Readers' Letters: Fringe benefits aren't so great that 'we all need it'

Ginger Johnson is just one of the acts bringing audiences to Edinburgh this year, but would local people mourn a move? (Picture: Lisa Ferguson)

“We all need the Edinburgh Festival” (Editorial, 3 August) fails to explain exactly why. Economically the bars, restaurants, hotels, Airbnbs and guest houses may well “rue the absence of its many golden eggs” but there is no evidence that Edinburgh citizens see economic benefits from its many festivals in the form of lower council taxes, cleaner streets, less pollution, less congestion or better services.

In fact the exact opposite is true – taxpayers need to pick up the bill given rich hoteliers object to a tourist tax, a small surcharge that is now widely accepted at other major tourists destinations across Europe. The idea that everyone needs the Festival is therefore grossly misleading.

The suggestion that an alternative festival takes place in England in August is not as “appalling” as it sounds.

Take the Fringe, for example. I have many friends who come up from England to watch English-based comedians in Edinburgh. The latest to mention this is flying up from London, where they work, in one of the up to 30 flights each day, to watch a comedian based... in London. This is far from uncommon at a time where people are encouraged to source local produce, frequent local shops and limit their carbon footprint. Having a summer comedy festival in Manchester or London near to where many comedians and audience members live sounds sensible.

The founding principles of the Edinburgh International Festival would still flourish, bringing all the benefits of people from across the world together through great art. The Fringe, however, has outgrown Edinburgh, and with our infrastructure creaking at the seams it’s seriously time to consider curtailing the number of events.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

Property puzzler

In the article “Can a house seller accept a new offer after a bid has been agreed?” (August 1), property expert David Alexander outlined what undoubtedly should happen in such a situation. His answer, however, is misleading as it omits the crucial point that the deal is only “agreed” once not only the price, but all other terms and conditions have also been unconditionally agreed in writing by both parties.

When I entered legal practice more than 50 years ago it was not unusual for a solicitor’s formal offer to be unconditionally accepted without any changes. This resulted in a concluded bargain, which could not be altered by either party without consent of the other.

Over time, the process of agreeing the terms and conditions of the sale became more and more protracted as sellers and buyers both introduced additional clauses, which they hoped would protect their interests. The initial offer would commonly be met with a written acceptance which contained numerous amendments, which had to be accepted in their turn in writing by the other party before a legally binding contract was concluded. By the 1990s it was not uncommon for the process of finalising the contract to take several weeks.

During all that time, either party could withdraw from the contract, for whatever reason, as no legal contract existed. That is still the position today. The situation has been helped by the introduction of standardised contract clauses which have reduced the time required to agree a contract but a disappointed purchaser would still have no legal redress unless a written contract had been fully agreed.

Hopefully, what Mr Alexander wrote would happen in such a situation, but a purchaser would be ill advised to rely on that in a claim against the seller if no written bargain has been agreed.

J Keith Robertson, Fellow of the Law Society of Scotland, Rubislaw, Kingussie

Painful myth

Doug Clark (Letters, 29 July) states that “Christian opposition to all forms of analgesics throughout history is well-documented”. This is a myth, though, sadly a much-repeated one. It is based on the fact that the celebrated Scottish obstetrician James Young Simpson wrote a tract answering possible Christian objections to the use of chloroform to relieve the pains of childbirth.

Simpson was both a doctor and a committed member of the Free Church of Scotland. From the fact that he defended the practice by appeal to Scripture, some later historians presumed that other Christians must have opposed it. However, there is no evidence of opposition from any contemporary religious authority, Catholic or Protestant. Indeed, the discovery was widely welcomed by Christians, including by that most pious of British monarchs, Queen Victoria.

Nor was Simpson’s interest in analgesia a novelty in the history of Christianity. During the Middle Ages, the monasteries not only provided places of hospitality for the sick, they also preserved knowledge of the properties of medicinal plants.

For example, there is a recipe for a pain-relieving draft dating from around 800AD from the Benedictine monastery at Monte Cassino. It was a mixture of opium, henbane, mulberry juice, lettuce, hemlock, mandragora and ivy. There are dozens of similar pain-relieving or sleep-inducing recipes recorded. Even a cursory glance at the history of hospitals, and of nursing sisters, and, indeed, of the modern hospice movement, will show how the relief of pain and suffering has often been inspired by Christian charity.

Nevertheless, this compassionate concern to relieve pain aims at improving quality of life, not ending it. It aims to kill the pain, not kill the patient.

David Albert Jones, London

Cooling off?

There have not been many letters from the climate lobby recently. Have they started to look out of their window?

J MacKay, Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.