Today’s letters to The Courier.
Sir, – Many people will be sadly disappointed that the new members of Perth and Kinross Council are still totally against retaining the City Hall.
Thanks to Historic Scotland, they are once again having to attempt to find a developer to take it off their hands, but from their comments, are obviously hoping that no one will come forward to buy it!
No-one seems to be prepared to look at other options for this solid old building. They were prepared to spend £3.28 million to demolish it, but not a single elected member has suggested spending a similar amount to provide Perth with a modern conference facility.
The Concert Hall is useless for conferences as it lacks the basic requirement of meeting space with catering under the one roof. All that is required is for the interior of the old City Hall to be replaced with a modern two-level conference centre. Meeting space would be on the upper floor and catering on the lower level. Perth could then have a modern conference facility to attract smaller conferences for up to 400 to 500 delegates.
Many local organisations would welcome this meeting space and there could easily be room for a central Tourist Office, market stalls, art galleries, and craft shops. It would also be the only facility in the city able to accommodate large-scale weddings and dinner dances – just like it used to do!
It is unfortunate our recently elected councillors seem to lack the vision, or enthusiasm, to even explore the possibility of retaining the City Hall.
Perth needs new business and this would bring in many more visitors to help regenerate the city centre.
Robin Valentine. 3 Burnbank, Bridge of Earn.
Arrest was way over the top
Sir, -While I do not think it was acceptable for the teenager who put the comment on Twitter about Tom Daley’s father to do so – and of course it was offensive – I do think the police have gone way over the top by arresting the person responsible.
This raises some serious questions about the rights of free speech, if this person had sent the message to someone who was not famous, would they have been arrested? The internet and blogs are full of offensive material.
What about people in school playgrounds where nasty comments are rife, does this mean that children are now going to be arrested? I really think that this is a PR exercise for the police and a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Gordon Kennedy. 117 Simpson Square, Perth.
Can we afford to stay in UK
Sir, – Malcolm Parkin, in his letter (August 1), states that in the event of independence each man, woman and child in Scotland would be saddled with a debt of around £20,000.
The reality is, that as citizens of the UK, we are already saddled with this debt and it is not caused, as his letter seems to suggest, by Scotland becoming an independent nation.
Indeed if he looks at the UK government’s own, GER figures, he will see that as a % of GDP, Scotland’s deficit is consistently lower than that of the rest of the UK.
With a population share of approximately 8.4% of the UK population, we provide 9.6% of the UK’s revenue.
The question he should be asking is not can Scotland afford to be an independent country but rather can Scotland afford to remain part of the UK?
John Henderson. Roebrek, Linross, Glamis.
It’s time they confronted this
Sir, – Scottish Environment LINK is to be congratulated for calling for better protection of the £100 million marine environment on which businesses in Tayside and Fife depend (Courier July 31). But why in the joint letter to tourism minister Mr Ewing did LINK not mention the hundreds of turbines planned for the coastal waters between Aberdeen and Edinburgh?
Only the day before, The Courier reported an application for 125 massive turbines nine miles off the coast at Fife Ness. These are surely the biggest threat imaginable to sea and migratory birds, marine mammals and the whole underwater ecosystem.
The tourism sector is notoriously shy of controversy or damaging the confidence crucial to its market, but it really is time it confronted the elephant in the room, or the turbine in the sea, before it’s too late.
Linda Holt. Dreel House, Pittenweem.
This will affect every one of us
Sir, – I feel I must take issue with Dr John Cameron (Letters, August 1) over his dismissal of melting sea ice around Greenland as ”certainly not cause for alarm.” The vast majority of climate scientists in the world are in agreement that human beings, through fossil fuel use, are causing instability in our climate at a rate never experienced before.
The Arctic area is now at the frontline of the warming climate, heating up twice as fast as anywhere else. This should act as a major warning sign, as every one of us on the planet is affected by the health of the Arctic. Reflecting the sun’s rays back into the atmosphere, it acts like a giant air-conditioner. We mess with this at our peril.
Yet oil companies such as Shell see the melting ice as an opportunity to access oil reserves deep below – how crazy is that?
Sally Romilly. 4 Westwood Terrace, Newport.
A bigger question
Sir, – You report (July 31), controversy over the council’s decision to buy back the sixth flat in a Charleston block it owns and is refurbishing. Why is no-one questioning the bigger decision to put the refurbished flats on the market when there is dire need for affordable rented housing?
Sarah Glynn. Broughty Ferry
Astonishing over-reaction
Sir, – Rev Dempsey’s letter, amongst others, Friday, July 27, accusing Alex Salmond of behaving like a Nazi, really is an astonishing over-reaction from someone who supposedly espouses Christian beliefs.
The Nazis murdered millions of people, and to compare the Scottish government with them is a despicable act.
The proposed legislation has cross-party support, and has been publicly endorsed by all the party leaders. Rev Dempsey’s inclusion of the independence referendum, and his obvious Unionist leanings, perhaps explain his anti-SNP rant.
The Catholic Church tried to hijack the consultation from within, and outwith Scotland, in a blatant attempt to skew the result in favour of their own agenda.
Given the autocratic nature of the Catholic Church hierarchy, they are in no position to accuse anyone of behaving in a dictatorial manner.
Ken Clark. Broughty Ferry.
Should be the same for us
Sir, – Gordon Wilson (Courier July 28) has again warned the SNP of the risk of losing the votes in the Scottish Referendum if it proceeds with legislation on SSMs.
Obviously the SNP would not wish for people’s preoccupation to be with another referendum demanded by the two-thirds majority of the ”consultation” exercise. My experience in education taught me that whatever was proposed actually happened – the consultation was the ”democratic” way of involving the stakeholders.
The SNP have indicated that the MPs will take a ”conscience vote” on this divisive issue and that a constitutional referendum is inappropriate. My questions to them would be – Why can a European country (Slovenia) ,a young democracy since 1999, have a constitutional referendum on this issue while we, a centuries-old democracy, cannot? Secondly, if this is a matter of conscience for MPs, why can it not be a matter of conscience for those who elected MPs?
Philip Kearns. 47 Grove Road, Dundee.
Couples do have a choice
Sir, – Much has been made that the ”majority” of responses to the consultation on same sex marriage were against the proposals and the lack of ”democracy” in ignoring this ”majority”.
Firstly, this was a consultation, not a referendum and its purpose was to seek a range of opinions.
Many thousands of postcards came from the Catholic Church’s anti equality campaign and these postcards only contained one possible response, ”No”. Had the church hierarchy had the courage of their convictions they would have offered their congregations a free vote . . . a vote of conscience.
Finally, we should remember that Scotland is a country where couples have a choice. Today the majority of couples in Scotland are not choosing religious marriage, indeed more people are choosing Humanist Society Scotland marriages than unions in the Catholic church.
Ross Wright. Celebrant and spokesperson, Humanist SocietyScotland.
Why promote those who shout loudest?
Sir, – Anyone reading a newspaper or watching the television could be forgiven for thinking the population of Scotland was 95% homosexual and 5% heterosexual, when in fact the figures are closer to the reverse. Why, then, would any government even consider promoting the interests of such a minority with legislation contrary to the wishes of the majority?
The Scottish government carried out a consultation exercise which attracted 80,000 responses but no results were published. I am prepared to predict a two- thirds majority against same sex marriage legislation, which would include The Church of Scotland along with The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
At present legislation exists to allow same sex partnerships, which provide equal consideration under the law similar to married couples, so why would the Scottish Government wish to further promote such minorities before others in far greater need?
Democracy is majority rule not to be misused at the behest of those who shout loudest.
Alan Bell. Roods, Kirriemuir.