Letters: The absurdity of Truss's plan to tackle the energy crisis

Letters: The absurdity of Truss's plan to tackle the energy crisis
Letters: The absurdity of Truss's plan to tackle the energy crisis

THE new Prime Minister’s plan to address the energy crisis by ramping up North Sea oil and gas production and lifting the ban on fracking is absurd.

Installing the infrastructure needed to increase domestic oil and gas production will take years, will not reduce energy prices and will come at an enormous cost to our net-zero progress.

Moreover, the PM’s plans will only benefit fossil-fuel companies which are already set to profit from the energy crisis to the tune of £170 billion, according to Bloomberg.

As the Chancellor observed in his former capacity as Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, establishing a secure and affordable energy supply requires a focus on renewable energy sources. These are faster to develop and nine times cheaper than gas, according to Carbon Brief.

We need to see investment in the infrastructure to support these technologies, including long-duration storage and battery storage to stabilise power flows and alleviate capacity challenges.

After a summer of sky-rocketing energy bills, record heatwaves and water shortages, decisive action is needed.

However, the steps set out last week will not meet the PM’s aim of building a stronger, more resilient and more secure United Kingdom. In order to do so we need policies that will help us combat the climate crisis.

James Basden, Co-founder Director of Zenobe, London.



I COULDN’T agree more with Neil Stewart (letters, September 12) as regards the commentary on the coverage of the late Queen’s journey from Balmoral to Edinburgh.

Unfortunately, the procession to St Giles’ Cathedral proved to be exactly the same.

I had hoped for something better from Huw Edwards but, after telling us how moving the sound of the marching feet on the cobbles was, he proceeded to talk non-stop, repeating what we already knew or had been told.

I found the sound of the marching feet combined with the silence of the crowd quite mesmerising but was so irritated by the commentary that I kept turning the sound off, thus missing the sound I was enjoying. It could easily all have been shown in silence.

Mrs Kathleen Gorrie, Helensburgh.



THE BBC coverage of the death of the late Queen and its immediate aftermath was and continues to be superb.

The corporation has a much-deserved worldwide reputation for being unbeatable on this kind of occasion and once again it has excelled itself among all the broadcast media, with exactly the right amount of gravitas and light touch when the moment suited.

Having spent the bulk of my working life overseas in several countries, both East and West, I can say without hesitation that the Beeb is by far the best I have ever seen and the licence fee is, in my opinion, well worth it.

My only qualification would be is that at Scotland level, I feel they tend to kowtow way too much to the nationalists, perhaps intimidated by the ugly scenes at the orchestrated demonstration outside their HQ in Glasgow some years ago and in fear of more in a similar vein.Perhaps the nationalists do not like the “British’’ in their title.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.



WHILE the Queen was rightly known as Elizabeth II in England, she was not the second Queen Elizabeth in Scotland, as we never had a is disappointing that BBC Scotland referred to her as Queen Elizabeth II in their coverage of the Queen’s death, although in fairness, some individual commentators did not.

It was also very disappointing that in the Scottish Parliament, of all places, while there were some fine tributes from the party leaders, they all referred to the late Monarch (with the exception of the First Minister) as Queen Elizabeth II.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.



I AM surprised that Willie Maclean (“Primarily English kings”, letters, September 13) is not aware if Charles I ever set foot in Scotland.

Charles was born in 1600 in Dunfermline and his father only became King of England in 1603, so it is fairly clear that Charles I did set foot in Scotland.

As an adult he was crowned King of Scotland in 1633 and on that occasion he would also have set foot in Scotland.

I am fascinated by the claim from Mr Maclean that with an absent king Scotland had ceased to operate as an independent state in the period between the unions of crowns and parliaments.

I suggest that the arrival of Cromwell’s troops in Edinburgh in 1650 might have resulted in some loss of independence.

Sandy Gemmill, Edinburgh.



CONCERNING any discussion about believing in Santa (“A quite touching faith in Santa”, R Russell Smith, Letters, September 14), I would repeat what my late mother told me many years ago: “Santa is real if you want him to be.

“All you need to do is take your turn of being Santa by giving small gifts to other people – and not just at Christmas”.

James M Arnold, Whiting Bay, Isle of Arran.



WELL done, Thelma Edwards, for surviving a Strip the Willow 40 years ago in Skye when she became airborne and experienced an informal encounter with the band (“Meeting the boys in the band”, letters, September 14 ).

Experienced survivors of the group-beating known euphemistically as a ceilidh (sometimes more a sort of drinking set to music) will know that if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’re going to get hurt.

However, I am confident that when Her Majesty could manage big gee-gees she could manoeuvre a runaway Highlander.

And there was always The Tower of London.

R Russell Smith, Largs.