Sir, I read Mr Scott’s letter (June 6) regarding his attendance at The Better Together meeting in Cupar with a growing sense of disbelief.
Mr Scott was apparently disgusted that the SNP was elected because the party gained the majority of the vote.
Perhaps he should refer to the dictionary for the meaning of democracy: “a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making”. This is democracy in action.
The fact he says he was “totally complacent when it came to turning out to elect members to the Scottish Parliament” and now somehow thinks that he should have an input in the debate, is risible.
I wonder if he agrees with the 40% rule that was used in the last referendum in 1979. This rule introduced by the Unionist parties at the eleventh hour would have been familiar in a banana republic. A non-voter, even some deceased, was counted as a “no” vote.
To quote Alex Salmond at the time: “be they dead, on holiday or at home in the bath is counted as being against devolution.”
I suspect Mr Scott is of right-wing persuasion. Perhaps if he wants to influence a reborn independent Scotland, he should join up with the growing number of fellow travellers and split the Conservative and Unionist Party into a Scottish party by forming a Scottish Conservative Party.
It might be the only way he will have the influence he wants. If it was not for the Devolution Bill there would be no Tories in the Scottish Parliament at all.
Wake up Mr Scott and smell the thistle. The yes vote will be a landslide.
Robert Alexander. Bothy Starforth, Carnoustie.
Driven by their 2020 target
Sir, At first glance I thought your front page headline, Millions of pounds going up in smoke, (June 6), was for another story about Forth Energy’s biomass proposal, until I read the details, but it could just as well describe the situation where we would end up paying around a million pounds a day in subsidies every year for every job that this project would create.
Because it would mostly produce electricity (contrary to Forth Energy’s efforts to emphasise the heat production), it would only be about 35% efficient. The European Directive on Renewable Energy sets a standard for using biomass for combined heat and power of 70%.
Why would Dundee’s plant import and burn twice as many trees, leading to twice the carbon emissions, for the energy produced?
It’s because the SNP Government is desperate to meet its headline target of 100% “renewable” electricityby 2020. Offshore wind is making slower progress than expected due to high costs and uncertainty among investors.
That’s why ministers are prepared to subsidise Forth Energy’s crazy project.
Andrew Llanwarne. Co-ordinator, Friends of theEarth Tayside, 8 Glasclune Way, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.
That is a whole lot of trees! Sir, Your headline, Millions of pounds going up in smoke, could also be applied to Forth Energy’s proposed biomass plant. Well, not precisely.
The plant’s smoke would be treated and only invisible chemicals and particulates would leave the lum.
But it will cost us millions (66) in subsidies. And almost a million trees will be burnt every year. A forest ranger told me an area the size of Dundee will be needed every two years to grow the required amount for the Dundee plant alone. It just ain’t green.
Mary Henderson. 36 Luke Place, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.
The responsible ones penalised
Sir, I liked Caroline Lindsay’s article, A drop of wine (May 22). She made some very valid points.
In all the propaganda put out to date by the Scottish Government on this matter, not once has it been announced that even without this new taxation policy, government duties on all alcoholic products are already the highest by far in the world.
In Europe, on the few occasions when members of the public get drunk, they don’t do so out of economic despair caused by members of parliament failing to find them jobs, as they do in Scotland.
It’s my contention that if Scottish MPs and MSPs of all political stripes did nearly as much as European Union legislators do to protect their alcoholic products and do their utmost in new initiatives to help the unemployed or under-employed we would not be cursed with obscenely unfair taxation on all our alcoholic products.
Scottish minimum pricing for alcoholic products and the (since 2012) ban on multi-buy alcohol promotions are grossly unfair to most customers.
They penalise the vast majority of people who drink responsibly, are especially unfair to pensioners and others on limited income and are yet another reason with most other taxes substantially higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, such as council taxes, cost of petrol, etc for tourists to now avoid Scotland instead of visiting it.
Is this how we plan towelcome folks from the USA for the 2014 Ryder Cup? I gather the news is already buzzing around golfing circles in the USA.
Keith Forbes. Hatton Road, Rattray, Blairgowrie.