Readers' Letters: Is Chancellor in two minds about economic growth?

Rachel Reeves has no problem going for long-term growth while imposing growth-constraining policies in the short run via her first Budget of high tax, borrow and spend, and to hang with burgeoning national debt and the cumulative effects of a high and rising cost of living on ordinary households. She has no problems in directing long-term investment to London and the south-east, thereby extending the economic gulf that is the North-South divide. She sees no contradiction between the Government’s net zero ambition and significantly expanding the nation’s carbon footprint courtesy of a third runway at Heathrow and new Oxbridge rail links.

Clearly no fool, rather a “Super-Mensa” version of Wonder Woman on this evidence! Well done Rachel – struggling households and a flatlining economy salute you! Less intelligent mortals would like to see more practical and positive action that promotes growth and makes sense in the here and now – and not in an indeterminate and increasingly volatile and risky future that may never materialise.

Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns, Glasgow

Bottling it?

Having refused to amend the UK Internal Market Act which was used by the last Tory government to sabotage Scotland’s ambitious Deposit Return Scheme, it is puzzling to learn that the Labour government is introducing a bottle return scheme covering England and Northern Ireland – but not before late 2027. Initially, the UK Government was happy for Wales and Scotland to include glass bottles, which works in Belgium and Australia for example, and further illustrates that devolution only works when it suits Westminster.

Will Labour MPs from Scotland for once hold the UK Government to account and stand up for the Scottish Parliament’s decision to include glass bottles, rather than attacking the Scottish Government at every PMQs?

Fraser Grant, Edinburgh

Make culprits pay

If Biffa win their £166 million case against the Scottish Government it's going to come out of my and all Scotsman readers' taxes, so the least John Swinney could do is stop the wages of the main culprits, the arrogant, clueless creators of the unworkable project, Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie, and the First Ministers who “held their jaikets” Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Injustice

It is UK Government policy that Scotland will host double the wind energy capacity of our more densely populated southern neighbours by 2030, aligning with SNP ambitions to replace North Sea oil revenue with renewables. The result is disproportionate energy production in one geographic area for the benefit of consumers and shareholders located elsewhere.

Labour tells us Scotland's planning system now needs to be “streamlined” to accomplish this, despite its current 70+ per cent consenting rate resulting in considerably more wind farms being built than in England. The SNP, whose National Planning Framework Four (introduced in 2023) tramples previous commitments to community empowerment, seems eager to oblige.

Politicians licking lips in anticipation of revenues have not considered the spatial injustices of these plans as it's easier to dismiss concerns about their environmental, economic, and social impacts as belonging to NIMBYs.

However, we might ask why there is no wind farm planned for Arthur's Seat or Hampstead Heath? If it is acceptable for crofters in Harris to have Canadian-owned, 380m-high turbines a few kilometers from their front doors (ruining some of the most iconic landscapes and unspoilt ecosystems in Scotland), why not for urban populations who consume the energy produced, lead the most carbon-intensive lifestyles, and are most likely to benefit from any economic dividends?

Conspicuously, the SNP's “energy justice” policy paper uses the term 347 times but fails to define it, explain how it is measured, or how environmental and social impacts will be assessed.

Instead, renewable jobs to replace oil ones are promised – a phenomenon that has not materialised with present 12GW wind energy infrastructure despite massive public subsidies. Notably, meagre “community benefits” of wind development are still not enshrined in law, while Scottish people pay the highest energy prices in Europe, with bills to rise yet further.

The picture emerging is neither “just” nor economically literate, and further changes to our planning system will only be to the advantage of developers and come at the expense of our communities. If SNP and Labour promises of a wind-powered golden age were plastered over the side of a bus would people take more notice?

Greigor Mòr, Dundee

Fly by nights

UK Energy and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband is an inspiration. He believes that the best way of ensuring net zero is to fly to various COP events such as the upcoming one in Belem, Brazil and then, on to India and to oppose the new runway that Chancellor Rachel Reeves wants to build. I am left astonished and delighted by his assiduous efforts to ensure that the environment is given top billing in the UK by ensuring that he increases his many air miles in his official capacity – and all for the benefit of the environment!

Equally, let's not forget the 100 supporting civil servants who will accompany him, and all of it is for our benefit. I call that inspirational and selfless. It’s rather like Nicola Sturgeon flying over to attend the COP summit in Egypt when she wasn’t even invited! How selfless is that?

There is a word to describe such visionaries. It's something like hypochondriac but with a different ending.

I also really feel for people like BBC Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt who, poor souls, get paid to fly to places all over the world (usually hot and sunny places) to tell us on BBC News not to fly to places. That is the terrible burden of people who support a carbon zero future and who are desperately worried about it.

I myself believe the same thing, of course. That is why I intend to fly to Europe on holiday twice this year and maybe even somewhere else as well, however much it hurts. I am sure readers of the Scotsman will applaud me for my selflessness and desire to help us achieve a carbon zero future.

Let's face it, it is such an important thing that all the important people who believe in it fly everywhere.

Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh

Talking of toxic

It is good to see Murdo Fraser writing about an area of government policy he knows well (“Sarwar’s strategy of disowning Starmer’s toxic policies is failing”, Perspective, 29 January). Toxic policies! As a supporter and cheerleader for that great Tory Prime Minister Liz Truss Mr Fraser supported toxic policies that crashed the economy, saw mortgage payments skyrocket and even saw first-time buyers who were on the morning of the Truss mini-Budget getting reading to move into new homes finding out their banks had withdrawn mortgage offers due to the panic and financial meltdown under way.

Mr Fraser can barely contain his joy as points out the collapse in support for Labour in the polls and joyfully informs readers that the Tories are the only effective opposition to the SNP. Of course, Mr Fraser chooses not to mention that the same polls show the Tories have lost half their supporters to Reform, and despite the attempts of several Tories, including Mr Fraser, to cosy up to Nigel Farage the drain on Tory support continues.

Alexander Lunn, Edinburgh

Frail crash

I am totally shocked by the First Minister’s latest wheeze to win the 2026 Scottish election. In a speech he has stated that he will “revive the NHS” in Scotland by the setting up special “frailty teams” at the door of every A&E department in Scotland to redirect elderly people away from busy waiting rooms” (your report, 28 January).

This amounts to nothing less than an ageist attempt by John Swinney and the SNP Scottish Government to deny skilled emergency care by experienced hospital staff to very ill citizens just because they happen to be old! It enables Mr Swinney to cynically suggest that he will be able to reduce waiting times in A&E departments.

Because of a shortage of all hospital staff, it seems unlikely that a deluge of elderly patients excluded from emergency departments will in fact be treated in other parts of hospitals.

More likely, many who survive not being seen will be added to waiting lists and, when acutely ill, will have to struggle even more to get an appointment with Scotland’s overwhelmed GPs and other struggling community services

So, Mr Swinney, your amoral proposed policy of denying hospital emergency care to elderly Scots seems unlikely to reduce the waiting list of people “sitting at more than 600,000 on a waiting list for procedures or tests”. Hopefully, voters at the next Holyrood election will be less ageist.

Sally Gordon-Walker, Edinburgh

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.