Letters: who will pay our energy bills if we ever become self-employed?


MAY I add a little addition to the enlightened letters of MM. Lindsay, Moore, Baird and Parkin (Letters, June 1)? Maybe when Mr McDougall admires Whitelee from his bike, he might want to consider that to date this wind farm has been given over £ 143million to go out. The Renewable Energy Foundation keeps track of these strain payments on their website, which I visit regularly. This constantly growing amount comes from our invoices.

The UK total to date is just over £ 982million, of which over £ 911million is donated to Scottish wind farms by everyone in the UK. I wonder who will pay the Scottish share if Scotland ever becomes independent?

Massive concrete bases are sunk into the ground, often deep peat moss that we are continually told to preserve, and access roads built through a previously untouched landscape. How many other industries are paid so much for doing nothing when they cause so much environmental damage?

Brenda Herrick, Thurso.


YOUR recent correspondence from climate change deniers and renewable energy proponents (Letters, May 31, June 1 and 2) ignores the fact that there are elephants in theaters on both sides of the argument. The elephant of climate change deniers is that we have to find a way to fuel our economies / lives using methodologies that do not produce CO2. The elephant of renewable energy is that the production of renewable electricity is inevitably intermittent. So if we admit that climate change is a reality, and this seems to be the view of the vast majority of the informed public, a solution to the CO2 issue must be found.

There are currently two possible solutions, nuclear fission and renewable energies. Public appetite for nuclear seems limited, which leaves us with renewables. So, rather than always complaining about renewable energy issues, we should strive to overcome the issues. Are there any solutions? Of course there are and they include pump storage systems, batteries, electrolysis to produce hydrogen, and I’m sure many other technologies that will be developed with proper funding.

Whether carpers and climate deniers like it or not, things need to change and, with the right investment and imagination, we can change things with as little disruption as possible.

John Palfreyman, Coupar Angus.


MALCOM Parkin (Letters, June 1) asks how the current energy position in the UK came about.

One explanation I would suggest is that the financialization of the economy since the 1970s has meant that the products of our education system have become bean counters rather than Newton’s and Kelvin’s science skills.

On this planet, perpetual motion is impossible. Energy engineering that ignores the laws of thermodynamics is also very problematic. Morag Watson (Letters, May 31) would do well to reconsider his claims with these two facts in mind.

Each wind turbine has been costly in carbon dioxide emissions in its manufacture, transport and erection. Each “hydrogen generator” will have to be powered indirectly by fossil fuels. Other examples of energy blindness are the “space exploration” activities much praised by Struan Stevenson (“Wind farm march destroys Scotland’s beauty – but we can stop it”, The Herald, May 27). and resulting pollution.

Every solar panel has required fossil fuels for its manufacture. Each electric car battery requires energy extraction activities in its components and production. The infrastructure for charging vehicles is far from carbon-free.

The words of Nate Hagens (Post Carbon Institute, USA) explain the world energy situation with a brilliant analogy: “Our culture is blind to energy. We derive the principle from it and consider it to be of interest. ”

These are words that the business fraternity would do well to consider after the 50 years that the rapid increase in energy consumption and more and more energy absorbed in energy extraction has been supported by a financial model. failing.

John Caldwell, Bothwell.


YOUR non-rare publication of letters from anthropogenic opponents of global warming reminds me of the criticisms the BBC has been subjected to in relation to its news or documentaries on climate change. For the sake of “balance”, he would question, for example, Nigel Lawson, known for his determination to contradict overwhelming scientific evidence.

However, the evidence was so conclusive, accepted by rational scientific, governmental, public (and now judicial: “Court Orders Royal Dutch Shell to Cut Carbon Emissions”, The Herald May 26) opinion that the BBC has ceased to give an instinctive screen. time to Lord Lawson and his half-baked tastes and beliefs.

Unfortunately, it would be inappropriate to suggest that the letter writers adopt a similar attitude. He would be in terrible trouble if he did; the pages are said to be full of cries of “eco-fascism”, “slippery slopes” and accusations of choking free speech despite the debate being closed.

And so, having made my point, I am left with the only option of suggesting to your readers that they reject opposing views and instead listen to those of the 97% of actively publishing climate scientists who agree that humans are at the origin of global warming. .

John Milne, Uddingston.


NEIL Mackay’s analysis of the current state of Scottish politics and the crucial points he makes around the current stage of the independence debate (“The Five Key Truths about Scotland and the Union” , The Herald, June 1) was objective and very precise. The only point I would question is when he writes about the Tories’ ‘disrespect’ for Scotland, especially around Brexit. The Tories’ stance on Brexit was clear and when a British majority voted to leave Scotland, as part of that British entity, had no choice but to submit . The Tories are not disrespectful, they have simply argued for a drastically altered UK-wide relationship with the EU and, with their argument prevailing, are now implementing their UK-mandated policy.

Brexit is perhaps the most dramatic, but by no means the only example of how over the last decades political and social opinion, one could almost say the view of the world, of Scotland and the rest of the Kingdom. -United have diverged. Without being a nationalist waving flags or wearing a kilt, this difference of point of view remains for me the best argument in favor of the independence of Scotland.

Of course, this argument can be called emotional, but I fully agree with Mr Mackay that the arguments for independence in trade, currency and other matters must be convincing.

Brian Harvey, Hamilton.


PETER A Russell (Letters, June 2) refers to Nicola Sturgeon and “her fanatical Yes movement”. The Yes movement does not belong to Nicola Sturgeon; he belongs to our nation of Scotland and she, like me and about half the nation, supports his goals.

The fact that we are all labeled fanatics by Mr. Russell suggests that he is untimely in his selection of adjectives. Nicola Sturgeon was born into an ordinary, law-abiding working-class family in Ayrshire and first became a lawyer and then a talented and much admired politician. If Mr. Russell has achieved comparable success and distinction in his career, he deserves to join the rest of us in the fanatic category.

Willie Maclean, Milngavie.


Whichever angle you look at the provision of ferry services to our islands, it is a complete shambles. The well-documented problems have been on the rise for years, long before Covid, and constitute a situation designed, created and managed by Scottish government agencies, overseen by the Scottish government.

As for SNP PSMs, representing the interests of the local population as usual comes second after aligning with HQ orders; that is, we can’t blame the UK for this one so don’t jump up and down pointing out the mess we made of things and demanding action.

Locals must be delighted that after the recent elections are over, their MSPs have “requested” a meeting with the new Transport Secretary. Let’s go back to the airbrushing over the past five years where this should have been properly addressed.

Putting aside all the Scottish taxpayers who will have to pay the hundreds of millions of pounds too much for just two new ferries, you should have immense sympathy for the Islanders.

And yet, for the majority of the local population, it cannot be such a problem. The recent elections should have been the time to bleed their PSM, instead it was more or less the same.

You reap what you sow.

Steven Clark, Edinburgh.

Read more: The nine key cards Scotland can play in the rUK talks

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.