THE announcement of public service cuts by Finance Secretary Shona Robison ("Robison confirms £500m worth of cuts to Scots public services", The Herald, September 4) has brought into sharp focus the unreasonable demands of public sector unions for substantial pay increases. While fair compensation for workers is important, expecting the wealth-generating private sector to fund above-inflation pay rises is both unsustainable and unfair. The Scottish Government’s decision to prioritise union demands over maintaining essential public services demonstrates a disappointing level of greed and a disregard for the economic realities facing Scotland for the foreseeable future.

Public sector pay rises should be linked to improved efficiencies and increased productivity, not granted without conditions. The fact that recent pay claims were offered with no strings attached is unacceptable and reflects a lack of accountability in managing public funds. This could lead to even more severe consequences in the future, with taxpayers forced to bear the cost of an ever-expanding public sector wage bill.

Take, for example, the case of Scottish teachers. In recent years, they have received significant pay rises, yet educational standards have not improved; in fact, they have declined. How can anyone justify rewarding higher pay without demanding higher performance? This sends a message that mediocrity will be rewarded just as much as excellence. This, sadly, is the same pattern for other public services such as cleansing, transport and so on.

Similarly, other public services have seen pay increases without a corresponding improvement in service quality. This is not to diminish the efforts of hardworking public sector employees, but the current approach fosters a sense of entitlement disconnected from the realities faced by the private sector, which often foots the bill.

The wider notion of "pay restoration" put forward by these unions is entirely misplaced. Expecting taxpayers to cover substantial increases that far exceed inflation is not viable. The Government's capitulation to these demands sets a dangerous precedent, allowing unions to hold the country to ransom each year, regardless of economic conditions.

The swingeing cuts announced by the Cabinet Secretary underline a harsh reality: funding pay rises without regard for their impact on the broader economy means essential services will suffer. These cuts will affect everyone, from the elderly needing care to children in schools and vulnerable individuals relying on social services. Going forward, the Scottish Government must take a stand and make it clear that pay rises can only be funded through increased efficiency and productivity. Continuing to bow to union pressure without conditions is economically reckless. The public sector should not be allowed to use its position to make unreasonable demands on the rest of the economy. We need sustainable pay policies that align with performance and productivity, not ones that cater to union greed and entitlement.

April Stevenson, Milngavie.

• ON a daily basis we are reading and hearing about the black hole in Scotland’s finances. The panic and outrage in much of the rhetoric is laughable. Do the simple arithmetic; just add up the cost of all the ill-thought-out, badly planned, badly executed dogma-driven schemes and policies that have been foisted on the people of Scotland by successive administrations of SNP or SNP/Green alliance over the past decade and more, and you quickly will appreciate that the figure of £500 million was squandered many many times over by the SNP.

I don’t need to list the plethora of failures as they have been named by many of your letter writers. They now have the cheek (yet again) to blame “the big boy (Westminster) who did it and ran away”. I do wonder where our FM sources his rose-tinted spectacles.

Colin Allison, Blairgowrie.

Read more letters:

All roads lead to Westminster

IF the Scottish Government is considered incompetent, what does it say about the Labour Government in Wales where proportionally, Labour is making almost 50 per cent higher cuts and the Government’s draft budget for 2024-25 proposed cuts of £422 million to areas outside the NHS and transport? Welsh ministers blame a lack of funding from Westminster and inflation eroding the spending power of the funds available, claiming that their settlement for 2024-25 is still up to £700m lower in real terms than expected at the time of the 2021 Spending Review and the budget in 2024-25 is £3 billion lower than if it had grown in line with GDP since 2010.

All roads do lead back to Westminster, whose lack of competence has run up a national debt of £2.7 trillion and is entirely responsible for the cost of living crisis with resultant higher public sector wage claims, a situation exacerbated by Brexit and a failed energy policy with prices going up by a further 10 per cent this winter.

The Fraser of Allander Institute’s analysis argues that much depends on the UK October budget but due to Labour ending the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners the fiscal transfer from Westminster will be reduced by £160m. The Scottish Government has spent over £700m mitigating draconian UK welfare policies thus protecting the most vulnerable in our society. Child poverty rates in Scotland (24%) remain much lower than those in England (31%) and Wales (28%) and this is in part due to the unique Scottish Child Payment that has lifted 100,000 children out of poverty.

Universalism is under attack but it is the hallmark of a civilised society and the bureaucracy surrounding ending free prescriptions would end up making few savings while increasing the burden on hospitals as fewer people would take their preventative medicine. A proper progressive taxation system is a fair way to pay for such things.

Mary Thomas, Edinburgh.

Scotland is being held back

I AM writing in support of MS Duncan’s letter (September 2) concerning the flaws of the Union and to challenge the claim by Jill Stephenson (Letters, September 4) that “it simply isn’t true” that Scotland would be better off outside the UK. She further states that Scottish Government claims about the budget cuts being imposed by Westminster are “just the next standard SNP gripe”.

It is quite obvious that relations between Holyrood and Westminster have deteriorated since the 2014 referendum. The previous positive working relationship between the coalition governments of Labour and the LibDems with Westminster foundered on the result of the 2007 Holyrood election which saw the SNP take office. Since then, there is clear evidence that what is now styled as "muscular unionism" is being applied by successive Westminster governments.

A good example is the UK Internal Market Act of 2020 crafted to restrict the legislative powers of the devolved administrations in economic matters. Another recent example is the Levelling Up funding with grants from Westminster bypassing Holyrood and the Scottish local authorities. Like so much else that has characterised Westminster over the recent years, this funding has been open to abuse. Is it any coincidence that the constituency of Alister Jack, the former Scottish Secretary received an award of £18 million but not one of the seven applications from Glasgow was successful? It is hard not to see this as a deliberate attempt to undermine the effectiveness of the Scottish Government. It is abundantly clear that the main Scottish opposition parties are following the instructions emanating from their London head offices. Any hope that relations might improve with the new Labour Government were torpedoed by the critical remarks made by Rachel Reeves last week. It is abundantly clear that Westminster is fearful of an independent Scotland.

Rather than the relentless criticism of your unionist correspondents, they have to answer the question as to why Scotland with its rich natural resources, beautiful countryside, its record of innovation and enterprise, its culture and traditions, its well-educated workforce added to the global goodwill that we enjoy, cannot succeed as an independent country and thrive like our neighbours Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Irish Republic? Far from benefiting from the Union, Scotland is being held back and denied the chance to regain its place as a successful independent country and as an active member of the EU.

Eric Melvin, Edinburgh.

Finance Secretary Shona Robison in the Scottish Parliament this weekFinance Secretary Shona Robison in the Scottish Parliament this week (Image: PA)

Prepare for England leaving

JILL Stephenson’s approach to the Union, which she somehow manages to repeat several times a year in this and other papers, appears to be little more than this: Scotland should remain in the UK because the English give us free money.

As a justification for the Union, this is beyond sad. Moreover, unionists of Ms Stephenson’s stripe would do well to consider two things. First: England is not a charity (which ought to make one question the entire premise of Ms Stephenson's argument); and second: they should be encouraging Scotland to be more "independence-ready" than it already is. A future, Farage-like Tory government that shares Ms Stephenson’s views about Scotland being a financial drain could cut us loose quicker than you can say "Brexit".

Westminster doubles up as the English parliament so, unlike Scotland, England can leave the Union whenever she wants. If history is any guide, the English nationalists who dragged us out of the EU would likely dissolve the UK in the most thoughtless and chaotic way possible. If she believes what she writes, the best use of Ms Stephenson’s time would be using her letter-writing talents to make sure we are adequately prepared for that un/happy day. It’s simply prudent forward planning.

Adam Oyebanji, Edinburgh.