Readers' Letters: Nigel Farage can't have it both ways

For a party that argues both Labour and Conservatives have failed Britain, welcoming former Cabinet members, of either side, could be a major own goal. While they criticise past governments they have no issue admitting those who implemented the policies they are dismayed by. They surely cannot have it both ways.

Ewan Birnie, Balmedie, Aberdeenshire

The grin will go

With Robert Jenrick the latest Tory jumping the Conservative sinking ship to Reform, joining up with his old muckers Nadine Dorries, Danny Kruger and Nadim Zahawi among others, it seems Nigel Farage cannot keep the wide grin off his face. Why he is so happy about it is anybody’s guess. Weren’t these people members of the most chaotic and incompetent government in living memory that the electorate rejected resoundingly at the last election? Thankfully, Reform’s memory is as lacking as its political acumen

This is great news for those decent people who would find a Farage-led far right British government a repugnant prospect. It’s almost inevitable Liz Truss will be the next to do a Jenrick, just to put the icing on a deeply unpalatable cake. I wonder if Farage’s grin will still be as wide?

D Mitchell, Doune, Stirling

Rebrand Reform

The Scotsman’s editorial about Robert Jenrick's defection (16 January) is spot on. The Conservatives should stop pandering to Reform and focus on rebuilding and renewing the party under Kemi Badenoch's decisive leadership. The party is better off without plotters, defectors and the unprincipled.

Nigel Farage described Reform as a centre-right party when he ushered in Jenrick as his latest recruit. Not true. The only centre-right party in British politics is the Conservatives. Jenrick's politics are right-wing, plain and simple; like Farage he is an enthusiastic Donald Trump supporter and an even more enthusiastic supporter of Israel. He has brought a lot of baggage to Reform, not least because of being a Remainer and a past critic of Farage.

Perhaps with the number of Tory has-beens joining Reform a rebrand is called for – the Retread Party. The defectors have one thing in common, they seem to enjoy talking down Britain, as three-homes owner Mr Jenrick did in his speech.

Yet they have no policies of worth to show how they would improve things, except looking to Donald Trump for ideas.

William Loneskie, Oxton, Lauder, Berwickshire

Bright future

I’ve been thinking a lot about Scotland’s future and wish to put down why I believe independence could be such a powerful step forward why the current Union has held us back.

First, Scotland’s economic foundations are strong. We have a highly skilled workforce, a booming creative sector (90,000 jobs and £4.2 billion of value in 2019) and a tourism industry that supports over 229,000 jobs and contributes £4.5bn annually. Our renewable energy potential is world class, offering lower cost power not just for us but for export too. With full control we could channel those resources into a “Building a New Scotland” fund, investing up to £20bn in green infrastructure, energy-efficient homes and digital connectivity, something the UK Treasury has never prioritised for us.

At the same time, being tied to a low‑growth, low‑productivity UK economy has cost us dearly. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates Brexit will shave 4 per cent off UK productivity, translating to a £3.2bn annual loss for Scotland. The UK’s economic model concentrates wealth in London and the South East, leaving the rest, including Scotland, with lower investment, higher inequality and stagnant wages. The Brexit vote, which Scotland overwhelmingly rejected, has already disrupted key sectors like food and drink, creating labour shortages and extra bureaucracy for our exporters.

Independence would let us design a system that works for everyone. We could keep a fairer social security net, protect the state pension and set our own minimum wage that reflects the cost of living. By joining the EU or the Nordic Alliance we would regain free movement, open a market of 500 million people and stop the economic vandalism of being forced to fund a defence budget that is disproportionately high for us, a saving of about £1.5bn a year.

Moreover, Scotland already runs a trade surplus of £15bn, and our exports to Europe grow three times faster than those to the UK.

In short, independence offers the chance to build a more prosperous, egalitarian and environmentally sustainable nation, one that keeps the best of what Scotland already does well while shedding the constraints of a UK system that has under invested and under valued us.

Herbert Petrie, Dyce, Aberdeen

Points pricked?

Dr Geraldine Prince makes many points which need scrutiny (Letters, 15 January).

She states what taxation delivers on many points, many of which are the flagship policies of the woeful SNP regime at Holyrood. All freebies costing the nation billions, all designed to get votes and all paid for by those willing to drag their posteriors off the sofa to go to work.

To mention but three, let’s begin with the “strike free NHS” – where is the estimated £189 million coming from, when we are facing a £1 billion black hole?

As for the disabled and the “youthful 60-plus” getting free bus travel, this is not means tested so just a blanket vote-winning bribe.

Then there’s the free tuition fees for university – another non-means tested waste of public money – look at the state of our colleges and universities, financially they are in tatters.

Dr Prince then goes on to extol “clean seas, pristine beaches and stunning empty wilderness”. What a view, while sitting on said beach looking out to sea, Berwick Bank wind farm waving majestically back as we are further crippled by the subsidies to the owning companies.

As for empty wilderness, there will soon be more windfarms than people, with planning pushed through against the wishes of communities in a race to achieve the unachievable net zero goals, while ignoring the cleanest, safest source of energy, nuclear power.

David Millar, Lauder, Scottish Borders

Make them pay

Alexander McKay (16 January) points out that every wind farm needs either fossil fuel or nuclear back-up.

The Scotsman published my letter concerning intermittency in 2007. The British Wind Association claimed they would provide a billion cups of tea at Christmas, but they didn’t. They have provided energy but at what cost? If I ruled the world, I would require every politician to have a science degree.

In 2017, Sir Dieter Helm, Professor of Economic Policy at Oxford University, was tasked by the then UK government with writing a report on our energy system. Unfortunately, his advice that renewable energy companies should pay for intermittency costs which they incur was ignored.

If renewable energy companies had been responsible for costs, they would have had a bill of £21 million for one day’s electricity on 8 January 2026, not us.

Now we have massive intermittency costs, constraints payments, and grid expansion costs, purely to cope with scattered renewables and an insecure grid. The Scottish government has ruled out nuclear. I question how the reliable base load contribution (around 25 per cent) of Torness can be replaced by the 2030 decommission deadline?

It was announced in October that the predicted load factor of wind farms is a quarter less than expected. This news does not seem to have even registered in Scotland.

China has had a breakthrough with nuclear fusion – no waste, unlimited energy. I predict, as with the moon landing, the prize is so great it will happen. Decisions makers, please take time before allowing yet more turbines and pylons.

Celia Hobbs, Penicuik, Midlothian

A little joke

We have always been a fan of Alexander McKay’s common sense letters so we were a little taken aback when we read his latest, which began: “I am delighted at the news of the Berwick Bank windfarm development. Every little helps.”

It wasn’t until we associated the “Every little helps” with the Tesco slogan that the penny finally dropped. Thankfully he hadn’t lost his marbles at all, it was his own brand sense of humour coming into play.

We hope everyone else was a bit quicker on the uptake!

Aileen Jackson, Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor, East Renfrewshire

Crickets

Reading letters about parties ganging together to prevent another SNP government reminded me that I wrote to each of the party leaders suggesting a similar option before the last Scottish election.

They were each to pick five seats which were winnable without opposition. I even gave them many examples. I pointed out the only losers would be the SNP as they would lose their majority.

None of the leaders replied. So I won’t build up my hopes this time.

Lewis Finnie, 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. And please do ensure any names mentioned are correct.