THE great debate about climate change is hotting up, but is Scotland really in the vanguard? Whilst there may be a heatwave in the Mediterranean, Scots are still being faced with turning the heating on even in midsummer. Politicians using the woes further south to push an aggressive net zero agenda have simply ignored the actualities on the ground here.

Draconian measures against motorists and domestic central heating systems are turning a blind eye to reality. Rishi Sunak sees this and is acting in a manner that keeps the lights on ("PM under attack for claims on North Sea ‘max-out’", The Herald, August 1). The SNP/Green alternative is to abandon the population in aid of their own pet virtue-signalling, particularly when the nuclear option is point-blank refused. No one wants to see severe climate problems but a dose of realism from our Scottish politicians would at least be refreshing.

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.

Well, what a turnaround

MOTHER Nature is indeed incredible. In 2014 in the run-up to the independence referendum, we were warned by the Better Together campaign that there was little, if any, offshore oil and gas production left.

A mere nine years later and it is announced that “hundreds of new oil and gas licences” are being awarded by the Tory UK Government to exploit a resource that was apparently exhausted.

It is truly remarkable and indeed a modern miracle that in less than a decade Mother Nature has turned a depleted resource into one which is now at the forefront of securing the UK’s energy future.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh.

Europe is roaring ahead

THE belated announcement that after 15 years of campaigning the best UK location for carbon capture has eventually been given the go-ahead, but with no actual details, can’t gloss over the utter failure of the UK’s energy policies.

Delaying the transition into renewables has set the north-east of Scotland back around 10 years compared to our European competitors who are roaring ahead with the development and manufacture of new clean energy technologies. Although energy policy is reserved, the Scottish Government is investing £500 million into north-east transition.

The UK Treasury has raised more than £300 billion from oil and gas in Scotland’s territorial waters and 75 per cent of Europe’s hydrogen supply is centred around the North Sea, yet Scotland, which produces the bulk of the UK’s oil, gas and renewable electricity, has no electrolyser manufacturing or wind turbine production as successive UK governments and the UK banks have failed to invest in Scotland’s renewable future.

The Neart Na Gaoithe offshore wind farm off Torness is owned by EDF, the French state energy company, whereas Denmark takes a 20% stake in every offshore wind field. Norway’s state-owned Equinor company is the world leader in wind turbine manufacturing.

One wind farm alone, Berwick Bank, will produce more energy than is required for every household in Scotland but as Scottish Renewables has pointed out, under UK regulations, a Scottish offshore wind project would pay £38 million a year to use the electricity network, while an identical wind farm off England’s south coast would receive a £7m payment for the same service.

Scotland has the energy but we need the economic and taxation powers of a normal country to fulfil Scotland’s vast renewable potential.

Fraser Grant, Edinburgh.

Read more: This life-threatening plan is all about saving the Tories' bacon

Sunak, Starmer showing the way

WELL done to Rishi Sunak for his robust, common-sense support of the UK oil and gas industry, a continuation of his "get real" approach on school sex education guidelines, gender, calling out of woke policies, financial prudence, immigration, and clamping down on the excesses and incompetence of the SNP/Greens on the deposit scheme, gender recognition, HPMAs and wasting money on dud, unwanted independence plans.

It's also encouraging that Sir Keir Starmer takes a similar view, which means that in the General Election next year ordinary voters will have two viable options for No 10, especially in Scotland, where if Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar and their colleagues "get with the programme" the SNP is set to do at least as badly as in 2017 when it lost 21 seats, and, if it continues its incompetent, u-turning meltdown, will struggle to win 20 seats. Here's hoping.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.

Why not use the council rules?

THE current argument regarding the use of civil servants and taxpayers' money to produce pro-independence material could be resolved in two ways.

The first is simply to apply the same criteria to the Scottish Government as are used for local government: the relevant 1986 Act says quite clearly to consider "whether the material refers to a political party or to persons identified with a political party or promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another". It is notable that that the SNP Scottish Government has never sought to repeal this piece of Tory legislation and must therefore be in full support of it – why should it not also apply it to its own use of public funds?

The other way in which the issue could be addressed is for the publications themselves to fulfil the original purpose for which we were told they would be designed: to allow Scots to make informed choices on the independence question. What has been strikingly absent from the documents so far published is any account of the potential downsides of secession from the UK.

An old tool in the business strategy development kit was the SWOT Analysis – examining Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. The Scottish Government is very keen to give us the Strengths and Opportunities, but has deliberately kept us in the dark on the Weaknesses and Threats inherent in its case for independence. If this omission were to be put right, its use of our money might better reflect the interests of the whole of Scotland rather than those of the SNP.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Read more: When it comes to waste, no one can trump Westminster

Tradition to help the government

KEITH Howell (Letters, July 31) writes that civil servants "are not allowed to be involved with producing manifestos". But I never suggested they were or should be.

In fact, my objection concerns the UK Government suggesting it could try to prevent civil servants providing support to the elected Scottish government working toward a commitment that has been a regular feature of SNP manifestos. Whether that manifesto involves "exaggeration" or "wishful thinking" or not (ex ante, both matters of opinion, but seemingly unique to the SNP) the manifesto contains the aims and commitments on which the government of whatever stripe was elected. That's democracy, and its next stage is for the civil service to support the government to implement the aims we have backed with our votes.

What Mr Howell, and indeed the UK Government, need is an argument strong enough to justify overturning many years of this tradition.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

PM doesn't run the country

I WAS intrigued by a remark Rishi Sunak passed during a testy exchange with Martin Geissler on Monday’s Good Morning Scotland ("Sunak defends private jet use and claims critics want to ban holidays", heraldscotland, July 31). When the PM was quizzed about his use of a private jet to come up to Aberdeenshire, Mr Sunak said that flying was “an efficient use of time for the person running the country, focusing on delivering for people”.

The Prime Minister does not “run the country”; neither does any secretary of state, nor minister, nor the cabinet, nor the government. We, that is, you and I, run the country. The running of the country is entirely dependent upon the effort, goodwill and integrity of health care workers, teachers, police and prison officers, plumbers, roofers, joiners, garbage collectors, home helps, carers, shop keepers, and millions of other individuals who contribute to the Grand Integral that is Society, an entity that Mrs Thatcher said did not exist.

Mr Sunak is very fond of “delivering”, a word he uses at every available opportunity. But I do not wish him to “deliver” anything. He and his Government hold office for a short period, in order to serve the community, and to help create conditions, largely through the introduction of new legislation, that grant members of the community the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s all.

Dr Hamish Maclaren, Stirling.