AMIDST all the hours of parliamentary and court time taken up by Brexit, it was refreshing to hear the Scottish Parliament set time aside for a members debate brought forward by Shona Robison MSP, recognising the first anniversary of the establishment of Social Security Scotland.

Social security is something we never want to claim/require, however, sometimes circumstances calls for the social security safety net. The establishment of Social Security Scotland has at its roots something that has been lacking in this crucial service for many a decade: fairness, dignity and respect for the vulnerable and needy.

The debate in Holyrood highlighted many positive aspects of Social Security Scotland, mainly the creation of 400 jobs at its new HQ in Dundee and the same for the Glasgow office. Other aspects highlighted included Carer’s Allowance being brought up the same level as unemployment benefit, giving 83,000 carers increases of around £450 per year. The Best Start Grant making in excess of 42,000 payments to low income families, totalling £13 million.

The Scottish Government has introduced the new Scottish Child Payment of £10 per week for families on low incomes and has brought its introduction forward by more than two years.

Dignity and respect has certainly been put into practice with regard to people with long-term health conditions who have been awarded lifetime allowances. They will no longer be put through the stress of re-assessment and appeals, with all that entails. And finally, only this week the Scottish Funeral Payment has been introduced.

Perhaps it is worth highlighting that only 15% of the social security/welfare spend in Scotland has been devolved, begging the question, how much more could be achieved for our vulnerable and needy if all welfare spend in Scotland was devolved? Social security is a right for all in our hour of need, and the Scottish Government are doing their utmost to bring fairness, dignity and respect to Social Security Scotland.

Catriona C Clark
Falkirk

AS with your reader in Tuesday’s paper, I was challenged by Pat Kane’s article in which he discussed people’s moral ambivalence with regard to capital punishment in Scotland (Many Scots back the death penalty – should we be surprised by this?, September 14).

As one of the 44% who find it abhorrent, I have to confess that I can’t come up with a better system than the one we have at present. Christians were made to consider a new world order 2,021 years ago where the Old Testament “an eye for an eye” had to consider a new way of dealing with wrong-doing. However, I see this teaching as being directed to the individual and seems to ignore community which must protect itself from the rampages of the insane and just thoroughly nasty.

As things stand, we can be satisfied that all murders committed are examined on background analysis before justice is meted out. We also have to consider that any sentence passed has to be enforced by those in our community and that the last thing we wish to do is to produce an environment where they are exposed to inhumane conditions. These in themselves lead to dehumanising the men and women acting upon our behalf. No, it’s very difficult to think of a better solution than the one we have arrived at in this age.

Janet Cunningham
Stirling

IN response to Philippa Whitford (Letters, September 19), for the statistical information in my column I relied on a briefing document titled Agriculture and Brexit in Ten Charts from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (17/12, researcher Wendy Kenyon).

There it says: “Without EU subsidies many Scottish farms are not profitable ... Scotland receives 17% of the total UK CAP budget. Once the UK leaves the EU, if population share was used to allocate the budget, Scotland would receive around 8%.”

Obviously there are different comparators which might be used to make the point about the relative generosity, or the opposite, of these payments. I do not accept I was being unfair to reproduce one that is given such prominence in an authorised document of the Scottish Parliament. If there is a complaint, it should best go through the official channels at Holyrood.

The point about the convergence uplift money is a related, but still separate, issue for which there was no room in my column.

Michael Fry
via email