Hy­dro charge an ex­tra tax bur­den

The Press and Journal (North-East) - - FEATURES -

SIR, – Miss Nancy Ni­chol­son’s ar­ti­cle (Farm­ing, Novem­ber 11) in­di­cates that ru­ral busi­nesses may now pay (pre­vi­ously ex­empt) for mon­i­tor­ing the small-scale hy­dro schemes while larger hy­dro pro­duc­ers will have their charges for mon­i­tor­ing re­duced. Sepa are to have a con­sul­ta­tion.

It can seem that it is rea­son­able to pay for a ser­vice. How­ever I fail to see how an ex­tra “tax” bur­den for ru­ral busi­nesses in­clud­ing farm­ing, many of whom are the na­tion’s pri­mary food and drink pro­duc­ers, can make any sense.

By def­i­ni­tion, the ru­ral busi­nesses are not in the ur­ban ar­eas and as such some ser­vices may be more dif­fi­cult to pro­vide, but pe­nal­is­ing their pro­duc­tion costs by Sepa will no doubt be

claimed as sanc­tioned by an ap­par­ently fash­ion­able “un­prov­able, myth­i­cal” ma­jor­ity.

It seems any way to raise money will do and not once do we think that we must cut our cloth to what we can af­ford or sus­tain. I won­der if con­sul­ta­tions are more ex­pen­sive than the monies col­lected. The as­sault by Ed­in­burgh or its agen­cies on the bet­ter off or hard work­ers con­tin­ues.

Jack Slupin­ski, Huntly Place, Aboyne

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.