Letters: Less regular litter uplift is a rubbish waste of our money

The fortnightly collection is based on speculative configuration and can never be taken as a reliable source of accurate information.

The local authority has decided to charge or fine those who do not comply with waste collection rules.

But is this fair, or is it just another of those “Big Brother wielding the whip” laws?

We all pay our local taxes to fund services such as street cleaning and waste collection which was based on a weekly basis. Now that has changed to a fortnightly basis, it can be argued we are not getting value for money.

Chas Dennis, Niddrie Marischal Road, Edinburgh

Salmond’s words insult intelligence

Alex Orr parrots the SNP line on Alex Salmond’s interview with Andrew Neil regarding the legal advice on European Union membership post independence which he is now known not to have taken (Letters, October 25).

Mr Orr urges us all to view the interview and to see how the First Minister’s comments have been misinterpreted. Well, many of us have done just that.

And we have all come to much the same conclusion – that unless the word “yes” has somehow come to mean “no”, Mr Salmond said clearly that he had taken law officers’ advice, and indeed went on to say that he was not prepared to disclose that advice.

To add insult to injury, Salmond’s Scottish Government has used Scottish taxpayers’ money to pay for legal action to resist a ruling from the Information Commissioner that the legal advice should be published. That action has now been abandoned – not too surprising now that we all now know there was no legal advice to publish in the first place.

Braveheart zealots may cite Mr Salmond’s tortuous references to “the context of a general debate”, but no-one else will swallow the First Minister’s semantic gymnastics, which are frankly an insult to the intelligence of Scottish voters. Andrew Neil certainly wasn’t buying it – and as the actual interviewer, he presumably understands perfectly well both what he asked Mr Salmond and what Mr Salmond said in reply.

David Clater, Polwarth Gardens, Edinburgh

Exact price on buses is not fare

NORTH Berwick is a delightful little town and I’ve stayed with my elderly mother in local guest house accommodation on various occasions. We always travel by train.

This time the guest house was a little out of town. I’ve had sciatica for four months and my mother has mobility problems. Thus we had to use the bus to and from the town centre.

But oh dear, when we used the bus the first time we were unaware it was exact fare only. This is poorly advertised and not stated on the timetable. Both of us ended up having to pay too much the first time without receiving any change. How were we supposed to know the fare when we’re not locals? This really isn’t very good for visitors. If First Buses has an exact fare policy, it should be made more obvious, with printed information at bus stops.

We don’t all have mobile phones, and I’m not spending 60p making a payphone call to find out what the fare is.

I had planned to visit Dirleton, but I didn’t because of this situation.

Dale Edwards, Newborough Street, Bootham, York

We’re paying for Greens’ hot air

The Scientific Alliance Scotland has disputed claims by the green energy lobby group Scottish Renewables that the renewables sector has displaced 15 per cent of the county’s total carbon emissions.

I wish Scientific Alliance Scotland the best of luck since I have challenged this propaganda machine on numerous occasions to have their wild claims investigate by independent scientists.

Scottish Renewables are paid to perpetuate the “Great Global warming Scam” that wind turbines are our salvation.

Who pays for this propaganda?

We all do through our electricity bills, which are loaded with turbine subsidies and create fuel poverty and destroy our manufacturing companies.

Clark Cross, Springfield Road, Linlithgow