Readers' Letters: There’s no need for a new law around non-fatal strangulation

Non-fatal strangulation shouldn’t be allowed, but there’s no need for a new law, saw reader

The Scottish Government is looking at specifically creating a new crime for non-fatal strangulation (your report, Friday 13 December).

This is already fully covered by what is known as “common law assault”. The aggravation and seriousness of the assault is determined by the method used to perpetrate the crime, ie non-fatal strangulation, weapon used etc and the court should apply a proportionate sentence, albeit this country is soft on sentencing. If we have a separate crime of non-fatal strangulation should we not have same for a non-fatal stabbing or shooting etc.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Where do we stop? At the moment non-fatal strangulation and other serious aggravations of assault are covered in common law in the form of Attempted Murder. The common law crime of assault and its derivatives has worked for hundreds of years and does not need to be changed, though attitudes on how it is applied perhaps do.

John Swinney has said the Scottish Government will give 'serious consideration' to creating a standalone criminal offence of non-fatal strangulation (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)John Swinney has said the Scottish Government will give 'serious consideration' to creating a standalone criminal offence of non-fatal strangulation (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)
John Swinney has said the Scottish Government will give 'serious consideration' to creating a standalone criminal offence of non-fatal strangulation (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

Michael Fraser, Tullibody, Clackmannanshire

Idle cash

The article by Brian Wilson commenting that Scotland’s energy depends on gas (”Transition to net-zero carbon emissions must take account of reality”, Perspective, 14 December) omitted one vital fact from his claim that “there is an urgent need for energy storage to counter intermittency”. There was no mention that battery systems will only run for around four hours and pump storage facilities for about 30 hours.

That means if there are prolonged periods of days of “dunkelflaute” weather conditions – when little or no energy can be generated – then, as spotted by Michael Matheson, the then Energy Secretary who issued the SNP Energy Papers, there is a need for a third power system to keep the lights on over the winter. The choice made by Nicola Sturgeon and her Cabinet was to include 25GW of hydrogen-fuelled gas turbines. No cost estimate was provided but there would be little change out of £500 billion for the electrolyser plant, the expensive leak-proof storage vessels plus the requisite gas turbine plant.

Note also that if the plant sits idle for around 7,200 hours per year then, at a constraints payment figure of £100 per MWhour, there will be an annual bill underwritten by the consumer of £18 billion, which is just short of the NHS budget.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

That raises the question, never addressed by the First Minister, as to whether Scotland can afford a net zero policy !

Ian Moir, Castle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway

Wise words

Well, Hallelujah! A former Labour Party minister urging ministers in the present Labour Party to close the gap “between policy ambitions and dull old reality”,

He's right, of course, every word he wrote, as so many Scotsman correspondents have been pointing out in these Letters pages for some time. I particularly like Brian Wilson's addition to his “usual three imperatives of energy policy” – social acceptance.

I wonder if he'll add that advice to the Christmas cards he might send to Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and Ed Miliband? Or would they just regard him as the Ghost of Christmas Past?

Lovina Roe, Perth

Net useless

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Last Friday saw the launch of the UK Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, which sets out its approach to speed up the transition to net zero. It was well endorsed by the energy industry – and it’s not difficult to see why when you’re the beneficiary of a favourable regulatory regime; price incentives that provide positive investment returns for energy companies (domestic and foreign) and their shareholders; and new rules that fast-track planning permission for market-ready capital projects.

Understandably, hard-pressed consumers are perhaps less enthused. Introduced under a previous Labour government, “green levies” (including renewable subsidies, energy efficiency measures etc.) are increasingly perceived as merely adding to an already high cost of living. (Today these levies make up over 10 per cent of the typical dual fuel bill.)

The main counterpoint to this has been the Government’s election pledge of savings on an average household energy bill of £300 per year by 2030, not far off in the total scheme of things. However, at Friday’s launch, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was unable to provide any clarity or certainty on exactly how or when this saving will be realised!

This seems to reinforce the imperative of “social acceptance” for net zero on the basis of greater realism and practicality, as highlighted by Brian Wilson in his latest column.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However this may be achieved, people (customers and voters) need to feel they are more than economic pawns in a long game of chess largely played out between the big energy companies and government.

Meanwhile, lower energy bills (whatever “lower” may eventually turn out to mean) remain as elusive as finding Big Foot in net zero’s dark forest.

Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns, Glasgow

Balkanised Britain

The SNP have been trying to rip Scotland out of the UK for as long as I can remember. I can think of many reasons why it would be a bad idea, including currency problems, the fact that we do 60 per cent of our trade with rUK and the reality that we are unlikely to get back into the EU anytime soon.

We also have an overly large public sector which has got to be funded and we would have to take our fair share of the National Debt, the annual interest on which would be a large sum. But as much as any, I do not want my friends and family in England to be living in a foreign country with border crossings, different passports and the like. Balkanising Britain in such a way is in my opinion a terrible idea.

Jack Watt, St Ola, Orkney

Write to The Scotsman

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.

Comments

 0 comments

Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.

Dare to be Honest
Follow us
©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice