Friday’s scribes analyse politicians’ ‘vanity projects’, the use of roadside gantry signs, consultations on Angus’ library service and feelings over the Forth Crossing Bill.
Sacrifice ‘vanity projects’ during cut backs Sir,-The record of projects in public works gives us little basis for trust in politicians’ management of taxpayers’ and borrowed money, as exemplified by the Scottish Parliament buildings, Edinburgh tram project and the grotesquely expensive responses to fears of climate change.
The real problems in Perth include nocturnal yobbery and empty shops, closed, basically, because of resources being switched from private to public spending.
Your reports on the proposed bridge and new roadworks offered by Perth and Kinross Council suggest that their priorities remain in vanity projects, in this case ostensibly justified by traffic congestion (compare this with Glasgow’s and many other cities’ far worse problems) and, still less convincing, poor air quality.
Don’t these councillors know that Scotland is heavily in debt, needs better education and training for our young people and support for industrial and scientific research and development?
Such priorities in expenditure of our money would give our nation a better chance in the highly competitive future our people will face.
Costly vanity public works will not help us to keep the Fair City fair, and maintain prosperity, which is what our politicians ought to be trying to foster.
(Dr) Charles Wardrop.111 Viewlands Road West,Perth.
Restrict use of gantry signs
Sir,-I am in total agreement with Ron Connelly (November 9) regarding the overhead gantry signs.
Would it not be a better idea to keep them off unless there is something that the motorist has to be warned about?
Is it not second nature for a motorist to check fuel?
Do we not know that we are driving in fog?
There has to be a sense of complacency creeping into motorists towards these signs because they are on all the time. If they were switched on, only when required, drivers would pay more attention to them.
Maybe they have to be kept on to justify their existence?
Stephen Caldwell.31 Bankton Park,Kingskettle.
Flawed consultation
Sir,-Angus Council have been consulting about the almost non-existent library service in rural Angus.
Anyone attending the meeting in Newtyle last week might have thought that the residents of that town were uninterested, since attendance was so low.
That would be a misunderstanding. Angus Council organised the meeting while, due to elections, there was no sitting community council to publicise it.
Of course, since the meeting started at 5pm, most working people could not possibly attend anyway.
This continues the approach of our ruling coalition of representatives to rural library services.
They closed the libraries in all the smaller rural towns to save £30,000, without researching the effect of the decision.
Now they are talking about delivering an inferior service after spending £90,000 each on two mobile library vans.
It transpires that these may, or may not, have internet access which may or may not be considerable added expense.
In the meantime, the librarian staffing the mobile library for Newtyle has difficulty getting even a mobile telephone signal so that he can check with Forfar staff about ordered books.
This community council conducted a survey immediately prior to the closure of Newtyle Library.
Forty-five percent of those surveyed made regular use of the library to access the internet, with more than 20% using it at least once each week and some each time the library was open. These people had no alternative access.
Michael Ryan.Chairman,Newtyle and Eassie Community Council.
Why high bridge cost?
Sir,-MSP Jackson Carlaw’s praise of the objection process of the Forth Crossing Bill (November 5) is hardly surprising.
He is the convener of the committee dealing with this matter but, in my view, his self-praise is unwarranted as his committee has dodged the big issues.
By my Objection 48 I attempted to persuade the Scottish Parliament that we should get value for money on the construction contract for the new Forth Bridge by the introduction of clauses in the bill to ensure fair competition and anti-corruption and price-fixing clauses.
My concerns in this regard arose when the £500 million estimated price for a new bridge soared to £4.6 billion in a short space of time before settling at its current extravagant level of £2.3 billion.
By any comparison, this price is astronomically high.
This exorbitant pricing was evident in 2007 when John Swinney rejected a one-mile long tunnel under the Forth on the basis that it was too expensive as it would cost £6.6 billion.
Yet just last week, the 36-mile long Gotthard base tunnel broke through the Alps. The cost for this massive 17-year project was £6 billion. However my attempts to have cost/corruption safeguards built into the bill were tossed out without consideration by Carlaw’s committee, on a technicality.
It seems as if any public works carried out in Scotland is subject to a cost multiplication factor that defies logic.
Tom Minogue.94 Victoria Terrace,Dunfermline.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL.