The hypocrisy of Labour and SNP over Mossmorran is quite something to behold.
They are falling over themselves to hold "summits" to "rescue workers" and to blame ExxonMobil for refusing a stay of execution when they have known for months closure was on the cards.
ExxonMobil was looking for a buyer for at least a year, but beside that, if governments (Tory, Labour and SNP) pursue net zero – that is, shut down oil and gas development in the North Sea and in the meantime tax the hell out of them – of course multinationals will move their plants elsewhere.
The workers and supply firms at Mossmorran are not the victims of a nasty multinational, but of economically misguided zealots in government.
The only party that has been consistently clear about the economic madness of net zero is Reform.
Linda Holt, Anstruther.
Our raw deal on electricity
Yet again we have the UK Government and Ofgem trying to justify the unjustifiable ("Household energy bills to go up as wholesale prices fall", The Herald, October 22).
We are told that the standing charges are to rise mainly because of the increase in the cost to provide the Warm Home Discount (WHD) to around 2.7 million more customers. We are also told that households who use electric heating could see the biggest impact.
There is no reference to the fact that in the North of Scotland hardly anyone has gas for heating, meaning that the gas price falling will have no beneficial impact for them.
There is also no mention that the increase in the WHD costs are driven by the fact that people in England and Wales get it automatically whereas people in Scotland has to apply to even be considered.
Because the news from England tends to suggest that everyone will get it automatically I have experience of customers in Scotland who thought that also applied to them. Admittedly most of the companies tend to advise customers that they have to apply for it, if they read their emails, but they are also advised that funds are limited and are on a first-come basis: Why? Utilita has already closed its applications.
Read more letters
- Scotland is ripe for Reform – and Falkirk will prove it
- A lesson in basic economics… so take heed Rachel Reeves
- Why should we allow civil servants to stay at home at our expense?
Scotland is paying higher standing charges to cover an increase in costs relating to the WHD which they are not guaranteed to get.
As if that is not bad enough, the standing charges for electricity in London are 47.11 pence/day and the unit cost is 27.00 pence/KWh pence/day whereas in the North of Scotland it is 62.07 pence/day and 28.30 pence/KWh. In London there is access to mains gas for heating whereas in the North of Scotland heating is usually by much more expensive methods.
The energy costs in the North of Scotland are 66% higher than London but these customers are still expected to contribute proportionately more to the building of Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk and the upgrade to the National Grid to supply “cheap” electricity down south from wind turbines which in many cases they will be able to see out of their kitchen windows.
It is time for planning permission to be withheld for more wind turbines, which are just going to be paid constraint payments, until the grid is upgraded.
It is also time for zonal pricing in Scotland so that we are charged realistic prices which will encourage businesses to set up in Scotland to help counter the drift of industry out of Scotland (Grangemouth and Mossmorran) and encourage the uptake of heat pumps which would then be cheaper to run than gas heating. These measures would also help to reduce the constraint payments as more electricity would be used locally.
A reduction to the 5% VAT rate, as suggested, is not going to improve the imbalance between London and the North of Scotland in cost and fuel poverty.
Iain McIntyre, Sauchie.
Why we need independence
The recent ludicrous remarks from Westminster on the need for nuclear weapons and building new nuclear power plants costing countless billions shows that Labour is further away than ever in understanding the needs and wishes of the Scottish people. In continuing to destroy Scotland’s manufacturing base, another nail enters the UK coffin.
The repeated Labour accusation that the SNP is a threat to the UK’s security and has the worst NHS in Britain is utterly wrong and a disgrace.
Scotland will only create a cleaner, fairer society as an independent country, making its own decisions and in control of all of its many assets.
Grant Frazer, Newtonmore.
Smorgasbord Budget beckons
UK Budget history shows we have had “reforming Budgets” such as the James Callaghan Budget of 1964 which provided the basis for Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax; “narrative Budgets” indicating an ideological shift such as Geoffry Howe’s Budget of 1981 which adopted "monetarist approaches" to curbing high inflation; and “survival Budgets" such as George Osborne's post-crisis Budget of 2010 which introduced “austerity" to reduce a ballooning public sector deficit. What type of Budget might we see today (November 26)?
An important clue may lie in this year's Budget cycle characterised by an unusually high volume of press leaks. Treasury leaks started in 1997 under Gordon Brown’s chancellorship: strict adherence to a month-long purdah had been the previous protocol, one firmly rooted in the belief that any foreknowledge could distort markets and allow individuals to profit.
Challenging economic circumstances, the Chancellor’s “iron-clad” fiscal rules, and increasingly sharp debates within her own backbenchers have forced Rachel Reeves to consider an unusually large and varied range of policy options to fill the estimated £30 billion black hole in the public finances. The multiple leaks and U-turns we’ve witnessed reflect the difficult trade-offs she faces as she seeks to manage, test, and shape “expectations” amongst many different interest groups.
Commentators suggest the result will be a different kind of Budget this year: a “Smorgasbord Budget” of multiple tweaks to tax and spend, including many smaller tax-raising measures, plus some fiscal drag. All will be revealed. One thing is for certain: taxes are going up. Unfortunately, history shows no government has ever been able to tax its way to growth. The three remaining Budgets in this Parliament provide additional opportunities to get the balance right. Thinking caps will be needed along with a dash of magic that so far has remained elusive.
Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns.
• It has been heavily trailed that the Chancellor is going to reduce the amount that can be invested in cash ISAs, the intention being to help the British economy by encouraging savers to put their money into UK businesses through investing in stocks and shares. As money invested in the stock market is effectively an exchange of cash between two investors could someone please explain to me how this benefits British businesses?
Alan McGibbon, Paisley.
Reality of the benefit cap
Arthur West (Letters, May 25) appears to be one of the many blinkered left-wingers defending the indefensible by repeatedly decrying the two-child benefit cap as "dreadful".
We all have to make sensible and responsible economic decisions and judgements. We do not buy a car that we cannot afford, go on holidays that we cannot pay for, nor live in a house on which we could not manage to cover the mortgage repayments – much as we would all love to have that fancy saloon, the trip to the luxury hotel in the sun, or a larger house or garden. We live with what we can afford.
In the same way, if someone cannot afford to have five children, then the correct decision is not to have five children. It is utterly irresponsible to have unlimited offspring and simply expect those taxpayers who are properly managing their finances to pay increased taxes in order to provide subsidies and endless benefits to them.
The inflammatory rhetoric of the left is, as ever, totally ignorant of economic reality.
Steph Johnson, Glasgow.
Brexit worse than we knew
It seems the economic damage caused by Brexit is even greater than the Office for Budget Responsibility's estimate of 4%, which Alex Orr (Letters, November 25) quotes.
The Economic Impact of Brexit, a report released earlier this month by the US National Bureau of Economic Research, suggests that, by 2025, Brexit “had reduced the UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time”. It also estimates that “investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%”.
Peter Martin, Perth.
Share