Sir, Twenty years ago in a situation eerily similar to Grangemouth, union intransigence led to the closure of Timex, Dundee’s major employer. The pyrrhic victories and disastrous outcomes of last century’s strike fest convinced even those of us from a mining background that union belligerence destroys jobs. A three month shut-down at Dagenham in 1971 ensured Ford would open all its new car factories on the Continent and the London plant now assembles windmills.
Endless strife turned Linwood into a car park and the long strike over the closure of the unworkable Polmaise colliery virtually ended deep mining north of the border.
The highly politicised union Unite has been in conflict with the Swiss company INEOS since 2008 and the position of the Grangemouth workforce is increasingly perilous. Men earning £40,000 a year in a plant losing £100 million a year and likely to close in 2017 have much to lose and it is time they reeled in a union determined to play chicken.
Dr John Cameron. 10 Howard Place, St Andrews.
Educate, don’t preach
Sir, In response to Paul Read (Letters, October 17) I would say that there are two quite separate issues in regard to religion and education. Even many non-believers will agree that no-one in schools should be prevented from “learning about the creation”. The question is how and where this should be addressed.
I am firmly of the opinion that young people should be fully aware of the various belief systems that exist in the world and they should be encouraged to reflect on religious and moral issues. In my opinion this should take place during religious education and social education classes in school and, perhaps more importantly, in the home.
Young people should be educated in religious matters but not preached at and I do not support the current position where ministers/priests/chaplains regularly address a captive audience at school assemblies.
Patrick Harvie (October 14) made the point that the church as an institution should no longer be involved in the general planning of the Scottish Education system. His opinion is that when policy is being discussed the views of the church should not carry any significant weight. I fully endorse this view.
By all means teach our young people about religion but do not permit the church to unduly influence the workings of our national institutions.
Alan Kennedy. 55 Newton Crescent, Carnoustie.
It’s very easy to just object…
Sir, It is practically impossible to read The Courier without reading about somebody complaining about wind turbines or having a moan about subsidies for renewable energy. While it is good to hear the debate on these subjects it has always been easier to complain rather than to suggest alternatives.
Renewable energy is the only kind of energy that has a long-term future. By the time our grandchildren are expecting to switch on their electric blankets oil and gas will be severely depleted and coal reserves will be run down.
So if we don’t encourage research and development in renewable energy now we might leave it too late. If you don’t think we should support the development of renewable energy then what would you do instead?
For the people who object to wind turbines in any location let us hear what you would do instead to meet energy demand. Even if you think climate change is not caused by humans it is difficult to deny that fossil fuels are a finite resource.
If you would rather have a nuclear power station on your doorstep than a windfarm then please say so. Also, if you object to wind turbines then tell us what form of renewable energy you would prefer.
Robert Potter. 44 Menzieshill Road, Dundee.
Windfarm is not offshore
Sir, In Jim Crumley’s interesting article (October 15) he describes a planning appeal decision which gave blessing to “an offshore windfarm which will be clearly visible from the Old Course” at St Andrews.
In fact the windfarm referred to is not offshore. It is a proposed windfarm at Kenly Farm three miles from St Andrews.
An application by St Andrews University for this development was refused by Fife Council, but on appeal has recently been approved by the Scottish Government Reporter.
The blades of some of the 328-foot turbines, six in total, will be visible from the Old Course.
In the Appeal Decision Notice the Reporter stated: “There are a number of coastal golf courses within 10 kilometres of the appeal site, including the Old Course in St Andrews. Turbine blades would be visible from some holes on the course . . . However, I consider that players’ (and observers’) attention would be primarily on the game . . . the expansive sea views and buildings and the prominent landmarks in St Andrews”.
In Fife Council’s recommendation that the application be refused, some of the main reasons given were that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the landscape character, local communities, the skyline and overall appearance of the immediate and surrounding area by virtue of its scale, size, number of turbines and prominent location.
Jennifer Hopgood. Blebocraigs, Cupar.