Sir The Energy Select Committee cross-questioned the bosses of the energy firms and gave them a rough ride, accusing them of “utter complacency” and “exploiting” the market (Courier, January 22). However, the committee didn’t ask them the crucial question, which is: “Why don’t the energy firms design and build networks which will withstand anything the British weather can throw at them?”
It’s the same every year. Gales blow and power lines come down. Thousands of people are plunged into cold and darkness and endure several hours, or even days, of misery. Some find themselves in life-threatening situations.
The energy firms call in all their technicians and countless man-hours are spent reconnecting everyone. But weather-related power cuts are entirely unnecessary. They happen because of flawed decision making in the past.
Are electricity network engineers the only engineers who don’t design for the worst conditions ever encountered and then add a generous safety factor? The weather conditions which regularly cause the power cuts are entirely within the range of what can be expected in a British winter. They are not freak; they are not “once in a lifetime”.
Secretary of State for Energy Ed Davey stated on TV a couple of weeks ago that “the public accept that severe weather will cause power cuts”.
Why? Why is it acceptable that we should have power cuts but it would not be acceptable if, for example, any of our major road bridges were to blow down in a severe gale? Both events are life threatening but one is tolerated and the other would not be.
There are no doubt regulations specifying the standards with which the electricity distribution infrastructure must comply. Well, they are not high enough, not by a long chalk. We consider ourselves an advanced civilised country. A secure electricity supply is now as essential to our modern life as water. There is no point in spending billions on green energy if we cannot guarantee to get power into our homes and businesses.
Chris Anderson. Cupar.
It’s not really a safety measure
Sir, I have been following the comments by other readers concerning the partial blockage of South Road in Cupar with great interest.
I had not been on South Road for some time until a few weeks ago when I was returning from St Andrews one afternoon. The winter sun was low in the sky as I travelled along this road and almost collided with this restriction. I just managed to stop in time.
As oncoming traffic cleared, a quick glance at this lump of tarmac revealed a piece of metal tubing protruding from it. It was bent over and looked as if it had been cut off to within a few feet of ground level. It gave the impression that a vehicle had collided with it. I noticed recently that a sign is now in place where the tube was.
I agree with other comments that this so-called traffic calming measure is more of a danger than a road safety measure. Common sense would dictate that traffic requires to flow out of Cupar with minimal disruption as parked vehicles create enough congestion on this road.
Bob Thomson. Ladybank.
Safeguards in Scots law
Sir Some of our senior, learned judges seem to be concerned about the “uniqueness” of our Scots law in that it reduces or even negates the possibility of wrongful convictions due to the requirement for corroboration.
We know that “corroboration” can be “connived”. We know that appeal hearings have reached conclusions of “unsafe conviction” resulting in retrial or the release/acquittal of convicted persons. How could this be if corroboration were judicially effective?
In my opinion, the real safeguard for the accused in Scots Law is the “not proven” verdict. The learned trial judge is required to advise the jury (or use his own judgement in a no jury trial) accordingly, where any doubt may arise in their minds.
This is what makes our legal system unique. Not corroboration.
A T Geddie. 68 Carleton Avenue, Glenrothes.
Naive and dangerous
Sir, If ever the “yes” lobby and the undecided needed endorsement as to what the Scottish people would face in the event of a “yes” vote, there is no need to look further than the Scottish Government’s several attempts over the past few years to “bury information”.
The most notorious was that of 2012 in a petition to court to block a freedom of information request on making available the legal advice it stated it had in its possession, regarding staying in the EU. This failed and the latter were forced to admit that no “specific information” had ever existed.
This, incidentally, cost the taxpayers close on £200,000, money which could have been far better spent in more productive ways.
There is undoubtedly a haze, over what we might or might not expect, in the future. The Scottish people need transparency over what kind of future we can expect in the hands of the Scottish Government, not the many “inexactitudes” to which we have been subjected.
It is politically naive and dangerous to believe that the electorate is so unaware or uninformed that it can be duped by mere rhetoric.
David L Thomson. 24 Laurence Park, Kinglassie.