VISITING Glasgow on a Sunday is bit more expensive these days due to the introduction of Sunday parking charges in line with Monday-Saturday parking.
Glasgow City Council is charging £1 for every 15 minutes up to a maximum of two hours. Generally when people go up to Glasgow City Centre on a Sunday it is going to be for more than two hours. It may include shopping/lunch/coffee and the like.
In the first instance, if the council wants to impose a charge to take more money off the public, why does it not make it a fixed price of say £2 a day? Recently when I travelled from Kilmaurs up to Glasgow on the Sunday the streets were empty, and I had to park in one of the multi-storey car parks at a cost of £7.20 for three hours. There is the Underground, however that is not cheap either.
I presume the council wants us to use its fantastic, very reliable, clean buses and trains; however if you are a family of say five going up to Glasgow for the day on the train or bus it can be very expensive, especially if you live in rural areas where the public transport facilities are limited.
I am fairly sure that a lot of people who would normally go up to Glasgow city centre will now be travelling by car to Silverburn or Braehead. I come from Glasgow and love visiting the city most weekends. The city centre is an amazing city, with lots of buzz and a wonderful choice of restaurants/pubs and coffee shops and so on. Surely we should be encouraging people to visit, not trying to put them off?
Susan Miller, Kilmaurs.
Unfair pollution
HOW can the SNP be taken seriously on air pollution in Scotland and Glasgow in particular, when it permits, for a licence fee, a fairground to operate in St Enoch Square in the city centre during the school holidays throughout the year? Apart from the air pollution from the two enormous lorries with generators belching out diesel fumes all day and evening, there is also the noise from them and the people who scream when using these useless contraptions.
The levels of air and noise pollution in Glasgow could be significantly reduced if the council stopped the issue of such licences. If the council is being serious it should stop all unnecessary pollution such as this immediately rather than encourage it. Those of us who live or work in this area have complained unsuccessfully to the council several times over the years. It seems the policy in Glasgow is: “You can poison and deafen our citizens if you like, provided you pay a licence fee.”.
John Pryde, Glasgow G1.
Abolish blood sport
YOUR front-page lead report ("Police raid shooting estate over probe into cruelty", The Herald, October 17) brings to the fore again the question of why shooting estates and associated moors still exist in this day and age. They are remnants of the Victorian/Edwardian eras and should have been abolished and consigned to the history books decades ago. It seems to me that the owners of such only pay lip service to conservation as it affects them; only concerned with whatever game bird, as it is referred to, being raised in sufficient numbers to the virtual exclusion of all else.
John Macnab, Falkirk.
Myths over salmon
I AM angry that I have paid £1.50 to read blatant salmon farming propaganda dressed up as analysis, insight and opinion ("Scottish aquaculture reigns supreme with the king of fish", The Herald, October 15). Sadly, many of your readers will believe the “truths” which only serve to paint a completely inaccurate picture of the out-of-control salmon farming industry.
I am a qualified marine biologist, have experience of the salmon farming industry and sadly do not recognise any of Hamish Macdonell’s fairy tale.
John Paterson, Munlochy.
Fish treats
I NOTE with interest the letter (October 17) from Peebles reader Allan Bone bemoaning the scarcity of quality Scottish seafood. Can I suggest he visits and supports the very excellent fish shop in High Street, Peebles, where we got a fabulous selection of fish and enjoyed cod and mussels for our dinner whilst on holiday in the area. I didn't see any of the "manky frozen prawns " he mentioned.
Denise Brown, Stewarton.
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 here