I DON’T often agree with Cat Boyd but this time I certainly do (Economic benefits of tourism need to balance social impact, August 28).

I live in a rural area where the narrow road is torn up by huge tour buses hurtling through. The council wouldn’t repair the road over the summer months due to concerns that closing it for two days a week would impact on tourism! Now it’s to be mostly closed in October for a fortnight, impacting on the lives of those living and working here.

The tour owners don’t pay for the roads here. That’s local council tax. The hotels in Inverness and Edinburgh where the coaches go between are owned by non-Scottish big businesses. And seemingly the staff in the hotels are young European transient workers. Obviously taxes will be paid by the owners and the workers, but I am not sure that overall benefits are seen.

The Northern 500 has led to hundreds if not thousands of motor vans in the Highlands, with benefits for Tesco in Ullapool but not much else. A friend living there reports that verges are churned up because so many drivers refuse to obey the passing places rules, and the increase in littering has been lamentable.

Here in the Trossachs you can’t wander the shores of Loch Venacher for the stench of urine from campers. I had to report a squad of drunken motorcycling campers who were tearing branches from trees for their fire.

I used to be 100% pro tourism in the interest of brotherhood and sisterhood of humanity. And I am not hard hearted. Last week I gave a couple of delightful Belgian students on a camping holiday coffee and let them have a hot shower in my house when they walked from Callander to my village and were disappointed of a cafe. However I do agree with Cat that an uncritical welcome to tourism is unwise.

Joan Savage
via thenational.scot

READ MORE: Economic benefits of tourism need to balance social impact

NEXT Monday a crucial day will begin for around 1500 Indian Ocean islanders when the International Court of Justice at their Hague headquarters will hear a submission from the island of Mauritius protesting Britain’s violation of UN resolution 1514, which directed the territorial integrity of de-colonised countries.

Britain retained possession of the Chagos Islands archipelago when Mauritius became independent despite the latter claiming that the island group was part of their territory. Eventually, in 1971, Britain evicted the 1500 islanders of Diego Garcia, one of the archipelago islands, so as to provide the US with a military airbase. The evicted were accommodated on Mauritius and are there to this day.

Then British Prime Minister Harold Wilson was alleged to have threatened Mauritius with no independence if they persisted in claiming possession of Chagos, and the present PM of Mauritius has also said that the present UK Government has threatened retaliation by means of trade and investment for bringing the issue to the International Court of Justice – in a BBC TV interview he specifically named former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

A host of other countries are making their submissions to the court on the issue, most of them backing Mauritius, and these include all the member countries of the African Union.

This forced ousting of the Chagossians from their traditional island home of Diego Garcia must surely merit reversing. In my opinion both the UK and the US are fortunate not to be facing the International Criminal Court over their actions in this matter.

Ian Johnstone
Peterhead

POPE Francis has now said that families shouldn’t shun their children for being gay but should instead seek psychiatric help.

It is absolutely twisted that a celibate octogenarian who presides over the biggest paedophile ring the world has ever seen is trying to control the healthy sexual identities of others. Mr Bergoglio should confine his opinions to the supernatural, and leave sexuality to those who have one.

Neil Barber
Edinburgh Secular Society

THE two letters in Tuesday’s edition represent exactly the two kinds of reactions following the death of John McCain (Letters, August 28). One is “he was a warmonger, because he did...” followed by a list of actions that objectively are classified as warmongery and disregard for peace and diplomatic solutions, and an appetite for war and destruction. The other is “we should praise him for his honesty and integrity”, but surprisingly failing to provide examples of either his honesty or his integrity. Admittedly it is easier to find actual negative examples rather than positive, and this should tell us something.

Teo Dugal McSpan
via Facebook

I THINK his claims to honesty and integrity are easily exaggerated because in comparison to Trump he appears saintly. His public refuting of the racist hate campaign against Obama was notable in itself.

Richie Maguire
via Facebook

READ MORE: Letters: Don't rewrite history after death of John McCain​