Sir, The UK Energy Secretary Ed Davey has at long last pointed out that Scottish consumers would see their energy bills rocket if Scotland votes “yes”.
The reason is clear but has been deliberately ignored by the SNP Government and their green allies.
Scotland receives 28% of the total of the UK-wide support (subsidies) for “renewable” generators but only accounts for 10% of electricity sales.
A “yes” vote would add £1.8 billion to Scottish energy bills.
Alex Salmond loves to state that England needs Scottish electricity to keep English lights on, but in 2012 only 4% of English energy consumption was imported from Scotland.
The SNP ignore reality and the fact that there is already an infrastructure in place which means that England and Wales are already better connected with Europe than with Scotland and are at present getting cheaper electricity from France, Ireland and the Netherlands.
For First Minister Salmond to say to the Americans, “our energy resources can power much of Europe and our energy innovation can power the world” is sadly delusional.
Clark Cross. 138 Springfield Road, Linlithgow.
The only ones who matter
Sir, Jenny Hjul asks if Owen Patterson’s opinion is not of equal value to Ed Davey? What either man thinks is irrelevant. The only people who matter on the subject of climatology are the peer reviewed scientists. They are the ones who are studying the evidence and make hypotheses based upon it.
The scientific method is not a popularity contest nor is it about who can shout the loudest. The fact is every reputable scientific body of in the world and government and 97% of climatologists accept the reality that manmade CO2 is warming up the Earth.
Global warming denialism falls within the same category as creationism, astrology, alchemy and phrenology.
People who doubt climate change often also say the moon landings didn’t happen, 911 was an inside job and that Elvis is still alive.
Alan Hinnrichs. 2 Gillespie Terrace, Dundee.
More thought is needed
Sir, There is no doubt that the present education facilities at Madras College, St Andrews are not acceptable. The current proposed solution, however, requires much more scrutiny and thought into the long-term planning of St Andrews.
Fife has accepted the “Tay Plan” which indicates an increase in the population of St Andrews through expansion to the west. There has also been significant growth of retirement homes under construction in St Andrews.
All of this will result in the St Andrews Hospital’s services being utilised to capacity and with parking already an issue, what room is there for extension?
The proposed Pipeland facility will block the hospital into a restricted site and will severely curtail any future expansion.
The Tay Plan outlines expansion to the west of St Andrews, why, therefore, can the Fife planners not look to put the new Madras facility further west? Surely this would allow all of the school activities to be on one site ie playing fields, negating involvement with the university and reducing traffic issues.
The St Andrews Hospital is an existing facility that is currently functioning well, and any threat to its future performance and expansion should not be jeopardised in any way. The complete infrastructure of St Andrews in light of the predicted population increase should be considered.
Fife Council have had an opportunity to solve this problem, however, they do not appear to have looked at the long term, preferring a short-term proposal that is fraught with danger and does not create a whole facility. Let us hope that the Scottish Government will recognise the opportunity to remove the risk associated with this current proposal.
Peter Jerome. Denhead, St Andrews.
Jim just can’t let it lie . . .
Sir, I had hoped to stay silent on the topic of the proposed demolition of Perth City Hall until due consultations had taken place. I had hoped, too, that your columnist Jim Crumley would let it lie for a little while.
It seems he cannot. He wants to destroy everything he doesn’t like. I’m surprised that, given their similar date and method of construction, he doesn’t target his very own Caird Hall. Some authorities, who actually have some architectural credentials, see the two buildings as broadly equal in value. I can’t remember reading too many pro-demolition views from those with any valid expertise.
Repeated calls from certain local business leaders for us to “move on” are like Pete Wishart, merely urging us to create an uncertain urban space that could be an expensive chaos. If only the council could spend its time on sorting something positive, like the long-term shambles at St Paul’s Church and John Buchan’s birthplace.
Neil Foston. 47 Arbroath Road, Carnoustie.