THE Chancellor’s spending review understandably painted a gloomy economic picture for the foreseeable future as the government prepares for life after the coronavirus. However, it is in his budgetary priorities that we must judge Mr Sunak and his party in government.

Significantly no tangible mention of Brexit was ventured by the Chancellor despite the apparently blinding belief in the massive economic advantages that a No Deal will bring to the UK. The cut to the UK’s foreign aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income will save approximately £4 billion but is exceptionally short-sighted. It will, according to Andrew Mitchell, a former Tory international development secretary, result in 100,000 preventable deaths in countries in the developing world and leave a vacuum that may be capitalised on by China, Russia or international terrorist groups.

It is not only the loss of “soft” power internationally that is of great concern here but the Chancellor playing to the parochial hard right wing of English nationalist exceptionalism and sacrificing lives and communities in the developing world. In addition to the £16.5bn on defence spending announced last week this represents contentious and insular spending priorities overtly designed to pander to the reactionary wing of the Conservative party.

Rishi Sunak did not commit to extending the temporary uplift in Universal Credit after the spring either, in the full knowledge that this is deeply unpopular with many in his party and despite the fact that many people in the UK are suffering from real poverty which will, with unemployment poised to rise significantly and Brexit to bring unprecedented economic problems,only worsen in the year ahead.

Of course there will always be money available to placate the hoi polloi and maintain a bread and circuses illusion of Britain by allocating £29 million to a festival of Brexit (Johnson fiddling whilst the country burns) and substantial funds to the queen’s Platinum Jubilee which will be celebrated next year.

Owen Kelly

Stirling

ANDY Anderson is right, the SNP must reject austerity (Letters, November 25). This letter led me to think of the SNP’s record on austerity and the continuous mitigating measures the Scottish Government have taken since 2007.

So, perhaps we should pause for a moment and reflect on a few of the measures the SNP Government have taken: addressing the bedroom tax, increase to carers allowance, introduction of the baby box, abolition of prescription charges, establishment of the child payment, introduction of progressive taxation.

Currently the SNP MP’s are calling for the temporary uplift (£20/week) to Universal Credit benefit to be made permanent, addressing austerity. With the establishment of Social Security Scotland having “fairness, dignity and respect” at its heart, I am sure austerity will not feature in a future independent Scotland. As Andy Anderson calls for, a future independent Scotland will have social justice at its core.

Catriona C Clark

Falkirk

SEVERAL of those who wrote letters regarding “Why did the FM sign up to this ‘four nations’ plan for Christmas” (November 26) had apparently not seen the First Minister’s briefing and follow-up session that went into some detail on the reasoning behind the plan.

The general opinion is that after months of following measures to avoid the spread of the virus the vast majority of people will be restricting themselves to a no-contact Christmas.

To be brief, the gist of the FM’s message is that there is evidence that some infections are spread by a small but significant number of people who do not accept that contact between households is a major factor; they will probably be taking part in even larger numbers of household gatherings over Christmas with a consequent increase in the infection rate.

The representatives of the four nations agreed that this is inevitable and produced a plan as guidance for those who do take part in household gatherings, hoping that they at least give the matter of the consequences some serious consideration in order to minimise the spread of the virus.

It is said that the people of the UK are policed by consent and like it or not that is the position that the Government is in now.

The four governments and the media must now unite in to persuade the maximum number of people to avoid gatherings and live in the hope that this plague will be only a memory by next Christmas.

John Jamieson

South Queensferry

IT is unfortunate that opposition parties fail to appreciate the rock and hard place within which our First Minister is caught.

Surely they can appreciate the key reason Nicola Sturgeon assented to the four-nations agreement was simply to allow those who desperately required to move beyond their current nation of residence to another of the four. Beyond this element she is entirely correct to express her preference that everyone act with extreme caution and preferably restrict themselves to their current homes wherever possible. I fail to recognise a mixed message in this!

Tom Gray

Braco

EARLIER this week Alyn Smith defended composite motions, described conference as a showcase and denied members a vote on independence.

He then went on to talk about factions, forgetting he is a member of one of them. He attacked the Common Weal for having a different faction, despite that group supporting only independence, not a party.

Finally, he seems to claim the SNP is “his party”. His lack of understanding of democracy is disappointing and does “our party” no favours.

Liza Russell

Landshut, Germany