The logical conclusion to Kingsley Omeihe's article today ("The Decision on the M8 Woodside Viaducts matters well beyond the city limits of Glasgow", The Herald, March 30) is for everyone over the age of 17 to have their own personal car – he gives no alternative for people who, for one reason or another, do not have a private car. But where would they be stored when not in use? Garages, gardens, driveways, roads and pavements are full to the brim with stationary cars waiting for their owner to get in and drive them halfway across the country to their chosen place of work, education or leisure.
But at what cost? The costs forecast for doing anything with the Woodside Viaducts are eye-watering but so are the costs, already, of our motorways and road systems. Every day there are reports of roads closed because of accidents – in many cases, caused by drivers frustrated at the queues, or the antics of the driver in front of them putting their foot down to overtake. The costs of clearing up these incidents are significant: the delays to other road users, including public transport, the cost of police attendance, the fire service, ambulance and medical treatment – and all generally paid for out of the public purse. Driving is, or should be, a responsible activity, yet drivers add this stress on to their daily work load. The time spent commuting by car is time spent away from the family, from resting or getting exercise and this lack of exercise and recreation is leading to ill-health and adding to the public health bill.
We need to invest in our communities, not in great structures that overpower our cities and block effective walking and cycling routes. We know that building more roads (including replacing these viaducts) will lead to more road traffic and the pollution that brings. We need good public transport to safely transport people of all ages and abilities.
Patricia Fort, Glasgow.
Read more letters
- No laughing matter: Offord’s awful joke isn’t acceptable
- UK science sector is facing a serious employment crisis
- Holyrood has let us down. What price accountability now?
• I was interested to read the article by Kingsley Omeihe, senior lecturer at the University of West of Scotland, and cannot help see parallels between his views on the effect of M8 Woodside Viaducts and the present situation on Arran with regards to the present ferry disruption.
"Journeys that should be predictable become uncertain." "They represent something economists worry about a great deal. They represent friction." "Good infrastructure shortens distances, poor infrastructure lengthens it, so when distances increases, even slightly, the efficiency of an entire regional economy begins to fall."
This is as true for Scotland in Miniature as for Scotland itself. As Mr Omeihe states, better connectivity does more than shorten journeys, it expands opportunity.
Over the last 10 years Arran has been affected by the very problems that are predicted for the Central Belt if the correct infrastructure is not provided: uncertainty, friction and increase in distances all because of ferries and ports confusion. Infrastructure policy only succeeds when it carries trust and public confidence.
Charles Currie, Blackwaterfoot, Arran.
Conifer expansion is damaging soil
It’s noticeable in the row between Confor and the RSE report on commercial forestry, as reported by Vicky Allan ("Row escalates over commercial conifer planting across Scotland", The Herald, March 28), that the timber industry makes its case on the basis of the valid argument that tree cropping in Scotland replaces timber imports and provides employment in Scotland. It appears to have dropped the much more dubious argument that it’s good for biodiversity or even in the long term the best way of sequestering carbon.
There are negative aspects to the ongoing expansion of conifer plantations, especially in areas like Galloway which have been targeted for this form of land use. Galloway is over 30% forested and the expansion is now coming downhill onto the brown earth soils of upland grassland, the long-term impact of which on soil, our most important resource, is not receiving enough attention. Viable livestock farms are lost, recreational access and outdoor tourism are adversely affected and in many cases ownership passes to distant investment companies. None of this is under any kind of democratic control. The land use on thousands of hectares is permanently changed with no regulatory control. The permanent employment generated, mainly in sawmilling and timber processing, is largely far distant from the plantations themselves.
It didn’t have to be like this. The Scottish Government could have stayed with the former Forestry Commission strategy of multi-functional forestry, for integrated farming and forestry, for balance in land use and rural economy and could have given local people a meaningful voice in the changes to their landscape and environment. They could even have ensured that areas like Galloway and Argyll did not have to bear the brunt of conifer plantations just because their climate suited Sitka spruce. That is very definitely not the current situation.
Dr Joan Mitchell, Newton Stewart.
End the Offord indignation
I agree with Peter Wright’s comments on Malcolm Offord (Letters, March 28) and would add that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the indignant reaction by some to a homophobic joke about George Michael made years ago at a private rugby club dinner. Rightly or wrongly, years ago risqué jokes used to be what could be described as par for the course at male dinners, on radio and TV, and commonplace when males gathered together. As I wasn’t at that dinner, I haven’t heard the joke and have no wish to, but I do wonder who on earth remembered it? Did he attend the dinner and, feeling as he does today, did he criticise the joke there and then, or is his protest today another example of virtue-signalling wokeism, rather than appreciating that attitudes change as generations change?
Recognising the latter, Lord Offord has done all he can do today and apologised and that should be an end to the matter. Interestingly, another such matter has been reported very recently concerning the Repair Shop TV show. The late comedian Bob Monkhouse compiled a huge collection of jokes in a book which was given to the Repair Shop experts to be repaired. Their repair work was filmed to be shown as an episode on TV, but the decision was taken to bin that segment, which will not be televised simply because someone protested that the book contained a "sexist" joke.
Bob Monkhouse was a very popular clean comedian, who must be spinning in his grave at this wokeism.
Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.
Please, keep Scotland blue
Much has been said about the colour of the Scotland team shirt worn for the game against Japan on Saturday. Is it scarlet, as the SFA seems to think? Or pink, as it appeared to punters at Hampden?
It's past time that the Scotland home kit was mainly Saltire blue with white trim; away kit white with Saltire Blue trim. No messing about season by season, or competition by competition.
The Scotland rugby team doesn't change the basic format or colour every season/competition. Its blue wouldn't be my first choice, personally, but the players know it and feel at home in it.
Players need to "feel" that they're playing in the colours of their country if they're to give of their best.
Ian Waugh, Dumfries.
Share