DELIGHTED as I am that the Glasgow School of Art appears to be rising from its own flames ("Glimpses of Mackintosh’s masterpiece emerge as major restoration project gathers pace", The Herald, January 25), I despair that the O2 in Sauchiehall Street, another iconic building, remains ignored, despite having been razed to the ground by the second bonfire to hit The Mack.

That despair is nothing, I suggest, to that of the dozens of individuals and families rendered homeless by the blaze nor that of the dozens of businesses lost as stretches of Sauchiehall Street were declared off-limits while the embers were damped down.

I have never set foot in The Mack but respect its status, which is surely more than can be said for those who allowed it to burn twice. It is being rebuilt while its environs are ignored and the O2's demise is mourned only by those of us who retain tickets for events which will never take place.

Jolly good that they're not looking for any public money for the refurb. Perhaps The Mack's "connections" could be persuaded to find a few quid to compensate for the rest of the damage their precious project caused
Steve Brennan, Coatbridge

Cut deaths by legalising drugs

WHY do people die from using illegal drugs ("Drug deaths increase prompts action appeal", The Herald, January 25)? Is it because they are actually deliberately committing suicide or is it because they unintentionally overdose on a substance that either contains harmful adulterants or substantially more of the material they thought/hoped they were ingesting or injecting?

If the same persons had bought the substance at a local shop or pharmacy and died then there would be outrage and the full force of the law would fall on an easily-identifiable retailer and producer. History shows there is a proven market for currently illegal drugs that will never go away, so these people are dying and others will continue to die unnecessarily simply because they want to use a substance that the Establishment in antiquity has deemed illegal.

If I can decide I’m a woman even though I have male genitalia and society must accept that as fact, then surely the same degree of self-determination should apply to what I put inside that body?

The obvious answer is, rather than enforce subjective morality on others, to legalise currently illegal substances and thereby introduce quality control and remove all the unnecessary expensive and futile involvement of our law-enforcement system in a battle they can never win. Considerably fewer people would die and not just those currently counted in the Scottish drugs deaths data.
David J Crawford, Glasgow

Cricket's answer for football

ALASTAIR Clark (Letters, January 25) makes two good points about VAR in football. I would like to add a third, specifically relating to the offside rule.

It is frustrating for a goal to be scored and the celebrations cut short for a lengthy VAR review which then rules the goal out for the slimmest of margins. Such decisions often remain controversial in post-match debate. It sometimes feels like the player ruled offside is being penalised for not having cut his fingernails that morning.

The footballing authorities have decided that, by deploying VAR technology, each decision can be determined definitively. But it is clear that this is not the case. While VAR can assist in reviewing decisions, it has limitations, not least the position of the cameras.

By looking to cricket an alternative, more satisfactory approach could be adopted.

Cricket uses the Decision Review System (DRS) and recognises that the technology has error margins. Thus, for LBW decisions, the third umpire reviewing the information from DRS can confirm the umpire’s original decision or correct a wrong decision. But in a situation where, even with DRS, the margin is too tight to call, he has a third option available, "umpire’s call" whereby the original decision made by the umpire on the field of play stands.

When it is not entirely clear if a football player is onside or offside, the VAR decision should be "referee’s call", made on the judgment of the officials on the field.
George Rennie, Inverness

Officials let down the fans

I NOTE Alastair Clark’s suggestions on how to improve VAR and agree in principle. My first comment is that VAR has been introduced by the inept people who run our game.

Most changes in the game are brought about by people who have rarely, if ever, paid to follow a team. Fifa, Uefa, the SFA and the SPFL are full of extremely highly-paid administrators who have no feeling for the game and even less feeling for the supporters who attend matches.

There was a great opportunity to learn from the various VAR systems in other sports, like tennis, as Mr Clark suggests. That would have been too sensible for the blazers who charged in with their own ridiculously complicated version and caused havoc.

My suggestion is that each team has one claim per half and only the captain or manager can make the claim. In NFL this is done by a yellow flag being thrown onto the pitch.

They have created a monster that is ruining the game as a spectacle and sucking the passion out of it. It’s placing a ridiculous amount of pressure on officials and costing a fortune.

As I say, the least important person in football today is the supporter who actually attends the match. Don’t get me started on kick-off times or the new offside law.
John Gilligan, Ayr

Brazil? That would be nuts

THE Diary (The Herald, January 23) carried the tale of a pub-goer posing the question of whether Scotland would have a chance in a competitive match against Brazil. I think that should be the Blue Brazil (aka Cowdenbeath FC).
Tim Cox, Bern, Switzerland

The Herald:

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.