IT would appear that the UK Government is desperate to drive the Scottish consumer towards an independent future as a consequence of the threat of crippling us economically with enormous, unnecessary and uncontrollable costs for energy.
Contracting for a new Hinkley Point reactor of the French design makes no sense whatever.
The two other reactors of the same type which the French are still building in Finland and France are now more than eight years behind schedule and at least twice the original budget, and the Chinese do not seem to share our culture of quality assurance.
One questions why proven designs with a good track record of being built on time and to budget like the Canadians manufacture have not been preferred if nuclear is to be in the energy mix.
Whatever,the Scottish consumer is given no choice or control over energy matters under the present arrangements. This highly risky Hinkley contract will mean we Scots consumers subsidising the energy needs of the wealthier south of England without our consent. This is unjust.
It would appear to be the only way Scottish consumers can regain control of our energy costs and thereby underpin our future prosperity is through separation.
3/13 Western Harbour Midway,
YOUR article setting out the Scottish Government's intention to pick up the full £200m cost of energy saving ("Sturgeon vows to slash fuel bills by £70 on Yes vote win", The Herald, October 19), raises many issues, not least the SNP's pledges across a broad fiscal tapestry. This energy saving comes on top of the First Minister's recent declaration about renationalising the Post Office at a reported cost of £300m.
There are also a variety of commitments, so far uncosted, to abolish the bedroom tax, introduce a living wage, raise pensions and create a meaningful Scottish defence force.
Can we expect that the white paper to be published on November 26 will provide the answers to these questions? I doubt it.
Ronald J Sandford,
1 Scott Garden, Kingsbarns.
IAN W Thomson (Letters, October 21) writes that for future energy supplies we are invited to believe, in the words of Bob Dylan, that "the answer is blowin' in the wind" and that if we finish up there we had better join in the words of Andy Stewart, "let the wind blow high, let the wind blow low".
With the high subsidies paid to wind farm developers and the cost of electricity I feel that my cash has Gone with the Wind and expect their response would be in the words of Rhett Butler: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
96 Miilton Road, Kilbirnie.
I ACKNOWLEDGE that the main drift of Andrew McKie's article is about SNP policies not necessarily having validation in the event of a Yes referendum vote ("SNP cannot guarantee what independence would bring", The Herald, October 21). However, his article does perpetuate the idea that Scotland ruling itself somehow estranges it from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and even divides Scots in Scotland between those who think the status quo is sufficiently nationality-preserving, and those who do not.
This is a perception of independence that defies the experience of easily the majority of nations in the world. Independence can be perceived, easily, as bringing people and nations together. The mechanisms for bringing them together are there, and why are they there? Because the nations are agreeable in having them there. And this willingness, and practical intent, is part and parcel of nations being independent.
The disjointedness isn't in Scotland becoming independent, it is in the existing arrangement of the nations comprising the UK. Ireland extricated itself from this arrangement, and has been much the happier for it. Not one motion in the Dail to turn back the clock, nor ever likely to be.
The same end to disjointed unions of nations arrangements across the world has resulted in nearly 200 member states in the United Nations. And note the word "United" in United Nations. A word that partners the word "independent" without any hang-ups.
84 Forman Drive, Peterhead.
Andrew McKie is right, there is no guarantee that the SNP would be in government in an independent Scotland. One guarantee that can be given, however, is that a party which gained only one seat at a Scottish General Election would have no chance of imposing its policies on an independent Scotland. It will be entirely in the hands of the people of Scotland to vote their governments in, and if they don't deliver, to vote them out. The result will be that Scotland will get governments and policies tailored to our needs and aspirations, not be tacked on as is presently the case to a Westminster Parliament as a pool of 59 MPs within a sea of 600, suffering the policies of a government we did not vote for, which has proved to have a face more false than a Hallowe'en mask, and is all tricks and no treats.
99 Grampian Road,
We moderate all comments on HeraldScotland on either a pre-moderated or post-moderated basis. If you're a relatively new user then your comments will be reviewed before publication and if we know you well and trust you then your comments will be subject to moderation only if other users or the moderators believe you've broken the rules, which are available here.
Moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours. Please be patient if your posts are not approved instantly.