Civilised football

Would anyone today argue for the total repeal of legislation on race relations, sex discrimination, decriminalisation of homosexuality, abortion or divorce?

The argument for statutes in these areas is not that they have solved every single problem that arises in these parts of human activity, but that they set a framework.

It is a framework that helps to reduce prejudice, helps avert hurt feelings and uncontrolled use of language that some may find offensive, protect privacy and help promote civilised policies and procedures in all sorts of organisations.

I do feel that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications(scotland Act) must be seen in this context (Scotsman, 11 August).

It is a law that many think is designed to limit freedom of speech and even discriminate against ‘working class’ football supporters.

In fact, it sets a framework to deal with the more overt forms of sectarianism that has reared its head in Scotland over the centuries.

It is a pity that Victim Support Scotland could not have been more forthright in their defence of the 2012 Act, but at least they are making the case for reasoned amendments rather than outright repeal.

When the Scottish parliament gets down to considering James Kelly MSP’S bid to scrap the law altogether, hopefully the opposition parties will consider two things.

First, it is their role to try to

seek to amend divisions in our society, to try to get a balance between freedom of speech and civilised behaviour.

Second, to listen carefully to what the police have said about whether other laws are, in fact, strong enough to deal with sectarian chanting.

They should consider too whether repeal would simply send a signal to those elements among football followers who seek to use the game to incite a corrosive hatred that has no place in and around the terraces and stadiums of the country.

BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes

has 9,000 MW of over-capacity, any business such as Altnaharra or Islay can make a profit from units that cost £3 million per MW installed (based onthe Scottishpowerunitsat the East Anglia array).

In addition, what Karin Heyhow does not address is the mechanism whereby the 40

per cent of Scots living in fuel poverty pay for the failure of 9,000 MW to produce an output while making massive profits for the rich shareholders of the units.

Is this the reason why Holyrood pledges to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016 are yet further Edinburgh promises that will

never be achieved? Hopefully, if Karin Heyhow cannot provide answers to the above questions those in fuel poverty will be provided with the data which Andrew Wilson gives in his Growth Report.

IAN MOIR Queen Street, Castle Douglas