Has A9 dualling pledge been kicked down the road?

The project to dual the A9 would appear to be behind schedule

Approximately 30 miles of the A9 between Perth and Inverness was already dual carriageway in 2014. The remaining 80 miles or so of ordinary two-lane highway were separated into 11 sections to be dualled.

Of these 11 sections, only one, the almost five miles between Kincraig and Dalraddy, has been upgraded to dual carriageway since 2014. Work continues on the six-mile stretch between Luncarty and Pass of Birnam which will hopefully be upgraded to dual carriageway by summer 2021.

There is no sign of any progress in starting to upgrade any of the remaining nine sections. Different sections are at different stages in the planning process. No contracts are currently out to tender. It would normally take at least 12 months from finalising legal procedures, inviting tenders and awarding contracts before work could start. Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that any new dualling of the A9 will start in 2021.

When the Luncarty to Pass of Birnam section is completed, approximately 70 miles will still need upgraded to dual carriageway. Estimated construction times for dualling the remaining nine sections vary from two-and-a-half to four and-a-half years depending on the length and complexity of each section.

Unless we're going to have about 70 miles of road worked on simultaneously between 2022 and 2025, with all the speed restrictions and other inconveniences that would entail, it seems that there is no chance of the A9 being fully dualled between Perth and Inverness by 2025.

It would be nice if Michael Matheson, the current transport minister, could give an update on how he sees the dualling of the A9 progressing.

George Shanks

Orwell Place, Edinburgh

Crack the code

Since Covid struck and people took to cycling as a means of exercise there has been a great rise in the number of cyclists on our roads and changes to many roads to facilitate their safe usage of the roads.

My main concern is the number of cyclists who seem totally unaware that the Highway Code applies to them or are regularly flaunting them every day. The rules to which I refer are as follows: Rule 59: You should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations. Rule 64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Rule 66: Never ride more than two abreast. Rule 67: Give clear signals. Rule 69: You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.

On my daily walk with my dog I see most of these ignored every day. Most, but not all, wear helmets. However, several cycle on the pavement. Only this morning when my friend and I were walking our dogs, an adult cyclist came up behind us on the pavement and asked to pass on the pavement. When I explained that cyclists were not supposed to cycle on pavements, especially not adults on mountain bikes, he told me that I was wrong and that pavements were for cyclists and pedestrians!

Frequently I witness cyclists cycling two or even three abreast having a conversation and not looking where they are going, and some even using a mobile phone. This morning I heard a family saying as they approached a corner,” whoever has the bell ring it now”. Yes that’s correct – one bell on one bike between the family. And I know we have all witnessed the cyclist who thinks the red light does not apply to him or her.

We are all road users at some points: pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. The Highway Code gives rules for us all. It can be viewed online. Perhaps we should all familiarise ourselves with our particular section/sections and keep everyone safe on the roads.

B Wilson

Silverknowes Drive, Edinburgh

Bright idea

As we approach darker evenings, can I as a cyclist make a plea to fellow cyclists to point very bright cycle lights slightly downwards towards the road rather than straight ahead, which risks temporarily blinding drivers, pedestrians and other cyclists?

Pointing lights slightly towards the road won’t make cyclists less visible, but it will increase the chances of avoiding potholes on our roads; this and avoiding temporarily blinding other road users, will make things safer for everyone.

Brian Barbour

Yewlands Gardens, Edinburgh

Seeking clarity

With recent opinion polls appearing to show a rise in support for the SNP and Scottish independence there is a need for the UK government to implement a Clarity Act to define the basis for any second independence referendum and set clear ground rules. It should cover the following:

1. Define the procedure for requesting a referendum. George Galloway, leader of the Alliance for Unity, has suggested that pro-independence parties need to win the majority of the popular vote at a Holyrood election before a second referendum could occur.

2. Define the franchise. The Alliance for Unity believes all Scots registered to vote in the UK should have a vote in a second referendum.

3. Decide on the wording of the independence question. The Alliance for Unity believes a fair question would be whether Scotland remains in or leaves the United Kingdom.

4. Clearly define the minimum requirements for the turnout and the threshold of a referendum.

5. Decide whether Scotland votes as one homogenous entity or is allowed to vote regionally.

6. Clarify how Scotland’s share of UK debt is calculated.

7. Mechanisms for agreeing future trade between Scotland and England must be clearly laid out.

8. Be crystal clear as to the minimum elapsed time before a third referendum could occur.

9. The SNP and the UK government must both publish an economic assessment of the financial consequences of Scottish separatism.

10. There should be a second confirmatory referendum once the withdrawal agreement between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom has been agreed. The time to produce a Clarity Act is now. Setting the ground rules is in the interests of us all in Scotland.

Dr Bruce Halliday

Candidate for the Alliance for Unity in the South of Scotland, Dalbeattie Road, Dumfries

Census policy

Your report concerning a recently published paper about the sex question in the next Census is fundamentally mistaken in its central point (20 October). No change is proposed to that question in Scotland. The sex question has always been answered on the basis of "self-identification". In the last Census, in 2011, there was specific written guidance for trans people telling them they could answer the sex question with the sex they live as. The same will happen in the next Census, in 2022.

There is a group of people who have been pressuring the government to change this, so that trans people would be forced to answer the sex question with their birth certificate sex. Last year, National Records of Scotland, which runs the Scottish Census, researched how this might work, compared to what was done previously.

That research showed that the previous approach of respecting trans people's lived sex, gave better data. Because the 2022 Census will also ask whether the person is trans, it will be possible to analyse the statistics by sex, separately for the large majority who are not trans, and for those who are. So no data will be "skewed".

Tim Hopkins

Director, Equality Network, Bernard Street, Edinburgh

Scots at Trafalgar

Today marks Trafalgar Day, the 215th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar, in which Scots played a major part.

Far from being an English victory, epitomised by the famous "England expects" signal, five of the 27 captains of the fleet were Scottish, and George Duff from Banff, captain of the Mars, was one of only two captains to be killed.

Almost 30 per cent of the 18,000-strong crew were from Scottish towns and fishing villages, and Nelson's own doctor, and the woman who embalmed his body when he died, were Scots.

For some, this victory symbolises a great British triumph over the French and the Spanish, for others it epitomises English imperialism, with Scots as unwilling, press ganged accomplices.

However, what cannot be disregarded is the prolific and willing role played by Scots in a naval encounter which changed the course of European history, a history which we in Scotland cannot simply turn a blind eye to.

Alex Orr

Marchmont Road, Edinburgh

Bad example

By far the most egregious flouting of the Covid-19 rules is not to self-isolate when indicated by personal circumstances. Margaret Ferrier MP broke them when symptomatic and, much worse, continued to break them knowing that she was infectious. Surveys have shown that only a minority of people in her situation follow the rules. In my opinion, this might well be the main reason why the virus continues to spread.

Public figures have a duty to set an example. Hers was the worst. So it won't do to say in mitigation, as Grant Frazer does (Letters, 20 October) that the ferocity of opprobrium directed against her resembles a witch hunt.

Hugh Pennington

Carlton Place, Aberdeen

Covid perspective

I haven’t seen a graphic representation of the current number of people being tested for the virus, together with the number of positive results, those admitted to hospital and those who have died from the virus, compared with the same parameters measured at the height of the pandemic.

This would allow the overall performance of how the pandemic is being tackled into some perspective. If the UK or Scottish government doesn’t want to do make this information available, perhaps because it wouldn’t show them in too good a light

Dr Gordon Cochrane

Dargai Terrace, Dunblane

Has A9 dualling pledge been kicked down the road? - Readers letters

Comments