SIR, – It is with growing dismay that I read the letters page and reports on the situation that has arisen over Union Terrace Gardens. My fear is that we are at serious risk of losing Sir Ian’s £50million. We have been given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to restore pride in our city and regenerate Union Street and the surrounding area.
Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (Acsef) has repeatedly stated the facts about this development. It is not about retail or car parking, but a new civic space. It is not a flat concrete square but an attractive space on various levels that can have much better gardens which would be a striking centrepiece in a grey city.
The partnership has also stated that an arts centre would be at the heart of the development. This is therefore not about losing an arts centre but about gaining a complete transformation of our city with far-reaching benefits for every citizen.
I find it hard to imagine that any other city in Scotland – or, indeed, the UK – would risk throwing away £50million of private money like we seem about to do. Is it because Aberdonians simply cannot believe that someone would pledge so much of his own money for no financial gain? The only reward Sir Ian seeks is what so many of us want: a city centre that reflects the cultural and economic significance of our city and contributes towards the long-term prosperity of the region as a whole.
Rupert Lumsden,
Arnwell House,
Banchory-Devenick,
Aberdeenshire.
SIR, – In the midst of current debate surrounding the Equality Bill, the Church of Scotland has consistently supported the principles of equality and the celebration of diversity.
We know that a more equal society is a better place for all its citizens. We understand that one person’s equality is another person’s discrimination.
We believe that facing that challenge and being willing to change is how a society becomes more just. That is why, for example, we have strongly supported the development of a socioeconomic equality duty on public services, which forms part of this bill.
We feel it is time to affirm our position at the Church of Scotland. Equality always has to be a major consideration whatever our starting point.
Where there is a clash of opinions, it is our view that it is better to stay in the debate and struggle for the way forward rather than simply to say no to everything because there is one aspect on which we feel we disagree.
Right Rev Bill Hewitt,
Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,
121 George Street,
Edinburgh.
SIR, – I went to the consultation for the Union Terrace project at Union Square on Saturday and am now extremely confused after reading Sir Ian Wood’s article in the Press and Journal (February 2).
I questioned the young man at Union Square about the listed balustrades, toilets, and so on, and was informed that there are ways of “getting round” listed architecture, but Sir Ian states that these things could be incorporated in the new square. Next, I asked what would happen to the 30 or so protected trees and was informed that most of them are elms with Dutch elm disease and would be destroyed, but Sir Ian says that many of the trees could be saved – so they’re not sick?
As for being a sunless park, in the summer months, the park is bathed in sunshine from mid-morning and is a refuge from the wind which howls up Bridge Street even on a sunny day.
Perhaps Sir Ian and those consulting with the public should meet and get their vision straight before giving out contrary information, or are they all just plucking ideas out of the air as they go along?
Kath Forman,
Byron Avenue,
Aberdeen.
SIR, – I am writing to express my surprise and dismay at the idiocy of the new proposed constituency of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch. It is utterly meaningless and undemocratic. It is either part of a deliberate attempt to wipe Ross and Cromarty from the map or another illustration of how completely out of touch civil servants in London are with this part of the country. Clearly the people who drew up this nonsense have no idea at all of geography – or, perhaps just as likely, they don’t care.
Why should I, here on the Black Isle, vote for the MP to represent Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch? All these places are very nice, but are many miles away, completely separate, and with their own needs. They might as well just call this non-constituency “all those bits of the Highlands we neither know nor care about but will lump together to make up numbers”.
Many people will be tempted not to vote at all, but this would be counterproductive. Politicians will assume that those who don’t vote don’t care. Instead, I strongly recommend registering a protest vote to send a message to these out-of touch, overpaid complacent people that this is a step too far.
John Wood,
Duke Street,
Cromarty.
SIR, – So Gordon Brown wants a referendum on the voting system to give the electorate more choice. Would this be the same kind of referendum that we had on the Lisbon Treaty? Will it happen?
Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said on Newsnight, on BBC2, that the alternative voting system works well in Australia. What he did not say is that, in Australia, voting is, I believe, compulsory.
So why not keep the first-past-the-post system we have now but make it compulsory for everyone of voting age to register his or her choice.
That way, we all get the politicians we deserve and no one can have any complaints about the final result.
Sandy Gray,
McKenzie Place,
Burghead.