Sir, My husband and I went along to the Bannockburn Live event on Saturday. We were really looking forward to this event which was billed as being one of the year’s highlights in Scotland.
We were appalled at the poor organisation. Long queues, particularly to actually get into the ground after parking the car 50 minutes. Another 45 minutes’ queuing to see the re-enactment which was very badly done. It looked under-rehearsed and was, in fact, embarrassing.
It trivialised an important part of our history. The people manning the sound system seemed unable to operate it properly as on more than one occasion we were treated to swearing and inappropriate comments.
Trying to get something to eat was another queuing marathon. There weren’t enough food outlets for so many people only four in total. It took more than an hour to get an expensive dish of pasta.
There were very few craft stalls and when we tried to get back into the area with the medieval encampment after actually managing to eat, we were told we had to queue again. We couldn’t even get a cup of coffee without queuing for more than 30 minutes.
If the organisers wanted so many people through the gate they should have been able to handle those numbers more efficiently than they did on Saturday.
Even leaving the site was traumatic. Poor organisation with Q4S staff who obviously hadn’t been trained properly. It was a thoroughly unpleasant experience which cost nearly £50 before even getting through the entrance.
Listening to the views of many foreign tourists, we weren’t alone in our opinions. It definitely didn’t enhance their visit to our country.
If Robert the Bruce had organised his battle plan along the same lines I think the outcome would have been very different. Not one of Scotland’s finest hours.
Suzanne Milne. Forfar.
Let’s look at real figures
Sir It never fails to amaze me how royalist supporters can twist statistics to try to protect the interests of this privileged aristocratic royal family in an outdated system.
They say that it is a bargain at 56 pence each for everyone in Britain, but this still comes to more than £35 million every year. They also do not include the full cost of maintaining their many castles and palaces, planes, trains and automobiles, which are used exclusively by them.
They are also afraid to include the formidable cost of security for the whole family. A recent booklet published by the Republican Movement puts the cost at around £300 million a year, a figure I believe to be nearer the true cost.
Just think about comparing these contrasting figures and think which is nearer the truth. In an age where more and more people are living in poverty and attending food banks to stay alive it is an affront to the British people. Voting “yes” at the referendum will give people the chance to abolish this outdated system and choose an elected Scottish head of state.
Alister Rankin. 93 Whyterose Terrace, Methil, Leven.
Do they have so little to do?
Sir, I was completely dumbfounded by the hypocritical and arrogant attitude shown by Perth And Kinross Council in their statement justifying ordering taxi drivers to smarten up as it “would reflect on the image of Perth” (Courier, Saturday).
I think this smacks of double standards, to say the least, given that Perth’s image at the moment is full of eyesores. For example, the South Inch park; St Paul’s Church, which has been going on for years and still has not been sorted; The Cruachan pub in South Methven Street has lain derelict for years and looks disgraceful and, of course, the City Hall. I think Perth and Kinross Council need to get their own house in order before telling others to smarten up to improve the image of Perth.
Where do they get these people who come up with such inane ideas? Are people at the council really that short of things to do to they have to come up with arrogant nonsense like this?
Gordon Kennedy. 117 Simpson Square, Perth.
Had to laugh out loud
Sir, I could not help laughing out loud at the reader’s letter expressing outrage over the Vote No leaflet (Saturday’s Courier) how dare the UK Government use public money to produce it, especially as it was “expensive-looking”.
Obviously this was an inexcusable use of taxpayers’ funds unlike the Holyrood publication, Scotland’s Future.
No doubt your correspondent would regard its 650 pages of dubious all-talking, all-dancing, all-singing Utopian assertions, some already challenged by relevant people, as being the very model of frugality with public funds and of non-partisan information forbye, of course.
ADF Maclean. 6 Clive Street, Dundee.
That “other” document . . .
Sir, Perhaps your correspondent who is “appalled” at the 15-page pamphlet supporting Better Together which, he claims, is “depriving us of information essential to sound judgement” and a “false use and malicious abuse of public money” should reflect on the 649-page Scotland’s Future produced by the SNP government which provided little information (even in that number of pages) and few answers. His comments could be much more aptly applied to that.
D J Hogarth. 12 Moyness Park Drive, Blairgowrie.