Labour’s Cuts to Disability Support: A Betrayal of the Vulnerable

Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has today announced that it will cut £5 billion from the social security budget. This could see a significant reduction to Personal Independence Payments (PIP).

PIP helps with extra costs related to long term illness or disability, including care and mobility. Labour’s changes to the eligibility requirements will leave countless vulnerable people without essential assistance. At present, over 40% of claims for PIP by people with serious conditions such as MS and arthritis are turned down. Starmer’s reforms would potentially deny even more people the help they need.

The Labour party in the past has been referred to as 'Red Tory' and ". . . more Tory than the Tory Party" by several of their critics. Today, Keir Starmer confirmed the Labour party’s total abandonment of its ‘advertised’ traditional role as a party of the weak, the poor and the most vulnerable in our society.

Although the aim of these reforms is to get those who can work to find employment, many of whom are actually in work I hasten to add, this new Labour Party is getting an enormous backlash from disability groups and the more progressive parties. Those who criticise the changes being suggested say that it will doubtless push vulnerable people further into poverty and worsen their serious health conditions.

Keir Starmer’s plans to reduce welfare support will hit Scotland hard, since cuts to the UK budget will automatically mean cuts to Scotland’s block grant. This makes it more difficult for the Scottish government to assist those who cannot help themselves, whether it is the pensioners whom Starmer has left out in the cold, the WASPI Women whom he has stealthily stung, or the babies of the ‘rape clause’ he has wilfully neglected.

The Labour Party are deepening the struggles of many affected by the rising cost of living. People in Scotland are now anxious about their future, fearing both the loss of vital support wrapped up in broken promises from Labour. Is this the change Scotland was told it needed by the Labour Party less than a year ago? I don't think so!

The BBCs Favourite Soap Opera Returns.

Oh no! Here we go again. Ferguson Marine makes a return to the 24 hour rolling news cycle.

Surely, the BBC can’t have it both ways: it has spent years criticising Ferguson Marine with their “ferry fiasco” drama. Yet today, when the shipyard misses out on the new CalMac ferry contract, the BBC seems, uncharacteristically, sympathetic.

For years, the BBC has focused on the production problems at Ferguson Marine, highlighting delays, cost overruns, and false accusations of fraud by the Scottish government, all while burying key facts on a website page. These facts included the difficult design of a future proof modern vessel, an increased capacity without an increase to hull size, a shipbuilder dealing with constant changes from its client, and the financial instability of a privately owned shipyard while constructing the UK’s first ever dual-fuel ferry.

The BBC also minimized the Scottish government's critical role in saving the shipyard from closure. Without the government’s intervention in 2019, Ferguson Marine would have shut, ending forever the opportunity for the lower Clyde to compete for contracts like the small vessel replacement programme.

Our local Labour MPs, too, have used the struggles of Ferguson Marine to score political points. While they shout ‘J'Accuse...!’ at the SNP for “neglecting Scottish industries,” they conveniently avoid offering constructive solutions. Labour MPs attack the SNP for not awarding the contract directly to the shipyard, ignoring the complexities of its own U.K. government’s procurement rules.

The Scottish government’s hands were tied by these procurement rules when it came to awarding the contract. Public procurement in the UK requires a competitive tendering process, which the SNP had to follow to ensure compliance with both UK and EU regulations. While it’s understandable that some argue that the contract should have been directly awarded to Ferguson Marine, such a move would have risked breaching subsidy control laws eventually leading to legal challenges. Oh how the Labour Party and BBC news would have loved that outcome.

While the BBC and Scottish Labour criticise, they fail to acknowledge that without the Scottish government’s efforts, Ferguson Marine wouldn't even have had the chance at securing these important contracts. The SNP's actions have given the shipyard a fighting chance at recovery and that should always be celebrated, not undermined opportunistically.

Better luck next time Ferguson Marine. Scotland has your back, even though you would hardly get that impression from either the British news or those in the British government.

'Keep Scotland the Brand' Friday, March 28th, Beacon Arts Centre, Greenock.

In the third of their 2025 ‘Talks For a Better Nation,’ the Yes Inverclyde group is preparing to welcome Ruth Watson of the Keep Scotland the Brand campaign.

When it comes to defending our economic and cultural interests, Scotland must have a good national brand identity as well as having a good national identity. The “Keep Scotland The Brand” campaign aims to keep Scotland known for its quality products like Scotch Whisky, Scottish beef and Arbroath smokies. This campaign has the combined goal of boosting exports and furthering the development of tourism and rural economies.

Since Brexit took its dreadful hold nationally, Scottish farmers and food producers have been concerned about the loss of their individual identity. The loss of specifically Scottish labels to be replaced with “British” has the result of diluting the idea of Scottish quality, not only in Scotland but also throughout the world. There is a strong correlation between identity branding and confidence, resulting in safeguarding reputation, sales, and market share across the entire globe.

The 'Keep Scotland the Brand' campaign aims to encourage individuals and companies to support locally made products so that Scotland can be easily identified internationally. The initiative accentuates the need to protect national branding as a way to nurture rural economies and protect the Scottish product identity. In this light, national branding is not purely marketing, but rather, it refers to preserving Scottish culture, Scottish heritage, rejuvenating Scottish economies and forging strong ties across the world.

You are cordially invited to join Ruth on Friday 28thy March at 19.30 at the Beacon Arts Centre, Greenock.

http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/o/talks-for-a-better-nation-15193596867

Why Ian Murray as UK Secretary of State for Scotland is bad for Scotland.

At last month’s Scottish Labour Party conference, The Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray, stated that Scotland "cannot afford" to keep the SNP in charge. His speech was full of empty statements that left most non-partisan listeners feeling hopeless and frustrated.

Murray’s speech focused on criticising the SNP, claiming they are out of touch with what Scotland needs. However, Murray’s rhetoric completely overlooked the progress that Scotland has made over the past few years in areas such as education, healthcare, and in maintaining its unique political identity. By calling the administration at Holyrood a "failing government" and failing to acknowledge any of its positive changes, Murray diminishes any and every public recognition of Scotland’s achievements. This will have the concomitant effect of lowering national pride and obscuring progress as a country. Perhaps that’s exactly what Murray wants. 'The Scottish Cringe' runs deep in this one.

At the last General Election, Scottish Labour promised to be ‘the change Scotland needs.’ However, they have failed to deliver any meaningful change. Instead of improving the lives of Scots, most of us are now feeling worse off, worried about the future, nervous of continuing and extending Conservative cuts to social security and completely let down by Labour's empty promises and political sloganeering. Is Murray’s goal to fuel frustration, install disappointment, and create apathy among the Scottish electorate to decrease participation in our democracy?

Rather than addressing Scotland's real needs, Murray’s speech completely ignored key issues such as Scotland’s autonomy, its economic growth and its industrial future. A more competent and concientious Secretary of State would have focused on these tangible problems, rather than turning everything into a political circus act leading only to further division.

In short, Ian Murray as UK Secretary of State for Scotland is detrimental for a modern Scotland. Promoting negativity, dividing voters, and distracting from important discussions about the country’s future is counterproductive to the wellbeing of our society. And, Scottish Labour’s failure to act on any of their pre-election promises only adds to the Scottish public’s sense of being let down. Murray's Labour Party evangelism left many feeling that Scotland’s needs are still not being properly addressed at a UK government level.

Insidious Asset Stripping?

With the prospect of Scottish independence ever-present in public discourse, it’s easy to accept that the UK government will avoid investing meaningfully in Scotland’s people and infrastructure. In fact, that government will actively oppose and conceal anything that could pave the way for an independent Scotland. This has been a harsh reality for our forebears, ourselves, and if we allow it, for future generations. The McCrone Report, anyone? If you know . . . you know.

Honestly, why would any government treasury enthusiastically invest in, build in, or otherwise future-proof an area of its territory it might eventually lose? The closure of Grangemouth refinery should serve as a stark reminder of this political dynamic. And, to be brutally honest, the more Scots of every political persuasion who come to accept this, the easier it will be for Scotland to separate and move forward and thrive as a normal country.

Despite Grangemouth’s profitability, the UK government has chosen to invest £600 million in a Belgian refinery, allowing Scotland to lose its only oil refining capacity. As a major energy-producing nation, Scotland should be refining its own resources, rather than exporting them only to buy back finished products at higher costs. The only takeaway from the UK government’s failure to wholeheartedly support Grangemouth is that it reveals an egregious lack of commitment to Scotland’s future, whether independent or otherwise.

This decision presents us with a clear and present danger. Not only does the decision threaten thousands of jobs, but it will also undermine Scotland's future energy security. Recently, Scottish television news outlets interviewed several workers being laid off from Grangemouth, some even as young as 26. The general consensus was that relocating to England or the Middle East would be the only option to continue their careers in the industry. Consequently, the loss of such skilled refinery personnel can only accelerate a skills shortage in Scotland’s Central Belt, hindering its ability to develop all those much talked-of carbon-free industries of the future.

Haven’t we been here before? Has anyone ever compared the growing popularity of Scottish Independence to the significant decline of industrial activity in Scotland? Is it coincidental that Scotland’s staple industries of coal, steel, shipbuilding, heavy engineering and textiles began shedding tens of thousands of jobs just as Winnie Ewing’s sensational SNP victory at the Hamilton by-election of 1967 marked a major breakthrough for the independence cause?

Returning to the present vandalism being carried out in Grangemouth and with England and Wales having multiple refineries, Scotland will soon be left out in the cold. The country will be vulnerable, reliant on imports, and unable to maximise its own energy potential. Therefore, is it not fair to argue that Scotland’s economic and energy future would be far better served by taking control, rather than remaining in a political union that consistantly undermines national aspirations and ambition?

Eventually, the penny will drop. I have no doubt about that. But when it does, will the reverberation coming from that little coin hitting the ground sound like the echo of a hollowed-out country?

A Positively Similar Street

The word choice of brilliant lyricists can often evoke many different emotions in many different listeners at many different times of life. With the new biopic of Bob Dylan’s early career now doing the rounds in movie theatres, I thought, and in keeping with the theme of this particular series of articles, I would have a bit of fun with one of my favourite Dylan compositions. For those of you who actually read through my ramblings, the following may in some way make you see Positively 4th Street - Bob Dylan, 1965, in a whole different light.

"Positively 4th Street" by Bob Dylan depicts an artificial friendship which reveals the disingenuousness of a person who acts like an ally but is actually self-serving. The song evokes the emotions of being betrayed, being disappointed, and starting to get upset at the unfair treatment given to you. If we look at how England and Scotland have ‘gotten along’ over the last 50 years, we can see clear similarities in how Scottish people often feel the UK government has treated them.

“You've got a lotta nerve to say you are my friend / When I was down you just stood there grinnin’”

Although Scotland has occasionally found itself in challenging economic and political situations, at times England has seemed indifferent or even aloof. For instance, Scotland's economic difficulties were often addressed in a way that seemed to help the United Kingdom generally more than specifically helping Scotland—the oil boom and the collapse of heavy business among them. The almost aloof grin from Westminster during Scottish adversity could reflect Dylan's biting criticism.

“You’ve got a lotta nerve to say you’ve got a helping hand to lend / You just want to be on the side that's winnin’”

This lyric could reflect the way England has usually handled Scotland with regard to political commitments or support. There have been cases where the UK government has given purported 'help,' yet with the subtext of preserving power, authority, or even profit. Can anyone deny that those ‘broad shoulders’ and promises of more devolution made during the 2014 referendum, for example, were more about placating Scottish national confidence than actually wanting to solve any of Scottish particular problems.

“You say I let you down, ya know it's not like that / If you're so hurt, why then don’t you show it?”

Some in England reacted after the 2014 independence vote, in which Scotland voted to stay part of the UK, by insisting Scotland had almost let down their ‘precious union.’ The real problem, however, is not Scotland “letting the Union down" but rather Scotland has been underrepresented and pushed aside in its political interactions with the rest of the UK for years. Scotland is always accused of participating in ‘grievance politics’ when it expresses dissatisfaction or demands more autonomy.

“You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where it’s at / You have no faith to lose, and ya know it”

This line can be seen as Scotland's way of expressing disappointment with the UK government's pledges. Scotland has over the last five decades frequently had their issues neglected or rejected -- not least over the last decade. During the 2016 Brexit debacle, Scotland voted to stay in the EU but was forcibly pulled out of the European Union by an unbalanced political system.

“I know the reason, that you talked behind my back / I used to be among the crowd you're in with”

The relationship between England and Scotland has many times been fractious, with Westminster deciding for Scotland without real consultation or regard. This line from Dylan’s composition might reflect how Scotland seems to be excluded from many important choices, particularly when the UK government is implementing legislation that Scotland does not support.

“Do you take me for such a fool, to think I’d make contact / With the one who tries to hide what he don't know to begin with?”

This line could represent Scotland's increasing cynicism toward London based politicians who keep dictating policies that impact Scotland yet don't really have the wherewithal to grasp Scottish issues. It reflects the anger of many Scots who believe Westminster purposefully ignores or dismisses their concerns. Scotland is not naïve in this setup — it is well aware of when it is being manipulated or treated with contempt.

“You see me on the street, you always act surprised / You say ‘how are you?’, ‘good luck’, but ya don’t mean it”

This lyric embodies the performative character of political unity in the United Kingdom. Though actions frequently indicate otherwise, representatives from England typically behave as if Scotland is an equal member of the union. They act as if they know nothing about or are taken aback by Scotland's discontent, giving shallow compliments as they fall short in dealing with the core problems of autonomy, economic fairness, and actual political representation.

“When you know as well as me, you'd rather see me paralysed / Why don't you just come out once and scream it”

Through policies enacted in London, Scotland’s staple industries of coal, steel, shipbuilding, heavy engineering and textiles have all but gone. In what has become known as the Scottish diaspora, tens of thousands Scots have left the country as economic migrants. Grangemouth being closed, leaving oil-rich Scotland with no refinery and reliant on England, is only the latest attempt at paralysis. This particular lyric needs no further analysis by me; it speaks volumes.

“No, I do not feel that good when I see the heartbreaks you embrace / If I was a master thief perhaps I'd rob them”

This line could represent the great psychological and social pressure the political union imposes on Scotland. Many Scots have a feeling of betrayal since the decisions of the UK government frequently seem to favour the south of England over Scotland. The desire to metaphorically rob them might reveal a wish for the fairness and justice Scotland has been denied, maybe wanting to "take back" the control Scotland feels has been taken by Westminster's endeavours.

“And tho I know you're dissatisfied with your position and your place / Don't you understand, it's not my problem?”

This line supports the idea that Scotland occasionally views the challenges confronted by the United Kingdom as its own problems too. Still, as shown in the Brexit referendum, Scotland's worries are always downplayed when England is dealing with economic policy or the broader geopolitics. Scotland is asked to carry the weight of a British identity it did not choose. 'It' shouldn't be Scotland's problem!

“I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes / And just for that one moment I could be you / You’d know what a drag it is to see you”

Poignantly, these lines show the exasperation of wishing the other side of a relationship to be understood. Scotland wants the UK government to grasp the truth of everyday life in Scotland, which is often formed by policies from Westminster insensitive to Scottish demands. Maybe English officials would grasp the agony of the connection if they could feel Scotland's hardships, its yearning for self government, and the disrespect for its own will.