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
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article