Glasgow has shown a sad lack of ambition with George Square proposals
The cost at £2.5 million was apparently deemed to be too high. Many millions of pounds have been spent on the hard landscaping required for the Avenues project which rumbles on and doesn't seem to have caught the imagination of the populace. I would argue that a fountain or a "wall of water" is fundamental to the success of the enterprise and a real justification for the redesign of this prime civic space.
Once again the planners have shown a real lack of ambition for the city by denying it a feature that would provide a vibrant, visual asset long after Glasgow's 850th anniversary celebrations have been forgotten.
David G Will, Milngavie.
Zonal pricing is common sense
ScottishPower and SSE's outcry against zonal pricing ("Kate Forbes slams 'damaging' North Sea profits tax", heraldscotland, May 14) and demands for 'simplicity' in the CfD scheme reek of self-interest disguised as public concern. Keith Anderson of ScottishPower's claims of a £30 billion investment threat, alongside Alistair Phillips-Davies' recent alarm over ScotWind projects, are classic scare tactics. Let's be clear: they're defending a pricing system that props up their profits while offloading costs onto struggling households and businesses. Equally disingenuous were Kate Forbes's new-found concerns about the 'damaging' impact of the UK's windfall tax.
Zonal pricing is simple common sense: where energy is abundant, bills should be cheaper. Norway has proven it works – investment thrives, and consumer costs drop. Yet ScottishPower and SSE cling to a rigged system that inflates prices nationwide, shielding their margins from genuine competition. Mr Anderson's plea to avoid 'tampering' with a 'working' system is absurd. Working for whom? Certainly not the 6.5 million UK households in fuel poverty or the businesses fighting to stay afloat.
Their warnings of higher costs are baseless fearmongering. Zonal pricing would cut bills where renewables flourish, reflecting real supply and demand. More importantly, a balanced energy policy – one that includes renewables alongside North Sea oil and gas, as well as coal – would reduce dependency on costly imports and stabilise prices. This is the only path to genuine energy security and affordability, not endless Contracts for Difference handouts to intermittent energy sources.
If Ed Miliband backs zonal pricing, it would be his first sensible decision amid his bonkers Net Zero policies – policies that stifle North Sea oil and gas while increasing reliance on foreign imports, forcing the public and businesses to pay a premium compared to similarly placed countries. Enough is enough.
Ian Lakin, Aberdeen.
Read more letters
These TV ads are disgusting
Adverts at regular intervals are the price we pay for commercial TV.
Those commercial breaks allow us to skip off into the kitchen to make the occasional cuppa.
There have been times when the adverts on show have had an entertainment value with their subtlety, humour and clever use of language.
Recently however our screens have been flooded with a spate of adverts which bring with them the cringe factor thanks to the coarseness and crudity in which they are couched. In particular I would like to point out those adverts which deal with female incontinence deodorants and indigestion remedies.
Not one of them is characterised by subtlety, light humour or clever wordplay. Rather they are explicit in the extreme, leaving nothing to the imagination with their brash, bold and bald language.
Is there anyone else who shrinks with disgust when those adverts occupy the screen to induce the cringe factor in the viewers, a reaction I imagine may well be more widespread rather than restricted to my prurient personality?
There have been memorable adverts which have lived on in the national memory thanks to the smart work of those trying to capture the attention of the viewing audience for the products on display. Have those days now receded into the past and are we to be left exposed to more of the current crop of adverts which leave the TV audience cold?
Do those productions exemplify the collapse of standards in public life, which is increasingly evident in all facets of our nation?
Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.
An offer easy to resist
A wee word of warning to fellow readers considering disposing of "unwanted items cluttering your home".
An advert I saw stated "Free uplift and a fair offer". Sounds good, however, on the "fair offer" issue, a variance of opinion may arise. In my case, I submitted medals (six), Scottish bank notes (two), watches (10) and cigarette card sets (two). In my own estimation of the value of total goods was between £400/£500.
I received a call one week later.
In a very civil manner the rep remarked on the good condition of many of the items (for example, the medals being worth £50-plus).
Finally, when pressed he made an offer of £75 (all inclusive). A derisory offer to end a promising exchange.
Hopefully my great expectations consignment will be returned to me intact ASAP.
Allan C Steele, Giffnock.
Keith Anderson of ScottishPower (Image: PA)
Banking? What's that?
May I add a necessary addendum to Ian McConnell's rose-tinted writing of his younger journalist years following the Royal Bank of Scotland ('The tumultuous tale of a great Scottish hope', The Herald, May 16)? When the Royal Bank of Scotland imploded (and it self-imploded) not a single member of its board was a professionally qualified banker, not even its managing director – who had been appointed by his predecessor in his own image. Enough said.
Graeme Smith, Newton Mearns.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Farage's latest hero? Benjamin Disraeli
At 9 a.m on Monday morning, Nigel Farage will march into a central London venue to make one of his most audacious speeches yet. Since returning as leader of Reform UK last May, he has trodden carefully when it comes to policy. Farage quickly canned the party's manifesto after the election, preferring to focus on a few key areas: lifting the two-child benefit cap, hiking the annual income tax personal allowance to £20,000, cutting council waste, abolishing Net Zero and renationalising steel. But his next move is more original in its thinking. Farage will announce a new policy for 'non-doms': British residents whose permanent home for tax purposes is outside the UK. Rachel Reeves' first Budget abolished this status in April, claiming it would raise £2.7bn a year by 2029. Yet amid a wave of reports about a 'flight of the rich', Farage senses an opportunity to try to retain such wealth in the UK while making a political pitch to the poorest in society too. He will float a new one-off £250,000 'landing fee' for the super-rich, renewed every ten years. Non-doms would be exempt from inheritance tax, instead only paying income tax on a remittance basis. The cash generated by this card-based scheme will be redistributed to the poorest 10 per cent of full time UK workers. Between 6,000 to 10,000 are expected to be issued annually, according to internal estimates. In a low-uptake scenario with 6,000 cards issued, the party expects to generate a £1.5bn fund, resulting in a tax-free annual divided of £600 per worker. Farage hopes to do three things with this speech. The first is a straightforward political attack on Rachel Reeves. The Clacton MP intends to savage her record in office and dub her 'the worst Chancellor in living memory.' This fits in with Reform's plans to frame the next election as a straight fight between them and Labour. The second is to show that the party is serious when it comes to policy. Both Farage and Zia Yusuf have been heavily involved in its conception; a ten-page document of graphs and workings will be handed out to journalists at Monday's press conference. His speech aims to appeal to both rich and poor and show that the fate of these 'two nations' are bound together by fate. Farage, similarly, professes a confidence that 'the working classes of England are proud of belonging to a great country'. His speech will be delivered close to the statue of Disraeli in Parliament where the masses once gathered to lay primroses at his feet; the Reform UK leader hopes to elicit a similar metaphorical reaction on Monday too. The non-doms announcement will be relentlessly scrutinised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others, who warned Reform's personal allowance changes would cost the Treasury between £50 to £80bn a year. Yet Farage is willing to face criticism if it enables his party to claim territory that others regard as unfavourable. His strategy has echoes of Boris Johnson's Brexit coalition in 2019: pro-banker, yes, but, crucially, pro-worker too. Farage and Yusuf have spent many hours discussing how best to capitalise on the theme of a 'battle of resources' in a country which, for many of their voters, seems to reward the old, the comfortable and the immigrant at the expense of the young, the struggling and the native. Reform might have ditched its 'contract with Britain', but expect talk of the social contract to be a staple of its future pitch.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: We're governed by a born-to-rule elite...and the WhatsApp scandal shows EXACTLY how out of touch they are
Against stiff competition, one of the most outrageous happenings inside Nicola Sturgeon 's government was the routine deletion of messages during the Covid-19 pandemic. The revelation came in evidence before the UK inquiry into the management of the global health crisis. One after another, senior figures in the Scottish Government admitted they had deleted WhatsApps and other messages. Sturgeon had erased her digital missives and so had John Swinney. National clinical director Jason Leitch described 'WhatsApp deletion' as 'a pre-bed ritual'. Senior civil servant Ken Thomson posted on message threads that their contents were 'discoverable under FOI' and advised: 'Know where the "clear chat" button is.' In office, Sturgeon seldom missed an opportunity to highlight where Scotland's government was outperforming England's, but here was one regard in which she was happy to be unexceptional. Senior Westminster figures got rid of their messages and their Holyrood counterparts were no better. Why am I raking up this ancient history when the world is exploding all around us? Well, because an important announcement was slipped out on Friday - usually a quiet day in Scottish politics - and I think it deserves a little noise. Deputy first minister Kate Forbes confirmed that her ban on ministers and civil servants using unofficial messaging apps to do official business was now in effect. The prohibition was initially trailed before Christmas and reflects concern about rules and practices at the height of the pandemic. Now, six months on, WhatsApp and similar platforms have been removed from government-issued phones, with the (common sense) exception of services that deal with public safety and emergencies, which will get longer to make the transition. Speaking on Friday, Forbes said: 'The use of mobile messaging apps increased during the pandemic as staff worked remotely in unprecedented and difficult circumstances. Having reflected on our working practices, we are now implementing changes to the use of such apps.' However, the Scottish Government should not be allowed to issue a lowkey update and then press on with other business. Let's recall how we got here. Because ministers aren't alone in having 'reflected' on their working practices. In addition to Lady Hallett's inquiry, and the negative public response to top officials wiping their communications archives, message retention was put under the microscope in the Martins Report. Former Channel Islands Information Commissioner Emma Martins was tasked with reviewing the Scottish Government's information protocols and what she found was lamentable. There was 'little to evidence a consistent and widespread knowledge, understanding, or application' of the policy on messaging apps, 'including rules around retention, exportation, and deletion'. There was 'insufficient evidence of a proactive strategy' on records management and 'an abundance of missed opportunities and early warning signs'. Martins concluded that it was 'impossible to take any comfort from the policy'. The report recommended a fresh approach to messaging apps that ensured 'all government communication is conducted in a managed environment' and that systems have 'appropriate security and data retention facilities'. Banishing external communications platforms from government phones is certainly a step in the right direction, but why is it a step that's needed at all? It's no coincidence that the minister rolling out these changes is one of the few who did the right thing when it came to pandemic-era communications. Whatever else her critics might say about her, Forbes understood her obligations to transparency and public accountability. Even after she was told to begin deleting messages with her private office two years after the outset of the pandemic, she retained all WhatsApps to and from Cabinet colleagues and government officials. Her integrity meant Lady Hallett's inquiry was able to access conversations at the most senior levels that would otherwise have been lost to the erase button. But that same integrity must compel the deputy first minister to be honest about this policy. Among the various security and data protection advantages of in-house communications networks, there is also the greater monitoring capability they hand to administrators. In plain language: it's harder for a user to delete messages from an in-house system than from WhatsApp or Telegram. On the most charitable reading of this policy, it's an admission that those in the most senior roles in the Scottish Government are inept in the proper use and storage of communications. A less charitable reading is that the Scottish Government does not trust its personnel, ministers and civil servants alike, not to scrub information that could be of national importance. That is a desperate state of affairs. As Emma Martins stated in her report, 'something went wrong for the Scottish Government' and the issue was one that 'runs much deeper than a single policy document or checklist'. An organisation, she said, needed 'those operating within it to share a basic set of values'. Abiding by the rules was 'not a tick box exercise' but 'a way of thinking', which must be 'embedded into everything', not to avoid 'the threat of sanction' but because 'it is the right thing to do'. Tel:ling ministers and officials to use only permitted messaging systems, to treat data with care, to retain communications or log their salient points - these are all well and good but the very fact that the people running the country need to be told this speaks to an institutional problem inside the Scottish Government. Systems and safeguards are only as good as the willingness of those who use them to abide by their spirit as well as their letter. The citizenry should feel reassured that public servants have the integrity to do the right thing without needing it spelled out to them. That they are storing messages properly because they recognise their obligations to scrutiny and transparency, not because a spreadsheet is monitoring their compliance. Kate Forbes did the right thing during the pandemic but her messaging policy can only succeed if there are enough like her in government, and that seems unlikely. A government marinated in spin and cynicism for so long isn't about to mend its way because of new rules. You need people in public life who are there for the right reasons. After 18 years of the SNP in charge, transparency and openness have been thoroughly sidelined. Going through the motions is not the same as genuine accountability, it's working to a policy rather than a moral principle. This administration talks a lot about its commitment to open government but time and again it is shown to be a hollow promise. We have a born-to-rule elite with altogether more confidence in their abilities than is merited and this arrogance has engendered a conviction that the public deserves to know only what their betters want them to know. This is no way to run a democratic government, but it is not a problem that can be tweaked away. It can be addressed only by a blunt and bracing assessment of the calibre of politicians and policymakers coming into Holyrood and a conversation about how we can do better. The WhatsApp deletion scandal was a low moment for devolved government in Scotland but it would be foolhardy to assume that the problem has been solved. Holyrood requires a new culture of integrity, transparency and accountability. The work of creating this culture cannot be undertaken by those responsible for the past two decades. It calls for a new government under new leadership.
Scotsman
17 hours ago
- Scotsman
Why are less Scots having babies? The answer is very obvious
Making Scotland an easier place to be a parent could help tackle historically low birth rates. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Scots are not having enough babies. In 2023, statistics showed the birth rate had fallen to 1.3 babies per woman - a historic low. At this point, our population is being sustained by migration. There are a lot of reasons for this, but poor parental leave and extortionate childcare costs are glaringly obvious factors here. This has been a hot topic in Holyrood this week. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Less Scots are having babies. On Thursday, Green MSP Mark Ruskell said he was 'embarrassed' at only being able to offer his staff two weeks of paternity leave. He said: 'I know the law is two weeks, but public institutions should go further. Reflecting on my own experience, two weeks is just not enough.' Two days earlier, Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes said too many women were being forced out of politics because of poor childcare options. She said: 'If we can't keep a hold of mums in politics, we lose a really strong voice for other mums out there struggling with childcare. If we can't do it for mums in Parliament, we can't do it for mums outside Parliament.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Two weeks ago the campaign group The Dad Shift demonstrated en-masse outside Holyrood demanding better parental leave policies. Most of these policies are reserved to Westminster, but it is clear there is a desire for change amongst Scots, including inside the devolved Scottish Parliament. Almost everyone - with the exception of UK Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch - will agree that maternity and paternity leave is far too low. Statutory maternity leave after the first six weeks is just £187.18 a week - for fathers, it is two weeks at the same rate. Considering the median weekly earnings in Scotland in 2024 was £738.70, it is obvious new parents are taking a massive financial hit here. But the length of time is a problem too, particularly for new dads. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad An obvious flaw in the system comes when you look at something as common as Caesarean sections. It takes around six weeks to recover and yet, for four of those weeks, mums are expected to get on with things on their own. We also need to remember that if dads take more time off work, mothers are less likely to take career breaks, which in turn would help close the gender pay gap. The Dad Shift wants to see six weeks of paternity leave at regular pay as the norm. This is what has been recommended to Westminster's women and equalities committee. Across Europe, the average paternity pay is eight weeks and the UK is ranked at the bottom. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Let us look at another sticking point - childcare. Yes, in Scotland parents can get 1,140 hours of funded childcare, but for most this is only after the child turns three. It also works out at around 22 hours a week, somewhat short of the up to 40-hour working week for the average Scot. The campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed found 75 per cent of mothers paying for childcare say it does not make financial sense for them to work. One in three are in debt because of childcare and one in four say childcare costs are more than 75 per cent of their take home pay. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Four in ten Scots who have an abortion cite spiralling childcare costs as one of their reasons.
