Sir, Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie argues that Rosyth, although willing to accrue the alleged “economic benefit” of Westminster’s nuclear submarines, “shouldn’t be expected to tolerate the burden of a nuclear waste site on their doorstep”.
Although I agree with Mr Rennie that the safety of the people of Rosyth must be paramount, where else does he propose that the nuclear waste be dumped? On the doorstep of another Scottish town? Amidst the natural beauty of unspoilt Scottish countryside?
It will have to be dumped somewhere.
As long as the UK Government squanders taxpayers’ cash on such morally dubious and potentially hazardous nuclear technologies including £100 billion on the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons stationed merely 40 kilometres from our largest city significant amounts of dangerous, toxic waste will necessarily have to be dumped on Scotland’s doorstep.
The only way to avoid the problem of dealing with nuclear waste is, quite simply, to cease producing it.
Given Westminster’s inane infatuation with militaristic vanity projects, this is unachievable without a Yes vote in 2014.
With the powers of an independent nation, Scotland will no longer be an impotent spectator in her own home as its natural beauty is defaced and its values debased by Westminster vandals.
David Kelly. 17 Highfields, Dunblane.
They’re putting this “majesty” at risk
Sir, It was with interest and a certain amount of incredulity that I read John Swinney’s comments in Friday’s paper.
He has the audacity to talk of walking through the “majesty of the county of Angus the great historic houses like Glamis, the beauty of the glens and the coastline”.
He is perfectly correct in stating that Angus contains many beautiful views and a magnificent coastline but all of this is being put at risk through his party’s determination to meet “green” energy targets through an unproven method of production ie wind turbines.
If he has any proof of the success rate he envisages through these monstrosities then I would be glad to hear them.
I would also to hear when the people of the majestic country he is spoiling by erecting them can expect to benefit by receiving lower electric bills.
Willie Robertson. Forest Park Cottage, Lynton, Stanley, Perthshire.
Saved 28%, wrecked 72%
Sir, So that nice Mr Salmond has decided to spare 28% of Scotland’s wild land from windfarms!
He could still be the Scot who is remembered for wrecking the landscape and wildlife of the remaining 72% of one of the most beautiful countries in the world.
It would take 16,000 large onshore turbines to meet Scotland’s present peak demand,not to mention the essential back-up.
Also, the God of renewables is extremely greedy, and few industries could remain competitive with such high electricity prices, or consumers stay out of fuel poverty.
The chancellor is already having to exempt certain manufacturing industries from the climate change levy.
Stephen Grieve. 60 Nethergate, Crail.
Biomass claim simply not true
Sir, Your reporter’s claim (April 6) that Courier readers have given their backing to a biomass plant at the harbour could not be further from the truth.
From a small sample size of 102, only 45 respondents agreed that Dundee port is a good site for a biomass plant. In contrast, 3,274 written letters of objection from local residents were received by the Scottish Government when this incinerator was initially proposed in 2010.
The article also fails to mention that Forth Energy’s revised report states that 12,748 people would be affected by increased levels of nitrogen dioxide if this plant is approved.
NHS Tayside expressed concern in December 2010 about this plant subjecting even small populations to increases in pollution levels.
The article also highlights the fact that road traffic is a major contributor to the nitrogen dioxide problems in the Stannergate area, but it fails to mention the fact that an additional 20,000 HGV movements in and out of the port area each year would be experienced if the plant is approved, leading to further increases in NO2 levels.
The article also features an artist’s impression of the plant. It fails to highlight the fact that the chimney would be almost twice the height of Tayside House and would be the first thing to catch the eye of any visitor coming to Dundee.
Why bother having a design competition for the V&A when tourists’ attention will be drawn towards the enormous incinerator on the other side of the bridge?
Is this really what Courier readers want in our city?
N. McLean. Primrose Bank, Dundee.