Sturgeon's entry into the fray will boost SNP's opponents

I'm struggling to think of a single way Ms Sturgeon's support could assist an SNP candidate. Surely she'll be more help to their opponents?

Martin Redfern, Melrose.

Apology not to be believed

AS she tries to appear relevant again I don't hold much belief in Nicola Sturgeon's "apology" to the people of the North for failing to dual the A9 as promised. Of course, Brexit and Covid have happened which has impacted government finances but there has been no shortage of cash for the two ferries being built by Ferguson Marine, virtue-signalling projects nor the amounts being spent on independence. Did we need millions of pounds spent employing civil servants to compile reports on the way forward for independence, which will no doubt gather dust on shelves, or an army of spin doctors pushing the independence cause? The spending of public money by the SNP Government has been selective and politically motivated and no amount of supposed contrition by Ms Sturgeon can change that fact.

Bob MacDougall, Kippen.

READ MORE: Don't believe anyone who says there is a cheap energy future ahead

READ MORE: Just how much lower can our hypocritical politicians go?

Unfair pricing of electricity

CLARK Cross (Letters, May 25) asks where I would place another 11,000 wind turbines. He uses the figures for the UK so perhaps the 11,000 extra wind turbines could be spread throughout England and Wales.

Separate information for each of the UK “regions” can be found at electricityproduction.uk and this shows a very different result for Scotland. The figures I use come from Government statistics and they state that in 2023 Scotland produced more electricity than it needed from renewables and exported 15.9 TWh.

At present, according to the UK Government Department for Energy Security & Net Zero's report Electricity Generation Costs 2023, it costs about three times as much to generate electricity using a CCGT H Class, gas turbine (combined-cycle gas turbine) as it does to generate it with any of the three renewable methods compared (onshore, offshore or Solar PV). The levelised cost for CCGT H class is £114/MWh whereas for On Shore Wind it is £38/MWh.

The UK Government predicts that the cost of generating electricity using gas will be five times more expensive in 2035 and six times more expensive than renewables in 2040.

For interest, the generation report now considers electricity generation from hydrogen, so perhaps there is an awareness of other methods available to generate electricity.

As to the question “Where is the tidal power electricity?”, this is one of many options available, however as the wholesale energy supply is in the hands of privatised companies and the statutory obligation of the CEO is to make as much profit as possible for its shareholders why should they invest in providing cheaper electricity when they are obliged to charge over the odds for the electricity they generate from any source?

Unfortunately the UK Government through Ofgem determines that the energy companies sell all the electricity at the most expensive method used overall, resulting in huge unearned profit for the wholesale energy companies (£22 billion excess profits for Shell Energy since the start of the Ukraine war).

The UK Government was forced to recognise this and levies a windfall tax which it could have used to help the NHS, build more social houses, remove the £2 billion energy debt and eliminate fuel poverty or alternatively, as happened, it could use it to reduce National Insurance and taxes generally for all the wealthy workers and shareholders.

Perhaps it is time for the next government to invest in generation using renewables and the profits used for all our benefit, however at the first opportunity a Tory government would sell it off at a ridiculous price, making instant fortunes for those with enough money to buy them, just as happened with all the previous privatisation rip-offs.

The energy gravy train Mr Cross refers to is not with those in the climate sector but rather with the existing energy companies. Or is he simply unaware that he could get cheaper electricity with renewably electricity if it was priced correctly.

Iain McIntyre, Sauchie.

Is electricity generation priced unfairly? (Image: PA)

Reverse building VAT policy

I READ with interest Donald Erskine’s article in Glasgow City Heritage Trust and Niall Murphy’s argument about valuing our built heritage ("“Great catastrophes: Why bulldozing the city’s historic buildings is bad…”, May 26), and I agree entirely with all the points made, but I feel there are a couple of other dimensions to the issue that should be highlighted.

As an architect long committed to providing environmentally responsible designs I have always encouraged clients to build the most energy-efficient new buildings, but in recent years the issue of the carbon embodied in construction work has become a more widely understood and critical issue. Basically, the carbon used to create a new building might exceed the carbon saved by a well -nsulated building during its lifetime.

Consequently, demolishing a historic building and constructing a new building using concrete, steel, glass and hydrocarbon-based materials, all with high embodied carbon, will create a much more damaging carbon footprint than retaining and refurbishing the original heritage building. Thus the default position, for environmental reasons, should always be to retain and refurbish where practicable, and planning and building standards legislation should be amended to encourage this.

The other big issue is the current tax regime that favours developers who demolish our heritage and build new buildings. Currently any building owner who wishes to maintain or refurbish an existing building generally must pay VAT at 20% on all construction work, while for a new building VAT is rated at 0%. This is madness, given the social and environmental damage caused.

The argument is made by the Exchequer that we cannot afford to reduce the VAT charge for work to existing buildings. However, the position should be reversed with no damage to the the nation’s income; simply charge VAT at 20% on all new buildings and no VAT on the work to maintain, retain and refurbish our heritage and existing buildings. This would create a 40% tax shift to help us make the most of what we’ve got, with tremendous social and environmental benefits.

With an election due in the next few weeks, now would be an appropriate time for us all to make politicians commit to change on this issue.

Trevor Black, Evanton.

Folly of the SNP and Greens

IN the recent heated debate about woodburning stoves Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie said moving to low carbon heating was "essential to hitting our climate targets and delivering warmer, greener homes". So what does he think about the latest U-turn - one of many - from the Scottish Government which has reversed the ban on the installation of woodburning stoves and biomass boilers. Why do the SNP and Green MSPs never put their brains in gear before they make decisions?

Clark Cross, Linlithgow.

Population poser

SINCE 1950, the population of Scotland has hovered around five million, while that of the UK has risen from 50m to 67m, and perhaps even more from unaccounted immigration.

Why has the population of our large and enterprising country remained so static?

Malcolm Parkin, Kinross.

One evil begets another

OTTO Inglis (Letters, May 26) is correct in saying no compensation ought to be paid in relation to slavery. In support he refers to “Sippenhaft” paid by Germany in reparations after 1945.

One additional reason is that one evil can beget another. In his 2023 book, The Palestine Laboratory, Antony Loewenstein shows how “the massive amounts of reparations given to Israel from West Germany in 1952 provided the investment resources the sector needed, and Israel transferred much of it secretly into weapons development and the research to develop a viable nuclear weapon.” The “Laboratory” was the occupied Palestinian territories and weapons, tested in battle, were sold globally, often to the most repressive regimes.

Murdo Grant, Rosemarkie.

•THERE is a complete lack of reality in the condemnation of the latest Israeli airstrike in Rafah, which apparently killed several civilians. Hamas had fired rockets from Rafah into Israel with the express objective of killing Israelis to absolutely no condemnation from the international community.

Hamas has neither the ability nor the desire to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. Its rockets and drones usually fail to kill Israeli civilians, not from lack of malice, but because of Israel’s world-class air defences.

To protect its people, Israel attempts to prevent future attacks by targeting the launch sites and storage places of Hamas’s missiles.

When these operations lead to Palestinian civilian deaths the blame for these deaths rightly lies with Hamas, which fires rockets from residential areas and frequently prevents the evacuation of civilians, because those civilian deaths serve their agenda.

Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife.