Sir, When I asked about the financial issues regarding a new school budget for both Pipeland and North Haugh at St Andrews I was told that figures were not available and could not be discussed as it was not a planning matter.
So, I have tried to get an idea of a figure by using the Fife Council consultant’s calculations used for the North Haugh. This was a “high level cost estimate” which was issued on February 24 2012.
There is £43 million to be spent on this project which includes preparing the site, all transportation and traffic management, flood prevention and ecological and environmental surveys and mitigations.
There is enough information online now to allow me to try to draw some conclusions between the two sites under debate.
My aim has been to find out how much of the £43m will actually be left to build a school once all other parts of the development preparation have been carried out.
The Pipeland site requires road restructuring, including gas and water pipe rerouting, and has much more preparation work to be completed. I have calculated that there would be in the region of £24m left for the actual school structure.
The North Haugh site needs far less preparation and the road restructuring required is much less, being adjacent to the A91 and with a sports facility already on site. This would also include the exchange of university land at North Haugh for South Street Madras College which is in need of much repair and upgrading.
The figure I arrived at for the development of a new school structure on the North Haugh site is in the region of £35m.
As I have said, this is my idea of costs using the limited material already available.
I and many others would ask Fife Council to issue their figures so that the public can see what sort of school they can expect for the public funds being used in this project.
I believe they have a duty to do so.
Bill Sangster. 24 Main Street, Strathkinness.
Impertinence of the SNP
Sir, Mr Stuart Wishart doesn’t write often to The Courier, but every time he does, we have agreed wholeheartedly with him.
For some time we were members of the SNP. We left when the Scottish Parliament passed the same-sex marriage bill.
Prior to that vote, we wrote to Alex Salmond, warning him that the future would not be good for anyone tampering with an institution founded by God.
What impertinence! Is it not because so many have strayed from God and his will, that this country is now in so many difficulties?
D and E Williams. Flat 20 Pennycourt Court, Dundee.
A predictable attack, again
Sir, In his letter, “It fell well short of expectations”, in Monday’s Courier your regular correspondent does not fall short of expectation. Mr Bell has become so predictable with his attacks on the Scottish Government that we need hardly botherreading them.
His suggestion the referendum somehow created the recent depression is depressing in itself. Apparently he has not noticed that the whole world suffered a depression.
Since Mr Bell has previously made it plain how insignificant he felt Scotland was in the great scheme of things how could such a puir, wee Scotland be responsible for the worldwide depression?
Griping on about proportional representation in Scotland is hardly the signature of a democrat. The previous first past the post system would have left two of the unionist parties with almost no representation between them and the Labour Party with precious few MSPs too.
The Scottish Parliament works with a committee system which largely reflects the number of MSPs democratically elected by our people. Whether Mr Bell likes it or not, the Scottish Government majority is likely to increase even further at the next Scottish election.
Although a lot can change in the next six months, it seems clear that the unionist party representation from Scotland will decrease at the next general election and that will be in the first past the post system.
The political awareness referred to in Mr Bell’s letter is in good hands with regular meetings of different organisations continuing and some with standing room only. Democracy will prevail in the end and Mr Bell and the fear mongers will be the biglosers.
Dale D Smith. Kingarth, 46 Brechin Road, Kirriemuir.
Rejecting the rejected
Sir, I was saddened to read the content of your report, “Opposition to proposed site for children’s home” (November 12), which detailed Kirkcaldy’s Raith Homeowners Association’s fight to prevent Fife Council establishing a home for looked-after children in their locality.
Their objections seem to revolve around a fear for their property values, a perceived belief that these children will somehow run amok and disrupt their peaceful lives and an acceptance that it is inconceivable that the good residents of Raith Gates could ever foster any positive relationships with these young people.
Has anyone stopped to think that these children are already denied what most of us would take for granted the security of a warm, loving and supportive family life?
The fact they are “looked-after” children is not, in the vast majority of cases, as a result of their own actions.
The least that society should do for these children is to give them the best possible start in life, despite their situation. After all, these children are our future.
The message being given to these young people by the Raith Homeowners Association is one of rejection. These children do not need any further rejections in their lives.
Robert N Hutchison. 2 Rosemount Crescent, Glenrothes.
Street lights nonsense
Sir, I noted with interest a recent letter in your columns regarding the downgrading of street lights in Perth.
The council have installed what appear to be three-watt bulbs to replace the existing sodium lamps. This has resulted in roadways reverting to lights with all the appearance of the old gas lamps which were removed in the 1950s.
Crieff Road and Scone Road, for example, now have the appearance of total darkness extending into the distance.
It seems strange that the roads department, which I understand have underspent their budget over the past few years, consider that this is a sensible course of action. It is also strange that the council are willing to spend a large sum bringing a third-rate pop star to switch on the Christmas lights when they are downgrading street lighting and are unwilling to keep roads in a good state of repair.
The excuse of global warming does not stand up, in my opinion.
Rodger A Scott. 72 Feus Road, Perth.
Setting the record straight
Sir, The news item headed “Courts reform enshrined” in Wednesday’s Courier is, unfortunately, factually inaccurate.
In the third paragraph your reporter states that litigants “previously have had to take civil cases of more than £5,000 to the Court of Session for resolution”.
This is quite wrong. The correct position is that any action for less than £5,000 could not be taken in the Court of Session but had to be taken in the sheriff court. In practice very many actions for a great deal more than £5,000 have been brought in the sheriff court.
The next paragraph is also inaccurate. It states: “The legislation will mean sheriffs can now deal with cases up to £100,000.” The true position under the new legislation is that any action for less than £100,000 must be brought in the sheriff court and cannot be brought in the Court of Session.
Again, in practice, it is highly probable that actions for more than the Court of Session lower limit will be brought in the sheriff court.
Alastair L Stewart. 86 Albany Road, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.