Sir, As a supporter of independence I grow frustrated at the unnecessary fankles the SNP appear to get themselves into over undeliverable Labour Party grandstanding announcements.
The latest is the claim Labour will freeze everyone’s energy bills, should they gain power at Westminster in 2015, and their mischievous urging of the Scottish Government to match this policy at Holyrood.
SNP ministers appeared unable to present a coherent, united front against the Labour attacks; but why? There was so much wrong with both the policy and Labour’s reasoning it should have been like shooting fish in a barrel.
To be fair, they did highlight facts such as it had yet to be explained how such a policy could be legally delivered and that, even if it could be delivered, prices would be likely to rise sharply prior to its implementation thus negating any benefit customers might receive from it.
These problems are self evident and Labour have yet to address them credibly. However, it was the utterly nonsensical claim that a Yes vote in 2014 would lead to Scots being disadvantaged that appeared to flummox SNP ministers. Listing the benefits of SNP government policies such as the council tax freeze was a weak response.
They should have pointed out that a Yes vote next year would not actually see Scotland become independent until 2016 at the earliest thus, with Labour promising to implement their policy in 2015, Scots would still be subject to the consequences of it whether good or ill.
Similarly, a Yes vote does not stop Labour forming the first government of an independent Scotland and continuing the policy beyond 2016.
The only logical conclusion one can draw from Labour’s claim of a Yes vote disadvantaging Scots is that a Westminster Labour government would deliberately exclude Scotland from the policy and that they have already conceded the 2016 Holyrood election to the SNP. There is no need for SNP ministers to get in a fankle over this. Simply point out the fatal flaws in Labour’s reasoning.
Stuart Allan. 8 Nelson Street, Dundee.
Byre of great value to all
Sir, The Courier did well to highlight the lack of awareness of the Byre Theatre issue from Janet Archer, new head of Creative Scotland. We have had minimal information from anyone since the closure about what is going on, despite a lot of airy nonsense about possible reopening in the autumn, based on no facts at all.
The only person I talked to who seemed friendly and informative was Heather Stuart of Fife Cultural Trust, the body it was hoped could take the theatre under its remit.
However, that takes money, and it was clear from the start, with the council cash-strapped, and the theatre having been run on a shoe-string, that Creative Scotland was the only body that could do that. The Byre was inadequately funded during its period under a trust, and
Creative Scotland was responsible for its demise.
Community theatre and music in live spaces is vitally important all over Scotland, and very few can exist without subsidy. The Byre ticks all kinds of boxes it had a showcase building, was in a university town and there was great importance in its tourism value to St Andrews and Scotland.
Crawford Mackie. Fife Jazz Club.
Making a rash promise?
Sir, As a resident of Dunfermline I have received many leaflets from all political parties leading up to the Dunfermline by-election. However the most unbelievable and most vague promise is from Labour’s Cara Hilton.
She states: “I will reduce the cost of living.” She does not go on to explain how.
As Labour politicians are famous for breaking their promises, I would like her to reply detailing exactly how she intends to reduce my cost of living, if she is successful in the by-election. Then I can ensure she does what she says.
Ronnie Blair. Queen Margaret Fauld, Dunfermline.
Kenly: so many questions . . .
Sir, How is it that the St Andrews University student paper, The Saint, can publish the appeal decision on the Kenly wind farm application before it appears on the DPEA website?
Why the four-month delay in publishing the result when the Reporter would have done his job in the allocated time, by June 22? The assumption must be that this decision was referred to Fergus Ewing, the energy minister. Why did he concern himself with a small application of six turbines?
Why did he ignore his own guidance given recently “that wind farms will only be allowed in suitable places”? North East Fife is not the place for turbines over 400 feet high, located on high ground, close to properties
Planning permission is still needed for the electricity created to reach the grid. How will the university be assured of getting wayleaves over all the properties and fields, or will they dig up the roads into town for that purpose?
In light of a recent court ruling does the university have a licence to produce electricity?
When these monster turbines come to be delivered will all roads around St Andrews be closed to allow passage?
What will be the cost of providing police escorts along the B9131 towards Anstruther?
Dr D King. Kinaldy, St Andrews.