BARRY Cross's defence of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill made entirely predictable reading, mere extended window-dressing of specious propaganda spun so determinedly around this proposal from its outset to afford it some fig-leaf of validity (Letters, March 10).
He insouciantly finesses the identities and remits of Scottish Executive, Parliament and Transport Scotland, but then obfuscation is as useful a device as any when engaged to promote the indefensible.
Some 64% of Scots residents could, at massive cost to the environment and Exchequer, access Edinburgh's airport? Restoring the short Crossrail link would, at a fraction of Earl's huge cost, make Glasgow Airport even more available to the overwhelming majority of the population, and pump-prime electrification of the main line north to Falkirk, Stirling through to Dundee and beyond. Fife badly needs improved Edinburgh commuter rail services, but a sub-surface station under an airport terminal is entirely superfluous for that (or, indeed, any other) connectivity. Businessmen need subsidies for Dundee airport flights, or civil development access at Leuchars. Edinburgh will be excellently served by its first tram-line.
There is not even a balance of probability that Earl would net-benefit Scotland, and its project director will pardon a healthy scepticism about 2.16:1 benefit:cost ratios. Surely not even the most thoroughly brainwashed put an iota of confidence in project-focused figures. (Remember Holyrood?) Creative accounting of planned actions we must have, but let us not mistake such for realities.
However, it is true that the great squandering of precious resources inevitable upon passing the Earl Bill in its bloated unreformed state would savagely restrict public services provision nationwide for years ahead, blighting innovative spirit in all aspects of Scottish life and opportunities of improving qualitative support for all who need it. The multi-deprived and the sick among us, the academic and business worlds, should all be severely set back, and needlessly so.
Barry Cross is accurate on one fact; MSPs voting on the Earl Bill bear a grave responsibility to all sectors and generations of Scottish society to reach a wise considered decision, the consequences of which will impact crucially upon all our futures. Time not for shortsighted party political games, but for statesmen looking clearly to the needs and aspirations of the nation; the electorate will certainly take note.
Andrew W Heatlie, 109 Hyndland Road, Glasgow Andrew W Heatlie (March 7) has clutched at straws to criticise the grossly expensive proposal for an Edinburgh Airport rail link but, in essence, his criticism is correct. By contrast, the inevitable and gruesome response from Barry Cross once again trots out a list of highly dubious "arguments" supposed to favour the Bill, but which, in fact, raise a number of highly questionnable claims.
With my colleague Bruce Young, I gave evidence to the committee at Holyrood, and one of the many valid points we made was that the proposed cost of the scheme (approaching £1bn) was ridiculously expensive, and both the cost and the complexity of the scheme were out of all comparison with its possible benefits. From subsequent reports, our comments were well taken, and it is sickening to see that Mr Cross is once more claiming benefits which simply do not stand up to study.
Both Mr Cross and the committee would do well to examine the simple, sensible proposals for Garl (Glasgow Airport rail link) - at a fraction of the Earl cost. Neither Mr Heatlie nor other critics seem to have realised that the real trouble is that far too little publicity is given to such projects by the media; if the "man in the street" knew what was going on, the result of the May elections might be rather different.
Peter M Spinney, Westerton Dean, Mugdock, Glasgow
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