It's Thatcher's policies PM should be dumping, not her portrait

They feel let down, personally and in their hearts and souls, that this is a betrayal on a par with the ghastly premiership of Ramsay MacDonald.

Wouldn't it have been nice, if instead of capping child benefit, allowing energy bills to rise to ludicrous levels and removing winter payments from old people, if he had reversed the policies that say bankers' bonuses and CEO pay packets are subject to no limits?

He echoes David Cameron and George Osborne, Mrs Thatcher and Milton Friedman by telling us that there is no alternative to austerity.

This is a lie. There is an alternative.

Clement Attlee, PM after the Second World War, introduced the NHS, Social Security and communal ownership of our utilities, despite the country being bankrupt.

Keir Starmer gives us the "Rose Garden" speech, indicating yet again that the poorest will suffer the most ("I never promised you a rose garden... PM’s ‘pain’ warning", The Herald, August 28).

But wait, there's more, he's going to save 80,000 lives a year by banning smoking in parks, beer gardens and in front of and around public buildings and hospitals ("Will ban on smoking in outdoor spaces have impact?", The Herald, August 30).

How about the hundreds of thousands of lives lost and wasted through poverty, lack of education, inadequate housing and the lowest state benefits in Europe?

Smoking bans? Aye, right. That'll stop the haemorrhage of cash from our economy.

What next? Maybe alcohol. See the USA's Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment. Look how well that worked out. (But let's remember that MPs and rich folk like their dram).

AJ Clarence, Prestwick.

Read more letters

• Is anyone surprised the SNP has mucked up our finances?
• Was Keir Starmer naive, or did he con his way into No 10?
• If Yes had won, Scotland could have pulled together under Salmond

• SO our new Prime Minister considers it appropriate to remove the Iron Lady’s portrait from its place at No 10.

She was our first woman PM, and victor of three General Elections. Will the new occupant come even close to meeting her achievements? Petty and disrespectful are just two mantles which come to mind.

Brian D Henderson, Glasgow.

No point in dumping benefit

THERE has been widespread opposition to the new Labour Government introducing means-testing of winter fuel payments to the elderly this winter.

With virtually no notice and no compensatory measures to protect poor and vulnerable pensioners it will potentially jeopardise their health as well as their finances; the last thing they or the NHS needs.

With fuel costs going to increase in October and January, the Government has been asked to halt its proposed change and think again, given the clear evidence of how it will hurt many older people who need it the most.

The Government’s justification has been that we can’t afford it and it wants to increase the take-up of the compensatory pension credit by 800,000 people by November.

However, this is where the logic breaks down. The estimated saving if cancelling the WFP is £1.5 billion, but if the pension credit uptake increased by 800,000 then it would cost £2 billion, £500 million more.

What is the point? Is it intended to soften us up for more unpalatable changes in the Budget?

If so, it makes the Government appear very cynical as well as uncaring.

Foster Evans, Renfrew.

Means testing a bad idea

BRIAN Wilson ("It’s right to cut back on benefits", The Herald, August 29) opposes the Scottish Government's policy of "universalism", which promotes inclusiveness and can be a positive move towards losing the stigma of being on benefits, which is still very much in existence today. Going down his preferred route of means testing is often not economically viable because of the administration costs involved.

Labour unbelievably claims it was blissfully unaware of how big the fiscal deficit was was while in opposition: was it sleepwalking? The Scottish Government is facing some very difficult decisions which will certainly be exacerbated by the new Labour Government’s fiscal choices for "change", which could ultimately take away the safety net of our welfare system, something Mr Wilson may want to contemplate.

Catriona C Clark, Falkirk.

Nationalisation does not work

WHEN ScotRail was taken into public ownership on April 1, 2022, the then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, was quoted as saying it was a “historic and momentous 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 benefited from an improved quality of service at lower cost. I can’t think of a single one.

George Rennie, Inverness.

A poor Scottish welcome

OUR arrangements for asylum seekers might need adjusting but to cancel free bus travel for them is emphatically not one of them.

We see how crucial this is at the St Rollox Outreach Project both midweek and even at Sunday worship. Both are attended by all ages, all religions, all ethnic groups. The project engages with an average of 60-100 families or individuals a week. They come, destitute, from all over the city, sometimes two or three bus rides.

At £7 a day - not £7 cash but on a demeaning card - we already make life absolutely desperate for so many. Putting more obstacles in their path is a miserable, unworthy policy change. "It is the first time I could talk, cry and share about life," said one of the women’s wellbeing group. So many opportunities are made possible by works like the St Rollox Project. English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), emergency provisions, advice and advocacy, job club community days, sheer friendships, a walking group: these are examples of what is enabled by free bus travel.

Holyrood, don’t make our Scottish welcome even worse than it already is.

(Rev) C Peter White, Torrance.

Why not make nicotine illegal?

REGARDING Keir Starmer's proposed outdoor smoking ban: my life started in the age where almost every adult smoked and I have witnessed progressive measures being introduced in an attempt to mitigate the damage caused by smoking tobacco. I have also noted the changes in products introduced by the tobacco industry to ensure that there is still a profitable market for the highly addictive and easily produced drug nicotine. My gut tells me that “vapes” are going to cause as much, if not more problems, than cigarettes ever have.

It makes me wonder why if nicotine abuse is detrimental to the wellbeing of society why the emphasis is placed on making it harder for the individual to use the drug rather than targeting those who manufacture and distribute it. Essentially, if smoking and vaping is so bad for us why is the industry not targeted by penal levels of taxation to reduce its profitability? Why not simply make nicotine illegal as the Establishment is happy to do to several other products for which there is a proven demand?

David J Crawford, Glasgow.

A rallying call to the gullible

JEFF Rogers (Letters, August 29) declares that net zero is vital to the wellbeing of us all but does not elaborate.

Net zero is just a political slogan and rallying call to the gullible in the public and political classes, not a scientifically-based measure.

It takes entirely inadequate account of global climate control, ignoring vitally relevant natural forces, including the sun, water vapour and clouds.

Mr Rogers and the politician zealots in authority, Ed Miliband and Chris Stark, owe us taxpayers honest explanations to justify the huge expenditures and upheavals net zero is imposing on us and our hapless nation.

Charles Wardrop, Perth.

What would be the future for Galloway without a National Park? (Image: Galloway National Park Assocation)

Give National Park a chance

THE recent letter from Robert Gladstone (August 24) has provoked me into writing a response. What those who oppose a National Park must ask themselves is: if not a National Park, then what is the future for Galloway? This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Galloway to create a park that is designed to deal with a beautiful area which is suffering long, slow decline which has resulted in some of the worst rural deprivation in Scotland.

With 40% of children living in low-wage families and limited access to training resulting in low skill levels, the future does not look bright. Giving the area a brand that is promoted properly will attract people be they visitors or new residents, bringing with them new investment. As we watch two more primary schools close and one secondary school face an uphill struggle to remain viable due to lack of children, action is needed now to reverse this slow and inexorable decline.

National Parks do not have any powers to interfere with farming and a simple change to the planning regulations would avoid any need for farmers to be affected by increased bureaucracy. What they fail to realise is that the new regulations coming down the line will make all farmers think about carbon output and biodiversity and the park would be well placed to provide advice and funds to help with this transition.

Recently the highly successful Galloway Glens scheme ended after a five-year programme leaving all the momentum that had built up unsupported. We have had so many time-limited projects that do great work and when the funding ends there is nothing in its place. A National Park will be given recurring funding and able to roll out projects similar to the Galloway Glens to a much wider area.

Society today is in the grip of a silent pandemic of stress causing untold misery. There is now ample evidence to show that enjoying a walk in the countryside is the quickest cure for stress. As access authority the park would employ a team of rangers enabling responsible access to the countryside and working directly with landowners. Many communities in Galloway have developed their own walks, demonstrating the interest in this.

I have spent the last 35 years working in Dumfries & Galloway and I really believe the area has much to offer if given the chance to start punching above its weight.

Gordon Mann, Dumfries.