I WRITE in response to the recent letter of Margaret Telford and the responses of Pauline Taylor and Pat Farrington, who both take issue with her observation that the EU is “an unelected experiment”. Both Taylor and Farringdon compare the allegedly democratic EU with “that abomination” the House of Lords.

There is something about the House of Lords (and Westminster generally) that brings out the John Knox in many of your correspondents. They rage against robes and ermine. But they have got the House of Lords wrong. Don’t misunderstand me, I am not a fan of the House of Lords. I am just a realist. There is a strong case for an elected second chamber, but the House of Lords is not an “abomination”.

Unlike the fully elected House of Commons, the House of Lords is a deliberative rather than a policy-making chamber. The great majority of the current peers are nominated by the (elected) British Government. Because of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, the Lords cannot veto any public bill originating in the Commons and can delay such a bill only for a month (if it is a money bill) or a year (in other cases). The Lords can still veto secondary legislation and private member's bills. In fact, an over-worked Commons uses the Lords to introduce and fashion much important legislation. The Lords have a measure of power but only because the Commons allows it. They do a reasonable job in my view. No doubt the system could be improved.

Regarding the Commons, I feel good about direct representative democracy and I am against proportional representation as a complete system. There is nothing undemocratic about Westminster as a system of governance. Naturally, we nationalists have a huge problem with Westminster but that is because we see Scotland as a sovereign country which should make ALL its own policy decisions. For now, we must note that 55 per cent of our compatriots voted to continue with Westminster on September 18 2014. Raging on about an Aunt Sally like the House of Lords is not helping matters.

Regarding the EU system, I doubt very much (as implied by Taylor and Farringdon) that it had escaped Ms Telford that we have direct elections to the EU Parliament. The issue is: What kind of elections and what kind of parliament? What was the big issue last time? Could we stop Ukip getting a Scottish seat? There is no European electorate, only 28 national electorates. In the Parliament, the national MEPs join EU-wide parties that nobody has heard off. The main such party, the European People’s Party, proceeded to confirm Jean Claude Juncker as Head of the EU Commission, which is the executive body of the EU. Juncker then came back with names of 28 Commissioners (his Cabinet) who had to be approved by the Parliament as a bloc, not individually. All European legislation must originate with the Commission. Jeremy Paxman’s investigation showed that some 59 per cent of UK law is directly handed down by the EU. Scottish voters, whose representatives make up one per cent of this parliament (nine per cent in Westminster) cannot begin to change this system. We as voters cannot change the EU government. Tony Benn was right about that, if little else.

I strongly agree with Ms Pannell in her long letter (July 29). No British government, and certainly not the Remain campaign, has ever explained what the EU is really about. It is not populist to say the people don’t know how the EU works. I work in a leading professional service organisation and I am astonished at the ignorance shown even by very senior people in the professions and industry. Fortunately, the workings of the EU will soon be an academic matter for us.

William Ross, Address supplied

ANENT the letter from Mr Derek Ball of Bearsden (Letters, July 30) regarding cycling on the pavement, may I, as an elderly person who cycles every day, make some comments?

My friend Patricia Fort – who in terms of years, but most certainly not in mind and spirit, is, technically “elderly” – gave a very good response to another letter a few days prior to Mr Ball’s.

Mr Ball, with reasonable caveats, refers to statistics and states “there does seem to be good evidence that elderly pedestrians are at increased risk of significant injury from collisions with cyclists”. Can Mr Ball provide references to the data which leads to his statement, so that we can consider it?

I have no doubt that some elderly people are alarmed by being faced with cyclists on the footway, but I think that they are also at risk from joggers, people pushing prams, people in motorised mobility aids and inattentive pedestrians. I am not intending flippancy – in my days as a jogger, there were occasions when I came close to colliding with other pavement users.

However, I suggest that elderly pedestrians are at least as much at risk in, and alarmed by the prospect of, crossing busy roads, especially where there are speed limits above 20mph. I suggest they are as concerned by having to squeeze between cars tightly parked in order to cross relatively quiet streets.

Of course, generally, cyclists should not cycle on pavements, except where these are defined and signed as “shared use”. I do not cycle on pavements, nor do most cyclists I know, and, if a shared footway is busy with pedestrians, I use the carriageway. There are some cyclists for whom cycling on the pavement is defensible – young children who have recently learned, and, perhaps, elderly and unconfident cyclists who often cannot get access to even the quietest of streets because of parked cars, and, who, if they cycle on these quiet roads, fear being struck by the doors of inattentive car drivers.

But, as Ms Fort indicated, the big issue is not for people like Mr Ball and us to argue about the rights and wrongs of pavement cycling.We should be lobbying for a much better public realm ambience, which is not dominated by the demands of a few selfish vehicle-drivers.

Alasdair Macdonald, Glasgow


FURTHER to my recent letter and in reply to Patricia Fort (Letters, July 29), I would point out there are many cycle lanes in all of our cities, yet lots of cyclists still prefer the pavements. Why? She also suggests Joe Cowan should press his council to “get parked cars off our footways”. I have often reported cars parked on pavements, but this should not deflect from the nuisance of cycling on the pavement. It appears that if a car is parked on a pavement, it’s OK if enough space is left for a baby chair or wheelchair to pass, but nevertheless appears to be a grey area, however irritating. However, cycling on a pavement is not a grey area. Highway Code Rule 64 for cyclists states unambiguously: “You must not cycle on a pavement.” This is not advisory.

G Foulis, Edinburgh

THE French energy giant EDF gave final approval to go ahead with the £18 billion nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset. Theresa May has delayed signing the deal. This winter power stations will produce barely enough electricity to meet peak demand. Panic has set in.

The National Grid is paying 10 fossil-fuelled power plants £123 million to stay open but idle until required. Thousands of diesel generators are standing idle and being paid to be available. Hospitals have been asked to use their own diesel generators and not the national grid.

This is not an energy policy, this is back-of-the-envelope stuff. The Scottish Government cannot be critical, since Scotland’s energy policy of wind turbines has failed and Scotland now regularly imports “tainted” English electricity.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow

SHOULD the elderly in care homes have “a named person” to protect them from abuse? In hospitals too, if a nurse detects a patient is being neglected or abused by their next of kin how is this dealt with? Elderly men are not likely to say in hospital that they are being neglected or abused at home.

AC, Aberdeen


Letters I: ‘Social security’ benefits all – and the economy too