Name in the wind
don has seriously upset some male correspondents (Letters, 20 and 21 July).
Clark Cross should know that only in the Grand Slams and Wimbledon do women earn equal prize money to men. Otherwise they earn considerably less than men.
Many women tennis players, including Maria Erakovic and Serena Williams, would love to play five sets, while others, like Martina Navratilova and Maria Sharapova, have argued that men’s tournaments should be cut to three. They take a more flexible view of the subject.
David Hollingdale’s suggestion that there should be one singles competition, with men pitted against women, wouldn’t go down well with tennis fans. The fact that men generally have a physical advantage would mean the winner would almost always be a foregone conclusion.
Andy Murray never misses an opportunity to promote women players, and he quickly corrected the journalist who claimed that Sam Querry had become the first US player to reach a major semi-final since 2009, thus airbrushing Serena Williams’ 12 Grand Slam wins since that date out of history. CAROLYN TAYLOR Gagiebank
Wellbank Broughty Ferry, Dundee I totally agree with the views expressed by Lyndsey Ward in (Letters, 20 July). In particular, the use of the term, “industrial hardware”.
These developments are not “farms”. A fruit farm produces fruit. A fish farm produces fish. A “wind farm” does not produce wind. It produces electricity. I suspect the term “wind farm” was coined in order to give a comfy “green” feel to describe these monstrosities. We have coalpower stations, gas power stations, and nuclear power stations. Therefore in the name of consistency and accuracy they should be termed “wind power stations”. Or, in the interest of brevity, simply “powerstations”. Alternatively, we could follow the example of water power. “Hydroelectric” schemes (from the Greek: “Hydros” for water) have a nice feel to their name. Maybe we could try “anemoelectric” schemes (Greek: “Anemos” for wind)? Personally, I find the latter doesn’t flow easily off the tongue, andprefer the simple, and accurate, “power station”.
May I suggest that The Scotsman, in its quest for impartiality and accuracy, adopts this term in future?
As a footnote, we were driving past a wind power station recently. There was no wind. The turbines were immobile. I turned to my companion: “Is this static electricity?”
SIMON TROTTER Stirling Road, Edinburgh The letter from Lyndsey Ward did not mention that there is currently 7,000MW of over capacity installed on the Scottish Grid, nor provide details on how a 140 per cent surplus of generation plant can provide a profit for the £20 billion of capital spent on installing the units.
Just to add to the lack of detail on who pays the bill to ensure the surplus plant makes a large profit for its investors the Around Scotland section of your newspaper announces that a £2 billion wind farm capable of generating a further 420MW which had been given planning approval by Scottish ministers will now go ahead.
Perhaps Scottish ministers can explain to the 40 per cent of Scots living in fuel poverty as to how this project will ever make a profit and who will foot the bill?
IAN MOIR Queen Street Castle Douglas