YOUR article, Greens back executive in vote to keep bridge tolls (February 9), fails to reflect accurately the position of the Greens in the debate on bridge tolls. We did not "back the executive"; indeed, we voted against the executive amendment. We voted against the SNP motion, too, because it was equally unsupportable. Both motions would have resulted in more pollution and more congestion - an absurd position in the face of the urgent need to reduce climate-change emissions and growing traffic levels.

We did "back" our own amendment: to replace tolls with a fairer system of "smart" charges to tackle congestion, reduce pollution and lengthen the lifetime of expensive bridges. Such a system, with no tolls on public transport and reduced charges for multi-occupancy vehicles, would encourage people to car-share, use public transport alternatives and help fund those alternatives. This would end the ridiculous situation where most HGVs pay less than a bus to cross the bridge, and a car full of passengers on a Sunday afternoon is charged the same as a single-occupancy vehicle at peak times.

The convener of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, Lawrence Marshall, says abolition of tolls would only increase traffic, leading to more congestion, pollution and maintenance difficulties. We wanted a serious debate on serious issues, not cheap politics.

Mark Ruskell, MSP, The Scottish Parliament