WE have had eight weeks of a new Labour UK Government and of the change promised by Mr Starmer I can only so far see negative and damaging change for Scotland.
And whenever Mr Starmer’s agent in Scotland, Mr Sarwar, attempts to blame this negative and damaging change on the SNP government in Holyrood, he should be reminded over and over again of Wes Streeting’s words – in the context of Wales but it applies just as much to Scotland – that “all roads lead back to Westminster”.
READ MORE: Poll: Most voters say Labour government doesn't understand Scotland
I’m sure it won’t be long before more than a few in Scotland who voted Labour on July 4 are suffering from that condition called “buyer’s remorse”, even if they are not already showing the symptoms, but they won’t begin to be able to throw off this affliction until May 2026 when they will be able to vote for the party that puts Scotland first in the Scottish Parliament election.
Andrew Parrott
Perth
I’M sure Starmer aimed for stately symbolism in his Rose Garden address but, this poet suggests, it may not be the imagery he intended.
There’s a sense that the leader is already insulated from reality in a country that’s suffered so much and saw – just a few short hours after the thin-but-wide Labour landslide – Angela Rayner pushed out to defend not removing the cruel two-child benefit cap.
It’s called the rose garden in mimicry of the White House, where there actually is an image conjuring for me: the miasma of Britain slavishly dragged behind wrong US foreign policy one too many times; an international stench very unlike the aroma of roses.
READ MORE: More than one in four Scottish Labour MPs own second homes – see the full list
Three of the four nations of what is still called the United Kingdom called early for a ceasefire when it might have made a difference (albeit the Welsh Parliament without the support of Labour). But promptly, Starmer sent Lammy out to defend not just the failure to call for an immediate ceasefire – even now, when it would be merely symbolic – but the sale of arms to the IDF.
If, like me, you are sensing an early autumn, the sunny surroundings enjoyed by Starmer simply serve to remind you that soon it’s going to be cold and a lot of old people are going to be a lot worse off thanks to Labour.
Any sane person wanted rid of the Tories. But in Labour’s leafy “rose” garden, I spy thorns keeping much-needed compassion at bay.
Amanda Baker
Edinburgh
ARTICLES comparing the current government’s programme to that of George Osborne miss the point.
A look at previous employment of ministers and so-called advisers in both cases reveals an over-representation of those with a “City” background. All recent governments have had a priority to secure the prosperity of the “City of London “ as a centre of financial dealing, and the current one is no exception. All else is a policy afterthought.
READ MORE: How George Osborne laid the groundwork for austerity – and Keir Starmer copied him
The resultant policies mean maintaining asset values to the point of ignoring of other claims on their efforts. Austerity fits in nicely with this outlook as those who are asset-rich prosper, while everyone else struggles. Thus social mobility declines and the status quo is consolidated.
The consolidation of the existing economic and social status has been the driver of all recent UK governments of whatever party.
An expanding economy challenges this outlook, hence austerity. This outlook also explains Brexit, as many European foreigners were doing better here economically than locals in many parts of England and this caused resentment. It wasn’t “they’re taking our jobs” but “they’re taking jobs I’d rather do” that was upsetting. The answer for political success therefore was Brexit and austerity.
Labour’s “change” is thus only a change of faces but not of substance; the public were conned.
The social and economic status quo prevails to the detriment of most, especially the elderly. Who cares, the “City” and the asset-rich are happy and that’s all that matters.
Drew Reid
Edinburgh
READING news reports, columns and readers comments in The National on Wednesday morning, it is clear that the economic prospects for the poorest among us are not in good shape, dire in fact. Dependency on food banks, themselves dependent on charitable support, is already stretched and families are becoming subject to further constraint by an apparently insensitive Labour leadership. The consequence again, of course, is that the wealth gap between rich and poor widens while – dare I mention his name again? – Conservative leadership hopeful Murdo Fraser suggests a drop in taxation for the better-off among us.
READ MORE: John Swinney responds to reports of possible 'end' to free prescriptions and other benefits
Wealth is bound up in land, and while we all need land on which to thrive, the wealth of our land remains free of taxation while landowners can gain subsidy support for farming and forestry. Effectively we are starving the homeless and poor while subsidising the asset-rich wealthy. You could not make this up!
Graeme McCormick is aspiring to become SNP president, and it strikes me that whatever role he plays after the conference, I sincerely hope he has room within it to further his enthusiasm for land taxation to replace council tax and bring to life the oft-suggested adage “take from the rich and give to the poor”, thereby closing the gap that has been the curse of our nation for centuries.
Tom Gray
Braco
IN his article in on Aug 24, Pat Kane states: “We weren’t colonised or made ‘unfree’ by Westminster or Britain [let alone England]”. That is simply untrue. The Scottish people were forced into a “Union” with an aggressive, larger neighbouring country without their consent, indeed against their will. That is the very definition of colonisation.
John Rutherford
Kelty
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