Readers’ letters: We need to limit number of events staged at Murrayfield

SRU Chief Executive Alex Williamson has been calling for the stadium to become the go-to place for big events but there must be some limit placed on the use of the stadium. 70,000 people descending on a residential district causes untold disruption, which is unsustainable for most of the locals.

It’s not as if there are hundreds of bars and restaurants for these visitors. What we get is all-day congestion, hundreds of cars looking for parking places, and, often, unsocial behaviour from the pedestrians roaming about.

We have been used to two or three Six Nations matches in late winter, the odd pop concert and recently, autumn internationals, but any increase on this usage of the stadium would be intolerable to the local residents.

Brian Bannatyne-Scott, Edinburgh

Radio row

With reference to the ongoing struggle to save the Iain Anderson Show – and three other excellent programmes on BBC Radio Scotland – from the axe, I applaud the open letter from The Scottish Music Industry Association asking that the changes be put on hold for consultation.

In a reply to my own complaint, the BBC responded with a very banal explanation, including: “not every listener is going to support the changes… we listen closely to audience feedback...”

To the number crunchers at the BBC I would say, look at the current petition at change.org which had 13,250 signatures on Friday. This translates as £2,317,175 of licence payers’ money. Can they really ignore this?

Jim Hunter, Lochailort, Highland

Competence plea

Although it may not make a huge difference, thank goodness that the Labour left were over-ruled regarding employment rights for new employees from day one. I know that many on the left think that this somehow infringes the rights of those seeking jobs, but, in fact, what it meant that employers simply haven’t been recruiting.

Employers hoped that the new government was serious when Starmer claimed that they were going for growth. In fact, they were going for a maximum leftist agenda. Added National Insurance and tax costs meant that there was a reduced incentive to take on new staff. The possibility of a new employee taking their employer to court over something from the very day they started has resulted in the job market slowing to a near halt.

Let’s hope that we have less interference in the workplace from the likes of Angela Rayner and co for the rest of this government’s term of office. We need a period of stability and then there may be a small return to normality before the next election, when, with any luck, we can roll back the economic damage that Labour has inflicted on us.

Before that, we can hope to do the same with the Holyrood administration and hope for people who have some experience of business here too. Scotland needs it as badly as the rest of the country, but we have been enduring incompetence for longer.

Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh

Wishful thinking

When Kemi Badenoch became leader of the Tories she insisted her name is pronounced Bade-n-ock because she was “not bad”. Recent acerbic personal attacks, the latest on the Chancellor, has split opinion. There is the argument postulated by John McLellan (Scotsman, 29 November) that Badenoch had a “blistering Budget response” demonstrating “star quality which can be sold on the doorsteps”. The counter view comes from the likes of former LibDem leader Tim Farron who said “there is absolutely no need” for the “barrage of personal abuse”.

As Mr McLellan states, a man would not get away with accusing Ms Reeves of “wallowing in self pity” or Badenoch’s jibe about Reeves complaining about misogyny, but apparently Tory supporters don’t care, he states, and Ms Badenoch may even see off Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage. This is wishful thinking with the Tories four points behind Labour and 11 behind Reform in last week’s Survation’s poll. It also shows Starmer is the best Prime Minister according to the “progressive majority” at 42 per cent with Farage at 17 per cent and Badenoch at just 13 per cent.

If Ms Badenoch continues her barrage of personal abuse rather than engaging in serious debate she risks turning voters off further, not “start a fightback” as John McLellan suggests.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

Prostate screening

Having read Sir Chris Hoy’s views on prostate screening (your report, 29 November) I have to say I agree with him. As a retired GP I can understand the reasoning behind the UKNSC's guidance in that many men screened might undergo potentially harmful investigations and treatments to prevent a small number of deaths. However this denies men the choice of whether to undergo screening and then after advice decide what course of action they might choose.

This comes down to the individual’s personal feelings on risk. Many men may simply accept the guidance that the risk of complications and uncertainty of outcomes and prognosis is a risk worth taking. Others might wish to leave no stone unturned to prevent a potentially fatal disease and accept the risks involved. I believe its a bit paternalistic of the screening authorities to deny men a choice in an illness that kills 12,000 men per year in the UK.

To limit screening to those with a very specific genetic marker also seems a bit unfair. Unless you screen all men for this gene how are you going to identify this high risk group?

Dr Gordon 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.