I READ with interest the Sunday National’s recent article on Professor Neil Kay’s claims, following his submission to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s inquiry into the unfolding fiasco at Ferguson’s shipyard, as to why vehicle-carrying ferries from Dunoon town centre to Gourock should be reinstated (Small Scottish communities ‘suffer greatly’ from vehicle ferry demise, February 9).
It may interest your readers to know that, whilst giving evidence to the very same committee, Ferguson’s former chief naval architect Chris Dunn stated that “40-metre ships like the MV Catriona cost £12 million” in 2016. Today, taking inflation into account, that figure would be £13.2m. However, I appreciate that this number is only an estimate – given that the vessels currently being built at Ferguson’s are now expected to cost the taxpayer at least £100m, more than double the original price of £48m. As such, the figure quoted in an Audit Scotland report of £25-£30m per vessel is now more likely. Previous suggestions that a suitable combined vessel can be purchased for as little as £6m are obviously nonsense.
READ MORE: Scottish towns ‘suffer greatly’ from vehicle ferry demise
The professor’s economic analysis is also not rooted in reality. I would suggest he takes another look at the most recent MVA Consultancy Ltd report conducted for the Scottish Government, which could not find any connection between economic activity and the withdrawal of the vehicle service in 2011. Indeed, it stated: “There is however anecdotal evidence cited locally concerning the negative impacts of the current passenger-only town centre ferry service. It has to be borne in mind however that there are clearly other communities across Scotland (on the islands and mainland) which have not been affected by a change to their ferry service but have also been suffering due to the current economic situation and factors such as the increase in internet shopping.”
Importantly, members of the local ferry group also played an important role on the report’s steering group. Nevertheless the report’s economic consultants only rated their information as “anecdotal” – or in everyday terms, unreliable.
Gordon Ross
Managing Director at Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd
SELMA Rahman (Long Letter, March 6 ) rightly mentions Wendy Wood (1892 to 1981) among Scottish women whom we should remember. As a friend, I was often in her home in Howard Place, Edinburgh, close to the Botanic Gardens. I understood that the underlay of her stair carpets was Union Jacks removed from flagpoles. A Lion Rampant flag hung outside her house.
READ MORE: We're standing on the shoulders of wonderful women from the past
As well as being leader of the then “Scottish Patriots” organisation she was an accomplished artist, writer and broadcaster. Her main political cause was Scottish independence, but it was not her only one.She got herself imprisoned to help in her campaign to improve conditions for women in prison. Though some derided her, she was widely admired – even by opponents.
David Stevenson
Edinburgh
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with Douglas Hopkins’s letter of March 9. Why Mhairi Black should use an English public (private) school term of “endearment” when speaking of PM Johnson heaven only knows. By commencing her article with his preferred “public personna” name she caused me to stop reading and spend the time counting how often she had used that term (for those who are interested, I counted 13 times in three-and-a-third columns – not counting the picture caption). Needless to say I never read her article, thus depriving myself of something I normally would do!
READ MORE: Letters, March 8
Why any SNP representative should give him the honour of using his “preferred” name astonishes me, as he never refers to our First Minister by her proper name, and if he refers to her at all it is in pejorative terms. So please, all columnists, if you want me to read your articles, refer to the PM as that, or Mr Johnson, or the Downing Street comedian or some such, but NEVER his preferred name.
Paul Gillon
Leven
I AM afraid I disagree with Douglas Howkins. When I refer to a certain person as “Boris”, I am using it as a derogatory term for someone who does not deserve the respectful use of his surname, let alone the prefix of “Mr”, and certainly not of the supposedly prestigious title of “Prime Minister”.
P Davidson
Falkirk
JACKSON Carlaw is a staunch defender of the Queen’s English, and I can clearly remember him being purple with rage on hearing a professor using Glasgow Scots grammar. The offending phrase was “things have went from bad to worse”. So I’m waiting to hear whether Jackson is going to carpet Alister Jack for his recent linguistic blunder when talking about the Boris Bridge (Jack claims PM now favours tunnel, March 6).
The solecism Mr Jack committed was “The bridge for me is a euphemism for a link, which is a tunnel” – he obviously meant “synonym”, unless he really wanted to imply that “bridge” is just a daintier way of saying the more distressing word “tunnel”.
Derek Ball
Bearsden
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