I thought Starmer would be a safe pair of hands. I was wrong

We are all aware that there are competing interests for public funding but Sir Keir could have had a couple of quick wins by scrapping the two-child benefit policy and maintaining pensioner fuel cost benefits. Given the relatively modest savings achieved, cost cuts could have been found in other areas to fund this and he could have achieved disproportionate acclaim which would have given him a level of support to deal with the much bigger issues we will have to address in the near future. Perception is reality and he would have had the people with him as active supporters rather than reluctant participants Instead, he has hit the young and old who are economically inactive and upset or worried the economically active group in the middle who may have been willing to get their sleeves rolled up and worked to regenerate growth in the economy in the knowledge that their children and aged parents were being looked after.

Add that to the “freebies" scandal and it just looks like “same old, same old”.

Keith Swinley, Ayr.

The buck stops in Downing Street

ALISON Rowat's article ("Starmer’s defensiveness is starting to offend electorate", The Herald, September 30) was right on point, in as much as the PM cannot defend the indefensible. For the PM to be even thinking he can justify all the freebies while slashing the winter fuel allowance is not only offensive, it is insulting.

Ms Rowat suggested that the focus may well come off the PM this week with the Conservative Party Conference taking place. But with energy costs set to rise this week, the focus will remain on the PM. The buck stops at No.10.

Catriona C Clark, Falkirk.

Read more letters

• How can Starmer, Rayner and the rest sleep at night?
• Maybe a fractured parliament is what Scotland needs

We must put an end to austerity

THE End Fuel Poverty Coalition has come out with a troubling estimate of the additional cost to the NHS of treating the 262,000 pensioners impacted by the cut in winter fuel payments.

The cost to the NHS of treating these individuals has been estimated to be more than £169 million a year and exemplifies the damaging impact of continuing with an economic programme of swingeing cuts.

Reductions in public expenditure and investment at the wrong time in the economic cycle are counterproductive, inhibiting growth at a time when it is desperately needed, and increasing the size of the debt relative to economic output.

Chancellor Reeves intends to fill the financial black hole through a combination of cuts, including those to the winter fuel allowance, as well as cutting capital investment programmes. However, there are alternatives. Borrowing big to invest as part of a modern industrial strategy is an entirely mainstream alternative, as promoted by the likes of leading economists John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Stiglitz.

We need to invest heavily in the new technologies and infrastructure that will drive growth, however compared to the EU and the US our programmes to date have been pitiful.

If the Labour Government wants to grow the economy, the current approach will do nothing to deliver this and will only serve to damage it further. It is very much a case of more continuing pain, for less gain.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh.

Thankless task for Findlay

IT is hard to know whether to congratulate or commiserate with Russell Findlay on his becoming leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party in Scotland. The Tories have been coy about the number of members they had in Scotland, and no wonder. We now know they have shrunk to around only 7,000 members, and it would be interesting to know the age group of these members and how many of them can be called upon for active campaigning, to deliver the leaflets and knock on the doors.

Mr Findlay has declared that he wants to "change" the party; an unfortunate choice of word given that we are still reeling from the last guy who promised change. But of course, any changes Mr Findlay may want to make will be subject to the approval of his new boss at Westminster who takes over in November, and whose priority will be to claw back the votes of Middle England. Just like Labour, the Tories in Scotland are only a branch office, with the real power firmly rooted in London. So, no change there then.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

Stop diverting the blame

IT is revealing when unionists make statements like “we’ve had 17 years of this (SNP Scottish governance) and it has not improved our lives one iota”, essentially purporting to speak on behalf of the whole population yet clearly presenting only a very narrow view.

Many children previously living in poverty, students faced with the prospect of huge university or college tuition fees, those (often the poorest and most disadvantaged in our so-called compassionate society) whose lives have been improved through mitigations of austere policies imposed by Westminster and those who generally support the principle of universality of specified benefits while higher earners are asked to pay a little more in their taxes to help fund the best-performing NHS in the United Kingdom, might suggest Jane Lax (Letters, September 30) does not represent their views.

More specifically, unless Ms Lax holds the Scottish Government solely responsible for the failing state of Broken Brexit Britain, why is the devolved Labour Government in Wales not performing as well as the SNP Government in Scotland across most directly comparable measures and why are public services in England in the dire straits described by the new Labour Prime Minister? When the Tories came to power at Westminster they pledged to reduce the huge debt racked up by the previous Labour Government but instead more than tripled that debt, which now approaches the previously unimaginable figure of three trillion pounds. The Scottish Government year-on-year runs a balanced budget but still suffers from “sharing” the economic penalty of UK Government interest payments that alone are nearly double the Scottish Government’s entire annual budget. Contributing to this rising debt are the many costs of Brexit (which the Scottish public did not vote for) and the calamitous decisions taken by Prime Minister Truss.

None of this means that the Scottish Government couldn’t have done better with the limited resources available to it, but seeking to divert blame away from the primary source of people struggling financially across the United Kingdom while being served by increasingly deteriorating public services will not help to make the lives of the majority of the people inhabiting Britain “better”.

The misleading slogan boasted by those campaigning to prevent the people of Scotland determining their own future may still be fondly thought of by Ms Lax but leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many, not just those who voted for independence.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.

Supermajority is sensible

PETER Glissov (Letters, September 30) refers to the use of 50%+1 (of those voting) as the British standard for a majority in referendums.

Both Mr Glissov and Kezia Dugdale and Stephen Noon as authors of the recent report appear to be wedded to the idea that the British way has to be the best way. This is an insular and complacent philosophy to which many of us do not subscribe, preferring to see other models as offering better outcomes: for example, those many countries which demand supermajorities or double majorities for constitutional changes.

Surely Scotland would do better following these examples, having seen the outcome of 50%+1 in the case of the Brexit vote? In contrast, a requirement to exceed 66% of the vote or consent in most or all parts of Scotland would bring about a more unified and stable settlement than a wafer-thin and hollow triumph. The fact that nationalists prefer the latter to the former is a mystery to me.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Should a future independence referendum require a supermajority? (Image: Newsquest)

The fabrication expert

TODAY'S Herald Appointments (September 30) include an advertisement for a Fabrication Manager. Strangely, my cynical mind turned to politicians. A quick search on Google then revealed the New York Times headline "Many politicians lie. But Trump has elevated the art of fabrication".

David Miller, Milngavie.