Reader's Letters: Surely wind farms would come under any definition of 'ecocide'

Wind turbines at the Seagreen Offshore Wind Farm off the coast of Montrose, Angus in the North Sea. Picture: Andy Buchanan/AFP via Getty Images

Labour MSP Monica Lennon wants a 20-year penalty for causing “widespread, long-term or irreversible environmental damage” with her proposed Ecocide (Prevention) (Scotland) Bill (“Polluters could face 20 years in prison”, 29 May).

Both the Labour Party and the SNP have been pushing new developments all over our fair land. These “wind farms” and “new build” housing estates for people flooding in from somewhere surely cause irreversible environmental damage to our hills and low-lying areas and our sea-beds. Does Ms Lennon intend to prosecute current and former Holyrood ministers and directors of the companies putting in these wind turbines and houses? If not, why not?

John Fraser, Glasgow

First in queue

We support MSP Monica Lennon’s plan to hold polluters to account through a Scottish Ecocide Bill that could capture large-scale acts of eco destruction, such as destructive industrial fishing activities, river pollution, deforestation and schemes that release carbon into the atmosphere, such as disturbing our peatlands which act as a natural carbon sink.

We also agree with Ms Lennon that “people wouldn’t damage the environment if there wasn’t some profit motive sitting away at the back of it somewhere”.

All of the above accurately describe the atrocities which are taking place on a daily basis to accommodate both on and offshore wind farm development, yet any mention of this so called “green” industry is neatly avoided.

Is that deliberate or is it down to lack of joined-up thinking?

Aileen Jackson, Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor, East Renfrewshire

Waste drive

It is an astonishing waste of public money for MSPs to vote £20 million to expedite the use of electric cars. How can they be so ideologically driven as to ignore the shortage of electricity across the UK? Revamping the Grid is now estimated as a multi-billion-pound operation likely taking 12 years. Meanwhile motorway service stations are buying diesel generators to provide electricity to charge electric cars. Perhaps this £20m might be better spent improving motorists’ journeys by filling the multiple potholes defacing our roads?

Elizabeth Marshall, Edinburgh

What voters want

I’m no friend of Reform, but disagree with Adam Morris (Perspective, 29 May) when he says Scottish voters, “pine for thought, intellect and optimism in their leaders”. A bit of competence would not go amiss, and there has not been much evidence of either from London or Edinburgh in recent years!

William Ballantine, Bo'ness, West Lothian

Suitable solution?

Regarding the open letter to Parliament over the division of toilets in the Holyrood building, there has been a typical kneejerk reaction by some, calling it transphobic to have gender neutral toilets.

Somehow this could lead to “harassment, humiliation and worse “ for transgender and gender non-conforming people. Firstly, I would have imagined that gender non-conforming people would have been happy to have gender neutral facilities.

Secondly, this does lead me to question if “harassment, humiliation and worse” behaviours are common in our Parliament building. One would hope not.

The letter apparently goes on to question how male/female only toilets would be enforced. This seems to be whipping up hysteria where it is not necessary. Society has had male and female toilet segregation for decades, if not hundreds of years. It has never needed policing, it always has and most likely will always be, self selecting (unless the Scottish Government has other plans).

There is an easy solution to any perceived problems from trans and gender non-conforming people being asked to use the gender neutral toilets and that is for all the staff and MSPs who have these concerns, who have signed the open letter, for them to use the gender neutral toilets too, thereby “normalising” their use and showing their support.

Thus everyone is happy – women who prefer a single sex toilet use the female-only and vice versa for males, everyone else can use the gender-neutral toilets.

I somehow doubt that this is going to be an acceptable solution to those signing the letter, as solutions that can accommodate everyone are not what they are looking for.

Rona McCall, Gairloch, Highland

Blame England

It seems we have finally managed to scare the Labour Party into thinking about its political future. Downing Street is clearly alarmed by the latest opinion polls, according to which Nigel Farage overtakes Keir Starmer in popularity among the population, while support for Labour drops to a new low.

Starmer's team has already dealt a crushing blow to farmers, pensioners and the sick and disabled. After signing the post-Brexit deal with the EU, fishermen are also under threat. It is no surprise Farage's slogans find a response in the hearts of people. With each passing day, his chances of strengthening his political position in Scotland are growing.

But it is important to understand that it is not Scotland that is turning away from England and supporting Farage. It is England that has done everything in its power to turn Scotland against itself. That is a big difference. Let them now reap the fruits of many years of ignoring people's problems and demands.

Wynford Evans, Bettws, Bridgend

National self-harm

A GP appointment costs £129. An MRI scan is £457. Calling an ambulance sets the NHS back £1,045. An A&E visit averages £1,368. A life-saving coronary bypass operation costs £71,996. Crucially, every penny of this is covered upfront for every UK citizen through National Insurance. No bills at the hospital door. No crippling invoices. Treatment is guaranteed when you need it.

Now consider the private, profit-driven model Nigel Farage tacitly endorses. In the US – where healthcare is a market commodity – 600,000 people are bankrupted by medical bills every single year. Countless others die preventable deaths, denied care either by empty wallets or insurers who profit by refusing to pay claims. The system is structurally perverse: it rewards denial of treatment.

This is the grim future Nigel Farage and his Reform party would drag Britain towards. Farage – a man whose contempt for Scotland drips from his poisonous “subsidy junkies” slur – represents the worst kind of nativist grift. His vision is one of division and dismantled security. Voting for Reform in Scotland isn't just misguided; it’s akin to sleepwalking into self-inflicted disaster, ignoring every historical warning about empowering demagogues who peddle hate.

Those tempted by Farage’s facile lies must understand the brutal arithmetic. The choice is simple: defend the NHS – that rare, tangible embodiment of collective solidarity that actually works – or surrender to a predatory American-style system where illness means financial ruin. To choose Reform is to choose cruelty over care, profit over people. It is an act of profound self-harm.

Alan Hinnrichs, Dundee

Tele-triage

It may be that radical surgery of the NHS in Scotland is not the only way to bring waiting lists down (Jackie Baillie, Perspective, 27 May). In England and Wales the numbers of patients waiting more than a year has been falling significantly in recent months.

This reduction has been achieved using tools and clinical resources that already exist, together with budget support to do more of the most effective stuff. For example, triaging waiting lists means many patients can get the treatment they need sooner from their local GP, dropping out of the hospital queue. At Consultant Connect we’ve triaged nearly 100,000 patients using “remote” NHS consultants, who use our technology to review patients. To date, 39 per cent of patients have been returned to the care of their GP with a treatment plan. In some specialties, such as neurology, more than 50 per cent of patients are removed from some of the longest waiting lists in the country.

It’s cheap, effective and easy to arrange locally or using a specialist provider. So what are we waiting for, Scotland?

Jonathan Patrick, CEO, Consultant Connect, Oxford

Hell to pay

Those in charge of Scotland's affairs have landed us with another unnecessary and massive legal bill (your report, 27 May). The administration has been ordered to pay the costs and expenses they incurred in their action to the women's campaign group that brought and won the landmark legal case over the definition of a woman to the UK's highest court. That means once again we, the taxpayers, are being given the bill for glaring SNP gender obsession and incompetence.

In any situation remotely similar to the case in question, those in charge would have been fighting on behalf of the women's campaign group, not against them. Only in Scotland would this happen.

On Tuesday a court order was issued confirming that taxpayers must cover all legal costs and expenses, both at the Court of Session and the Supreme Court.

The people at present making these horrendous decisions, time after time, are not fit to hold any responsible office.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.