Latest news with #JillStephenson
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
What has Scotland gained from having voted in 37 Labour MPs?
It's also the case that, by rejecting out of hand the Octopus Energy proposal of seven or eight "zones" for electricity, the Labour Government is ensuring that Scotland's economy will be more depressed than needs to be the case. Had zonal pricing gone ahead, there would have been a boost in economic activity for Scotland, with energy-hungry business operations looking to relocate, or to expand, their business in Scotland to benefit from the lower price of electricity. Our NHS and public services, hospitality sectors, and every other business would have benefited instantly. Across Dumfries and Galloway we previously sent Tory MPs to London to do their bit for Scotland in government but, instead, we got Brexit. And that despite Scotland voting 62% Remain in the EU. And now we have Labour in Westminster failing to as much as rejoin the European Economic Area with a single market) with the resultant loss of freedom of movement for people both ways; nor the customs union to facilitate the movement of trade and services. The question must surely now be: "What is the benefit to Scotland of being a part of this UK that is so much against what the people of Scotland want and need?" Ian Waugh, Dumfries & Galloway Indy Hub, Dumfries. SNP's wise policy on offshore wind Jill Stephenson (Letters, July 13) claims that the Scottish Government does not own any energy sources for wind generation and that these are actually the property of private companies. Is this the same Jill Stephenson who berated the Scottish Government three years ago for selling wind farm seabed licences at a much lower price as compared to Westminster? How do you auction off something you do not own? As regards the efficacy of that decision, it is perhaps worth noting a January 2022 article in the industry magazine WindEurope which commented as follows: 'The Crown Estate Scotland has announced the results of the 'ScotWind' seabed tender. They auctioned 8,600 km² of sea space which could host almost 25 GW of offshore wind. 17 projects won. With 15 GW most of the capacity that will now be developed to be floating offshore wind, the system the Scots have used for awarding seabed leases ensures the new offshore wind farms will be delivered at the lowest cost for taxpayers. "The option fees are much lower than in the UK's recent Offshore Wind Lease Round 4. Scotland chose a more sensible tender design with a maximum price ceiling of £100,000/km². This has avoided bidding at very high prices – which keeps the costs of offshore wind low for consumers. As seabed leasing costs are usually passed on to the electricity consumer, a price ceiling ensures that new offshore wind volumes are also delivered at the lowest cost for consumers." A business ceases to become commercially viable when its customers can no longer afford to buy its products. So keeping that price as low as possible becomes a pre-requisite for any energy policy. However Westminster has not only ignored that logic but has transferred the high prices it charged for its licences onto Scottish consumers. This has led to a number of businesses in Scotland closing as rising energy costs have made them uneconomic. How could any Scottish Government create a viable business in these circumstances? Robert Menzies, Falkirk. Read more letters We need a vote on Holyrood The cost of running Holyrood is spiralling out of control. With a total budget of over £41 billion it is questionable if Scotland really needs this expensive additional layer of government. The previous system before Holyrood was established was to have a Secretary of State for Scotland with a small team of Scottish civil servants running Scotland very efficiently at a fraction of the cost of Holyrood. There is growing support for having a referendum in Scotland to consider closing Holyrood and reverting to the old system, thereby saving billions. Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen. A disregard for human life Thank you so much for printing Denis Bruce's letter (July 13) regarding the statements of Lily Allen and Miquita Oliver on how much they are relishing their easy access to abortions, and how exciting an experience it is, totally disregarding the fact that for every abortion they have had, they have taken a human life, and all those involved in the process are now conditioned into seeing this as a service and part of the rights of any mother. Is that the road we are going down? Once this disregard for human life seeps out into all other avenues of what is acceptable, living in such a society for future generations looks very bleak indeed. Respect for human life is at the very centre of a civilised society. If this bill to decriminalise abortion, which is not yet passed, and still has to go to the House of Lords, could be stopped in its tracks, a great many people around the country, not just Denis Bruce, would be very relieved indeed. Let us learn from those countries who chose to go down that route some years ago and are now living to regret it. I never thought I would live to see the day when a mother could legally take the life of a baby about to be born. God help us all. Nancy Gilfedder, Glasgow. Am I worthy of preservation? "Every human has immeasurable value" asserted several distinguished academics (Letters, July 6) in response to the question of the merit of human life, otherwise "we descend into a jungle of barbarity". Indeed. In making their case, they cited various debates in society currently querying the sanctity of life but, frankly, they had plenty to choose from. An embarrassment of riches stretched out before them in that respect. We seem surrounded by politicians and commentators, expert on price but conspicuously poorly advised on value. Nowhere more so than upon the issue of welfare reform. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was literally brought to tears during a discussion on the theme (though, we were assured, for wholly unrelated reasons, and that the source of her obvious distress was "a personal matter"). As someone who has relied on benefits for many years, I consider myself a dab hand at budgeting. I have to be. When the sums do not add up, I am not afforded any claim to personal matters. Were I to tender such emotion, the barbarians around me would have a field day at my expense. So what are we worth? And whom amongst us should we prioritise for preservation? The aforementioned academics argued that the calculation is immeasurable. But someone will measure it. They always do. With or without hankies. Archie Beaton, Inverness. Has the Scottish Government got it right on offshore wind? (Image: PA) Crack down on charities This Government is spending, or should that be wasting, money like water and taxes are increasing and increasing. Cuts must be made. What about starting with charities? There are 200,000 charities in the UK. For the tax year to April 2025 the tax relief for these charities and their donors totalled £6.7 billion. Yes, billion not million. That is £6.7bn less to spend on where it is more needed. The Government should be more critical in allowing new charities and challenging existing charities with a view to reducing the numbers to see where savings can be made and whether they are still in the public interest. Just think what could be done with a 10 per cent saving. Top of the hit list should be the 1,717 migrant charities (up from the 2020 level of 1,104) which play a dominant role in preventing the deportations of migrants who had no right to remain in the UK. Clark Cross, Linlithgow. UK is at war with Russia Of course the latest Russian drone attacks on Ukraine should be condemned ("Zelenskyy's plea as Ukraine is bombarded", July 13), but let's not forget that Russia proper is being attacked with UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles, meaning the UK is effectively at war with Russia (that Brits aren't firing them is immaterial). Given the increasing importance of cyber warfare, Keir Starmer (who recently told us to prepare for war) is risking attacks on UK infrastructure. If the coming winter is marked by regular power cuts, with hospitals having to run on generators, we'll know who was stupid enough to up the ante. George Morton, Rosyth. Hypocrisy over Trump I see that the usual suspects are lining up to protest at the forthcoming visit of President Trump – left-wingers, the Greens and the SNP. Not that long ago, there was a visit from the Chinese leader, head of an odious government, with very few of the above turning out to protest. Why not? William Ballantine, Bo'ness.
The Herald Scotland
23-04-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Greens should do the right thing and drop Chapman as an MSP
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh. • If this poor excuse for a politician stood up in any court of law and called the judge a bigot, she'd be thrown in a cell. A poorly prepared Holyrood bill was axed because it impeded on UK legislation, hence the Supreme Court case. A number of bitter and twisted trans activists see this as a reduction in their rights. Nonsense. If the Greens leadership have any sense of responsibility, this woman should be sacked. The Scottish Parliament should ensure she plays no part in our legislation process. And if you voted for her, you should be contacting her and informing her you won't be doing so again. Steven Matthews, Kilsyth. Read more letters A dangerous precedent The following is not intended to patronise; rather it's intended as primer for the Maggie Chapmans of this world – and those who would, even for a second, defend, mitigate or excuse her behaviour, from any corner of politics, be it left or right. And quite frankly, I'm amazed I have to put this into words for some who should know better. The separation of powers that sees the legislative and executive branches of the state stand proud of each other is a cornerstone of any modern democracy. You may not like decisions the UK's Supreme Court makes on contentious issues that are wrestled with as part of the inevitable ebb and flow of debate within a free and pluralistic society. And you are entitled to passionately protest against decisions accordingly – urging a reconsideration or change to the ruling. What you shouldn't do – especially as a supposedly grown-up politician – is calumniate the legislative branch, using inflammatory language as part of ad hominem attacks on the judges themselves. Because, no matter how just you think your cause is, how anointed your position, and how righteous your intent, it sets a dangerous precedent that would validate/legitimise attacks on the rule of law, and attendant norms, from any part of the political spectrum. Witness the personalised attacks from right-wing commentators, newspapers and politicians on the Supreme Court judges in the wake of the ruling on the prorogation of Parliament post-Brexit. "Progressive" voices were quick to raise concerns about such rhetoric at the time. And rightly so. You can't then unilaterally exempt yourself from such democratic norms when you consider your cause to be just. That quickly gives way to a form of moralistic tyranny. It was the writer CS Lewis who best captured where this could leave us: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." Colin Montgomery, Edinburgh. • Maggie Chapman's words are on the strong side but the sentiment is correct. The Supreme Court's judgement that women are defined by their biology goes against 150 years of feminist activism and theorising. Brian Dempsey, Dundee. Stop the insults I am immensely disappointed at James McEnaney's "Lessons to Learn" article ("Spare a thought for young people caught up in anti-trans storm," The Herald, April 19). As an educated and educational writer, I would have expected so much more in terms of balance and insight. I am one of the large majority of people (men and women) in the UK who breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court verdict was announced, but who simultaneously felt a deep pain for what this verdict would mean for all trans people. I am not transphobic, nor do I support any far-right group, nor am I involved in any hate group. Mr McEnaney seems to be labelling me and everyone else who supported the verdict as belonging to one of the aforesaid camps. I am insulted by his sweeping dismissals as will many others have been. Of course this verdict brings challenges for all public bodies – actually for groups of all sorts including small businesses, charities and others. Good! Because the concerns of trans people do need to be addressed, just as my needs as non-trans need to be addressed – both of them respectfully. These challenges existed before for public bodies, only it was the other way around in many cases – witness the NHS Fife and Sandie Peggie saga – where it seems that the powers that be failed to consult properly on any changes going forward. Non-trans people (the vast majority of the population) did not seem to be being consulted on changes – is it any wonder they found a voice and demanded to be heard? Perhaps now this legal definition will force us to start having calm consultations which genuinely seek creative solutions with the various parties affected. But if we start from the premise that anyone who supports the Supreme Court's decision is anti-trans or hate-filled or extremist in some way, then we're doomed from the start. Especially in large organisations, it cannot be beyond the wit of man (and woman and trans) to find compromise arrangements. Both sides have to move towards some compromise. In terms of new design, any new buildings need to cater for both groups of people, just as they have to do nowadays for people with disabilities. And, as a society, we will probably all move towards greater understanding, awareness and acceptance over time. But we'll probably never reach a point where we all see eye to eye on this issue, so we need to accept that and stop the insult-slinging – especially by educated people who should know better. Katie Allstaff, Aberfeldy. Westminster's hypocrisy It was intriguing to note Fleur Anderson, the Northern Ireland Office minister, highlight that opinion polls will determine if and when a border referendum is called ("Opinion polls will determine Northern Irish vote", The Herald, April 22). Under the Good Friday Agreement, the power to call a border poll in Northern Ireland rests with the Secretary of State. The legislation states the Northern Ireland Secretary should call a referendum on Irish unity "if it appears likely that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the UK and form part of a united Ireland". However, there are no set criteria for when a referendum would be triggered. Previous secretaries of state have refused to outline what exactly would be required. As highlighted, Ms Anderson said that "it would be based on opinion polls". With opinion polls in Scotland showing a considerable majority now in favour of Scottish independence, it is rather hypocritical to note the UK Government stating that the future of the people of Northern Ireland should be based on opinion polling, but that is not the situation in Scotland. Alex Orr, Edinburgh. Vladimir Putin (Image: PA) What would Putin want? Despite the referendum result of 2014 and the current political demise of independence and the reluctance of the SNP even to mention the topic, there appears to be substantial ongoing support at least for the concept of separation from the UK (Letters, April 22). It seems to me that two simple, rhetorical questions dispose entirely of the issue. If we had a re-run of the 2014 referendum tomorrow, what result would Vladimir Putin wish for and why would he wish for that result? It has been apparent throughout the Russian hostilities upon Ukraine that the UK is seen to be a bastion of opposition to Russian aggression and, given the apparent understanding between Mr Trump and Mr Putin, the UK becomes more and more a last bastion. I am perplexed that any Scottish voter, never mind about half of all Scottish voters, would seek the diminution of that bastion at this time. Michael Sheridan, Glasgow.
The Independent
16-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
When it comes to trans people, we've forgotten our manners
Regarding Jill Stephenson's letter (' Letters,' Friday 14 February), the 'trouble with trans' arises from an earlier era, where both the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act were largely designed around that small group she refers to, who wish to live their lives as members of the sex opposite to that into which they were born. However, in order to qualify for a Gender Recognition Certificate, one must live as a member of the new gender for two years. Excluding those people on this 'real life test' from women's spaces would effectively create a Catch 22 for such people. I'm pretty certain that most trans people with GRCs, or seeking one, are deeply concerned about their existing rights being threatened by recent developments after two decades of peace. There have always been people who refute the existence of trans people, even in this category, by virtue of some principle such as religion, politics, or just out of prejudice, but should such people be allowed to determine the lives of those who do want to cross the sex divide? Is being attacked by a man in the past sufficient justification to exclude trans women? What if you'd been attacked by a black man, abused by a priest, a female thug or such like? Could you expect to exclude such people or anyone like them from your working environment? I don't personally believe that one can change one's physical sex, whatever changes are wrought to one's body, but I do feel there must be room to consider one's mental affiliation with one's gender. The brain remains the most complex and least understood organ in the human body, and we have much to learn about it. What governs sexual orientation, for example, or whether you believe in any religion, why you like or hate reading, music or cucumber, let alone about how you feel about your gender? No one has the answers to these questions. The current case of the nurse and the doctor sadly appears to be whipping up a storm of anti-transgender comments on social media that is often extremely unpleasant, no doubt defined as free speech by some. There is a danger that this could lead to unfortunate consequences for some poor trans people, just seeking to go about their lives. There also seems to be an insistence on deliberately disrespecting transgender people's feelings, however hard they try to fit in, for example, calling the person 'he' when they identify as 'she'. It might be old fashioned, but this seems to me just plain rude, like attending a church ceremony as an atheist and then insistently calling the other attendees idiots for believing in such nonsense. Why can't we just have a bit more tolerance and respect for each other's beliefs and feelings? Name and address supplied The road (much more) travelled After reading Simon Calder's article (' Rail strikes, fare rises and broken signals: Why train passengers nationwide are facing continued misery this year,' Saturday 15 February) and your editorial on the cost of railways (' A tough test for Heidi Alexander: just make our railway services reliable,' Saturday 15 February), can we now have a similar investigation into the cost of road transport, highlighting that the payments made by road users do not come anywhere near the cost of highway maintenance? For instance, VED and excise duty on fuel have not increased for something like 12 years, and the cost of the emergency services attending road traffic incidents is not met, nor hospital costs. Both rail and road transport are necessary to the country and both are heavily subsidised. I won't mention excise duty on aircraft fuel. Doug Flack Derby, Derbyshire Are prisons fit for purpose? Amy-Clare Martin's piece on the failure to provide adequate healthcare for prisoners being linked to 40 per cent of all suicides in prison is shocking ("Nearly half of suicides in prisons follow healthcare failures noted by watchdog", 15 February). It does beg the question: is there any care in prisons? Kartar Uppal Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands Otherwise occupied Casting my mind back to the late naughties and the financial crash, HBOS was one of the banking institutions that required a huge state bailout to survive. The picture emerging concerning Rachel Reeves is one of chaos (' Reeves says she was 'never questioned' over HBOS expenses,' Friday 14 February). A senior management incompetently led such that their expenses were subject to supine policy and procedures that permitted individual interpretation without the usual ethical and moral filters. It is no wonder that HBOS was reluctant to sustain an effective investigation into their employee's use of credit cards, etc, as it was likely that such practices were commonplace throughout the organisation, such that no-one could see harm inflating semi-official perks. It was also likely not in the bank's interest (and certainly not their benighted customers') to highlight dirty laundry while negotiating a rescue plan. One can only speculate whether had these expenses investigations occurred in normal times, Rachel Reeves would now be languishing on the back benches. Bradford on Tone, Taunton A gulf of empathy Donald Trump has several times reminded Europeans, including its islanders, that there is an ocean between North America and the European war as a possible justification for reducing or removing military support. But, there are arguably two oceans between the USA and the Levant, yet there has been no suggestion of reducing support for Israel. A lack of consistency has become a hallmark of the American administration's outbursts and this does not bode well for the next four years.
