WASN’T it made clear to all during the Brexit referendum campaign that voting to leave the EU would allow Tories in government to scrap workers’ rights protections like the working time directive, in the party’s drive to create the low-wage/high-profit economy, unfettered by EU regulations, that they long for?

Michael Gove pitching the proposal at even this early stage surely sends a warning signal of the Tories’ intent to dismantle all the rights deemed to impinge on profits, and at workers’ expense. Who among the remainers will be surprised at this?

Given this Tory government has taken on board the powers to make policy diktats without recourse to parliamentary scrutiny, can’t we easily see where this is going, and how parlous the state of fundamental rights of workers is?

Surely the real mystery has to be how, given this well forecast assault on workers’ employment and living standards, Jeremy Corbyn has ignored this threat and agreed to leave the EU and lose the rights it guarantees for Labour’s natural supporters.

Brexit is a mess. This latest development shows how adversely ordinary folks will be impacted.

Who doubts that whatever agenda Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party is really working to, the Brexit they curiously support has allowed the genie of workers’ rights to escape from the lamp for good?

Isn’t there now only one certainty left: that the only real solution to the many economic, employment, health, education and social problems created by Brexit is to simply not Brexit?
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

IN his critique of Holyrood’s pocket-money “Budget”, Allan Sutherland (Letters, December 16) tumbled head first into a bear trap of his own making, when he could not resist throwing the legendary “GERS deficit” into the melange.

As several economists and pundits have pointed out, the GERS taradiddle is based largely on hypotheses and supposition so riddled with statistical inaccuracies as to render the whole GERS exercise a farce.

In fact, to use Allan’s own word, only the “uninformed” would attach much credibility to GERS.

However, Allan was unstoppable, assuring us that for Scotland to be successful, “there are only four options” conveniently omitting a fifth option: independence.

This omission, coupled with his insistence on viewing all matters through the UK/Westminster prism, suggests that he shares a trait common amongst Unionists ie, a total lack of the breadth of imagination required to envisage Scotland returning to successful, self-governing status.

Imagine it if you will, Scots making our own decisions, based on our values without constantly doffing the cap to London Tories — red or blue.

By the way, Merry Christmas!
Malcolm Cordell
Broughty Ferry, Dundee

THANKS to an article in the Scottish Mail on Sunday highlighted by the Rev Stuart in Wings over Scotland, I have discovered there is a “hidden rebate” rather than the “hidden tax” mentioned in the headline.

Never having reached the dizzy heights of earning over £45,000 a year, I had not realised that those earning over this sum pay only two per cent National Insurance on income above this point.

The rest of us pay 12 per cent on the lot. As an extra 10 per cent on the additional £955,000 (assuming one is a millionaire) would add up to a fair sum if every millionaire and multi-millionaire paid it, it might well be possible to lower the basic rate. This is a typical Westminster way of making poorer people pay more of their income in tax those who are richer. Perhaps Corbyn would like to look into this.

No wonder a Scottish Budget that makes the rich pay more than the poor has been greeted with howls of outrage.

Well done Derek Mackay for producing such a radical, progressive scheme, and let’s have independence and control over National Insurance payments as soon as possible.
Ann Rayner
Edinburgh

IN reply to the anonymous public servant asking how income tax changes will benefit him.

Under Unionist rules your one per cent pay rise on £32,000 would be £320 less tax at 20 per cent, leaving you £256 better off.

Under Scottish Government rules your two per cent rise (£640) would indeed be taxed at one per cent more on the new 21 per cent rate, leaving you “only” £505 better off.

This is hardly taking you back to the one per cent rise situation as you suggested. Had I been fortunate enough to be on £32k, I know which option I would choose.

I accept that “rises” are being outstripped by inflation but I don’t think the Scottish Government is trying to mislead the electorate.
Anonymous arithmetician

MY Elf spy intercepted a letter to Santa from Number 10’s chimney yesterday.

It reads: “Dear Santa. We want to have our cake and eat it without having to accept nasty EU migrant doctors, nurses, engineers etc; we don’t want to obey European Court Rulings; have bespoke deals for City of London bankers and motor manufacturers; being able to ignore social directives eg Working Time Directive, etc.

Signed Messrs Johnston, Davis, Fox et al.

PS. Santa can you please leave £350 million in my stocking? Boris”
Charlie Gallagher
Shetland