I WAS most encouraged when I read Wednesday’s letter from Iain Ramsay regarding a multi-purpose lower Clyde crossing. I had written about a proposal for such a crossing on the Firth of Forth, which I circulated to all the interested parties about four years ago. That took the form of a preliminary feasibility study. In the letter I suggested that such a proposal could be suitable in principle to the other major firths – and allow the appropriate development of not just Greenock and Inverclyde but also of Edinburgh, Dundee and Inverness.
The planning of such schemes before they are forced on us by climate chaos is something we should start now. Sceptics should remember the successes of such Scots as Telford, who not only linked the Atlantic to the North Sea through the Great Glen, but the Baltic to the Kattegat by canal, and London to Anglesey by road and thus by ferry to Dublin.
They should take courage also from the New Yorkers who connected their backward city by canal to the Great Lakes. Despite the route being closed by ice half of the year and despite the fact there were no American canal builders at that time, that canal has been credited with the subsequent growth of the city.
Enthusiasts of large projects should equally be able to see that schemes approved by distant governments are suspect. These include a bridge to Ireland and a First World War idea to build a canal to take Dreadnoughts through Loch Lomond.
The range of functions of locally designed projects has greatly increased since 1960s. Not only would they allow rail, road and tram connections but they would also allow for power generation from wind, tidal, river and pumped-storage systems, save many miles of protective walls along our most vulnerable coastlines, and allow for new ports and attractive sites for housing for the immigrants who would strive to come here from less favoured lands.
Iain WD Forde
Scotlandwell
I WAS listening to Barrscealta on Radio na Gealtachta one morning during the week and they were discussing farm animals that die. The gist of the story was that if a horse, cow, sheep or goat dies on your farm, you should have it taken away by a proper contractor in the disposal-of-dead-animals business. It was being set out quite strongly that under no circumstance should you consider burying the animal yourself because of disease contamination and such like, that it has to be taken away, where it will be burned, I would assume by incineration.
This leads to the next question: why does this protocol apply to animal deaths to stop spread of any disease occurring, yet if a person dies due to an contagious illness there is no collection service to take them away to be incinerated in case of spreading infection?
I mean, people are dying right, left and centre due to all sorts of diseases, but instead in many cases the body is pumped full of formaldehyde to slow the decomposition process, waked and buried. I’m just wondering if a graveyard is an unsafe place to be wondering around due to the chances of picking up a disease of some sort?
When mad cow disease was widespread among cattle, no chances were taken, the best of cows were taken out, shot, dragged off to be stacked up in piles and burned. The same went for hatcheries caught up in the chicken flu.
I just think there is a contradiction or an over-reaction in how different methods are used to prevent the spread of possible infections. I don’t hear any state agencies coming out saying that all those unfortunate people who died after contacting coronavirus (which can alternate between animals and humans) should be incinerated to stop the spread of infection?
I just don’t get it? If an animal is sick, dies and has to be incinerated to try and halt further contamination, then you would think that the same logic should apply to humans. Just saying like.
James Woods
Dún na nGall
FIGURES show that 25,000 patients visited Scotland’s A&E departments in the second week of January 2020! Quite staggering, and a credit to our dedicated A&E staff. Staffing levels are always an issue in our NHS, so what a pity future staffing levels have just
taken a seismic swing into critical, with the introduction by the Westminster government of a points-based immigration system that will only serve to exacerbate waiting times.
Catriona Clark
Falkirk
MHAIRI Black asked at Prime Minister’s Questions if £111 a month was enough for anyone to live on. After the usual bluster of how well the government is doing, Boris did eventually said “no” but didn’t, more importantly, say how he was going to rectify the situation. If the PM doesn’t know, who does?
Robin MacLean
Fort Augustus
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