Puerile politics at play in Balmoral row

I am appalled at the opportunism and ignorance of New Labour politicians trying to score political points at the expense of the Scottish Government regarding public access to Balmoral Estate. In days gone by, Labour used to champion the cause of the ordinary citizen against the landed gentry.

When the Labour-Lib Dem coalition first introduced the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, it contained a provision explicitly excluding a right of public access to land belonging to the Queen. I lodged an amendment to delete that provision and eventually persuaded parliament to accept my amendment with no objection from the Queen. That established an important principle because, if the law is acceptable to the Queen, it should be acceptable to every other landowner in Scotland.

Although I am not a royalist, I believe the Queen and her family should have a right to an adequate degree of privacy and security, just as every other person and family in the land should have such a right. Judging from past experience, the Queen is probably safer at Balmoral than at Buckingham Palace and the paths through and around Balmoral Estate are probably easier to police than the streets of London around Buckingham Palace.

I am personally disappointed that the Ballochbuie and Glenmuick routes are apparently to be excluded from the Cairngorms National Park Authority Core Paths Plan, but that does not exclude the right of public access to those routes. People still have a statutory right of access to Balmoral Estate in its entirety, with the exception of the few areas defined in Section 6 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. That act is one of the most radical and most progressive pieces of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and MSPs of all persuasions should be defending it instead of using the Queen as a political football in a puerile attempt to attack the Scottish Government.

DENNIS CANAVAN

Convener

Ramblers Scotland

The two paths in question have been regularly walked and cycled (including by myself), they are no threat to anybody, and, as usual, someone from England has misunderstood this legislation without bothering to find out what "core path" status means. It is disgraceful that the environment minister's decision has been reversed.

EDDIE PALMER

Kinnettles

Forfar

Labour MP Adam Ingram has called for Roseanna Cunningham's resignation, saying: "Ministers always have the right to reject advice but never when it puts the lives of others at risk. If she does not go voluntarily, Alex Salmond must … require her to resign."

I can only imagine Adam Ingram will follow his own advice and beat down the doors of the Chilcot Inquiry. By his measure, there will be quite a few Labour ministers looking for new employment when it is finished.

KEVIN CORDELL

Nevis Place

Broughty Ferry, Dundee

The resignation of Roseanna Cunningham would be welcome, but not for her supposed gaffe over the Balmoral walks. Her refusal even to consider scientific argument on GM foods when deciding what is best for Scotland (and many starving poor in the Third World) is irresponsible to the point that she is unfit to hold office.

ALEXANDER McKAY

New Cut Rigg

Edinburgh