I AM writing with reference to Mike Underwood's letter (October 31). Roads are paid for out of general taxation and have been since 1937.

This is in recognition that we all use the roads in one way or another. Therefore non-motorists contribute towards their initial cost and maintenance.

What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is currently levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle. Bicycles, like some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons. Most adult cyclists pay their taxes to HM Treasury just like Mr Underwood, so to pay extra taxes for being environmentally friendly should be a non-starter. Incidentally, cycling is very good for our health and well-being.

Currently the UK Government pays a very small amount towards cycle provision, and some of the "cycle friendly" measures put in place by local authorities are frankly ludicrous. The UK Government has suggested a figure of at least £10 per person per annum for cycling, which is a pittance compared with motor transport.

I agree with Mr Underwood that cyclists should take responsibility for their safety and that of others, but that requires a degree of education. Young people should be, and in some cases are, given cycle proficiency training. It is true that some cyclists believe in invisibility. Any cyclist going out after dark without high-vis clothing and decent lighting is certainly asking for trouble. All cyclists should make themselves aware of how to ride in traffic, and learn that they may have to compromise on occasion. Cycling on the pavement is illegal, though Police Scotland have a very relaxed attitude to it. However, I can understand that nervous cyclists may want to get away from the traffic, but pavements are for pedestrians. I accept that young children are an exception to this, but they should be receiving training. Incidentally, you may remember back in 2012 when a certain Bradley Wiggins was knocked off his bike by a motorist.

It is also the case that when cyclists are killed or injured by motorists, the cyclist is currently often considered to be at fault. Most motorists "get away with it". This is why there is a call for "presumed liability" for motorists. Only a few years ago Gary McCourt was given a sentence of 300 hours of community service and a five year ban for killing Audrey Fyfe in August 2011. He had previously served time in prison for killing another cyclist. Sheriff James Scott said at the time that Mrs Fyfe "may have contributed to her own death". Most drivers who kill cyclists are prosecuted for careless driving rather than dangerous driving, even when they have been speeding or texting as they drive.

For 60 years I have been a member of the Cyclists' Touring Club. This is a national organisation which works for ordinary cyclists, including commuters. For a small membership fee each year, members get third-party insurance for when they cycle, regular magazines packed with information about cycling, and training courses for those who need them. Remember that cyclists are vulnerable road users, but have as much right to be using the road as any motorist because they pay for the roads as much as any motorist. I may cycle, but I too drive a car.

Robert Mitchell
Stirling

A SIGNIFICANT increase in spending on provision for cyclists can surely only be justified if there is evidence this would lead to more people getting on their bikes.

In Glasgow, a significant obstacle must surely be the lack of bike storage available for those who live in tenements. All the road improvements in the world won't change the fact that some people simply do not have room to store bikes in their flats, and do not wish to carry them up and down stairs.

Perhaps one of the cycling lobby groups could look into a pilot scheme providing secure bike lockers for a modest fee in areas with a high density of flats. This might also encourage bike-sharing among people with low incomes.

Susan Turner
Glasgow

Only one way to get rid of the Lords

ON Saturday Mhairi Black outlined the democratic deficit that is the House of Lords (No place for Lords if we really are a democracy, The National, October 31). I recall that when Tony Blair was elected with a large majority, one of my expectations of this much-needed socialist government was to end this symbol redolent of inequality in our society. We all know how that worked out.

From the venal antics of Mone, Darling, Robertson et al to the relics of Anglican bishoprics and aristocratic puppets, the Lords is a depressing affront to our resurgent democracy in Scotland.

And any glimmering hope that Labour under Corbyn had learned the error of its abstaining ways was ended when their lordships refused to back the one vote that would have stopped the cuts to tax credits.

The evidence of many years shows that there is neither the desire nor the ability among the political establishment to create an elected second chamber. The charging of our Lord Strathclyde as the latest reforming knight errant is a truly ridiculous irony of these times. Any notion that the Bullingdon Set and their fellow travellers are to now wield the sword of democratic reform challenges even the most naive.

A member of the audience on Question Time in Edinburgh last Thursday observed that in Scotland our second chamber is the people, backed by proportional representation. The only way the citizens of Scotland can rid themselves of these self-serving nouveau toffs is to take our destiny in our own hands. We will go before the Lords will.

Michael Burke
Address supplied

CATHERINE Gilchrist asks for suggestions anent a new House of Lords (Letters, October 31).

Assuming that independence will be achieved for Scotland sooner rather than later, this problem will no longer be ours and it will be interesting to see what answer the rest of the UK will come up with.

In Scotland, again assuming we consider it necessary to have a second chamber, I propose it should be on the old Scottish form of The Estates, which used to be the Crown, the Kirk and the Lords.

The modern estates would be more in line with the form of the convention which successfully campaigned for the formation of the devolved Scottish Parliament, that is to say containing elected representatives of the groups which make up a modern community. The most obvious of these are the law and other formal professions, the trades unions, the media and business. The process of election would be enshrined in the Scottish constitution.

This would have such advantages as requiring lobbyists to create formal groups to gain legal recognition and thus to argue their case in a public forum and not behind closed doors.

The venue for the Estates would naturally be in the Old Royal High School building.

Iain WD Forde
Scotlandwell


SCOTS can eradicate the influence of the House of Lords at a stroke. Vote for independence!

Now I don’t support the House of Lords and think it should be replaced, but the new body should share some of the characteristics that so concern so many.

They should not, under any circumstances, be elected to the role.

A revising body, in my opinion, should be apolitical, organised apolitically and should number no more than 120 souls, divided absolutely equally male and female.

Each member should serve a maximum of six years. The body should have a third of the chamber reappointed every two years so that the bulk of the acquired wisdom remains in the body at each new intake.

How would we get these people? Employ the system currently used to appoint jurors! Keep politics and, more to the point, politicians out of the process altogether.

Oh yes, what should we pay these people? Our respect to start with, and an annual sum directly linked to the nation’s average wage. There are already mechanisms in place to regulate this.

This then, would be a truly democratic body, of and for the people. More to the point, self-aggrandising politicians, while not being disqualified, would have no means of applying. Win win win!

Christopher Bruce
Taynuilt

THE article on the anniversary of the Battle of Sheriffmuir described the Old Pretender as the son of James II (300th anniversary bike run traces Jacobites’ rebellion at Sheriffmuir, The National, October 30). He would need to have been over 200 years old. James II died at the siege of Roxburgh in 1460. The 1715 rising was in support of the son of James VII, or if you prefer, James VII and II.

We had five kings called James, then Mary, then a sixth James who took over the English throne in 1603 and thus became James VI and I.

Mairead Mackechnie
Isle of Islay

I AM amazed that Pat Kane should make such a mistake as to include Dundee in his list of Scotland’s ancient universities (Rector’s role as lightning rod in great debate, The National, October 31). Staff members and alumni of St Andrews, Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities are occasionally heard to raise the question whether even Edinburgh deserves to be classed as an ancient university: that’s a joke, of course, but less ridiculous than ranking a university established in 1967 alongside foundations of 1410, 1451, 1495 and 1582.

Derrick McClure
Aberdeen

IT appears even Jeremy Corbyn has ditched Kezia Dugdale, as a news breaks that he is asking voters to back a left-wing alternative for Holyrood. If the electors are listening to Corbyn I would expect a commensurate increase in SNP, Solidarity and Green MSPs.

Malcolm Cordell
Broughty Ferry

IN yet another example of poor interviewing, Gordon Brewer on BBC One’s Sunday Politics Scotland displayed ignorance about higher education in Scotland and England and clear bias against the Scottish Government.

He harried his way through an interview with Angela Constance, who was trying to explain the difference between entry to university in Scotland from further education colleges and those straight from school. For Mr Brewer’s benefit, because he wasn’t interested in listening to Ms Constance, it is this: in Scotland more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds go first to college to gain university entrance qualifications than in England. Mr Brewer ought to have taken the trouble to get such easily obtained information instead of repeatedly shouting down the woman he was interviewing.

This was in stark contrast to the Labour Party delegate he spoke to about Kezia Dugdale’s speech, whom he allowed to mumble her way through what she wanted to say without a single interruption.

Lovina Roe
Perth

I WAS sorry you gave Krzysztof Charamsa such applause (Homosexuals and the Vatican, The National, October 29) His public stance on breaking his solemn vows as a priest for his homosexual relationship seemed to be regarded as though it were some great achievement.

Celibacy is of course a special calling, and perhaps he did not have it. Chastity, like honesty or temperance or diligence, is a virtue to which we are all called. Why should we celebrate a broken solemn vow?

There are hundreds of good priests in Scotland who not only acknowledge but live wholeheartedly the Catholic Church’s teaching on celibacy for priests. There are also hundreds of thousands of Catholics who not only understand and agree with it, but are very grateful for the service that their priests render.

Lesley J Findlay
Fort Augustus