Sir, We should applaud the RSPB’s decision in the “public interests of the UK’s natural environment” to challenge the proposal to festoon the Tay and Forth estuaries with wind turbines. About time, too!
Wind generation of power owes nothing to the efficient production of electricity, but more to a relentless quest to extract as much subsidy from consumers as possible without regard to the devastation these hopelessly inefficient machines create.
Developers are careful to use the word “potential” in their description of the likely power output of theses turbines knowing full well that it will be only 30% of the rated capacity and that power production occurs only when the wind blows within a certain velocity range, which will not necessarily occur when there is a demand for power.
The vast area of sea bed required to house these monsters is equalled only by the enormous amounts of concrete and rare earth metals such as dysprosium and neodymium used in their construction and which in themselves cause unseen and severe environmental damage.
The present plethora of UK windfarms has only reduced emissions by, at best, 7.5%; necessary use of fossil-fired back-up for reliable electricity supplies makes it less than 4% in practice, and has cost more than £20 billion.
The minuscule contribution of windfarms in reducing carbon emissions and costing consumers huge amounts of money, is risible.
In fact, if Scotland as a nation ceased to exist, the reduction of world carbon emissions would be less than 0.25% of the total which, of course, would be completely ineffective in mitigating climate change.
Even surrounding our beautiful coastlines with a wall of wind turbines would do nothing (except possibly bankrupt us!).
The Scottish Government’s inexplicable obsession with windfarms and their indefensible opposition to zero carbon nuclear power is more to do with emotion rather than sound common sense or technical awareness.
Iain G Richmond. Guildy, Monikie.
Anthem angst all over again
Sir, I read with interest that there is to be a motion forwarded at Holyrood for the formal adoption of a Scottish national anthem. What should this anthem be? Could it be Flower of Scotland? A good song, but the unionists can’t sing it as it quite clearly goes against their grain; singing “to be a nation again” might stick in their craw.
How about God save the Queen? Unionists would like that but the last verse of it, “And like a torrent rush rebellious Scots to crush God save the queen”, that would definitely stick in my Scottish craw.
Do we have a competition and get some song writers to come up with one, or do we go for an older one? Perhaps we just don’t have anything?
It’s just a pity the French one is being used by France. Now that really is an anthem.
Bryan Auchterlonie. Bluebell Cottage, Ardargie.
Nothing to fear for Mr Blair
Sir, Your article on selective “freedom of information” (January 13) was timely. Recent experience confirms criticisms, including by Information Commissioner Rosemary Agnew herself, that our FOI rights risk erosion.
HMRC’s Valuation Office advised Fife Council that Pipeland’s green belt land they intend buying from a private developer for Madras College’s relocation, justified only farmland price, with no “hope value uplift”.
Within four weeks, the VO “U-turned”, agreeing “in the circumstances” (unexplained) an uplift of 12 times that price!
Also, Fife Council asserts the VO refused an exchange of Madras South Street’s site for non green belt ground the university owns, as their relative values were imbalanced.
But that imbalance arises only because here, the VO compared its agri-value with South Street’s development value. Applying the 12 times multiplier to the university ground cancels the entire imbalance.
Moreover, Section 4 of the Disposal of Land by Local Authorities (Scotland) Regulations 2010, permits such exchange deals whatever their relative values.
Under FOI, I requested the VO to explain its decisions and disregard of Section 4 which effectively favoured a private firm over another semi-public body. My request concerned only its advice, not the developer or his confidential affairs. It replied, however, that it cannot divulge such information as “it relates to other taxpayers”.
Tony Blair’s regret that FOI was his greatest regret is unnecessary if such reasonable requests are stonewalled.
John Birkett. 12 Horseleys Park, St Andrews.
UK’s broad shoulders?
Sir, Recent correspondence has indicated that fears over currency, defence, pensions, taxation and welfare moved many people to vote “no” in the referendum, which was understandable after the manner in which they were portrayed by the unionist side.
We now know that the Bank of England had made provision for monetary union in the event of a “yes” vote.
Defence is in a situation where we, as a so-called maritime power, were unable to provide an aerial search facility when a foreign submarine, believed to be Russian, was spotted off the Clyde where UK submarines enter and leave Faslane, where two multi-billion pound aircraft carriers have no aircraft to fly until 2020 and cover for the North Atlantic and UK Oil Fields takes surface ships 24 hours from Portsmouth.
Personal taxation favours those that have and many with extreme wealth use tax havens abroad, while company taxation of many major companies appears to be readily avoided.
The welfare system is chaotic and many of those who require support are demonised while in a situation over which they have had no control and where zero hour contracts and the minimum wage are their lot
With the latest news on the changes to the state pension scheme and the belief that up to 45% of the recipients will lose out, perhaps the people who voted “no” over pension fears, largely promulgated by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling (the disappearing men), will begin to wonder where the broad shoulders of the UK are now.
Leslie Liney. 8 Knockard Crescent, Pitlochry.
Get rid of these eyesores
Sir, The Scots have traditionally been known as a canny nation; “mean” may even be used in some circles to describe our relationship with money. However, over the past week I have heard on the news about various power cuts.
The main reason I see for this is that we as a nation continue to route our power lines overhead because it is cheaper, rather than below the ground, where they would be safe from all that the Scottish weather can throw at them.
Wind, ice and snow do not exist below the ground. An added benefit would also be gained by ridding our beautiful country of the numerous pylons and poles which spoil the landscape.
Many politicians of all parties have discussed this problem at various levels, but nothing has been done about it. This would be an ideal opportunity for the SNP, if they want to lead a go-ahead country. Let them start by removing all poles and pylons, thereby enhancing the beauty of our country, and giving us an electricity service fit for purpose.
Willie Robertson. Grianan, Lynton, Stanley.
A strange ‘oil’ appointment
Sir, The First Minister has chosen Lena Wilson, chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, rather than an experienced oil man like Sir Ian Wood, to head up her new “oil crisis” task force.
With a Glasgow Caledonian BA in public administration and a Strathclyde MBA, Ms Wilson has been with a quango most of her career and would appear to be rather an odd choice.
It may be good gender balancing but she is clearly not in a position to advise oil firms facing the complex decision of halting production or operating at a loss in the hope prices recover.
Fortunately, as Bank of England Governor Mark Carney observed, our economic partnership with the UK means the £6 billion hole in our finances will not translate into spending cuts.
Dr John Cameron. 10 Howard Place, St Andrews.