AMONG the many expert bodies which roundly rejected the Loch Lomond Flamingo Land application last year, the most relevant is the National Parks Board, whose remit is to protect the land under its authority. Its unanimous rejection of Flamingo Land’s plans should have brought this sorry business to an end.
Flamingo Land appealed at the end of last year and rather than a public inquiry being held, we have a government “reporter” who makes decisions on behalf of the Scottish administration, disregarding local democracy. Where do the views of the parks authority, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the transport authorities, the local council and the general public – currently 178,000 of them – come in?
READ MORE: Woodland Trust calls on Government to reject Flamingo Land plans
This isn’t the first time this has happened. Remember Trump’s golf course, or the nine fish farm refusals which were overturned?
We have a corrupt system. It allows decisions to be made outwith public or parliamentary scrutiny and is an open door for unscrupulous gold-diggers. Writing to planning minister Ivan McKee doesn’t address the local democracy deficit nor does it prevent another Flamingo Land.
There’s another option. The Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 allows for a vote to take place on any controversial content – like this one. The Scottish administration should use it. But if it won’t consult the people, Scotland Decides can do it for them. It has a platform for verifiable voting that accords with national and international standards. Concerned citizens just need to register on the Scotland Decides website, as well as sign public petition PE2135 to enact the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which would give the people direct political rights and the right to self-determination.
The minister for the constitution, Angus Robertson, has failed to support the petition, which speaks volumes about the seriousness of this administration when it comes to protecting our rights.
David Younger
Tighnabruaich
IT’S reported a city congestion charge in Edinburgh is to be revisited, mooted by Green Councillor Chas Booth as needed for the council to meet its climate emergency commitments. Don’t we recognise this to be an outright lie?
Were this true then private vehicles could be prohibited – that would impact all equally and help meet climate commitments – rather than a charging scheme that reserves city driving space for the wealthier, driving their large, gas-guzzling SUVs which are the very last vehicles that should be allowed access.
READ MORE: Edinburgh residents urge Hearts to do more to stop illegal parking
And isn’t the move towards electric vehicles – along with the LEZ scheme that was foisted on us – supposed to address climate matters? How many times are we to drink from this poisoned climate chalice?
High parking charges, increased licensing fees, LEZ fines, bus lane fines, the iniquitous greed-inspired tourist tax and the whopping savage increase in Council Tax – there’s no relief for those subsisting on even just the bare state pension. Isn’t congestion charging just another way this city council can dip its greedy fingers into our pockets?
Over many years of the larceny perpetrated by Edinburgh’s council, citizenship has been rebranded, with us becoming individual cash-generation centres.
The galling thing is, where are the improvements to city life that can be laid directly at the door of this cash-guzzling council that cleans the city centre for tourists but fails in so many areas of responsibility like emptying overflowing street bins, clearing weeds, cleaning drains and replacing the unnecessary street furniture and decrepit speed bumps they have inflicted on us?
Pedestrianise the city centre, keep private vehicles out, yes. But no discrimination in favour of the wealthy against ordinary folks. NO to any congestion charge.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
IN his recent article, Tommy Sheppard states: “We’re all going to die. And we all hope it will be quick and painless ... what if the last months of your life become an endurance test of agonising pain without respite? Wouldn’t you want the right to end it? I know I would. And I’d want public health professionals to help me” (Plenty of those with disabilities want to see assisted dying law changes, May 19).
I think he will find, if he cares to look at the definition of palliative care as defined by the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care, that it covers all the points he raises. The important difference is, however, that the “assisted dying” provided by palliative care does not seek to help you kill yourself by means of suicide, but seeks to provide adequate pain relief for the mental, physical and spiritual pain felt by the patient and their family.
What we need is more palliative care to be made more widely available so that we can each, along with our relatives, be afforded the opportunity to participate in a truly dignified death free from the “agonising pain without respite”
that Tommy Sheppard and others like to reference. Only palliative care at the end of our life can supply that; there is no dignity in suicide.
Margaret Tuckerman
Buckie
Share