Not in my name: surely now we must stop arms sales to Israel

The US State Department spokesperson, Matthew Miller, said the Biden administration was “deeply concerned” by the legislation. “There’s nobody that can replace them right now in the middle of the crisis,” he said.

However I suspect that in spite of these condemnations the UK and US governments will continue to allow the supply of armaments to Israel.

The UK Government has for instance, according to Oxfam “paused only 30 out of 350 arms licences to Israel, but is still allowing many other types of arms to be exported, including parts for F-35 Israeli fighter jets. These jets are routinely dropping bombs on civilians and have decimated Gaza. As long as the UK Government continues to allow arms like these to be sold to Israel, civilians will continue to die and the restrictions will make little meaningful difference in this appalling crisis”. Most certainly not in my name, Lazzarini rather than Starmer speaking for me.

John Milne, Uddingston.

• NO doubt voices will be raised in protest at Israel's withdrawal from accommodating UNRWA in Gaza but is this really fair? For many years this organisation has co-operated with Hamas and, as is well known, the distribution of aid has been somewhat patchy under Hamas control.

If there is to be a genuine solution to the endless troubles in the Middle East then Hamas can have no part to play, as per Hezbollah. A new approach is needed whereby aid goes to those who need it and not into funding expensive tunnels and offensive weapons.

The UN seems paralysed to act in defiance of Hamas or Hezbollah so Israel is taking the necessary steps instead. Terrorism must not be rewarded in solving this long-running problem. Peaceful co-operation is the only way forward from both sides.

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.

Read more letters

• Is it any wonder people in UK don't want to move to Scotland?
• Don't believe the doomsayers: this is a great country to move to
• Why on earth is Operation Branchform taking so long?

Migrants love life in Scotland

SORRY to disillusion Allan Sutherland (Letters, October 29) about folk not wanting to move to Scotland, but analysis and figures frequently prove that far more are moving from England to Scotland than go the other way. It is also the case that the migrants I have met, from a range of countries as diverse as Ukraine, Palestine and parts of Africa, cannot praise highly enough the welcome they have received and the friendliness of neighbours.

While those who have found work are delighted that their initial tranche of income tax is at 19% instead of the 20% in England (a benefit from which even the wealthiest benefit), they are more than happy to be contributing to our economy and appreciate the other benefits that their tax provides which are not available in England.

P Davidson, Falkirk.

Nuclear by the back door?

ENERGY policy is reserved to the UK Parliament with the exception of planning, which is a devolved matter, giving Scottish ministers the power to approve or reject new projects. So why would the Scottish SNP administration welcome Michael Shanks’s proposal to loosen the planning rules for energy projects, since it’s the one lever Scotland has to prevent any new nuclear power plants on its soil?

Gillian Martin, Scotland’s Energy Secretary, has endorsed Labour’s announcement to modernise “outdated bureaucratic processes” to speed up green energy projects. Is she aware that Labour considers nuclear power to be “green” and wants to impose it on Scotland?

The proposed changes to the planning rules include reducing the time the public can raise objections to new developments to just six weeks from the current three months.

At the moment, any application to build a nuclear power plant in Scotland must be made under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. But the application is made to and determined by Scottish ministers as set out in the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers) Order 1999.

Furthermore, the relevant local authority can trigger a public inquiry if it formally objects which has served as a brake on any new nuclear power plants. The inquiry can take years and dramatically increase costs, killing the project. The final arbiter of whether projects proceed is the Scottish ministers, meaning Scotland can reject nuclear power indefinitely.

However, Michael Shanks’s legislation is removing the brake.

Labour probably can’t believe its luck that the SNP administration supports its Trojan horse proposal to kneecap the planning process and let nuclear power back into Scotland.

To stop the UK from doing things to Scotland without our consent, we must end the Union.

Leah Gunn Barrett, Edinburgh.

• AS we watched Tuesday’s Great British Energy debate in the House of Commons (October 29), politicians shone very little light on the precarious state of our electricity production. In fact, during the actual debate, once again the wind industry failed to produce the goods. Gas and imports had to step in to keep the lights on and heat our homes.

The entire fleet of 11,000 entirely parasitic, demonstrably useless, giant, industrial wind machines, ugly pylons and vast substations, wrecking our countryside didn’t turn up, hardly able to supply the National Grid with 7%.

Why are we hard-pressed consumers still paying such eye-watering subsidies to an industry that has so spectacularly failed?

George Herraghty, Lhanbryde.

Budget blow to our built heritage

TONY Rosenthal makes good points concerning the ongoing threat to our built heritage ("The unintended consequences of a decision that may doom listed treasures", The Herald, October 29).

However, we must have sympathy for our hard-pressed local authorities as they have been given responsibilities for listed architecture in our towns and cities without the resources or joined-up national legislation necessary to discharge them effectively.

Incentives to save built heritage are lacking: quite the opposite in fact, as new build and demolition for new build are favoured by VAT zero-rating in the UK’s tax regime. Even with some of the adjustments available, VAT acts as an immediate hurdle which makes repair, maintenance and retention of pre-existing structures unattractive to owners and developers. It’s therefore disappointing that in Wednesday’s Budget the UK Government failed to recognise the potential economic stimulus of addressing this anomaly.

As a conservation charity we can only do so much to rescue the built heritage that is emblematic of our country and so attractive to visitors - our acquisition of Mackintosh at the Willow in Sauchiehall Street being the latest example. We now at national level have a post-pandemic opportunity to rethink the way we use and re-use existing buildings and to recognise the strong desire of the public to retain characterful streetscapes and avoid unnecessary new replacements, especially when poorly designed, that undermine any sense of place.

This requires joining-up thinking - and action - across Scotland and the UK about planning, incentives, taxation and funding, as well as vocational training and the need to retrofit existing building for new carbon-neutral heating systems. Wholesale demolition is not a sustainable nor sensible option, not least due to the embodied carbon that would be released.

The architecture of the past is essential to Scotland’s identity and appeal, and has a vital role to play in our future; it just needs to be given a fair chance to do so.

Phil Long, Chief Executive, National Trust for Scotland, Edinburgh.

The Mackintosh at the Willow in Glasgow's Sauchiehall Street has been acquired by the National Trust for Scotland (Image: National Trust for Scotland/Mackintosh at the Willow)

A flood of spilled beans

IN 1947 Hugh Dalton had to resign as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Clement Attlee’s post-war Labour Government over a minor Budget leak. In 2024 everybody who is important in Keir Starmer’s Labour Government was spilling the beans about what was in this year’s Budget before it happened. Is this what is meant by transparency in politics?

Professor KB Scott, Stirling.

Better safe than sorry?

I AGREE with Gordon W Smith (Letters, October 30) that sending letters (apparently from Belfast, no less) is a waste of money. However the Department of Work and Pensions has previously received criticism from the so-called Waspi (Women Against State Pension Inequality) women. The issue for these women was that they were never advised of the change which resulted in an improved state pension being paid from the same state pension age as applied to men. Despite coverage of this change in newspapers many, because they never received a letter, thought that they would receive the state pension as from age 60.

Sandy Gemmill, Edinburgh.