DESPITE what Neil Mackay predicts, Labour is not going to consign the SNP to oblivion ("Here’s how Labour could consign the SNP to oblivion", The Herald, June 20). Labour may win the next Westminster General Election; but if it does, that will not be because of any achievements, actual or potential, to Labour’s credit, for the simple reason that there are none: it will merely be because they are not the Tories.

Even that will have little force in Scotland; for we know from long experience that Scotland fares no better under Labour than under Tory governments at Westminster. As far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned, the habit among independence supporters of suggesting that Labour politicians differ from Tories only in the colour of their ties has been criticised as unfair; but the plain fact is that for the last 14 years neither party at Holyrood has done anything at all except reiterate that they don’t want independence, don’t want a referendum and don’t like the SNP.

Mr Mackay suggests that if the Labour contingent at Holyrood became a radical, dynamic, forward-looking party ready to support independence or at any rate to countenance the possibility this might transform the party’s fortunes: yes, it probably would; that has really been obvious for a long time. But on Scottish Labour’s record under its present and its last seven leaders, it is about as likely as Donald Trump and his followers rallying behind Greta Thunberg.

Independence supporters see as clearly as unionists that the SNP is currently in need of a radical shake-up. I would bet much more heavily on its giving itself one, and regaining lost ground in time for the next General Election, than I would on Labour making any kind of comeback.

Derrick McClure, Aberdeen.

Defeat from the jaws of victory

LIKE what seems many thousands if not millions of others, I intend to return to the Labour fold at the next election. In doing so I hope to be part of a groundswell that will give us a moderate new centre-left government at UK level and witness the end of the SNP as a force in Scotland.

One thing however worries me. Labour’s lack of pragmatism and good sense in its apparent attempt to appeal to the Green-woke elements in its camp brings the idiotic knee-jerk ban on further oil and gas developments in the North Sea ("Starmer: I pledge new energy firm for Scotland", The Herald, June 20). The day will come for that drastic step, everyone knows it. But to pre-empt events as Labour plans to do is plainly self-defeating. As well, it will sacrifice of thousands of well-paid high-tech jobs.

This may well be Labour’s version of the SNP’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill and the Deposit Return Scheme, and clutching defeat from the jaws of certain victory.

This is the kind of not-thought-through posing that we would expect from Jeremy Corbyn & Co and the SNP.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.

Read more: Here's how Labour can consign SNP to oblivion

Fatal flaw in Starmer plan

BRIAN Wilson ("Ditch the word ‘ban’ and Labour’s energy plan could actually deliver", The Herald, June 20) rhapsodises (Herald 20 June) about Sir Keir Starmer’s “exciting" policy commitment to establish a National Energy Company headquartered in Scotland, but has the grace to admit that it is far from new. In 1975 Labour set up the British National Oil Company, headquartered in Glasgow as a sop to Scotland, whose oil-rich waters were to be its playground. It did little more than exist in the shadow of commercial “big oil” and was certainly not transformative in the way Statoil was in Norway, before being killed off like so much else by Margaret Thatcher.

This episode illustrates the fatal flaw in Labour’s revival of the idea: it is the child of Westminster politics, to be put to death as soon as the Tories are next returned to office and, under the aegis of Whitehall, could never have the freedom of action and funding available to the international oil majors. Nor would it have the focus on what Scotland needs and deserves as the major player in the green energy revolution.

The desirable alternative would be a Scottish champion set up by Holyrood but that, alas, cuts no ice as it stands. Without independence, the Scottish Government does not have the powers or the financial freedom to make a success of such a far-reaching initiative. Instead, we have to settle for window dressing by the UK parties.

James Scott, Edinburgh.

We must not give up on oil

THE pledge to end North Sea oil exploration should be read as a threat no matter who makes it.

The lifestyle enjoyed by the whole world, especially the developed West, depends on oil and gas. Fertiliser depends on natural gas which keeps billions more people alive than we could support from natural farming practices. Specialised chemicals derived from oil continue to advance all types of technology and the most commonly-used fabric for clothing worldwide is an oil derivative.

This incredibly useful resource is currently cheap enough to burn for energy but in the future that might not be the case. Even then its use as a feedstock for so many vital industries will continue.

Decarbonisation of energy production should be continued with a much greater emphasis on nuclear energy. Doing this alongside increased oil and gas production will allow us to refine the reserves we are very lucky to have to create high value non-energy products. Selling them to the world will bring the desired profits.

Tom Walker, Loanhead.

Read more: Labour's GB Energy could finally do what BNOC was intended to do

We must increase storage capacity

WHILE the UK needs to cut its CO2 emissions, we can only do that by cutting our burning of oil and gas as quickly as is practicable. We won’t achieve any CO2 reduction by stopping developing our own oil and gas fields while we still need oil and gas. If we are to cut our use of fossil fuels, we need to increase dramatically our capacity to harness and store renewable energy.

Labour’s GB Energy plan has great potential if it can be led by someone with the drive and vision of Tom Johnston, the father of the much-missed Hydro Board. But it must not just drive increased renewables generation. It must also put as much effort into addressing the energy storage challenge without which renewables cannot provide a reliable enough supply. While batteries and the use of hydrogen no doubt have potential, we must also the proven option of hydro pumped storage.

As Susan Grant writes (Letters, June 20), SSE has its Coire Glas pumped storage scheme nearly ready to go if only Government and Ofgem can offer it the right financial deal. This must be sorted without further delay. But Coire Glas alone is not enough. Further new pumped storage schemes will be needed and we need to harness the potential of some of the existing conventional hydro schemes to include an element of pumped storage.

We can’t wait for GB Energy to be set up to make a start. But when it does arrive, if GB Energy has Tom Johnston’s vision it will drive the harnessing our pumped storage potential and so serve many future generations just as the Hydro Board’s schemes still serve us today.

Alistair Easton, Edinburgh.

A disgrace to democracy

THERE can scarcely be a more heinous crime in Westminster than a Prime Minister deliberately repeatedly lying to Parliament and therefore simultaneously to the country as a whole. The Parliamentary Privileges Committee is to be congratulated on performing its duties and coming to a conclusion that should have been obvious to anyone who can tie their own shoelaces.

The unacceptable and disgraceful aspect of the resultant debate was not that seven Conservative MPs chose to vote against the findings of the committee but that 225 MPs, by abstaining from voting, chose to put their own careers and support for their party and its disgraced leader ahead of supporting the committee’s findings.

What Monday’s vote and Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list clearly reinforce is that Westminster is divorced from the real world we are forced to live in because of its decisions and is in fact a festering bed of cronyism and self-interest. MPs should simply not be allowed the option of not voting in decisions taken in the chamber. They are there to represent the wishes of the electorate, not to feather their own nests. In a democracy they are supposed to do what we tell them, not the reverse.

David J Crawford, Glasgow.