Sir, I write in regard to Bailie Derek Scott’s attack on the difficult decisions forced upon Dundee City Council following the budget setting process in February.
Dundee City Council is required to make £16 million worth of savings over the next two years due to austerity measures put in place by the Conservative Party, the very party which he represents.
Readers should be aware of the fact that the decision to review and subsequently change civic amenity site provision in Dundee is as a direct result of these austerity measures.
Notwithstanding this, Bailie Scott did not put forward an alternative saving proposal at the council’s budget setting process.
Perhaps Bailie Scott can advise readers if he has written to his colleague, Chancellor George Osborne, to request he puts an end to such cuts, which have resulted in the council being forced into making these difficult decisions.
Bailie Derek Scott is part of the Conservative Party machine making these austerity cuts to local government while not putting forward an alternative recommendation at the budget setting to counter the decision he complains about through the press.
This is hypocrisy and publicity seeking of the highest order.
Cllr Craig Melville. Dundee City Council, City Chambers.
Dismay over proposed closures
Sir, I read with dismay of Fife Council’s plans to close three schools.
This is the same Labour-led administration who, when last in power, built four schools (two of them, I’m told, “in the wrong place”).
One of the three proposed closures has an attendance of 93% capacity.
This would provide excellent material for a Monty Python sketch if it were not so serious.
Are those closures related to the PFI payments of around £1 million a month, which have to be found before a solitary janitor gets his wages?
Or are they because of the PFI payments of around £1.7 million a month that has to be found to fund the Victoria Hospital?
I understand that some PFI schemes result in £10.51 having to be spent for every £1 originally “invested”.
Surely the time has come for a modicum of honesty from this profligate administration by revealing the total cost to Fifers of their past mismanagement.
Joseph G Miller. 44 Gardeners Street, Dunfermline.
Cost already budgeted for
Sir, I note your correspondents expressing concerns about the costs of bilingual signage. Some also touch upon road safety concerns where bilingual road signage is operational.
My understanding is that each local authority that has adopted the use of bilingual road signage only does so when the existing signage is due for replacement.
In each case the signage costs would have been budgeted as a part of the normal replacement programme. Therefore, the cost of adding the second language to the signage is minimal.
In addition, I believe that research does not support the concerns about road safety when bilingual signs are used.
Indeed, should a driver who is distracted to the point of causing a road accident, as a result of bilingual signage, be on the road in the first place?
Bilingual signage is common in a number of other European countries and is accepted as a part of the normal driving experience, without any hindrance to drivers.
Finally, I can think of no better part of Scotland to adopt bilingual Gaelic road signs than Highland Perthshire.
The natural beauty of this area draws many thousands of visitors each year and I am certain that many of those visitors will appreciate the exposure to the strong Gaelic cultural heritage of this unique and beautiful part of Scotland.
John Morrison. Chief Executive, An Comunn Gaidhealach, Balnain House, 40 Huntly Street, Inverness.
Ignore majority at their peril
Sir, Supporters of bilingual road signs may be happy to spend millions on replacing the perfectly good signs we have at the moment, but the other 98% of us are not.
Some of the statements made in your letters column are hilarious. John Devlin asks, if there are accidents before the change: “How do road accidents happen when there are no Gaelic signs?”
George T Watt just wants them in Gaelic and not English. Good idea, then the 98% who have no interest whatsoever in speaking Gaelic, can stop and ask the odd Gaelic speaker the way.
Politicians ignore majorities at their peril.
John Strachan. 23 Beechwood Avenue, Glenrothes.
Explain to his constituents
Sir, I think it is ridiculous that Jim McGovern MP has the cheek to expect the UK taxpayers to pay the cost of his £23.90 train fare to attend a political meeting in Glasgow.
Mr McGovern’s union the GMB should have paid for the cost of his train journey.
Mr McGovern should also be explaining to his Dundee West constituents why he was at a political meeting in Glasgow and not representing their interests at Westminster.
Douglas W Tott. Stoneyburn, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay.
We need clear information
Sir, Irrespective of whether Jim McGovern should or should not have claimed for his £24 train ticket from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Courier, April 15), I sincerely question that it has “cost” the IPSA £27,000 to defend this case. The article seems to suggest that the IPSA have had to budget for this amount of additional expenditure.
As a taxpayer I’d like to see some clarity in the reporting of all such cases where public interest bodies claim that “such and such has cost the taxpayer thousands of pounds”. I imagine within such public bodies there are lawyers employed to do such work within their daily working day. What, then, has £27,000 been spent on?
More info please!
Chris Johnston. 15a Cowgate, Tayport.