IT is said that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Not many years back, indeed just in 2007 when the SNP first formed a minority government in Scotland, it was attacked by the then Labour Government in Westminster and by all the media on the basis that its anti-austerity programme for government was useless and impractical and would fail Scotland.
Following the Labour Government we had the Tory/Lib-Dem Coalition Government, again supported by the media warning of the “irresponsible” SNP policy on public investment and opposition to austerity.
The SNP continued with its public expenditure policies to the limited extent that it could; it abolished student fees, it defended free care for the elderly, it abolished prescription charges, all in the teeth of stiff opposition from the three main Unionist parties and the media. Neither the Unionist parties nor the media relented on their attacks on SNP policy. Indeed they are maintaining their criticism still. However, the Scottish people took a different view of this and gave increasing support to the SNP over the years.
Now at this election, everything has changed, the Tories have abandoned “austerity” and are now going to reinstate all, or nearly all, the nurses and police officers they got rid of. Labour wants to copy SNP policies for England and abolish student fees and prescription charges, and Jo Swinson wants us to forget her role as an advocate for “responsible’ finances in the austerity of the Coalition Government and wants us to believe she has changed and is now proposing some of the SNP policies which she raged against.
I am not myself a member of any political party, but I do believe that by their change of policy and copying of the SNP policies most politicians are now flattering the SNP in the most sincere way. I commend their improved judgment. I will also acknowledge that the SNP approach against “austerity” has been right all along and like thousands of Scots I will vote SNP at the election.
Andy Anderson, Saltcoats.
KEITH Howell (Letters, November 27) calls on the First Minister to secure “a guarantee from Brussels” on whether the European Commission would be willing to negotiate Scottish membership, while using sterling, and with our current deficit.
Taking the latter first, the Commission would require plans to reduce Scotland’s deficit to the three per cent target, but not necessarily before accession. When Croatia joined, its budget deficit exceeded three per cent. Certainly, we could not join the euro with a deficit in excess of three per cent, however we would then have the same derogation as seven existing member states (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Sweden). Moreover, the deficit, often even gleefully trumpeted, is assigned to us by GERS, a document which itself is clear that it addresses “Scotland’s public sector finances under the current constitutional arrangements” – that is, not under independence. Therefore, while GERS may give an indication, an independent Scotland’s deficit is, in Donald Rumsfeld speak, a “known unknown”.
As for using sterling, it is certainly possible this could cause problems during negotiations, for even with a derogation, member states are required to treat exchange rates as a matter of common concern and to target price stability in their monetary policy. It would be hard to do this using a currency on which we would have little or no influence.
However, an application to join from a country using the currency of another country outwith the EU has never happened before, it is another Rumsfeldian “known unknown”, so no one – not even Mr Howell – knows how the Commission would react.
In the event currency does become problematic, however, the EU typically agrees, before accession, an association agreement with candidate countries, spelling out trading relations, regulatory alignment (and thus single market access), participation in EU programmes, and so on. Entering into such an agreement – which is short of membership – could be “relatively quick”.
Lastly, Martin Redfern (Letters, November 27) asks whether the First Minister will “see a huge surge in support to 60 per cent” on December 12. Of course, this too is unknown, but equally might there not be a “huge surge in support”, if, we wake up on December 13, with Boris Johnson returned to 10 Downing Street with a substantial working majority?
Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.
WAS Keith Howell aware that Denmark and the UK have been permitted to maintain their own currencies and that seven other EU states are currently not yet members of the euro? Or was he suffering from selective amnesia when he wrote anent Scottish membership of the European Union?
Colin Campbell, Kilbarchan.
MAGGIE Chetty’s letter (November 27) shows just how much the SNP is trying to sell us a pig in a poke. In effect she is saying: “Don’t worry about Nicola Sturgeon getting eviscerated by Andrew Neil because Andrew Wilson’s Growth Commission has got currency all wrong and we don’t know how much of the UK’s debt would be apportioned to an independent Scotland.”
In contrast, most people will have seen Ms Sturgeon skewered on her own figures and her own proposals, and know that airy assurances by the likes of Ms Chetty are nothing but wishful thinking.
The best evidence we have remains that independent Scotland would need to endure at least a decade of ultra-austerity before being allowed to rejoin the EU so that the deficit can be reduced to the level demanded by the Acquis. There would also be the tricky business of creating a central bank and accruing the reserves required to support the country’s currency. (Personally, I would prefer the money required for these requirements to be spent on health, education, economic development and the like.)
Ms Sturgeon and her acolytes should be reminded of that prospect on every possible occasion.
Peter A Russell, Glasgow G13.
NICOLA Sturgeon has again sworn to “protect Scotland from the Tories”, who are obviously still the Thatcherite bogeymen of her formative years and a necessary ‘other’ to her supposed ‘progressive’ ambitions.
However, the SNP has spent the last decade attempting to protect children from their families and people from themselves for no real improvement. It has blamed “Wastemonster”, Trident, oil revenue (or the lack of), Brexit. Everything apart from itself.
The majority of SNP schemes place the onus on other agencies above the individual, thus relegating them to mere actors without agency or free will and yet after more than a decade in power in Scotland, health issues, addiction and poverty have actually risen.
Perhaps the people of Scotland don’t need protection. What we need is a government with realistic proposals, a realistic view of the issues and policies that treat the individual as an independent agent with rights as well as responsibilities, rather than something that constantly requires ‘protection’ from themselves and outside forces.
David Bone, Girvan.
I AGREE entirely with Ian W Thomson on the matter of churches getting involved in the General Election (Letters, November 26).
Can for instance the Church of Scotland ignore the statement by the Resolution Foundation to the effect that child poverty will soar to a 60-year record high under Conservative spending plans, with “a staggering 34 per cent of children being expected to be living below the breadline by the end of the next parliament – a rise of 600,000”?
I recognise that the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland has a splendid record in speaking out on many issues such as child poverty. But I am not convinced that these concerns have penetrated as deeply into the everyday life of the church as I think they should.
I must further acknowledge that the Kirk as a whole has a good record in providing relief to those who suffer from the consequences of nearly ten years of Conservative austerity.
But is this enough? Should the Kirk as an institution not be at the forefront of the political fight against structural injustices? But I hear the cry “The church involved in politics? Unthinkable.” In which case I suggest that a sufficient number of members stand up and proclaim the political pursuit of justice as being central to their faith. I start by doing so.
John Milne, Uddingston.
I’M sure I can’t be the only one who noticed that the Party Election Broadcast on STV tonight (November 26) by the Scottish Liberal Democratic Party had contributions entirely from English voters. Is this an indication that it has given up on Scotland?
Isobel Hunter, Lenzie.
NOW that the election is in full swing. I wonder if the “details before end of October” relating to the costs and delivery of the two ships currently floundering at the Scottish Government-owned Ferguson’s will be released before election day.
I think we taxpayers should be told, but I somehow doubt it.
Come on Derek Mackay and Nicola Sturgeon, prove me wrong.
Ian McNair, Glasgow G12.
DOES the SNP not realise that by incessantly banging the big independence drum it is simply ensuring another Tory government? This election is nothing to do with independence, but the pro-Unionist vote now has little alternative than to swing behind the Tories as it did in 2017. If Boris Johnson holds on to his seats in Scotland he will romp to victory nationally. A bit reminiscent of the SNP’s decision to help oust the Labour government in 1979 resulting in a Margaret Thatcher victory at the subsequent election. Plus ça change.
Al Reid, Newton Mearns.
I NOTE Rod McKenzie’s letter (November 26) regarding the letter from his (ex) MP, Luke Graham. He is lucky to have had any propaganda sent to him. Political parties have been in our village but seem to have by-passed our house. Given that Stephen Kerr was our MP, perhaps he has decided to keep his head below the parapet rather than face his electorate’s ire considering that Stirling voted to Remain but he consistently voted with Theresa and Boris despite his constituents’ wishes.
Steve Barnet, Gargunnock.
Read more: Sturgeon needs to get the EU to back up her extravagant claims
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel