Sir, With regard to your reports (March 3 and 6), about Fife Council being accused of giving out partial information and being misleading about the chosen site for a new Madras College I am replying to Alan Paul’s response on Fife Council’s FOI reply about Madras College sites.
He ignores:
l My complaint about the lack of “written correspondence” with the district valuer vetoing a South Street/North Haugh exchange in 2012 referring instead to his 2010/11 advice for a different site;
l The DV’s amended opinion agreeing £1.7 million for Pipeland’s green belt, 12 times his first ruling that only a farmland price of £143K was justified;
l The non-comparable valuation criteria applied. Using the 12-times factor to North Haugh takes its value to £3.3 million the correct comparison with Pipeland’s £1.7M. So that exchange is more “affordable” than Pipeland, saving cash outlays of £1.7M plus £3M for South Street’s refurbishment;
l My reference to S4 of the Disposal of Land by Local Authorities (Scotland) Regulations 2010, which permits such exchanges irrespective of relative values.
In December 2013, Steve Grimmond emphasised the process must “be transparent”. The record suggests otherwise, eg Jim Birrell’s response to Cllr Morrison’s critique (March 6) that landscape impacts were “weighed up against the need for a school at this location”. There is no “need” at Pipeland; that was a choice made without proper site assessments.
For “the truth”, we need “the whole truth”. Could Alan Paul clarify these points?
John Birkett. 12 Horseleys Park, St Andrews.
Need more information
Sir, It would appear from the article recently published in your columns that Fife councillors have supported a proposal to build the replacement Madras College based on incomplete and, perhaps, misleading information, and indeed some of this may have been concealed during the decision-making process.
In the interim period, whilst the finding of the judicial review is awaited, it might be appropriate for a senior council official to provide additional comment, ie to confirm or deny the content of these statements to enable our councillors to be better placed to consider fully the implications of their decision.
Whilst it is abundantly clear to all that a replacement school is required it is becoming increasingly evident that Pipeland Road is not, and should not, be the chosen site.
The objections and alternatives have been well documented and it is inappropriate to restate these here.
Geoffrey H Robinson. 16 Hay Fleming Avenue, St Andrews.
It’s all about toleration
Sir, Alistair McBay of the National Secular Society (Letters, March 9) resorts to mockery and scaremongering to tell us why Christian values should be removed from education. To link Scripture Union and the bible with homophobic bullying is a cheap and nasty shot, sadly all too typical of the kind of propaganda the atheist secularists use.
As Christians we utterly oppose any form of homophobic bullying. The irony is that Mr McBay says he is for “free thought” but wants any point of view that is not in accord with the National Secular Society banned!
Angus Brown (Letters, March 9) claims that Humanists are not anti-religious and yet when I go on to their website I am told that Humanists are atheists or agnostics and I see that almost all their campaigns are anti-religious.
He asks the very pertinent question would I be as tolerant if my children chose to become Humanists the answer is of course. I would not be happy but I would tolerate it that is what toleration means.
If the Humanists cannot even tolerate an anti-bullying booklet which mentions prayer, then it seems as though all their professions of “free thought” and “toleration” are meaningless. The Christian view is that we tolerate those we disagree with and are prepared to allow different points of view. Which view should our education system be based on?
David Robertson. St Peter’s Free Church, 4 St Peter Street, Dundee.
Alex “haud yer wheesht”
Sir, What an excellent, well-argued letter from Dr. John Halliday, criticising those who seek to vilify a school head’s decision not to study the play, Black Watch. Once again, Alex Salmond has shown himself to be the bully he is.
His performance on last Sunday’s Radio 4 programme, Broadcasting House, reinforced that.
In a review of the Sunday papers, he was asked to comment on an article about the decision not to study the play. He roundly castigated the head’s decision, saying there was nothing wrong with a few, as he called them, “swearie words”.
When financier and mother of six children Nicola Horlicks dared to disagree, adding that swear words lost their currency with over-use, Mr Salmond immediately rounded on her, as usual condemning the person not the argument, and called her “ridiculous”.
Mr Salmond has shown that despite past experience in these fields, his knowledge of both the banking world and the oil industry is extremely suspect.
It strikes me, therefore, that he definitely should “haud his wheesht” on subjects of which he has even less experience education and motherhood.
Monique S Sanders. Ladybank, Fife.
Establishing the facts . . .
Sir, Since stories regarding funding for Kirrie’s camera obscura have appeared not only in local papers but also on BBC Scotland news, I thought it appropriate that the facts be established.
I attended a public meeting on Monday, on another topic, which was also attended by the leader of Angus Council, Councillor Iain Gaul.
In response to a comment from a member of the audience, Cllr Gaul stated that Angus Council had not withdrawn funds from the camera obscura but the National Trust for Scotland, which operates the facility, had.
John Henderson. Roebrek, Linross, Glamis.
Good reasons to vote SNP
Sir, Jim Levack’s letter on Tuesday (Vote SNP for Tory policies), displays some really woolly thinking. I don’t personally believe his conspiracy theories about Lord Ashcroft’s polls, but surely the only thing that matters is to keep the Tories out of power.
Nicola Sturgeon has unambiguously stated the SNP will never do a deal with the Tories which only leaves the Labour party to negotiate with. Personally I think that this statement has limited the SNP’s options, but she is the leader. So much for “jumping into bed with the Tories”.
I’m sure Mr Levack would agree with me when I say that Scotland has had quite enough of this government and the party that runs it. There are two ways we can deal with this; either we go independent not a viable proposition after the referendum or we can go for Devo-max, where everything, and I do mean everything except defence and foreign affairs, is run by the Scottish Government.
Should the SNP hold the balance of power in a hung Westminster parliament this may very well happen.
In that eventuality we would never again have to put up with the savage financial penalties imposed on those least able to afford them, while the highest earners and so-called nom-doms get away with paying little or nothing due to deals with their bankers. And, of course, things like the quite abysmal “bedroom tax” would never be imposed.
So, Mr Levack, if you are a Scot there is every good reason to vote SNP on May7.
Jim Robertson. 194 High Street, Montrose.
Creationism is not scientific
Sir, The petition regarding creationism at Scottish schools does not ask that creationism is not discussed at all in school, just that it should not be taught as a valid scientific theory, because it is not.
An appropriate class for discussion of creationism might be in Religion and Moral Education, comparing the various creationism ideas from different religions.
Norry Passway. 51 Reres Road, Dundee.