Ctrl-C. Ctrl-V. These two commands can save loads of time, but there’s one place you should be cautious using them: your proposal.
Space in a research council proposal is at a premium, and every section should be used as a way to demonstrate why your research should be funded. Repeating the same thing multiple times wastes this opportunity.
In particular, cutting and pasting typically cause problems for applicants in two areas.
The first is the summary. This part is often written last minute or seen as unimportant; why not just bung in something already written in a technical section of a proposal? However, summaries are typically the first part of a proposal to be read. This means they’re your opportunity to make a good first impression. You can do this by ensuring they’re compelling, clear, and understandable by a lay audience (non-experts).
The second issue often occurs in project partner letters of support. It is not uncommon for PIs to submit letters that they have clearly written themselves: each document is identical except for the name of the partner and what they offer to the project. This does not impress reviewers or panel members. After all, project partners are supposed to be genuine partners in research. Even if you have to write the letters yourself, try to make them sound different!
A word of warning: some funders may require sections to be repeated throughout the application and, in these cases, cutting and pasting is not a problem. However, it should be clear in the guidance documents when this repetition is necessary (in other words, don’t forget about Funding Myth #3! Reading guidance documents is NOT optional, but another way you can ensure your proposal is competitive).