Readers' Letters: Electricity won't be as cheap under Labour as Keir Starmer makes out

That means that the generation cost of electricity is only 35 per cent of the bill with the additional costs adding a further 65 per cent to the consumer.

Hence, if the renewable plant generates output at 5.5 pence/unit, the unit cost to the consumer is around 16.5 pence/unit meaning the average annual use of 15,000 units will be about £2,500, and adding the standing charge will bring the yearly total to nearly £3,000.

This means the days of annual dual fuel bills of £1,000 are over and energy has entered the era of being unaffordable for those in fuel poverty which means that both Westminster and Holyrood must revisit the warning given by the CEO of Scottish Power in 2019 that “renewable energy will be too expensive and a subsidy scheme will be required to make the product affordable to those on low incomes”.

Ian Moir, Castle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway

Bizarre analysis

I may be misreading Leah Gunn Barrett's letter, but it looks to me as if she is suggesting that the economy is a government-run "command economy" such as the Soviet Union had back before 1990. It was due to the total failure of that ideal that the Soviet Union collapsed.

Ms Barrett seems to believe that issuing currency is the same thing as creating the national income and that the taxes the Treasury collects are secondary to “monetary sovereignty”, as she calls it, when only the Government “can create and put money into the economy”.

She asks where the money to pay for food, rent or mortgages comes from? Well, from millions of people working, doing business and paying taxes, of course.

Equally, she suggests that public services are funded by the Government. Quite so, but they are funded out of the taxes we pay from the fruit of our labours and depend upon the state of the economy. Less in the way of taxes equals more Government borrowing to fund said services. Ms Barrett's concluding paragraph states “monetary sovereignty” means that the Government doesn't need to worry about where the money comes from to fund “the welfare and security of its citizens” as if it can use a magic money tree. That explains in one simple sentence why her belief in Scotland being wealthy beyond its dreams if it becomes independent comes from.

Contrary to her quite bizarre analysis, money flows from the economy created by the people and enterprise of Scotland to the Government, not the other way round.

Peter McGlashan, Dundee

Back of queue

It is difficult to keep up with Labour’s policy gymnastics but the sight of Trumpian slogans and massive Union Jack backdrops is British nationalism on stilts and won’t persuade many Scottish independence supporters to back Labour at the next General Election. They know Keir Starmer has no intention of granting more powers to our Scottish Parliament while Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland Ian Murray wants to strengthen the UK Scotland Office’s presence in Scotland in order to bypass the Scottish Government.

Will Labour, having voted against the UK Internal Market Bill, amend the Bill in order to protect devolved matters and respect Scottish democracy by categorically ruling out the use of Section 35 powers to block democratic majority decisions at Holyrood? If there is a pro-Indy majority at Holyrood in 2026, will Labour agree to a democratic referendum on Scotland’s future?

Already, shadow ministers have been told not to speak about Brexit, which is one of the many reasons Britain’s economy will grow next year at the slowest rate in the G7 group of leading industrialised economies. High interest rates mean increased borrowing costs, therefore Labour will have to increase taxes to meet its commitments as Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves has ruled out borrowing to invest in Britain’s future or set up the Great British Energy white elephant. This is not an energy supplier and won’t reduce our bills, as Shadow Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told Utility Week that it is about the management of investments, which means selling off Scottish renewables to the highest foreign bidder.

Without a strong SNP presence, you can be sure Scotland will be at the back of the queue for the crumbs from Westminster’s pretty bare table.

Fraser Grant, Edinburgh

Only fools…

Goodness, like the SNP before her, Rachel Reeves makes successful politics sound so easy. Her answers are simple, including, just grow the economy. This time next year we might all be millionaires. Now, where have I heard that before? It’s either a breeze or hot air.

Ken Currie, Edinburgh

Foster hope

Stuart Smith (Letters, 10 October) rightly points out that independence support has changed little from around 50/50 per cent. Last week’s Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election result was less about independence or the Covid breach or, as Mr Smith indicates, Labour’s resurgence in Scotland. Instead it sent a message to the Scottish Government about its failure to address the cost of living crisis and social mobility.

A turnout of just 38 per cent confirms a disillusionment with politics, particularly for the Scottish Government, given a vote of 2 to 1 for Labour over the SNP. This is hardly surprising as the nation is getting poorer under the SNP. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation one in ten Scots live in deep poverty, below 40 per cent of average income, a 300,000 increase since March. The Scottish Government “needs to get a move on” as child poverty payments are “not enough”, it argues. Scots life expectancy is becoming several weeks shorter each year. Deprivation connects these trends with the low-paid, pensioners and the unwaged all struggling.

Poor health and housing play a part but it begins with education. Already underfunded schools have lost out further to fund staff salaries, universities take more students from abroad than Scots from deprived backgrounds and there remains a stigma for vocational education. Sixteen years of SNP rule has seen a further decline in standards with increasing truancy and abuse against teachers post-Covid not being addressed.

Politicians should facilitate a climate of hope and aspiration rather than embedding apathy and despair. Mr Smith argues the result last week will galvanise nationalists but instead it hardens attitudes against a government that’s failed to foster aspiration and affluence.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

Drivers beware

While fire is always a remote possibility in any car parking situation, when electrically powered vehicles (EVs) are among those parked, the whole situation changes... for two distinct reasons.

Firstly, it is now fully accepted that if the large and powerful battery which is required to power any EV system malfunctions and bursts into flames, such a fire is almost impossible to subdue by using the extinguishers used to quench petrol and diesel vehicle fires. There is an “explosive” element to EV fires that spreads the fire with amazing and uncontrollable speed!

Secondly, because of the much greater weight of electrically driven cars, the strengths of some multi-storey car parks floors is being reassessed, particularly as the percentage of EVs within the community is slowly rising.

While it is obviously too early to know if either of these two hazards had anything to do with the catastrophic Luton Airport fire, such a possibility must now be on the cards for all multi-storey car parks. Drivers beware!

Archibald A Lawrie, Kingskettle, Fife

Out to launch

If I understand correctly, because of the higher costs of carrying out work on a floating vessel as opposed to one on dry land, it is normal for as much work as possible to be carried out on the slipway before the ship enters the water. However, as is well known, this was clearly not the case with Hull 801.

If it is true that the timing of the launch was purely for party political gain, despite the incomplete state of the Glen Sannox, then the SNP are entirely responsible for that part of the increased costs due to the works which had to be carried out on a ship bobbing around on the Clyde rather than sitting firmly on the slipway.

I have a nasty feeling, though, that the SNP will not be being sent a bill.

Jane Ann Liston, St Andrews, Fife

Shining light?

Hands up everyone who thought at first the person who “glitterbombed” Sir Keir Starmer at the Labour Party conference was former leader Ed Milliband?

Mark Boyle, Johnstone, Renfrewshire

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.