"I WILL challenge the cosy, socialist consensus that has failed Scotland for the last 25 years." That was Russell Findlay's persuasive message during the recent Scottish Conservatives' leadership election. And yet, during the debate concerning the removal of the pensioners' heating allowance, at the first opportunity to carve out a distinctive Conservative message, he instead stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the SNP, the Greens, the Lib-Dems, and what remains of the far-left of Scottish Labour ("Sarwar hit by rebellion in vote over winter fuel payments", The Herald, October 9). More than that; he even tried to outdo the nationalists by demanding a Scottish Government u-turn.

Perhaps the political opportunity to criticise the cack-handedness of Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer was too good to miss. Perhaps the thought of pointing the finger of failure again at John Swinney was just too appealing. Or perhaps like every other big-state, big-spender Mr Findlay genuinely thinks that rich pensioners should be given money raised from workers on the lowest tax threshold. If so, his leadership promises to repeat the same short-term thinking that has dogged the Conservative Party for years. My own concern is that because he lacks philosophical roots in the Conservative tradition he prefers the optics of cuddly Conservatism to the necessary hard truths of fiscal reality.

During the leadership campaign, Mr Findlay also said that he believed in lower taxes. I share that belief. Individuals should keep more of their own money. It is, of course, an easy thing to say. It is far more difficult to make the case for the conditions that permit a low tax economy. Belief is insufficient.

Sure, there is growth, and putting competence and good governance at the heart of government and shrinking an activist civil service so that it works more efficiently in the country's interests. All those are necessary. In Scotland, they are more than necessary. But there comes a time when Mr Findlay will have to face the reality that he accuses the socialist consensus of avoiding, and say what we won't continue to spend taxpayers' money on. We tried cake-ism and it led to the highest tax burden for 70 years. Either we go on, or we turn.

I don't know if Mr Findlay was still in Birmingham when none of the then four leadership candidates gave an unqualified answer to the question of reinstating the benefit’s universality. He’s already out of step with the national leader. And we haven't even decided who that is yet.

Mr Findlay could have made use of the situation to define, or redefine, the Tories as the party of fiscal prudence. He chose not to. Is there not an argument to be made that home-owner pensioners on the highest tax band do not require social security? Is there not an argument that millionaire pensioners don't need state handouts? Although elected to challenge the big-state socialist consensus, he chose to almost immediately repeat the mantra of universalism. Talking right and doing left is no use to anyone. If Mr Findlay seriously wants to stop votes haemorrhaging rightwards, he will need to make different choices.

Graeme Arnott, Stewarton.

Read more letters

We already have high taxes

MAGGIE Chetty (Letters, October 11) displays the stereotypical ignorance of so many in their blinkered anti-Conservative views. Her description of that party as "anti-immigration" should in fact be "anti-illegal immigration", which any sensible leadership should follow.

Her envy of the Scandinavian higher taxes is rather misplaced. Our taxes are already higher than all of the rest of the UK, and yet the quality of public services under the SNP fails consistently as these taxes are squandered by an ineffective Scottish Government incapable of managing an economy and focusing instead on endless vanity projects, the pursuit of separatism, and the sowing of division.

Ms Chetty was right about only one thing: the behaviour of governments does impact on populations, hence the clearly evident negativity and refusal to accept any responsibility perpetrated by the SNP in more than 17 years of neglecting Scotland's needs.

Steph Johnson, Glasgow.

Council off to a bad start

SUE Gray, Sir Keir Starmer's envoy for the UK's nations and regions, is never far from the news headlines these days and today was no exception. One would have assumed her presence at the first meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions in Scotland would be essential, but not so.

Then again, Ms Gray was not the only one conspicuous by their absence; the leaders of Scotland’s 32 local authorities were not even invited, yet England’s mayors were all round the table. If we are to achieve better dialogue between the new Labour Government and the devolved nations, then this body has got off on the wrong footing.

Catriona C Clark, Falkirk.

Listen to the prisoners' families

THE former Chief Inspector of Prisons in Scotland, Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, stated “[a] bold and brave transformational justice agenda could allow Scotland to reduce the [prison] population” (HMIPS Annual Report, 2022-23, p.6). Instead the Scottish Government has today made a baffling and backward announcement. It consulted in July on early release of long-term prisoners. Some groups of prisoners were excluded. There was no mention of a separate consultation for these groups. Although the consultation referred only to a subset of long-term prisoners it was “designed to respond to the rising prison population” (p.1, para 3).

Despite this aim the Justice Secretary, Angela Constance, today announced in the Scottish Parliament that the Scottish Government will not proceed with early release of long-term prisoners and that further early release measures will apply to short-term prisoners only ("Short-term prisoners to be freed early as jails ‘bursting at seams’", The Herald, October 11). The consultation acknowledged that even if fully implemented the long-term prisoner population would have reduced by only 320 (p.8, para 54). The current proposal to extend early release for short-term prisoners will apply to a maximum of 390 prisoners. Neither proposal by itself is likely to be enough to prevent prison overcrowding. Phil Fairlie, Assistant General-Secretary of the Prison Officers Association is reported today as stating: “Whilst the actions announced may bring some relief, the persistently high prisoner population makes clear that we need a genuine debate about the purpose of prison and a radical rethink of the sentencing policy if we are going to end the need for further emergency measures.”

There is nothing bold and brave in today’s announcement. The Scottish Government could have set out, both in the short term and as a long-term objective, how the prison population will be reduced to stay below maximum capacity. Bafflingly it has taken a backward step by continuing to allow prison overcrowding. It would do well to heed the advice of Phil Fairlie and set out the purpose of imprisonment and whether and to what extent that purpose can also be served by prisoners being released back into the community. The Justice Secretary recognised the significance of victims’ voices when she said today :“I very much recognise the concerns that arise from victims and their families and I am committed to working closely with victim support organisations.” While victims’ views are undoubtedly important the early release scheme cannot be predicated on the views only of victims. Among others, prisoners’ families also have an interest. They suffer financially and psychologically from the imprisonment of their loved ones. They too are victims. Does the Scottish Government however consider prisoners’ families to be victims and would it allow them the opportunity to speak of the impact imprisonment of their loved ones causes them?

It would be bold and brave of the Justice Secretary to establish the criteria by which prisoner numbers will remain below the maximum capacity of our prisons both now and in the long-term. In doing so she could listen to all interested parties, including prisoners’ families.

David Logan, Milngavie.

Candles will make a comeback

FACT: It is not the price of gas or Vladimir Putin that is making the UK have the most expensive electricity in the world, causing fuel poverty and destroying our manufacturing industries and losing thousands of jobs.

Reality: It is the cost of insane over-deployment of volatile weather-dependent electricity that needs mind-blowing amounts of environment-vandalising infrastructure to transport the power as it dwindles hundreds, if not thousands, of miles being added to our bills.

Tip: Stocking up on a candles and investing in a generator is a really sensible thing to do.

Observation: There could be a huge resurgence in the production of whale oil candles thanks to the offshore wind industry: one, because of expected power cuts caused by their intermittent and unreliable production and two, as a by-product of their marine destruction.

Green really is the New Black-out.

Lyndsey Ward, Communities B4 Power Companies, Beauly.

Bravo on Branchform call

I WAS delighted to read Andrew Learmonth's Unspun article on Operation Branchform ("The clock is ticking loudly on Operation Branchform", The Herald, Otcober 11). With the passage of time, as the years mount up, and with politicians of all shades shying clear of comment for fear of being accused of interfering with an independent justice system, only the Fourth Estate is there to represent those who with me see a catastrophic failure in our justice system. Only a relentless determination on the part of our Scottish media is available to advocate for those whose embarrassment at this failure only grows week by week in the silence from the Crown Office.

Anthony Ireland, Glasgow.

Justice Secretary Angela Constance said only prisoners serving less than a four-year sentence will be released earlierJustice Secretary Angela Constance said only prisoners serving less than a four-year sentence will be released earlier (Image: Getty)

Be even-handed on arms embargo

SOME of your correspondents call for an embargo on the sale of arms to Israel to reduce its military fighting capability in the belief that that would force it to agree to a ceasefire.

To be even-handed, why do they not call also for an embargo on the sale of arms by Iran to its proxy combatants Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi, and for them all to renounce their repeated stated intention to destroy the state of Israel and annihilate the Jewish people?

Such a renunciation seems to me to be an essential prerequisite to a ceasefire as it would remove any justification or need for either side to continue the present conflict. That in turn would open the door to meaningful peaceful negotiations under the auspices and guidance of the United Nations to resolve the differences between the parties provided they all accept that will involve significant concessions on all sides to achieve a fair and lasting settlement.

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

Sub-standard?

I LEARNED today (October 10) that Scotland’s Nations League match on Saturday (October 12) against Croatia will not be shown on any TV channel. That was bad enough; however I later discovered that England’s match against Greece was being shown on STV. I believe the “S” in STV stands for Scottish but tonight, in the eyes of our football fans, it stands for something else.

Brian Watt, Edinburgh.