Sir, Your report that Samsung Heavy Industries “revealed that it has invested £70 milllion” in its experimental turbine at Methil (Tuesday’s Courier) piqued my curiosity. Where precisely has this £70m been spent?
I understand that the turbine blades have come from Denmark, the tower from China and the nacelle from Korea. The only bits manufactured in Scotland were made in Paisley and floated round to Methil, when they could have been made next door, at Burntisland Fabricators. The main installation contractor is Irish.
In terms of jobs in Scotland, there were reports of 16 at the Samsung office in Methil, but no indication that these have gone to Scots, let alone Fifers.
It is hard to see how Samsung could already have spent £70m on the project, given that the Scottish Government has pitched in £6m and Scottish Enterprise paid for the planning application. Since the turbine is technically offshore, any electricity it generates will be entitled to a 200% subsidy, so it will collectmillions from UK consumers, as they pay for wind subsidies through their electricity bills.
The Scottish Government is extremely keen that all commercial windfarms offer “community benefit”, a scheme by which communities around these developments can share in their subsidy-bloated profits. Community benefit is represented as an acknowledgement that communities “hosting” turbines suffer a loss in amenity, although it is usually no more than a tiny percentage of the revenues enjoyed by windfarm operators.
Despite the talk of £70m, there appears to be no community benefit agreement at all at Methil. Given the community is hosting the world’s largest turbine, and that it is much closer to homes and businesses than the 2km setback distance recommended by the Scottish Government for much smaller, onshore turbines, the corresponding loss in amenity will be gigantic.
Linda Holt. Scotland Against Spin, Anstruther.
The village that no one wants Sir, I write with regard to the Scottish Government reporter’s decision to put the proposed Almond ValleyVillage site back into the local plan.
For 24 years people have been fighting this proposed development because it is of such a large scale and would completely ruin the character of the area, a rural setting of walkways, bridle and cycle paths that would be lost to the people of Perth forever should the AVV go ahead.
At no time in the past 24 years has our council approved any such plan and, in January 2012, voted to delete the proposed AVV site from the draft local plan.
The message from the council and the peopleof Perth to the ScottishGovernment could not have been clearer and yet theScottish Government has said the AVV has to bereinstated into the draft local plan.
We can only hope our councillors will continue to support us, and their own decisions, by rejecting the reporter’s decision, which we understand they are entitled to do.
Gillian Orr. Secretary, Huntingtower and Ruthvenfield Conservation Group.
Solution lies at Westminster
Sir, Ineos’s decision to close the Grangemouth petrochemical plant will be a blow to those who work there, to Scotland and its economy and parts of England that depend on its products.
Is it the case that the shutting down of this facility could have been engineered by those seeking to put fear into those proposing to vote ‘yes’ in next year’s referendum? I have always had faith in an independent Scottish Government redressing the balance on such issues by renationalising all basicservices (health/energy/transport) and putting them back into the hands of the public.
At this moment, Westminster has the answer to this problem and can bring the Grangemouth dispute to a close by buying the facility out (this could aid their ‘no’ vote in the referendum).
Bob Harper. 63a Pittenweem Road, Anstruther.
Failure of plant down to Ineos
Sir, John Cameron’s assertion that unions and workers are somehow responsible for the situation at Grangemouth is wrong.
The failure of Grangemouth is the fault of Ineos and its greedy billionaire owner, Jim Ratcliffe. They are seeking to cut terms and conditions so Mr Ratcliffe can buy another yacht.
Mr Cameron then lists other factories and industries allegedly run out of Scotland because of union intransigence. This is, of course, a rewriting of history.
These industries relocated to the Third World in order to exploit cheap child labour in non-unionised sweatshops. This relocation was made possible by Thatcherism and her desire to smash union power.
Alan Hinnrichs. 2 Gillespie Terrace, Dundee.
Words and the rule of law
Sir, We have become used to the fact that freedom of speech has been consigned to the history books as part of a long-lost Greek culture.
Some would argue the merits of such a policy on the grounds it would encourage racism and bigotry, which are against the law, and while I don’t agree, I can appreciate that the laws of the land should be upheld.
So why is it that encouragement to break the law is all right and proclaimed in public as proper action against authority (Wednesday’s Courier)? We have experience of such action, related to taxation without representation, in Boston and are still recovering from the non-payment of council tax. The first contributed to a war and the second is revered by some as a victory. For whom?
Where are the boundaries that define what laws we should be encouraged to ignore: those relating to benefits alone or those related to prejudice and bigotry?
Alan Bell. Roods, Kirriemuir.