Find out what our readers think of the stories making the Carluke and Lanark Gazette headlines.
Dear Ed, – With reference to your recent item on the re-branding of the Tinto Hotel and the subsequent correspondence on the subject, while agreeing entirely with the two writers, I must comment on your article.
I have been a customer at the ‘Tinto’ for some 19 years and spent many happy hours at various functions, meals and most weekends for a drink at the bar. The food has always been excellent and the staff provided first class service.
However, over the past twelve months staffing has been short and the once-busy bar and restaurant have become empty.
Indeed, on occasions I have been dining alone in the restaurant and drinking alone in the bar. The hotel has a ‘Marie Celeste’ feeling, ie. everything up and running but empty of customers.
On many occasions this year the bar and restaurant have been closed at short notice. Indeed, during the Glasgow Fair holiday, the hotel closed its doors and people were turned away.
These closures were apparently instigated by the distant Blairgowrie management.
How the re-branding can be necessary to preserve jobs does not add up when the long-serving and loyal staff have been made redundant.
The management have never encouraged local people to patronise ‘The Tinto’, having stopped local organisations from holding their meetings there.
It is sad to see the hotel fall from its former popularity.
I understand that ‘The Tinto’ is up for sale so one can only hope that a new buyer will come along and restore ‘The Tinto’ to its former self and bring back the atmosphere and customers that are sadly missing at the moment.
Perhaps then I would be welcomed back to enjoy a fine meal and a drink in the hotel. – Yours etc.,
P W BARTLETT,
It’s a rocky road
Dear Ed, – I am a Lanarkian who for the last few years has lived in Glasgow, initially for university and now for work.
I travel back to Lanark most weekends and favour taking the scenic Clydeside route as far as Crossford where I tend to take the Nemphlar road to join the A73 at the Cartland Bridge.
Anyone who knows the Nemphlar Road can tell you it is only just wide enough to facilitate two cars passing at various points. This has never really been an issue as there has always been a foot or so of grass verge either side of the road that can be used to allow passing. This has been the case for years.
However, last weekend, when I was travelling the road I discovered to my expense that someone – probably a chap in the council roads department bitter that his pension is now only significantly overvalued rather than criminally overvalued – decided to fill the gaps either side of the road with some sort of loose stone/rock shrapnel.
I discovered this when I rounded a corner to be confronted with several large rocks in the middle of the road, presumably kicked up by a vehicle straying slightly from the road.
As I had no time to react, I drove over them and one was kicked up, striking the passenger side of the car I was driving, causing a dent and scratch on the lower door panel. The car happened to be a hire car as my own had recently been damaged by vandals in Glasgow and was being repaired.
Long story ever so slightly shorter, I now have another excess payment to come out of my pocket.
The decision to put rocks either side of the Nemphlar Road is dense to the point of dangerous and I would urge Gazette readers to take care if driving this route. It would also be interesting to know if anyone else has raised this. – Yours etc.,
Dear Ed, – On my way to Peebles early last Tuesday morning I listened to Radio Scotland’s report on the Alex Salmond and the Common Market row. I think the presenter was Kay Adams and she invited phone-in comments. I pulled into a muddy lay-by and dialled the number. It went through, then silence.
Maybe they knew it was me and I would talk some sense and that might spoil the fun, thought I. Below is what I was going to say.
How dare these people even question Scotland’s right to be in the Common Market if Scotland so desires? It does not need legal advice to verify the self-evident. The advice would not mean a thing, even - no, especially - if it was legal. If entry had to be renegotiated it would, as Nicola Sturgeon stated in the Scottish Parliament, “.... be absurd if Scotland with its oil wealth, its fishing waters and its renewable energy would not be welcomed with open arms.” I think that she was appealing to the baseness of money as being what she judged her audience would best relate to.
With Scotland’s history of endeavour and cleverness, its provenance as part of the earlier membership - did we not invent it? - its culture of democracy and decency, we do not need to go to the EEC cap in hand - and make no mistake - this is what is being sneakily implied.
On pride alone we should be embracing independence. The oil and fish and the renewables and all the rest are just a bonus.
Let us carry the absurdity to the opposing camp. Since we are supposed to be equal partners, would not the same requirement apply to the country that was the rest of the United Kingdom if there was separation? And while we’re at it, the same applies to the existing favourable credit rating with the IMF. If a partnership breaks up, both parties retain or lose the accrued benefits - not just one.
Alex Salmond knows that there is no real problem, but I can understand that he has felt that it could have been misrepresented – and it has been – if he said so. If he actually had said, “ No, we do not need detailed legal advice at this stage”, then this also would have been made into a puffball of false indignation.(Note and contrast the stance by the UK Parliament Defence Minister over no-need contingency plans for removal of Trident.)
All of these issues have this same mark of false relevance. I hope our leaders for Scottish Independence have the courage to expose them as time-wasting traps and those against Scottish Independence continue to foolishly propose them.
On pride alone, we should be running towards independence. – Yours etc.,