YOUR article “Tories urged to rebel on benefits” (August 24) was a call from SNP work and pensions spokesman at Westminster David Linden MP for Conservative MPs to stand up for low-income families and reject the planned cut of £20/week to Universal Credits (UC).
The figure of six million claimants being affected by this cut should raise alarm bells for us all. Because all our lives have changed in one way or another during the pandemic and finding one’s self in the position of claiming benefits has become a reality for millions. So if we are going to protect families and household incomes, we need to protect benefits.
Many millions are bracing themselves for the end of furlough in a month’s time along with the planned cut to UC, and just to top those cuts, the energy regulator Ofgem has removed the price cap on energy bills.
READ MORE: Home Office blames 'technical glitch' as Afghan calls sent to washing machine firm
It is time for the Government at Westminster who have powers over welfare benefits and energy to step up. Where are the silent Conservatives from Scotland, are they too busy looking over their shoulders to the party leader who has a record of withdrawing the whip from those not following party lines? Can we expect change? A change of attitude by putting constituents’ interests before party interests would be very welcome and I along with David Linden MP challenge Scottish Conservative MPs to rebel, put your constituents’ interests first for a change – after all they elected you and you are supposed to represent their interests.
Catriona C Clark
Banknock
AS we all know, Holyrood and Westminster are in a failing relationship and clearly not a fair or happy one. So much so we clearly have grounds for divorce.
Many democrats and independence supporters, both north and south of the Border, would advocate our SNP MPs walking out of London where clearly the Tory Government is having an incestuous relationship with London and their Tory cronies. If that’s not grounds for unreasonable behaviour, I don’t know what is!
At Westminster Scotland’s opinion is ignored, not listened to, and MPs constantly verbally abused. We have been marginalised, certainly since Thatcher, and stripped of our assets without a fair return. If only our relationship was governed by divorce laws we could walk away, after a two-year separation.
But what do we hear? “FIVE YEARS.” Surely we can organise something a bit sooner! Just think, five more years of increased poverty, more foodbanks, further council cutbacks leading to further reductions to services, the further decline of the NHS, more money wasted on bizarre projects (the bridge, the royal yacht, the rail line that cuts 20 minutes off its journey, lucrative contracts to Tory cronies, the undemocratic House of Lords bursting with greedy mercenaries, wasting billions on Trident). Let’s not forget this is our money too. Money that could go towards levelling the playing field. What are we waiting for?
Robin MacLean
Fort Augustus
THE simplest way to cut Scotland’s alcohol intake is to take licences out of general stores and particularly supermarkets and to revert to traditional supply through pubs and licensed grocers.
Supermarkets moving hugely into alcohol supply has had the major effect of shutting down virtually all licensed grocers and closing pubs all across Scotland. The best place for alcohol consumption still is in a well-managed public house and it is sad to see all across the country (but particularly in rural areas) the local pubs which were often a vibrant community centre closing down. The bottom line is that you can purchase up to six cans of lager or beer from supermarkets for the price of a pint in the pub.
This has meant that during the lockdown lots of people have been buying and consuming a lot more alcohol than they would have been able to afford by going to pubs.
What is not generally understood is that supermarkets use alcohol virtually as “loss leaders” very often and the major benefactor is the government which still ends up with more than 50% of the cash supermarkets receive as tax in alcohol sales.
Pubs and licensed grocers had no interest in selling alcohol cheaply and when I was in the licensed trade many years ago, “cairry oots” were provided at prices not very far removed from draught bar prices.
David McEwan Hill
Sandbank
I HAVE a 41-year-old female relative who wants to get vaccinated but due to a family history of heart and stroke disease in the family has asked for the Pfizer rather than the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Despite the rise in number of cases and the push to get all folks vaccinated, the Computer says No, the Scientists say No: she can only have AstraZeneca!
Why is she being denied her right to a vaccine that she feels medically is better suited to her circumstances?
The tremendous work of all involved in the vaccination program has been second to none but I am saddened that we seem to be being dictated to and controlled by the faceless civil servants.
No one wants to catch this dreadful virus.
If someone genuinely wants to be vaccinated but due to family medical history would prefer the Pfizer vaccine, is it really too much to ask that they are helped?
Apparently it’s because Computer says No!
Jan Ferrie
Via email
NOW is the time to return to Level One, stop mass gatherings at sports stadia, close indoor drinking and socialising venues.
Don’t wait see what happens – it is happening now. Level One still allows a lot of freedoms and keeps schools open.
Ian Roberts
Posted online
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