Readers' Letters: Is money-grubbing Edinburgh Airport taking cue from Rachel Reeves?

I drove out to pick up my wife, who was arriving from an international flight with two cases. Inevitably this meant having to pay £6 for the quick dash in and out of the Drop-Off Zone. However, we were appalled to find that you now have to pay a non-refundable £2 to use a trolley to take your luggage a short distance – £8 in total!

The airport management must be taking their cue from Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who seems to believe the solution is to tax everything.

Sadly it doesn’t stop there. Visitors arriving in Edinburgh for the first time experience the welcome that Alastair Dalton wrote about so damningly, they pay for simple services that seem to be free everywhere else, then they get taxed on their stay in the city. What a dreadful introduction to Scotland.

Ken Currie, Edinburgh

Let’s get radical

The much-heralded Black Friday arrives later in the week. Prior to that, hopefully, the Budget won't turn out to be a Black Wednesday. It's been called a make or break occasion for both Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer, one which would be made easier by the loosening of the self-inflicted fiscal rules.

One item which should be on the agenda is the so far shunned wealth tax on the ultra rich. The so-called Patriot Millionaires are very willing payers. Several other countries have a wealth tax, without the exit of the millionaire and billionaire constituency. This would be a good Labour tax.

Public services, not least education, should be an urgent priority. If this requires a rise in Income Tax, then so be it.

This Budget presents a huge opportunity for Labour to move away from its shift to the right and help the needy in society. After more than a year in office they can no longer blame Tories for the mess we're in. How refreshing a radical and positive Budget would be.

Ian Petrie, Edinburgh

Get closer

Tomorrow, Rachel Reeves will deliver her second budget. In it, she will scrabble around to find a few billion pounds, but we are still poorer than we should be, poorer than we were and poorer than our peers.

Since Brexit, the UK has been actively undermining its economic model, which is founded on openness to trade, ideas and people. By making the UK less open to trade in goods, taking us out of a single market in which Britain had been in its element, the fall in goods exports is draining more than one percentage point from GDP each year.

This is well known by the powers that be. Last month the Governor of the Bank of England warned Brexit would have a negative impact on the UK economy for the “foreseeable future”. Previously, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that our departure from the EU would shrink Britain’s long-term productivity by about 4 per cent.

Yet nothing is done by our leaders. If Britain wants to remedy the ailment that has made it the sick man outside Europe, it needs to be bolder. Rejoin the single market for goods, and if this is felt not to be palatable, re-enter the customs union.

Being on the outside is estimated to be costing the UK up to £30 billion a year, the kind of money that we simply cannot miss out on. Given our current economic situation, which has changed dramatically since 2016, if the Labour government made this argument forcefully, the British public would accept it.

The UK can no longer afford the economic ball and chain that is Brexit.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh

Green payday

Your article “COP30 compromise gets mixed response” (24 November) shows nothing has really changed much over 30 years. UN climate chief Simon Stiell said: “194 countries stood firm in solidarity – rock-solid in support of climate co-operation”. Oh no they didn't. Only 111 countries out of 194 produced Nationally Determined Contributions spelling out how they intended to cut emissions, and more were reluctant to commit to phasing out fossil fuels.

However, the developing countries which have conveniently blamed the developed nations for climate change are now looking forward to a large payday. Developed nations agreed to mobilise at least $300 billion annually by 2035 for developing countries as part of a broader target is $1.3 trillion per year.

However, developing countries are demanding £2.7 trillion annually by 2030. Yes, trillion. Taxpayers will not be happy when they realise that politicians' green dreams have resulted in an escalating green tax nightmare for them and their children and grandchildren for decades to come.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian

Lords reform

Christine Jardine (Scotsman, 24 November) comments on the delay by the House of Lords on legislation passed by the House Of Commons and reminds us that her political party seek an elected House of Lords.

I read frequently of similar comments, but rarely on the subject of superiority between the two Houses. Perhaps readerd can identify how matters would be agreed between the two Houses if a fully elected second chamber were to be created.

Charles Lowson, Fareham, Hants

Block to kindness

Jenny Lindsay writes about the UK’s planned puberty blocker trial (Perspective, 24 November). Puberty blockers have been prescribed for decades for children who experience unusually early puberty (before 8 or 9 years old), to save them from the physical and social effects of such early changes. They are safe and reversible – when they are stopped, puberty recommences.

They are also prescribed in many countries for some trans young people, to delay their pubertal changes and give them more time to consider and develop their gender identity. The UK has decided to do a clinical trial – doctors in other countries might consider that unnecessary, but all data is valuable so long as the trial is unbiased and doesn't, through its methodology, cause significantly more distress to participants. Ms Lindsay says the trial should be stopped – in effect, that everyone should ignore the fact trans people exist, and trans young people should just thole their situation and its huge distress. I suggest she speaks with more trans people and parents of trans people to understand how cruel the effect of such a position would be.

This follows her comments last week that trans women prisoners who have no history of, and pose no risk of, violence or abuse should be sent to men's prisons, where they will be at significant risk themselves. It is forgivable that Ms Lindsay does not understand trans people; they are, after all, in one important way different from her. But it is less so that she appears to be completely careless of their welfare.

Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh

Gay erasure?

As an organisation representing gay men who do not subscribe to the notion of “gender identity”, we wish to express our strong support for Jenny Lindsay.

Ms Lindsay is right to highlight what clinical evidence has shown for decades: the overwhelming majority of children referred with “gender” distress grow up to be same-sex attracted adults. Until recently, this was well understood within child and adolescent services. Yet instead of receiving open-minded support that would allow their emerging sexual orientation to settle, many of these children are now encouraged to believe they were “born in the wrong body”. The result is that gender-nonconforming boys who might have become confident gay men (and girls who might have become confident lesbians) are being channelled into a medical pathway with irreversible consequences.

If “gender incongruence” is a feeling of discomfort in one's mind about the sex of one's body, how can medically altering the body possibly be an ethical solution? Puberty blockers halt normal sexual maturation. Cross-sex hormones commonly lead to sterility and loss of sexual function. The notion that 12 or 13-year-olds can meaningfully consent to such outcomes should concern us all. Ms Lindsay’s call for clarity about language, evidence and risk is not a culture war intervention; it is basic safeguarding. And this is particularly vital for the children who will grow up to be same-sex attracted adults, as they have too often been harmed when society misreads or pathologises their early feelings of difference.

The slogan “Better a trans child than a dead one” is frequently invoked to shut down scrutiny. The more uncomfortable question is: how often does that really mean “Better a trans girl than a gay boy”?

James Roberts, Managing Director, HumanGayMale, Dundee

Flat-out robbery

I am a Scot living in Bristol and I want to buy a flat in Edinburgh to rent or to stay in. I was disgusted when I found out that tax to pay on a second flat costing £300,000 would be £28,500 – completely unjustifiable. So unfortunately I won't be investing in Scotland or spending my money there. When are you going to abolish this heinous tax?

Iain McGregor, Bristol

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.