Dear Ed, – I would be obliged if you would allow me, as convener of Clydesdale SNP Constituency Association, to reply to Cllr Gauld’s letter (July 10 edition).
Firstly, it is disappointing to note the tone of the language in respect of other elected members.
As he correctly states, this is a free vote for the Members with no pressures from any party, a most unusual happening in it’s own right, and they should be allowed to proceed without undue pressures.
Yes, the public should be able to express their opinions, as some have already done, but I am disappointed to note from various reports in the Gazette that the majority of objectors are in the more senior and religious grouping.
This to me indicates there is not the support Cllr Gauld claims as the majority of the population have moved beyond having a strong opinion on this matter and it’s completely irrelevant to the younger generation who, after all, will be the ones who have to live longest with the change.
Secondly, I note the use of biblical quotations of which I am sure Cllr Gauld is better acquainted then myself.
However, I would respectfully suggest that if the Bible was being written for today, it would be much changed to suit the needs of the world.
I was taught that the Bible was a book of guidance and that still applies today but it should be used in the current not in the past. Unfortunately, religion and politics the world over do not mix.
Come to think of it, neither of these two items mix successfully with anything. Look at the result when they meet; bloodshed and unrest throughout most of the world over many different religions.
Thirdly, it leaves Cllr Gauld with a decision or two to make – namely does he stay within the Party or does he resign?
If he stays, he should support the actions of the Party as a whole and not cherrypick those parts suitable to himself.
Others have disagreed, mainly over NATO, and some long-time members in our area have resigned while others have accepted the decision of the majority.
Should he resign from the Party I would respectfully request he stands down as an SNP councillor – after all he has been elected many times under that banner – and allow a by-election at which he would be free to stand under his chosen banner. It is his decision to make! – Yours etc.,
Convener, Clydesdale SNP Constituency Association.
make it simple
Yes or No...???
Dear Ed, – I note that Mr Mundell completely forgot that the charge for using UK roads by LGV’s to be introduced will apply to ALL EU countries including an “independent England” and independent Scotland.
The French pay in France, via tolled motorways, as do the Spanish and Italians. The German and Austrian hauliers pay a per kilometre charge collected via a box in the cab or by “Toll collect” terminals prior to joining the motorway. Other countries have their own systems; I have just given some examples.
While I am undecided at the moment as to the merits or otherwise of independence I am at a loss to understand why after independence, should that happen, the remaining part of the country can call itself “UK”.
From my understanding of history the “UK” was the union of the crowns of Scotland and England when the Scottish James VI took over the crown of England.
So if Scotland becomes independent the remaining part would be England/Wales (Northern Ireland has always to my knowledge been listed separately viz “United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland”.
As to the government services, for example DVLA, they belong to the UK as it now stands so after independence we would surly retain our share of it; how it could either be run jointly or our share sold to the remaining part of the country remains to be seen.
I challenge Mr Mundell and the rest of the anti-Independence brigade to stop scaremongering and tell the whole truth and not hide pertinent facts as Mr Mundell has done in this case.
I would also challenge the Yes brigade to follow the same course so that people like me can make a reasoned choice when the time comes. – Yours etc.,
Dear Ed, – I refer to recent articles and letters in the Gazette about a fenced-off area of track within Delves Park.
Jim Noble’s letter published by you on 10/7/13 refers to Planning Application CL/13/0025 for construction of a house at Castlefield, 107 Castlegate, a property adjacent to Delves Park.
This planning application was approved by South Lanarkshire Council based in part on drawing numbers O1B, O2A and O3B submitted by agents acting for the applicant and in an email to the council dated 15/1/13 the agents state that the property at 107 Castlegate is owned by the applicant and is within the blueline boundary.
These drawings are in colour. Examination of drawings O1B and O3B show clearly that within the blueline boundary is the part of the track within Delves Park which has been fenced off by the applicant.
However, worse even than this is the fact that the blueline boundary extends beyond the fenced-off area right along the track towards McDougall’s (Glenmuir) factory, stopping only where the track begins to rise towards the factory.
The area of Delves Park now claimed to be in private, rather than public, ownership is therefore much larger than was previously reported by the Gazette.
The current situation has the appearance of an attempted land-grab, an attempt which must be stopped.
The fenced-off area must also be reinstated to its original state (at the aforementioned applicant’s expense) to leave the entire track as a fully integrated section of Delves Park.
Finally, I call on all responsible citizens of Lanark to challenge South Lanarkshire Council, local councillors and Lanark Community Council to take immediate action to protect the boundaries of our Delves Park. – Yours etc.,
Dear Ed, – Members of South Lanarkshire Council’s Executive Committee have unanimously agreed a list of recommendations designed to protect workers who might otherwise be targetted for trade union or political activity, such as speaking up on health and safety concerns.
Blacklisting is a scandal that has affected workers and families right across Scotland and we believe that the only way to eradicate this morally indefensible practice is to strengthen legislation against blacklisting.
Many companies have profited significantly from the Scottish public procurement with responsibilities for the delivery of essential services in our public sector.
In particular, Labour Councillors have called on the SNP Government to introduce Anti Blacklisting measures in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, including prohibiting known blacklisting companies from tendering for future public contracts.
Labour has also called for the launch of an independent Public Enquiry convened by the Scottish Government into the extent of blacklisting across Scotland.
Every Councillor at the Executive, regardless of political persuasion, supported the position on blacklisting.
I hope that local MSPs Christine McKelvie, Aileen Campbell and Linda Fabiani can start to speak out in support of this campaign to oppose blacklisting. – Yours etc.,
South Lanarkshire Council.
share your views
Do you have a burning issue which you’d like to get off your chest? Share it! Write to the editor, Julie Currie, at 3 High Street, Carluke, ML8 4AL, or email [email protected]