Scottish newspaper is suppressing fair and informative debate on new nuclear power in Scotland

The sort of letter the Herald will publish
The kind of nuclear energy story that has dominated in the Herald recently

Professor John Robertson OBA

The Herald in recent weeks has had a heavy presence of reports pushing for new nuclear power stations to be be built in Scotland along with a few token oppositional reports such as one on the cracks in the ageing Torness reactor. The overwhelming message [Try searching for ‘Herald nuclear‘ to see for yourself.) has been that the SNP is betraying Scotland’s industrial, employment and energy prospects and completely ignoring the plethora of reports here revealing the weakness of, and the risks in, the case for new nuclear energy in Scotland. To read these, click on: https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/?s=nuclear

Friend of Talking-up Scotland, Frances McKie, wrote to the Herald in an attempt to counter the heavy bias and stifling of debate. She has been ignored. Please share this widely:

Dear Sir, 

Last week, the notorious nuclear lobby appeared to take over the front pages of “The Herald” newspaper . Such  brash, aggressive campaigning seemed unprecedented- even for them. Along with the current Labour administration in London, they have begun to sound truly hysterical as they continue to shriek that our Scottish Government must allow them to impose  more nuclear reactors in Scotland. We need to ask why.

At the same moment, EDF have just been given permission, by that same Labour administration, to continue operating their nuclear reactor at Torness for another five years-  despite the fact that it now has THE SAME NUMBER of cracks in its  graphite core that finally forced the closure of the Hunterston AGR- on safety grounds. The potential consequences and environmental and health risks to surrounding communities, of cracks in any part of a nuclear reactor,  are obviously very serious. For this reason, this careless attitude of the Labour Party – with governmental responsibility for safety – is very worrying. Again, we need to ask why. 

Meanwhile, in France, after two years of huge problems with corrosion and shutdowns in most of their nuclear reactors, the Civaux 2 Reactor, recently “repaired”,  has just  been shut down again, to “repair the repairs”, while new  corrosion is investigated. We should surely ask- urgently -why corrosion and cracks at Torness are ignored,  while the French nuclear inspectorate demand action for safety.

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/stress-corrosion-concerns-resurface-at-civaux-2/

The answer to all these questions, in my opinion, is very simply that Westminster requires Scotland, which produces more sustainable, clean electricity than we can use, to remain, firstly,  a producer of nuclear waste and secondly, to be  implicated in the need to secure supplies of uranium for  Westminster’s very stupid backward lunge towards nuclear fission.

I hope the Scottish Government stands firm: we are reliving a horrible history. I was 25 years old when a London Labour Government nominated Galloway AS the UK High Level Nuclear Waste Dump and Orkney AS the UK National Uranium Mine. Fifty years later, having, apparently, despite Chernobyl  and Fukushima, learned nothing about the pointlessness of distance from nuclear disasters  and pollution, it is coming at poor old ” remote and expendable”  Scotland again.

Yours sincerely,

Frances McKie 

Editorial footnote – Why might a newspaper owned by an English corporation favour the views of other corporations with interests in nuclear power and not the interests of its readers in Scotland?

14 thoughts on “Scottish newspaper is suppressing fair and informative debate on new nuclear power in Scotland”

  1. Hi John , I just noticed that you used my first version of the letter. It is typical of me to have to correct stuff . I got it wrong that Torness has twice the number of cracks at Hunterston The second , corrected, version says that Torness has the same number of cracks in graphite that forced closure of Hunterston. Could you change that for me? Sorry to cause bother.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  2. Just finished watching ‘Suspicion’ TV drama about a US company who victimised and ruined the reputation using false and currilous news about a scientist who produced a report many years previously highlighting the dangers of Climate change and the Fossil Fuel producers as the main culprit polluters (sound familiar?). Strange how fiction can often mirror reality but I guess Herald readers would find it difficult to distinguish between the two.

    Robbo.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  3. Fortunately the Heralds daily printed circulation is now below 10,000 copies per day and continues to fall.

    I wonder what will close down first? The Herald or Torness?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  5. Thanks Frances.
    I think your editorial note answers your own question, it’s an English corporation, posing as Scottish as with so much of the media deployed in Scotland.
    I wonder how many people would know if asked, about Scotland not being allowed it’s own broadcasting over the airwaves, has to rely on other means if any, to debunk the British states’ propaganda.

    Like

    Reply

  6. For a bit of ‘fun’, I asked both ChatGPT and Grok (for free) the following question: ‘Given its actual and potential ability to generate green electricity from onshore wind, offshore wind and tidal power, should Scotland invest in more battery storage and reliable sources like tidal energy or in nuclear generation, mindful of cost and legacy of nuclear waste?

    ChatGPT concluded: ‘Scotland should prioritize investment in offshore wind, tidal energy, and battery storage. These technologies have the potential to provide a more reliable, clean, and cost-effective energy system while minimizing long-term environmental and financial risks. Nuclear energy could remain a small part of the overall energy mix if needed for baseload power, but the focus should clearly be on harnessing Scotland’s renewable resources and investing in energy storage technologies to complement them.’

    And Grok recommended this: ‘Scotland should prioritize investment in battery storage and tidal energy over nuclear generation for the following reasons:

    Cost-Effectiveness: Renewables and storage are cheaper and faster to deploy than nuclear, with tidal costs approaching competitiveness with offshore wind.

    Environmental Sustainability: Tidal and storage avoid the long-term nuclear waste burden, aligning with Scotland’s net-zero and environmental goals.

    Grid Flexibility: Battery storage, combined with tidal’s predictable output, supports a flexible, renewable-heavy grid, addressing variability without nuclear’s inflexibility.

    Economic Growth: Tidal and storage investments drive job creation in coastal communities and position Scotland as a global leader in marine energy.

    Public and Policy Support: The SNP’s ban on new nuclear and public concerns about waste favor renewables.

    And Grok ended with this: ‘Implementation Steps:

    Expand Battery Storage: Accelerate projects like Coalburn 2 and Devilla, and invest in long-duration storage (e.g., pumped hydro, hydrogen) to meet 2045 peak demand.

    Scale Tidal Energy: Support projects like MeyGen’s Phase 2 (59 MW by 2029) and leverage the £20 million annual UK funding to commercialize tidal technology.

    Grid Upgrades: Invest in transmission infrastructure to reduce curtailment and enable efficient renewable integration, complementing the Western HVDC Link’s export capacity.

    Policy Support: Maintain the ban on new nuclear plants and prioritize funding for renewables and storage to align with public sentiment and net-zero targets.

    By focusing on battery storage and tidal energy, Scotland can build a resilient, affordable, and sustainable energy system that leverages its renewable strengths while avoiding the high costs and environmental risks of nuclear power.’

    Posted without further comment other than to say the above extracts are only the concluding parts of longer responses.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  8. My own letter on nuclear power (its a fraud on Scotland) was published, tho’ it was my 3rd effort on that subject—“try, try again”.

    They don’t often publish my “best” letters but I have no complaints as they allow me a voice.

    They even published my opinion that an independence referendum could not be held fairly, because of the extreme partisan nature of the media that operate in Scotland. It’s my belief that Scotland is and was a colony (Scotland being extinguished and incorporated into a Greater England/English Empire in 1707–these are the published academic views of historians quoted by the Westminster government in 2014).

    I believe we are fighting to decolonise Scotland, and a majority of pro-independence votes at an election should (as with other colonies) lead to independence—with negotiations round the peripheral issues.

    gavinochiltree

    Liked by 7 people

    Reply

      1. It’s in the hard copy-don’t see it in digital.

        if there is a “fraud” on nuclear power, then it is being perpetrated on Scotland. Why is Scotland importing relatively small quantities of electricity from England a problem as the NIA complains, when England imports substantially higher quantities from Scotland (net exports 2024 19.7TWh), and we are in a common energy market? The jobs at Torness will inevitably go as it takes decades to build a new nuclear reactor, so a new plant to “save” the jobs would have had to have been started around 2000—-when Labour were in power, north and south, but at that time rejected new nuclear. The “thousands of jobs” are another Labour/NIA illusion as the main contractors will be French with some English input. £Billions of investment?—the reality is that Scotland won a measly £280 million at Hinckley Point C on an estimated cost for that site of £42—£49 billion—-a per capita share would have been about £4billion. There is no reason to assume Scotland would gain more work simply because it is to be built in Scotland. I expect the other component of supposed nuclear value-added to Scotlands economy is the endless decommissioning of nuclear sites which are costing us all a fortune. “Lazards Levelized Cost of Energy 2025” has nuclear generation at four times the cost of wind, so nuclear will not bring down the cost of electricity. Small Modular Reactors are even worse as they lack economies of scale: they produce more waste; they require security 24/7 and we still have no idea of the cost of electricity produced—-one of those involved in the SMR competition (NuScale) could not find industry buyers for its electricity at its proposed plants, as even with Fderal support, the price mooted was too high.

        I think you need to fact-check every part of the nuclear industry’s weasel words as they are misleading tosh, but also party political. Scotland also has substantial new renewables generation and substantial storage in the pipeline. Scotland could, at worst, burn its own natural gas (suplimented with 25% green hydrogen) for electricity generation instead of exporting it for others to burn.

        gavinochiltree

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

Leave a reply to stewartb Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.