Here are some of your views online.
Don't forget you can read more letters and the best in news and sports coverage in the St Andrews Citizen every week.

Safety barrier
on road
Sir, — In response to queries about the safery barrier on the A91, I have been given the following explanation from transportation services.
The safety barrier adjacent to Station Park was erected following a structural assessment, which concluded the north verge of the culvert underneath the road had a 7½ t weight limit.
If an HGV pulled on to the verge in an emergency, or as a result of an accident, the culvert could fail, resulting in sections of the road collapsing.
Raised kerbs were considered but, due to the speed of traffic, the most appropriate form of protection was a safety barrier. — Yours, etc.,
ROBIN WATERSTON
Councillor,
St Andrews.


Bring back
Crail minister
Sir, — After reading several letters and articles in the national press concerning the suspension of the Rev Mike Erskine from his duties as minister for the parish of Crail and Kingsbarns, I would like to make a few comments of my own regarding this matter.
We are all human and, as such, are liable to make mistakes. No one is perfect and we are all subject to the trials and stresses of modern life.
Whatever Mike Erskine has done, he has not deserved to have had it plastered all over the national newspapers, with the 'gutter press' in particular printing lurid and sensational headlines.
Whoever this 'disillusioned member' of the community was who contacted the newspapers, I wonder if he or she paused for one moment to consider what effect this publicity would have on Mike Erskine's children and close family. Is this the action of a person who claims to be a Christian,or was it someone out for personal revenge?
Did they even start to consider the personal trauma Mike and his family must have gone through with the break up of his marriage and everything that this will mean to them all, and also the suspension from his duties as our community minister?
And now to be given a kick in the teeth by this 'disillusioned member' of his parish? Whatever happened to Christian values of forgiveness?
We all make mistakes; everyone deserves a second chance. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Mike Erskine is definitely the best minister this community has had in the 25 years I have lived here. Many other ministers have come and gone during this time, but Mike Erskine is without doubt the most approachable, understanding, and sympathetic minister we have ever had.
His obvious dedication and enthusiasm to his pastoral duties are second to none, and I sincerely hope the Judicial Commission, or the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, will reconsider their decision to suspend Mike Erskine from his duties and reinstate him as soon as possible.
I would also like to point out that even convicted criminals are given a sentence 'discount' for the months they might have been held in custody before full sentencing. Why has Mike Erskine's suspension not been credited with the time he has been on 'temporary suspension' before the final decision to suspend him?
We want Mike Erskine back as soon as possible, doing the job he obviously loves and is so good at.
I feel this distressing and traumatic experience that Mike has now gone through in his personal life will equip him with a deeper insight and mature understanding of other people's problems, and will make him an even better minister than he already is.
I ask the General Assembly to please reconsider your decision. — Yours, etc.,
KINGSBARNS RESIDENT,
Via e-mail.


Views sought,
no campaign
Sir, — In his letter (Citizen, Aguust 20), Gordon Pay seriously misjudges the aims and motives of the Largoward and District Community Council.
He quotes the ASCC advice that no community council should take part in local campaigns, and then goes on to accuse the L&DCC of campaigning against the proposed megawatt wind turbine farm at Largoward.
Having seen the questionnaire before it was delivered to all village residents, Mr Pay must be aware the CC, as a body, has not in any way "campaigned" against the proposed windfarm.
It is merely acting in the public interest in testing the attitude of the villagers to the windfarm and communicating this view to Fife Council's planning committee.
Mr Pay goes on to say those surveyed "were not told by the community council that this (the Largoward wind turbine funding scheme) was to be a co-operative."
However, Mr Pay himself, at three public meetings in Largoward, had talked to residents about a co-operative scheme but failed to give a satisfactory explanation of his business plan, leaving people confused and suspicious. A follow-up email to Mr Pay on the subject, before the survey form went out, yielded no clear reply.
Also, Mr Pay did not suggest mentioning a co-operative scheme on the survey form, although L&DCC sent him a draft for comments.
The L&DCC is small, as Mr Pay mentions in his letter, but it does have the interests of the residents at heart.
However, the private views of the community council members on the issue of the proposed wind turbine farm at Largoward is entirely their own privilege, as it would be for any other village resident, and no one (including Gordon Pay) has the right to deny them this.
All members of L&DCC refrained from making their own feelings public until after the questionnaires were returned and their contents analysed and made known.
Finally, Mr Pay suggests the L&DCC should seek the views of those who did not return their questionnaires. Well, one might equally ask the Government to seek the opinions of those who failed to vote in the recent General Election.
People do have the right to abstain from voting on public issues, or they may simply be indifferent to the issue in question.
In the meantime, the Largoward Community Council prefers to leave 'campaigning' to the campaigners. — Yours, etc.,
PETER BRYANT
Secretary,
Largoward Community Council.

Wind
turbines
Sir, — While I have not been following the lengthy debate on the pros and cons of wind turbines assiduously, I can only imagine that the average Citizen reader is as confused as I am. I think it should be common sense that any generating equipment should only be placed in appropriate proximity to those living in the area.
However, in my view, the issues around the health problems of wind turbines are far from being as serious as the health issues for those living beside a coal-powered station with all its pollution.
Mr Severs paints a rather dramatic picture of potential health effects based upon a study which he alleges is non-partisan. I think that quoting from a study without giving details of the parameters of the study is not helpful and this is part of the problem of the whole debate. We read enough dramatic headlines in papers, based upon selective use of quotes from studies, to feel rightly suspicious of the motivation of those presenting their side of the case. The wind power debate could almost be likened to the debates on climate change and evolution, with many ordinary people fed complete untruths about these issues by elements of the media. The climate deniers and evolution deniers are well organised and well funded lobbies and, unfortunately, even if their untruths are exposed, the damage is done as the climate change scientists have discovered to their cost!
Finally, Mr Severs should apologise to Mr Pay for his derogatory comments at the end of his rant. While I only know Mr Pay slightly, he appears to be a well balanced and caring individual with a passion to reduce our environmental problems, — Yours, etc.,
Patrick Marks,
40 Lawmill Gardens,
St. Andrews.

******************
Sir, — Robert J. Severs suggests a lesson in civics. Usefully, the Association of Scottish Community Councils (ASCC) has a resource on their website. You can click on "learn best practice for my CC." In the document on "campaigning on the issues" they say, "Never allow the CC to become the vehicle for any campaign that is not the evident will of the majority of constituents."
The Largoward and District Community Council did attempt to find out the views of their constituents, though I have some criticisms of the way they went about it. They went to the effort of hand distributing 300 leaflets, of which 84 were returned with a view against the wind turbine proposal (note, they were not told by the community council that this was to be a co-operative). By my arithmetic that is 28 per cent against. This was not a first past the post election, and the community council cannot simply ignore the majority of their constituents who did not respond to their questionnaire. The campaign against the Largoward windmills co-operative is not the evident will of the majority of constituents, and the community council should not have allowed itself to become a vehicle for it.
That this did happen is possibly explained by the fact that three members of the community council have already lodged objections to the proposal. This is a Community Council of about half a dozen members. Not only that, two have also lodged objections to a single 15m (hub height) wind turbine proposed for the use of the farm.
The Association of Scottish Community Councils also says, "An issue does not need to have only two opposing sides. Could your CC be an independent mediator bringing factions together? This is your proper role."
I have suggested that the community council arrange a public meeting, as I believe has the chair of the community council.
We may then be able to discuss the issues involved, such as those brought up by Robert J. Severs. — Yours, etc.,
Gordon Pay,
75 Bonnygate,
Cupar.

University
windfarm
Sir, — Regarding your article on the St Andrews wind farm plan, I fail to see how 46 per cent of 65 people supporting the wind farm is an ''important boost.''
One can only infer that the other 54 per cent were not supportive of the wind farm, which does not sound good for the outlook of the plan. — Yours, etc.,
Jeff Fodiak,
via e-mail

Change
happens
Sir, — Of course, Martyrs' congregation are upset that their independent existence cannot continue.
They know the events that have brought them to this point. There are not enough ministers to go round and there is doubt about money to pay and pension them in the future.
It is not surprising that they say "why us?" and that they perceive injustice and people to blame.
However, looking back will not improve the present situation which must be dealt with now or the congregation will complete its disintegration. Learn from the Letter to the Hebrews, "here we have no lasting city." Changes happen and must be met.
The church in Strathkinness has been through the distress of the break-up of their former linkage and had to find a new partner. The only offer of support came from Hope Park. Our experience has been that the hand of friendship was extended. We received fellowship and great generosity and when Hope Park asked to join in our worship during their refurbishment we were glad to welcome them and we reaped the benefit in new friendships, support and indeed financial generosity.
Martyrs' folk are running out of options. Mr Arnott was apparently perceived to be a stumbling block by some. I don't agree but a new opportunity exists. Quickly grasp the chance to be involved in choosing his replacement in Hope Park and go forward with a warm hearted company that will make you welcome. — Yours, etc.,
A. LAWSON,
15 Bonfield Road,
Strathkinness.

Flying
the flag
Sir, — Having raised the issue in the Citizen of Friday, July 23, I was delighted to see the Saltire flying from the flag pole on the Town Hall the following Monday.
Well done to the community council for their prompt action. — Yours, etc.,
KEITH MCCARTNEY,
St Andrews.

Harbour
gala
Sir, — I write on behalf of Friends of St Andrews Harbour to ask your readers to support our Harbour Gala Day on Sunday, August 15.
This will be the seventh event since we revived the tradition in 2004 and we hope to build on the undoubted successes and fun times of recent years.
All our workers are volunteers and profits go straight into our funds which will be used for the benefit of the harbour area.
Many people have supported us in the past and, through your letters page, I would like to ask for contributions to our stalls - bric a brac, home baking, plants, bottles, tombola prizes anything of use!
Bric a brac may be left at the local Home Improvements shop in South Street or delivered to us at the marquee which will be sited at the Harbour from the morning of Saturday, August 14.
If you would like to enter a team for our Five-a-Side Human Table Football League, just give us a call.
The gala has become a unique community event for St Andrews.
Local people and local businesses are always our key supporters, though we are pleased to say that many visitors from throughout the UK and indeed the rest of the world, have been warmly welcomed and thoroughly enjoyed themselves too!
Thanks to everyone for your help and I look forward to seeing you all again at the Harbour Gala Day! — Yours, etc.,
ALISON GILMOUR,
Chair,
Friends of St Andrews Harbour.

Exhibition
contributions
Sir, — The Elie & Earlsferry History Society is holding an exhibition in Earlsferry town hall on August 14-15 with the theme 'Play and Leisure'.
We are seeking the loan or donation of photographs, documents and artefacts for display relating to past leisure activities, holidays, clubs, etc, in Elie and Earlsferry.
The exhibition will be open from 11 a.m. - 4 p.m. and there will also be guided walks of Earlsferry at noon and 2 p.m. each day.
I urge your readers to have a dig around their attics and cupboards for anything relating to holidays, leisure and sport as well as related topics such as the trains and buses which brought holidaymakers to the village, the various hotels and guest houses which accommodated the visitors and the many clubs, community organisations and youth groups, some of which still exist today.
If anyone has something that might be of historical interest I would be delighted to hear from them. Please telephone 07713682873 or email meacher@lineone.net — Yours, etc.,
GRAHAM MEACHER,
Chairman.

Wind
energy
Sir, — Councillor Mike Scott-Hayward misleads readers, and his constituents, in his recent letter (Citizen, July 30). The feed-in tariff for renewable energy does not involve Mr Huhne pumping the country's scarce cash into an inefficient form of energy. He is wrong on two counts there.
Cash for the feed-in tariff comes from the utility companies, not the Government. This is consistent with the polluter pays principle, and internalising environmental costs, recognised in international environmental law. We signed up to these obligations. It is also sound economics.
Councillor Scott-Hayward also seems to have missed the basic point that the feed-in tariff is specifically aimed at households and communities. There is a different, pre-existing, system aimed at commercial developers. I have been saying long before he has that communities can get more financial benefit from wind energy than they will get from a commercial developer. This is what the Largoward windmills co-operative proposal is all about. And, with the country's cash scarce as it is, I thought Mike Scott-Hayward would appreciate a proposal that is not dependent on grant money.
On the subject of inefficiency, he confuses the capacity factor of an electricity generator with the proportion of time it generates electricity, and its efficiency. These are not the same things at all. We don't say your car's annual mileage, how often you drive it, and its miles per gallon can be described with the same number. When he says that at best wind turbines will run only 30 per cent of the year, this is simply not true. — Yours, etc.,
GORDON PAY,
75 Bonnygate,
Cupar KY15 4BY.

Housing
report
Sir, — I'm afraid the research on behalf of St Andrews University (Citizen, July 23) carried out by Dr Maarten Van Ham, an expert in the area of neighbourhoods and housing, is not correct in a few aspects.
To start with it was not Margaret Thatcher who was the first to propose the sale of council houses.
It was Harold Wilson in 1973, but was stopped approximately in 1977.
The date of the first council house sale will be available from the town officers. And it was restarted by Thatcher again in the 80s.
It would be interesting to know the percentage of houses sold in St Andrews to date.
I assume Dr Ham is looking at the mobility of the workforce. What percentage of the 2.7 million purchasers of council houses are interested in becoming wild rovers.
He seems to have divided the workforce into three groups. Renters, council house purchasers and traditional owners (whoever they may be).
Why is the owner of a council house any more restricted from selling and moving than a traditional owner.
I suggest the good doctor start a giant caravan club and create all the mobility he desires.
And stop being critical of the best thing that's happened in this country. — Yours, etc.,
N. BLACK,
30 St Mary Street,
St Andrews.

Bullfighting
ritual
Sir, — I admired Kate Affleck from St Andrews who travelled to Pamplona to protest against bullfighting though I have been fascinated by the corrida most of my life.
I attended my first ritual almost 50 years ago having been brought up on Hemingway and with a father who saw the great Manolete fight just after the war.
Sadly, the closure of the last ring in the Barcelona region had much more to do with the petty politics of Catalan separatism than it had with animal welfare.
Reports that the corrida is dying out and only kept alive by tourists are wishful thinking for it is thriving in Andalucia, Castille, the Basque country and Southern France. — Yours, etc.,
Dr JOHN CAMERON,
10 Howard Place,
St Andrews.

Charity
funding
Sir, — We were pleased to receive your excellent coverage for our summer exhibition in last week's edition of the Citizen.
However, due to information that we provided to you, there was an inaccuracy regarding our charitable donations to Rymonth Housing Society.
The charity funds for RHS are donations from the members and the public who visit our exhibitions throughout the year. These donations are presented to RHS. The art club commission arising from the sales of paintings, mentioned in the article, is used as one source of revenue to meet the expenses of running the club.
I do hope our many exhibition visitors will be as generous as in previous years and support RHS who carry out splendid work in our local community.
I apologise again for the misinformation. — Yours, etc.,
D. A. Millar,
Treasurer,
St Andrews Art Club,
14c Argyle Street,
St Andrews.

Consultation
on CLAN?
Sir, — Construction began last Monday for the CLAN Gathering at Madras College, with not the slightest warning for residents in the area — the same level of engagement that CLAN and Fife Council have employed for months for this week-long event.
Fife Council's locality manager for St Andrews, Kate Hughes informed me that it was CLAN's intent to have a meeting with residents. When? Where?
She also informed me that a time-table of CLAN's events would be made publicly available. When? Where?
Mere words of appeasement are not enough. The neighbourhood deserves much better than these disgraceful brush-offs, seemingly intended purely to keep residents "out of the loop".
So far, the only source of any information about this event has been CLAN's own website — http://www.new-wine-scotland.org — but how many people, beyond those taking part in the event, know about that? Hopefully, my letters and resulting articles have helped to redress this scandalous lack of information.
Mrs Hughes says there have only been "a couple of objections" — that hardly comes as any surprise when most of those who are in the front line, those most likely to be adversely affected, are being kept in the dark — intentionally, perhaps, to secure Fife Council's "cut of the gate" for this event? Mrs Hughes, just how much is our peace and quiet worth to the council's bank balance?
Imagine the outrage were there to be no prior warning about the Lammas Market. Residents in surrounding properties would surely be outraged to find a fairground being constructed on their front doorsteps, without any suggestion of public consultation.
My neighbourhood will not stay in the dark any more. I have carried out deliveries of public information flyers to the streets surrounding Madras College, Kilrymont, encouraging residents to attend the Fife Police community engagement meeting at Madras on July 22.
The community engagement meeting is arranged solely by Fife Police, for the benefit of all of St Andrews, and does not in any way present any kind of police endorsement for my campaign — it is simply at the right place, and the right time, and incidentally provides an excellent opportunity for the public to view the Gathering site before CLAN's security clamps down on us.
Anyone interested in the progress of the campaign, and my protest, might like to know that I will be using the social networking website Twitter to post regular live updates throughout the week of the CLAN Gathering.
Please feel free to follow @i_resist — your comments, questions and any messages of support would be most welcome, particularly if you feel uneasy with making an open, public stand on this matter.
In closing, may I say that I hope this year's event will pass safely, quickly, and most of all quietly for all concerned, be they involved directly, or subjected to an intrusion about which they have not had a proper say.
In any case, the motto of this campaign still holds true: Nobody asked us.— Yours, etc.,
SIMON J. TERO,
(@i_resist),
99 Roundhill Road,
St Andrews.


Restaurant
bookings
Sir, — I am resident in St Andrews regularly eat out in the area. I had tried to make a booking at two restaurants for Wednesday, July 14 only to be told that as it is the Open week they were not taking bookings but operating a first come first serve basis.
Despite explaining that I was a local resident and regularly eat out in the area and was not just here for the Open week it did not make any difference.
I pointed out that there are another 51 weeks in the year when they depend on the local trade for income and I find their policy unnacceptable.
Surely taking bookings for tables is the best way to operate rather than have people hanging around and queuing up for ages and getting irate waiting for a table.
Maybe it would be better if the local residents just left the area during the Open? I don't think we even get a discount on the Open golf admission prices to try to make up in some way for the inconvenience caused to us. — Yours, etc.,
Patricia Robertson,
Via email.

Turbine
'gold rush'
Sir, — We will soon face the equivalent of a 'gold rush' of wind turbines in north east Fife.
And 'gold' is the reason — the heavy subsidy with which the Government backs the drive to install turbines across the country is known as the 'feed-in tariff'.
People would be well advised to look that up on the internet, for two reasons:
Firstly, the opportunity to get the cash subsidy is available to almost everyone, down to individual households.
In some cases, the subsidy is (or has been) for green energy installations such as ground source heat, water power and photovoltaic energy. These I understand as they are reasonably predictable but the subsidy is a waste of money when handed to turbine installations: at best the turbines will run only 30 per cent of the year; in the year just passing that was actually only 17 per cent as the wind didn't blow as much as green politicians would wish.
Still, individual families should look at what is there for them (other than wind!).
Secondly, communities should watch out for developers planning to create wind farms; they, including the University of St Andrews, are, or will be, offering to set up funds for communities 'so they can benefit form the wind farms'.
I just say; get the full figures from them — they could be be taking a huge slice of the cake for themselves.
Where a community itself sets up a trust, it can get the feed-in tariff directly, all of it, and generally, for the single community turbine, that will more than equal the bribe from developers whose installations will add to the wholesale swamping of the countryside.
If you must have a turbine on your horizon, make sure it's your turbine.
For as long, anyway, as Mr Huhne can pump the country's scarce cash into this inefficient form of energy. — Yours, etc.,
Mike Scott-Hayward,
(Councillor)
Sawmill House,
Kemback Bridge,
Fife.

Celebration
thanks
Sir, — I would like to thank everyone who helped out with our £1.5 million celebration for Cancer Resarch UK, held recently in St Andrews Bowling Club.
Particular thanks are due to Blythe Swankie for the buffet, Rochelle for the balloons and Eric for the disco.
A special thank you to Alex and bar staff for their hard work and for letting us use the club on this occasion.
I am also grateful to photographer Harry Spence and his friend for the photographs and the lady who donated the homemade cake.
Thanks also to the cheese shop for the cheese and olives for the tables.
It was a fantastic night and a great success. — Yours, etc.,
Elizabeth Swankie,
Manager,
Cancer Research UK,
157 159 South Street,
St Andrews.

strong>Union of
churches
Sir, — I wish to comment on last week's article regarding the union of Martyrs' with Hope Park.
Your report states that Martyrs' Church "has been unable to sustain a congregation large enough to enable them to call a minister." Now in the early years of this century, the Church of Scotland realised that there would not be sufficient ministers to fill every vacant congregation in Scotland by the end of the decade, and it asked Presbyteries to draw up a plan to address this issue.
In St Andrews, Martyrs' was singled out as the church that would have to unite with another in St Andrews in the event of a vacancy simply because it had the smallest number of communicant members at that time.
Accordingly, I assert that, on the basis of its numbers, it certainly would have been able to call a minister in 2005 were it not for the Presbytery Plan which stated that Martyrs' should unite with Holy Trinity.
The statement by Mr Morris that "an amalgamation with Holy Trinity was not acceptable to the Martyrs' congregation" is also misleading, since Martyrs' as a congregation was not consulted on the matter. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, the Hope Park merger was not initiated by the Church of Scotland, but rather by informal overtures made by representatives of each session with the approval of the Presbytery of St Andrews.
By the time this letter appears, the union will have taken place. I simply wanted to correct the impression given by your article that a decline in congregational numbers over recent years may have precipitated a merger. What else could one expect in terms of numbers with a vacancy that has now lasted almost six years? — Yours, etc.,
DR C.W. FRASER,
Session clerk,
Martyrs' Church,
27 Spottiswoode Gardens,
St Andrews.

strong>Martyrs
facts
Sir, — I would like to respond to the article by Barbara Millar on page three of last Friday's issue of your paper.
As she would appear to have researched the history of Martyrs' Church extensively as printed, why were the following facts not mentioned?
Is she not aware that the Presbytery of St Andrews conducted a vote on the question of Martyrs' uniting with Hope Park? The question was also asked if the minister in charge of Hope Park at that time would be acceptable to the Martyrs' congregation as the minister of the new proposed united charge. Both results were a NO vote but the Presbytery of St Andrews implemented the Presbytery Plan regardless once it had been formulated and approved by the Church of Scotland.
These votes were a follow-up to informal meetings between certain members of the two congregations after Presbytery had been advised that we had no desire to unite with Holy Trinity. At that time, Martyrs' was attempting to remain an independent congregation and was prepared to link with Hope Park and share a minister, which was rejected by Hope Park as a union or nothing.
The reason that Martyrs' has been unable to sustain a congregation in the past five years is the result of these votes and the uncertainty associated with the unknown date of the retiral of the holder of the charge at Hope Park.
When the minister of Martyrs' retired for health reasons, we were refused permission by St Andrews Presbytery to call another minister as the Presbytery Plan was being formulated and there was a reluctance to allow any calls to charges to be made. Subsequently, with the number of ministers in charges in St Andrews Presbytery cut by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Martyrs' — being vacant — was an obvious choice to remove one of four in the town and create the new congregation of St Marks.
The statement of the Hope Park session clerk puzzles me regarding the new congregation numbers as his choice of words does not seem to refer to equal partners. While the Church of Scotland spokesman made reference to decisions regarding the new congregation, again no mention was made of the efforts by Martyrs' to meet so that the union would progress at the appointed date once it was known.
Only one meeting took place, in November 2009, and since then Martyrs' seems to have been held at arms' length with the 'Christian Hand of Fellowship' being conspicuous by its absence. This has led many Martyrs' members to believe that this is no union of equals, as stated, but a takeover by one group dictating on their terms.
All the above facts are known to those involved with the union. — Yours, etc.,
G.B. COBB,
9 Huntly Place,
St Andrews.

Editor's note: A Citizen reporter contacted several
members of Martyrs' Church last week who declined to comment. The session clerk was unavailable.

strong>Wind
turbines
Sir, — I was delighted to learn that Gordon Pay (Citizen, July 9) has better things to do than "addressing all the misinformation" from Mrs King — what with his lively little 14-months-old daughter to look after. Hopefully, that'll hinder his creative essay-writing now, and focus his time-limited attention on a few facts of possible interest in Largoward, such as:
How would our village kitty profit from a private wndmill co-op here? By how much, how soon, and how often? And who will be responsible for keeping it up, for how many years, and for clearing up the mess if the government subsidies are withdrawn and the co-op goes down the gurgler?;
How many shareholders does Gordon Pay envisage finding in this small village with an approximate 65 oer cent O.A.P. population, who can't all guarantee to be around to "reap the benefits" of shareholding during the lifetime of Gordon's green bling on the hill? (As if the idea of dotting a few such fundraisers around the countryside willy nilly weren't a bit dated already…).
I am sure it was pure coincidence that the letter following the Gordon Pay missive on June 25 was headed 'Sweet dreams' — but, for me, that just about summed it up.
As for visual impact in the local landscape, the proposed mills (at 99.5 metres) are approximately 25 per cent taller than the new "landmark" at Methil ... and if the farmer himself would be the nearest windmill neighbour, it will probably only be by a yard or two. Sweet dreams for some -- but an ugly nightmare scenario for others within sight and earshot of their private fundraisers!
I also shudder to think of the traffic and roadbuilding chaos it would cause to bring the ironmongery through to Largoward and up to the Cassingrays site — but that wouldn't affect busy shareholders in far away places (unless they foot the bills for it?)
Wave-power has a lot going for it. But that's for the big boys who know what they are doing … let them get on with it! Our local doings by Pelamis Wave Power (www.pelamiswave.com < http://www.pelamiswave.com/> ) may prove a bit more efficient, and a lot less obtrusive, than the ghastly, carrot-dangling clutter we've seen "approved" (or disapproved!) so far. — Yours, etc.,
Aase Goldsmith,
Largoward.

strong>Wind
turbines
Sir, — Having just returned from abroad, I turned eagerly to the latest copy of my St Andrews Citizen to find yet another self-important edict on windpower benefits from your regular contributor, Mr Gordon Pay.
I have followed his pontifications over a long period and I am more and more convinced that he is on yet another self- promoted ego trip. Once again he has delivered his supposedly superior knowledge (I know best!) of the subject in his usual patronising style.
I find his style of presentation, patronising attitude and selective use of statistics quite amusing. If he spent less time digging through reams of statistics perhaps people may be more inclined to take his debate more seriously. Is he not aware that, every time he goes into print, his credibility is diminished in direct proportion to his dubious claims?
Although Mr Pay is very quick to point out that "X" installation is capable of generating "X" Kw of power, etc., he omits to mention that these figures can only be achieved under ideal wind operational conditions. No one, not even Mr Pay, has control over future wind performance, and until he can claim otherwise I for one will not be taking any claim backed up by his selective statistics seriously.
His long-term enthusiasm for a system that is patently inefficient makes me wonder if he has, or has he ever had, a vested interest in promoting wind turbine installations in this area? Why would I, as a taxpayer, invest my money in a system that is unreliable, unsustainable and unpredictable — especially if it is going to increase my electricity bill?
What would be more revealing would be Mr Pay's acknowledgement that windpower generation is unpredictable, unsustainable and, at best, only 25-30 per cent efficient at peak performance (but I cannot predict when that will happen!). — Yours, etc.,
ED COOK,
Kirklands Park,
Cupar.

*************
Sir, — I'm glad Mrs Lynne King at least is amused by my "bounce back" replies, but I doubt the editor would give me the space to address all the misinformation, and I have better things to do (I have a 14-month-old daughter to look after.)
Robert J. Severs suggests my sources are wind industry press releases and PR-based websites. Those used in my last letter were the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, and the statutory consumer advocacy organisation in the UK, Consumer Focus. Before that, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, websites of the various state planning authorities in Australia, an ICM poll for the BBC, Megafon (a danish polling company), and the Advertising Standards Authority. I leave others to judge.
Robert J. Severs used the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) in his last letter. Whatever else it is, this is an anti-wind lobby group. See the Wikipedia page (but, note the caveat there).
till don't know where his estimate of 25 per cent higher electricity bills is from. This is to achieve our targets for renewable energy, and is for 10 years from now. The figure he provides from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee isn't it, and that is at the high end of the range of estimates. Also relevant is how the price of either carbon, or fossil fuels themselves, may increase electricity bills by then? Meeting our renewables targets may be the prudent option.
The committee report actually says onshore wind is the least expensive of the renewables. Getting back to more local issues, it also has considerable potential for community benefit. Mrs King says the only people to benefit are the landowners. The example of wind co-ops in Denmark, and for instance the Westmill Wind Farm Co-op in the UK, demonstrates benefit can be more widely spread in the community.
She also says, "What a pity it is not a stipulation that anybody applying for these turbines on their land has to live in the nearest property to them." In the case of the Largoward windmills proposal the landowner does live in the nearest property to them.
Mrs King says it is all very well for me to go on about how wonderful they are from the safety of the Bonnygate. I think I have said that there are no silver bullets and wind energy is not a perfect solution. Also, there's a reason for the pollution monitor on the front of our building. We are in an Air Quality Management Area because pollution in the Bonnygate is at a level considered unsafe. — Yours, etc.,
Gordon Pay,
75 Bonnygate,
Cupar.

strong>CLAN
gathering
Sir, — It's that time of the year again — not that the great majority of people in St Andrews will know it.
Christians Linked Across the Nation (CLAN) are bringing their "CLAN Gathering" to Madras College, Kilrymont Road for the week of July 24-30 and not one single person in the vicinity has been made aware of it.
I understand that these are difficult times financially — the town needs tourist income, and the council needs to make the most financially beneficial use of its facilities during the school summer break, but why are the needs, and rights, of the local residents ignored? Why are the residents of Roundhill Road, Kilrymont Road, Scooniehill Road and other surrounding streets assumed to be just "sheep," blissfully accepting every council decision made behind closed doors?
I have been in correspondence with Fife Council for the last few months concerning this event, all, it seems, to no avail — except that both Sir Menzies Campbell MP and Ian Smith MSP have been made aware of the situation, and have been following it with interest, requesting that I pass on to them any and all responses I receive to my communications. My family have requested to attend council meetings to at least make clear that the neighbourhood cannot be simply assumed to "be on board" with their decision to allow this event in a residential area, but our requests have been dismissed.
It appears that Fife Council are blinkered, perhaps blinded, by the money they can make out of this event, and nothing else. Only benefit to them, and CLAN's bank balance, appear to matter.
The only source of publicly available information about this event can be found on CLAN's website http://www.new-wine-scotland.org. From their own timetables, it is clear that the event will be bigger than before, with four tents instead of the three from last year, in addition to their customary "dwelling place" in the school's central car-park area — can we, therefore, expect more than the 5000 attendees and 1300 cars parked in the school sports field we had to endure last year?
To add insult to injury, area services manager Kate Hughes has informed me that CLAN will have additional security measures in place, to ensure that those without the proper passes will be (quote) "asked to leave, and if they do not do so the police will be called and they will be ejected." I understand their desire to ensure a safe event for their attendees, especially when those taking part are paying around £100 a head, but these additional measures appear to have only one key purpose — to prevent surrounding residents from going to the venue to complain — and will also have one added, and I hope unintended, function — to close off a frequently used shortcut between Roundhill Road and Kilrymont Road, open to the public since the school opened. Does this not count as a right of way?
Again, it appears that the local residents simply do not count.
What can be done? The event cannot now be stopped, barring extraordinary intervention by some agency or other — I am still to learn whether the storm damage from earlier in the year has been satisfactorily repaired — but local residents can still make their objections known.
On July 22, at 7 p.m., the regular Fife Police Community Engagement meeting will be held at the school — just two days before the Gathering is due to begin — and I strongly recommend any who are concerned should attend, if only to encounter CLAN's security attempting to "eject" us. At least they will not have to wait long for the police to arrive!
If there is no response from CLAN security, then at least those attending the meeting will get to see the CLAN venues up close for themselves, and thereafter take part in what I feel is a very positive forum provided by Fife Police, and which deserves a much greater attendance than it has had previously.
In addition, I request that concerned residents join me in an entirely peaceful protest — if you have tents, pitch them in your gardens, and enjoy your summer. Fly red flags to express your annoyance. You have the right to peace and quiet in your own neighbourhood, and as long as these infringements of that peace and quiet do not go unchallenged, you are silently being assumed to be surrendering those rights, for the benefit of the council and those whom the council gives the "green flag" to do whatever they like on your back doorstep.
Nobody asked us. — Yours, etc.,
SIMON J. TERO,
99 Roundhill Road,
St Andrews.

strong>Wind
turbines
Sir, — Gordon Pay says he ''does not know'' where my figures regarding projected rises in electricity bills come from. This is surprising, as the data is not difficult to locate - though one has to go to other sources than the wind industry press releases and PR-based websites that Mr Pay seems to favour. As it happens, as well as those cited in my last letter, a number of studies and committees - none of them very radical and all far more independent in their findings than wind industry and other lobbyists - have pointed out the dangers inherent in the current system.
For example, the House of Lords Committee for Economic Affairs says "that the extra cost of electricity generation and transmission in Britain in 2020 with 34 per cent renewables is likely to be £6.8bn a year, an extra 38 per cent. Most of this would be met by the consumer; about £80 a year (at current prices) for the average household." (Note the 34 per cent renewables figure - a higher figure would mean even higher bills.) This finding arises, it should be noted, not because the committee is taking an 'anti-renewables' position, but because, under pressure from lobbyists, we have skewed our research, funding and planning towards wind turbines, at the expense of other renewable sources of energy (including nuclear, as Tim Scott rightly points out).
Don't know where that view comes from, Mr Pay? It's not mine; it's Dr John Constable, director of policy and research at the REF, who recently said in a press statement: "The fundamental problem with the RO is that the cost to the consumer is extremely high. Since the cost of the scheme is passed on to businesses as well as households, there will also be a significant impact on the economy. The Government's plans for wind are wildly unrealistic. Wind power is going to be very expensive, very difficult and ultimately very costly."
Of course, there will be a wind industry 'expert' to tell us that this is all wrong, just as there were experts at the CEGB who were able to show that our concerns about acid rain were well-meant but muddle-headed. No doubt Mr Pay will continue to keep us all informed of those wind industry experts' views, and the misinformation will no doubt continue to flow from the growing ranks of well-paid lobbyists.
The real problem we have to face, however, is that successive governments have failed to draw up a cohesive and informed national energy strategy, leaving the field open to speculators eager to cash in on the policy-makers' lack of resolve, with as little concern for reducing the nation's carbon footprint as they have for the wellbeing of others.
It is, or should be, government's place to protect us against such speculators as well as ensuring that we generate our energy as fairly, inexpensively and wisely as possible - something that our present emphasis on large scale wind turbines is not designed to do. — Yours, etc.,
Robert J. Severs,
via e-mail

strong>************************
Sir, — I read with amusement every week in the Citizen Mr. Gordon Pay's "bounce back" letters in reply to anybody who does not agree with his views on wind turbines.
The only people to benefit from these monstrosities are the landowners (our so-called guardians of the countryside).
They are uneconomic, a blight to our beautiful countryside and a health hazard. What a pity it is not a stipulation that anybody applying for these turbines on their land has to live in the nearest property to them. This, I am sure, would stop the vast majority of the applications.
It is all very well for Mr Pay to go on about how wonderful they are from the safety of the Bonnygate, Cupar. He will never be affected by them.
Perhaps he should think about relocating his family to a property in close proximity to a wind farm so he can experience all the problems that they create. — Yours, etc.,
MRS LYNNE KING,
Kinaldy House,
St Andrews.

strong>Wind
turbines
Sir, — Tim Scott gets no argument from me on the need to improve productivity in our energy use. But he acknowledges we need alternative sources of energy. Can we agree we need both? And sooner is better than later.
He also has a preference for research over opinion. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the cradle to grave assessment of the environmental impact of a product. From raw materials and transportation, through production and use, to disposal (or preferably recycling). There is an international standard. A recent LCA, to ISO 14040 & ISO 14044, of a 2 MW wind turbine, was published in the January 2009 edition of The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. It concludes that "the environmental pollution resulting from all phases of the wind turbine (manufacture, start up, use, and dismantling) during the whole of its lifetime is recovered in less than one year." That's good enough for me.
Robert J. Severs considers the subsidies for wind energy cost too much. As the subsidy is only paid for electricity actually generated, this would also tend to undermine the argument from Tim Scott that wind turbines are not productive enough.
Consumer Focus (formerly energywatch), in their response to consultation on Renewable Energy Financial Incentives in October 2009, gives the average cost on consumers' bills as £5 (then), rising to £64 in 2020. I don't know where Robert J. Severs got his estimate of 25 per cent higher electricity bills from.
However, given that it's very likely we consumers will be paying a subsidy for the foreseeable future, I think this argues for the Largoward windmills proposal. This would be a wind co-op, where we can own the electricity generators and have that subsidy money return to us.
(As an aside on a global wind energy target requiring one turbine installed every five minutes worldwide: for comparison, and just for the UK, 2009 new car sales equated to one every 16 seconds!) — Yours, etc.,
Gordon Pay,
75 Bonnygate,
Cupar.

strong>Wind
turbines
Sir, — May I, through the courtesy of your letter columns, comment on recent correspondence and articles on wind turbines?
Firstly, can we drop the misleading term 'windfarm?' It makes 100-metre turbines sound bucolic.
Is there a special blind spot allowing some to talk of reducing their carbon footprint and destroying the countryside in the process: where is the logic in that? Wind turbines are industrial generators that brown greenfield sites.
Secondly, as has already been pointed out in your columns, scientific research in Denmark, Spain and elsewhere shows wind turbines to be a relatively ineffective and inefficient substitute for fossil fuels.
Thirdly, the choice is not between wind turbines and our grandchildren's future, as one or two slightly hysterical correspondents have implied, but between wind turbines and other alternative energy generation methods, which have been neglected.
Seabed tidal flow generators are one promising alternative to wind, and project only a few feet — instead of a few hundred feet — above the surface. Converting waste heat into power ("combined heat and power") is another viable and green option used in Denmark and the Netherlands (shall I mention nuclear — can we restrain the knee-jerk reaction?).
Fourthly, research shows that by far the cheapest and most effective method to reduce fossil fuel consumption is to improve insulation and energy management in both homes and workplaces, including universities.
Finally, Mr Gordon Pay's reference to public opinion is valid only if the opinion is well-informed, which it certainly isn't.
When opinion is weighed against research, I know which I would rather take notice of. — Yours, etc.,
Tim Scott,
13 Smiddy Burn,
Kingsbarns.

*******************

Sir, — A few weeks ago I wrote criticising comments made by the quaestor of our local university in which he, in supporting plans for a joint effort with a local builder to produce what in my opinion will be a concrete jungle on the outskirts of the town, claimed that members of his staff could not afford to purchase properties in St Andrews, and required to travel from places as far away as Perth.
Now the same spokesperson for the university has announced yet another plan, one which would further affect the surrounds of St Andrews, by producing a pin cushion site with those horrific looking spectacles called wind farms.
This time the quaestor claims it is in the name of housekeeping, that they are feeling the pinch on their fuel bills.
Surely there must be other cost saving avenues, like turning off more lights, etc.
Are the current incumbents running the university really so insensitive to what makes St Andrews such a very special place?
Do they not appreciate that the countryside around the town is part of the overall, aesthetic picture?
I do hope our council planners and elected members take note.
On a recent visit to Spain I observed, while flying in towards Malaga airport, that the clifftops on the coast line and nearby barren land had hundreds of wind turbines.
But, as we came closer to residential areas, I did not see a single one.
Is there not a lesson to be learned from this! — Yours, etc.,
Hugh Gray,
St Andrews

********************

Sir, — Having recently become acquainted with the letters page of the Citizen, I have been following the debate on wind turbines with considerable interest. Yet, while one cannot help feeling sympathy with those whose concern is for the local landscape and quality of life, I think a more significant argument is being ignored. That argument centres around the question of whether wind turbines are actually beneficial, whether to the human population as a whole, or to the environment.
The fact is that, under present circumstances, they are not, and can be seen to be harmful and deceptive in two ways.
The first relates to how the bill for partial conversion to wind energy is to be paid for. While some landowners and institutions may well generate income for themselves from taking advantage of the subsidies on offer, as well as the reduction in their own energy costs, the rest of us will have to pay higher electricity bills (the current estimate is around 25 per cent) to pay for the hefty conversion costs. All this at a time when government is cutting services, jobs and benefits (though not, of course, handouts to the very rich and powerful).
Yet, while even this inequity may seem acceptable to anyone genuinely concerned with global climate change, the question of whether the addition of wind energy to the grid will actually reduce our carbon footprint is still very much in doubt, with many experts, and evidence from those countries who have gone further down the wind energy path, suggesting it will not.
As Lord David Howell and Dr Carol Nakhle pointed out in 2007: "Enthusiasts (and lobbyists enriched by subsidies) who have rushed into extensive wind farm development will be seen in due course to have taken public opinion for a collosal ride."
Meanwhile, leading environmentalist Stewart Brand, in his recent book, Whole Earth Discipline, points out that to generate around one seventh of the world's energy from wind energy, we would have to install one 300 ft diameter turbine every five minutes of every day for the next 25 years.
So let's listen to the enthusiasts and lobbyists, by all means, but let's also examine where they are coming from. Subsidies are immensely persuasive, as we know. After all, look at what they did for the food industry. — Yours, etc.,
Robert J. Severs,
Via e-mail.

strong>Stating the
obvious
Sir, — Your correspondent last week stated the obvious that the vast majority of people will never be troubled by a turbine because they live far away from them, just like Mr Pay, who endlessly quotes that ''more than 80 per cent of respondents favour windfarms.''
More than 80 per cent live in cities and towns or protected communities, so will never find themselves confronted by the uncertainties relating to health, property value, noise and discomfort that will be experienced by the few who have retired to the quiet of the countryside in order to enjoy the amenity of their property.
So a few must suffer for the benefit of the majority. That is not the way a civilised society works.
There is no strategic benefit that outways the discomfort of those near windfarms. — Yours, etc.,
DR D. KING,
St Andrews.

strong>Football
pavilion
Sir, — Some weeks ago, I wrote to this column regarding the current condition of the Tom Morris Drive football playing pavillion and, unfortunately, there has been no response or action.
We are, therefore, no further forward and I would like to try and highlight the issues again in the hope that our local community council will be able to resolve the matter.
The state of the pavillion has deteriorated over many years with very little input in terms of the conditions we have to endure on a weekly basis. There are serious health and safety concerns now with regard to the actual facilities as well as the goal posts. This is something that must be dealt with immediately.
The community has just celebrated 50 years since St Andrews United brought home the Scottish Junior Cup, which was a magnificent achievement, and surely grass roots football is where we can look to making this happen again? However, the facilities we are able to offer the youngsters in which to develop their abilities are both unacceptable and too few.
I would ask those with the willingness and desire to resolve this matter to please offer our youngsters the opportunity to play their football in a safe and enjoyable environment. — Yours, etc.,
Greig Dochard,
Chairman,
St Andrews Colts
Youth Football Club.

strong>Castle
Course
Sir, — Sir, — I thank John Shepherd (letters, April 30) both for his kind words and his criticism of my letter of April 16.
As regards slow play, I have to disagree that visitors "directly subsidise our Links tickets." When a so-called charity makes a profit (sorry, surplus) of millions of pounds, when it engages in wasteful expenditure such as the Links Shuttle Bus, and when it pays its top employees six-figure sums, it is clear who is subsidising whom or what. Before visitors were charged extortionate prices for Keith Prowse starting times things worked perfectly well, ordinary golfers could get a starting time and rounds were quicker, to everybody's benefit. People paying over £1000 for a starting time are not going to play at a reasonable pace.
Regarding the Castle Course, I said at the public enquiry that the statistics produced did not support the case for building this course. I also said it was an exercise in bureaucratic empire-building. Does not the fact that the general manager (chief executive as he now is styled) received a salary rise of approximately £10,000 (we are not allowed to know the exact figure), the year after the Castle Course opened prove my point?
Contrary to many people's opinion, I have never said the Castle Course would be or was a bad course. Most of the holes, except the ludicrous 17th, are well designed. But, in my opinion, the greens are absurd and they are the reason why many St Andreans do not have a good word to say about it.
The views of the town from the course are indeed special, but the views of St Andrews from the Crail road have been ruined by what look like elephant burial mounds, which are totally out of keeping with the surrounding farmlands and which despoil what was one of the last views of mediaeval St Andrews.
Finally, I deplore the Americanisms such as the use of different coloured flags to indicate pin positions, including black. Who can see black against a grey sky or a dark background. What is wrong with pin sheets as used on other courses? — Yours, etc.,
COLIN MCALLISTER,
Flat 1,
140 South Street,
St Andrews.

Largoward
windmills
Sir, — I refer to the letter from Gordon Pay headed Largoward Windmills (Citizen, April 9).
His comment that "poll after poll in Scotland have shown substantial majorities in favour of wind energy, even in people's local area," is quite misleading. As far as I can find there have only been two surveys. A survey of Local Residents in Scotland carried out by MORI for the Scottish Executive and published in August 2003 and Public Perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland carried out by the University of St Andrews and published in 2005.
In the MORI poll, people who lived within 20km of a wind farm were defined as living in close proximity and the wind farms they looked at were in very sparsely populated areas with few households within 2km. In Scotland, the university researchers visited Dun Law, well away from residential properties, and the area round a wind farm that had not actually been built near Duns. They also visited County Kerry and County Cork and I understand the wind farms visited are in similarly unpopulated areas. Since then they have visited the Mull of Kintyre and Gigha but I cannot trace the result of that survey. I understand that the Gigha wind farm is a true community scheme, three small turbines, wholly owned by the islanders, and generating electricity for the island's own consumption.
If the results of the surveys in any way support Mr Pay's statement it is because they would not appear to have interviewed significant numbers of people living in close proximity to turbines — say within 2km — and certainly no one living within 600 metres of one.
He says that annoyance is not a disease, however the stress caused by the threat of a wind farm or the presence of a large, unwanted and disliked industrial turbine nearby can and does lead to illness. I am sure there are people in the local area who are not feeling quite as well as they did before Mr Pay's proposal entered the public domain.
In England, the rateable value of some property has been reduced to reflect the impact of turbines on residential amenity and, therefore, the value of someone's home.
Turbines at Largoward are an assault on the three things we value most - health and home and the wonderful landscape we live in.— Yours, etc.,
David Smyth,
Via e-mail

Silver
key hunt?
Sir, — I am the great grandson of William Rusack, the founder of Rusack's Marine Hotel.
On June 22, 1897, the Rusack family presented the town with the Jubilee fountain to celebrate Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. The fountain was originally sited close to the Swilcan Burn but now is located by the first tee of the Jubilee Course.
The same day that the Jubilee Course was opened my great grandmother, Janet Rusack, was presented with a commerative silver key as a thank you from the town. When the family sold the hotel in 1947 to Will Fyffe, the famous Scottish entertainer, the key was accidentally left behind.
In 1987, the manager of the hotel, Eric Brown, organised a reunion of the Rusack family to celebrate the 100th anniversary. At this function many artifacts from the hotel reappeared including the silver key which was enclosed in a presentation box. Recently I have been doing alot of research into the hotel's history but cannot trace the key.
I wonder if any of your readers could help with the Big Key Hunt or any other artifacts or documents. My contact number is 07801 430981. — Yours, etc.,
Ronnie Rusack, MBE,
via e-mail

Castle
Course
Sir, — Colin McAllister is a regular contributor to your correspondence page, and normally I am in accord with his well-informed, articulate letters which serve to point out areas of local concern re the Links Trust. However his latest submission (Citizen, April 16) raised some contentious issues.
I share his concern with the finances of the Links — particularly with regard to the salaries (and pension arrangements) of those at the senior level of management.
Most people would rightly guard the private details of their own earnings, yet a registered charity should be open to public scrutiny. There should be far more transparency in all their financial affairs — for example, how many are taken on the annual jaunt to America for the Golf Show and at what cost?
Re the problem of slow play. No golfer lightly tolerates this, yet when locals are held up by visitors it is as well to remember that those in front are paying almost as much for one round of golf as for a local season ticket. They directly subsidise our Links tickets, which remains the finest golfing bargain on the planet.
However it is the remarks on the Castle Course which are wide of the mark. I know several golfers who agree with me that this new course is a fantastic addition to our playing privileges. Its development was predictably flawed given the lack of specialist knowledge of those given supervision of the project. More's the pity that someone like Walter Woods, previous superintendent of the Links Courses, was not asked to lend his considerable expertise to the design and construction. Hence the hidden mounds and undulating plateau greens with steep, penal run-off areas. Yet these mistakes have been identified and the programme of improvements initiated in the first two seasons have made a noticeable difference.
In time the course should be free of the eccentricities that should never have been allowed in the original design. Nevertheless the Castle Course is simply a wonderful place to play golf — the retrospective view of St Andrews from the 7th tee is alone worth the journey.
Kevin McKay and his merry band of helpers also ensure that there is always a friendly, welcoming atmosphere at the course. Given the continuation of the winter improvements programme, I am confident that when the Open returns in 2015, the Castle Course will be ready for use as a final Qualifying Course, instead of the inland course of Ladybank. — Yours, etc.,
JOHN SHEPHERD,
Weighbridge Cottage,
Dura Den,
Kemback.

Employment
for all?
Sir, — I wrote to my constituency MP, Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife), expressing my disgust at the abuse of the parliamentary expenses system by many MPs, particularly the employment of relatives by MPs at public expense.
I suggested that MPs' secretaries and other employees paid from public funds should be by equal opportunity to allow the best possible person to be chosen from suitably qualified candidates.
In addition I added that there around 60 million people in the UK and it is too much of a coincidence for so many members of MPs' families to be the best people for these jobs.
At the end of my letter I asked Sir Menzies for his opinion the subject. In his very brief reply he stated that he was sorry that he did not share my views.
What am I to deduce from his reply? Does he really disagree with me that equal opportunity legislation should not be applied in the selection of MPs' secretaries or that it is not a co-incidence that a disproportionate number of people employed by MPs from public funds are member of their own famiies.
No, I suspect that it is just the complacency of a man with a large majority given the second and final sentence of his reply to me.
'There will be a general election on May 6 and you will have the opportunity to cast your vote as you think fit.'
I leave to local voters to form their own opinions on this matter. — Yours, etc.,
DAVID DICK,
3 Priory Gardens,
St Andrews.

Have
your say
Sir, — For the last few years I have been a member of Fife People's Panel which is a group of NHS users who are consulted by Fife Health Board about current service qualities and future plans.
Recently I attended a meeting titled 'Public Partner Update' along with many others employed by or connected with NHS services in Fife.
We were addressed by Anne Buchanan (nurse director), George Brechin (chief executive) and Gavin Brown (corporate services director) and encouraged to question them and discuss relavent matters.
To my mind, one of the most important topics was the announcement of the opportunity of ordinary members of Fife community soon to be elected as non-executive directors.
The election is going to be run by Fife Council with information being delivered to all adult residents this month with chance to stand for election and/or vote on May 6.
I was born round about the same time as the NHS and am very grateful for most of the service I have received all my life. However, it has not always been perfect and I expect that applies to many people reading this letter.
Therefore why not consider standing for election yourself and/or persuading a fellow citizen to do so too? All of us have had experience of treatment of patients even if it has only been as an observer
It might be possible to influence those in charge of current practice and help to improve its quality even more. — Yours, etc.,
CHRIS LESURF (MS),
St Andrews.


Golf course
controversy
Sir, – Forgive me if I dispute your version of Alan McGregor's term of office (Citizen, April 9).
You say that the Castle Course which opened in 2008 has gone on to win awards, being recognised as one of the finest new courses in the world.
Strange to say, but I do not know a single St Andrean who has anything good to say about the course. Also, as I pointed out at the inquiry into the building of the course, it was erected on the basis of some shaky statistics.
Furthermore, at a public meeting when questioned on this issue, Mr McGregor said locals would not have to pay for this new course, yet the season tickets are so structured that locals cannot play the Old Course without also paying for the Castle Course.
You quote Mr McGregor as saying, "We have made great strides in developing the courses, facilities and service at the Links and in delivering a first class service to our golfing customers.''
When locals have to endure rounds of golf that routinely take four and a half hours ('because we must not upset our transatlantic 'customers' – never mind the ultimate owners''), then this is Orwellian doublespeak of the first class.
The fact that Mr McGregor is described as chief executive (previously general manager) sums up all that is wrong with the Links Trust.
The Links Trust is supposed to be a non-profit making charity protecting the interests of St Andrews golfers and others resorting thereto.
The title chief executive indicates that the Links Trust see themselves as a business and not as a charity, and that their chief aim is money-making, which just happens to result in large salaries for the top employees – Yours, etc.,
COLIN McALLISTER.
South Street,
St Andrews.

War time
memoriesSir, — I am researching a Lancaster Bomber that was shot down over Germany in 1944.
I am writing to you in the hope that your readers may be able to assist me.
I am trying to trace relatives of an airmen who may still be living in the area locally, I wish to gain contact as I have lots of information regarding the crash and the raid etc. I am looking for pictures and further information on this man.
My own relative was killed on the same raid as this man.The airmen was called Henry Black, he was a Flying Officer in the RAF. He was born in St Andrews, and he joined the Kirkaldy Police Force on October 12, 1934 before voluntering for the Royal Air Force.
He was trained as an Air Bomber (Bomb aimer) and his aircraft, Lancaster PD224 was shot down on October 14, 1944 on a raid to Duisburg, Germany.
I think there is a memorial to him and others in the main police station in St Brycedale Avenue, Kirkaldy.
If anyone has any information could they please email me at marchall974@googlemail.com or phone 01474 854868— Yours, etc.,
Marc Hall,
Kent.

Generous
collection
Sir, — I would like to take this opportunity through this letter page to thank all the generous donors at Morrison's store on January 31.
A total of £800.70 was collected for Rymonth Housing Society Ltd., a local charity which has provided accommodation for adults with learning disabilities in St Andrews for 25 years.
The committee are most grateful for the support received for our fundraising efforts in the past and hope that more will be given to the forthcoming Grand Prize Draw with the winning tickets to be drawn at a Rymonth Quiz Night in April. — Yours, etc.,
YVONNE CUMMING,
Fund-raising Committee,
Rymonth Housing Society Ltd.


Guardbridge
history
Sir, — For some four years I have been collecting information on the village of Kincaple, where the Haig whisky started and later developed into the Guardbridge Paper Mill.
From a relative I have learned that several bombs were dropped on Guardbridge in the Second World War. However despite attempts, I have been unable to establish the date and the exact circumstances.
The purpose of this message is to ask if your readers could assist with information/or photographs which might clarify the circumstances.
My intention is to write a document with all the history available not for publication, but to give to anyone interested. I can be contacted at Innesfree@blueyonder.co.uk— Yours, etc.,
Ernie Brown



Largoward
windmills
Sir, — Aase Goldsmith's words, about the Largoward windmills project, would be fairer if the energy we use now did not have so many drawbacks, e.g. coal, nuclear, or even diesel. It is not possible to please all of the people all of the time, and I believe wind energy's drawbacks are far outweighed by the advantages.
The latest Danish opinion poll on wind energy (Megafon, October 2009) shows only one per cent think Denmark should get less of its electricity from wind energy than now. That's 99 per cent who support either the existing wind turbines, or an increase.
The suggestion that I am misinformed, and the enormous windmill popularity in Denmark goes back to the days before mega-turbines, is not supported by the evidence. Indeed, 91 per cent in the poll support expansion of wind energy, with 85 per cent supporting more in their local area, and most of those preferring fewer, larger windmills. The model proposed for Largoward has been available for 15 years and is only 2.5m taller now. It is significantly more efficient, and quieter, than then.
A wind co-op is also a widely recognised form of community wind energy. Importantly, it will be open to everyone in north east Fife, not just those from narrowly defined geographical areas. Rather than wait, while commercial developers snapped up the best sites, I believe it was best to take the initiative.
The main reason why publicity has not been sought is that this may not have been a suitable site. Planning permission is still part of that. The distortions and scare stories of those who are anti-wind, and avoiding their campaigning, was another reason. Poll after poll, in this country, has shown substantial majorities in favour of wind energy, even in people's local area.
Some few people are, indeed, annoyed with windmills in their area. The symptoms some report are those that can be associated with annoyance and stress, for any number of reasons. But, as one study puts it: "annoyance is not a disease." The guidelines on noise and shadow flicker are specifically designed to avoid such annoyances.
Back to the reference Aase Goldsmith makes to the Danish compensation scheme. And apologies if I am going on at mind-numbing length! This was included in a recent law which relates to the expansion of wind energy. This allows people to make a claim for a loss in value of their home if this is greater than one per cent.
For a home within a distance of six times the height of the windmills, lodging the claim is free. For homes outside the distance a payment of about £500 is required. This is not returned if the claim fails.
I do not believe there have been many claims, but most seem to be settled by voluntary agreement. Of the few that have gone to arbitration, it appears a significant number have failed. Just for information, there are two homes within the six times distance of the Largoward windmills. — Yours, etc.,
GORDON PAY,
75 Bonnygate,
Cupar.

Rail
concessions
Sir, — I read with interest the letter from the external relations manager for ScotRail last week, denying that ScotRail had been involved in negotiations or had refused to negotiate.
There was a meeting on March 5 with two ScotRail and two Fife Council representatives attending, a note of which has — by pure coincidence — come into my hands.
At the meeting, discussion took place as to the cost to the council of the scheme and the difficulty of estimating the take up. Both parties agreed that they would have to wait and see what cardholders chose to do.
Capping had been discussed at a previous meeting with ScotRail, and this was raised again.
The date of implementation (May 23) was agreed, then marketing was discussed.
Whether that meeting was concerned with discussions or negotiations is a matter of interpretation which I can safely leave to your readers. — Yours, etc.,
Donald Macgregor,
15 Kinkell Terrace,
St Andrews.

Common
purpose
Sir, — In recent weeks letters have appeared in the correspondence page of your newspaper expressing concern with unsatisfactory developments relating to historic monuments and iconic sites in St Andrews.
Dr Robert Steedman wrote of the abandonment of the illumination of the cathedral and St Rule's Tower.
Ishbel Duncan, from St Andrews, wrote, unhappy about the lack of historic commemorative plaques and, finally, two weeks ago, Julia Serup wrote from Canada deploring the apparent neglect of Martyrs Monument and appealed for contact from anyone interested in the restoration of what she describes as a monument commemorating such an important period in the history of St Andrews.
The three letters, varied in content, do represent the view of many, that the people of St Andrews should not allow historic monuments, precious locations and, indeed, the historic core of the town to be abandoned and allowed to deteriorate any further than at present.
The Preservation Trust is very aware of these concerns and is to begin a new strategy of involvement when the Honorary President of the Trust, Professor Charles McKean, addresses the trustees this week. Professor McKean is to offer the trustees the benefit of his vast experience in an effort to counteract trends which are unacceptable in a historic setting such as St Andrews provides.
Also in early stages is an initiative, shared by the community council and the Preservation Trust, to have the garden at No. 1 Greyfriars made into a feature worthy not only of its history but location in the centre of the town. The present site is in a totally unsatisfactory condition and the acceptance of this abomination should not be tolerated any longer.
The St Andrews Partnership is also combining with other groups in the town and, together, they are drawing up plans to deal with challenges and problems recognised by all.
The Pilgrim Foundation, in the recent past, has been the source of much progress with the creation of the superb gates at St Johns, the refurbished Cemetery Gates in The Pends, the funding of the Preservation Trust's Cast Iron Shop Fronts Project and the ongoing restoration of Crail's Lane. The achievements of the Foundation are remarkable. A new project immediately replaces a completed one. The dedication and imagination this group shows cannot be measured.
What is essential is that all involved work together with a common purpose and there appears to be indications that this unity is becoming seen as necessary policy, if aims and proposals are to become reality. — Yours, etc.,
ELIZABETH PENNY,
Chairman,
St Andrews Preservation Trust,
4 Queen's Gardens,
St Andrews.

Pope's
visit
Sir, — How fortunate we Scots are in that the Pope has chosen to come to give Mass in Glasgow's Bellahouston Park on the south side of the city and this momentous event to take place on September 16.
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI ends 28 years' wait for a Papal visit for Scottish Christians who fondly remember John Paul II coming to these shores in 1982.
If you decide to go to Bellahouston Park for the Mass then give consideration to making the trip in chartered buses for parking spots will be rarer than ostrich eggs. Once inside the park the adoration for this man of God from assembled Christians will surely heighten an air of expectancy and give all those who come a day to remember throughout all of our lives.
PS It is hardly known that the Pope has a penchant for stylish shoes. A fact that shines a little light on the personality of this most private of men. — Yours, etc.,
Ahimsananda,
Ladywalk House,
Ladywalk,
Anstruther

Children's
facilities
Sir, — As the parent of a young child living in Guardbridge, I have recently become aware of the lack of facilities for the growing number of children in the village and, in particular, the ageing and inadequate playground provided.
In an effort to remedy the situation, I recently contacted Fife Council and was pleasantly surprised when they showed great interest in the problem. Myself and other parents were able to meet in Motray Park with a member of staff from Fife Council's Parks and Amenities Department who agreed that something needed to be done. He also admitted that resources were scarce, but that if we could set up a community group, funds could be made available for new equipment, including a toddler-friendly area and sympathetic fencing to keep out dogs.
I would like to ask anyone from the Guardbridge area who would like to have their say to please e-mail me at guardbridge4kids@googlemail.com so that we can improve our park for the many families living in the village. — Yours, etc.,
Zoe Rogers.,
Via e-mail.

Common
purpose
Sir, — In recent weeks letters have appeared in the correspondence page of your newspaper expressing concern with unsatisfactory developments relating to historic monuments and iconic sites in St Andrews.
Dr Robert Steedman wrote of the abandonment of the illumination of the cathedral and St Rule's Tower.
Ishbel Duncan, from St Andrews, wrote, unhappy about the lack of historic commemorative plaques and, finally, two weeks ago, Julia Serup wrote from Canada deploring the apparent neglect of Martyrs Monument and appealed for contact from anyone interested in the restoration of what she describes as a monument commemorating such an important period in the history of St Andrews.
The three letters, varied in content, do represent the view of many, that the people of St Andrews should not allow historic monuments, precious locations and, indeed, the historic core of the town to be abandoned and allowed to deteriorate any further than at present.
The Preservation Trust is very aware of these concerns and is to begin a new strategy of involvement when the Honorary President of the Trust, Professor Charles McKean, addresses the trustees this week. Professor McKean is to offer the trustees the benefit of his vast experience in an effort to counteract trends which are unacceptable in a historic setting such as St Andrews provides.
Also in early stages is an initiative, shared by the community council and the Preservation Trust, to have the garden at No. 1 Greyfriars made into a feature worthy not only of its history but location in the centre of the town. The present site is in a totally unsatisfactory condition and the acceptance of this abomination should not be tolerated any longer.
The St Andrews Partnership is also combining with other groups in the town and, together, they are drawing up plans to deal with challenges and problems recognised by all.
The Pilgrim Foundation, in the recent past, has been the source of much progress with the creation of the superb gates at St Johns, the refurbished Cemetery Gates in The Pends, the funding of the Preservation Trust's Cast Iron Shop Fronts Project and the ongoing restoration of Crail's Lane. The achievements of the Foundation are remarkable. A new project immediately replaces a completed one. The dedication and imagination this group shows cannot be measured.
What is essential is that all involved work together with a common purpose and there appears to be indications that this unity is becoming seen as necessary policy, if aims and proposals are to become reality. — Yours, etc.,
ELIZABETH PENNY,
Chairman,
St Andrews Preservation Trust,
4 Queen's Gardens,
St Andrews.

Serious
consequences
Sir, — With reference to Lynn Walker's letter published on Friday, April 2, regarding HMO's not contributing to the local taxes, this has extremely serious consequences for the future.
It means less money being paid into the council pot.
The fact that the properties are council tax free makes them extremely attractive to speculators from outside the county who will outbid any local to obtain the property, as they are guaranteed a rent return.
There is always a student in need of accommodation, particularly if the student population is to be increased by a further 2000 in the near future.
A large number of ex-council houses have been bought up by speculators and turned into HMO's with the knock on effect of less housing stock for local youngsters who are being priced out of the town.
The properties, in most cases, are easily recognisable by the state of their gardens (you can't expect students who have studying and growing up to do to spend time cultivating).
These speculators are running a business for profit and should be made to contribute to the local rates.
Less and less money being paid in council tax into the Fife council pot will make St Andrews far from the Golden Goose but more like an egg that's gone 'off'. — Yours, etc.,
MRS A. ALEXANDER,
19 Forrest Street,
St Andrews.

Windfarm
debate
Sir, — I read that several communities are investigating erecting wind farms so the local community can benefit financially. I do not understand how these benefits will be distributed and how many people qualify as ''in the community?''
What I do understand is that wherever these turbines are located, some people will live nearer than one mile from them and the vast majority in that area will live outside this zone. Where is the democracy if a vote is taken?
A clear majority will be in favour of something that does not impinge on their lives while a minority will have them thrust upon them with all the now well-known effects. Wind turbine syndrome does exist and consists of all those physiological, psychological and neurological symptoms that neighbours suffer from but get relief when they move away. There are so many cases of the minority having to suffer in order that a very dubious dogma can be pursued.
All houses of those living nearby should be purchased by the Trust at full pre-turbine value so that the occupants can, without financial loss, live elsewhere. That will allow the claim of democracy to be sustained. — Yours, etc.,
Dr D King,
Kinaldy House,
St Andrews

Largoward
windmills
Sir, — Gordon Pay's letter last week (March 26) reminded me of a Danish saying about an eel in a radiator who also had to do a bit of wriggling …
True, it's "a bit severe" to say we only discovered his plan and (short notice) public meeting from the local paper, but it was the unfortunate case for those who didn't receive his leaflet. Pity he ran out of leaflets before he got to the proposed windmill neighbours at the Cassingrays (and missed my Mid Street letterbox) – for which profuse apologies at the meeting.
The "express intention" to inform the local people of his one-man community initiative would have impressed me more had he discussed his fundraising dream with the locals before (rather than after) submitting his planning application for two Dundee-type mega-turbines here. Mr Pay can rest assured that we CAN imagine what Dundee-type turbines will look like in the local landscape!
As to health effects, try Google (in Danish): vindmoller protester – and get the updated Danish situation among the Danish letters (with English translations). Gordon Pay's (mis)information about enormous windmill popularity in Denmark goes back to the days before the mega-turbines. These monsters may be heavenly for shareholders, but have proved pure hell for those who have to live near them! Their letters/reports make spooky reading and conclude with a serious warning to everyone at risk of getting large windmills for neighbours, urging them to protest before it is too late – or their peaceful lives could be ruined, and their houses rendered un-saleable. (On that subject, also see Google: vindmoller erstatning (which equals compensation for drop in property values over there).
If Councillor Scott-Hayward is "talking nonsense," he isn't the only one …!
Regarding the final tweet from Cloud Cuckoo Land – envisaging a wind co-op owned by a large number of local people – how many people in little Largoward could/would buy windmill shares? Chances are that most of the shares would be bought by outsiders - of whom one or two attended his information session with an interesting Q&A finale. Early questions were answered at such mind-numbing lengths that, sadly, Mr Pay ran out of time, so had to close the meeting and head home before the rest of the hall got a chance to quizz him.
It is a worrying thought that a Largoward windmills co-op with a manager in Cupar and a majority shareholding by outsiders (out of sighters) might land us with more mills than we'd bargained for here – this being a lovely, windy place for making wind-money! But I am not holding my breath for news that Mr Pay is planning a happy retirement in the middle of a lovely 'green' windmill forest. He knows, and we know that, if his co-op goes down the gurgler, shareholders can sell it to big business – having established precedence for windmills in Largoward!
How the locals would benefit from a mill co-op here remains a mystery to me.
And my impression from our public meetings is that many who were once in favour of windmills are beginning to go off them, which is a pity. But "small is beautiful" — let's keep them small, if we must have them – and make sure their "huge profits" are collected in a local community kitty! — Yours, etc.,
Aase Goldsmith,
Largoward

Windfarm
debate
Sir, — Councillor Scott-Hayward, in his criticism of the interest in renewables in the East Neuk locality, possibly fails to appreciate the level of interest there is in this subject.
Individual East Neuk community councils have shown considerable interest in renewables and some are forging ahead investigating a number of schemes . With the full support of the East Neuk Community Councils group, Community Energy Scotland is shortly to be conducting a feasibility study in the East Neuk area to determine what type of renewables, if any, are practicle and achievable. Following this it will be up to each village, through full public consultation, to see if they wish to go down the route of community owned renewables. If any do then they will need to form a community development trust who will own and run, and more importantly keep all the profits, of whichever type of renewable energy they go ahead with.
Councillor Scott-Hayward also expresses concern about the financial incentives that are " seducing " community councils to investigate renewables. Well, yes, we are looking at the financial incentives because we want to do the best for our communities. The figures that we are looking at show that one wind turbine can produce a government guaranteed income per year, every year, for 20 years. That income will become a "common good fund" owned and run by the community development trust and used exclusively within the community. I see no reason not to investigate any scheme that brings guaranteed income into a village which its expenditure is controlled exclusively by residents of that village.
In conclusion, all this is being done here is that community councils are looking at the possibilities that exist and when the full facts are known they will consult with the community to see if there is sufficient support. If there is then the project can be taken to the next level. If the support is not there then it will not go ahead. — Yours, etc.,
Martin Dibley,
Chairman,
East Neuk Community
Councils Group.

*******************
Sir, — Against the anticipated accusation of vulgarity in the term "shafted" in last week's letter "Neuk Energy" (T. Scott 17/03/10):
Shaft (O.E. sceaft] the handle of a hoe, hammer or sword; a shank or stem: a shaft of light, sound(?), wit; a revolving rod for transmitting power, a long shadow cast over a morning field, the parts of a crucifix. Metaphorical, as in sacrificial villages nailed to policy's cross; or heritage impaled by a giant pin. — Yours, etc.,
Dr Tim Scott,
13 Smiddy Burn,
Kingsbarns.

*********************
Sir, — Are wind farms an attempt to save the planet from the unproven threat of CO2, or a way of making money? Perhaps local communities should read the following opinion of a professor of economics at Toronto University before committing themselves to the installation of wind farms in their localities.
"There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions… Denmark, the world's most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6000 turbines generating 19 per cent of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50 per cent more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36 per cent in 2006 alone). …The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery…
Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe…. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, "windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense." Aase Madsen, the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it "a terribly expensive disaster." The Danish experience suggests wind energy is expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green. — Yours, etc.,
Angela Montford,
22 The Scores,
St Andrews.

*********************

Sir, — Good for Mike Scott-Hayward and Dr Tim Scott. Like them I question the way taxpayers' money is being spent on feasibility studies to examine the potential of endless, marginal at best, green schemes.
Here at Newburgh nearly £300,000.00 has been given to our local Community Trust to prepare an application for three giant turbines on Lindores Hill. There is, of course, no guarantee that a wind farm will be the result so there could, in the end, be none of the financial benefit to the community which is the great sales pitch of the scheme. The beneficiaries will be the consultants and managers of the scheme leading up to a planning application which may not win approval. It is all a tremendous gamble with taxpayers' money.
In north east Fife, the Scottish Government's Community and Renewable Energy Scheme will be providing funding to allow communities attracted by easy money to assess what Green Schemes can be brought forward. The viability studies and any resulting projects would probably be paid for through taxpayer-funded grants so communities will not be out of pocket. What I would like to know in due course is what funds are put into the assessment of all the possible schemes and what actually is the generating capacity eventually installed in micro hydro, wind, bio digesters etc., and what the real value returned to taxpayers is?
Costs on landscape, residential amenity and ecology have to be put in the balance when assessing the benefits.
Good business for the consultants but is it good for the taxpayer? — Yours, etc.,
David White,
Chairman,
Auchtermuchty Landscape and
Environment Group (ALE),
Thanecroft,
Newburgh.

**********************
Sir, — I'm interested to see that Councillor Scott-Hayward is taking up the cudgels on behalf of local people who feel that they have not had their views taken into account by the community council in relation to possible community wind turbines.
I feel that the debate against wind turbines does have its relevant points, but I would like to ask those complaining about not feeling consulted, when did they last attend a community council meeting? Community councils are meant to speak on behalf of communities and contain many caring, concerned members who wish to do some good for their communities. It is not their fault that the community shows little interest in their existence as they have limited resources and few local people will have any idea about what they do.
I would remind Councillor Scott-Hayward who is, in my view, trying to score some political points with his concern for these constituents, that the community councils in the East Neuk have, with the help of Mr Stutchfield, been trying to reduce fuel poverty by setting up a scheme for insulation. Renewable energy is the next step in the process of reducing dependency upon a centralised fuel source driven by the profit motive and with little interest in local communities energy problems.
I recognise that, sadly, wind turbines are negatively viewed by many but — placed in the correct locations — they can benefit a community as part of a package of energy measures. The green lobby has never said that wind power is the only solution and recognises many of the problems in trying to industrialise this source of energy. The true green view to energy use is to try and both reduce personal consumption, encourage better standards of energy efficiency in buildings and products, develop small scale renewables, such as solar which can be used by individual householders or local community groups and encourage generally greener lifestyles. I do not see the critics of wind power offering many solutions when they attack the product. How many critics of wind power have invested in renewable energy?
Much is made of the impact of wind turbines upon the landscape and wildlife. It is true that, wrongly placed, there can be problems, but when you view the landscape we live in it is mostly in Fife heavily influenced by man, and there are few natural features which are pristine and untouched. Some of us might view the mono culture of farming — with wide open fields and few hedges — as also a blight on the landscape. Wind turbines have, in my view, a degree of elegance not seen in other industrial plants producing energy such as coal-fired power stations. Fife has been more ravaged by coal than it ever will be by wind power.
With regard to wildlife impact, siting of wind turbines will need to be sensitive to the effects upon birds, especially large birds which may not always see a turbine turning. However, there are often solutions to reducing bird kill and I'd say to critics that, if there is a problem, there is often a way to find a solution by design modifications. Other environmental impacts upon wildlife are much greater than some wind turbines.
Finally, I'd like to defend Mr Stutchfield from Dr Scott's attack. Dr Scott should recognise that Mr Stutchfield has been a key figure in the setting up of the insulation project and he is genuinely wanting to assist anyone to reduce their dependency upon non-renewable sources of energy. I'm certain that he is a very responsible, caring individual who has a great deal of knowledge on renewable energy and is not a mouthpiece for any lobby, except those of us who care enough to want a better energy future for our children. — Yours, etc.,
Patrick Marks,
40 Lawmill Gardens,
St Andrews.

Neuk
energy
Sir, — The front page article on wind turbines in East Neuk villages, entitled "New Growth For East Neuk Energy" (Citizen, March 1 2), quotes Mr David Stutchfield as saying: "No one has said this is a bad idea." This is untrue. When Mr Stutchfield spoke to Kingsbarns Community Council on March 1, I made it clear that I think these wind turbines are a very bad idea. It was the second presentation to the community council on this topic, and both were equally unbalanced. Mr Stutchfield emphasises the monetary gains supposedly to be made by communities that "invest" in wind turbines, but says little about their impact on the landscape or wildlife. In other words, he presents propaganda, not balanced information. This is not a scrupulous or responsible approach.
So, for the less wide-eyed and gullible, here are some counterbalancing arguments: Firstly, wind turbines are not "green" if they destroy a valued and protected landscape, or dominate a community with their louring height, and restless, noisy motion.
Secondly, wind turbines are not a sustainable energy source if they are only built and installed with huge public subsidies, their manufacture and construction requires a great deal of energy from non-sustainable sources, they have a limited life-span and operate for less than 30 per cent of the time. And when they reach the end of their operating life, guess who will be responsible for removing them? No one, least of all the real beneficiaries of wind turbines - the companies who make them, largely at the taxpayer's expense.
But what really infuriates me about the wind turbine madness currently sweeping Fife, and Scotland, is the socially irresponsible manner in which its future dubious benefits are being outlined to local communities. There is no open debate about the pros and cons, and insufficient imagination is being shown by village audiences mesmerised by hollow notions of cheap, clean energy and abundant income for community projects. Even if such income were to be generated, who would administer it, and how would communities prevent the greedy from hogging it?
So, here is my scorecard for wind turbines in rural areas: Green? No, Sustainable? No, Socially responsible? No.
St Andrews and East Neuk communities need to wake up to the propaganda campaign being waged against them, before they are royally shafted by the wind turbine lobby. — Yours, etc.,
Dr Tim Scott,
13 Smiddy Burn,
Kingsbarns.