At the Conservative Party Conference shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie MP made it exceedingly clear that any future Conservative Government would build several nuclear power stations in Scotland (“Conservatives vow to overturn SNP’s nuclear ‘ban’ and bring new reactors to Scotland”, www.heraldscotland.com, October 4).
They haven't yet realised that the one that is currently being built for London is not only extremely costly, but if wiped out by a single future missile from Russia - as is currently taking place in the Ukraine to their power stations - much of London will be deprived of power. Not for months, but for years.
And yet they want Scotland to have several such nuclear power plants. One, no doubt, to be built between Edinburgh and Glasgow, while a second might be built ‘for the benefit of’ Dundee and Aberdeen. Both could easily be wiped out by modern missiles, leaving much of Scotland as ‘power-lacking’ as Ukraine is becoming.
We are an island nation and we should have smaller and more power plants, connected to the sea and everlasting tidal power. Each of our coastal cities should have its own individual power sources, reaping power from the coming and going of the tide. Have a look at British Patent number GB 2577340 (which has been around since 2020).
No amount of incoming missiles can turn the tide off.
Archibald A Lawrie, Kingskettle.
More letters...
Nicola Sturgeon has a selective memory on recent referendum results
‘Tick-tracking’ app is commendable but it should extend to Scotland’s south-west
Times too tough for indy debate
As support for the SNP wanes, so does public support for another damaging referendum at a time folk in Scotland are looking ahead to what will be a tough winter. This means higher inflation, higher fuel prices, higher energy prices making household finances difficult to balance.
The SNP should be showing a good example by reducing Holyrood expenditure.
Meanwhile those governing in the Parliament should show the people of Scotland that they are genuinely trying to help, instead of rambling on about another referendum which is clearly not going to happen.
Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen.
Financial plans? Don’t believe them
Duncan Sooman (Letters, October 7) raises the old chestnut of the SNP's failure to publish a case for independence. I don't know how many election campaigns and governments Mr. Sooman has lived through, but it's a fair bet that it's fewer than me.
Every time, every prospective government has told us how they will conduct the governance of the UK. Every time their forecasts have failed, often within a few months, and sometimes within a few days. But none stand the test of time, and some have led to financial or economic catastrophe.
I will not mention names for fear of insulting your readership...
Oh dammit, yes I will: Margaret Thatcher, Gordon Brown, and Liz Truss. Financial plans aren't worth the paper they're written on.
John Jamieson, Ayr.
Rules of disengagement
JB Drummond (Letters, October 6) offers a thoughtful list of reforms. But he presumes something he does not address, and which was the point of my letter of October 5.
The question is not what reforms are desirable. It’s whether the right to choose what is best for Scotland should reside with the people of Scotland.
The UK Government says the Union is voluntary. If that is true - and I take them at their word - should there not be an agreed mechanism for the people of Scotland to say whether they wish to remain or not?
I would genuinely welcome an answer from unionist correspondents on this point. Not a defence of the Union's benefits; not a critique of the SNP; not a list of the challenges independence would bring - all of which are fair debating points - but a simple answer to a simple question.
If the Union is voluntary, what is the process for leaving it?
I ask in good faith. If there’s an answer, I’d like to hear it. If not, then perhaps we can agree that this is a gap worth filling, together, as a country that believes in fair play.
Relationships change. Friendships remain. Let us at least agree on the rules.
Bruce Crichton, Hamilton.
Council reform costs
There have been lots of articles, reports and comments on the First Minister's pronouncement about reviewing the number of councils across Scotland.
There used to be 53 district councils, nine regional councils and three island regions. Through the reorganisation of 1995/96 this shrank to 32 councils.
As leader of a then district council, I experienced both the ‘shadow’ year in 1995 and the subsequent two years as the staff and councillors settled into different and new responsibilities, ensuring that residents and services continued to be provided effectively and efficiently.
The cost for local government reorganisation in Scotland was £28 million for 1995 to 1998. Beyond the financial cost there was the impact on committed council staff across all levels.
John McLellan's article ("Plans to reform local authorities will not solve Scotland's housing crisis", The Herald, October 3) highlights one aspect of the impact of reorganisation with the example of Edinburgh's Local City Plan.
Added to this latest proposal of changing the number of local authorities is the reorganisation of health boards: what will this cost the public purse?
Is the baby being thrown out with the bathwater? Where do local democracy, accountability and transparency fit within these proposals?
Teresa McNally, Alloa.
Nixing NEETS
There are about 981,000 young people Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET). No wonder, when the moment they leave school they can go on benefits.
There are jobs available. The building trade is desperate for tradesmen and tradeswomen; the public’s desperate for tradesmen and tradeswomen.
However, the economy doesn't need youngsters with Mickey Mouse degrees. These NEETS should not get welfare benefits immediately, but only after three years, with proof that they have been actively looking for work.
There are only 137,000 in our armed forces, so there’s an opening for NEETS to protect our country from those who would do us harm.
The threat of compulsory national service would quickly reduce the number of NEETS.
Clark Cross, Linlithgow.
Who’s threatened by Reform UK?
I’m none the wiser after reading Sam Craig’s comments (Letters, October 7).
He focuses on polls rather than addressing my simple request (Letters, October 6) for details of the threats Catriona Clark (and now apparently he, also) believes a Reform UK government would pose.
The suggestion that a potential government poses any threat is a very serious allegation. What do they believe is threatened? Is it our national security, the economy, or something else?
Any such threat demands careful consideration, which in turn requires Ms Clark and/or Mr Craig to identify them and explain who would be threatened, and how they would be threatened.
I can think of two groups of people who would feel threatened by the stated determination of a Reform UK government to do whatever it takes to deal with them. First, the thousands of illegal migrants here already, and those attempting to get here. Second, people gaming the welfare system.
Of course, dealing with the above would be to safeguard, rather than threaten, the rest of us - so would be most welcome.
Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop, Ayrshire.
Share