WE already have invested too much in wind power: an energy resource which is intermittent, unpredictable, hence non-dispatchable and lacking the essential synchronous and inertia physical attributes of all other methods of producing electrical energy. To make wind viable will require vast energy storage solutions which alone go far beyond Scotland’s physical geography and finances to accommodate.
If we pursue a strategy of depending on wind power, we will not only destroy Scotland’s landscape and ecology, we will inflict absolute misery on its people.
The great tragedy is that we have arrived at this position because, unlike most human activities, the media has happily accepted everything that organisations like Scottish Renewables and their backers claim without challenge. Why is this? I believe there are three reasons.
First, few journalists have appropriate knowledge and accept at face value what the renewables industry say.
Second, the renewables industry has powerful marketing resources backed by vested interests who stand to gain considerable income (sadly, many foreign venture capitalists and wealthy land owners are on a win-win ticket while trivial financial benefit and damage is Scotland’s reward).
Third, the idea that wind power is cheap and will save the planet is very compelling. The truth is uncomfortable and there is a natural human inclination to accept the promise of a happy future. It is here that real danger resides because the solution is political and the future is ugly. Politicians don’t thrive on truth since the necessary legislation would be very unpopular. The SNP’s supine acceptance of Scottish Renewables’ advice is a tragedy. However, it is unfair to vilify the SNP when the other political parties are effectively singing from the same hymn sheet.
An essential utility like power distribution cannot be managed by "the market". Ideally the electricity industry should be renationalised, but failing that an appropriately-skilled independent body should be created to advise government on energy strategy. Is Sir Keir Starmer listening?
For now, an immediate requirement is to stop building any more wind turbines in Scotland.
Norman McNab, Killearn.
Read more: Let the people decide: give us a referendum on assisted dying
Just the tip of the iceberg
IN response to Elspeth Russell (Letters, October 11) can I say first of all that she is again confusing a single turbine with a wind farm which consists of multiple turbines, Whitelee’s 215 for example.
Perhaps she should ask residents in Fairlie if they preferred living beside a nuclear power station or two wind turbines. They didn’t complain about the power station which provided reliable energy and full-time permanent jobs for local people but there were multiple complaints for many years about the Hunterston turbines, which have now been decommissioned.
Your correspondent might also be interested to know that wind farms require up to 162 times more land than a nuclear power station to produce the same amount of energy.
With regards to open cast mining, I was born in Ayrshire in the 1950s and I am well acquainted with the environmental devastation it brings. Wind farm developers often use the excuse that the landscape in these areas is already degraded (so we might as well degrade it even more) in order to enhance their chances of being awarded planning consent, with the result that many communities are now completely surrounded with wind farms with never-ending applications for more. New Cumnock is a prime example.
The turbines which most people see at the moment while driving along the motorway are the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands more in the planning system at twice the height with some applications requesting “lifetime” permission.
Aileen Jackson, Uplawmoor.
Let bridge honour Clyde workers
I HAVE written to the leader of Glasgow City Council regarding an alternative name for the city's new bridge ("Glasgow: Milestone for new Govan to Partick bridge", heraldscotland, October 12) as opposed to the populist suggestion of Sir Billy Connolly. In respecting the views of others I think the new name could reflect the endeavour of the many who made their livelihood from the river and thereby provided for their families.
Historically the two communities of Partick and Govan contained the homes of many of the workers on the river Clyde, from those involved in shipbuilding in the yards to others engaged in the worldwide trading of multifarious cargo trading from the river. Further, both of these communities were the main locus of the Highland-Island diaspora who came to Glasgow seeking employment directly on the river as harbour boatmen, harbour deputies, river pilots, granary workers, on the tug boats, yard workers of all trades and was the base for many families whose main breadwinner sailed from the nearby docks to ports worldwide.
There existed an organisation called the Clyde Navigation Trust (in the 1960s subsumed into the Clyde Port Authority) which employed many of these workers and this historical tie with thousands unnamed and as-yet unremembered publicly should be reflected in the name.
The name of the Clyde Navigation Trust was reduced in everyday usage to the “Clyde Trust” which would be an appropriate name, restoring a link with the industrial past of both communities and also reflecting a sense of reliability which would be a good basis for the future.
Murdo Maclennan, Aignish, Lewis.
Gaelic makes more sense than English
ANENT the correspondence from Tim Flinn (Letters, October 11), amongst his questionable phoneticisms it must be asked who it is that pronounces the name of the language, Gaidhlig, identically to the name of the herb, garlic. The vowel "a" is expressed differently in either word, and one of them includes the consonant "r". If Mr Flinn took the trouble to study the orthography of the language, he would discover that while it certainly appears strange to an Anglophone it has a high degree of consistency, with few of the vagaries of spelling and pronunciation that plague foreign learners of English.
George Bernard Shaw evidently had a bee in his bonnet about that issue, claiming for example that the word "fish" may be spelled "ghoti": as in tough; women; action. Learning the intricacies of any language takes effort, but it seems that in this instance Mr Flinn can't be bothered.
Allan Graham, Ullapool.
• I NOTED with a smile the estimable David Miller's pronunciation guide to Cholmondley and Beauchamp (Letters, October 12), but couldn't help wondering why he hadn't offered advice as to how to pronounce his own home town's name. Mr Miller gives his address as Milngavie.
Steve Brennan, Coatbridge.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here