How sickening: Sarwar is lording it while Starmer says bye

Share Find, save and share Public Notices that affect you. The Public Notice Portal carries statutory public notices published in local newspapers and is the fastest and most effective way of finding out what is happening in YOUR neighbourhood. The sight of Labour's former Scottish leader Anas Sarwar taking his seat in the unelected House of Lords made me sad, sickened and angry ('Brown's pointed verdict on honours weeks after Anas Sarwar peerage', The Herald, September 4). He'd previously called for the second chamber of the UK parliament to be abolished. Meanwhile, his former boss Sir Keir Starmer announced he was standing down as an MP just days ago, despite pledging after resigning as Prime Minister to continue to represent his constituency in central London until the next election, which could be three years away. Should we have been surprised at these decisions? Not a bit. Both of these men proved during their time in office they were masters of the U-turn. Cynics might say money may have been the turning point this time round. Mr Sarwar will be paid as a minister in Andy Burnham's new government, in addition to very reasonable expenses for attending the House of Lords. Quite a lot more, I suspect, than his income as Labour leader in Scotland. Sir Keir is choosing 'international affairs' over an MP's healthy salary, having possibly taken note of another ex-Labour PM Tony Blair's reportedly seven-figure fees for speaking engagements. This pair are also knighted of course. So full honours to another former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, for rejecting titles and saying public office should never become a 'platform for private gain'. Andy Stenton, Glasgow. More letters... Scotland has a problem with Glasgow. Time to set the city free Sick leave policy is draining NHS Come on, SNP: Arran desperately needs you to get your act together UK economy stats aren't clear With inflation still running above the Bank of England's 2% target, real growth remains elusive for Chancellor John Healey. Assumptions about long-term productivity remain central to the on-going debate about the UK's lack of growth and our falling living standards. The most recent statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate weak productivity weakened further, post-Covid, to around 0.4% per annum. The Resolution Foundation, however, recently produced new estimates showing not a fall but a rise in productivity, to 1.1% per annum. This was attributed not to the AI boom, or labour shake out in hospitality and retail, but broad-based improvement across the private sector. Encouraging, given the prevailing gloom. This new estimate is seen as more reliable as the calculation uses HMRC payroll data for 30 million plus employees rather than data derived from a flawed Labour Force Survey (LFS). (Revisions of the LFS are now in hand at the ONS.) But does 0.4% vs 1.1% matter when the UK economy remains trapped within the spectrum of relatively low productivity growth? It does: relatively small changes can make a big difference in both the meaning and significance of these statistics. For example, 'Rule 70' is one tool of analysis used by the likes of the ONS, IMF (International Monetary Fund), OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), World Bank etc. to demonstrate this. This rule gives a proxy measure for the number of years it takes for a productivity constant to double the size of an economy. At 0.4% per annum it would take 175 years for the UK economy to double in size compared with 64 years at 1.1%. And, according to a 2026 forecast from the Fraser of Allander Institute, at its current estimate of 1% productivity growth per annum, it would take 70 years for the Scottish economy to double in size. (By comparison, excluding the distorting effects of foreign direct investment, at the current 1.5% rate of productivity growth it would take 32 years for Ireland's domestic sector to double the size of the economy.) The key question arising from all of this is which productivity assumption will the OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) use in its pre-budget forecast for the Chancellor? With the cost of government borrowing soaring, his headroom for manoeuvre and related tax plans will greatly depend on it. Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns. Why doesn't Reform want independence? Reform UK is essentially a right-wing English nationalist party, yet it doesn't campaign for an independent England. Perhaps, not surprisingly, the question never asked by the BBC and much of the mainstream media is… why? Surely if the national fervour that drove the majority in England to vote for Brexit has any economic rationale, then Reform UK should now be clamouring to shed the shackles of Scotland's supposed 'dependency' restraining the exceptional growth which could be achievable if the constitutional status of the UK were to be fundamentally reformed? Or is the truth that England actually depends on Scotland's resources, but none of the UK political parties wish to openly admit this fact, as was evidenced by the withholding of the McCrone Report? Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian. SNP's private 'discussion' How ironic. The SNP is to carry out a private discussion on its future governance. Or as Kevin McKenna brilliantly dubbed it: Project Tea Leaf ('Project Tea Leaf – the SNP's secret plan to prevent Branchform 2', The Herald, September 3). There was previously no need for any of this, according to John Swinney, as it was only 'Juan Guy' involved in criminality. So despite the 'thorough investigation' that exonerated the SNP, it's now having a private investigation. Sorry, a private discussion. I wonder if its procurement experts will be interrogated about the latest ferry fiasco? John Gilligan, Ayr. Jackdaw decision welcome The decision to proceed with gas production in the Jackdaw gas field is welcomed by all who understand our energy needs ('UK Government to approve Jackdaw gas field off Aberdeen within days', The Herald, September 5). It will produce serious volumes of gas for the coming winter when UK reserves are at their lowest levels. Hundreds of offshore workers will have good job prospects for years to come, and the income from the field development will help ameliorate the UK's debt problems. The Goofy Greens must accept this decision makes good sense. It allows more time for the move to renewable energy, which to date has produced few jobs. Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen. The Argentine President's rhetoric is increasingly belligerent. (Image: Anadolu via Getty Images) Can we protect Falklands? The president of Argentina, Javier Milei, is making renewed noises about laying claim to the Falklands. Perhaps he's been encouraged to sound off about this contentious issue by President Trump implying that Britain shouldn't expect American help in the event of Argentinian military action. It would seem that Mr Trump is a close friend of Argentina's President. Then again, with whom is he not a close friend? He's fond of letting us know who he admires and reveres. The Argentinian President's words may just be sabre rattling, as he fights for re-election. What's worrying for the UK is we may not be in a military position to fight and protect the Falklands from any Argentinian takeover. This would be a grave loss to the UK, there being plenty of fossil fuel waiting to be drilled in the area, plus rich mineral resources. Should the Falklands fall into the hands of Argentina, it would come as no surprise if we then ceded Gibraltar to Spain, thanks to our increasing inability to protect our overseas territories. All caused by fears that we can't meet the demands of any prolonged military campaign against better resourced combatants. Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.Share Get involved with the news