ARE three significant closures this week merely virtue-signalling to a disinterested world how we alone are reducing our relatively minimal emissions in the unrealistic hope of reaching net zero without regard to the inevitable damaging consequences to jobs, living standards, national security and our economy generally?

The first is the closure of our last coal mine ("Watchdog turns down bid for licences to open first coal mine in 30 years", The Herald, October 1), the second the closure of our last coal-fired power station (“End of an era as last coal-fired power station in UK shuts down”, The Herald, October 1) and the third the closure of our last steel-making blast furnace ("End of era in steelmaking as blast furnace is closed at Port Talbot", The Herald, September 30). Does anyone really believe these closures will persuade any of the hugely-emitting countries such as China, India, Russia and the USA to follow our lead?

What does the future hold as we shiver while relying increasingly on unreliable renewal energy, perhaps welcoming warmer weather due to climate change? Also we will need to rely on imports of what we need but in which we are no longer self-sufficient while more and more of the countryside is despoiled by the relentless march of pylons and windmills. In the Second World War we were nearly brought to our knees as the U-boats targeted the shipping convoys supplying our needs. Will we not be vulnerable again as we rely on imports such as coal for our gas-fired power stations until, of course, they are closed, and the hard steel we can no longer make? The irony (pun intended) of the latter is that as the hard-steel-making blast furnace at Port Talbot is closed by its Indian owner, in India they are constructing a new blast furnace from which we will no doubt import our hard steel in future.

Does all of this bring into question whether our political masters have a clue how to govern pragmatically in our best interests rather than in the zealous pursuit of an unachievable goal which in global terms will have little or no beneficial effect?

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

Read more letters

Retailers not cashing in on MUP

KEVIN McKenna ("‘Wee pretendy parliament’s’ unenviable defining message", The Herald, October 1) asserts: “Since this [MUP] was introduced in 2018 alcohol retailers have boosted their profits by around £70m per year.”

Mr McKenna may have neglected to read the Public Health Scotland evaluation which found no evidence that MUP has significantly impacted the economic performance of the alcoholic drinks industry in Scotland, and noted there would only have been “small overall effects on retailer profits, with the increased price offsetting decreased volumes”. In terms of Monday's increase to 65p, Mr McKenna may also have missed the Scottish Government’s own Business Regulatory Impact Assessment, which stated “the impact on retailer revenues would be estimated to increase by £4.4m in the first year compared to the impacts at 50ppu in 2019.”

Revenues are of course very different from profits. Grocery profit margins are between around 2-4 per cent. So the money retailers may generate from the increase to 65p would only be a fraction of the figure asserted.

There is a legitimate debate on the merits of MUP, and whilst the Scottish Retail Consortium supports the policy we recognise others have concerns. However, it’s vital such an important issue is debated accurately.

Ewan MacDonald-Russell, Deputy Head of the Scottish Retail Consortium, Edinburgh.

Keep alcohol out of football

I AM writing to express my strong opposition to any future possibility of reintroducing alcohol into Scottish football stadiums ("First Minister John Swinney breaks silence on football alcohol ban", heraldscotland, September 30). While some may argue that such a move could enhance the match-day experience, we must not overlook the potentially dangerous consequences that could arise from this decision.

The infamous riot at Hampden Park following the Scottish Cup Final in 1980 stands as a stark reminder of what can happen when alcohol and football mix. Though more than four decades have passed since that shameful event, the underlying issues remain the same, indeed may be worse. The volatile combination of alcohol and the intense emotions that football evokes is a recipe for disaster. It would be naive to assume that history could not repeat itself.

Any MSP pushing this proposal should be ashamed. Rather than focusing on this utterly nonsensical idea, they should be addressing the real priorities of the Scottish people. Scotland has a well-documented history of problems with alcohol. Despite efforts to curb excessive drinking, we continue to grapple with the social, health, and economic impacts of alcohol misuse. Introducing alcohol back into football stadiums would only exacerbate these issues.

Football is a sport that brings communities together, but it can also divide and incite passion in a way that sometimes leads to undesirable behaviour. We have seen too many instances of violence, aggression, and anti-social behaviour associated with football matches. Adding alcohol to this mix would only increase the likelihood of such incidents occurring.

Moreover, there is a risk that this move could alienate families and those who attend matches for the love of the game, rather than the allure of alcohol. Football should be an inclusive environment where people of all ages feel safe and welcome. The reintroduction of alcohol could create an atmosphere that discourages attendance, particularly among families with young children.

Instead of pandering to the demands of a minority who may wish to drink before, during and even after games, our politicians should focus on more pressing issues. The cost of living crisis, healthcare, education, and the ongoing challenges posed by alcohol abuse in Scotland should be the top priorities. Allowing alcohol back into football stadiums would do nothing to address these problems; if anything, it has the potential to make them worse.

Ms Jackie Graham, Glasgow.

Alcohol increased from a minimum 50p per unit to 65p on MondayAlcohol increased from a minimum 50p per unit to 65p on Monday (Image: PA)

The gull fiends

URBAN gulls ("Everyone calm down: Gulls are not the threat you believe them to be", The Herald, September 28, and Letters, October 1)?

Rats with wings.

Gordon Casely, Crathes.

Getting down to the bare bones

I READ with interest today’s article on the "Ark of the North" ("No need for raiders to hunt the Ark of the North after cash boost”, The Herald, October 1).

However, it should be noted that the so-called "Ark of the North" refers to Noah’s Ark, while the Ark of the Covenant was, perhaps still is, a totally different Biblical artefact altogether.

Perhaps Mark McDougall should have compared the University of Aberdeen’s important work with Ezekiel 37 verses 1 -10. “Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones….”

Alastair Clark, Stranraer.