Sir, Would a “no” vote in the independence referendum justify a vote of no confidence in the SNP administration at Holyrood?
I note Scottish Conservative deputy leader Jackson Carlaw’s desire for the downfall of Mr Salmond’s government (The Courier, June 11), but I think he has misjudged the mood of the voters on this.
Opinion polls and The Courier’s own referendum roadshows show that a “no” vote does seem the likely outcome in the September poll, but that does not mean the voters would back a move to get the current administration out of office.
I think people remain broadly impressed by the competence of the SNP in government, but they are not yet prepared to reward that competence with the creation of a new state with all the uncertainty that entails. It is that uncertainty that will tilt the balance of favour to the case against independence.
Any government that backs a cause and then sees that cause rejected in a referendum is bound to have its credibility dented to some extent. That does not mean Mr Salmond and his colleagues should have to give up office.
Mr Carlaw only needs to look at the progress made on the Queensferry crossing, the freeze of council tax at 2007 levels, the host of new health and leisure projects completed, to see that the Holyrood regime deserves to see out its term of office.
Bob Taylor. 24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.
From fantasy to old-fashioned hard graft…
Sir, JK Rowling, a person who has basically written a load of mythical fantasy, has donated £1 million to the Better Together campaign.
She is a very fortunate lady who happens to be good at writing the kind of fantasy material that children seem to love. Then there are the millions she has made from other people making films of her books. Not bad, and an OBE as well.
This lady suggests that, from her knowledge of fiscal matters, Scotland cannot afford to be independent!
Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion on this very important matter.
I refer you now to one Brian Souter. Here is a guy who, with his sister, took the self-employment route with not much more than an old banger of a bus.
Through sheer hard work and a very good business head (being entrepreneurial, I think it’s called) look at where he is now, and the size of the Stagecoach empire.
This man has donated £1 million pounds towards the fight for independence.
I rest my case.
Ian Heggie. 7 Achray Park, Glenrothes.
Buildings not fit for purpose
Sir, I’m not a particularly political animal so I am struggling to comprehend the comings and goings of the seemingly fraught issue of a replacement school for Madras College in St Andrews.
My daughter will not start secondary school for another five years but it seems now that the possibility of a new fit-for-purpose school will not be available by that point due to what seems like the extraordinary selfishness of a small group of St Andrews residents.
From correspondence, conversations and pictorial evidence I have seen posted online over the last few months, it is pretty obvious that the current Madras College buildings are far from fit for purpose but are, in fact, starting to pose serious health and safety worries for staff, pupils and parents, not least due to the presence of airborne asbestos particles.
Given the tragic incident that recently occurred in Edinburgh, do these residents really want to risk having a similar tragedy on their collective consciences?
Angus Sneddon. Newport.
We need new school now
Sir, In these days, it is heart-warming to see such a colossal act of charity from those proposing a judicial review against the new Madras at Pipeland.
They won’t succeed, of course. Over the last 10 years the average success rate for private objectors in judicial review has been about one in 14. What is more, even those few successful cases have been against housing or retail plans. The bar for stopping an important community development like a school is set even higher.
All in all, as a summary of the evidence concludes, ‘the statistical risk of a planning decision being challenged in the courts is negligible’.
So, the practical effect will be that £100 – £200,000 (the average cost of judicial review) will mainly go to enrich planning lawyers a group who are clearly in great need of our charity. But that is surely a small price to pay in order to see a smile on the face of a rich lawyer made even richer?
I am sure the self-important few who have decided to create the limited company to take the proposed review ahead, are terribly satisfied with the radical and arrogant efforts they are making in order to continue delaying the much needed new fabric of a new Madras College for my children and many many more.
We need a new school and we need it now. No more ridiculous delays. Please.
Lynn Sutherland. Newport.