Sir, – I read with disappointment the confirmation that Michelin is no longer to manufacture tyres in Dundee.
While welcoming news it is to be developed into a training and learning centre, I fear that this will not be enough to help the 850 people who will lose their jobs as a result.
There are also the jobs that will go in the support of the manufacturing plant.
One thing that seems odd to me is that the plant has not been offered to the other tyre manufacturers in the UK, of which there are seven, including firms like Pirelli.
There are also other firms in the European Union that could be approached and worldwide tyre manufacturers in China and Asia.
It is clearly obvious that with the buildings, plant and highly-skilled workforce in place this would be attractive to other tyre producers.
Also with grants, loans and tax breaks seemingly available this could attract other tyre producers and help adapt the production facilities for new types of tyres.
Another option would be for a management buyout or workforce cooperative.
These are good jobs which should not be lost to Dundee.
I have not heard any mention of the site being taken over by another tyre maker.
Could it be that this was not to upset Michelin as they may not want a direct competitor in their market?
The priority must be to keep these jobs.
Steve Kerr,
Maryfield,
Dundee.
Parking fees are wrecking town
Sir, – As a retired business owner and the owner of a commercial property in Kirriemuir I must congratulate Angus Council.
They have managed to achieve something that even Hitler could not do.
They have absolutely devastated our high streets.
These parking fees make it more expensive to park in Kirriemuir than in Edinburgh or London.
Councillors used to do all they could to help the local community.
Not this lot it would seem.
They should hang their heads in shame .
How can they stand up and say that they represent the people of Angus?
William Nicoll,
North Mains Croft,
Kirriemuir.
Columnist is missing point
Sir, – Your columnist Alex Bell suggests that perhaps the majority of consultation respondents who supported the Scottish Government’s proposals for updating gender recognition law were not from Scotland (“Let’s debate self-declaration”, Courier, November 29).
In fact, the consultation report makes clear that among Scottish respondents support for those proposals was around 65%, higher than support by respondents from outwith Scotland.
Mr Bell seems to have misunderstood the core proposal.
The self-declaration system will require a person to make a statutory declaration that they are living in a particular gender and intend to do so for the rest of their life.
A false declaration would be a criminal offence.
This is not a proposal that has suddenly dropped out of nowhere.
It is best practice internationally, and is used in Ireland and a number of other countries, without problems.
Mr Bell is right that lesbian and gay equality took a very long time to be accepted.
Some of us have been campaigning for it since the 1980s or before.
Gender recognition for trans people has also been debated for decades.
We are perhaps now at a point with trans equality that we were at with lesbian and gay equality 20 years ago.
Then, the repeal of section 28 was more contested than gender recognition reform is now, with some journalists questioning whether there had been enough debate, and some newspapers firmly opposed.
It is now widely accepted that repeal of section 28 was the right thing to do.
We are sure that people will look back on the updating of gender recognition law with the same sense of having taken one more step towards a fairer Scotland.
Tim Hopkins,
Equality Network,
Bernard Street,
Edinburgh.
Clearing up cross confusion
Sir, – Appropriately on St Andrews day you published a story about the missing hand on the sculpture of St Andrew that is to be restored to glory and placed in the grounds of Madras College (“Plea for return of St Andrew’s missing hand”, Courier, November 30).
However, as shown in the accompanying photo the St Andrew’s cross was shown in its original format of diagonally in a portrait format rather than the landscape format which is used in the union flag and all modern depictions of the St Andrew’s cross.
Surely any nation seeking independence should go back in history and adopt the true flag of St Andrew rather than use the one that has been adapted to suit the needs of the English George cross to depict its nation, but as can be witnessed almost all SNP MPs wear the new format and it is flown over Holyrood as a proud emblem of our Scottishness.
Very strange.
Willie Robertson,
Grianan,
Lynton,
Stanley.
Wonders are being worked
Sir, – I’m not sure which Scotland Clark Cross has resided in during his lifetime.
His complaint (Letters, November 29) that bridges and roads here have defects isn’t unique.
Nor is it the result of SNP “pet” policies being favoured at their expense.
Every country experiences the self-same problems.
However, our own situation has been exacerbated by generations of criminal under investment, the result of Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat governance at local, national and UK levels.
The present Scottish Government is working wonders on our behalf, during a time of austerity, in addressing this long-running sore.
I won’t take up the limited space of this forum listing all the SNP success stories, but suggest Mr Cross reads, “Talking Up Scotland”, available online.
It may lighten his rather gloomy view of Scotland and open his eyes to a country benefiting from good government.
Indeed, the last Labour Holyrood “executive” returned millions of pounds of our block grant to London, justifying this action by claiming they could find nothing to spend it on, while contradictorily burdening Scots with the insanity of PFI contracts.
His gripes concerning, “free prescriptions” and “foreign aid”, described by him as “an expensive ego trip”, reflect a political mind set rejected by Scots since 1955.
He concludes his letter with, “it is time to repair our infrastructure”.
It is being done, sir, in spite of unionist politicians and their complicit media attempting to convince us otherwise.
Ken Clark,
Thorter Way,
Dundee.
TV debate is no turn-on
Sir, – What is the point of a televised debate between the main party leaders just two days before the House of Commons vote on the Brexit deal (BBC Brexit debate at risk of being one-sided, Courier, December 1)?
SNP deputy leader Keith Brown complains that it would be wrong not to include his own party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, and others in a programme. That is not the real issue.
On this occasion the people the party leaders are trying to persuade are not the broad mass of voters, rather the MPs who will be taking part in the crucial vote on December 11.
Those MPs are unlikely to shift their opinion as a result of what they hear and see on a Sunday night television special.
Whether we like it or not our political system depends on disciplined and vigorous political parties.
On this occasion it is private persuasion in the corridors of power that will determine how MPs vote.
The voters know this.
They can be excused if next Sunday they give priority to the Strictly Come Dancing results.
That’s not a reflection of their interest in politics, it simply reflects that they have probably had enough of Brexit arguments and debates.
They know at that late stage there is little if anything they can do to shift MPs’ minds.
Bob Taylor,
Shiel Court,
Glenrothes.
