Readers' letters: There's nothing 'cool about 'New Labour' or 'Change' Labour

I understand his nostalgia for the Oasis soundtrack of his teenage years; one of the highlights of the Fringe for me was attending California Dreaming, including the music of Graham Nash, David Crosby, The Mamas and the Papas, Joni Mitchell, Linda Ronstadt, Jackson Browne and the Eagles.

This extraordinary group of musicians all lived in or around Laurel Canyon from 1965 to 1975. But they also reflected a world of great turmoil and noble causes like the struggle for civil rights and protesting against the Vietnam War.

In contrast, one of the Gallagher brothers was disparaging about the Downing Street reception he attended and neither of them has been notably outspoken about social causes.

We all know the outcome of the Blair years: PFI and a Clintonesque embrace of globalisation and neo-liberal economics. Some people did very well out of it but most of us didn’t. And the shadow of Iraq and the deaths of hundreds of thousands in that and other US/Nato expeditions is the bloodstained legacy of “New” Labour.

“Change” Labour appears to be offering more of the same and there is nothing cool about its facilitation, through arms transfers, intelligence sharing and forward bases (Cyprus) for the continuing Israeli policy in Gaza and the West Bank.

Marjorie Ellis Thompson, Edinburgh

Juvenile politicking

Contrary to Jackie Baillie’s claim (Scotsman, August 28) there are three very good reasons for Scots to blame Labour for this next phase of austerity. They were dishonest with the public about the fiscal situation, they failed to put forward a serious solution to avoid the worst impacts and they exacerbated the problem by immediately striking new public sector pay deals.

It is also incredible, whilst UK Labour blames 14 years of Conservative austerity and the Labour-run Welsh government can claim “all roads lead to Westminster”, that Scottish Labour blames only the Scottish Government for our devolved budget problems.

My reading of the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s recent report is that the pressures within the Scottish budget not attributable to Westminster come from policy choices which Scottish Labour supported. Are they now against the Scottish Child Payment, which costs £470m? The bedroom tax mitigation? The £153m extra being spent on a much improved social security system for people with disabilities? Does Scottish Labour no longer support the £1,400 per year (after tax) by which the average Scottish public sector worker is better-off compared to the rest of the UK? Is Scottish Labour dishonestly blaming the SNP for introducing policies that Scottish Labour supports?

Then we have Anas Sarwar’s ridiculous claim about making the budget problems disappear by growing the Scottish economy. He should know the Scottish Government does not control the economy; to do so it would be able to borrow, issue currency, set interest rates, control all tax and spend, immigration, borders and international trade. In other words, independent.

This juvenile politicking, lack of honesty and basic understanding, shows them not fit to lead an opposition, let alone a Scottish government.

Robert Farquharson, Edinburgh

Truth at last

According to the SNP, Scotland's ills all stem from Westminster. Thankfully, we now have some truth.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission has told us that “while UK government policies contribute to the pressures on the Scottish budget, much of the pressure comes from the Scottish government's own decisions”.

They tell us that nearly 23 per cent of workers in Scotland are employed in the public sector, with a wage bill of £25 billion (the UK figure is nearly 18 per cent). On top of that, we are told that the median annual pay for a Scottish public sector worker is £1,400 higher than in the UK. And, to cap it all, public spending per head in Scotland is almost £2,500 higher than in the UK as a whole. Truth at last.

Jim Houston, Edinburgh

Efficiency drive

Did you miss it or more likely not bother to understand that, as for Labour’s ‘black hole’ at Westminster, the Scottish ‘McBlack hole’ is down to spending plans for current and future years and not solely the dastardly Conservatives.

Black hole spending that is predominantly to head off industrial unrest – now ensures that more than 50 per cent of Scottish Government day-to-day expenditure goes on wages.

Nowhere in current consideration is there talk of a root-and-branch review of current staffing levels. Can we assume that at every level, staffing levels are at the minimum that allows for efficient and effective delivery of service? I suspect that the answer to that question would be yes from the government side but that an independent review would give a different answer.

As a tax-payer in Scotland I would like the Scottish Government to state that staffing levels are at a minimum and will remain so to provide the tax payer with confidence that our, and UK-wide tax-payers’ contributions are not being spent unnecessarily on support staff.

A Lewis, Coylton, South Ayrshire

Creative accounting

Why is Labour so worried about money? In 1997, when they took office under Tony Blair, the National Debt was a mere £350 billion, but when they left in 2010 it had risen to £900bn.

It is now a staggering £2,750bn, but nobody has shown the slightest concern about this huge increase. Neither does this money have to be repaid, because it was created from thin air by the banking system, and for as long as we can pay them the interest on it, all is well. No need to deny people cold weather payments.

What can possibly go wrong with such a marvellous system?

Malcolm Parkin, Kinnesswood, Perth and Kinross

National failure

When ScotRail was taken into public ownership on 1 April 2022, then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, was quoted as saying it was a “historic and monumentus occasion” which provided “an opportunity to modernise” and help “deliver passenger services which are efficient, sustainable, safe [and] fit for the future”.

Since then fares have risen on two occasions and services have been and are now subject to widespread disruption.

Perhaps proponents of nationalisation can offer examples where, as a result of an asset or service being taken into public ownership, those who use it have benefitted from an improved quality of service at lower cost. I can’t think of a single one.

George Rennie, Inverness, Highland

Snail’s pace

Expectations of good news coming out of the SNP Conference this weekend are zero. It is said that John Swinney is not a rabbits out of the hat person, and the piggy bank is empty. Regarding transport, ferries are as prickly a subject as a hedgehog. But snails must be top, not because they are hermaphrodites, but because rail electrification moves at their pace.

In Aberdeen offshore windmills are so visible that they caused Donald Trump to jump up and down, but it looks at present that the most useful measure of the waiting time before we get electric trains using their product and the associated climate change benefits will not be the tenure of his second Presidency if he wins in November, but the life span of a tortoise.

Hugh Pennington, Aberdeen

Skeleton staff

I thought the illustration chosen to accompany the report of 28 August on NHS waiting lists was particularly apposite as it shows on the extreme left a poor person who has been reduced to a skeleton, presumably while waiting for attention.

S Beck, Edinburgh

We need a new plan

We have a worsening housing crisis. My client has a serviced, attractive, brownfield site for which I could design seven or eight small, three-bedroom terraced family homes. But planning has refused consent for housing on the site since it is a few dozen yards too far away from some existing houses to form part of that group.

There will be thousands of similar situations over Scotland.

The planning system cannot be reformed. The problem lies in its very nature. It must be replaced or bypassed.

With a steady supply of land and clear, intelligent rules the Scottish construction industry could certainly, each year, house 25 per cent, and probably 50 per cent more families with its current resources. And they would be better houses, since without the artificial scarcity imposed by planning they would have to appeal to the buyers.

Sadly one doubts that the government has the competencies and will to make the necessary actions. If they had would we be here in the first?

David Hogg, Edinburgh

Net loss

It should come as little surprise to anyone that the proposed Andy Murray Tennis Centre is not going ahead (Scotsman, August 27).

Why did the Murray family expect anything else with so many vested interests at play and the fact that Scotland seems incapable of building anything.

Richard Allison, 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.