Gauldrons more than pay their way

Sir, Please forgive yet another intervention in this correspondence, but some statements made in the June 10 issue invite comment.

I have not followed the Facebook campaign but think Jennifer Kelly protests too much in denouncing the use of the name ‘Gauldrons’ as misleading.

I believe most people would think of the area south of the Uisead where the vista opens up as being the beginning of ‘the Gauldrons’.

This – between the Gauldrons bay and the Uisead ‘point’ – is the proposed site, as Mr Miller is aware.

Perhaps ‘bullying’ is too strong, but a statement that the existing facility will be closed if permission is not granted for the new development can hardly be considered anything but a threat.

Naturally the seabird observatory cannot object to its immediate neighbour and funder; and if the Fessenden relics have not been turned into a ‘visitor attraction’ festooned with ‘information’, perhaps that is because in such a setting people prefer them to speak for themselves.

Miss Kelly is optimistic that the shed-type buildings will blend into their surroundings: if the precedent of the existing clutter of ugly structures on Uisead is followed, this is not very likely.

I suspect there are few tourists who come to this area specifically to view fish farms. It is not easy to cavil at any proposal which purports to add or preserve jobs. However, a balance must be struck and the evidence shows that on economic grounds in attracting visitors, the Gauldrons more than pay their way. fishing industry since we had to open our waters to EU member countries.

A quick check will also reveal a great many of his constituents are involved directly or indirectly in the fishing industry. So Scotland voted to remain, as did London and other cities but the UK overall voted to leave.

That is called democracy, Mr O’Hara. Get used to it. EU or anybody else we would be in a strong position as we offer a market of over 60 million people.

Quite simply, we would be in the driving seat rather than in discussions about what direction we should be taking.

There is widespread confusion over how we should cope with immigration.

Again the answer is simple: no person should be admitted to Britain unless they have a job arranged, can speak English and have a good health record. Problem solved.