I KNOW it was a while ago when the Tories set out in 1994 to put the knife into Strathclyde Region and Glasgow District in particular, but has it been noticed what resulted for Glasgow compared to Edinburgh District?
From 1966, Glasgow District was created as part of a considerable four-year analysis by the Wheatley Commission, substantially agreed by Edward Heath by the 1973 Scotland Act, then introduced in 1975 with Harold Wilson in office. The city grew its population and land area by including a substantial part of Lanark county. A comparison then was reasonably fair between Glasgow and Edinburgh However, by contrast, after 1996, Edinburgh District, at that time probably slightly smaller in land area, was given large areas from the councils around, including much housing and population.
I struggled to find precise new land areas except that Edinburgh's land area rose to 260sq km, whilst Glasgow's shrunk, losing parts of Lanarkshire, to 175sq km. In addition, Edinburgh acquired a 23% population increase, whilst Glasgow lost 9% . This also gives Glasgow a higher population density.
All this time, excluding motorways, Glasgow Council has had to fundamentally support the infrastructure of a much larger population living in its surrounding areas than Edinburgh and who are also outwith its council tax area.
Should they not be part of Glasgow to help the city pay for many of the services and amenities they enjoy? It could be why a possibly under-resourced authority struggles in many of the ways your correspondents have described.
John Taylor, Dunlop.
READ MORE: Glasgow badly needs an Andy Burnham to stand up for it
READ MORE: £150 for tea at Balmoral Castle? Here's a better (free) idea
Why climate action is a must
CLARK Cross (Letters, July 9) completely misses the point of my letter of July 8, presumably because he has been convinced by some obscure and illogical evidence that the increase in greenhouse gases does not exist or if it does, that it is having no effect on the climate.
I was not suggesting that we adopt a policy of allowing anyone and everyone into our country which we are very fortunate to live in.
Other less fortunate countries are experiencing deteriorating conditions which could make it impossible to live there and if the only way they and their children can survive is by getting on a boat then Dr Gerald Edwards (Letters, July 4) and it appears Mr Cross should prepare themselves for an increasing armada of concerned migrants.
I am not entirely sure how they propose to stop this, however surely the sensible course of action is to accept what a large number of very intelligent scientists are evidencing and take action to reduce this change as much as possible.
If they want to believe in fairy tales and avoid scientific evidence then perhaps they are reading the wrong books.
Iain McIntyre, Sauchie.
• CLARK Cross asks the question why the UK should take in refugees of any kind, including climate refugees. The answer is very simple: because we (as in the Western world) are responsible for the harm which has been done to the climate.
Trudy Duffy-Wigman, Crook of Devon.
How could they leave out McKellar?
I AM thrilled that Paisley, the adopted home town of my youth, is now recognising the stars who were born in the town (“Follow in footsteps of legends on new Buddie walking trail”, The Herald, July 4). Incidentally, it is where I met and eventually married my wife, a Paisley "buddie".
Some of those mentioned for this honour provided the sound track of my youth, particularly Gerry Rafferty with whom I was acquainted.
While it is difficult to argue or disagree with the list of nominations, one monumental omission is that of Kenneth McKellar, internationally recognised as the "voice of Scotland" and arguably one of the most versatile tenors ever to grace the world stage.
He did so with a charm and professionalism that was a credit to the town of his birth: he was an incredibly proud Paisley buddie.
So how about it, Paisley? You have got to include hum in your walking trail.
Dan Edgar, Rothesay.
Still smiling
MARTIN Roche (Letters, July 9) says " the late Lord Provost Michael Kelly was the public face of the rebirth of Glasgow". I am advised that Michael Kelly is thankfully both alive and well. Only last Thursday he was at a local polling station affording support to our now newly-elected MP. Obviously, still with the gift of backing winners.
Allan C Steele, Giffnock.
Snap happy
I AM always saying to my partner, Paul, that I hope that my photos give people pleasure, albeit fleetingly.
Such thoughts were very much to the forefront of my mind when my 199th Herald Picture of the Day was published on Monday (July 8) and I was deliberating whether I should draw a line at 200.
A timely (and rather flattering) letter (July 9) from Gordon Evans made me think otherwise.
Thank you, Gordon. It is so good to know that my photography can lift the spirits (as your letter lifted mine).
I will continue to submit photos in the hope that they are enjoyed by Herald readers.
Jacki Gordon, Glasgow.
Keep the broad sheets
ALTHOUGH I buy The Herald for its excellent journalism, my veg also gets to benefit.
Thanks to The Herald, carrots, beetroot, leeks and much else are able to live in a weed-free and moisture-retentive environment; not to mention the knowledge and debate which they can absorb and (hopefully) pass on to the eater!
Tabloid sheets would be much slower to lay, and less wind-resistant, so my veg (especially the broad beans) implore you to retain the broad sheets.
Dave du Feu, Linlithgow.
• I’M a little dismayed at the calls in the Letters Pages for The Herald to resort to a tabloid format. I find the broadsheet easy to negotiate. Mind you, the last time I read a tabloid was over 70 years ago. I can’t quite remember whether it was the Dandy or the Beano.
Hugh Dunnachie, Sanquhar.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel