Letters: The SNP's misguided energy policies would threaten the lifeblood of the nation

Most people appreciate that wind’s major handicap is its unpredictable, intermittent and variable output. What the lay person cannot be expected to understand is that it has no intrinsic physical characteristics to support grid stability and has to rely totally on conventional thermal generation to provide this essential feature as well as supporting the national grid when the wind is lacking. It is currently inconceivable that sufficient energy storage, whether hydro pump storage, batteries (electric, thermal, hydrogen or inertia) could be provided to replace the current thermal generation plant, even if this was physically possible, without making electrical energy based on wind utterly unaffordable.

It is reprehensible for the SNP to suggest independence would deliver lower energy costs for Scotland. It is also a culpable negligence of duty to Scotland’s population that the Scottish Government opposes nuclear energy. It is the only route to a far less costly, secure and carbon-free future. Failure to make appropriate decisions years ago means that we are entering a period of extreme risk. Already there have been numerous occasions when Scotland has been saved by Torness, Peterhead and large imports from England.

We are all acutely aware of the ineptitude of the current Westminster Government. For the SNP to criticise Westminster is incredible since it is hardly better and, in terms of energy strategy, entirely deficient. The SNP’s simplistic and misguided policy is a major threat to Scotland’s prosperity. Should it be successful in selling, through ignorance, false but enticing information to the Scottish people, we can look forward to a future far bleaker than now. Energy is the lifeblood of a country. To threaten it economically and structurally is unforgivable.
Norman McNab, Killearn

• DURING the miners' strike of 1984/5 and the three-day working week, there was a government advertising campaign to save electricity called SOS – "Switch Off Something".

As we have been asked to economise once again, perhaps that campaign could be revived to keep essential heat and light on for the elderly and disabled?
Malcolm Parkin, Kinross

Not such a bonnie theory

CHARLES Edward Stuart as Charles III (Letters, October 20) is a bit of a long shot.

Charles Stuart visited the Kingdom of Britain as it then was from 1745 to 1746, but could not be proclaimed, crowned or anointed because his Da was still alive. Neither did he reign because he did not win his war. So that precluded reigning as regent until his Da passed on.

Being considered a king by many as DH Telford admirably puts it, is not an outrageous idea. But the reality of being head of any state is a pragmatic one of recognition; that is, being considered the real thing by more people than other candidates. It also helps to be the successful choice of powerful people.

The claim of James III/VIII (Charlie’s Da) was to be king of all Britain, where recognition was an uphill task and military reconquest wasn’t working a treat either. Succession was settled on the daughter of James II/VII, not on his son. She’s the one cried Mary, who reigned jointly with her husband, William III. In case it’s ever a proble,m there has been a William IV.

Can a prince who has not reigned be recognised in the assignment of royal serial numbers? The sons of Edward IV of England are still called Edward V and Little York. The young Edward was King on the instant of his father’s death. Uncle Gloucester had both princes declared illegitimate children and became himself King Richard III. Someone made the vanishing trick permanent, either King Richard or Henry Tudor, who overthrew Richard in turn. Edward V and his brother were convenient to neither of those monarchs, but the next English royal heir called Edward became Edward VI.

That’s all a long way from Charlie, whose Grandpa had been deprived by the parliaments of Scotland and of England, and whose Da did not get the succession. His Auntie did instead.
Tim Cox, Bern, Switzerland

A Rùm do

I’M afraid Sandy Gemmill (Letters, October 20) is mistaken: the correct spelling for the name of this island is Rùm; and though the omission of the accent can be allowed, the spelling Rh- is simply wrong.

The name is derived from Norse, though Gaelicised in spelling and pronunciation, and cognate with English “room”: it means “spacious”, and has nothing to do with the drink. The spelling Rh- is wholly inauthentic: it was introduced by the 19th century landowner Sir George Bullough in the mistaken belief that it looked more Gaelic, though in point of fact R is one of the few consonant letters in Gaelic which are never followed by H. We should be glad that this erroneous usage now appears to be on the way out.
Derrick McClure, Aberdeen

Flight of terror

I WAS comforted by Rosemary Goring’s excellent article highlighting the pitfalls of unnecessary and, I would venture, unwanted technology ("Please, stop the digital world, I want to get off", The Herald, October 19). Even though it is almost two months till I am due to fly to Lanzarote, my fear and dread level is already rapidly approaching panic. The reminder of previous difficulties encountered when trying to unravel the complexities of number of bags and labels resulted in involuntary spasms of the sphincter – pure terror. Forget the QR codes – a lounge bar for a cure was what was really required.

I only hope one of my grandchildren can talk me through the technicalities of the dreadfully alien experience once they get home from play school.
Duncan Graham, Stirling

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.