A COUPLE of years ago I was distressed to see the wholesale decimation of trees along the stretch of the Water of Leith near where I live. The “replacement” saplings are few and far between and have not been adequately protected. And even the ones that have survived will take decades to re-grow.
Then I happened to be passing a few months later when workmen were in the process of hacking down mature cherry trees at Potterrow on the Edinburgh University campus. This is now a blank concrete wasteland which people skirt around.
Could it get worse – in an era when we all know how precious these long-maturing essential plants are? Oh yes. Walking into Edinburgh on Monday and watching as the usual garish Christmas tourist tat goes up, I noticed newly chopped stumps in the park immediately in front of Waverly station. Well-established trees in the heart of the city appear to have been cut down to make way for temporary fairground rides and stalls.
I spoke to a council worker who informed me that to accommodate this year’s Christmas tourist tat, 50 – yes FIFTY – established trees had been chopped down.
So, even in this desperate world we live in where our children are suffocated more each day on pollutants and diesel fumes and cities are the worst offenders – it’s OK to chop down dozens of trees for temporary, gaudy tat in the heart of a major, supposedly progressive city. Do the council think environmental vandalism is the spirit of Christmas?
Amanda Baker
Edinburgh
FOLLOWING on from your report about “Union jackery”, perhaps letters such as that below, which I intend to send, should be sent by more of your readers to Tesco:
“As a supporter of Scottish independence, I must thank you for promoting our cause so effectively through your efforts to impose ‘Britishness’ on your customers by the application of a Union Jack to Scottish quality products. In my personal experience, you have managed to antagonise a growing number of customers and strengthened their conversion to our cause. In common with many of my family and other acquaintances, I now shop with Tesco only when absolutely necessary, preferring the German retailers and others, who are proud to show their support of our Scottish produce.
“May I also point out that there is no such thing as a country of the UK, that being merely a political institution, while ‘Britain’ is a geographical one covering only Scotland and England? The UK is made up of four separate countries, co-operating politically but with individual histories, cultures, systems and identities. Should German cars be labelled ‘European’? I have no antagonism towards any other countries or nations and would expect each to be accorded equal respect and consideration, but I am Scottish and object to being persuaded, or even bullied, to believe otherwise.”
C’mon folks – support your COUNTRY!
L McGregor
Falkirk
I HAVE just sent the following message to Tesco:
“Recently we received our Christmas Bonus voucher. It was for a much smaller amount then we got last year. The reason is of course that we have been spending less in Tesco than we did last year.
“The reason is that we are protesting against your policy of plastering the Union flag over so many products. The idea of Scotland the Brand is too important an idea to be undermined by the political choices of big business at the behest of the UK Government.
“You will notice that I am not boycotting you. I am merely working on the presumption that I will probably not shop with you, and if possible I will not buy Union Flag branded products. Many of my friends are taking the same attitude, and with pleasure are shopping in other stores where there is a tendency to flag up Scottish products.
“It might be to your commercial advantage to rethink your policy, especially at a time when there must be uncertainty in the retail sector, and you really need all the turnover you can get.”
Perhaps if a a lot of people sent similar to Tesco, and acted on it, they might actually look at what is happening to sales in Scotland. It is only if they are being hit commercially that they will change their policy.
Edward Andrews
Nairn
ON page 13 of yesterday’s paper, in the article on the Stuart papers, someone has written: “The Stuart papers bring together the private and diplomatic correspondence of James ll, who was forced from the British crown in 1688” (Stuart papers are published online, November 6). There was no “British” crown in 1688 – James ll wore the English crown and the Scottish crown as James VIl.
Why bother about Union flags when The National prints such gross historical and political errors as this?
Jim McLean
London
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel