David Roxburgh (Letters, August 21) resurrects the idea of a "litter levy" as yet another possible solution to Scotland's dreadful litter problem. He might wish to familiarise himself with the background to it and perhaps reconsider?
The fact we've become a dirty nation over the last five decades was previously masked to some extent by the efforts of the former 53 district councils' cleansing departments (led by properly qualified directors) whose work kept it under control to some extent. None of our 32 councils now has an identifiable cleansing department.
Despite the taxpayer providing significant funding for street cleansing services to allow councils meet their obligations under the Code of Practice of Litter and Refuse, the Scottish Government has been turning a blind eye to the fact that the councils have been ignoring the code for over two decades and these funds have probably been used to subsidise other services. The councils have powers to authorise their staff to issue Fixed Penalty Notices to anybody seen dropping litter but too often find reasons for not using these powers effectively.
When the Scottish Parliament invited bids for the repair and maintenance of trunk roads over two decades ago, nobody thought about requiring the successful bidder to remove litter before cutting the grass verges, or liaising with the local council to coordinate litter removal activities during lane closures.
While (on paper) the recorded consumption of plastic carriers has reduced since the charge was introduced, no account is taken of the fact that people who previously reused these carriers now have to buy alternative plastic bags (for example for bagging their waste). Nor has it made any impact whatsoever on the litter problem.
All this has to be seen against a background of Keep Scotland Beautiful (now with around 60 staff) being unable to get the message across: until people are caught, named and shamed for dropping litter, and the councils get back to the basics, all these other "novel strategies" are simply window dressing.
John F Crawford, Preston.
Read more letters
- Is this a fascist flare-up or something more complex?
- Miliband’s folly: he has completely wrong concerns
- For the love of peat, why must humble gardeners be victimised?
We cannot stop immigration
In response to protests outside asylum hotels and letters from Alan Sutherland and James Watson among others (The Herald, August 25), commenting on small boat crossings, we really do have to grapple with reality. When I was born in 1951 the world population was around 2.5 billion. Today it is over eight billion and rising. During that time, the economic activity of the wealthiest nations, including the UK, has resulted in climate change which has disproportionately affected the world’s poorest nations, making many parts of the world almost uninhabitable. At the same time, we have both directly and indirectly contributed to the political instability, wars and injustice from which refugees and asylum seekers are fleeing.
Like it or not, there is a tide of humanity on the move, and like Canute we will find that it cannot be stopped. Instead, along with other European nations like Germany, France, Spain and Italy, we must play our part in welcoming and assimilating refugees and asylum seekers who in the absence of sufficient safe and legal routes land on our shores.
Rev David A Collins, Ladybank, Fife.
Reverse care home beds cut
I note your report on the plans to reduce the number of beds in Arran's Montrose House care home ("Bed cut at island nursing home", The Herald, August 23).
By all reasonable analysis, the community opposes this reduction in service. After extensive demand assessment and feasibility work, Montrose House opened on Arran in 2015, with a capacity for 30 residents, at a cost of £5.6 million. Since that time, demand for the service has increased. Supply on the other hand has been reduced to one-third of its designed capacity.
As well as being against island needs, it is also against the spirit and the letter of the Island Act 2018. The questions are: was the initial plan for a home for 30 Arran residents to remain on the island incorrect? Or has there been a change of policy, to clear older residents off the islands?
This decision cannot be allowed to stand.
Tom Tracey, Brodick, Arran.
Is double glazing a health hazard?
On reading David Bradshaw’s letter (August 25) highlighting the downsides of modern housing through insulation and levels of airtightness reminded me of a headline I saw many years ago: “Double glazing leads to increase in cancer”.
The gist of the claim was that modern houses built to avoid all draughts retained radon gas emanating from underfloor areas – particularly where houses are built over granite. The retention of the radon then increased the chance of cancer. I’m sure some of your informed readers will be able to comment on this headline that has remained with me for probably about 30 years or more.
Eric Macdonald, Paisley.
Ridge of sighs
Your Picture of the Day today (The Herald, August 25) gives great detail about the photographer's camera, but nothing about the "rugged landscape" itself.
For your readers' information, it is the Trotternish Ridge in the north end of Skye, taken from the Quiraing, a view with which I was very familiar in my youth, and now known worldwide through its appearance in many films.
Iain Maclean, Bearsden.
Faking it
Andy McAdam (Letters, August 25) makes a valid point about the lack of human empathy in the design of the AI robots in Sir Keir Starmer's Cabinet. Help is coming; ChatGPT tells me that robots can be designed to simulate empathy in ways that make human-robot interaction feel warmer, safer and more supportive.
Simulation may be better than nothing.
David Miller, Milngavie.
Share