Readers' Letters: We need new ideas to liven up tired energy debate

The debate about renewables vs nuclear vs fossilfuel all have their positive and negative points. But proponents and detractors of each seem tunnel-visioned in their own narrow agenda. Like many others, I am sick and tired of the politicking of the SNP, the Greens, Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and that other lot all trying to score points off each other in a legislature that has, to my mind, currently lost all credibility.

What do we really need? Well, perhaps some holistic, joined-up thinking might help! So how about this, just as a suggestion to set the ball rolling… Why not stop paying the wind farm companies to not produce electricity. Instead, invest that money in desalination plants. England and elsewhere desperately need good clean water. What better use is there of the excess wind-farm energy, when available. And water can be easily stored while electricity costs an arm and a leg to do so.

Then sell the crystal clear water to those who crave it. Supply and demand. The technology is well tried and tested in the Middle East. I’m sure the companies responsible for the innumerable blots on our landscape and seascape would jump at the chance of this alternative gravy (or perhaps water) train, if explained to them in sufficiently robust fiscal terms. Of course, we would need to ensure we weren’t simply giving away yet another set of crown jewels, like last time round.

Ah... I foresee a potential problem here, given our incumbent ne’er-do-wells. Iain Masterton, Kirknewton, West Lothian Opportunity lost I note that a number of European countries have agreed to release strategic reserves of diesel fuel; but also agree that such a move can only do as a temporary measure. For the longer term, they’ve also agreed that the bloc must ensure that they have functional refineries capable of turning crude oil into the fuels needed, including diesel and jet fuel.

What a pity that the owner of Grangemouth was allowed to close that refinery, whilst being given money from Westminster to support their operation in Belgium. Ian Waugh, Dumfries Pass the remote A quiet Sunday morning and one switches on BBC to watch Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg. Imagine my shock to be greeted by the vision of Scotland’s greatest has-been, the one and only (thank goodness) Nicola Sturgeon! What on earth does the BBC think this failed and most divisive politician in modern political history can add?

A quick grab of the TV remote and my restful Sunday morning is rescued by James Martin’s cooking show! Richard Allison, Edinburgh No reparations Our Prime Minister is sailing very close to the wind. Andy Burnham states he is “open” to apoligising for the slave trade. Many of his backbenchers want him to go much further and pay reparations. This opens a potential can of worms because Mr Burnham has let a chink of light in. We simply cannot afford reparations and have a really good case in that Britain was instrumental in stopping the slave trade.

There is another glaring problem. Mr Burnham was never elected Prime Minister by UK voters and was economical with the truth even with his Makerfield constituents.. There must surely be a general election very soon to stop Mr Burnham turning the UK into his own personal mission statement. Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Three envelopes I remember a good leaving speech that involved a story about numbering three envelopes. The premise was to offer advice to a successor and had them opening the envelopes in order when things got tough.

The first advised “blame your predecessor”; the second “reorganise everything” and the third “number three envelopes”. I think John Swinney’s emulating that story and he’s on number two already. It’s only to be hoped he opens number three before Scotland’s NHS and local authorities are punished by pointless upheavals in name of the Scottish government’s desperation to be seen to be doing something, anything. R A Wallace, Kincardine, Fife Free movement Although opposed to mass immigration, I am not automatically against the restoration of “freedom of movement” between the UK and the EU.

Many EU countries, notably Poland, have come a long way since the days when Britain was a magnet for their surplus labour. It is conceivable that we might see a balanced, two-way flow of people. But the devil may be in the detail. Would our government be willing, or have the authority, to moderate our pull-factors? Benefit levels and entitlements, the minimum wage and legislation against discrimination on grounds of nationality might need adjustments.

Would we be denied these? Would non-EU migrants, who should have been stopped at the EU’s southern and eastern borders, be fast-tracked to residency rights or citizenship and then shuffled on to us? They would not have ties of family, language or history drawing them back to continental Europe. We are told our young people pine for the opportunity to pursue a dazzling career in Europe. But does the level of enthusiasm for learning foreign languages support such a claim?

Many struggle to compete in their home labour market. Freedom of movement was a sufficient reason for leaving the EU, but it was not the only one. Remainers tried to sell us the EU as our guarantee of peace. But it was already clear that the trajectory of the EU towards super-power status would bring new possibilities of war. Many of our politicians embrace this as a form of virtue-signalling. But it won’t be them who have to fight. John Riseley, Harrogate, North Yorkshire Write to The Scotsman We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please.

Write to lettersts@scotsman.com including name, address and phone number – we won’t print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.