Sir,- I would like to express my concern about how Perth and Kinross Council spends taxpayers’ money.
You reported (September 25) about a children’s playpark having been closed for several months because some repairs are required.
No doubt the cost of these repairs will come to several hundred pounds which the council says it cannot afford.
In the issue of the day before, you reported the same council boasting about a £1.2 million upgrade to Mill Street which it describes aspresently a “trades entrance” to the shops in the High Street.
Of course it is the back door for many of the High Street shops where their supplies go in, to go out the front door on to the High Street.
I am sure that if big articulated lorrieswere to deliver thegoods to the shops from the High Street there would be a hue and cry from the shopkeepers, the public and the council so they must have a trades entrance at the rear.
You have three big stores with goods access from Mill Street, M&S,WH Smith, which is also the Post Office, and Boots the chemist.
If the scheme goes ahead, will big lorries be banned from the new Mill Street and onlysmall vehicles, operating from a distribution hub, as has already been suggested and dropped, be allowed?
Maybe by keeping Mill Street more or less as it is at present it will give some sense of nostalgia as to what Perth used to look like.
Another matter which will have an adverse impact on the public if the scheme goes ahead is, that to achieve the desired look, the various small car parks in Mill Street will have to go.
There is a shortage of car parking in the centre of Perth at the moment without the councilmaking it worse. How can the council justify spending £1.2m ona vanity project and at the same time rejectthe spending of a few hundred pounds on a children’s playpark?
No doubt the council will say the two items come from different budgets, maybe so,but the money allcomes from the sameinitial pot, our council tax, so is it not time for the council to reallocate some of the money from their fancy schemes to the more down-to-earth and more needy requirements?
I G Gray. 44 Balvaird Place. Perth.
Anti-Christian secularist stance
Sir, – Robert Canning (September 25) fails to deal with the chargethat the Scottish Secular Society is an anti-Christian lobby group albeit pretending to pursue purely secularist (separation of church and state) goals.
Yet his own letter, as a leading member of the group, betrays his view when he states: “Christian supernatural beliefs presented as if they were fact” and his own strong atheistic standpoint.
Similarly, other leading members of hissociety have made plain their atheism.
Apart from the views of leading members of this tiny group, we know that its founder/secretary wants to see churches in Scotland “sidelined”.
He has made disparaging remarks about the faith of politician Jim Murphy and the group’s founder can be seen on his own Twitter feed apparently wrestling with or manhandling a cross- shaped memorial stone.
Mr Canning insists his is not an anti-Christian group. Try explaining away some of the above.
Is Mr Canning willing to distance himself from the views of the founder of his group and what many see as his expressions of intolerance?
Gus Logan. 2 York Road, North Berwick.
Creationism not taught at school
Sir, – Robert Canning asserts that the atheistic secularists are neutral on religion and just want parents to have their say.
That is good news but I wonder why they oppose the United Nations Charter on Human Rights which states that parents have a right to have their children educated according to theirreligion and beliefs?
It is of course impossible to be neutral in this respect; every school has a philosophy and ethos.
There are those of us who would much prefer a tolerant Christian approach, rather than the intolerance of atheistic secularism.
He should also be aware that, despite his claim to the contrary, there is no mandatory religious observance in any Scottish school.
By law parents are able to opt their children out of religious observance.
He objects to public funds being used for faith schools, thereby attacking the aforementioned basic human right and forgetting that the majority of people in Scotland who profess to be religious pay their taxes too.
I have no objection to Mr Canning having his children raised in atheistic secularist schools. Why does he object to my children getting a Christian education?
The Scottish Secular Society did campaign to petition the Scottish Government on the teaching of young Earth creationism, a petition which failed because the SSS were unable to offer any evidence of young Earth creationism being taught.
It appears that evidence-based reasoning is not the forte of the more militant secularists.
Meanwhile, Mr Canning says that posts expressing dislike of religion only appear in their open Facebook forum, yet when I go on to their official page today I find several threads attacking the Pope, Islam and any politician who dares to express a Christian viewpoint, as well as the usual vitriolic abuse on their open page.
David A. Robertson. St Peter’s Free Church, 4 St Peter Street, Dundee.
Unionistsstuck in past
Sir, – Predictably, your letters page (September 26) carries three letters highly critical of the SNP.
Why are the unionists so anti-SNP and against any mention of a second referendum?
Let us dig down into SNP policy. The SNP want to get rid of austerity and replace it with modest borrowing.
The SNP have said that if we manage our finances prudently we can afford to support the most vulnerable in society and we can give children in primaries one to three free school meals.
The SNP support free university education. We are not alone in offering these benefits to our citizens. Other European countries do this, proving that it can be done.
We would be in a majority not a minority if we did not subscribe to Trident. Perhaps that is one of the reasons other countries can afford to look after their citizens.
There is no evidence that Westminster’s austerity plans are working.
In fact, the UK is slipping further into debt.
The NHS, education, and Police Scotland, though not perfect, are performing better than they are down south.
I notice that the same old unionist letter writers offer nothing new, just constant gripes about the SNP. They have the audacity to suggest we are better together.
Are the only people complaining about the SNP rather right wing, rather hysterical and deluded into thinking we still have an empire and Britannia rules the waves?
Cllr Henry Anderson. Ward Nine, Perth and Kinross, 4 Muirmont Crescent, Bridge of Earn.
Tory’s expense claim modest
Sir, – Your political bias in favour of the SNP is a disgrace.
The Courier obviously loves the SNP, is quite fond of the Liberal Democrats and Labour but absolutely detests the Conservative Party.
The no vote last year obviously came as a shock to you after your enthusiastic support but you are now doing your best to back Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond in their arrogant assumption that they speak for the majority of Scots.
I was provoked into this tirade by Kieran Andrews’ report on MSPs’ expenses (September 25).
He led his report with the claim by Liz Smith, Conservative MSP, for more than £150 for a copy of Who’s Who.
It is a reference book, and very useful foranyone in public office to have when doing research.
As there was nothing terribly noteworthy or newsworthy about any of the MSPs’ claims, the most interesting aspect would have been to read in the opening paragraph the highest and lowest of the expenses claims.
Liz Smith’s expenses were a modest £11,737. The top claimant, who should have beenhighlighted, was Lewis Macdonald (Labour) with £32,346.
George K. McMillan. 5 Mount Tabor Avenue, Perth.
Holyrood a costly failure
Sir, – Following The Courier’s revelation about the £12 million cost to the taxpayer of MSPs’ expenses claims, it would be interesting to see what is the total cost of Holyrood and the extent to which it makes a more positive contribution in governance to that which preceded its creation.
Currently, Holyrood has a total of 128 MSPs, each earning a basic salary of £53,000.
The First Minister and other senior politicians in government earnconsiderably more.
That equates to asalary bill of about£7 million a year.
Then we have the allowances of £60,000 a year for each MSP for support staff and office expenses plus all the other various expenses perks.
On top of that we have the golden goodbye of £20,000 paid to each departing MSP.
We also have the annual ongoing costs of building maintenance of the Scottish Parliament, security and support staff. It seems to me that Holyrood is costing the taxpayer something in the order of £30m every year.
What do we actually get for that outlay and how is it better thanthe former system of Scottish Office management?
We hear so many nationalist and SNPsupporters bemoaning the existence of foodbanks in Scotland, child poverty and so on.
I wonder if the annual £30 million couldnot be better spent on the real infrastructure issues in Scotland, instead of being wasted on this obscene talking shop that has brainwashed the Scottish people into believing that it makes a positive contribution to Scotland’s development that could not otherwise have been achieved through more energetic engagement by Scottish MPs at Westminster.
Derek Farmer. Knightsward Farm, Anstruther.