Sir, I read with interest your story of Thursday 21 August regarding Angus Council’s decision to scrap the traditional summer and Christmas midday closures for its schools. Having spent most of my career in schools, including some in Angus, I think this step a very ill-advised one.
Never before have there been so many demands made by employers on teachers’ time and talents. The Curriculum for Excellence is being implemented without most of the promised resources and funding and, like other public servants, teachers’ pension contributions have increased whilst pay offers kept to a derisory low level.
However, unlike other public servants, teachers are continually asked to give up their own time. It is a fact that without goodwill, the learning experience for children would be very limited. Saturday morning sports teams, lunch-time chess and debating clubs, after-school supported study, theatre trips, and many other extra-curricular activities just wouldn’t happen if it wasn’t for goodwill.
This is why Angus Council’s decision to claw back a handful of hours at Christmas and summer is baffling and naive. It makes no business or educational sense. Traditionally, there is a very low turnout of pupils on the last day of term so there will be no added educational value.
There was also the feeling amongst staff that, though midday closure was a very small gesture, it was some sort of acknowledgement by management of the countless hours given freely by teachers.
It is interesting that no other Scottish authorities plan to follow Angus Council’s initiative. Perhaps it is not too late for Angus’s new education chiefs, some of whom are strangers to teaching, to rethink their policy before teachers decide to follow their example and withdraw their own goodwill.
Jamie Buchan. Grove Road, Dundee.
Independence biggest threat
Sir, In recent weeks the SNP have upped their scaremongering over the future of the health service in Scotland. The truth is that health is 100% devolved and expert analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has shown that a separate Scotland would face spending cuts of £6 billion over and above anything taking place in the UK today.
That’s the real risk to our NHS in Scotland.
Since 1999 the health service in Scotland has been 100% under the control of the Scottish Parliament. It is the actions of the Scottish Government that affect the health service in Scotland, not anything that happens in England. Independence is the biggest threat to the NHS in Scotland.
Avril Simpson. Welton Corner, Forfar.
An attempt to distract voters
Sir, After more than two years of referendum campaigning the SNP are now claiming the NHS in Scotland is under threat because of some privatisation of health care services in England. Having lost the economic argument they are panicking and inventing fictitious scare stories.
The actual reality contrasts significantly with the picture they are presenting. The NHS budget has increased in each of the past three years in England, as it has done in Scotland. NHS health services are free at the point of delivery in England as they are in Scotland, regardless of whether they are privately provided or not. The SNP accusations are totally hypocritical as since 2007, hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on private health care in Scotland by the NHS to reduce waiting lists. Commissioning private health care services is certainly not a policy unique to England
Most importantly the health care budget is entirely devolved to the Scottish Government. In other words, they are totally responsible for our health care in Scotland with no influence from Westminster. This is just a desperate attempt to distract Scottish voters from the real issues.
Gordon Adam. Newbigging.
Weren’t they consulted?
Sir, The Scottish Justice Secretary, the ScottishChildren’s Minister and the Scottish Culture Minister have all publicly said that a referendum on retention of the monarchy could follow soon after independence. Why bother when Mr Salmond has said that the monarchy would be retained and Ms Sturgeon’s draft Constitutional Bill proposes the Queen to be Head of State and succeeded as such by her heirs and successors?
Do Mr Salmond’s cabinet colleagues, Mr Canavan (Campaign Chairman) and his campaign allies (the Scottish Socialists, the pro-independent Greens) et al, not know that the leader’s official policy is contained in his White Paper, or were they not consulted?
Gerry Duffy. 11 Larch Avenue, Glenrothes.
Make believe
Sir, Mr Brian Cox is undoubtedly a very fine actor, but in his support of the Yes campaign he appears to be influenced entirely by the world of make believe.
Harry Davey. 12 Dores Drive, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.
Act formalises good practice
Sir, On August 21, The Courier published a piece on the Named Person provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act, with reference to a public meeting being held on the issue.
The piece was entirely critical of what is a very important part of the legislation aimed at safeguarding children’s well-being and no reflection of the Scottish Government’s position was included.
The Scottish Government, of course, believes that parents and carers are the best people to raise their children and has consistently said so. The named person is someone that parents can go to if they need a bit of extra help or advice. It provides the single point of contact that parents told us they wanted.
During consultation on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act, 72% of respondents agreed with the proposal to provide a named person for every child or young person up to the age of 18. The measure is also supported by the children’s charities and professionals who, day in, day out, support children and families across the country.
Most children and families value the support and advice they get from their school or local health services. The named person formalises the good practice that is already in place in much of the country.
Information is only shared if there is a concern about risk to well-being. If information has to be shared between professionals, it will be done in a proportionate and appropriate way and nearly always with the full consent of the family involved.
It is already accepted practice for services to share concerns that they may have about children. What the legislation does is ensure they are shared with a single point of contact. We are also confident the act complies with existing legislation including ECHR.
Aileen Campbell. Minister for Children and Young People, Scottish Government.
Turbines too near housing
Sir, Tuesday’s article, Windfarm is making me ill, claims woman, highlights the ill-health being suffered by Ms Teresa Glen, who lives in view of the Little Raith Wind Farm, Lochgelly.
Ms Glen is one of many local residents who claim their health has been adversely affected since Little Raith became operational, but it appears that not a lot is being done about the situation.
While the site operators, Kennedy Renewables, state they have fulfilled all planning conditions, it should be noted that at present the closest turbine is 1.3 kilometres from housing. The recommended set-back distance is currently 2.0 kilometres.
This raises the suggestion that the wind farm is sited too closely to communities. It is not unreasonable to think then that this is perhaps contributing to the incidence of locally reported ill health.
To add insult to injury, Kennedy Renewables have applied to Fife Council to erect a further six, slightly taller and more powerful turbines on the site, to be sited more than 300 metres closer to Lochgelly and Cowdenbeath.
The more powerful turbines have a recommended set-back distance of 2.5 kilometres. Nearest housing would be 875 metres away, giving a set-back distance of only around one third of that recommended.
Joe Purves. 31 McKenzie Crescent Lochgelly.