Sir, Now the dust has settled on the Budget, I wonder what the Labour Party will say to those thousands of Dundonians they let down during the referendum campaign?
They said unequivocally that Scots were “better together” no ifs, no buts.
Indeed, Gordon Brown said we should vote No because it “would be best for Scots’ families”.
Yet just one year later, the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) has told us that around 13 million families across the UK will lose, on average, £260 a year as a result of this week’s budget proposals.
The IFS makes it clear that it will be impossible for less well off workers and families to be better off as a result of the new minimum wage wrongly branded a living wage by the Tories such is the extent to which poorer households will have their income slashed by the loss of tax credits.
This Budget has been exposed as a full-on assault on some of the hardest working families across the UK by a Tory Government obsessed with austerity for austerity’s sake, regardless of the human and economic cost.
And it is the fruit of the seeds planted by an acquiescent and complacent Labour Party one year ago.
Councillor Kevin Cordell City Chambers Dundee
V&A needs to have a steamie
Sir, The aspirations of the V&A to be acentre of international significance were surely enhanced by the announcement that there will be an example of Glasgow’s culture in a model of Miss Cranston’s Tea Room designed by Charles Rennie Mackintosh.
The institution of the tea room as a venue for social intercourse for the ladies of the west end dates back to the heady days when Glasgow was the second city of the Empire.
I hope that there might also be another Glaswegian exhibit, the steamie, which was of no lesser significance.
Even in those vibrant days, at the height of its economic power, there was another side to Glasgow, the largely impoverished east end.
If Miss Cranston’s tea room was the venue for the ladies of the west end, social intercourse for the women of the east end was the steamie.
So, come on you directors of the V&A, get yourselves a steamie.
Erik Cramb Methven Walk Dundee
EU responsible for Greece
Sir, The European Union has much to answer for in respect of Greece’s current demise.
This cabal first enticed, and then allowed which was a largely corrupt state, to enter into the union with the prospect of great rewards.
At the time the Greeks paid taxes if and when they so wanted, retired at will, often around 50, and even then with largely the same pensions as their normal working incomes.
The ethos even then was live today and tomorrow will take care of itself.
For a state whose income largely depended upon agriculture and tourism it should have been apparent to all that it could never hold its own against strong financial powerhouses such as Germany and France.
Nevertheless financial inducements beyond their wildest dreams were largely thrown at the Greeks.
They could borrow today in the belief that tomorrow would take care of itself, and in advance towards a relentless political dream, the Eurocrats, the European Bank, and latterly the IMF, basically threw money at them, with scant regard for how Greece was ever able, or indeed likely, to pay this debt back.
In hindsight it should never have been allowed into the Eurozone and there should have been an immediate political awareness of the reasons why, but blinkers were worn at the time, the Eurocrats never seriously allowed themselves to be aware that this was “an accident just waiting to happen”.
Now Greece is virtually bankrupt with its banks closed and with no apparent means of extricating itself ,with its people and its economy suffering and without any vision of a way out against its current circumstances.
The austerity they have been asked to accept can only make matters worse in that they would continue downwards in the same set of circumstances as before.
Surely the politicians in the Eurozone must accept responsibility for creating this monster.
Indeed, if people really mattered to the union, consideration should be given towards the debt being deferred until the country was in a position to repay and a new loan offered, linked in return to fiscal responsibility and Greece thus allowed to leave the euro and return to the drachma, thereby unfettered by financial competition, and able to compete in the world on its own terms, level and ability.
David L Thomson Laurence Park Kinglassie Fife
Consistently inconsistent
Sir, One of the great things about the SNP’s Pete Wishart is that he is consistently inconsistent in his views.
His remarks on English votes for English laws (July 8) are no exception.
Despite claiming eye watering expenses and a full salary, Mr Wishart has one of the worst voting records in Westminster as he only votes on issues that are relevant to Scotland.
Indeed, this reflects the principled position adopted by the SNP as a whole.
For example, the SNP Government declined an opportunity to comment on a consultation relating to David Cameron’s creeping privatisation of the NHS in England.
Within this context, I find it hard to understand the concern Mr Wishart has regarding the move towards EVEL as it is entirely consistent with his own views it would mean English MPs have the last say on English issues. Indeed, just last week Mr Wishart complained about English MPs daring to vote against his party’s wishes on full fiscal autonomy.
Furthermore, in Wednesday’s debate he claimed the EVEL proposals were a “constitutional outrage”, despite having said in 2014 that EVEL was “an issue that the Scottish people could not care less about”.
If the SNP is to be taken seriously as a political force in Westminster, and that is in everyone’s interest, they must adopt principled positions on the issues of the day.
The political opportunism and the manufacture of grievances must be set aside.
Sniping from the side-lines was fine when the SNP was a small force in Westminster and had to fight to be heard, but now they have 56 MPs it is time for a mature debate.
Dr Scott Arthur Buckstone Gardens Edinburgh
Another Tory attack on poor
Sir, Plans to reduce tax credits, as announced in the Budget, are a great mistake and will have a major impact on the poorest households.
In the vast majority of cases, these benefits are going to households that have already borne much of the burden of the austerity programme.
And around half the people in poverty in Scotland live in working households, a worse situation than in the UK as a whole, with tax credits going some way to alleviate this.
While more than 500,000 children in Scotland benefit from tax credits, seven in 10 Scottish households receiving them are working households, with 90% of expenditure on tax credits going to households with an income of less than £20,000.
It is estimated that a 10% cut in child tax credit will cost Scottish families £150 million a year, while a 10% cut in all tax credits would leave households £250 million worse off.
The UK Government cut in tax credits will hit Scotland’s poorest children and families hard, a frightening indication of the potential impact of the proposed £12 billion in welfare cuts.
Alex Orr Leamington Terrace Edinburgh
Budget will widen the gap
Sir,I find it astonishing that a government should brag that they are going to cut £12 billion from the money that is supposed to maintain people’s welfare.
With the NHS in dire straits I think it would be prudent to find the money elsewhere, for example taxing the rich.
This is only going to further increase the gap between rich and poor, but then this has never been a Tory government concern.
Alister Rankin. Whyterose Terrace Methill Leven
When subsidy is not welfare
Sir, Andrew Dundas, in his letter (July 3) chooses to miss the point of comparison between welfare and subsidy. The typical profit of a small family farm in Scotland is no more than £60 per acre.
On the average small farm of 200-300 acres, this equates to an income of between £12,000 and £18,000 a year and it is not guaranteed since farm production is subject to weather and commodity prices.
Most farmers work more than 70 hours a week, which is why many people in farming need second jobs or partners with salaried employment.
There is a need to better define the meanings of “welfare” and “poverty” in Scotland. In Fife, I do not see any evidence of what might be considered real poverty.
Of course there are people in society who fall on hard times through no fault of their own and should be supported in times of difficulty.
What I do see, with increasing frequency, are poorly-considered lifestyle choices being made by people who then turn to the state to bail them out of any ensuing difficulty.
As a case in point, the interviews that I hear in the media concerning possible future reductions in working tax credits, are largely with single parents who cannot earn enough in employment to sustain a lifestyle ordinarily available to families with two sources of income.
Such situations illustrate the ills of breakdown in our social structure and the promotion of human rights over human responsibilities.
Mr Dundas makes reference to wealthy landowners. He seems to forget the old adage of asset-rich/cash-poor that has applied to the small- farming industry for generations.
Of course assets can be sold, most probably to multinational new owners, who have the political and financial clout to monopolise markets and reduce production diversity to satisfy their bean-counters.
Such a prospect however, would have dire consequences for the future generations of our children and for the wildlife, landscape and the nucleus of our native breeds of animals and crops.
Derek Farmer Knightsward Farm Anstruther