THE Scottish Government’s recently published figures in relation to “requests for crisis grants” were rather disturbing (Crisis grant requests increase as Tory austerity bites,The National, November 1).
Disturbing because those applications are up by 11 per cent on the same period last year and come about as a direct result of the failing welfare systems of Westminster that allow the vulnerable, the sick and the needy to slip through the security net. Applying for a crisis grant is often the last resort for those in dire need, those who have nowhere else to turn, yet have hungry mouths to feed.
Crisis grants became available in 2013 when the Scottish Government established the Scottish Welfare Fund to assist those being disproportionately affected by Westminster’s welfare reforms and to date some £140 million has been paid out to those in crisis. Does the Westminster Treasury reimburse the Scottish budget for taking such action to mitigate Westminster’s failings? Just as those figures were being digested, the issue of the roll-out of Universal Credit, which has had a profound effect on those depressing figures, was once again raised at Prime Minister’s Questions by the SNP. The Scottish Government, to have any impact on those depressing figures, needs full welfare powers to be devolved and not just the 15 per cent of the welfare spend in Scotland that is being devolved.
Catriona C Clark
Banknock, Falkirk
A LEGAL immigrant, radicalised while in the US, mows down and kills 8 people, injuring 11, in Manhattan (Investigation under way after eight killed in New York terror attack, The National, November 1). Before the death count is confirmed Trump calls for further immigration restrictions.
A rich old white guy slaughters 59 and injures around 500 in Las Vegas using weaponry special forces would be in awe of but it’s “too soon to talk about gun control”. This is way beyond hypocrisy.
Amanda Baker
Edinburgh
IT was a joy reading Audrey Birt’s letter (This is how you persuade No voters to change their minds on independence, Letters, October 31).
Margaret Mead was right in reminding us of the power of a “small group”. But let’s be honest, our groups are busy, many are thriving, some are re-emerging or starting up. Our meetings are productive, for us. Our messages, and the main one of independence, are repeated, mostly amongst ourselves, for us, at our meetings, our gatherings, our parades: for and with us.
Birt’s point then of engaging with “others” is vital. There is no point of me in my corner, others in theirs exchanging combative verbal brick bats. It’s vital we go to other venues, other meetings, other places. We can’t expect the No voters or the undecided to come looking for us. Do we see a fair representation of Scotland: younger people, other communities? We have to be out there, being the change factor. If needs be, we change the narrative, the frame within which we debate, dialogue and listen. Why should we counter-argue the biased arguments put forward in the lead up to 2014? Ignore them, reject them out of hand!
It’s our task then to create and deliver new treatise, especially around everyday themes, the ones that impact on our everyday lives. From food banks to Scottish brands, to supporting SNHS, it is obvious you don’t have to be a household name, a global movement, to focus a spotlight on the need for change as well as achieving change. Think period poverty and all the work undertaken locally then nationally. We don’t need to change societal structures. If needs be, that is surely something we can consider in an indy Scotland. We focus on people and what the future might look like and could look like.
The current state of the UK is bad and getting worse. Europe is in a state of flux. Can we really afford to sit back and bemoan the future as part of rUK without seeking to change minds and attitudes here? The ability to bring about change lies with us. It really doesn’t matter what we do, locally, nationally, grouped or individually, so long as we’re continuing to do something to engage with others. One step: a changed view, perception, aspiration, it’s that start on a new road for them and so vital for us all.
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here