Readers' Letters: Neil Gray should pay public back for limousine football trips

Regarding Neil Gray, Health Minister and football fan, it's a bit alarming that this well-paid jobsworth hasn't even the wit to come up with a plan for restitution, as well as his half-hearted apology. First Minister John Swinney regards the matter as closed, but it should not be.

The Tories are right on this – it should be a simple matter to compute the cost to the taxpayer of six limousine visits to football matches, and pay up the required sum, while tendering his resignation. Michael Mathieson managed to do similar. Forget the Ministerial Code, a time-wasting nonsense that never works. Maybe it is not a sacking matter, because only the electorate can do that. In the short term, electors would be glad to see Mr Gray pay. In the long-term, could the SNP come up with a Health Minister who is not a football fan, just to be on the safe side?

Crawford Mackie, Edinburgh

On Thursday Health Secretary Neil Gray made a statement to Holyrood on his use of ministerial cars to go to football games (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

By the book

It is clear to me that there ought to be a booklet or document sent to every new minister in any cabinet, outlining the rules about the use of ministerial privileges. I believe most people would agree that they should be used only in the course of his/her ministerial duties.

However, if a Minister has not been told of the reasonable restrictions on the use of his privileges, how can we blame him for doing the most convenient thing?

Jenny Martin, Edinburgh

Architects needed

David Alexander's call for more housing is all very well but it fails to mention the design or even the quality of such housing (“United action is vital to build homes we need”, 14 November).

Very few volume housebuilders employ architects. As a result the appearance of their houses usually shows no sensitivity to modern design, rather, giving us dismal attempts to reproduce the past. I've always wondered why people want the most modern designs for their cars but not for their houses. That's inconsistent; it's as if cars are for the future but houses are for the past. Planning authorities don't help, often rejecting modern design because it looks out of place. In fact, planning law can hinder a modern development as it takes no account of architectural quality and planners don't always have architectural qualifications.

I think the law should be changed, requiring an architect to be involved in all planning applications.

It should be noted that “architect” is a protected term, meaning that no one can call themselves an architect unless registered with the Architects' Registration Board. To be registered someone has to hold a recognised architectural qualification.

Steuart Campbell, Edinburgh

Anger everywhere

Joyce McMillan, in her article “Trump's victory shows the power of sowing division in society” (Perspective, 15 November), is right to point out the role of social media in the US and elsewhere in sowing discontent by denying those who disagree with its policies the right to express them.

However, I would remind her of the excellent advice offered in Matthew 7.5: “First cast the beam out of thine own eye and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye”. Yesterday’s Scotsman has several examples of the Scottish Government, which she supports, attempting to do exactly this. On page 10, there is a report that MSP Murdo Fraser is still fighting an NCHI (non-crime hate incident) which he challenged. The Police Investigation and Review Commissioner “could not explain why he had been targeted” but they defended their action by stating that it would be “inappropriate to comment further” because a complaint has been received.

The article also reports that Allison Pearson, a Daily Telegraph columnist, was “spoken to” by by two constables from Essex Police about a post on platform X. Like Murdo Fraser, they were unable to give her details of the post, nor would they identify her accuser, “due to laws governing procedure”. Ms McMillan, isn't this an example of attacking the “right to disagree” which you say is “sacred”, and isn't it being supported by Scottish and UK laws?

Furthermore, today's Letters' page shows how discontented many Scotsman readers are with current political policies: “Haud yer wheesht” and “Enough ordinary”, concern the suppression of free speech, “Forked tongue” and “Transition vamp” express opposition to the Scottish and the UK governments' adoption of “what many believe to be suicidal climate targets”.

Perhaps Donald Trump's victory doesn't show the power of “sowing division in society” but reflects the anger and frustration of so many people that they are subjected to laws which they do not agree with.

Could it be that our governments have been over influenced by the “increasing weaponising of disagreement” by left wing, powerful and malign actors on the global stage?

Lovina Roe, Perth

Rule and divide

Joyce McMillan accuses Donald Trump for his role on the divisive state of US politics and culture (although it takes two to tango). In attacking those who divide, she might look closer to home, ie the SNP. Their drive for separation caused a lot of division here. Their tactics of demonisation, spin and half truths and grievance played havoc in our society.

William Ballantine, Bo'ness, West Lothian

Poor show

Your Scottish nationalist correspondents continue to indulge in absurdity. Elizabeth Scott (Letters, 14 November) calls us Scots “colonial underlings” and “slaves”, and bemoans our “miserable servitude”. And yet the UK we live in is one of the freest countries in the world.

Ms Scott needs to look at the plight of those in many countries in Asia and Africa to see the difference. Perhaps she should also listen to senior SNP MP Pete Wishart, who says that those who call Scotland a colony are “unhinged”.

Alongside Ms Scott, Stan Grodynski refers to “highly capable SNP MSPs at Holyrood”. He has to be joking. Has he actually listened to any of them? SNP backbenchers’ sole purpose is to lob friendly questions, assigned to them by SPADs, to ministers to facilitate a ministerial propaganda diatribe. Several SNP ministers, whom I could but will not name, cannot answer a straight question and are incapable of reading coherently from a SPAD’s script.

Is this really what Scots thought they were voting for in the 1997 referendum?

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Oh, scrum on!

In the midst of four autumn rugby internationals, and with news of yet more pop concerts next year, it beggars belief that the SRU has just announced big losses.

We learn that the chief executive is paid over £800,000, so at least someone is doing well, and we can assume that the pay scale for the other executives below him is similarly astronomical.

However, in addition to the incomprehensible financial problems, the disruption for residents of West Edinburgh is becoming ridiculous.

With a capacity of just under 70,000, every event at the stadium results in traffic chaos, huge parking restrictions and an influx of fans, many of whom have spent some time in the pub, with the inevitable consequences of incontinence and inebriation.

It's bad enough for the residents of Murrayfield and Roseburn while the overuse of Murrayfield continues, but then to learn that the incompetents in charge are losing millions while being ridiculously overpaid themselves is shocking.

It's time to restrict the use of the Murrayfield stadium specifically for rugby, as intended, and for someone to have a serious look at its management.

Brian Bannatyne-Scott, Edinburgh

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.