Energy giants have questions to answer over zonal pricing
Even the unstinting efforts of Changeworks, Home Energy Scotland, the Energy Saving Trust and other advice services can only partially mitigate the difficulties faced by many.
But now Energy and Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband has rejected Zonal Pricing, asserting that 'a fair, secure, affordable and efficient electricity system' can only be achieved through a reformed pricing system.
Read more:
The way to escape from dependence on 'fossil fuel markets controlled by dictators' is through a single national (UK) wholesale price. The dreaded 'Postcode Lottery' had to be avoided. And there was no guarantee Zonal Pricing would bring lower bills for anyone.
Scottish Secretary Ian Murray praised the decision, citing a 'predictable climate for investment'. Consumers will, he insisted, 'feel the benefit of Labour's clean energy mission.'
Bigger energy players agreed: Centrica have called it 'common-sense' and SSE's Martin Pibworth has said zonal pricing would have slowed the clean power transition, 'making energy bills more expensive.'
The Inverness Courier responded with alacrity and condemnation: 'Labour's Ed Miliband has ruled out zonal pricing that could have cut Scotland's soaring energy bills because it would be 'unfair' to areas like the Midlands and South of England that consume the most power … the move could have a significant impact on next year's Holyrood election … over-charging Highland residents for electricity that is generated in the region.'
Ed Miliband has come under fire over the decision. (Image: Newsquest) It's also worth noting that the SNP has carefully avoided backing zonal pricing – Kate Forbes and John Swinney, while predictably critical of Miliband, have steered clear, after the mess they made of Scotwind leases for offshore wind rights, underselling by, some say, £60 billion. While co-operation between UK and Scottish Governments is essential, criticism of Ed Miliband's statement is hypocrisy.
All the same, UK Labour will need a good wind in its sails if it wishes to persuade voters with its reformed national pricing regime, changes to transmission charging and more planned infrastructure development. For starters, it must reassure the thousands already unconvinced by the bitter contrast between talk of a 'just transition' and the 150-metre-plus wind turbines marching implacably through their glen, trailing substations behind.
Except these are not Labour Government developments. Among Mrs Thatcher's many gifts to us was a Wild West Energy marketplace, and the very corpulent corporations currently invading rural Scotland are not bringing power to the glens for the nation, like Tom Johnston, but seeking profit with a greenwashed prospectus.
And the UK Government is not the major player here, its partnership with Big Energy looking a bit uneven.
Ed Miliband's department is promising eligible households within 500 metres of electricity transmission infrastructure discounts on their bills, with further compensation to come.
Read more:
Will this be enough? I want to see UK Labour deliver its proposals for 'a transformative Community Energy programme' – community-led renewables and a 20% community share of large-scale projects. I want an end to Constraint payments adding to consumers' bills, when the Grid infrastructure isn't up to the job and turbine sails move uselessly around like Tories canvassing at elections.
The challenges of rural living remain, and must be addressed. One of the most authoritative studies is the 2023 report by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, The cost of living: impact on rural communities in Scotland. And the Scottish Human Rights Commission's 2024 report on life in the Highlands and Islands stands in stark judgement on all levels of government. Energy costs loom large in these important documents.
But the biggest questions should be asked of those corporate giants of Scottish energy, whose lobbying is ever on behalf of shareholders and profits. Their campaigning and threatening have worked so far, but their cynicism, seeing communities as anonymous cattle to be milked, must now be lessened by more realistic community shares.
Zonal pricing, Big Energy claimed, risked hindering investment, diverting time and resources, bringing volatility, market instability and probably plagues of frogs. Well, SSEN (profits £2.4bn.) E-ON (£3bn) EDF (£8.5bn) and Scottish Power (£1.2bn) now have to walk the walk, and deliver on their promises to help consumers and build an age of clean power.
Michael Gregson is a Labour councillor for Inverness Central
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
More Scots should benefit from Scotland's screen industry, John Swinney says
JOHN Swinney has said more needs to be done to increase the number of Scots benefitting from Scotland's screen industry. The First Minister had invited guests from across Scotland's creative industries to the headquarters of the Edinburgh International Festival on the eve of the capital's festival season. Swinney addressed the audience, where he spoke about the 'immense value' Scotland's creative industries provide and highlighted that the country's screen industry has grown at a scale that 'simply wasn't possible' before the establishment of Screen Scotland. He added that Scotland becoming a hotbed for film and TV shows has led to an explosion in the number of home-grown productions along with new and expanded studios and infrastructure, while creating a 'wide range of skills and educational opportunities'. READ MORE: Labour's governing fiasco shows Scots the urgency of independence, says John Swinney However, a number of people working in a variety of roles in the screen industry have told The National previously that production companies are prioritising crews from London over people in Scotland. The National understands that studio space across Scotland is fully booked for the remainder of the year, but despite a boom in filming in Scotland, Scottish workers in the industry are not given the opportunities to be a part of it. Speaking to The National, Swinney said that the Scottish Government needs to 'make sure' that there is better access to screen infrastructure for Scots, adding that there needs to be more recognition of the 'economic benefits' the sector brings. He said: 'I suppose there's a point about essentially the effects of success that is leading to a congestion and access to screen infrastructure. 'Now what we've got to make sure is that we have enough capacity and it's available in a financially sustainable way to meet the needs of the screen industry in Scotland. 'It's an area where we've got Screen Scotland, who's done a superb job as you heard me saying in the in the auditorium, but, we've also got to look at what might need to be deployed through economic development support and advice through Scottish Enterprise and other organisations to make sure we've got all the capacity that we require. Swinnney added: 'Because if we've got incrementally a growing strength within our screen center we should be realising the economic benefits and advantages of that. 'Of course, our college and university community will be producing talented individuals who can play a part in that, and we've got to make sure that we've got enough capacity and opportunity for that to be the case.' Swinney added that his and his Government's role is to assist artists in any way they can. The First Minister went on to make a plea to those in the industry and to wider society to look at how the arts can be better supported financially as the Government looks to boost funding to £100 million annually in the coming years. 'I'm asking that from crowdfunding to patronage, to philanthropy to local authority support and much more, we all ask ourselves how can we do more to support the arts from the grassroots up?' he said. 'How can we better support emerging artists that don't necessarily fit the current mould? 'And how, in particular, can Scotland's emerging businesses in new sectors become the new generation of patrons of the arts and culture in Scotland? 'How do we incentivise a new guard of custodians and investors in Scotland's creative economy?' Speaking to journalists after his speech, Swinney said he is open to discussions about new legislation to support the cultural sector. He said there is a sense that local authorities 'might not have a particularly explicit statutory duty to support artistic and cultural activity', suggesting this area 'might need to be strengthened'. The First Minister also spoke about how he would be a protector of freedom of speech. 'I also know that freedom of expressing is under greater and greater attack, both at home and abroad,' he said. 'I want to ensure that Scotland, the birthplace of the Enlightenment, remains a country of robust debate and inquiry. 'I firmly believe that art and culture must be able to challenge us, to ask us tough questions, and to force us to look at things from different perspectives. READ MORE: Peers' bid to stop UK recognising Palestine as a state blasted as 'deplorable' 'And, yes, it must, at times, be allowed to shock and offend us, but it can also heal us. 'Let me be absolutely clear – as First Minister, I will always protect freedom of speech in our country. 'It's not the First Minister's job to tell you what to create, nor would I ever seek to do so.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Force the 1% to cough up for their climate damage
Land ownership in Scotland is incredibly concentrated in a small number of hands. Fewer than 500 people own more than half of our private land. This motley group includes our own aristocrats, whose families have owned huge estates for centuries and whose wealth is often a result of their forebears' brutal actions during the Highland Clearances. But in recent decades they've been joined by a new group, the elite of global capitalism. The biggest landowner in Scotland used to be the Duke of Buccleuch, but now it's Danish billionaire Anders Povlsen. And the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum isn't far behind. READ MORE: More Scots need to benefit from Scotland's screen industry, John Swinney says And he might not be in the same league as Povlsen or the Sheikh in terms of hectares, but Scotland's most infamous landowner is undoubtedly Donald Trump. Thankfully, the US president has now returned home after a brief stint of shaking hands, being drowned out by bagpipes and teeing off at his Scottish golf courses. Last year, I proposed a private jet tax which would see Trump and his cronies charged a 'super rate' of up to £250,000 every time they fly here for non-government business. This is something which should be within the powers of the Scottish Government, but is now a decade overdue. In the aftermath of the independence referendum, all parties agreed to devolve air passenger duty to the Scottish Parliament. An Act was passed by MSPs to replace it with a new Scottish air departure tax. But it can't start until the UK Government resolves an issue with the exemption for lifeline island flights – and neither they nor the [[Scottish Government]] seem to be in any rush to do that. If this was resolved, the Scottish Government could immediately bring in a super-tax on private jets, reflecting the fact that they are about twenty times more polluting than regular flights. Personally, I'd rather ban most private air travel. It is the perfect example of how the world's richest 1% are disproportionately responsible for the climate crisis. Unfortunately, full powers over air travel are still reserved to Westminster for now. Trump doesn't care about the climate, but he would care about the £250,000 tax bill every time his huge private plane arrives here. Some super-rich elites would undoubtedly take the financial hit and still fly here anyway, but the money raised could at least then be used to fund climate-friendly policies like cheaper buses and trains. And private air travel is just one example of how the super-rich play by different rules to the rest of us, all whilst avoiding paying their fair share. For too long, they have been allowed to avoid not just paying their fair share in tax, but also having their often deeply damaging activities scrutinised. All while ordinary people suffer the consequences of budgets for schools, hospitals and social care being squeezed. Tax is the price we pay for living in a civilised society, one with public services capable of meeting all of our needs throughout our lives. But the richest among us do not pay nearly enough towards maintaining the services needed for that kind of society. The Scottish Greens have long called for a wealth tax, one which would see the richest 10% of people who hold almost half the total wealth of the country taxed fairly. Introducing just a 1% annual tax on all wealth and assets above £1 million would massively boost the efforts to create a fairer, better Scotland for everyone. For context, the other 90% of Scots households hold nowhere near enough wealth to be considered for such a tax, with the average having about £214,000 in assets. This would be an extremely well-targeted tax, raising billions from those who can more than afford to pay. We are not the only people calling for a wealth tax. Just this week, leading economists from across the world have called on Labour to introduce a UK-wide wealth tax to tackle extreme levels of inequality and poverty. They have warned the Government what the Greens have argued for years: that far too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of far too few people in the UK, and it is damaging society at large. Sadly, Labour seem determined to rule this out. It is time for Keir Starmer to seriously rethink his approach and what he wants his legacy to be: a society where everyone has what they need to get by, or one where far too many children are left in desperate poverty whilst a tiny number of people hoard more wealth than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes. The Scottish Greens are clear on what we need to do: tax the super-rich now, for the good of people and planet.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
How David Lammy went from human rights lawyer to genocide apologist
You would be forgiven for thinking that I'm quoting a frustrated political commentator – someone who has witnessed the deconstruction of international law by the Labour Government over the last year, and who is exasperated by their inertia. You'd be wrong. These are the words of Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, as he addressed the Bingham Centre for International Law in July 2023. During this speech, he said: 'There should be no power beyond or above the law. The law applies equally to all people.' READ MORE: Palestine Action gets green light for ban challenge He lamented that too many international crimes go unpunished, that too many dictators escape justice, and promised "wholeheartedly" to strengthen protections for humanitarian access and put the UK at the forefront of international legal debates. Well, he's certainly put the UK at the forefront of debates on international law. At best, because of his continued apology for Israel's war crimes. At worst, because of his active role in enabling these crimes. How does a human rights lawyer go from 'standing up for human rights and challenging impunity' to 'I am a steadfast supporter of Israel's security' after the state with which he so steadfastly stands has been accused of genocide, has murdered over 60,000 humans, and has gaslit many into thinking that it is the calling out of these atrocities which is the crime. Is he playing a geopolitical long game? The deep pockets of the Israeli lobby? Genuine callousness? As I write this, we have seen the bloodiest day in Gaza in 20 months. And yet, nothing from the UK Labour Government to suggest that this is a Cabinet which has 'international law fundamentally in its DNA', as Lammy once stated. When lawyers talk broadly about the UK breaching their obligations under international humanitarian law, they are usually referring to Geneva Conventions Common Article 1. This states that all High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and ensure respect for the convention in all circumstances. This means that states must act to prevent breaches of international law in every situation of armed conflict. However, the UK – along with two others – interprets this as meaning that they only have an obligation to uphold international humanitarian law when breaches occur in their own territory. The other states are Israel and the US. As well as Common Article 1, the ICJ confirmed that all states must act to prevent a genocide as soon as they are aware of a serious risk – mirroring the Genocide Convention – and reiterated by credible findings of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. However, during the Al-Haq case, Labour confirmed that the reason that they are not acting to prevent a genocide is because they have found no credible evidence to suggest a genocide is ongoing. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits transferring a population within occupied territory and Article 59 demands that occupying states allow unimpeded humanitarian aid for all civilians, while Additional Protocol I prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Yet, repeatedly Labour MPs and the UK Government have excused Israel's siege and failed to prevent the mass forced displacement of Palestinians. The latest announcement to airdrop aid into Gaza is simply a self-congratulatory distraction. READ MORE: SNP to press ahead with Palestine recognition vote The UK should have immediately and unequivocally suspended all Israeli trade arrangements, as they are prohibited from assisting situations created by breaches of international law, as per the ICJ and the ILC Articles on State Responsibility. Instead, Lammy and the Labour Government have sent a trade envoy to Israel, brag about their crucial trade partnerships, and still support Israel militarily. All of these obligations apply to the UK Labour Government. All of them are being breached. In January 2024, Lammy said that '…the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law, just as in national law. Labour agrees.' However, in July 2025, when speaking of Israel – a state accused of genocide –Lammy said he 'treasures the many connections between our peoples'. Despite their legal obligations and public and parliamentary outrage, the UK Labour Government could not be further from the vision that Lammy established in 2023. When Lammy gave his speech, there were echoes of Tony Benn's anti-war speech from 1998. Lammy ended his address by quoting the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, as Benn had. Lammy spoke of the responsibility of governments to make the right decisions to protect people, as Benn had. He warned against the mistakes that led to the Second World War, as Benn had. He praised the legacy of Britain in pursuing the international rules-based order in the 1940s, mirroring Benn's calls for continued progression towards peace. Lammy's transition from Benn-to-barely-able-to-muster-up-a-sentence-without 'Israel's right to defend herself' is not just due to the grip of the Israeli lobby, but can be likened to a child who hasn't done their homework and is hoping that the teacher doesn't ask them a question in class. As though if his tone drips with enough condescension people will be distracted from the words coming out of his mouth. Lammy has spent a year trying to convince us that the mass atrocities being committed against Palestinian civilians is normal. He has gone from forging a 'foreign policy underpinned by a fundamental belief in the rule of law' to facing claims that he is perpetuating Israeli war crimes. David Lammy has reduced himself from an eminent human rights lawyer to a genocide apologist. The support for Israel's genocide will be this Labour Government's legacy, just as the illegal Iraq war was the legacy of the 1997 Labour government. David Lammy will always be the Foreign Secretary who forgot about international law because he was too busy trying to sound clever. The Foreign Secretary that condemned the Palestinian people to genocide because he liked the sound of a speech more than he liked the idea of implementing it. Lara Bird-Leakey is a senior policy researcher for foreign affairs in Westminster for the SNP group
