Latest news with #Green
Scoop
43 minutes ago
- Business
- Scoop
Government, Opposition Scrap Over Common Infrastructure Ground
Article – RNZ Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has agreed to work with his counterparts on the 30-year plan, but the discussion got heated. A reference to $250,000 was corrected to $250 million in this story. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week. He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature – and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what. Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to 'start on a positive note' on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector. 'I agree,' Bishop said. 'That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in government.' The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the government required to respond within six months. Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more. 'At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough,' he said, garnering an emphatic 'yeah' from Green MP Julie Anne Genter. Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy. 'You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place,' he said. McAnulty agreed with an agreement to disagree. 'We think some of the things you've done are stupid… what I would like to see is a commitment,' he said. 'There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response.' More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on. Bishop: 'I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point … we may not always agree. 'For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions. McAnulty: 'We know where we're at with that.' Bishop: 'You sure?' McAnulty: 'Yes, I am actually… this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves. 'This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other.' Bishop: 'Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid.' McAnulty: 'Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves.' Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and 'sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate'. McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that. The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils. The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment. 'The point is to have… almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline,' Bishop said. Committee chair Andy Foster – a former Wellington mayor – said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution. 'Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it – but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money,' he said. 'I'd rather they just do it.' 'Enough of those mandates for councils,' interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere. 'We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing,' Bishop responded. Clashes over cancellations While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance. McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence. 'Depends exactly what you're talking about,' Bishop said. 'I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact.' 'So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?' McAnulty responded. Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship. 'Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. 'Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable. 'It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'.' Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped. Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest – which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted? 'You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening,' Bishop concluded – or seemed to. 'The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land.' 'Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords,' Genter fired back. Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers – a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December. The minister did not have the latest numbers, 'because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates', but the agency was making 'good progress' and would report back on that publicly. He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250 million allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract – whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities – with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop. Utikere: 'And the minister doesn't even know … that's very disappointing.' Bishop: 'Yes. So's your behaviour.' Utikere: 'No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive – that is our responsibility. 'It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget.' Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs. The discussion soon wound down too – after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would – in turn – have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector, McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth. In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it.
The National
an hour ago
- Politics
- The National
SNP MSP Fergus Ewing to stand as independent in Holyrood election
In a statement, the 67-year-old said it 'wasn't an easy decision' for him to come to the decision to stand as an independent, ending more than 50 years of association with the SNP. Ewing said he feared he's seen Scottish Parliament 'at its worst' in recent years and expressed concern about the SNP's direction, going on to accusing the party of 'deserting many of the people whose causes we used to champion.' READ MORE: Kate Forbes pledges to 'leave no stone unturned' to help save Alexander Dennis jobs The former rural affairs secretary also branded the power-sharing deal with the Greens a 'strategic blunder'. In 2023, he voted against Green minister Lorna Slater in a no-confidence motion, defying party whips and leading to his temporary suspension from the SNP group at Holyrood. Ewing's statement read: 'I have seen the Scottish Parliament at its best and its worst. I fear in recent years it has been at its worst. 'This has not been an easy decision. I have taken it because I love the people of Inverness and Nairn and the people of Scotland more than my party which I have been in for more than half a century. 'I believe the SNP has lost its way and that devolution itself – presently – is letting Scotland's people down. It doesn't need to be this way.' (Image: Jane Barlow) Ewing has previously disagreed with his fellow party members on several policy issues, including gender recognition reforms and support for the oil and gas industry. He described Holyrood as 'more fractious and tribal than ever before' and said 'too much power rests unchecked in the hands of party leaders'. Ewing added: 'Ordinary people accept that they must work together in their own workplace – with everyone – whether they choose them as friends and allies or not,' his statement continued 'It's time for politicians to do what the people customarily do – to work together for the interests of the nation. 'In short: It's time for Holyrood to grow up.' SNP Leader John Swinney said he 'regrets' Ewing's decision to leave the party, adding that he commended him on all that he had achieved while serving in the Scottish Government. (Image: PA) He said: 'It was with real sadness and deep regret that I heard of Fergus Ewing's decision to leave the Scottish National Party. 'We have both served the SNP and the cause of independence for many years, and I commend him for all that he achieved while serving in the SNP Government until 2021. 'Fergus had the option of standing at the forthcoming election for the SNP, given his status as an approved candidate. He chose not to accept that opportunity and I regret that he has ultimately decided instead to leave the party. 'The SNP approaches the 2026 election ahead in the polls, with growing support for independence, and I am looking forward to taking our positive, ambitious vision for Scotland's future to the people.'
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Business
- Scoop
Government, Opposition Scrap Over Common Infrastructure Ground
A reference to $250,000 was corrected to $250 million in this story. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week. He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature - and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what. Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to "start on a positive note" on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector. "I agree," Bishop said. "That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in government." The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the government required to respond within six months. Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more. "At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough," he said, garnering an emphatic "yeah" from Green MP Julie Anne Genter. Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy. "You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place," he said. McAnulty agreed with an agreement to disagree. "We think some of the things you've done are stupid... what I would like to see is a commitment," he said. "There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response." More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on. Bishop: "I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point ... we may not always agree. "For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions. McAnulty: "We know where we're at with that." Bishop: "You sure?" McAnulty: "Yes, I am actually... this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves. "This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other." Bishop: "Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid." McAnulty: "Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves." Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and "sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate". McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that. The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils. The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment. "The point is to have... almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline," Bishop said. Committee chair Andy Foster - a former Wellington mayor - said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution. "Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it - but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money," he said. "I'd rather they just do it." "Enough of those mandates for councils," interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere. "We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing," Bishop responded. Clashes over cancellations While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance. McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence. "Depends exactly what you're talking about," Bishop said. "I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact." "So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?" McAnulty responded. Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship. "Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. "Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable. "It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'." Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped. Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest - which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted? "You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening," Bishop concluded - or seemed to. "The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land." "Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords," Genter fired back. Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers - a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December. The minister did not have the latest numbers, "because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates", but the agency was making "good progress" and would report back on that publicly. He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250 million allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract - whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities - with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop. Utikere: "And the minister doesn't even know ... that's very disappointing." Bishop: "Yes. So's your behaviour." Utikere:"No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive - that is our responsibility. "It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget." Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs. The discussion soon wound down too - after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would - in turn - have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector, McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth. In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Fergus Ewing quits SNP to run as independent in 2026
The veteran MSP and former minister said his decision was 'not an easy one' but was driven by disillusionment with the direction of his party and the state of the Scottish Parliament. READ MORE Mr Ewing said his old party had "deserted many of the people whose causes we used to champion". 'I have taken [the decision to stand as an independent] because I love the people of Inverness and Nairn and the people of Scotland more than my party, which I have been in for more than half a century,' he said. 'I believe the SNP has lost its way and that devolution itself – presently – is letting Scotland's people down.' Mr Ewing, first elected in 1999, served for 14 years in ministerial roles under Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. In recent years, however, he has become one of the SNP's most vocal critics, repeatedly challenging the party on key policies, including its stance on North Sea oil and gas, delays to dualling the A9 and A96, the proposed deposit return scheme, gender recognition reform, and plans for Highly Protected Marine Areas. He was suspended from the SNP Holyrood group in 2023 after voting against then Green minister Lorna Slater in a motion of no confidence, defying party whips. In March this year, he announced he would not seek selection as an SNP candidate, warning the party was 'no longer the party for all of Scotland'. In a statement confirming his bid to run as an independent, Mr Ewing criticised what he described as the increasingly 'fractious and tribal' nature of the Scottish Parliament and the centralisation of power within party structures. 'Too much power rests unchecked in the hands of party leaders, free to choose candidates who will slavishly support them, rather than stand up for the people who sent them to Holyrood,' he said. 'Choosing the pliant over the talented.' He added: 'It's time for Holyrood to live up to the high expectations people rightly held for it, when my mother, Winnie, reconvened our own Parliament in 1999. It came of age some years ago – surely now it's time for it to grow up.' Mr Ewing urged politicians in the main parties to work together "whether in a grand coalition or a less formal arrangement" to reform public services and maximise economic growth. In recent months, he has argued that party leaders have prioritised loyalty over competence in candidate selection. 'The party machine has become too all-powerful,' he said in an interview last month. 'Candidates who may be suitable from the party point of view – in other words, obedient and pliant – but perhaps not what the people want.' Earlier this year, Mr Ewing faced speculation that he could be barred from standing for the SNP again, with reports suggesting the party's internal vetting process had flagged concerns over his repeated public criticism of government policy. Although he ultimately passed vetting, the episode fuelled tensions within the party. Former cabinet secretary Alex Neil said any move to deselect Mr Ewing would have triggered 'a massive revolt from both the public and within the party', describing him as 'one of the most effective MSPs in Scotland'. Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, a close ally of Mr Ewing, also intervened in the row, urging the SNP to consider his 'long-standing contribution' to the party and its values.
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
Readers' letters: Asking AI about state of Scotland isn't the best idea
Green MSP Lorna Slater raised eyebrows with her Parliamentary AI experiment Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox 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... Opposing a motion to the Scottish Parliament 'Demanding a Better Deal for Taxpayers in Scotland', Green MSP Lorna Slater presented the case that, once the benefits of various policies such as 'free' prescriptions, bus travel, tuition fees and social care was taken into account and despite higher income tax rates, people in Scotland are generally better off than people in England. To prove her point, she had put her thesis into an AI chatbot which confirmed her view. If the output from AI was capable of unequivocally defining what is true, it would strengthen her argument; however, it does not have that capability. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Troubled by two recent incidences where ChatGPT had not just given me wrong information but made up 'facts' (a phenomenon known as 'hallucination'), I challenged ChatGPT as to why it does that. Its response was enlightening and included the following: 'It was trained to sound helpful – not to know the truth. So, when you ask a question, it tries to give you the kind of answer it thinks you want – even if it has to guess.' Scottish Greens co-leader Lorna Slater has been experimenting with artificial intelligence (Picture: Jeff) I find it amusing that Lorna Slater, a politician, relied upon AI to justify her position. After all, the text quoted above would also be a reasonable description of most politicians. George Rennie, Inverness No rights This week legislation was changed in the House of Commons to stop women being prosecuted for having a late-term abortion. It was passed by a majority of 242 MPs, who were heard cheering as the result was announced. At the moment abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, which in itself is utterly ludicrous. I have personally known babies that have been born at 24 weeks and have grown to lead healthy adult lives. The NHS is wonderful when it comes to looking after premature babies, moving heaven and earth to save their precious lives. Now, the law is to decriminalise abortion up to the day before birth at nine months! This is barbaric, it is inhuman and violates the human rights of the unborn healthy child. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The majority of supporting MPs were Labour and have said the point of the law change is to remove the threat of investigation on the mother of the child. What about the rights of the viable child that has in effect being killed against its will? What about the many parents who have suffered multiple miscarriages and those who can't have biological children, how does this barbaric decision affect their mental health? I agree with abortion in the very early stages – under 20 weeks – of pregnancy, if the health of the mother is at critical risk or the child was to be born with profound, life-limiting disabilities or in the case of a pregnancy resulting from rape. That choice must always be permitted and is the decision of the mother. However, this legislation change is wrong on every level, it is depraved and disgusting, these supporting MPs should really be questioning their moral judgment and ultimately be removed from Parliament as they are not supporting their constituents in the manner they should be. Conrad Ritchie, Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire Grab talent Edinburgh University Principal Professor Sir Peter Mathieson noted that unfortunately the University was to go into the red next year after years of profit. His answer was to stop recruitment. Then President Donald Trump declared war on US universities. A number of leading staff are seriously disaffected. In other countries a race to recruit some of these people has begun. What should particularly interest us is those in the Sciences. They present a unique opportunity to recruit. But I am told Edinburgh's ban still applies. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As a graduate I have always been proud to be an alumnus of one of the great institutions in the world. This is as a result of high-class recruitment. How can we abandon this opportunity? In capital terms Edinburgh is the third most wealthy university in the UK. In revenue terms, scientific research is supported by special Government grants. In a similar way I have been a benefactor and others like me must wonder if, after the David Hume fiasco, there is any point in responding to appeals? How is Mathieson enhancing the reputation of his charge? Does the University Court have a voice in this matter? Hugh Mackay, Edinburgh Cap the greed Alex Williamson of Scottish Rugby insists that Murrayfield stadium needs to put on ever more concerts and matches. He's unhappy with the cap of 12 concerts a year, but for the local residents, this is more than enough. An influx of over 50,000 people is horrendous each time, with parking and traffic flow restrictions causing mayhem. Mr Williamson suggests he has the local residents on board but that's not the case. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We need a smaller cap, not a bigger one. SRU greed needs to be capped! Brian Bannatyne-Scott, Edinburgh Wheels off the bus Allan Sutherland attacks both Labour and the SNP for their perceived joint failure to stop the Alexander Dennis bus group from relocating outwith Scotland (Letters, 19 June). In doing so he assumes it is within the Scottish Government's remit to place orders for buses using public funds. Under Scottish Public Finance Manual rules the SG can only provide finance. It cannot become involved in the actual procurement process. This is to avoid any hint of favouring one company over another for political reasons. In this instance it merely put money towards a Net Zero Emissions fund with further contributions from the bus companies which were doing the ordering for their fleets. Conversely Manchester City Council, as a procuring authority, was free to choose where to place their orders. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad You could argue that the Scottish Government could have made a stipulation to buy Scottish a condition of their involvement. But that would have put them in breach of both the UK Internal Market and the World Trade Organisation rules which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of nationality when awarding a publicly funded contract. In any case, most bus companies in Scotland are privately owned. As such they have a legal duty to their shareholders to procure in a way that benefits them rather than politicians. Lothian Buses is one exception as they are publicly owned. However, when they buy buses they are governed by local authority 'best value' rules which means they are obliged to buy from the company which represents best value for the local taxpayer. These rules were introduced in 2003 when there was a Scottish Labour First Minister. Robert Menzies, Falkirk Ask the people Margaret Neighbour's article 'Dozens killed waiting for food trucks in Gaza' (18 June), accompanied by the appalling photograph of crowds of people waiting for food, graphically illustrates the horrific choice Palestinians face – to risk being shot or die of starvation. According to David J Crawford in his letter "What democracy?' (same day), Keir Starmer is refusing to rule out additional jet fighters being sent out to the Middle East 'to protect Israel from Iranian attacks'. Mr Crawford makes an important point. Why is the Prime Minister not using the existing democratic processes to consult Members of Parliament – our elected representatives – about where we should stand in relation to Israel's actions, both morally and ethically? The violence perpetrated against the people of Israel on 7 October 2023 was unforgiveable. The violence experienced by Jewish people everywhere during the Holocaust was unforgiveable. But subjecting innocent men, women and children in neighbouring countries to the suffering that Israel is currently perpetrating is also unforgiveable. Should the people of Britain not at least have a right, through their elected representatives, to have the subject fully debated in Parliament? Melanie Lewin, Edinburgh Blame SNP Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If a person finds that his favoured political party, in government, is being rightly criticised for failures in delivery, what is he to do? If he is Stan Grodynski (Letters, 19 June), he complains that the criticism should be levelled at someone else, always the UK Government, even for failures for which his party the SNP, is wholly responsible. As for UK debt, most of us will remember the banking crisis and the Covid crisis, which caused massive shocks to our finances and caused us to borrow significantly. If Mr Grodynski peeped outside his anti-UK bubble, he would see that several other developed countries have debt that is greater than the UK's: the US, Japan, Singapore, France, Italy, for example. As for perpetuating the hoary old myth that Scotland performs better than the rest of the UK in its NHS and education – he trots out the usual 'school leavers in positive destinations' mantra, not school leavers with a firm grasp of literacy and numeracy – that is nonsense. And these are areas for which the Scottish administration is entirely responsible. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh Legally blind Considering how much income the Scottish Government has generated for the legal profession in Scotland over the years it is high time it reciprocated by ditching its bloody-minded attitude to the profession. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If any MSPs needed Legal Aid I bet things would happen a bit more speedily! Just because some lawyers make a very successful living doesn't mean they all do! David Elder, Haddington, East Lothian Write to The Scotsman
