Letters: SNP should stop its nonsense and focus on providing basics like heat and light

David Bone, Girvan.

HYDROGEN IS THE WAY AHEAD

SCOTTISH Labour’s big message for the local elections is introducing a windfall tax on oil companies ("Sarwar row as windfall tax vow criticised by candidates", The Herald, April 8) and the SNP wants this extended to the likes of Amazon. However, Holyrood and local authorities lack the powers to do this and Anas Sarwar wouldn’t even sign a joint-party letter demanding the devolution of these powers. Also, Labour voted against doubling the Scottish Child Payment to help hard-pressed families.

Other than high energy costs, Brexit is the biggest cause of UK austerity and falling exports is causing real problems for our businesses, yet Sir Keir Starmer told LBC on Wednesday that “there's no case for rejoining the EU” and is in favour of the most expensive nuclear energy option which will add hundreds on to household bills for years to come. Scotland can’t afford UK Labour in power.

As a leading energy-exporting country Scotland does not need nuclear power stations and should be focusing on the production of hydrogen fuel cells, the clean energy future for gas boilers, cars and ferries.

Fraser Grant, Edinburgh.

* GROWING up in the 1950s, we were informed that Scotland led the world with nuclear power. It was a nonsense of course. Scotland had and has no nuclear industry: we do not design, build or export our nuclear expertise.

Nuclear power remains hugely expensive and difficult to build, needs guaranteed access to coolant at a time of increasingly serious climate events; requires costly state intervention with subsidies, insurance and security. There is no long-term solution to waste. Scotland should utilise its share of funding to build expertise and an export industry around tidal power and green hydrogen.

I actually heard a trade union rep complain that without nuclear power Scotland, as part of the UK grid, would partly rely on England’s gas-powered electricity generator. Was he really unaware that much of that gas originates in Scotland?

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

* I HAVE been following the reaction to the UK Government’s decision to go nuclear and maintain its restrictions on onshore turbines.

I wonder though if yet again Westminster is missing yet another cheaper option.

Why are we not placing bladeless turbines up and down our motorways and trunk roads? The turbines, while not quite as efficient as their bladed cousins, are cheaper to manufacture, install and maintain. Further, placing them along the roadways both avoids many planning constraints and provides another source of generation as well as the wind, ie passing vehicles. Just think, all those lampposts powered for free and the excess used to power service stations and homes nearby. Maybe even electric cars; no, that would be an imaginative step too far.

Perhaps before the A9 dialling finishes and any other major road project Holyrood might want to take the lead and plan for a bladeless contribution to our power needs.

John Davidson, Carnoustie.

TORIES' RANCID PHILOSOPHY

DR RM Morris (Letters, April 8) hits the nail on the head when he characterises the Johnson Government as "supremely competent" in pursuing its own narrow interests rather than the interests of all its citizens. Thus the wealthy, oligarchic backers and Brexit-loving xenophobes are appeased by policies and promises that are entirely self-centred and devoid of empathy where the less well-off are concerned.

This particular nail would have been obvious to many for some considerable time, but clearly not enough, as the results of the last election show us. Voters should ponder long and hard whether they wish to continue to collude with such a rancid philosophy.

Dr Angus Macmillan, Dumfries.

WE MUST CHANGE THE TAX LAWS

AS we read more in the press re the UK Chancellor’s wife avoiding tax ("Chancellor facing claim of ‘breathtaking hypocrisy’ over his wife’s tax status", The Herald, April 8), I wonder when we are going to tackle the real issue.

The social group that benefits from the current tax laws is the same group that made the tax laws and the business laws that – while intended initially to encourage investment – now just protect business people from the very market forces they are always banging on about. Ditto the same group that made the company laws that saw Sir Philip Green get away with asset-stripping British Home Stores and running up huge pension deficits while buying multi-million-pound yachts for his own pleasure.

It was legal. Everyone knows it was wrong but the law protected him.

Those same laws mean that those who benefit from government subsidy, post-privatisation of almost everything, are de facto living off massive social handouts – the very sort which is derided when given (in ever-reduced amounts) to poor people.

Pinpointing the vile individuals who have accumulated so much of the world’s wealth while people starve and suffer the effects of climate devastation (1.4 billion climate refugees) is no longer a thing.

The real thing is, laws need to be updated and made fit for purpose to reflect what actually happens in the 21st century.

Amanda Baker, Edinburgh.

WHAT'S FAIR IS FAIR

AMID all the huffing and puffing about Rishi Sunak's Budget and wealth I spotted this on Twitter: "This fair society thing. I know exactly what it is. Everyone richer than me can pay more in taxes. Preferably a windfall tax too for being richer than me. Everyone whose property is worth more than mine should pay punitive inheritance tax on their death. Everyone who owns a car bigger than mine should pay a much higher road tax. Then my taxes could be lowered and benefits through public services that I personally would use could be raised. That seems fair to me."

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.

TV TREATS US LIKE CHILDREN

I REMEMBER the Vietnam War but have no recollection of TV news reports from the time being prefaced with warnings about distressing content. I’m also pretty sure that in 1945 the BBC didn’t preface Richard Dimbleby’s dispatches from Bergen-Belsen with such advisories.

Now, however, in the excellent coverage of the Ukraine war, we are endlessly told, as for example in Channel 4 News on Thursday, five times in 10 minutes, that "this report contains distressing images".

We know that these images will be distressing, it’s war, we understand this, we do not need broadcasters treating us like children. For those who don’t want to see reality, they know where the "off" switch is.

Stuart Neville, Clydebank.

WE CAN'T DECIDE ON PEACE

NEIL Mackay describes reports of atrocities in Ukraine with Russia as the likely culprit ("We are at the heart of a war for the future of democracy", The Herald, April 5). He writes that even if Russia withdraws from Ukraine "there can be no peace until both Putin and his regime are destroyed".

So far Ukraine is the only country at war with Russia, not the UK. Commentators from our country cannot decide whether peace terms are acceptable to the countries at war.

Allan Mackenzie, Cumbernauld.

THE OTHER WH SMITH

IAN McConnell's article ("These are major blows to Scotland’s standing and must be regarded as such", Herald Business, April 6)was not just interesting from a business perspective, but also from an educational one. Narrating the life and legacy of John Menzies and the business he founded was very informative.

The mention of the takeover by WH Smith in the 1990s reminded me of another WH Smith who has largely been forgotten by history. William Smith opened a foundry in Whitchurch, Shropshire, in 1837 with three men; 100 years later it had grown to a company which employed more than 250. His "vision" was to be able to "make anything my neighbour might want".

I am not sure when the business closed, but I do know that there are still manholes and drains in Shropshire which bear his name and one of the easiest to find is in the village of Ironbridge near Telford. Behind the village store a drain cover is emblazoned with it.

If any of your readers are in the vicinity of Ironbridge, they should go looking for it and be impressed by a piece of social history.

I do realise, of course, that I am a bit of a saddo, but if it's a good enough hobby for Jeremy Corbyn then it's good enough for me.

Gordon Fisher, Stewarton.

Do we complain too much about litter and not take enough responsibility ourselves?

LITTER SOLUTION IN OUR OWN HANDS

THE letter (April 5) from George Moore requesting an apology from Glasgow City Council for "the filthy state of Glasgow's litter-strewn pavements" typifies much of what is wrong with today's society. I was reminded of an occasion, years ago, waiting for a train on Queen Street Station's low level platform. A fellow passenger castigated a railway employee who emerged from an office that the litter-strewn platform was a disgrace to which the employee replied (rightly in my view): "I didn't drop the litter there, madam."

I am sure it is not Glasgow City Council which drops all the litter. A litter-free city, indeed country, lies in our own hands.

Bob Byiers, Bearsden.

AN OWN GOAL FROM SCOTRAIL

I AM going to Hampden Park on Tuesday evening to watch the Scotland Women’s National Team play Spain. On checking the train times from Mount Florida after the match, I discover that it is an hourly service. I shall therefore drive to the game, as I am sure many others will do. I think the new owners of ScotRail are missing the twin goals of promoting the women’s game and encouraging the use of public transport.

Scott Simpson, Glasgow.