget.

On NHS recruitment, pro rata, Scotland is training almost three times as many nurses than in England as the Scottish Government provides a number of bursaries and allowances, including £10,000 per year for the first three years of a course.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Analysis by the House of Commons Library, showed that the proportion of Westminster spending on Holyrood has decreased from 8.2 per cent in 2015-16 to 7.6 per cent as of July this year. Last year, Westminster cut the Scottish Government's capital block grant by 9.6 per cent, a real-terms cut of £600 million, and it faces further cuts of £200m this year.

As for the Scottish Government spending £4.2m on press officers, I am surprised it is so low given the overwhelmingly hostile media in Scotland, and it is worth pointing out that Westminster spent £749m on press officers in 2023-24.

At Westminster, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee is supposed to hold the UK Government to account on Scotland, but Labour has taken the bulk of the committee positions and merely “gifted” the SNP one place, when the SNP polled 30 per cent at the general election and won more seats than the Tories or Lib Dems, who each have two members. Labour is determined to avoid proper scrutiny.

Mary Thomas, Edinburgh

Usual suspects

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink!

No matter the number of times it is pointed out to Alexander McKay (Letters, 30 October) that what Holyrood spends on his “usual suspects” (deemed independence-related expenditures) represents only a tiny fraction of the profligate spending by Westminster. Of course the Scottish Government could, like most governments, have made better spending decisions, but to my knowledge no schemes have been set up to divert billions of pounds of our taxes to “VIPs” (mainly wealthy Tory party donors) for PPE that had to be incinerated.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Certainly there are arguments for federalism, as opposed to independence, but it’s insulting the intelligence of Scotland’s people to imply that devolution can satisfy the long-term democratic, economic and social aspirations of the people of Scotland. Labour have enjoyed 25 years of devolved power in Wales and on almost every metric public services are in worse shape than in Scotland. It took less than a 100 days in power at Westminster to reveal that not only the Tory Party but the Labour Party are effectively in the pockets of rich party donors and that the UK parliament and the voting system (Labour having an overwhelming majority with votes from only 20 per cent of the electorate) needs reform, as well as the system facilitating the potentially corrupt acceptance of political donations and gifts.

Anyone who believes that if Labour’s Ian Murray or Anas Sarwar were to directly determine spending in Scotland that much better decisions would be made and magically produce billions of pounds for the Scottish Government is in desperate need of a reality check.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian

Sleekit tourist tax

It would be laughable if it was not so sad. Shona Robinson of the SNP government apparently called on the UK Government to dispense with VAT on goods bought by tourists to encourage more tourists to visit Scotland and spend their money. This is the same SNP that not only introduced a law permitting local authorities to impose a tourist tax (visitor levy) on accommodation, but did so with no caps.

In cities in the UK I have visited, the levy is typically set at £1 a night. Not enough to dissuade someone from visiting. Contrast that with her government’s tenure, where Edinburgh intends to implement a levy of five per cent on accommodation costs which in peak season is probably £10-£15 a night extra, some ten to fifteen times the levy typically implemented elsewhere.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It is reasonable to ask tourists to make a small additional contribution to the economy even though they already pay for thousands of jobs in hospitality by visiting. But it is the height of hypocrisy for the SNP to ask the UK Government to reduce a tax on tourists at the same time as permitting local authorities here to add significant extra costs for tourists. Maybe she is hoping that if the UK obliges, then nobody will notice the sleekit five per cent extra on their hotel bill!

Brian Barbour, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Northumberland

Blown over

As we watched Tuesday’s “Great British Energy” Debate in the House of Commons, politicians shone very little light on the precarious state of our electricity production. In fact, during the actual debate, once again the wind industry failed to produce the goods. Gas and imports had to step in to keep the lights on and heat our homes.

Why are we hard-pressed consumers still paying such eye-watering subsidies to an industry that has so spectacularly failed?

George Herraghty, Elgin, Moray

Not self-defence

Infamously, MSP John Mason was sacked by the SNP for suggesting that if Israel wanted to commit genocide in Gaza, they would have to do ten times worse than they were doing already.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

All too sadly, that is precisely what Israel appears now to be doing. The banning of aid from Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA adds just one more item to the list of the methods by which the embattled people of Gaza can die, namely starvation.

The death toll is now over 43,000 and rising on a daily basis. The displacement of the 2.3 million population is now assessed at a horrendous 90 per cent-plus (Scotsman, 30 October). The infrastructure is in near ruin, as more and more people are living in temporary accommodation, until it too is destroyed. As always, the numbers of those killed or displaced feature an unacceptable proportion of innocent women and children.

All the while, the world looks on helplessly and horrified, with no immediate solution in sight. It’s well past the stage now when Israel can claim that these actions are somehow self-defence. At best, what is going on can be described as a one-sided civil war, at worst, and sadly more realistically, as genocide.

Ian Petrie, Edinburgh

Inquiring minds

If you were appointing a ‘secretariat’ to support an independent advisor – James Hamilton – investigating the conduct of the head of government, would you choose a person employed as a civil servant in that government? I mean, if you really wanted there to be no scintilla of doubt about whether the investigation was entirely independent? Would you not choose someone completely unconnected with the Scottish Government?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

If you chose someone closely involved in government business for that post, would you not fight tooth and nail to keep that ‘confidential’, i.e., secret? That is what John Swinney did, until forced by Freedom of Information law eventually to reveal that information.

Still, John Swinney has, he hopes, been able to close the matter down by refusing opposition demands for a judge-led inquiry into it (Scotsman, 30 October). Because he can.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.