On Monday, Kara Brydson of the RSPB argued that this country should have a marine act to keep up with the EU and protect the environment. Here's what you thought:

The waters off Scotland team with marine life and our coastline is among the world's most beautiful. Why is it beyond the wit of politicians to protect this?

Andrew Simpson, via e-mail

Ms Brydson cleverly but predictably attempts to steer readers away from the real issues surrounding a marine act, by flagging up the very genuine concerns over the Firth of Forth oil transfer plans. Since it is generally accepted that nothing stifles enterprise more than bureaucracy, perhaps Ms Brydson could explain how yet another layer of that modern-age curse would help the indigenous populations of our most fragile coastal communities?

Scotland's seaboards are not, as she says, trophies. And they are no more or less a part of our heritage than the people who inhabit them. Who is to conserve the fisherman, or the school his daughters attend, or their village shop? The RSPB? Dream on! People are as much a part of the natural history of this planet as every other organism nurtured by it. It is about time that the politicians and agenda merchants of the conservation industry began to recognise that.

Niall McKillop, Fort William.

There are 80-odd acts relating to the coast round Scotland, and those of us who work with them are aware of the conflicts they cause. Kara's simplistic idea is typical of someone who works in the wildlife sector and has tunnel vision. It is the people in the coastal areas that are suffering from the lack of marine planning, and it is these individuals who should be properly consulted.

The RSPB seem to be influencing many decisions on land, such as windfarms, often despite local opinion. No doubt they want to have that same influence on a marine bill. This could stifle any chance of using the sustainable natural resources that hold many coastal communities together.

Nick Turnbull, Dervaig, Mull