Readers' Letters: Swinney wrong to swerve question on Scottish Greens

The Scottish Greens' position on Israel has become hugely extreme. Mr Offord wanted John Swinney to give a clear answer that he did not agree with the Greens but instead a typical SNP convoluted reply was given. In this highly important context this is just not good enough.

John Swinney is giving the distinct impression that he values the Greens' votes at Holyrood more than he cares about defending Scotland's small Jewish community. Mr Swinney might dislike Reform UK because it is “racist” but now the Greens are in exactly the same position. Mr Swinney did not want to choose a side but his answer did.

Shameful behaviour from John Swinney. Is his position now untenable?

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Talents together

It was interesting listening to the UK Labour and Conservative party leaders at their recent conferences, as between them they might put together a useful programme.

Andy Burnham was good on the triple lock, and social care, but will damage the economy. Kemi Badenoch was good on the economy and defence, but has little to say about anything else.

How about a Labour/Tory coalition after the next election, for the common good?

It’s not as daft as it sounds, the Germans do it!

William Ballantine, Bo'ness, West Lothian

University crisis

Industrial action at Edinburgh University comes amid a truly appalling financial crisis, with the goal to make £140 million in savings threatening potentially 1,800 jobs and 90 education courses. The University and College Union is taking the only course of action available to protect staff, students and courses.

University principal Sir Peter Mathieson has stated that he will be stepping down in 2028 after, I believe, ten years in post. I would have hoped that in doing so he would have at least made some gesture of humility and shown some solidarity to his students and staff by taking a reduction in his £400,000+ salary, which is more than double that of our Prime Minister. However I am sure he believes he is worth every penny.

​Jim Park, Edinburgh

Choosing neither

I'm somewhat confused by A McCormick's “Data destruction” letter (7 October).

On the one hand he's pleased he might not “be here to see” the proposed mega data centre covering so much land at Chapelcross in Dumfries and Galloway but, on the other, he wants those of us who might still be here to not only have that data centre, but to have the Tory plan for nuclear power stations also here – to provide the necessary power.

Tell you what, Mr McCormick – very many folk don't want to see either. Especially if such data centres are to be used as an excuse for nuclear power stations Scotland neither needs nor wants.

Ian Waugh, Dumfries, Dumfries and Galloway

Page turner

Recent concern over data centres reminds me of when paging was a popular means of business communication.

Pagers and paging were superseded by advances in mobile phone technology, but one statistic that emerged at the time was that 90 of verbal communication was irrelevant, consisting of useless chit-chat.

If same is true of e-mails, then data centres will be a shortlived inconvenience to be replaced by whatever overtakes them. Just as, for example, the fax machine is now a distant memory.

Malcolm Parkin, Kinnesswood, Kinross-shire

Credit OAPs

The benefits system has to be reformed before it bankrupts the nation, however it will be some time before any government has the political guts to tackle it. But the system is riddled with anomalies and straightforward stupidities which could be gainfully addressed now.

For example, for someone on Universal Credit 45p in the pound of their earnings is disregarded when calculating their benefits entitlement

The cast iron logic behind this is that it encourages people into work, thus reducing the benefits pay-out and increasing the productivity of the overall economy.

But on reaching state pension age this logic mysteriously no longer applies. Pension Credit disregards only £5 of earnings per week. Few will choose to work for nearly nothing. It is impossible to accurately quantify the cost of this to the Exchequer and economy; a few hundred million, and rising with our aging population, seems reasonable.

Oddly, this anomaly appears to derive from a simple administrative blunder. The preamble to the legislation suggests that this was never the government's intention.

Simply transferring working pensioners on to Universal Credit would fix this. Free of political and financial cost, this seems the obvious thing for the government to do.

David Hogg, Edinburgh

Gender rivals?

Excellent news that the National Library of Scotland has acquired a copy of John Duns Scotus's Quaestiones (“NLS acquires rare works”, 9 October). Scotus, born in Duns in 1226, was a very important medieval philosopher whose followers, the Scotists, were active in the 13th and 14th centuries. They were called realists, because they considered that objects, such as individuals, were defined by real and innate things. I am sure they would have put sex hormones into that category.

Scotus's big philosophical rival was William of Occam, born in Surrey in 1285. He was called a nominalist, because he considered that the names used to define individuals and the differences between them were only mental constructs.

I am surprised Occam hasn't been adopted as a patron saint by those who believe biological gender can be changed by a certificate, or that Duns Scotus hasn't been used by Scottish nationalists to demonstrate the superiority of original thinking north of the Border.

Perhaps it is because his work gave rise to the term “dunce”. Today Occam is remembered for his Razor, a philosophical principle which states “No more things should exist than are absolutely necessary”. A good motto for unionists!

Hugh Pennington, Aberdeen

Matter of maths

John Swinney announced (your report, 8 October) that the UK government must “take the brakes off” to help realise Scotland’s “world leading ambitions” for floating offshore wind. Before ministers accelerate any further, the public deserves an honest account of what this technology is likely to cost.

In correspondence in response to an enquiry, Neso admits that the strike prices used in Clean Power 2030 were those for fixed offshore wind, even though floating offshore wind “would indeed have higher strike prices”. An example of this is the £216.49/MWh awarded by GB Energy to two floating wind projects. This is drastically different from Neso’s indication of £71-£83/MWh. There is also every likelihood of this increasing as these are index linked and benefit from inflation caused by energy pricing.

In other words, one of the most expensive parts of the offshore wind story was not properly reflected in the headline cost assumptions.

That is no minor detail. Floating wind is not being sold as a niche extra. In Scotland, it is being promoted as a strategic economic prize and a pillar of the net zero transition. Yet if the modelling used to support that vision relies on fixed-bottom offshore wind prices as a proxy, ie they didn’t like the look of the actual total cost so used only fixed offshore wind prices as a reasonable approximation instead, then the public has every right to ask whether offshore wind’s viability has been made to look rosier than it really is.

Mr Swinney wants policy barriers removed. Fine, but cost reality cannot be removed with them. If floating wind is significantly more expensive, that should be stated transparently, not blurred into more favourable offshore averages.

This matters all the more because DESNZ (the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero) itself is now saying affordability is the government’s “number one priority” and floating wind must show a path to lower costs before winning more subsidy support. That is a tacit acknowledgement that this is not a cheap or settled proposition.

Neso is described as “independent” yet emerged from the National Grid and, at the time, Ed Miliband as Net Zero Secretary was the sole shareholder of Neso on behalf of the public. This is not some distant technocratic quibble. It goes to the heart of how ministers, agencies and industry frame costs.

If Scotland is to have a serious debate about energy, it must start with honest numbers. Ambition is not a substitute for arithmetic.

Eileen West, Banchory, Aberdeenshire

Light work

Richard Lyon wonders if the lights might go out this winter (Perspective, 7 October). He says we are relying on imported electricity. He is correct and in the last 12 months the UK has had to rely on the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Denmark and France for 12.5 per cent of our electricity.

While wind and solar produced 42.3 per cent it is unreliable, whereas “nasty” gas can be relied on and has produced 27 per cent despite being the first to be shut down without the payment of constraint payments. Nuclear provided 12.2 per cent and cutting down and burning trees provided 7.5 per cent.

The wind and solar companies have harvested, or more accurately pillaged, constraint payments from electricity consumers which since 2001 total £240 billion, yes billion.

Richard Lyon concludes by saying: “The lights will probably stay on this winter but ‘Probably’ is not a safety margin.” How right he is.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian

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, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.