This week’s Budget has of course attracted lots of comment, with The Herald’s Business Editor, Ian McConnell, saying it “felt like a very big one indeed”.
Today one of our readers suggests a host of ways in which the Chancellor could have raised money other than raising taxes.
William Loneskie of Lauder writes: "With taxation in the UK already at a 70-year high, Chancellor Reeves has increased it further. With the national debt over 100% of GDP she has increased that too. Instead of cutting government spending she will recklessly spend more billions which the UK does not have, on projects which are not needed.
"There are billions to be saved if she were a prudent Chancellor, which she is not. A red pen and a ruler could be taken to some or all of the following: HS2, whose costs are already over £100 billion; the net zero project which according to National Grid ESO will cost £3 trillion; supporting foreign wars overseas, of which Ukraine has sucked £13bn from the public purse; £7.2 billion a year on foreign aid, £4bn on illegal immigrants, and £300bn annually on social security.
"When you consider in view of all this expenditure that Chancellor Reeves is emphatic that cutting the winter fuel payment for 10 million pensioners was essential to save only £1.4bn you begin to worry about her competence in high office, or her empathy with senior citizens who have worked all their lives and paid the taxes which Ms Reeves is now squandering."
📨 Read more in our Letters page
Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.
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