Sir, How can it be that Angus councillors are too late to speak up to save the service? (“Councillors too late to save home help service” Courier April 8.
Are we to believe that this has been kept under wraps from our elected representatives in Angus Council, or is it that not one of them pays attention?
This service should be top priority as it provides a lifeline to our older generation, some of whom will not see anyone for weeks on end. We must speak out to stop this service from ending.
Can I remind the younger generation that this is a vital service as one day you will be old yourself.
Please take this up with your local candidate for the general election.
I already have discussed this with Derek Wann of the Scottish Conservatives and he has made inquiries with some of his colleagues at Angus Council.
If this is what the SNP administration and Scottish Government see as being a fairer society, then you will not get my vote.
Jim Smith, Glenesk Avenue, Montrose
Get behind staff at PRI
Sir, Let us all get behind the wonderful, caring staff at Perth Royal Infirmary who are doing such a marvellous job in very difficult circumstances.
A recent in-patient admission via my GP shocked me when I had first-hand experience of just how short of beds PRI is.
It is clear that the staff on the assessment ward are fire-fighting to find a bed any bed at all for patients directed there by their GP.
I have had nothing but praise for PRI for experiences in the past but in the past five years things have changed.
Patients were sitting in a corridor for up to 11 hours while staff struggled to find a bed to put them in.
The people of Perthshire need to know that demand simply outstrips supply and that things are very bad indeed. The politicians currently canvassing for our votes ought to try sitting in a corridor for many hours together with other sick, distressed patients while the staff charged with the ridiculous task of finding them a bed did their very best to comfort and resolve the problems they are faced with daily.
They are genuine heroes. Someone needs to stand up and take responsibility for the deterioration of a service that was entirely satisfactory. Ask yourselves who is to blame? It’s not the doctors or the nurses. So who is putting our wonderful local hospital in a position where it is impossible to meet the needs of the people of Tayside?
Jenny Adams (Mrs), Sunningdale, Dalginross, Comrie
Unanimity in referendum
Sir, Nicola Sturgeon makes much of her claim that in the event of an in or out referendum on the EU all countries in the UK should be unanimous regarding a vote to leave. Clearly she would apply the same logic to another Scottish independence referendum should there ever be one. In that event it is worth noting that out of the 32 regions in the referendum, 28 voted No.
Donald Lewis, Pine Cottage, Beech Hill, Gifford
Guardian issue raises concerns
Sir, Few people would argue against the notion that children are our nation’s greatest asset. We naturally ensure that they are nurtured, educated and protected as securely as possible and arguably no one can carry out this vital task more ably than loving parents within an extended family setting.
The vast majority of Scottish parents fall into this category and so I found it most perplexing and quite frankly incomprehensible that the Scottish Government is currently introducing, for every child under 18 a ‘Named Person Guardian” who it would seem has an authority over a child’s welfare which supersedes that of their parents, allows a named person access to a child without a parent’s permission, the scrutiny of medical information relating to the child and the questioning of a child with regards to their family circumstances, private life and relationships.
As far as I’m aware the parents will have no input into who the named person should be nor the extent of their involvement in a family’s life. The state will decide.
This legislation seems to have passed through parliament barely noticed over the last 18 months or so. This extraordinary legislation must surely undermine parents and will permit the state unlimited access to pry into the privacy of families in their homes.
Inevitably it will allow the use of intrusive powers to interfere in family life by scrapping the requirement to justify such intervention and spawn a bloated bureaucracy to handle it whilst diverting funds that should be used to help the acutely needy.
It’s obvious that the Scottish Government has given little thought to the grave possibility for the potential of hugely damaging unintended consequences that may befall the bedrock of our society.
At best it is the unwelcome interference by the nanny state but at worst I fear it could be the sinister introduction of state control relentlessly intruding into the heart of our family.
This is the thin edge of the Big Brother wedge and it must be stopped!
Iain G Richmond, Guildy, Monikie
Trident costs 12p a day
Sir, I keep hearing from the First Minister that the £100 billion renewal cost of Trident could, more or less immediately, be spent on all sorts to make things better for us.
Curious as to where this figure comes from, I have done some research.
It appears to be an arbitrary sum promulgated by the CND. House of Commons library figures are nowhere near as much.
However, even if were £100 billion, that is not a sum immediately available. It is the cost over 35 years.
The current UK population is about 63 million, estimated to rise to about 70 million by the mid 2020s.
Using the population, simple arithmetic tells us the daily cost, per head, would be about 12p.
We live in an increasingly unstable and dangerous world. The first duty of any government is to protect the state.
Is 12p a day for 35 years too much to protect us?
Should we abandon our deterrent, we would be at the mercy of any country or faction that wished us ill and not necessarily by nuclear threats.
Several very dodgy countries or groups could use chemical, biological or “dirty” bombs to spread radiation if they thought we were incapable of retaliation or blackmail us.
Trident does not have to deliver a maximum yield warhead to kill masses.
A minimum yield bomb would be enough to make the point if warnings of our willingness to use it were not enough.
John Dorward, Brechin Road, Arbroath, Angus
Inquiry needed over new road
Sir, In common with a recent correspondent, I am not in the habit of writing to a newspaper.
However, I cannot believe the complacency of the people of Perth and Perthshire regarding Perth and Kinross Council driving a road through the memorial gardens of Perth Crematorium.
There must be the ashes of tens of thousands of loved ones scattered or interred there. Despite assurances, while the work is ongoing, it is inevitable that men and machinery will invade this sacred area. The council just doesn’t listen to public opinion.
Ashes will be cleared “respectfully” to be laid aside, then on completion of works, scattered again. This is causing real emotional suffering. It is illegal to disturb interred human remains.
During this time, there are plans to upgrade the crematorium, both technically and cosmetically, resulting in disruption to availability for services.
I also believe Steve Brown of McDiarmid Park does not wish to lose St Johnstone football team’s training ground.
Ideally, a public inquiry is needed to sort this out.
June A Strachan, Luncarty
Planning process is just unfair
Sir, Penny Uprichard is right the planning process favours council officers, the leader and spokespeople over the public and other councillors, who must maintain a Trappist silence, maybe for years, before the council vote.
This prevents any proper discussion of facts or opinions between voters and their councillors and denies councillors a public forum to highlight facts, preferences or correct manifest errors.
It also limits the ability of expert councillors and experienced independent groups to debate well-founded arguments in public or even private and allows false or misleading statements, or opinion masquerading as fact, to gain traction among the public.
In addition, it leaves vital questions unanswered, or answered in a manner favourable only to council’s own proposal.
Councillors are denied full timely information, with insufficient time to absorb vast documentation packs before the vote.
It induces frustrated disillusionment among the knowledgeable or concerned public over the quality, objectivity and equity of the decision-making process, while others just accept “the council must know what it’s doing”.
While applicants/developers have rights of appeal against planning refusals, objectors have no such right against approvals, with expensive court action their only remedy.
The Madras College relocation is a prime example, where a “take-it-or-leave-it” executive decision was portrayed as “public consultation”.
Sauce for Pipeland’s goose was not sauce for North Haugh’s gander.
John Birkett, Horseleys Park, St Andrews