Readers' Letters: Oh, so suddenly a sovereign wealth fund is a good idea?

Some of the arguments from that campaign continue with independence supporters, particularly on the subject of currency, but they will have to be resolved at some point in the future, should we ever again be given the opportunity to vote on the matter of Scottish independence. It is ironic, however, that one of the arguments made by the pro-independence side, concerning the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund – which was derided by the unionists during the referendum – is now on course to become a reality. Cogent and compelling points were made in 2014 that Scotland should use its oil wealth to build a sovereign wealth fund like that of Norway. Unionists dismissed this, not only as impossible on the grounds of fiscal constraints, but also on the basis that building any kind of sovereign wealth fund whilst having a budget deficit makes no sense.

On 8 September the Financial Times reported that the UK Government is to set up a sovereign wealth fund, apparently funded entirely from the issuance of debt. A staggering revelation when we consider the state of the UK finances and the arguments which were used to try to keep Scotland within the Union back in 2014. Ten years ago we were being told that a future independent Scotland would not be able to use its revenues from the North Sea to set up a sovereign wealth fund, yet we now have the situation where a debt-ravaged UK Government intends to establish one on the basis of raising more public debt.

No doubt, however, a fair proportion of the interest paid to fund that additional debt will emanate from Scottish North Sea oil revenues.

The reality of the situation is that Scotland could have had its own wealth fund, and it could even have been part funded with debt, just like the UK is now going to do. UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves can rest easy. No one will question how she financed the new fund, least of all the apologists for the misleading Unionists, who will simply forget their argument against one back in 2014. The irony of the situation, however, remains very clear!

Jim Finlayson, Banchory, Aberdeenshire

Renewed interest

Clark Cross wants to paint a picture of other advanced countries doing nothing about reducing carbon emissions (Letters, 11 September). He cherry picks stories from around the world, none of which are relevant to tackling climate change. In response, I will cherry pick my own statistics.

Electricity generation from renewable sources in Germany accounted for 61.5 per cent of total domestic electricity production in the first six months of 2024. Norway has an almost entirely renewables-based electricity system (around 98 per cent), using their plentiful supply of hydropower. Renewables' share of electricity in New Zealand is around 80-85 per cent. Sweden's share of renewables was 68 per cent in 2023. In the same year, 48 per cent of the Netherlands' electricity was generated from renewable sources, such as solar, wind and water.

The USA is a laggard in its proportion of electricity produced from renewables but it is focused on eliminating coal-fired power generation. In the decade up to 2022, the USA reduced its use of coal-fired power by 43 per cent. In turn, this reduced its emissions of deadly sulphur dioxide by 70 per cent and poisonous nitrogen oxides by 42 per cent.

So, with the exception of the USA, all the countries quoted by Clark Cross are beating the UK for share of electricity from renewables; we currently stand at around 42 per cent. We are not alone in responding to the climate crisis. The UK is just one of dozens of countries committed to the Paris Agreement. But I suspect these are facts that Clark Cross would rather not share with your readers.

Jeff Rogers, Banchory, Aberdeenshire

It’s cold here

The Scotsman leader articles “Political battle royal is on and we may all benefit” and “Not Braveheart but Smartbrain” are at best disingenuous and at worst somewhat hypocritical. You welcome the fact that the faux “Scottish” Labour Party is neck and neck with the SNP despite the fact that its leader must at all times do the bidding of his English master Keir Starmer. At the very least perhaps the Scottish Labour Party could let its southern comrades know it is slightly colder up here in the winter.

You then move on to praise King David I as “gentle, just, chaste and humble” and who you say established a Pax Scotia with Cumberland and Northumbria, a cordon sanitaire from the civil strife down south. It is very obvious to me that such values have been consistent in Scotland since David's time in the 12th century and are another reason for independence. I can just imagine what the English media would have done to someone who is gentle and just and wanted peace. In conclusion, all I can say is that it's very clear that Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves are not gentle or just, and certainly not humble. They border on arrogance after just two months in power – and I have no interest whatsoever in their chastity.

Marjorie Ellis Thompson, Edinburgh

Numbers game

I note from a recent press report that the Scottish Government is ready to consider a proposal for a memorial to the late Queen. Memorials are one thing we are good at and if that is held to be a proper way of spending the taxpayers’ money, fair enough. However those of us who remember the furore in 1952 when we were asked to accept that the second Elizabeth of England, but the first of Great Britain, should be designated Elizabeth II would advise that consideration should be given to the designation used on such a memorial. Postboxes were defaced when that cipher was used and it was replaced by a plain Scottish crown, while Royal Mail also changed its imagery. On the other hand, the proposal does offer a fine opportunity for Westminster to remind us yet again that England rules.

James Scott, Edinburgh

Healthy past

Whether the ministers for health, education, etc at Westminster can cope is a premature question because they have only been in post for a few weeks.

But they would have to be spectacularly incompetent to do worse than their current counterparts at Holyrood.

So I would advise Sandy Philip (Letters,11 September) to hold fire before passing an opinion, as well as to check the history books. If Westminster neglected Scotland before Holyrood, as he opines, it could be said that it was because public services such as health were run from Edinburgh, and always had been.

I know, because I advised it before parliamentary devolution, and could tell stories about the policy battles we had with London, which often we won.

Hugh Pennington, Aberdeen

Working smarter

The latest Scottish Census release shows that around 800,000 workers now regularly work from home, more than a threefold increase from the previous census in 2011. With nearly a third of workers working from home, this constitutes the biggest social change arising from the pandemic and one that sits alongside the technology revolution, improvements in travel and rising living standards over the last 50 years.

Lifestyles have altered for the better, with many employees given the choice of when to go into work and where to work from. Flexible hours serve to improve work life balance for activities like dropping off children or taking exercise breaks. There is greater dog ownership as homeworkers seek companionship, and less commuting, which gives time back and reduces pollution. New technology, like Zoom and Teams, are serving to keep workers connected.

The best employers are increasingly seen to be those who give employees the choice of where to work from and when to work. Those that do commute to work are driving more and using public transport less.

Some town and city centre outlets have suffered as a result of less trade from office workers and real estate office markets have been hit.

Overall, however, the majority of workers embrace flexible working and the home-working revolution is here to stay.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

Sorry state

What a fascinating insight into the world of snails (your report, 11 September), namely the threatened partulas and rosy wolf, the predators, and our need, as humans, to apologise to them. While we are in apology mode there are many other species for whose near extinction, or worse, we need to apologise for.

For example, in the threatened insect world I never thought I would miss wasps, the sting in their tail being replaced by the fatal sting to their survival. And what of the various species of flies and even their predators, spiders? We might be forced eventually to think of a world without any bees or butterflies. Pesticides have a lot to answer for.

Yesterday, I was thinking of the world of birds, and the many species I see no more. Where are all the thrushes and starlings, robins and wrens that used to populate our gardens? What was missing yesterday in my garden was a visit by any birds, even with the temptation of a cooling birdbath.

Humans, arguably the only species that is thriving on our fragile planet, should apologise for our destructive demands on the finite resources of our world which, sooner rather than later, may well be self destructive.

Ian Petrie, 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.