Today’s letters to The Courier.
Sir, – The announcement that the Scottish Government is to proceed with legislation to allow same-sex marriage in religious buildings is disappointing. The claim it is about equality is misleading since all legal rights are contained in the civil partnership legislation that already exists.
It is specifically the right to marry in church, against the core Christian beliefs of the faith body, that is at stake. I doubt anyone will be beating a path to the mosque or the temple.
Of course, there will be ”safeguards” put in place to protect those celebrants who do not wish to conduct such ceremonies but the European Courts have already ruled that while same-sex marriage is not a right, if the Scottish Government proceeds with the legislation it will be a criminal offence to refuse to conduct such a ceremony.
While Nicola Sturgeon insists no one will be forced to conduct such ceremonies, they will be acting criminally, and therefore open to prosecution, if they don’t.
Some 64% of those who responded to the government’s own ”consultation” said ”no”, but they are going ahead anyway. This is the kind of dictatorship we can all expect from the Scottish Nationalist Party come the glorious day.
Presumably, if a majority of the Scottish people say ”no” to independence they will just ignore that as well.
A government that legislates what its people must think, how they should act, what they must believe and how they should express their beliefs demonstrates all the hallmarks of Stalinist or Nazi regimes.
Rev Bruce Dempsey,Caddam Road,Coupar Angus.
Sir, – In my role as an academic specialising in family law reform, I have read all of the submissions to a number of government and Scottish Law Commission consultations.
One striking change since devolution is the emergence of organised political campaigns to encourage assertions of opposition to equality measures for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and, indeed, for other progressive measures such as protection for cohabiting unmarried couples.
The responses generated by such campaigns hardly ever show any evidence that the respondent has read the consultation document and rarely provide any evidence for the individual’s assertion.
It is reported that two thirds of such responses to the recent consultation on allowing same-sex couples to marry were assertions of opposition, which indicates that religious political campaigns can mobilise some thousands of people to register an unsubstantiated objection.
That two thirds of the responses that actually engaged to some degree with the substance of the consultation were in favour of equal treatment of a minority is entirely to Scotland’s credit.
Brian Dempsey,Lecturer, School of law,Dundee University.
Sir, – According to Nicola Sturgeon, we live in a parliamentary democracy and parliament makes the decisions.
The question every thinking Scot is asking in the issue of same sex-marriage is: who formulates those decisions? The answer is we are no longer living in a democracy in Scotland but in an autocracy and the decisions are contrived by those two exponents of double-speak: Alex Salmond and Ms Sturgeon.
Two thirds of the people who stirred from the national inertia to answer the consultation on this critical issue were firmly against a decision which will upturn 2,000 years of religious belief on the part of Christian believers here and as many secular upholders who see the abandonment of the traditional habits of gender and familial relations as a pernicious development in the body politic.
Alastair Harper,House of Gask,Lathalmond.
Sir, – I have to ask the Scottish government: why have a public consultation on so-called ”gay” marriage and then ignore the results?
When 67% of those responding were against it, while only 32% were in favour, it showed the SNP are not in favour of social democracy but social engineering.
The people were hood-winked and will get their revenge at the next election.
Ian Hannah,Upper Kinneddar,Saline.
Sir, – Your editorial yesterday on the Scottish Government’s decision to introduce same-sex marriage stated that ”discounting contributions from overseas, the Scottish Government can claim a majority of Scottish respondents were in favour of widening the definition of marriage”.
This is not correct. The summary of the consultation responses clearly states that of the 62,057 responses from Scotland, 39,724 (64%) said they were not in favour of changing the law to allow same-sex marriage.
With almost two thirds of respondents from Scotland stating their opposition to same-sex marriage, the Scottish Government can claim no majority, and thus no mandate, for their plans.
The Scottish people may well now ask what the point was in consulting them if their views are now to be ignored.
Nigel Kenny,The Christian Institute,Canal Street,Glasgow.
Sir, – I read Alan Wilson’s article on the end of an era at Dexter’s as the venue changes its name to Non Zero. Is this a plus or a minus?
David Martin,Cowgate,Dundee.
Sir, – Perhaps someone could tell me when John Bullough was appointed as a spokesperson for the retail sector in Perth. Yet again we are being subjected to his views on the fate of the City Hall (Wednesday’s Courier).
He states that the vast majority of businesses and the public are for the demolition of the hall. Can I point out that 250 representations were made to Historic Scotland: 240 of them were opposed to demolition, nine were in favour and one was undecided. These figures show the majority of us want our hall to be retained.
I do agree with him that it is in no one’s interest to see this saga drag on but it is only dragging on because our council has decided the only way forward is to sell the building. Why does the council have to sell the building? They refuse to find a use for it. It’s a public building for the people of Perth to use.
Here’s a novel idea: use the £3.28 million put aside for the demolition of the hall to return St John’s Street to its original state after all, 99% of its retailers were against its pedestrianisation in the first place and let people park their cars around our hall.
Perhaps then people will return to Perth to shop.
Laura Wilson,Rose Terrace,Perth.
Sir, – Recently, among a pile of junk mail, I received an invitation from VisitScotland to enjoy a break in Scotland, with a colourful and informative map showing all the wonderful things to see.
After poring over the map, I remained deeply puzzled. Nowhere could I find any symbols for wind turbines, the new Flower of Scotland so admired and revered by the tourism gurus and experts of the Scottish Parliament.
Not one! Could it be that VisitScotland wants to keep them a secret, not appreciating the amazing attraction they would have for the hordes of tourists who would flock to our shores just to gaze upon the dreams of The Great Chieftain?
Perhaps a second map, dedicated to turbine tourists, could be printed? Surely, someone will see the opportunity for a new organisation: VisitTurbinia-the-Con.com.
D. R. Powell,Loanhead,Forfar.
Sir, – Jenny Hogan of Scottish Renewables (Letters, July 24) knows very well that wind turbines would not exist without subsidies and that these subsidies come from us in the form of higher electricity bills, regardless of our ability to pay.
Many people are being forced into fuel poverty to make rich landowners richer, and to make profits for foreign turbine makers. The whole business reeks of exploitation.
If the turbines worked it might not be so bad, but they don’t. No wind, no electricity.
Malcolm Parkin,Gamekeepers Road,Kinnesswood, Kinross.
Sir, – Without entering into the debate about our armed forces and Scottish independence, I would suggest that much of George K. McMillan’s contribution to the debate (July 25) is irrelevant.
The conduct of the Irish Free State during the Second World War influenced by centuries of Anglo-Irish problems is most unlikely to be a guide to the relationship between an independent Scotland and the rest of Britain in the event of some unspecified future conflict.
The number of persons in the armed forces of Germany, a country with a long land frontier, in the military context of 1919 is no guide to what the size of our forces should be nearly a century later.
Finally, I understand that our army is being cut to 85,000, not ”our forces”, as stated by Mr McMillan.
Gordon Dilworth,Baledmund Road,Moulin,Pitlochry.
Sir, – In reply to Barbara Sturrock’s letter on July 23 (A granny’s platform plea), I was in exactly the same situation when arriving early to meet my grandson at the station.
There are neither seats nor somewhere to get a drink in the foyer. Making inquiries at the ticket office, I was told I could buy a single ticket to Broughty Ferry for £2, which would allow me on to the platform, and I could then wait in comfort and meet the train.
I did not take up this offer, but waited in my parked car instead.
Mavis Urquhart,Rose Cottage,Inchture.
Sir, – On a recent visit to Dundee I was saddened to see the exterior deterioration of the former King’s Theatre. The elevation on Seagate is showing serious water penetration but the greenery on the roof appears to be flourishing.
Is there no one on the city council sufficiently interested in Dundee’s theatrical heritage to encourage the current owners of the building to take remedial action?
George Redpath,Broughton Road,Edinburgh.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL. Letters should be accompanied by an address and a daytime telephone number.