I WAS interested to read your article (Partnership planning to transform derelict sites, September 22) concerning the setting up of a task force to look into the all too familiar situation of not only unused land but also empty existing buildings, many of which are going downhill rapidly.

The picture which you use to illustrate the article is just such a case. I presume that this is a fairly up-to-date photograph and not some archive item. The building shown may well be owned by some business concern holding it as a site investment and waiting for what it sees as the right time when it will be able to probably demolish it and redevelop for maximum profit.

Now a building like that shown, if it were in Vienna or Amsterdam, would never have been allowed to get into the state which we see in the photograph, with its four-storey-high afforestation complex! I would suggest that it should be mandatory that a building of such character and age must be restored and remain part of the heritage of the city and its history and not be wiped away in the rush, or in this case crawl, towards perceived modernity.

This whole problem is not just one which affects the towns and cities. Far too many dwellings, large and small, around the countryside are left to fall into a state of decay on country estates and farms, just because the owners do not want other people around. A lot of excellent dwellings have been deliberately destroyed by landowners for just this reason.

On the other hand there are many owners who, not having any further need for these sites, have sold them on for development into extremely attractive and worthwhile living accommodation. This has the added bonus of keeping the countryside and village businesses and schools alive.

Personally I think that anyone with such a reusable building should be asked if they have a future use for it – for instance a young member of a family who might need it in the foreseeable future – and if not then there should be a time limit set by which date if no progress is envisaged a compulsory order of some sort would operate to bring the unit back into use. This might require new legislation, and I am aware that some estate owners would not be happy with such a situation, but as a country we have to continue to progress and at the same time preserve our heritage and of course most important of all, provide an environment where everyone gets a worthwhile and affordable roof over their head.

George M Mitchell

Dunblane

OBVIOUSLY the print media do communicate strong ideas visually as well as in words. The catastrophic image of the Mackintosh Building and the photograph of a nameless, derelict, but obviously once elegant Scottish city street in the same issue of The National (September 22) are eloquent reminders of the steep uphill challenges always faced by anyone attempting to protect this country’s ever-threatened architectural heritage. This applies equally across our built environment, from famous tourist magnets to high streets in wee towns.

Douglas Hunter

Jedburgh

I WON’T hold my breath waiting for Jim Fairlie to understand what I actually said in the letter of mine he misquoted (Letters, September 20) in yesterday’s Sunday National. Perhaps he should read it again.

At no point did I suggest I support a currency union with the UK. I take serious objection to being carelessly misquoted. I do not support a currency union with the UK. I support a fully reserved Scottish currency and an independent Scottish central bank. Other well-informed people do not. But the actual fact is that a decision on our currency will be taken by a Scottish Government out of a range of options at an appropriate time. When we are independent.

That is the point I was making. I’ll make this as easily understood as possible – by adopting one currency model in the White Paper we gave our well-resourced and media-powerful opposition a target which they could effectively lie about. And they did. (And the Governor of the Bank of England conceded that that is exactly what they did).

They would have lied with impunity about any position on the currency we had adopted. And we then got tied down in an unnecessary argument which destroyed our momentum at a critical time and contributed significantly to the “Fear Factor” they were motoring on.

Our position should have been the entirely correct one – that there is a range of currency options open to us and we will choose the best one for us when we are in the independent position to be able to do so.

As is the case with the plethora of other issues which our opponents would love to encourage us into divisive arguments about – before we even get to the point of all these choices actually being realistic options for us to debate and make decisions about.

David McEwan Hill

Argyll