TO all those politicians who say they didn’t go into politics to impose austerity, make people poorer, etc, I say – then you’ve failed spectacularly and should resign with immediate effect!

The fact is, whatever their intentions, it’s their actions when in government that people have been at the sharp end of – and the sharpest edges by far have been reserved for the poorest people of working age and their children.

Shame on all those politicians who chose to vote through or have otherwise supported every heinous cut and who now have the brass neck to try to defend such choices with pathetic mealy-mouthed excuses.

READ MORE: Tories defend austerity at Scottish leaders' debate

Let’s remember that there have been 131,000 avoidable deaths caused by austerity, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, not to mention the appalling austerity-related rise in child poverty. Researchers from the universities of Liverpool, Leeds and Newcastle recently found that there has been an unprecedented rise in infant mortality in England linked to poverty: compared to what would have been expected based on historical trends, 570 excess infant deaths were recorded in the country between 2014-201. Around half of those deaths, which related to children under the age of one, were linked to rising poverty.

The researchers also found that inequalities in infant mortality increased, with the gap between the most and least deprived local authority areas widening by 52 deaths per 100,000 births. Their report noted the “sustained reductions in social security benefits in the last decade” and its lead author, Professor David Taylor-Robinson of the University of Liverpool, stated that child poverty has “a myriad of adverse impacts on other aspects of child health that will have repercussions for decades to come”, calling on the government to establish “a welfare system that protects children from poverty.”

Austerity was an ideological choice. There are many people who have not been directly impacted by austerity who could have paid more tax – but raising income tax would have been a “difficult decision” too far for the Tories.

Mo Maclean
Glasgow

KUDOS to Derrick McClure for his letter (December 10) because I knew a discerning reader would be sure to pull me up for the statement “India was one nation for millennia”. However, this generalisation was made to illustrate my argument against the two-nation theory, and my letter was also edited/shortened, removing an explanatory caveat to this statement.

It is true that India could not be considered to have been one nation in the modern sense, but there has been a philosophical understanding of India as a unitary entity at least since being united under the Emperor Ashoka (~250 BCE), who erected a series of pillars around the sub-continent to de-mark Indian territory. Interestingly, the slaughter at Ashoka’s last battle was so horrific that he became a Buddhist and henceforth foreswore the use of violence.

READ MORE: Letters, December 10

Derrick is correct to say that the British were something of a unifying force in India, which had broken up into disparate states and territories, but note the use of the word “force”. The unjustifiable use of force by the British is a pattern repeated throughout history, irrespective of whether it was used against military combatants or innocent, unarmed civilians. We only need to think of Bloody Sunday or the Amritsar massacre to understand the ruthlessness and inhumanity of the British. And that brings me back to my fundamental point, that British ideology has no redeeming features and is the cause of continued suffering throughout the world, not least unto ourselves as Scots. There is an Indian saying which I always like to keep in mind: “It is not might which is right, but right which is might”.

And one final footnote to Derrick’s letter if I may. English is no longer an official language of India. It was removed as an official language by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) some years ago, which caused considerable consternation in the Lok Sabha at the time, because a lot of MPs were used to communicating in English and their Hindi wasn’t up to scratch!

Solomon Steinbett
Maryhill, Glasgow

I ENJOYED two very interesting letters in The National recently regarding the Jock in British culture. While the letters explained personal experience of having been referred to as “Jocks”, no attempt has been made to ascertain its origin and original usage.

The term owes its popular usage to the British Army. Most if not all Scottish army divisions were headed by English officers or Scots who had been educated at Sandhurst or perhaps previously at Oxford or Cambridge and other such establishments down south. During training, or indeed in action, if the platoon or division were faced with unusually flat terrain, or signs of disturbed earth, the commanding officer called up the Jock. The duty of the Jock was quite simply to walk across the field. If he came back, the patrol continued. If he didn’t the chances were it was a minefield. And yes, the Jock was Scottish!

So to me the term Jock implies that we Scots are dispensable and subordinate to our historical masters.

W J Graham
East Kilbride