Sir, Your correspondent ADF Maclean (Had to Laugh Out Loud, yesterday’s Courier) makes the fair point that taxpayers’ money is often used for overtly political purposes. However, on the issue of the referendum, there is a big difference in terms of accountability in what is being done in our name by the Scottish and UK Governments.
The Scottish Government is pursuing a policy a referendum on independence which was put as a policy to the electorate of Scotland and received a considerable mandate in an election.
This policy was then made available as Scotland’s Future in a variety of forms, including online to those who wished to read it. It was not sent out to everyone willy-nilly whether they wanted it or not. The costs of the document reflected the public’s demand to see it. The policy will be tested in the referendum democracy in action and the public have been increasingly involved in engaging with the issues.
The UK Government has never put its opinion on the referendum to the UK electorate. Indeed, it does not officially have any view: reiterating that it is for Scots voters to decide, a point enshrined in the Edinburgh Agreement.
The Prime Minister and other UK Government Ministers have continually asserted that they will keep out of the debate whilst being the ringmasters and main backers for the No campaign and no doubt deploying considerable taxpayers’ resources in the campaign as we will probably discover in about 30 years when the archives are opened.
It certainly does not have any mandate to intervene directly by sending every Scots voter a propaganda booklet at our expense on something that they do not officially have a policy on. The booklet concerns only the Scottish dimension of the referendum and is only sent to voters in Scotland. It is worth bearing in mind that the parties making up the UK Coalition Government are presently the third and fourth parties in terms of popular support in Scotland.
The Scottish Government has acted with accountability at every step, the UK Government are up to their necks in interventions in the referendum at our expense, whilst simultaneously proclaiming that the debate is for voters in Scotland only.
AM Scott. 142 Camphill Road, Dundee.
Disappearing nest egg . . .
Sir, In response to the allegations by the No Campaign that Scottish pensioners would be worse off with independence, I would like to present the following facts.
As things stand, our UK pension is the second lowest in Europe and the spate of postponements, made and proposed, suggest it will be paid on a “this year, next year, sometime never” basis.
Gordon Brown’s raid on private pensions has just about killed off final salary schemes and his abolition of the 10% tax rate means pensioners, along with everyone else, are taxed at the higher rate.
Where a pensioner, over a lifetime’s work has sought prudently to build up a little nest egg for investment purposes of, say, £20 a week for 40 years producing around £40,000, because of the outrageously low interest rates on offer, for the last five years or so, the income expected has shrunk, from £2,000 a year to a risible £600, if they are lucky!
It is small comfort to know that this is designed to bale out those who borrowed money for overvalued property they couldn’t really afford, from banks which didn’t have the funds in the first place.
For anyone who thinks £40,000 is a lot of money, let me point out that this sum was the cost of Kate Middleton’s wedding dress. It is also 4% of the sum Eric Joyce, Falkirk’s Westminster MP, claimed in expenses, and 4% of the donation made to the No Campaign, by JK Rowling.
Perhaps most interesting of all, it is 0.0004% of what the UK Government is spending/misspending, every hour.
Joseph G Miller. 44 Gardeners Street, Dunfermline.
Pamphlet is welcome
Sir, Contrary to Mr Burns’ opinion (letters, June 28) I welcome the UK Government’s pamphlet about the referendum on independence.
For months now Scottish citizens who remain undecided about how they should vote have been asking for more information and I believe this booklet seeks to accurately summarise the case for maintaining the union and to positively set out “What staying in the United Kingdom means for Scotland”.
Its publication is part of the democratic process as is information previously published by the Scottish Government.
Mr Burns’ use of inflammatory language such as “no hopers” and “defending imperial interests” is inaccurate and unhelpful.
Ian McCormick. 4 Kingarth Drive Rosemount, Blairgowrie.
Deserves as much credit
Sir, It was disappointing to read Mr Heggie’s dismissive letter last month aboutJ K Rowling’s wealth being amassed through her being a writer of a load of mythical fantasy, as somehow less meritorious than Brian Souter amassing his as a business entrepreneur.
It takes talent and application to legitimately earn wealth from nothing and Ms Rowling deserves as much credit and respect for doing so through the literary and cultural arena as a business entrepreneur or anyone else, and her understanding of and position on Scottish fiscal matters considered as sound and reasoned as any other.
Literary and cultural endeavour is held in as much high regard globally as business empires.
Joan McEwen. King James VI Building, Perth.
It doesn’t make sense
Sir, No councillor will ever persuade me that it makes sense to demolish Perth’s City Hall while St Paul’s church still stands. You published my comments on this topic last October and, as far I can see, absolutely nothing has been done with this hazardous eyesore since.
As a resident of the town centre and a worker in one of the Old High Street businesses, I plan to ask the council directly why they are pursuing such an insane course of action.
I really hope City Hall becomes a hotel or a farmers’ market. It is a perfectly sturdy and viable structure.
The church “building” is fit for nothing and needs to come down before an accident happens. I am no architect but ,then, I don’t need to be. This is common sense.
If the councillors really want a civic space, make one here and see how much it costs to keep clean and tidy. We all know there is a minority who cannot be trusted to actually put their rubbish in the bin. As for cigarette ends and chewing gum I won’t even start on that.
The idea that a larger civic space will miraculously stay clean and tidy is pure fantasy. I find it offensive in the extreme that councillors should see fit to waste millions of pounds on their pet project when other truly essential services are being squeezed ever more tightly.
Douglas Ridley. 13E Charterhouse Lane, Perth.
Danger from this trade deal . . .
Sir, Many people are involved in local campaigns to protect the NHS, oppose fracking, or tackle fuel poverty. The EU is secretly negotiating a trade deal with the US which would affect all of these issues and more. If the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is agreed, it will give big business the right to sue the UK Government over legislation that they believe might reduce their profits.
This would mean a future UK Government could be sued for trying to return the NHS to full public ownership. It would make a freeze on energy prices, proposed by some politicians, difficult if not impossible to achieve. And it would lead to a fracking boom, as more and more “fracked” gas is imported.
Awareness of the dangers of the deal is growing and groups like the World Development Movement are coming together to oppose it. I hope any readers sharing my concerns will join the campaign.
Brian Bates. 2/L 33 Hospital Street, Dundee.
Family/friends should provide
Sir, I refer to Mr Ewan Gurr’s letter (Courier, June 26) in his position as Scottish Development Officer of the Trussell Trust which seems to be an organisation devoted to poverty alleviation in the UK and Bulgaria.
Mr Gurr provides a broad-brush statistic which seeks to justify the continuing and expanding need for food banks in Scotland. Such statistics are meaningless until quantified by the demographics of the analysis.
The contributors to food bank enlargement in Scotland might be better persuaded to contribute instead to community development funds that might instigate greater entrepreneurship and the creation of jobs and the consequent greater life-interest that may accrue to those people currently viewed as deprived and in need of food bank support.
I remain unconvinced of the benefits to society of promoting food banks as a sort of sweetie shop with an open door and blaming national government for the rise in supposed statistics of those taking advantage of the free offerings.
Recent reports that some recipients of food-bank products are too poor to be able to afford to cook what they have received seem highly improbable and have been reported as anecdotal without any credible provenance.
Such reports contribute to the growing hysteria over the food bank issue and obscure the required roles of family and friends to provide assistance to those hit by hard times.
Derek Farmer. Knightsward Farm, Anstruther.
Is he on election campaign trail?
Sir, With regard to Derek Farmer’s letter (Food banks used because they’re a freebie, June 23), may I wish him every success in his bid to become a candidate for whatever election it is he’s campaigning for.
I cannot express how much I am looking forward to reports from the campaign trail as Mr Farmer informs the voters of Methil and Buckhaven that they really are just too stupid to be allowed to vote.
He may venture further afield to the likes of Castlemilk, Easter-house or Wester Hailes where spirited debate will no doubt follow as he shows locals pictures of his lovely farm as evidence of why he is more deserving of state handouts than they are.
John Stenhouse. Lochee High Street, Dundee.