Sir, In your edition of January 14 you printed Ms Ashley Husband Powten’s argument in support of her petition for the removal of charitable status for private schools.
Her argument cannot go unchallenged.
It is sad to see a graduate student present such a misguided and misleading case. Misleading in that she equates the real tax paid by a private school into the bank account of a local council with the notional tax “paid” by a state school which is covered by the funding for that school and is thus simply an accounting entry in the books of the council.
Misguided in her pursuit of the negative politics of envy. If her petition succeeds the comparatively minor amount of extra money received by the council is unlikely to make any noticeable difference to the state education in that area even if it were to be entirely allocated to the education budget, which is highly unlikely.
Rather, if she really wishes to enhance state education she should direct her attention to the problem so clearly outlined in Jenny Hjul’s article in the same edition of your paper. Instead of her misguided petition she should be presenting one demanding real action to improve the educational prospects for the children of Scotland, particularly those from poorer backgrounds.
John Campbell. (St Andrews graduate) 5 Seggieden Close, Inchture.
Not the cause of social inequality
Sir, Should private schools have their charitable status taken away from them (Courier, January 14)? I read Ashley Husband Powten’s comments that these bodies simply help to perpetuate a “Scotland divided by inherited wealth and privilege”.
This is an argument that regularly comes up every time the charities regulator reviews the operation of the independent schools sector.
It is by no means clear, though, that the costs to the taxpayer of the system outweigh the benefits. Equally, it’s by no means clear that the money saved by removing charitable status would operate to the advantage of the state school sector. It would depend on how wisely national and local government decided to spend the money.
Most families on average incomes would find it difficult to meet the cost of school fees, but that doesn’t mean to say that those who can deserve to be dubbed elitist.
There is the important question of choice for those who are prepared to find or borrow the money to finance their children’s education. There is also the question of opportunities given to people from less well-off families with help through fees, and the awarding of scholarships.
The causes of social inequality go much deeper than simply the question of who runs and attends a particular school whether in the state or private sector.
Bob Taylor. 24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.
If you don’t like the price . . .
Sir, I am a bit bemused by the accusations of profiteering against Stracathro Services, with which I have no connection. They are presumably in business to make money, so if you don’t like the price of what they offer you go elsewhere.
I have bought fuel there only once, during my weekly Sunday night return to Lossiemouth, when, as was suggested, I had miscalculated the amount needed to get me to my usual filling point in Aberdeen and needed a gallon or so.
I was very glad it was there and was happy to pay the price charged.
Laurie Richards. 100 Crail Road, Cellardyke.
Better off as part of the union?
Sir, So much for Salmond and Sturgeon’s Scotland being independent rich based on the oil revenue which has now plummeted. Now the first minister is writing to the PM of the UK Government seeking tax relief for North Sea oil companies. Why? Does this not indicate that Scotland is better off as part of the union and not trying to go it alone? Where has this gone wrong in the SNP budget?
Roy Moffat. Gilmerton, Crieff.
A council initiative
Sir, I refer to my letter which you published last week and am happy to report “business as usual” at Broughty Ferry Library in that I was eventually able to collect a supply of council dog bags.
However, I feel compelled to respond to the reply to my letter in Thursday’s Courier from Mr Provan, a reader in Fife, whose interest in Dundee Council policy matters eludes me, who asks: “what gives me the right to expect council tax payers to pay me to clear up my dog’s mess”?
An expectation that was not the issue in my letter, but which was written, in fact, to inform, assist and improve DCC in their initiative, in making bags readily available to dog owners to enable them to implement The Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003. The council even advertise the scheme on every bag.
What gives me the right to expect this service to be provided and managed properly, together with all other services that the council deems we are entitled to receive, is that I am, like many thousands of other Dundee dog owners, a council tax payer of long standing who, unlike some, has always paid his council tax.
The council also states it appreciates our support in improving Dundee’s environment, the point of my letter.
DGW Thornton. 20 Colliston Drive, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.