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
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here