Should Scots not pay less for TV licence?

Sir,—I have been watching the main London-based BBC TV news each day this year and have found very few news stories relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but 99% of it relating to England, even news relative only to England such as education and health, which are devolved in Scotland, so not relevant to us.

I contacted the BBC complaints department to point this out and Anne Lavan, BBC Information, informed me that: “The BBC is interested in Scottish events. We employ six reporters and correspondents—in addition to the BBC Scotland team—specifically to report on the news in Scotland.”

She went on to say that: “However, the reality is that 50 million people live in England and five million live in Scotland, so, inevitably, it is going to seem like there is more English news.”

Does that mean, then, Scottish viewers should pay less for their TV licence?

Lives will be affected

Sir,—I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the Angus Council meeting in the Reid Hall and listen to the submissions from the floor and the councillors’ debate on the application to build eight wind turbines on Ark Hill.

It was a mammoth meeting, as befitted the subject matter, but after it ended, at about midnight, I left with one particular abiding thought. Whether or not these massive pieces of machinery have an unattractive visual impact; whether or not the wildlife whose habitats are destroyed are important; whether or not the noise the turbines make is annoying; whether or not tourists will be attracted or repelled by them; there is one thing of which there can be no doubt—the building of a wind farm in the vicinity of people’s homes can have a truly monumental impact on the lives of those people.

It is easy enough to scream ‘nimby’ when people describe the effect on their lives a wind farm in their ‘back yard’ will have, or when a council decides to turn down an application to develop a wind farm in their region, as it is also easy enough to agree the need to do all we can to reduce global warming. But I know exactly how I would feel if the moorland or forest outside my kitchen window became an industrial site.

The landlord, happily well removed from all the disturbance, will have a nice rent to keep him happy. What will those over whom the turbines tower, whose livelihoods and lives are blighted, have to show for it? Not a lot I fear.

Explanation not sufficient

Sir,—Regarding your report on the incident at Clatchard Quarry, it wasn’t made clear that the larger of the two stones known to have come from the quarry was actually around 9 inches in diameter; that it landed a good quarter of a mile from the site of the blast; and that the quarry operators Ennstone Thistle have plans to extend blasting operations nearer the village of Newburgh.

This is extremely worrying in view of the complacent attitude of Ennstone’s CEO Alan Mackenzie, who was quoted as saying initial investigations had “uncovered nothing abnormal”. Are we to regard it as normal to have pieces of rock from the quarry landing on our streets and houses? If Ennstone wish to enjoy the goodwill of the people of Newburgh, they are going to have to do a lot better than that.

Ask any dog owner

Sir,—I don’t know how much Kathy Hackman (June 17) knows about dogs in general, or tail docking in particular, but from the tone of her letter, not very much! Tail docking is carried out during the first 48 hours of a pup’s life. It is still at a semi-embryonic stage, with the nervous system not fully developed.

Unlike Ms Hackman I have not read Joe Irving’s “Gundogs”, but I can assure her that there is no need to “get the bitch out of the way”. Pups can be lifted away while suckling, the operation performed and the pup put back to continue feeding without a squeak.

Don’t just take my word. Go to any dog show and ask any of the owners of any of the many customarily docked breeds, and they will tell you the same thing. Unnecessary laws have now been passed banning tail docking but nothing has been said about the often appalling state of unlicensed “puppy farms”, the darker side of greyhound and horse racing, or the many other cases of cruelty to animals that go on.

As far as Jim Crumley’s articles go, I suspect in many cases they are deliberately controversial. Word gets around, it sells more papers!

Prioritise!

Sir,—I see the police have been at it again. Two cars, and presumably four officers, to apprehend a “master criminal” with a slightly dodgy number plate. This will be the same police that, if your house is broken into, will give you a crime reference number for your insurance claim as the sum total of their efforts.

They continually say that the reason they cannot catch criminals is a lack of resources. An ability to prioritise might be a beginning.

We’ll end up paying anyway

Sir,—In March 2001, the brains in the Scottish Executive came up with the idea that they might have proportional representation at forthcoming local council elections, in December 2005, they went further with this idea and made way for its introduction in the 2007 local elections.

They also decided at that time that any councillors who would like to take an early drop-out from their councils would be entitled to a good farewell handshake of between £10,000 and £20,000 depending on length of service.

Now it would appear a year before the next local elections quite a number of those on Fife Council are already jumping on the bandwagon and given in their notice.

As the Scottish Executive decided on this payout let us hope they are going to fork out for it, not council tax payers.

Still, whichever way you look at it, ‘muggins’ is going to have to fork out, anyway.