One year into Labour's massive Westminster tally of 63% of MPs on just 34% of the votes cast, we ask ourselves: "What benefit has Scotland gained by giving Keir Starmer 37 of those MPs?"
That Scottish contingent of Labour MPs was supposed to give us "a voice in government". However, we've just been told by Michael Shanks, the MP for Rutherglen, that the message from Ed Miliband is that "Scotland will not benefit from zonal pricing for electricity" as proposed by Octopus Energy. The reason is that Mr Miliband did not want to see London's consumers paying more than Scotland's consumers – despite our producing much more low-cost "green" electricity than we can possibly use ourselves, and the excess being cabled south to, ultimately, feed London and south-east England.
It's also the case that, by rejecting out of hand the Octopus Energy proposal of seven or eight "zones" for electricity, the Labour Government is ensuring that Scotland's economy will be more depressed than needs to be the case. Had zonal pricing gone ahead, there would have been a boost in economic activity for Scotland, with energy-hungry business operations looking to relocate, or to expand, their business in Scotland to benefit from the lower price of electricity. Our NHS and public services, hospitality sectors, and every other business would have benefited instantly.
Across Dumfries and Galloway we previously sent Tory MPs to London to do their bit for Scotland in government but, instead, we got Brexit. And that despite Scotland voting 62% Remain in the EU. And now we have Labour in Westminster failing to as much as rejoin the European Economic Area with a single market) with the resultant loss of freedom of movement for people both ways; nor the customs union to facilitate the movement of trade and services.
The question must surely now be: "What is the benefit to Scotland of being a part of this UK that is so much against what the people of Scotland want and need?"
Ian Waugh, Dumfries & Galloway Indy Hub, Dumfries.
SNP's wise policy on offshore wind
Jill Stephenson (Letters, July 13) claims that the Scottish Government does not own any energy sources for wind generation and that these are actually the property of private companies. Is this the same Jill Stephenson who berated the Scottish Government three years ago for selling wind farm seabed licences at a much lower price as compared to Westminster? How do you auction off something you do not own?
As regards the efficacy of that decision, it is perhaps worth noting a January 2022 article in the industry magazine WindEurope which commented as follows: “The Crown Estate Scotland has announced the results of the 'ScotWind' seabed tender. They auctioned 8,600 km² of sea space which could host almost 25 GW of offshore wind. 17 projects won. With 15 GW most of the capacity that will now be developed to be floating offshore wind, the system the Scots have used for awarding seabed leases ensures the new offshore wind farms will be delivered at the lowest cost for taxpayers.
"The option fees are much lower than in the UK’s recent Offshore Wind Lease Round 4. Scotland chose a more sensible tender design with a maximum price ceiling of £100,000/km². This has avoided bidding at very high prices – which keeps the costs of offshore wind low for consumers. As seabed leasing costs are usually passed on to the electricity consumer, a price ceiling ensures that new offshore wind volumes are also delivered at the lowest cost for consumers."
A business ceases to become commercially viable when its customers can no longer afford to buy its products. So keeping that price as low as possible becomes a pre-requisite for any energy policy.
However Westminster has not only ignored that logic but has transferred the high prices it charged for its licences onto Scottish consumers. This has led to a number of businesses in Scotland closing as rising energy costs have made them uneconomic. How could any Scottish Government create a viable business in these circumstances?
Robert Menzies, Falkirk.
Read more letters
- Scotland wants the EU, the EU wants us. What's stopping us?
- We need to rediscover our true selves. That's where Reform comes in
- Memo to Kenny MacAskill: Scotland does not own any energy sources
We need a vote on Holyrood
The cost of running Holyrood is spiralling out of control. With a total budget of over £41 billion it is questionable if Scotland really needs this expensive additional layer of government.
The previous system before Holyrood was established was to have a Secretary of State for Scotland with a small team of Scottish civil servants running Scotland very efficiently at a fraction of the cost of Holyrood.
There is growing support for having a referendum in Scotland to consider closing Holyrood and reverting to the old system, thereby saving billions.
Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen.
A disregard for human life
Thank you so much for printing Denis Bruce's letter (July 13) regarding the statements of Lily Allen and Miquita Oliver on how much they are relishing their easy access to abortions, and how exciting an experience it is, totally disregarding the fact that for every abortion they have had, they have taken a human life, and all those involved in the process are now conditioned into seeing this as a service and part of the rights of any mother. Is that the road we are going down?
Once this disregard for human life seeps out into all other avenues of what is acceptable, living in such a society for future generations looks very bleak indeed.
Respect for human life is at the very centre of a civilised society.
If this bill to decriminalise abortion, which is not yet passed, and still has to go to the House of Lords, could be stopped in its tracks, a great many people around the country, not just Denis Bruce, would be very relieved indeed.
Let us learn from those countries who chose to go down that route some years ago and are now living to regret it.
I never thought I would live to see the day when a mother could legally take the life of a baby about to be born. God help us all.
Nancy Gilfedder, Glasgow.
Am I worthy of preservation?
"Every human has immeasurable value" asserted several distinguished academics (Letters, July 6) in response to the question of the merit of human life, otherwise "we descend into a jungle of barbarity". Indeed. In making their case, they cited various debates in society currently querying the sanctity of life but, frankly, they had plenty to choose from. An embarrassment of riches stretched out before them in that respect.
We seem surrounded by politicians and commentators, expert on price but conspicuously poorly advised on value. Nowhere more so than upon the issue of welfare reform. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was literally brought to tears during a discussion on the theme (though, we were assured, for wholly unrelated reasons, and that the source of her obvious distress was "a personal matter").
As someone who has relied on benefits for many years, I consider myself a dab hand at budgeting. I have to be. When the sums do not add up, I am not afforded any claim to personal matters. Were I to tender such emotion, the barbarians around me would have a field day at my expense.
So what are we worth? And whom amongst us should we prioritise for preservation? The aforementioned academics argued that the calculation is immeasurable. But someone will measure it. They always do.
With or without hankies.
Archie Beaton, Inverness.
Crack down on charities
This Government is spending, or should that be wasting, money like water and taxes are increasing and increasing. Cuts must be made. What about starting with charities?
There are 200,000 charities in the UK. For the tax year to April 2025 the tax relief for these charities and their donors totalled £6.7 billion. Yes, billion not million. That is £6.7bn less to spend on where it is more needed.
The Government should be more critical in allowing new charities and challenging existing charities with a view to reducing the numbers to see where savings can be made and whether they are still in the public interest. Just think what could be done with a 10 per cent saving.
Top of the hit list should be the 1,717 migrant charities (up from the 2020 level of 1,104) which play a dominant role in preventing the deportations of migrants who had no right to remain in the UK.
Clark Cross, Linlithgow.
UK is at war with Russia
Of course the latest Russian drone attacks on Ukraine should be condemned ("Zelenskyy's plea as Ukraine is bombarded", July 13), but let's not forget that Russia proper is being attacked with UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles, meaning the UK is effectively at war with Russia (that Brits aren't firing them is immaterial).
Given the increasing importance of cyber warfare, Keir Starmer (who recently told us to prepare for war) is risking attacks on UK infrastructure. If the coming winter is marked by regular power cuts, with hospitals having to run on generators, we'll know who was stupid enough to up the ante.
George Morton, Rosyth.
Hypocrisy over Trump
I see that the usual suspects are lining up to protest at the forthcoming visit of President Trump – left-wingers, the Greens and the SNP. Not that long ago, there was a visit from the Chinese leader, head of an odious government, with very few of the above turning out to protest. Why not?
William Ballantine, Bo'ness.
Share