Voting Labour will not protect rural Scotland from Big Energy
It is entirely possible that his own party's actions – removal of England's community veto on wind developments, a change to the Energy Act to make it easier for developers and even harder for the opposition to have their voices heard, the mass roll-out of its own renewables programme, nuclear and new gas – will mean south of the Border won't need to buy the global investment companies' increased wind energy, resulting in even more turbines being switched off, higher energy bills and increased fuel poverty.
Cllr Gregson sits on a planning committee at Highland Council that will decide whether to approve massive substations in our communities and if they should object to highly controversial pylon lines striding through our glens and where rural folk live. In this article he appears to back this infrastructure and it concerns some in the targeted areas that he has a bias towards supporting the very industrialisation that they are fighting against.
He should think very carefully as to whether he can sit on the planning committee and fairly determine an application for the infrastructure he would appear to support in his article.
Lyndsey Ward, Communities B4 Power Companies, Beauly.
Read more letters
Energy future is a mirage
The National Energy Systems Operator (NESO) has published its Future Energy Scenarios. It presents a wish list of immediate, intermediate and long-term goals that are idealistically presented as a series of "waves" from now through to the magical 2050 "Horizon Wave" when we could all be basking in the affordable, balmy, sunlit uplands of Net Zero.
It lists a huge array of technological advances that will supposedly lead us there. Among them is impractical and uneconomic carbon sequestration, overcoming the inherent costs and dangers of hydrogen production, transport and storage, a massive uptake of heat pumps and electric vehicles, energy-intensive smart technologies, battery storage, further expansion of intermittent wind and solar, bioenergy and upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. It has yet to provide its costings but provides convenient wriggle room by stating "how costs translate to consumers will depend on policy choices" and confusingly concludes that "readers should not place any reliance on the contents of this document".
NESO calculates that this towering edifice of innovation will reduce electricity demand and costs to consumers by 18% by 2050, built primarily on the flimsy foundations of massively subsidised, foreign-owned renewables. This looks more like a mirage than any form of reality and presupposes that carbon emissions are the principal cause of our ever-changing climate.
Surprisingly there is only passing reference to nuclear power. This is a strange omission considering Energy Secretary Ed Miliband's recent pronouncements on the long-overdue ramping up of nuclear power supply and investment. There is no mention of the Holy Grail of limitless clean energy, nuclear fusion which, once the searing temperatures it generates can be contained, will be the principal means of providing for a predicted three-fold increase in global energy demand that will render many transitional technologies obsolete.
Neil J Bryce, Kelso.
Say no to Net Zero
While Chancellor Rachel Reeves attempts to restore our damaged economy, with calculations of cost and outcomes, and reports on these, the [[Net Zero]] project plunges madly on without question. If indeed CO2 is the problem, what is the target for emissions, and what progress are we making? Never mentioned. The entire [[Net Zero]] thing is no more than a man waving a placard saying that the end of the world is nigh.
If that man was a street lunatic one could laugh and pass on, but he is a government minister by the name of Ed Miliband, seemingly out of control with a blank cheque book.
Where is the accountability for the vast sums spent and still demanded for a project that never has to justify itself, and has targets conveniently in decades ahead, and warnings that have not come true?
Malcolm Parkin, Kinross.
Ed Miliband, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Image: PA)
Market confusion
I notice in The Herald recently that a number of properties have been "brought to market". What does this mean?
I suspect that if my own humble abode were brought to market, it would have a prominent "for sale" sign outside. Are "brought to market" properties ever offered for sale? Who decides where the line is to be drawn so far as the use of these terms is concerned?
I , for one, would be most disappointed if my own property was to be considered of insufficient quality to be brought to market.
David Edgar, Biggar.
Timely remark
The recent letters on correct grammar reminded me of a conversation in my workplace when a new employee was being teased by his workmates that he wasn't a full time-served tradesman. His response: 'Am urr a jiner!'
Eric Macdonald, Paisley.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
It's time Miliband faced facts: his net zero promise is a lot of hot air
Ofgem has kicked off a review of energy bills that could result in wealthier households paying higher charges to shield poorer homes from rising net zero costs. The regulator is concerned that these higher costs would disproportionately affect poorer households because they are fixed and cannot be reduced through lower consumption. Jonathan Brearley, the chief executive of Ofgem, earlier this year made it clear he wanted to look at 'progressive billing', a model where higher-income households pay more. Ofgem has a statutory duty to give special regard to the needs of vulnerable consumers. But that does not mean it has a duty, or even the power, to raise costs for other households in order to subsidise the vulnerable. Both the Gas Act 1986 and Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) state that Ofgem must 'have regard to the interests of individuals who are disabled or chronically sick, of pensionable age, with low incomes, or residing in rural areas'. Yet its other obligations include ensuring security of supply, promotion of efficiency and competition, reduction of greenhouse gases and the protection of all consumers (present and future). So while Ofgem must pay special attention to the needs of vulnerable groups, this does not override its principal objective to protect all consumers. The regulator cannot independently decide to increase energy bills for middle-class or high-usage consumers in order to subsidise others, unless explicitly enabled by new legislation. I wrote recently about the stealth taxes and wealth redistribution already present in energy bills. However, these all have their basis in legislation, and are not schemes originated by Ofgem itself. One such scheme is the Warm Homes Discount, where energy suppliers must liaise with the Department for Work and Pensions to determine which of their customers is eligible for the discount. Suppliers then charge all their other customers more in order to fund it. But Brearley's suggestion of ' progressive pricing ' would mean suppliers need to gather much more information about their customers' finances. How would such pricing work in practice? Who would benefit from cheaper pricing? How would the costs be apportioned? Would they be shared among everyone that does not receive benefits? Would there be bands based on a consumer's tax bracket? What if a household contains one person on benefits and another who pays higher rate tax? Ofgem links rising network costs to the march of renewables, suggesting that while energy costs will fall on a per unit basis, system costs will rise, increasing fixed charges. In expressing these concerns there is an implicit admission that overall bills will be higher – if total bills were really going to fall, the share of fixed costs wouldn't be such a problem. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, has repeatedly promised £300 off bills. This was a huge factor in Labour's 2024 general election victory. Since the election, Miliband has clarified that the £300 would be achieved by 2030. But the Climate Change Committee, the Government's official adviser, has said that savings from net zero are unlikely before the seventh carbon budget period, which runs from 2038-2042. This contradiction has drawn remarkably little attention, but it's extraordinary that Miliband continues to insist that we will all be saving £300 by 2030 when his own experts are telling him otherwise. Now Ofgem is sending clear signals it is also concerned about affordability. If bills were going to fall by £300 there would be no real need to worry about standing charges and how to pay for higher network costs.
The Herald Scotland
5 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
Voting Labour will not protect rural Scotland from Big Energy
Cllr Gregson seems under the misapprehension that rural communities can be bought and will accept massive industrialisation of their environment if Big Energy just pays them more. We have to assume he is talking about future developments and not those already constructed. He fails to understand that many simply do not want more concrete and steel engulfing where they live. The truth may be hard for him to understand but these energy companies are building to export elsewhere as it is not needed in Scotland. It is a clear case of profit before people and we watch in horror as millions of CO2 absorbing trees are hacked down, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of carbon holding peat is dug up, habitats destroyed, creatures killed and displaced and the rural way of life sacrificed on the dubious altar of "green". It is entirely possible that his own party's actions – removal of England's community veto on wind developments, a change to the Energy Act to make it easier for developers and even harder for the opposition to have their voices heard, the mass roll-out of its own renewables programme, nuclear and new gas – will mean south of the Border won't need to buy the global investment companies' increased wind energy, resulting in even more turbines being switched off, higher energy bills and increased fuel poverty. Cllr Gregson sits on a planning committee at Highland Council that will decide whether to approve massive substations in our communities and if they should object to highly controversial pylon lines striding through our glens and where rural folk live. In this article he appears to back this infrastructure and it concerns some in the targeted areas that he has a bias towards supporting the very industrialisation that they are fighting against. He should think very carefully as to whether he can sit on the planning committee and fairly determine an application for the infrastructure he would appear to support in his article. Lyndsey Ward, Communities B4 Power Companies, Beauly. Read more letters Energy future is a mirage The National Energy Systems Operator (NESO) has published its Future Energy Scenarios. It presents a wish list of immediate, intermediate and long-term goals that are idealistically presented as a series of "waves" from now through to the magical 2050 "Horizon Wave" when we could all be basking in the affordable, balmy, sunlit uplands of Net Zero. It lists a huge array of technological advances that will supposedly lead us there. Among them is impractical and uneconomic carbon sequestration, overcoming the inherent costs and dangers of hydrogen production, transport and storage, a massive uptake of heat pumps and electric vehicles, energy-intensive smart technologies, battery storage, further expansion of intermittent wind and solar, bioenergy and upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. It has yet to provide its costings but provides convenient wriggle room by stating "how costs translate to consumers will depend on policy choices" and confusingly concludes that "readers should not place any reliance on the contents of this document". NESO calculates that this towering edifice of innovation will reduce electricity demand and costs to consumers by 18% by 2050, built primarily on the flimsy foundations of massively subsidised, foreign-owned renewables. This looks more like a mirage than any form of reality and presupposes that carbon emissions are the principal cause of our ever-changing climate. Surprisingly there is only passing reference to nuclear power. This is a strange omission considering Energy Secretary Ed Miliband's recent pronouncements on the long-overdue ramping up of nuclear power supply and investment. There is no mention of the Holy Grail of limitless clean energy, nuclear fusion which, once the searing temperatures it generates can be contained, will be the principal means of providing for a predicted three-fold increase in global energy demand that will render many transitional technologies obsolete. Neil J Bryce, Kelso. Say no to Net Zero While Chancellor Rachel Reeves attempts to restore our damaged economy, with calculations of cost and outcomes, and reports on these, the [[Net Zero]] project plunges madly on without question. If indeed CO2 is the problem, what is the target for emissions, and what progress are we making? Never mentioned. The entire [[Net Zero]] thing is no more than a man waving a placard saying that the end of the world is nigh. If that man was a street lunatic one could laugh and pass on, but he is a government minister by the name of Ed Miliband, seemingly out of control with a blank cheque book. Where is the accountability for the vast sums spent and still demanded for a project that never has to justify itself, and has targets conveniently in decades ahead, and warnings that have not come true? Malcolm Parkin, Kinross. Ed Miliband, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Image: PA) Market confusion I notice in The Herald recently that a number of properties have been "brought to market". What does this mean? I suspect that if my own humble abode were brought to market, it would have a prominent "for sale" sign outside. Are "brought to market" properties ever offered for sale? Who decides where the line is to be drawn so far as the use of these terms is concerned? I , for one, would be most disappointed if my own property was to be considered of insufficient quality to be brought to market. David Edgar, Biggar. Timely remark The recent letters on correct grammar reminded me of a conversation in my workplace when a new employee was being teased by his workmates that he wasn't a full time-served tradesman. His response: 'Am urr a jiner!' Eric Macdonald, Paisley.
Daily Mail
21-07-2025
- Daily Mail
Nigel Farage claims he can HALVE crime by spending £17.4bn with offenders sent to jails in El Salvador - as Reform leader warns parts of British society are 'collapsing'
Nigel Farage has claimed he can halve crime as he warned that parts of British society are 'collapsing'. The Reform leader insisted he could achieve the massive reduction within five years, suggesting there would be a New York-style 'zero tolerance' approach. At a press conference in London, Mr Farage pointed to shoplifting and muggings in London, and argued that large numbers of immigrants were making the streets less safe. However, Mr Farage faced questions about the cost of the proposals, with criticism that Reform is making huge promises without saying how they would be funded. He estimated that there would need to be £17.4billion spent over the next Parliament, but said the country could not 'afford' to tackle crime - which was costing far more. Mr Farage said the police would be required to investigate all crimes – and see serious offenders spend years more behind bars in 'proper justice'. Measures include the introduction of 'saturation stop and search' in high crime areas, with as many as one in five people stopped to send out a message that crime will not be tolerated. Thousands more prison places would be built on disused Ministry of Defence land to end the need for early release. The most serious offenders could be forced to serve their time in jails overseas, including in El Savador's notorious supermax prisons. He acknowledged he had not yet spoken to the authorities there, but stressed they were already willing to take prisoners from the US. Mr Farage said he was in talks with Albanian leader Edi Rama about taking back all nationals serving sentences in the UK. The MP committed to recruiting 30,000 new police officers, ending early release for prisoners convicted of serious violent, sexual or knife offences;. Mr Farage said: 'We will cut crime in half. We will take back control of our streets, we will take back control of our courts and prisons.' Writing in the Daily Mail, Mr Farage said he was putting criminals 'on notice' that Britain's soft-touch justice system will come to an end if Reform win the next election. Mr Farage warned that law-abiding members of the public have been left felling 'helpless' by the way crime has been 'normalised' in recent years – and pledge to 'take back control of our streets from the criminals who currently plague them'.
