TOM Gordon’s reporting of the Alba Special Assembly in Perth on December 10 is correct that the meeting overwhelmingly favoured utilising a Holyrood poll rather than a Westminster one for any “plebiscite election” on independence ("Yes movement split over which election should be 'de facto' referendum", heraldscotland, December 11).

The advantages are obvious. The franchise for a Holyrood poll does not exclude 16-17-year-olds or European nationals resident and contributing to Scotland from voting. It would also avoid the ballot-rigging identity checks about to be introduced by the Tory Government. Most importantly, it would be much easier to focus such a poll around the single question of Scotland’s right of self-determination, particularly if the independence-supporting parties fought under a Scotland United banner.

However, Mr Gordon is wrong in suggesting that the proposal is to wait until the elections scheduled for 2026: on the contrary, urgency in securing an independence vote was one of the sentiments of the conference, since the people attending believe that the current cost of living crisis is a reason for accelerating the move to independence, not one for delay. A precise proposal canvassed was to dissolve the Scottish Parliament to force a ballot on Thursday, October 19, 2023, the date promised for the “no ifs no buts” referendum before it was scuppered by the move to the Supreme Court.

The Holyrood poll was only one of a range of options discussed by the meeting to galvanise the independence cause and Alba is still a fledgling political party and but one part of the independence movement.

However, it was an energised conference and, given the prevailing weather conditions, hugely well attended. For that reason it will be re-convened on January 14 in Edinburgh to take all the proposals from Saturday forward into a formulated independence strategy – one which is badly required if we are to harness current and clear pro-independence support among the people.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, Chair, Alba Party, Glasgow

• KEVIN McKenna ("Nicola Sturgeon's authority is starting to ebb away", The Herald, December 12) may indeed be right about the shoogly nail supporting Nicola Sturgeon's jacket. But he has missed one significant element of the Westminster revolt that has ousted Ian Blackford and installed a new regime at Westminster.

In his first major interview the new leader Stephen Flynn has questioned Nicola Sturgeon's strategy of making the next General Election a “de facto referendum on independence”, a move that would probably have ended in the SNP losing a number of Westminster seats ("Sturgeon’s authority ‘absolutely solid’ after week of Westminster upheaval", The Herald, December 12). It seems the defenestration of Mr Blackford wasn't so much about pursuing the best tactics to achieve independence but more about SNP MPs' fear of losing their jobs and therefore their first-class subsidised seats on the Westminster gravy train.
Alex Gallagher, Largs

Young will want to stay put

I DON'T think many, if any, young people in Scotland will be following Susan Lanford's advice (Letters, December 13) to "get out of Scotland". Certainly not nurses, who, it has been suggested by Unison's General Secretary, Christina McAnea, might move from England to Scotland to get better pay, and not students and their parents who appreciate not having to pay university tuition fees in Scotland (up to £9,250 a year in England).

Those with chronic health conditions will also be thankful not to have to pay over the counter for their prescriptions (£9.35 per item in England) while council tax bills are cheaper in all bands in Scotland, with people in Band D paying £590 less than in England.
Ruth Marr, Stirling

A socially just economic path

NEIL Mackay ("This week we can weigh the heart and soul of the SNP", The Herald, December 13) gives some credit to the SNP for the mitigating measures it has taken in an effort to reduce the impact of Westminster’s austerity. He mentions the Scottish Child Payment, but much more could have been highlighted and I want to focus on the plight of carers, often the unseen who do so much in taking on responsibilities and saving the country millions.

On Carer’s Allowance being devolved to Holyrood the Scottish Government recognised that it amounted to less than basic unemployment benefit and set about correcting this anomaly.

In addition, it introduced a Young Carer’s Grant and additional payments for carers of more than one disabled child. Carer’s Allowance Supplement is paid twice yearly in Scotland. Some other benefits that assist carers financially, implemented by the Scottish Government, are Best Start Grants and the Scottish Welfare Fund; the Winter Fuel Payment was extended to families of severely disabled children and in September the First Minister announced a doubling of the Fuel Insecurity Fund from £10m to £20m this year.

Other mitigating measures have been implemented by the Scottish Government and I am sure Mr Mackay is fully aware of them. I take heart from the SNP’s socially-just approach to the economy.
Catriona C Clark, Falkirk

Independence not happening soon

FRASER Grant (Letters, December 12) tells us that "Scotland will become a normal self-governing nation long before Labour abolishes the House of Lords".

Leaving aside the rather obvious fact that normality for most states is that they comprise a number of now-redundant nations (for example Germany, which has been formed from three different states – the Federal and Democratic Republics and the Saarland – since the Second World War alone), Mr Grant's contention defies all credibility.

The fact is that there is no lawful unilateral path to Scottish independence, meaning that it simply is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. In contrast, Labour has a clear path to abolish the Lords and to achieve much more: win a General Election and introduce legislation as the UK Government.

In short, Labour's proposal is possible (and increasingly probable) and the nationalist delusion is a tissue of wishful thinking.
Peter A Russell, Glasgow

Take back energy assets

WHILE I substantially agree with Doug Maughan (Letters, December 12), he seems puzzled that electricity should cost more because of increasing prices of gas. However, it’s important to be aware that 42 per cent of electricity is generated using gas, largely substituting for coal, but creating a dependence in the price of electricity on the price of gas.

Why did the global price of energy increase as it has? Because Europe has turned against the use of Russian gas, arguably a politically-inspired reduction in supply as Europe substituted gas from the global market for Russian gas. The political reasons may have been good, but they underlie the economic consequences.

However, where I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Maughan is when he writes that the “power companies should be nationalised”, but we need to be clear what we mean by this. I don’t mean only the companies that the consumer deals with. The larger part of the problem lies with the companies which own energy resources. It is they who have been enriched by increasing prices.

We know the UK has plentiful energy resources, but counter-intuitively amongst the highest prices in Europe. Why? Because successive UK governments sold our energy resources off to the highest bidder decades ago, the reason the UK has no energy security today, since producers of UK energy sell to the highest bidder.

Contrast that with France, where their government has forced EDF to take an €8.4 billion (£7bn) financial hit to protect households from rocketing energy costs by limiting bill increases to 4% this year. How? Because the French Government has a controlling stake in EDF. By owning their energy resources, the French have energy security we can only dream of.

Nor is this a recent problem. The dependence on Russian gas began in the 1970s, at about the same time as Harold Wilson told his Secretary of State for Energy, Tony Benn, that he would not nationalise BP’s holdings in the North Sea. One might have hoped the lesson would have been learned by now, but it seems not. Indeed this is portrayed as the natural order, rather than government decision-making.
Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton

• I MUST point out to Christine Anderson (Letters, December 13) that, under the present cap energy regulations, a unit of gas is only 10p whilst that for electricity is around 35p. Hence spending cash on electric heaters means relying on an energy source that is three and a half times that of gas.

The rush by the Scottish Government to phase out gas as part of its Green Transition will result in a massive increase in energy costs which will impact badly on the Scottish economy.
Ian Moir, Castle Douglas

Read more letters: If you're young and ambitious you need to get out of Scotland

The Herald:

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.