Where is the vision to provide jobs from green energy projects?

The Herald Scotland

a day ago

Both Westminster and Holyrood focus on the production of green energy but fail to provide the major benefits of manufacturing the components that would provide work for thousands. There is no ambition, vision or plan for our manufacturing industry but they will be providing millions in funding for rich energy companies while manufacturing is bereft of work.
Robert Buirds, Port Glasgow.
The public will be sickened
The decision in principle by the Scottish Government to grant planning permission for a completely unnecessary massive offshore wind farm, Berwick Bank, to be constructed in an environmentally sensitive location beggars belief, especially given the scale of the well-judged opposition which has simply been ignored.
We note that "SSE Renewables will have to provide a plan to counter any impact the wind farm may have on seabirds to be approved by ministers", but this is thin gruel, especially as SSE is quoted as admitting in its own environmental impact assessment that more than 31,000 bird collisions are estimated during its lifespan. What will its proposed "mitigation" provide? It is to be hoped that it will be something better than the farcically inappropriate plans that Equinor has put in place to construct an inappropriately sited nesting habitat for Arctic terns hundreds of miles from its proposed massive wind farm extension off the coast of Norfolk. Whatever it is, it is difficult to see how it can provide more than a small sticking plaster for a deliberate act of ecocide that should never have been granted permission
The Scottish Government may well have shot itself in the foot. Even people who would not normally object to a wind farm are sickened by this decision. The sleeping giant in the name of Joe Public has awakened.
Aileen Jackson, Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor.
Read more letters
Energy transition is a farce
The energy transition of Scotland (and the UK) is veering from ambition to farce. Most people acknowledge climate change's reality and support action, but current policies are incoherent and self-defeating. Shutting down North Sea oil and gas while obsessing over intermittent wind energy leaves us all paying a steep price.
That price is staggering. Our energy costs, the highest in Europe and roughly four times those in the US, strangle industry, export our carbon footprint to high coal-burning nations, deter investment, and undermine ambitions to lead in high-tech sectors like artificial intelligence. Data centres, vital for AI, demand vast electricity and water supplies – ambitions that will vanish without secure, affordable power.
Wind power has a role, but its limitations are stark. Intermittent turbines require 100% backup like costly, potentially hazardous battery parks, idling gas plants, and nearly doubled transmission lines scarring the Highlands. We must also confront the 'green' components' toxic waste and China's dominance of the supply chain, leaving us strategically vulnerable.
Meanwhile, a gold rush mentality prevails. Landowners and foreign developers reap fortunes, communities receive scant 'shiny beads', and massive infrastructure rises despite local objections. This mishmash of ideas, driven by political vanity rather than strategy, lacks joined-up thinking.
In the First World War, people spoke of 'lions led by donkeys'. Today, we have citizens and businesses led by donkey politicians, stumbling through an energy policy that is economically ruinous and strategically reckless.
The solution is obvious: a balanced energy mix: renewables, nuclear for baseload, and domestic hydrocarbons (including 'clean' cheap coal for specific industries like steel and AI) to bridge intermittent failures and the high cost of renewables. Without this, net zero risks collapsing under its own absurdities.
Ian Lakin, Aberdeen.
Labour's brass neck
Surely a special brass neck award is due to the Labour Party on its gaslighting of Scotland? In June Rachel Reeves informed Equinor, the Norwegian energy giant, that the extra tax on Scotland's oil and gas industry would be spent on carbon capture; £22 billion is to go to carbon capture in England while Scotland has been promised a miserly £200 million.
The utterly useless Scottish Secretary Ian Murray is bragging of a 'massive jobs opportunity for Scotland' over defence spending, when the bulk of any new money will go to building submarines in England. Typically Scotland has received only about half of its per capita spend (4% for 8.2% of the population) due over decades (Whitehall even stopped publishing the stats because they were so bad) and the money usually goes to big corporations rather than local companies. Isn't it time that these pronouncements were fact-checked by the media, and the political operators making them were put on the spot, because they are so out of line with the truth?
GR Weir, Ochiltree.
Disgraceful Festival bans
Speaking on Sky News, well-known actor Brian Cox has once again criticised Donald Trump and reiterated his desire for Scottish independence. He might be in Edinburgh right now but normally he resides in America.This does not help.
Additionally he has waded in to say he abhors "cancel culture" but the very festival he is appearing at has done just that by banning two comedians because they were Jewish. It has allowed actors in favour of Palestine without a problem.
Mr Cox can perhaps see the dilemma here? Can we expect him to speak out over these cancellations and, in fact, can we expect his beloved SNP Government to speak out too? It is not a good look for the [[Edinburgh]] Festival which ought to be promoting Scottish values including fairness.
Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.
Why heed Netanyahu?
Benjamin Netanyahu continues to enact his policy of ethnic cleansing unabated in Gaza using starvation and a variety of other methods. It beggars belief that Rebecca McCurdy obviously considers such an individual's opinion on the future of [[Gaza]] of some worth ("Why PM missed mark on recognising state of [[Palestine]]", [[The Herald]], July 31), citing that the recognition of a Palestinian state would be rewarding Hamas.
We have surely arrived at a dangerous and surreal place when we are asked to heed the advice of someone indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, regarding the very people he is killing.
Khalida Rasul, Glasgow.
Terror does have its rewards
With spectacular irony, the Israeli regime describes the recognition of a Palestinian state as a reward for terrorism. They should know! For 80 years they have inflicted terror on the Palestinian people, culminating now in the murder of 60,000 people. If that is not an act of terror, what is?
This piece of nonsense is repeatedly echoed by the BBC and our print media.And Israel has been richly rewarded for it in the form of land acquisition and military support from the United States and the United Kingdom. Clearly, terror has its rewards.
David Currie, Tarland.
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Image: PA)
Why change UK policy?
For whatever good reason, the UK Government's policy for years has been that it doesn't recognise the existence of a state of [[Palestine]]. What has changed to persuade it that its previous justification for that policy no longer exists? Trying to influence [[Israel]] to do something is a different matter unrelated to that justification which surely remains in place?
Prime Minister Starmer therefore needs to explain precisely what he believes allows him now, all of a sudden, to dismiss the previous justification for the long standing non-recognition policy. It would be helpful also if at the same time he clarified the borders of such a state he intends to recognise and his intention to maintain the current UK proscription of Hamas.
Finally, he needs to address the intervention by 40 peers (including seven KCs) questioning the legitimacy of his intentions.
All in all, it is beginning to look like another u-turn is likely in September. Even if recognition actually does happen, it will be pointless as Keir Starmer must know [[Israel]] will simply ignore it. History will judge it as no more than an ill-thought-out party political stunt in an attempt to placate his backbenchers and shore up Labour's Muslim vote on which the election of some of them depends.
Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.