Readers' Letters: Two-child benefit announcement an exercise in wishful thinking

First Minister John Swinney looks on as Finance Secretary Shona Robison as the finance secretary presents the government's budget at Scottish Parliament Building last week (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)First Minister John Swinney looks on as Finance Secretary Shona Robison as the finance secretary presents the government's budget at Scottish Parliament Building last week (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)
First Minister John Swinney looks on as Finance Secretary Shona Robison as the finance secretary presents the government's budget at Scottish Parliament Building last week (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)
Readers continue to argue about the merits of the Scottish Budget

Last week’s draft Budget announcement demonstrated this SNP government’s continued cynical treatment of Scotland.

The headline item of ending the two-child benefits cap was uncosted and unfunded. Like other previous poorly thought through grand pronouncements in recent SNP budgets, it is more an exercise in wishful thinking than a genuine exercise to present what is actually affordable. As a result, mid-year emergency adjustments have been needed to belatedly balance the books.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The latest Budget also saw the SNP government continue its blatant economic sleight of hand on tax. Scotland is clearly the highest taxed part of the UK, paying more for often poor services. Yet ministers seek to mislead with talk of the majority paying less tax than the rest of the UK.

This blatant device involves 51 per cent paying a negligibly lower amount of tax, while the rest pay considerably more, and of course we get less back for it. Simply put, we are all being taken to the cleaners.

Finally, we are told that another “long-con” played by the SNP on the people of Scotland is at last coming to a suitably undignified end. The sequence of independence diatribes produced with public funds will apparently be completed with a final overview paper.

This series has demonstrated the SNP’s inability to present a coherent or convincing case for why turning our backs on fellow UK citizens will somehow make things better. Independence supporters cannot agree on many of the key issues covered in these papers, yet we have all had to pay for them. Worse still is the blatant cynicism of a Scottish Government wasting public funds on such an exercise despite knowing that the vague rhetoric and lack of meaningful detail in these papers will quickly consign them to the bin.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

If we ever get a rush of blood to the head and decide to put ourselves through another deeply divisive referendum, this whole exercise would have to be repeated to produce anything remotely credible.

Keith Howell, West Linton, Scottish Borders

Don’t believe it

I thought I had seen every con trick practised by every party in search of a few grubby votes.

However, the sheer effrontery of the SNP budget and the reference to “tackling” the two-child cap on benefits took even an old stager like me aback. Examined closely, it means that they will have some people look at the problem in 2026, coincidentally, just before the scheduled election. This meagre offering warrants the full SNP Spad Army to be mobilised into presenting it as a major coup and fait accompli and solving of a problem. It is nothing of the kind. Spad of the Year award for whomever came up with this wheeze.

Anyone taken in by this nonsense deserves what will inevitably follow.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Discredited

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

If it was not so serious for the people of Scotland it would almost be laughable watching a Labour Prime Minister torpedoing his Scottish Labour Party leader with policies that have allowed the SNP to play the moral card around the winter fuel allowance and two-child benefit cap. Keir Starmer advises that the UK Government and the Department of Work & Pensions will work with the Scottish Government to assist with the removal of the two-child benefit cap! The SNP’s policy has already been financially discredited by the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies but regardless, the optics are all on the side of the SNP and the rest of their inept Budget sits quietly in the corner.

With the damage the SNP have brought upon Scotland across all aspects of public life over 17 long years, it will be ironic that a Labour Government, not a Conservative Government, will allow the SNP to continue to wreak havoc by potentially now winning the Holyrood election in 2026.

Richard Allison, Edinburgh

Future awaits

The Lion of Scotland wakes at last, as polls show that there is now a 54 per cent majority for an independent Scotland.

The Tartan Army is on the move to win back a country whose Government at Holyrood cares for the poor and the aged, encourages business start-ups and the trade with our neighbouring countries we used to have when Scotland was a part of the European Union. Europe would welcome us. Only the UK's Brexit holds us back.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Read your history. Scotland was never England's willing toyboy. A bribed, corrupt few Scottish Lords sold us to an English Government that has held onto us just because of a dirty old piece of paper.

Time for Holyrood to take control of the Government of Scotland and have use of our tax revenue that currently is taken from us by the UK Treasury.

A majority of Scots want Independence. Let's make Scotland great again.

Elizabeth Scott, Edinburgh

Good riddance

Israel’s campaign in Lebanon severely depleted Hezbollah’s ability to operate. This terrorist organisation (along with Russia and Iran) helped prop up the vile Assad regime in Syria for many years. That bloodthirsty tyrant is now gone, thanks in part to Israeli military action and also the fact that Putin’s attention is focused on Ukraine. This development also leaves Assad’s highly unpleasant allies in Tehran strategically weakened as a regional power. Scottish separatist correspondents who regularly criticise Tel Aviv as well as London, please take note.

Martin O’Gorman, Edinburgh

Empty tanks

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The latest move in the fight to reach net zero really takes the biscuit. The Ministry of Defence intends to make its military vehicles battery powered! Within a few years all its trucks and support vehicles will have to plug into the mains before their drivers can press the Go button. But there's more. Armoured fighting vehicles will have to become battery powered too! This will allow them to creep up on the enemy, we are told – if they have enough go in their batteries, which will, like the Army's uniforms, presumably be made in China.

Leaving to one side the fact that the foe would just have to wait our lads out to see them stop dead on the battlefield, one wonders how mains electricity is going to be delivered to the front line or what the effect would be with strikes on grid control centres across Europe. At the moment we have things called tankers and jerry cans which can quickly transport diesel, but we don't have any electricity cans or battery powered lorries with batteries for top-up on the back, and diesel engines don't rely on the Grid.

William Loneskie, Oxton, Lauder, Berwickshire

Tax junk food

Almost hidden in the noise generated by our UK government’s relaunch of policies was a proposal to restrict TV advertising of foods now termed Junk Food prior to 9pm. We are talking foodstuff with excess sugar, salt, preservatives and other items that, if eaten in excess, are one of the primary reasons for the UK epidemic of obesity affecting young and old. This suggested policy will no doubt end up as useful as the Scottish Government’s policy of reducing alcohol consumption by making it more expensive to buy!

If we really are serious about reducing the impact of junk food, or indeed, any product, then those products will need to be more expensive at point of purchase. Of course, that will create a lot of negative noise unless we can see real benefit from action of this type. I suggest that in the example of junk food we add something similar to VAT to the price of the product and that revenue raised by this is credited directly to our NHS.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

This action would hopefully have two positive effects, namely, creating more funding for our health service and reducing junk food consumption.

Of course, we need to have transparency on how this additional funding is allocated to ensure it’s not frittered away. But surely within our bureaucracy there is a department whose sole rationale is to ensure value for money and effective dispersal of same.

A Lewis, Coylton, Ayrshire

Checked out

Let me offer a little scenario. You finish your weekly shop, approach the checkout and load your goods on to the conveyor belt. You bag the goods as the checkout operator scans each item. The bill is totalled up and you pay. No fuss, straightforward.

Now consider this. You arrive at the checkout, exchange pleasantries and load your goods on to the conveyor belt. Unfortunately, the first item is not recognised by the barcode scanner, the checkout assistant persists, then resorts to typing in the long 12-digit product code. Good, we are up and running. Then the second item, and the weight does not seem to match the product. Again, the assistant has to override this and off we go again. Once again, the process stops. Stupidly you have lifted a carrier bag from the packing area and the checkout assistant has to call for assistance to ascertain whether you have walked off without paying or whether thus was just an error. Excellent, we are on the home straight. The price is finally established. You hand the assistant the cash and it is immediately handed back to you. You hand the notes to the assistant again. Again, they are returned to you. Eventually the assistant replaces your notes with others (less crushed) and the transaction is complete.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The point I am making here is probably obvious. If a checkout assistant operated in the manner of these self-checkout machines, we would probably ask to see the manager.

Stuart Smith, Aberdeen

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.

Comments

 0 comments

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

Dare to be Honest
Follow us
©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice