It is reassuring to be told that Ruth Wishart's views about wind turbines in last week's Helensburgh Advertiser do not represent editorial policy for our local newspaper which is open to differing perspectives. Let us hope that the public debate which the Advertiser, to its credit, is organising will be balanced and well informed.

There seems to be a danger that the wider discourse about wind power may be seen crudely as 'for or against'. However, middle positions may be gaining recognition. It is interesting that the government appears to be moderating its stance, recognising that there are places where onshore turbines are less (or not) appropriate - especially in Scotland's more precious landscapes and close to settlements.

A middle position can support renewable energy in general and see a role for some onshore wind structures - of the right sorts in the right places - but has worries about their level of efficiency, environmental considerations, visual intrusiveness near towns and possible challenges to the welfare of localities. Additional aspects include newly-emerging evidence such as that the functioning life of wind turbines may be shorter than developers often assume.

Meanwhile, technologies of other, less contentious, renewable energy sources are improving. So greater care in assessing applications for turbines may be happening.

Some proposals conform to the council's development plan and its wind energy capacity study, while others (including the Cove application and the incipient Helensburgh proposals) appear not to. Community councils and other local government bodies are required by guidelines to reach balanced decisions and national bodies, such as Scottish Natural Heritage, assess each case on its merits. We might hope that the early rush to wind, stimulated by targets and subsidies, may now be settling into a more considered process in which evidence, analysis and long term considerations may play greater parts.

Personally I hope so.

Alastair Macbeth Helensburgh