Sir, On Tuesday my wife and I flew from Rome via Schiphol, landing in Edinburgh, 1200 miles and five hours later.
For once, all three airports and the airline worked flawlessly. However, it then took a further four hours to drive to our home in Perth, a mere 40 miles away.
Only after we joined the M90 link to the Forth Road Bridge at 6pm did we learn from the overhead signs that there had been a fluid spill on the bridge and to “expect delay”. We assumed that it had only recently occurred and that there had been no time to arrange for traffic diversions.
However, Wednesday’s Courier revealed that the spill occurred at lunchtime. Why were there no temporary signs set up in advance of the M90 turn off, which could have diverted traffic up the M9 for Perth, Dundee and points north?
I believe that most drivers would rather drive a few extra miles at a reasonable speed, rather than taking three hours to cover less than three miles.
This appears to have been a carbon copy of the incident on May 28 2012, after which a Transport Scotland spokesman stated: “As with all of these incidents, we will be reviewing the issues with key stakeholders, with the aim of improving our collective response.”
It is now clear that they did no such thing and that the statement was the usual sort of platitude which we have come to expect from government.
The First Minister and his colleagues are trying to persuade us to give them the mandate to run an independent country.
On the above evidence, they are incapable of even managing a small but vital part of the roads network, on the outskirts of the capital of that country.
John Martin. 166 Cedar Drive, Perth.
A bequest to grandchildren
Sir, I really must take issue with your regular secessionist, Mr Bob Harper of Anstruther. In his latest contribution (Letters, April 18), he appears to believe that Scotland can better defend itself against aggression and unwanted incursions if it becomes independent.
There are many issues ignored by Bob in pursuit of his independence dream, a very important one being the matter of where all the money will come from to pay for all the schemes.
To simply swallow SNP propaganda on the matter of the uncosted large range of expensive changes that will be necessitated by a “yes” vote is to ignore the reality of the impact on future life in Scotland for a very long time.
The referendum vote is a bequest to our grandchildren and their future generations. It is not some “suck-it-and-see” scenario from which we can reverse if we don’t like what the reality turns out to be.
If the desire for secession is driven by disaffection with politicians then the answer is to vote them out of office.
To simply think that politics in Holyrood will forever occupy a higher moral plane than that currently practised in Westminster is naive in the extreme, and let us remember that the SNP favours ever closer links to the EU which is arguably a much more profligate and uncontrolled political entity than Westminster.
Derek Farmer. Knightsward Farm, Anstruther.
Scotland will be skint
Sir, A “yes” vote at the September referendum, will start the process of separation, which includes Scotland joining the EU.
These negotiations will be lengthy, as nothing to do with the EU is “seamless,” and will provoke a flight of capital from Scotland, because many businesses and individuals will not wish to convert to the Euro, or be deprived of Bank of England support if the pound is used in a kind of ad hoc arrangement after separation.
So, regardless of the outcome, Scotland will surely be skint.
Malcolm Parkin. 15 Gamekeepers Road, Kinnesswood, Kinross.
One “b” is missing
Sir, The First Minister, Alex Salmond, is to be commended for his masterful grasp of alliteration. He has accused the Better Together Campaign of “bluff”, “bluster”, “bullying” and last weekend he accused them of being “boring”. All we need now is his plan B.
David Illingworth. Kirk Wynd, Abernethy.
Are they above the law?
Sir, I watched a programme on BBC1 (Scotland) on Thursday regarding the matter of parking. In it, civil enforcement officers, together with police officers, were identifying vehicles which had outstanding parking charges listed against them, with the threat of impounding vehicles if the charge (including extortionate enforcement fees) was not paid immediately.
My understanding is that with parking charges being decriminalised, enforcement is now a civil matter and as such the use of police resources should not be made, as the intention was to release police officers for other duties. What really drew my attention and anger is that in the process of carrying out the enforcement process, the drivers of vehicles were being stopped within the confines of a bus stop and with a cycle lane running through the road also.
It appeared the vehicle used by the enforcers was partially parked on the footway. Thus, apart from contravening the law themselves, the enforcement team were creating hazards for other road users.
By taking part, the police officers were complicit in breaking the law and bringing the police service into disrepute. Do the enforcement teams consider themselves to be above the law?
Alexander Shand. 96 Hawick Drive, Dundee.