ON Monday, you published a picture of a fleet of new hybrid ferries that will operate on the River Thames ("Ferries for the future", The Herald August 19).
This followed an interesting feature by Teddy Jamieson ("Why aren’t we doing more with the River Clyde?", Herald Magazine, August 17).
Could the Clyde itself not be considered as an unused asset that could aid transport infrastructure for the communities along its banks?
A similar but smaller design of hybrid catamaran than those built for the Thames, that had a lower air draught that would allow passage under the various bridges that now cross the river, including the newer ones at Govan and Renfrew with no need to open them, should be possible. Also, I believe that this ferry type is fast and the hulls do not create a sizeable wash.
Landing pontoons already exist at the Broomielaw, the SSEC, the BBC and at Braehead. Others could be created at various locations and if the River Cart is still navigable, then perhaps a terminus pontoon to serve Glasgow Airport could be an option at lesser cost than a light rail system to link the airport with the city.
I noticed in your caption on Monday that the Thames ferries were built in the Isle of Wight. Perhaps a Scottish yard could be found to design and build a suitable ferry type. The yard at Ardmaliesh comes to mind.
Such a service would need the input of private operators and I wonder if this could attract operators such as the Easdale Brothers to supplement their bus operations.
Ian Gray, Croftamie.
Safeguarding a national treasure
IT is clear from Stuart Brennan’s remarks (Letters, August 20) that he is unaware of the depth of opposition within the local community to Flamingo Land's proposals for Loch Lomond. The decision on how to develop the site around the former Tourist Information Centre should rightfully rest with the community that lives there, not be dictated by external interests.
Contrary to Mr Brennan’s dismissive characterisation, the community's concerns are not rooted in self-interest, but in a genuine desire to protect and enhance a cherished public asset. Loch Lomond is part of a National Park: a status that reflects its value as a natural and cultural treasure. The site deserves development that respects its significance and serves both residents and visitors in a way that aligns with the park's mission.
There are indeed creative alternative proposals being put forward, ones that prioritise sustainable development and the long-term wellbeing of both the environment and the local economy. These alternatives could provide jobs while also preserving the unique character of Loch Lomond, ensuring it remains a place of beauty and tranquility for generations to come.
Mr Brennan's suggestion that this opposition is merely a case of "nimbies" trying to preserve their own access is misguided. This is about much more than individual preferences; it is about safeguarding a national treasure and making decisions that reflect the collective good.
Let us not reduce this debate to a simple argument over jobs versus conservation. Thoughtful, community-driven development can - and should - achieve both.
Elaine Colley, Dumbarton.
READ MORE:
Why Flamingo Land's plan must be opposed, no matter what it's called
Lomond Banks development would be a boon for the area
'Definitely not welcome': Let's keep dogs out of restaurants
Independent figures
STEPH Johnson (Letters, August 21) accuses me of “displaying an oft-held ignorance regarding the provision of independent education to children in Scotland”.
She claims that independent schools provide a “significant number of pupils with financially-assisted places, in some cases 100% of the fees”.
Only one per cent of pupils in private schools go free of charge and seven per cent receive means-tested bursaries. Those are not significant numbers.
The vast majority of parents do not send their children to private schools because they cannot afford the fees and the vast majority will not be able to secure the very limited number of bursaries available.
David Clark, Tarbolton.
What's going on at WHO?
WHO (the World Health Organization) has declared a global health emergency over monkey pox. There were a reported 51 deaths in 2023. For 2021 the same WHO declared that there had been 1,600,000 deaths from TB (tuberculosis, an infectious disease) globally, yet didn't declare an emergency The only science that's been at play for the last four or five years is behavioural science and political science.
Geoff Moore, Alness.
Burns had it right
IN some ways Kevin McKenna’s tale of the DugzApp group, including Big Rab the Lab, Tam the Ratter and Davey the Preacher ("The ruff guide to so-called ‘dog-friendly’ restaurants", The Herald, August 20) reminded me of The Two Dogs of Robert Burns. Burns’s poem, a picture of the life of ordinary people in his time, featured Caesar, a pet of a laird, and Luath, a working collie. They were good friends in spite of their very different backgrounds.
Those to whom the dog is definitely not man’s best friend can readily find reasons for keeping dogs out of restaurants such as the "love me, love my dog" attitude of many dog owners which annoys others; the noise created can often drown out attempts at conversation by customers at adjoining tables; dogs allowed to roam around by their owners can get in the way of normal restaurant traffic, including the waiting services; and the noses of dogs could have previously been in places you would rather not think about.
This controversy over dogs accompanying their owners, who are often blind to the misbehaviour of their canine companions, to restaurants, reminds me of a statement by Caesar in The Two Dogs:
"But human bodies are sic fools,
For a’ their colleges and schools,
That when nae real ills perplex them;
They mak enow themsels to vex them."
Ian W Thomson, Lenzie.
The dogs debate continues (Image: Newsquest)
Barking mad
IT'S not just restaurants, pubs and shops that have gone dog-friendly (Letters, August 13, 14 & 15). Here in Edinburgh, even the public libraries have "dogs welcome" days. Heaven help us.
Mike Lewis, Edinburgh.
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