Letters: Crazy notions fail to bridge the credibility gap for city

Some of the ideas reported in the News in the last few days would make Edinburgh a laughing stock.

First, an eco-bridge across Leith Walk. Great idea. The citizens of Leith and Edinburgh can take turns standing on it and watch the roads and pavements below them disintegrating before their very eyes.

Second, a spokesman for Spokes (no pun intended) appears to be advocating that it should not be compulsory for cyclists to wear helmets; surely the council will not accept this. What next from the cycling lobby – that they don’t need to follow the Highway Code?

Lastly, some drivers have complained about cars parking in Princes Street. Usually under a construction contract, that area fenced off for the purposes of the works becomes the liability and responsibility of the contractor, so basically he can do what he likes in it. It is the council’s decision to allow the contractor all of Princes Street to play with.

What do the good people of Edinburgh have to do to get the city they deserve?

David J Mackenzie, Parkgrove Terrace, Edinburgh

We must hold the guilty to account

I AM sure there are some people who will explain away the coincidence of a deadly and widespread outbreak of legionnaires’ disease, and the austerity plan reductions of the council and HSE staff responsible for testing industrial cooling towers, as just that – merely coincidence.

When will fools realise that when you reduce the staffing of an essential public health department by one fifth, that the job simply cannot be done, and consequently people begin to die?

How many of our fellow citizens have to die before we rebel, and make the true architects – the banks and financiers – of the crisis in public service, pay, and restore the essential services to the many?

If Westminster and Holyrood are too craven to hold the guilty men to account, we must do it ourselves.

David Fiddimore, Calton Road, Edinburgh

Break-up would exclude Queen

ALEX Orr once more tries to kid us that independence would recreate the Union of the Crowns that existed between 1603 and 1707 (two countries sharing the same monarch) and that this would not constitute “separation” (Letters, June 11).

He is mistaken. The unusual, anomalous and unstable situation that existed in the 17th century cannot recur. It only happened because the monarch of Scotland inherited the throne of England, Wales and Ireland.

Today, the UK monarch would not inherit the throne of Scotland.

Separation would cut the UK monarch off from Scotland. Furthermore, modern monarchs do not rule more than one country and, in some cases, are forbidden to do so.

The only way in which the UK monarch could be the Scottish head of state is if Scotland became a member of the Commonwealth, for which it would have to apply.

Steuart Campbell, Dovecot Loan, Edinburgh

Fascism disguised as democracy

MSPs intend to legislate for same-sex couples to marry in church.

David Cameron would deny this right even if a church agreed. Both sides are promoting fascism faintly disguised as democracy.

Government and religion should be kept firmly separate. Churches already have the right to refuse marriage to heterosexual couples, for instance because one is not a registered church member. Would this also be banned?

No details of the permitted “rights” have been issued: ultimate equality would, for example, ensure complete freedom of choice of place of worship – presumably without necessary formal membership – be that Protestant, Catholic or Muslim.

As well as proclamation of legal right, punishment for infraction would have to be formulated. Church closure, perhaps? Government-appointed replacement clerics?

If government assumes the right to impose its own interpretation of the Bible by overruling the objection that same-sex union is contrary to God’s will, the situation then becomes one of state-controlled religion; surely purest fascism.

Robert Dow, Ormiston Road, Tranent