The specification and budget for the building were therefore set by the previous Scottish Labour government and any maintenance issues are a direct consequence of that fact. Similarly the huge NHS backlog maintenance programme we are now seeing is the result of the wrong decisions being made 30 years ago under a different administration.
Roof leaks are to be expected across the healthcare estate because many buildings were designed before the full impact of climate change was realised. In 1995 the then Scottish Executive issued guidance warning architects to design for warmer and wetter climates. Bizarrely they did this whilst simultaneously approving the building of a new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary on the flood plain of the Niddrie Burn.
I raised this contradiction with the consortium I was working for at the time and who were bidding for the contract. I was told in no uncertain terms to forget it. NHS Lothian told them that whilst proposing an alternative location was permissible it could jeopardise their chances of success in the bid process We won the bid and the hospital was duly built at Little France. Ten years later Sepa released data warning that the Edinburgh Royal site was highly vulnerable and could be underwater by 2050 due to rising sea levels. So much for raising your concerns.
This is what you are up against when working with NHS administrators whether at local or national level. You are hired for your expertise but then have to sit and listen as your warnings are promptly ignored. If your concerns were expressed in writing then trust me, they will be carefully concealed from public view if you are subsequently proved right. And any blame will simply be shifted onto a convenient scapegoat.
No surprise therefore to learn last week that civil servants were telling a think tank that it's ministers who are responsible for any problems with policy implementation and not them.
There is no doubt some truth in what Mark Smith says in his column today ("Traffic lights are in trouble - time for a roundabout revolution on the roads", The Herald, December 8) but it is evident he's no roads engineer. Roundabouts often don't work when one of the routes is much busier than the route crossing it. A large roundabout on the new Aberdeen bypass at Westhill recently required to be fitted with traffic lights because the traffic couldn't get off the bypass. They also often don't work, or at least the present designs don't, coming off of busy main arteries. Ask any regular user of the A9/M90 what they think of the Broxden and Keir roundabouts. Much more modern designs are required.
Above all, city roundabouts are useless for pedestrians and even worse for cyclists, not mentioned in the article, without much more thought being given to convenient ways to navigate them. In Aberdeen we have the undoubted benefits, to car drivers at least, of many roundabouts negated by pedestrian crossings just after them. I regularly cycle across a roundabout, in a supposedly 30mph zone, taking my life in my hands because the generally speeding traffic either doesn't see me or wish to stop for me, and I'm talking daylight. Let Mark Smith try hand signalling on a wet, slippy, bumpy roundabout, especially when he's in danger of being knocked off.
What he is really saying is that our road system is inadequate for the present level of traffic and not fit for purpose for any users, regardless of the nature of the junction. And what is he prepared to spend less on in order to improve them?
Angus MacEachran, Aberdeen.
* I agree with the views of Diana Turbett and George Morton (Letters, December 4 & 8) regarding the time pedestrians have to wait at a crossing for the green light.
I have no problem in waiting, but as an elderly man who has to use a walking stick, my gripe is that the time allocated is often insufficient to walk across the road safely before the lights change.
I am vigilant and start making my way across the road as soon as the green light comes on, but often I'm scarcely more than halfway across when the lights change. I don't want to try to run across as this would have the risk of falling.
I'm old enough to remember the time when we, the people, actually owned our own infrastructure. It may not have been perfect, but when it wasn't, we could do something about it via, for example, voting in elections, union activism, or indeed talking to service providers face to face. An even-older relative has told me about their recent conversion to the digital telephone service. BT allowed for an emergency phone to cope with power cuts. Great. But what phones to buy? Easy to use, big buttons, notifications of missed calls, enhanced volume, hearing aid-compatible and clear text on screen.
Good question, obvious answer: talk to BT, the service provider. Its recommendation? "Go to Google or Amazon, they have plenty of options." Duh... Hasn't privatisation been a wonderful success?
I'm sure that BT's owners (Bhartu Enterprises, 24%, Deutsche Telekom, 12%), Carlos Slim 3.2%, et al) would say so. They collect the profits.
In reply to Brian D Henderson (Letters, December 8) may I point out that I made clear in my previous letter that I understand the reasons for state visits - but they don't need to go over the top, especially at a time when many people are in severe financial difficulties. A little sensitivity would not go amiss.
152 guests sat down at the Windsor table, celebrities included, and were served a lavish meal complemented with fine wine and cocktails. I wonder how people in Windsor who rely on the food bank must have felt when they saw the gold coach rumble past and the glitzy banqueting pictures which followed. I doubt that they feel "the richer for it".