With a political lifetime spent in bullying, name-calling and complaint, it is small wonder Alex Salmond should attract precious little public sympathy save from his core vote in the debacle over Donald Trump's golf course (The Herald, December 15).
I hold no brief on this planning application. I suspect the last First Minister just as readily would have welcomed Mr Trump's bulldozers to our shores. But we have built up checks and balances over the years so that planning law and policy are not wholly subject to political whim.
I was privileged to have worked with the late Donald Dewar. When matters like this came up (as inevitably they do in any administration) Mr Dewar acted to protect the reputation of the minister concerned and the planning system by ensuring the decision-making was removed from the minister with a party or constituency interest and that all dealings on the application were transparent. The current incumbent is either very dim about how planning decisions are reached or mistakenly thinks that of the rest of us. Mr Salmond squeals at the pedestrian efforts of Nicol Stephen to charge him with sleaze (charges that even Mr Stephen must know are unfounded) but his squeals must not be allowed to drown out the more serious questions raised by this affair.
That Mr Trump's satraps were in the very room while the chief planning officer made phone calls on the application sounds just a bit more like Georgia than Gordon. Just who was impressing whom and to what ends? Was Mr Salmond's "constituency" meeting with the same men notified to the Permanent Secretary? Was the diary appointment made through the party staff in his constituency office (and if so, in what circumstances) or timetabled and recorded by the First Minister's diary secretary at St Andrew's House? Why did he not prospectively seek advice on the propriety of such a unilateral meeting from the officials whose job it is to maintain an independent planning system?
Despite the evident relish demonstrated by Mr Stephen for sleaze, I doubt many thinking Scots interested in our country would expect or welcome evidence of any cash trail running from Trump Towers to SNP HQ. But aside from the damage already done to Scotland's reputation by Mr Salmond's cack-handedness, the saddest outcome may prove to be that in his anxiety to best his LibDem rivals in claims for constituency loyalty, it is in fact he who has perilled the success of this application more than anyone.
Brian Fitzpatrick, 24 Dalziel Drive, Glasgow.
Bafflingly, Ian Bell asks: "Are we to be a knowledge economy, or a let-me-take-your-bag, sir, economy?" (December 15). As if it were a straight choice. Is this the Scottish cringe, equating service with servility? Scotland not for sale? Some (very grateful, apparently) developers of malls and industrial estates might beg to differ.
American money? Who needs it? Wasteland tours, anyone?
J M Stevenson, 4 Kenmore Avenue, Prestwick.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article