Sir – Whilst walking through Dundee city centre last Saturday night, I happened upon crowds bedecked in rainbow flags and all sorts of colourful fancy dress.
It was a bit like Greenpeace meets The Village People.
When I asked what was on I was told that it was a Dundee Pride day.
I might not be at the cutting edge of fashion or political correctness but if I was asked what Dundee Pride should stand for I would say its eponymous cake, comic characters, Dundee FC of the 1960s, Dundee United of the 1980s and perhaps – in time – the V&A.
What certainly would not trip off the tongue would be the Dundee gay scene.
In saying that, I realise that the LGBT community feels that for years it has been discriminated against and there is no doubt they may have good reason to think this.
But I do believe that if they wish people to respect their culture they have got to give a lot more thought to their nomenclature.
At present, they do themselves no favours by hijacking the word “pride”. As I write, I can just see those who love to be offended turn to their key pads and start frothing away with words like “homophobic”.
Let me assure them I have nothing against gay people – I am neither for nor against them.
I just don’t see what there is to be proud of.
Pride should be kept for real achievement, or – at the very least – a good loaf of bread.
Jamie Buchan.
Grove Road,
Dundee.
Opinions sought but then ignored
Sir, – I am writing as a former chairman of north east Fife district council to express my concern at the way the Fife health and social care partnership is handling its “Joining Up Care” consultation.
Two of its three elements propose to improve services to patients by localisation, the third – the out of hours services – by centralisation.
These are clearly contradictory methods, with only management reasons offered for centralising out of hours services.
The organisers had so miscalculated the strength of feeling that they had to move this week’s meeting from the Town Hall to the main hall at Madras, South Street , and then they turned away others, including myself, on the grounds that the hall was full to overflowing.
My wife who was there told me what happened, including the support for doctors and patients who said the proposals were putting patient lives at risk, especially those with asthma and diabetes, and the support for the idea that if only two centres could be provided for out of hours services, one should be in north east Fife and one in south Fife.
I spoke with a representative of the consultation at the door, and asked why the published objections of doctors had been ignored, and was told that they had been consulted, which on the evidence sounds like the sort of consultation where all input is ignored.
I also spoke with a member of staff who said Fife Council had forbidden them to express any view, but who gave one anyway.
It is outrageous to ignore the views of medical staff and equally outrageous to suppress democratic expression of views.
Out of hours services are services needed urgently.
That makes geography and travel time the main criteria for their location.
Offering to send an ambulance for the most medically urgent cases simply doubles the time before help can be given.
It is a matter of geography that Fife comprises 500 square miles, 300 of them in north east Fife with its slower roads.
If Fife can run to three out of hours centres, it would make better sense to have two of them in north east Fife and not two in south Fife.
Dr Clive R Sneddon.
Toll Park,
20 Hepburn Gardens,
St Andrews.
Union may not be best option
Sir, – Iain G Richmond (Letters, September 24) justifies Tory ministers’ refusals to meet with SNP MPs by describing them as, “sworn political enemies of the British state”.
This is a rather revealing statement regarding our democratically-elected representatives which, by extension, makes almost half of the Scottish electorate currently supporting independence enemies of the British state also.
In 2014, then Prime Minister David Cameron begged us to, “lead not leave” the UK, with our voice being respected as a member of a family of nations.
I don’t recall a proviso that only Conservative and unionist voices would be respected.
Subsequent events have shown Scots the true face of British nationalism in the raw.
Mr Richmond, as a supporter of London rule, is in the happy position of living in a Scotland ruled by a party rejected by his fellow Scots election after election, with the added bonus that his representatives of choice enjoy preferential treatment within Westminster.
I congratulate Mr Richmond for articulating so accurately the reality behind this, “better together union of equals”.
His belief that appreciating successful Westminster policies, “may encourage voters that the union is the best option for a secure and stable Scotland” is in keeping with all the pro-London contributions to these pages.
No examples of Westminster-led policies beneficial to Scotland are put forward in support of an argument which flies in the face of 300-plus years of evidence to the contrary.
Explaining how a “secure and stable Scotland” will emerge from the chaos of a Tory Brexit would certainly be a helpful start.
Ken Clark.
c/o 15 Thorter Way,
Dundee.
May is making a mess of it
Sir, – I was abroad when Theresa May sent cabinet ministers around European capitals in what she may have regarded as a “charm offensive” but everyone I spoke to in Italy considered to be yet another insulting attempt to break up the EU by setting member states against each other – and against the commission’s negotiators.
Mrs May’s lack of emotional intelligence is extraordinary.
Her presentation of the Chequers plan reminded me of the “dead parrot” skit while her aggressive “take it or leave it” pout was preposterous.
The EU cannot “take it” because it would undermine the union’s integrity, a state of affairs officials made explicit months ago.
Someone who has to demand “respect” has already lost it and the EU may now believe further negotiation is futile.
Certainly for those of us fearful of the prospect of crashing out with no agreement at all, it was alarming to hear her default back to her idiotic rhetorical trope that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.
Rev Dr John Cameron.
10 Howard Place,
St Andrews.
Coalition does us no favours
Sir, – I see that the Scottish unionist coalition of Labour and Conservative has been reunited courtesy of Richard Leonard’s statement agreeing with Ruth Davidson that there is no demand for another referendum on Scottish independence.
Apart from the fact that what he says is manifestly untrue, would it not be more useful if he was to make a statement clarifying the Labour party’s position on the more immediate issue, which is the UK’s imminent and disastrous departure from the EU?
Les Mackay.
5 Carmichael Gardens,
Dundee.
A hypocritical statement
Sir, – “Together we can change the world”.
Those were the words of John McDonnell during his speech at Labour’s recent conference in Liverpool.
So why is he reluctant to embrace the inclusiveness of the EU?
Ian Auchterlonie.
93 Denoon Terrace,
Dundee.
Labour fails to learn lessons
Sir, – The Labour Conference – itself a study in high powered inertia -– shows how they only know how to spend until broke.
They then borrow and spend until broke again.
Next, they get voted out, only to then spend their time jeering from the sidelines as the Conservatives repair the damage.
The electorate never seems to learn that there is no such thing as a socialist utopia with free lunches.
Malcolm Parkin.
15 Gamekeepers Road,
Kinnesswood,
Kinross.
