Sir, In his “fabricating a statement” complaint (October 24) Councillor Bryan Poole merely denigrates The Courier, which unambiguously quoted the words attributed to him. He blames Pipeland’s delays on what are surely straightforward “planning approvals” (October 17). Does he deny that quotation?
He might also explain why, notwithstanding the judicial review, the planning-to-completion duration of more than four years for Madras/Pipeland (1450 pupils) contrasts with two years for Dunfermline HS (1800 pupils) although “the scale of the engineering challenge regarding Madras is no different to . . . other major construction projects”.
Who is “deluded” and “detached from reality”?
He asserts “incorrect information demands a response”, but still refuses to publicise his “email evidence” allegedly contradicting the university’s statement on their 2012 discussions (May 22).
Finally, he claims Pipeland’s £42.7 million current forecast reflects “construction industry inflation” on the £40 million budget.
Certain costs like Muir’s £1.7 million windfall incur no inflation. The extra £2.7 million equals 14% annual-ised since April 3, when Cllr Poole and Depute Leader (Planning) Lesley Laird assured us Pipeland would definitely be “within budget” and a staggering 22% pa on the school building cost alone, as Cllr Poole says it has “nothing to do with site preparation”.
We await the full final costings with interest!
John Birkett. 12 Horseleys Park, St Andrews.
Development to continue?
Sir, There is (until December 8) a consultation on the FifePlan, the new “local” plan covering the whole of Fife. The plan represents Fife Council’s “settled view” of what the final plan should be. Paper copies have been placed in local libraries, but there is no drop-in event in St Andrews.
Under the heading St Andrews Area Strategy, para. 61 states: “The importance of the St Andrews green belt is underpinned by TAYplan and the policies in this plan. The new secondary school to be built at Pipeland to replace Madras College has been an exceptional proposal justified by community needs and does not open the remainder of the green belt to unjustified development. The plan also provides planning guidance on the re-use of the existing Madras College sites at South Street and Kilrymont once the new school is built.”
The reference to the new school “to be built at Pipeland” implies that Fife Council has pre-determined the outcome of the application (14/02249/ARC). It is still under consultation and was supposed to come to committee in September, but has not yet been approved by councillors.
There is also the strange reference to “unjustified development”. Who is going to decide whether development is “justified” the Muir Group and Fife Council?
Given the rate at which, and the way in which, local plan policies are currently being overridden, this statement seems to flag up the intention to develop the southern hillside and the rest of green belt.
It would be unwise to depend on any protection from Fife Council (including its officials), who see the landscape setting of St Andrews simply as a development opportunity.
P M Uprichard. St Andrews.
Language ideas a bit confused
Sir, I yield to no one in my admiration of James Crumley as a writer on nature and landscape, but his article in Tuesday’s Courier showed that his ideas on language are somewhat confused.
He describes the Pictish and Brittonic languages used in Dark Age Scotland as being “The Welsh version of Gaelic”. Now Gaelic and Welsh are both Celtic languages, but Welsh is not a version of Gaelic, any more than Italian is a version of Portuguese.
He correctly identifies Balgay as being a place name of Gaelic origin, but goes on to claim that the name of the River Tay is also Gaelic. This is quite mistaken as the first mention of the Tay is by Tacitus in the first century AD, several hundred years before Gaelic was spoken in Scotland.
I agree with Mr Crumley that a variety of languages was spoken in Dark Age and medieval Scotland but it is ludicrous to use that to justify the expenditure of millions of pounds of public money on the self-perpetuating clique of Gaelic educators, bureaucrats and broadcasters.
In the Dundee context it is disproportionate to even consider issues such as bilingual signs on the basis that Gaelic was used by the ruling elite in the area for a few hundred years about a millennium ago.
Mr Laurie Richards (Letters, October 29) suggests Gaelic is in the position Welsh was “50 or so years ago” and suggests it has since become “revitalised as a living language”. The facts tell a different story. In the 1961 census 26% of the Welsh population spoke Welsh. By the latest census in 2011 that had dropped to 19%, despite enormous expenditure and some elements of compulsion on people and organisations to use Welsh.
Of course anyone wishing to learn Gaelic should be encouraged to do so but the bureaucratic imposition of “Gaelic Language Plans” will achieve nothing and will be at the expense of other more necessary local authority services.
Robert Cairns. Eastergate Cottage, Harrietfield, Perth.
Insulting words from Jennifer
Sir, How dare Jennifer Dempsie dismiss “Nigel Farage and his party south of the border” as “unsavoury”? Is she not sufficiently grown up to accept that the electorate strongly dislikes this mudslinging between parties?
It does not matter for whom we vote, it has been our right since 1872 to vote according to our consciences without fear of criticism. In one short phrase she insults thousands of voters as virtual idiots or loony right-wingers.
Any reading of the better papers, amongst which I include The Courier, would understand that people north and south of the border support UKIP with what they believe to be very good reasons.
For intelligent people it is highly regrettable they should be insulted by a journalist in even the worst of rags. Shame on both you and her!
Robert Lightband. Clepington Court, Dundee.
They want the British back
Sir, I have followed the discussion between Derek Farmer and Allan MacDougall with interest, but for Mr MacDougall to suggest that the people of our ex-colonies might feel well rid of us is total nonsense and betrays a lack of personal experience of these nations.
Before I retired I was involved in work all over the world, including ex-British colonial lands. In the main, the contractors I was working for would hire local people when they could. It was my pleasure to find myself working alongside these people and learning about their history and culture.
Often, while chatting over a cup of tea or coffee, the subject of freedom from British colonial rule would come up and I have lost count of the number of ordinary working people in these lands who told me that they “wish the British would come back”.
Many of these countries are blessed with natural resources which should make them among the richest per capita nations on Earth. Sadly they are plagued by the corruption and blatant nepotism of their political leaders. Thus, while some of the richest people on Earth live in, and run these countries, the ordinary people remain among the poorest on Earth.
It is no surprise therefore that the ordinary people would like to see us back, while Mr MacDougall only hears the view of the political leaders who would be horrified at the idea of Britain getting involved with their countries again.
(Captain) Ian F McRae. 17 Broomwell Gardens, Monikie.