You, along with the East Lothian Courier, are to be congratulated on your extensive coverage of the implications of closing the Torness nuclear plant ("The Future of Torness", The Herald, June 26). It should, however, be noted that this is not just an important issue for East Lothian and Scotland but for Great Britain.
The Scottish Government has a fixed ideology regarding nuclear plants and ignores the engineering evidence that nuclear energy is safe, provides reliable despatchable supply and has a relatively low environmental impact compared to renewable energy. There is also a lack of transparency in respect to the cost of electricity produced by the various generating sources. If these costs were available it is very unlikely that nuclear costs would be higher than renewable sources. Nuclear is low-carbon energy. Renewable sources of energy can only provide a secure supply with back-up from nuclear, gas-fired plants and inter-connections.
At the present time it is estimated that by 2050 the electricity demand will require an average of 80GW per hour. Without nuclear energy increasing substantially to replace gas-fired plants there is no possibility of the energy sector achieving net zero. Without nuclear plants in Scotland there is no way net zero can be achieved. I suppose we shall have to hold on for a few years before we get an apology from the SNP Government (if it is still in office) that it should have changed its view on nuclear energy in the interests of the Scottish people.
Charles Scott, Edinburgh.
Read more letters
- Shame on the SNP for pandering to the extreme left
- Ferries fiasco shows we have learned nothing from Linwood
- We've suffered enough from Brexit. It's time to go back
Look at the German warning
The Scottish Government's reluctance to recognise nuclear power's value in reducing carbon emissions is perplexing. Our electricity grid cannot operate solely on renewables without sufficient storage and balancing capacity to provide stability, neither of which we currently have, nor a clear strategy to provide.
Germany offers a clear warning of the potential consequences. Their heavy reliance on renewables without adequate balancing power has led to creative accounting by paying Poland to take their excess electricity as it's cheaper than paying renewables operators to switch off their surplus destabilising capacity. Their decision to close down nuclear power plants has worsened the situation, increasing carbon emissions due to greater reliance on fossil fuels to preserve grid stability.
It would be a great shame for Scotland to reject the benefits of high-energy-density nuclear power like that provided safely and reliably by Torness for the past 37 years, especially given the nation's past history of innovation in electricity production by creative Scots pioneers like James Watt, James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin and Tom Johnston. These giants helped establish the reliable electricity systems we often take for granted today. Our current policy makers should do some homework.
Keith Burns, East Linton.
EU return is just a dream
Alex Orr (Letters, June 25) tells us that the forecast that leaving the European Union would be economically damaging has proved to be correct. This will come as no surprise to those of us who voted to remain. Ian McConnell tells us in the same issue that the majority of the population is now in favour of rejoining (“Are Brexit revelations a mandate for Labour to take UK back into the EU?”, The Herald, June 25). The case for this is therefore overwhelming.
I do not think it is likely to happen, however. The economic argument in favour of remaining was equally strong at the time of the referendum, but those who campaigned for Brexit dismissed it ("f*** business," said a former prime minister; "we've had enough of experts," said one of his cronies).
Those who voted Leave were, I believe, uninterested in economics. For them it was about "sovereignty": they loathed the EU and felt membership diminished their country. This view seems to have been particularly strong among English Leave voters.
This group of people is not open to the pragmatic arguments in favour of rejoining. Their view is essentially visceral and cannot be changed. They may now be a minority (though large) but they have substantial backing in the media. It would be a brave politician who took them on.
There is also the question of whether the European Union would want the UK back, knowing that a large segment of the population remained opposed.
For these reasons, I think the UK rejoining is not on the horizon. An independent Scotland, however, would probably be a different story.
Those of us in favour of both membership of the European Union and an independent Scotland can only dream, unfortunately.
Alan Jenkins, Glasgow.
• Alex Orr writes a very informative letter regarding the current state of the UK economy, relating it to the effects of Brexit.
It is refreshing to read a letter regarding the economy which does not end with the opinion that independence is the answer.
Closer union with the EU might help, but the mess that has been brought about by the Brexiters will probably be impossible to repair. It is wishful thinking that an independent Scotland would make any difference.
Malcolm Rankin, Seamill.
Double standards
A report from the Scottish Funding Council attributes the University of Dundee’s financial crisis to poor financial judgment and weak governance. The Scottish Government has now provided a total of £62 million to bail the university out ("Ministers use powers to grant new cash bailout to university", The Herald, June 25). As a result a significant number of senior managers have been held accountable and have left the organisation through dismissal or resignation
The cost of procuring the two ferries, MV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa, has increased from £97m to more than £460m. That increase has resulted in an injection of public funds six-fold greater than that provided to the University of Dundee. There is also the significant indirect economic impact on island communities caused by years of delay. Yet nobody has been held accountable and there have been no resignations or dismissals from the management at either the Scottish Government (at political or directorate level) or at its agencies, Transport Scotland and CMAL.
Why is such a different approach to mismanagement of public funds considered acceptable?
George Rennie, Inverness.
In defence of NHS Scotland
It appears, disappointingly, that Dr Gerald Edwards (Letters, June 26) has been swayed by political sound bites instead of factual data when claiming that “cancer patients in Scotland are not being treated promptly”. The median wait time from decision to treat to first treatment is three days.
According to that self-proclaimed fountain of wisdom, Dame Jackie Baillie, the latest figures on NHS Scotland cancer waiting times are “disastrous and an indication of the SNP’s mismanagement of the NHS” ("Scotland's cancer waiting times rise to their highest level since records began", The Herald, June 25). If that is indeed the case, and not just another disingenuous Dame Jackie anti-SNP sound-bite, then how would she describe the situation in Wales: perhaps “catastrophic”?
In Wales the devolved Labour Government has not only given up (since 2019) on reporting the 31-day target for the start of treatment, which NHS Scotland is achieving in 94.1% cases and NHS England in 91.3% of cases, NHS Wales is only achieving the 62-day target for initial referral to start of treatment in 60.5% of cases. On the 62-day target, NHS Scotland at 68.9% is performing 13.9% better than Wales and NHS England at 69.9% is performing 15.5% better. Of course the broader picture is that across the UK the NHS is struggling as cancers are increasingly suspected earlier and people are living longer (NHS Scotland has seen 17.5% and 6.3% increases in 62-day and 31-day referrals since the pandemic) while staffing levels continue to suffer as a result of Brexit and hostile UK Government immigration policies. If the SNP Scottish Government stands accused of mismanagement then presumably the Labour Welsh Government stands accused of gross negligence?
Despite her patronising rhetoric, don’t expect broad assessment and honest objectivity from Dame Jackie and the Labour Party on Scotland’s NHS within the confines of UK Government policies any time soon. Besides more deceptive sound bites one should expect more desperate references in the Scottish Parliament to relatively few poor experiences plucked from the hundreds of thousands of daily interactions with patients who are generally appreciative of the high quality of overall service delivered by NHS Scotland.
Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.
Share