Friday, 8 January 2010

It is also difficult to support or understand the SNP’s irrational objection to the construction of at least one new nuclear power station in Scotland to replace the ageing facilities at Hunterston and Torness. Such a facility would provide guaranteed back-up to inconsistent wind farms while the technology for more reliable wave and tidal systems is developed. Nuclear power has nothing to do with the emotive question of nuclear weapons, and a power station would be financed by the UK Government and would not affect the Scottish block grant or capital expenditure.

Iain A D Mann, Glasgow.

Welcome decision The approval by the Scottish Government of the upgrading of the Beauly-Denny line is to be welcomed and is essential if Scotland is to tap into the massive renewable energy resources from wind, wave and tidal power in the north of Scotland.

This is the most significant grid infrastructure project in a generation, and by adding extra capacity to the National Grid, will allow electricity transmission to consumers in the central belt and beyond. Such a significant reinforcement will allow Scotland’s vast renewable energy potential to be harnessed, transmitted and boosted, helping support the Scottish Government’s target to meet 50% of Scotland’s energy needs from renewable sources by 2020, as well as cutting carbon emissions by 42% by the same date.

Scotland has the potential to become a major player in renewable energy, and this announcement will give us the transmission capacity to carry green energy over the coming years.

Alan Simpson, Partner, Energy and Climate Change Group, HBJ Gateley Wareing, Exchange Tower, 19 Canning Street, Edinburgh.

Blighted by pylons

As anticipated, the Scottish Government has given the go-ahead to the new Beauly-Denny power line. Despite many objections from Scottish people along the line’s route, and pleas for burying the cable underground or rerouting it, our political masters have ignored adverse public views after the cursory public inquiry.

The other options were obviously deemed too expensive to our energy companies, and their views held sway at the end of the day. My cynicism about the outcome of the issue was bolstered at the end of last year when First Minister Alex Salmond appointed the chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy as chairman of his climate change group.

I am a supporter of renewable energy but I object to the Scottish countryside being blighted with huge pylons to supply energy to south of the border and the continent. Obviously Mr Salmond and his government have no such qualms and this may be their undoing at the ballot box.

Bob MacDougall, Stirlingshire.

Simplify the system

The go-ahead for the Beauly-Denny power line should be welcomed in the strongest terms. It bolsters Scotland’s ability to be a significant player in the critical UK energy market, as well as meeting renewable energy and carbon reduction targets.

The process that led to approval of the project, however, has not been without expense and challenges, and it is important that the government and other stakeholders continue to review and refine their approach to accelerate the planning processes and streamline the funding mechanisms that make such projects a reality.

We have to find new ways to bring forward investment and we must reflect on the significant time lag between project conception and the decision to proceed, which puts additional pressure on a sector that needs to move at pace.

The development of the grid infrastructure in Scotland does not end here: the existing system is not fully fit for a 21st-century energy industry with its different mix of supply and demand; for instance, there is continued investment needed away from the main spine and innovative funding and commercial structures are needed for the many other projects including “supergrids” or subsea cabling to increase flexibility and connectivity for a more diversified energy mix.

Scotland should continue to capitalise on its renewable energy resources and we must keep the bigger picture in mind.

Nathan Goode, Government & Infrastructure Advisory partner, Grant Thornton, Scotland, 1-4 Atholl Crescent, Edinburgh.

Down in the dales

It may interest your readers to know that the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority is removing transmission poles and putting replacement cables underground because the poles spoil the view.

The poles are minuscule compared to the proposed Beauly-Denny pylons and, given that the renewables they are meant to serve are some distance in the future, one has to wonder at the wisdom of it.

I understand renewables need a back-up of 90% of capacity. Might it not be more sensible to build bigger back-up, run it at maximum efficiency and forget about renewables until they are more proven?

G J C Reid, Whitby.

First and last SNP vote

First Trump, now pylons. I voted SNP for the first time at the previous election. I fear it will be the last time, too.

Andy Walker, Dundee.

Health risks

ARE we to assume the SNP government disregards scientists such as Dr Dennis Henshaw, who have warned consistently of the increased risk of cancers from proximity to pylons?

We live on the main Kincardine to Denny line which is a large double pylon line each line carrying 275kV.

The new line will join the original just a few metres from our house, resulting in us having four pylons towering above our home and wires directly above Plean Industrial Estate, where many people are employed. These four lines will then have a combined strength of 950kV.

Many of us are extremely worried about the health dangers these pylons bring to residents in close proximity.

Can we, therefore, get written assurances from the SNP government that the health of those living and working underneath these pylons will not be at risk?

Linda Scott, Plean.

Sturgeon has power to change bonuses

I read your front page story on Nicola Sturgeon’s calls to end the consultants bonus scheme (January 6) with incredulity.

As I hope Ms Sturgeon is aware, pay for all staff in the NHS in Scotland is entirely within her responsibility -- part of the devolution settlement she so frequently decries as not giving the Scottish Parliament enough powers. So why is she writing to the Prime Minister about it ?

If she wanted to change the system of excessive bonuses to consultants for doing the job our taxes already pay them to do, she could do so tomorrow. What the Welsh, Northern Irish and English administrations do is a matter for them. For Scotland, it is down to Nicola Sturgeon.

When it suits her and her colleagues, Ms Sturgeon claims her desire to do what she wants hampered by somebody else (usually London), and they would do more if they had more powers. In this case, she does not have that excuse. Ms Sturgeon enjoys defining Scotland by difference from the rest of the UK -- so what is stopping her in this case ? I hope it is not cowardice borne of undue deference to the vested interests of the BMA Consultants Committee.

Ralph Kirkwood, Cambuslang.

Sunday can also be referred to as Sabbath

Definitions of words change. In the 16th century mediocre meant average. Now it may still mean ordinary, but it might mean less than satisfactory. To decimate literally means to strike down one in 10. Today, we tend to use the verb to describe the destruction of a large proportion.

Rev David Keddie (Letters, January 7) helpfully sets out the historical background to the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Lord’s Day. It is important for religious people to understand the terms and concepts we use. In that regard, Mr Keddie’s explanation is helpful. In defence of your headline writer, however, he/she was using the word Sabbath correctly. We may wish that words had different meanings -- or more precise meanings -- or had maintained original definitions. At the end of the day, however, words mean what the majority of us hold them to mean.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Sabbath as “a day of religious observance and abstinence from work, kept by Jews from Friday evening to Saturday evening, and by most Christians on Sunday”. The article made it quite clear that Sunday was being referred to in this case.

Rev Gordon A Campbell, Invergowrie.

Pious hypocrisy from woman who had affair

So we have a leading spokesperson for conservative, evangelical Christianity in Northern Ireland, Iris Robinson, revealed as an adulteress (“Politician’s wife tried to take her own life after affair”, The Herald, January 7). Is this the same woman who described homosexuality as an abomination?

Perhaps, as she was fantasising about the recriminalisation of homosexuals, she might have spent some time considering the biblical injunctions against, and punishments for, adultery. Indeed, she might have wished to remember that adultery was also a criminal offence and, in many Protestant countries, a capital crime.

Will we now see a concerted drive by her co-religionists to lobby parliament to recriminalise adultery? Or, as she and her family (and, presumably fellow church-goers) plead for understanding, compassion and common courtesy, perhaps they will all give some thought to Jesus’s advice that we should all treat each other (with compassion, humility and common courtesy) as we would like to be treated.

Failing that, there might be some meditation on Matthew 7:3: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

Professor William G Naphy, Aberdeen.

Ministry of Defence continues to try to blame Chinook pilots for tragedy they did not cause

I was glad to see your story about the disgraceful treatment meted out to the Chinook pilots after the crash in 1994 (“Fresh calls to clear Chinook pilots’ names”, January 5). Some have described it as the greatest injustice of recent times caused entirely by civil servants at the Ministry of Defence and connived at by Conservative and Labour governments.

First it was the Conservative Party in government which refused all calls by the Labour Party (and the Liberals) for an independent inquiry and then, after the Labour Party was elected, it declined calls by the Conservatives for such an inquiry.

Few things have demonstrated so clearly that our governments have no control when their servants decide on their own line and, of course, we the taxpaying public have no say over how those servants behave, how much they are paid or about how many honours are dished out to them.

As to the latest fatuous statement from the Ministry of Defence, that the facts reported do not constitute new evidence and therefore do not warrant an inquiry, it is good to have its admission that it knew about the dangers before the tragic accident. The pilots had previously told their parents of their concerns about the safety of the machines. So what the MoD is now saying is: “We knew about the dangers prior to 1994 and we covered that up then, so we’re not now going to stop being deceitful and will continue to blame the pilots to try to keep ourselves off the hook.”

In the independent Scottish fatal accident inquiry, the sheriff exonerated the pilots from blame pointing out that, even under the MoD’s own regulations, no fault should be applied to a pilot after an accident unless there was satisfactory evidence. There was, of course, no such evidence. At least Scotland tried to give justice to the pilots and their families.

Graeme Pagan, Oban.

Protest in concert

Another blow to music education: days after the closure of Castle Toward comes the cancellation of the National Festival of Youth Orchestras “due to lack of cash” (“Music festival cancelled amid funding crisis”, The Herald, January 6). If we are not allowed to perform in Edinburgh’s Methodist Central Hall, perhaps it’s time, in true Wesleyan fashion, we took to the streets. Come on, teachers, instructors, conductors: it’s your life’s work, and our children’s tomorrow.

John Maxwell Geddes, Glasgow.

Non-disclosure is a vital safeguard

Colette Douglas Home states (“Previous convictions should be revealed to juries at trials”, The Herald, January 5) that, after viewing a picture of Peter Tobin during the investigation into the murder of Angelika Kluk: “If I was a juror, I’d have been looking at this slight man in the dock and wanting to acquit.”

Without even evaluating the overwhelming evidence presented by the Crown? It is exactly the possibility of this sort of prejudicial disposition which jurors, as fallible human beings, may have that underpins the age old rule of non-disclosure of previous convictions.

It is understandable that the proposals being considered by the Scottish Government will gain support from citizens not working within the criminal justice system, but it is an extremely dangerous road on which to embark.

With regard to the trial of Tobin in England for the murder of Dinah McNicol, Ms Douglas Home fails to mention the compelling forensic evidence led by the prosecution in those proceedings. It is at least highly questionable that a conviction would not have been secured without disclosing Tobin’s record to the jury.

Laurence McGeady, Glasgow.