What a waste this SNP Government has proved itself to be

The Herald Scotland

4 hours ago

Here we are less than six months away from the start of the ban and yet again we are seeing the SNP modus operandi. Make a big announcement of some grand idea, claim to be virtuous by saving the planet, yet don't put the effort in to actually put all the systems in place. It's just like the ferries all over again, although this time it's not the islanders who will be impacted but the English.
As Scotland will not have enough incinerators for the next two years according to Ms Martin, 80-100 lorries every day will be heading south to England to go into their landfill. Imagine the impact on the roads, the environment and the cost at doing this, all because the SNP did not make sure that the structures were in place. I can't picture 600,000 tonnes of waste which is how much this will be annually. What I do know is that suddenly our neighbour is of use to the divisive SNP.
The minister actually said in the interview that the 'landfill ban is a good thing in terms of reducing emissions, particularly potent methane emissions'. Does she believe that having a landfill ban in Scotland, sending our waste to England to their landfills reduces emissions? Is she really expecting us to believe that?
Apparently she also believes the 'positive environmental impact of stopping landfill far outweighs any impact of temporary measures' (ie sending lorries to England). Her spin doctors were working hard when they came up with that line. We will have heavy lorries on the roads, Scottish waste going to landfill in England polluting the environment and the cost of this to the Scottish taxpayer, which she does not mention, all because the SNP has not done the hard graft to get enough capacity to deal with our waste. It's had 14 years to get this right and failed.
Jane Lax, Aberlour.
• Plans to send waste to England for disposal remind me of the old car sticker that said: 'Keep Scotland tidy, dump your rubbish in England'. This is an area in which we have some considerable skill, in offshoring manufacturing industry to exclude the emissions from our own statistics.
Scott Simpson, Bearsden.
Read more letters
Another problem is looming
Despite the fact it has taken the BBC some time to appreciate and understand the effects of the Scottish Parliament's (already-postponed) ban on the landfill of untreated municipal waste at the end of this year, the Disclosure programme on Monday (June 16) highlighted the nub of the problem: in January 2026, Scotland will be generating 600,000-700,000 tonnes of waste that will have to be trucked to England (or further) for disposal. We won't have enough Energy from Waste (EFW) plants to cope, and the prospects of increasing our recycling rates (that have stagnated since 2012) are pretty poor. It was disappointing that the programme makers didn't do some further research into the reasons for this inertia.
The options are either to thole umpteen trucks taking Scottish waste to England (or the ports), or postpone the implementation date for the ban (again). If the latter, is that fair on the companies who are currently investing (or have already have invested) heavily in EFW technology in anticipation of the ban?
It's yet another example of policy being made up on the hoof with either the waste industry not being consulted or (if it was) its advice being ignored.
But there's another problem looming. The Westminster Government is presently consulting on a proposal to unify landfill tax by 2030 by removing the lower rate for inert wastes (soil, rubble etc) that's currently less than 4% of the higher rate (£126.15/tonne). If that happens and Scotland doesn't follow suit, it would create a situation where it could be economically viable to establish new landfills just north of the border for English waste being trucked up here.
Cynics might welcome the idea on the grounds that the trucks hauling Scottish municipal waste to England for disposal would then have the opportunity to backload inert waste for the return journey.
John Crawford, Preston.
Priorities are all mixed up
You report that a Treasury Minister, Emma Reynolds, was unable to give either the precise location or the total cost of yet another project in the south-east of England, a dual tunnel under the Thames linking Essex and Kent ("Minister struggles when questioned over new Thames crossing as costs mount", The Herald, June 17). The cost, it seems, will be between £9.2 billion and £10.2bn.
This is a cost being borne by all of us, on top of HS2 (now stopping at Birmingham, not Edinburgh), the incredibly expensive nuclear power stations being built in the south, the aircraft carriers and more. Yet, as a nation, we struggle to keep people warm, people housed and children born into families on benefits fed and clothed.
We have certainly gone wrong somewhere.
Patricia Fort, Glasgow.
This pledge is not believable
Back in 2007 one of the first things new First Minister Alex Salmond promised was a focus on more efficient government and reform of nine departments of the "executive", 27 executive agencies and the 152 quangos.
He added: "I'm not sure we need that complexity for a nation of five million. If you're going to have joined-up government you need less bits to join up."
Eighteen years later and one of the relics, or should I say ruins, of that hopeful regime, John Swinney appeared on stage in a gaslit fug of smoke and mirrors to swear he's going to finish the job ("Ministers in plan to save £1bn a year by cutbacks on 'waste'", The Herald, June 17).
Where's he getting his inspiration from? The spirit of Alex Salmond or the spectre of Trump, Farage, Reform and DOGE?
One thing we can be sure of: it ain't gonna happen on John Swinney's watch.
Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.
• I was almost amused to read that, after 18 years in power, the SNP has decided to save £1 billion a year by cutbacks on "waste".
A picture of John Swinney with a newly-grown centre parting would have been even more believable.
Duncan Graham, Stirling.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle (Image: PA)
It's time for Hoyle to go
I read with incredulity the letter (June 16) from Jackie Storer, Press Secretary to Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons. Only a lackey on the Speaker's payroll could write such drivel.
Your readers would have to be 'soft in the head" to believe that Sir Lindsay Hoyle has any 'soft power' as an international peace-keeper. He cannot even keep order in the House of Commons and is an international embarrassment.
During over a quarter of a century's membership of the House of Commons, I experienced five Speakers: Selwyn Lloyd, George Thomas, Bernard Weatherill, Betty Boothroyd and Michael Martin.
The best by far was the only woman to have held that high office, the formidable Betty Boothroyd, who managed to keep order and chair debates with an admirable combination of professionalism, firmness and humour, while ensuring that even the most humble backbencher got a fair kick of the ball. The current Speaker has none of these attributes.
I have never met Sir Lindsay Hoyle but I literally kent his faither, Douglas, who began his Westminster career as an extreme left-wing MP but later transmogrified into an Establishment Member of the House of Lords, where his son will no doubt follow him.
Since my retirement, I have more than occasionally watched Parliamentary debates on TV and read reports of the current Speaker's conduct at home and abroad. I have come to the conclusion that Sir Lindsay Hoyle is not only incompetent. He is pretentious and profligate: a perfect example of someone who has been promoted above his abilities.
In short, he is not fit to lace Betty Boothroyd's boots and it is time for him to go.
Dennis Canavan, Bannockburn.