councillor NormanWork obviously doesn’t live in the real world (One less drink will pay your taxi home ladies, News, May 8). The black cabs in Edinburgh are already twice the price of Glasgow, and that is not perception but fact.
I would suggest that is one of the reasons why City Cabs disagrees with the proposed after-midnight increase.
People cannot afford the already sky-high charges.
We already have a two-prices fare system running in Edinburgh with private hire firms offering a 20 per cent discount.
Unfortunately they are unable to pick up clients off the street unless pre-booked.
This means that there will be young ladies risking their lives walking home because a councillor who should know better, thinks that £1.60 is the cost of a drink in George Street.
Perhaps he knows something the rest of us doesn’t, but I doubt it. God gave him two ears and one mouth, perhaps he should learn to use them in that ratio!
Mike Sanders, Caiyside, Edinburgh
Glasgow is miles cheaper for cab hire
I FOUND it ironic that whoever proposed the late-night tariff declared that it had been introduced in Glasgow and therefore should be mirrored in Edinburgh.
Having travelled in taxis in both cities I have found that fares in Glasgow are much lower than in Edinburgh where, I believe, the rates are amongst the highest in the UK.
I don’t suppose there is any chance of Edinburgh mirroring the normal Glasgow tariffs and therefore reducing their fares . . . no, I thought not.
David Bruce, Saughton Road North, Edinburgh
No more power, get rid of the towers
Now that Cockenzie power station is no longer in operation are there any plans for it or will it continue to remain a blight on the landscape?
This station may have been the origin of vital power supplies to the local area for several decades but if there are no plans for it, it should be demolished as soon as possible.
The East Lothian coastline really is quite stunning, but this is somewhat spoiled when the power station looms into view.
Angus McGregor, Albion Road, Edinburgh
Arrogant cyclists need taught a lesson
TO all those proponents of cyclists’ rights with their demands for greater protection and access to our streets and highways, let me redress the balance on behalf of pedestrians.
Last Saturday morning while waiting at the corner of Shandwick Place and Queensferry Street I was startled by a cry of “Bike!” and turned to see two older gentlemen in full Lycra gear on what I would term racing cycles with fully loaded yellow panniers cycling towards me. As I backed out of their way, I received a cursory, and begrudging, “thank you”.
Nothing really amiss here you may think, but this was on a public footpath in an area where the road has been, for what seems an eternity, closed to traffic because of tram works.
There are a number of highly prominent yellow and black “Cyclists dismount” notices fixed to the Heras fencing in this area.
Also it was on a weekend morning, with pedestrian footfall building up.
Obviously this was of no concern to these cyclists, and one can only wonder what those tourists who were in Shandwick Place at the time made of this ignorant and arrogant behaviour by two inconsiderate cyclists.
So to those who want to change the law to accommodate cyclists, I would suggest that they start taking steps to put their own house in order before making demands of local and central government.
Maybe the Government should introduce legislation. How about making cyclists pass a proficiency test, be registered or licensed, and have third-party cyclist insurance? This would let the cycling lobby know that it is not just a one-way street.
David J Mackenzie, Keith Place, Inverkeithing
Don’t mortgage our future for weapons
When we finally fly the new flag over the Castle (I would have preferred the Jolly Roger to the Saltire), and the Dear Leader’s independent parliament sits down to negotiate the division of assets and debt with Westminster, I hope that the Scottish Government stands firm against any part of that debt in regard to Trident Polaris submarines, their weapons and anticipated replacement costs.
The Scottish governing party is opposed to nuclear weapons, and no element of our future income should ever be mortgaged to pay for the US controlled nuclear weapons that the Pentagon allows the UK to carry around for it in our subs.
If the nation votes “yes” next year, Trident will be Westminster’s weapon, not ours – so let Westminster pay for it: now and in the future.
The cost of replacing it must be struck from any negotiation . . . that should help reduce the national debt for our fledgling economy.
And for those who mutter about an independent Scotland sheltering under NATO’s nuclear umbrella – that now provides the wrong type of shelter: the protection we need is against radicalised Brits building fertiliser bombs in their bathrooms, not an expansionist or paranoid Russia looking for Lebensraum.
David Fiddimore, Nether Craigwell, Calton Road, Edinburgh