MANY thanks to Christopher Bruce and Robert Ingram for responding to my letter on a draft constitution for an independent Scotland (Letters, August 30). I would firstly assure Christopher that I was not suggesting a turning back of the clocks and I agree there were many sharp practices taking place in councils at that time. I disagree that a fair system can be bought – at any price.
Christopher stated that under the changed system in the 1970s, the public weren’t asked, so I tried to find out more of how exactly the public would be consulted in the new scheme of things, because the standing orders of community councils only make it incumbent on those in office to advise their own members of the date, venue and time of the meetings, never mind the agenda. Where’s the public empowerment in that?
In an article in the Sunday Herald at the weekend, I noted that the First Minister, in her Programme for Government this week, will reportedly make a statement this week on major reforms to services, one of which is for “opportunities for our communities”. This resonated with me in considering community council involvement in future governance and, horror of horrors, I discovered on the Scottish Government website that legislation had been passed in the form of the Community Empowerment Act 2015 and the Community Empowerment Action Plan.
As an example of the kind of over-bureaucracy to which I referred in my previous letter, I found that in one section alone (and there were many), the “Participation Requests Guidance” under consultation at present (had you heard? No, neither had I), contained 46 pages of what can only be described as gobbledegook, some of which was even upside-down! After a double shift on a shop floor, patching wounds in a hospital emergency department or driving a trans-continental lorry to make ends meet, how many of us will say, “The Bake Off’s rubbish without Mary Berry, let’s see how I can contribute to the Participation Requests Guidance” or indeed the Draft Constitution.
That’s how ludicrous it is. Sinecure commissions will no doubt be set up to underpin this legislation, most of which will never be known to Joe Public, let alone be of any benefit to us. So really, my objections are too late, it’s a fait accompli.
Ann Williamson
Address supplied
THROUGH The National, I would urge Kevin Stewart MSP – the Minister for Local Government and Housing – to think again over the Park of Keir development plans for Dunblane and Bridge of Allan (Ministers overrule council to back Murray centre, The National, August 31).
Many Stirling constituents think: great idea, wrong place. Our SNP-led government should not be giving our opposition sticks to beat us with.
Catriona Whitton
Dunblane
NEVER mind the Murrays’ legacy, what is the legacy the Scottish Government wishes for itself? Apparently, it’s development planning by celebrity, first in Aberdeenshire, now in Stirling. Against myriad planning policy objections, this development has been sanctioned without justification. There are many site options in central Scotland where a national centre could be built. This decision by ministers is simply embarrassing.
Roddie Macpherson
Avoch
THERE would be no more building in Scotland if it was up to some people. Why should our up-and-coming tennis players have to go abroad to train when we could have a first-class facility here?
Kareen Rennie
via thenational.scot
THE TV listings for programmes being broadcast by the BBC yesterday did not contain a single programme with either “Britain” or “British” in the title. I was shocked, and briefly concerned that standards were slipping at our “national state broadcaster”.
However, normal service is resumed today, with every day this week featuring a least one programme named as “British” this, that or the other. It’s a sign of just how desperate and pitiful the Unionist arguments really are in the face of a Scottish independence movement that refuses to go away.
David Patrick
Address supplied
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here