Latest news with #SNP-run
Scotsman
2 days ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
£250 for living near a pylon is fine, but do we really need more of them?
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The offer of £250 a year off electricity bills for households within 500 metres of new infrastructure will probably be quite effective. It is a sum not to be sniffed at by many people whose consent is not usually sought for anything that happens around them. It's also to Labour's credit that it is at least thinking about how communities at the sharp end of the great energy transition can see direct benefit. The Tories never went near that while the SNP-run Scottish Government has had 18 years to develop community benefit and never lifted a finger. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The former leader of Highland Council, Dr Michael Foxley, wrote recently that when the first windfarm appeared in 1991, at Novar, they negotiated a payment of £5,000 per megawatt (MW) for the community. Index-linked, that would now be £12,500. Instead, he said, the current average which developers stump up is £3,000 per MW. The first question should not be about paying compensation to those living near pylons but whether they are necessary in the first place (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images Treating communities fairly There are people who don't like windfarms and are uninterested in community benefit. They are, however, a minority and if communities feel they are being treated fairly, they will be supportive. Increasingly, however, they believe they are being treated extremely unfairly, in both financial and democratic terms, and I tend to agree. The first question should not be whether compensation will be paid for living close to a shiny new pylon but whether there is a need for that pylon to be built at all. This seems such a statement of the obvious that it should not need to be written. In fact, however, it raises questions which communities across Scotland are asking with increasing urgency. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In any sane system – ie, one not driven by commercial interests – the starting point would be to ask 'how much power do we need?' The follow-up would be: 'Where should it most sensibly come from?' Having established these parameters, a rational strategy would not be difficult to compose or sell to the great majority of public opinion. Unfortunately, what has evolved in Scotland is almost the exact opposite of that rational approach. The race is on to build as much generation capacity as possible and then put in place the infrastructure that will carry it to market. If it's too much capacity, too bad. If the infrastructure proves surplus to requirements, that's a pity. We will be reassured retrospectively that intentions were good. 'Vital to growth' This issue is well summarised in the consultation paper issued yesterday by the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero, which includes the '£250 off your bills' idea. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'One of the drivers of this problem,' it states, 'is that building renewable generation is outpacing network build… Rapid expansion of the transmission network is required to reduce this issue, and it will not be possible to deliver a secure electricity supply, vital to growth and prosperity, without a transmission network that can transport it.' All true, but it ignores the possibility that there are two ways to address this imbalance. The alternative is to put a brake on developing massive new projects, or multiple smaller ones, until there is clear quantification of demand and where the market wants it to come from. Neither of these indicators points towards limitless demand from Scotland. Already, ludicrous amounts of money are being gifted to developers in constraint payments because the transmission network cannot support the power they generate. I am reminded of Major Major's father in Joseph Heller's Catch-22 who was paid for not growing alfalfa and the more alfalfa he didn't grow, the more he was paid for not growing it. Before adding to that absurdity, it would make more sense to hasten the development of storage so that the surplus already being generated can be accommodated. Then plan – if that is not a dirty word – how much more capacity is required and where it is going to come from. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A windy day The UK Government paper which recently (and rightly) ruled out zonal pricing also contained a welcome commitment to 'deliver a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to the energy system, provide stronger signals for efficient siting of new assets and improve overall operational efficiency'. Undoubtedly, these 'signals' will point to generation closer to the main markets, which are in the south. Until that 'strategic and co-ordinated approach' emerges, we should be very careful about the assumptions which are driving current policy in Scotland. Otherwise the Scottish Government's one-club approach to energy policy could leave us with an awful lot to recriminate about. Where I'm sitting, yesterday was a very windy day and, sure enough, 63 per cent of our electricity was coming from renewables. But it is worth noting that, even on such a day, ten per cent was coming from nuclear and 20 per cent from interconnectors with the continent (most of it also nuclear). Increasingly, Scottish renewables will be selling into a competitive low-carbon market; not one of open-ended demand. The usual suspects are trying to peddle the narrative that 'it's Scotland's wind' and it is being stolen from us by the wicked English. Nothing could be further from the truth. Insofar as the Scottish resource is being exploited, it is by invitation of the Scottish Government who flogged the ScotWind licences without the infrastructure existing and seem impervious to legitimate concerns about over-capacity. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
Glasgow Times
28-07-2025
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
'Tolling the Clyde Tunnel would be a tax on Glasgow'
So I was stunned to hear recent discussions that the Clyde Tunnel - a vital artery for our city - might be tolled. This is yet another sign of skewed thinking from an SNP-run council backed by an [[SNP]]-led Scottish Government increasingly out of touch with reality. Let's be clear: tolling the Clyde Tunnel would be a tax on work, a tax on NHS frontline staff, on patients - all in all, a tax on Glasgow. Tens of thousands of Glaswegians use the tunnel every day. For many, it's not a luxury route - it's essential. It links communities across the city, provides vital access to the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, and is heavily used by NHS staff, carers, ambulance services, shift workers, and everyday families. To charge people for using it would be economically reckless and morally indefensible. What message are we sending to NHS staff on their way to a night shift? That they should pay for the privilege of helping others? What about patients needing treatment, or working parents on the school run before heading to their job? This proposal would be a penalty for simply participating in daily life. Let's also ask a basic but important question: why is maintenance of a piece of national infrastructure like the Clyde Tunnel still the responsibility of Glasgow City Council? Where is the Scottish Government's leadership on this? For 18 years, the [[SNP]] has been in control at Holyrood, and their answer to every problem seems to be the same: shift the burden and raise more taxes. Scotland already has the highest income taxes in the UK, punishing ambition and making it harder for working families to get ahead. Businesses are being squeezed by rates and regulation. Under the SNP, council budgets have been cut to the bone, leaving bins unemptied and roads crumbling. Now, they're salivating about slapping a toll on a tunnel - all while claiming to stand up for ordinary people. A slap in the face more like it! The truth is, this is part of a wider pattern. The SNP Government is addicted to taxing rather than fixing. Rather than grow our economy, they pile on costs. Rather than invest in our NHS, they shift the blame. Glasgow has already borne more than its fair share of cuts, underfunding and mismanagement. We don't need more short-term schemes that punish people just trying to get to work or a hospital appointment on time. I believe in a better way. I've used my time in Parliament to campaign for real, practical NHS reform and improvement - including a new Drumchapel Health Centre. I've argued for fair taxes that grow our economy, not punish productivity. Glasgow needs infrastructure that connects, not tolls that divide. Tolling the Clyde Tunnel would be a step backwards. We need to back our workers, not bill them. We need to improve access to healthcare, not make it more expensive. And we need a government that sees the Clyde Tunnel not as a cash cow, but as a public good. Let's ensure this wrongheaded proposal is rejected and start building a fairer, more forward-looking Glasgow.
Spectator
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Why Ross Greer would be good for the Scottish Green party
Ross Greer is for Palestine, trans rights and riling up the Daily Express, making him the ideal candidate to lead the Scottish Greens. At an event in Glasgow today, the West Scotland MSP put himself forward as a successor to Patrick Harvie, who is standing down after 17 years at the helm of the environmentalist party that occasionally takes an interest in the environment. Under Harvie's leadership, the Greens have prioritised cultural and identity politics over economics and ecology, helping to push the Gender Recognition Reform Bill through Holyrood and press for free bus travel for asylum seekers (an idea pinched by the SNP-run Scottish government). The pragmatic radicalism on offer from Ross Greer is a wiser course to take Harvie and co-leader Lorna Slater became the first Green ministers in British history when they joined Nicola Sturgeon's devolved administration in its final two years. The alliance was not politically productive (the gender bill was blocked by Westminster and a bottle recycling scheme came to nothing) and it ended badly (Harvie and Slater were abruptly booted by Sturgeon's successor, Humza Yousaf) but the exercise proved the Greens could misgovern just as well as any other party. Greer cut his teeth working on the Yes Scotland campaign during the 2014 independence referendum. Since entering Holyrood in 2016, he has made a name for himself as a gammon-baiting, woker-than-thou, omnicause progressive, with a lanyard for every occasion and every liberation. He's fond of the Soviet anthem, the chant 'We're selling the Falklands when Thatcher dies' and taking his Scottish parliament oath with a raised fist. He calls Churchill a 'white supremacist' and 'mass murderer', his dream dinner date is the IRA revolutionary Michael Collins, and he recently tried to remove all references to 'His Majesty' in Scottish public bodies and legislation. In other words, he's adorable. However, despite Greer's gift for leftist posturing, he has earned himself the enmity of a faction known as the Glasgow group: Green councillors and activists who reckon the far-left party could be a lot farther left. Greer understands that an ideological lurch would kill the golden goose. The Greens have a growing voter base of young, urban, precariously middle-income graduates to supplement their more traditional support among the comfortably retired, the guilty affluent, and assorted cranks. This Deliveroo-Waitrose alliance is essential to the party's development and, on current polling, will give them their best result yet at next year's Holyrood elections. That is unless they trash all the work they've done and cascade down a purity spiral, narrowing their own ranks and pushing away hyper-progressive, theoretically social democratic voters who identify with the Greens' culturally leftish messaging but would suffer materially from meaningfully socialist fiscal policies. At his launch, Greer stressed the importance of being more than 'a party of protest' and while he hammered home the need to tax the 'super rich', he struck a more nuanced note when questioned on raising additional revenue from higher earners. In common with most other parties in British politics today, the Greens are economic populists and have settled on wealth taxation as a way of costing expensive policies (e.g. universal free bus travel) without having to confront hard questions about income tax. Telling the electorate the brutal truth, that if they want quality public services taxes on basic and middle-earners will have to rise, would go down like a dose of strychnine on the doorstep. Keeping their voter coalition together requires the Greens to stick to Zohran Mamdani-style vibes-based progressivism. They need to make a great deal of noise about taking on the rich and powerful but pursue a melange of populist fiscal reforms and high-status social policies that might inconvenience the rich and powerful here and there and will definitely upset the traditional-minded among their number. One thing these policies certainly will not do is alter the fundamentals of the economy in a decisively egalitarian direction. People vote Green for one of two reasons: to prove that they're good people or to stick it to those they resent. The principal business of a Scottish Green leader is to maintain and, with any luck, expand these electoral blocs. Sharper ideological definition is likely to have the opposite effect, which is why the pragmatic radicalism on offer from Ross Greer is a wiser course to take. Skelp the super-rich but keep the middle earners and modestly wealthy on board by selling them leftist vibes at centrist prices.
Glasgow Times
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
'Glasgow is tired of being let down – and it deserves better'
We still walk the same streets riddled with potholes. We still wait weeks or months for hospital appointments. Our bins overflow, graffiti spreads, and fly-tipping piles up – all while city leaders insist we're "on the up." The disconnect between the Scottish Government, City Chambers, and the people who actually make Glasgow tick has never felt greater. This city, which should be the beating heart of Scotland, too often feels like an afterthought – neglected, ignored, and let down by those meant to stand up for it. Let's be honest. The SNP-run Scottish Government has slashed funding to Glasgow in real terms year after year. And Glasgow City Council – under Susan Aitken and her Green Party allies – appears more concerned with headlines and hashtags than with helping households. The rhetoric might be slick, but the results are sorely lacking. While the SNP obsesses over independence and pet projects – like challenging biological reality, taxing air miles, and hammering motorists – the basics are crumbling. Schools are stretched. GP practices are under siege. Cancer targets are missed. Waiting lists at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital keep growing. These aren't statistics – they're lives. Real people, real suffering, right here in Glasgow. At the same time, crime and antisocial behaviour are creeping further into the city centre. Local businesses and residents tell me they no longer feel safe. Police Scotland is stretched to the limit, expected to do more with less, while ministers look the other way. Instead of real leadership, we're served spin. When Glaswegians complain about rats and graffiti, we're told it's "no worse than any other city." That's not reassurance – that's resignation. And it's absolutely not good enough. Glasgow deserves more than complacency self-identifying as competence. It deserves more than half-hearted pledges about a "spruced-up" city, while the evidence on the streets tells a very different story. The people who pay the taxes to fund Susan Aitken's budget aren't asking for the world. They want the basics done right – here, in their own communities. No vanity projects, no funding pet causes in far-off places. Just the essentials: roads that don't wreck your car, pavements that don't trip you up, weekly bin collections, streets that feel safe again. And let's not forget Glasgow Southside's master of the SNP inner circle and her elusive estranged spouse of modest means but expansive motorhome tastes – well-fed, well-housed and well-insulated from scrutiny... until the polis come knocking. Now they expect you to pay his legal fees. We've yet to hear Susan Aitken question this entitlement. No doubt Nicola could write a book about this saga – and promote it on the taxpayers' dime. Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather see a city that works than a party chasing headlines – or disappearing behind the drapes in embarrassment. Fix the roads, for God's sake. Clear the rubbish. Back small businesses. Support our police. These aren't radical ideas, they're what most Glaswegians want. Scottish Conservatives believe in results, not rhetoric. We want a government that listens and a council that delivers. That starts with fair funding: give Glasgow its fair share of UK spending increases. Let local leaders plan for the long term, not lurch from one SNP budget crisis to the next. This summer, Glaswegians don't need another slogan from SNP HQ. They need real change. So here's the challenge to the SNP: stop the excuses. Stop the blame game. Start delivering. Because Glasgow is tired of being let down – and it deserves better.
Scotsman
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Keir Starmer should have followed SNP lead and asked higher earners to pay more tax
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... When Keir Starmer stood up shortly after taking office and told us things were going to get worse, even he could not have envisaged the extent to which broken promises, infighting, bad decisions and shambolic U-turns would define his first 12 months as Prime Minister. Barely a household in the country has not been left disappointed or downright angry by the actions of a Labour government, which – time and time again – has found itself on the wrong side of the argument, defending the frankly indefensible. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I am well aware, from the office I hold, that governments must be driven by consistent values and clear direction – both of which appear to be completely lacking at Westminster. First Minister John Swinney during a visit to Springburn Academy in Glasgow. Picture: Jane Barlow/PA Wire When I became First Minister, I set clear missions around eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, improving public services and tackling the climate emergency. SNP-run Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is expected to fall, and soon we will take another step forward by abolishing Labour's two-child cap. We are introducing more measures to help with the cost of living, such as scrapping peak rail fares permanently. And when it comes to the NHS, I am putting in place lasting solutions around the country, which will deliver sustained long-term improvements. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Incidentally, I have managed to do all this – and much more besides – without the enormous parliamentary majority that Keir Starmer enjoys. I intend to build on this progress over the next year and, as we approach the 2026 election, the SNP will set out ambitious plans to move Scotland into the next decade. The dividing lines for that election are already becoming clear. People wanting to know what a Labour government would be like in Scotland need look no further than the shambles of the last 12 months at Westminster. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Anas Sarwar has defended Keir Starmer every mis-step of the way, and there is little doubt that a Scottish Labour government would be equally determined to balance the books on the backs of the poor, the disabled and older people. Labour could have avoided the fiscal nightmare currently tearing them apart if Keir Starmer had the courage to do what the SNP have done, and ask higher earners to pay more tax. This is therefore a strange moment for Mr Sarwar to begin arguing for precisely the opposite – but that is what he has begun doing. Much like every Conservative leader who makes similar demands, Mr Sarwar will have to explain what he would cut in Scotland to pay for his tax cuts for the rich. NHS funding? Free university tuition? The Scottish Child Payment? The Prime Minister's many mistakes in his first 12 months add up to a much bigger problem – he has taken the hope people felt last year and has extinguished it. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Hope must be the defining feature of next year's election, and hope is what I intend that the SNP offer – a vision of an independent Scotland free from Westminster chaos.
