I am disappointed by reactions to Unesco's comments about proposed developments within the designated world heritage site in Edinburgh (Focus, 26 August). I would have expected some fervour, yet have heard none.
We are talking about a world heritage site – not a Lothian heritage site nor even a British one – of such importance within the built and natural heritage of this planet that it has been picked out for an accolade and recognition as being among th
e finest things in the world. Yet to hear current debate it would appear little more than a nuisance.
I can imagine the clamour were other world heritage sites to come under such ill-considered attack. The Macchu Pichu Hilton? Go-karting amongst the chicanes of Stonehenge? BMX parks over the pyramids?
Yet here we are happy to see a prime site let to commercial developers in a way that would be hardly acceptable in a minor provincial town. This, too, with defence from the city fathers and the Chamber of Commerce. Members of the chamber, I would suggest, do not all work in offices, but are interested to see the premium visitors and companies attracted here because Edinburgh is still well worth visiting and living in.
Edinburgh is a lived-in and living city, and must never be frozen in time. It must, however, recognise that it is, like Prague and Florence, greater than the sum of its parts. To begin to erode and then to replace with dull, pedestrian – but no doubt commercially viable – buildings is not only cruel, it is shortsighted and shows a total misunderstanding of this place.
We should be proud of this city; it is unique. While current attitudes to Unesco's observations prevail, we can hardly complain about the tatty tourist shops, unweeded pavements and traffic chaos. These could be settled at a stroke. Beginning the destruction of a world heritage site in the name of commerce is no less than authorised vandalism and I am astonished that we are not out in our thousands marching to save our beautiful city from yet more misguided and substandard "developments".
There always is a stronger commercial argument, but many cities have recognised that this can be short-term gain for a very long-term loss, and have master-planned to save the blight.
Edinburgh more than justifies its Unesco recognition, and to many of us this matters. We are tenants of this city, not owner-occupiers; let's try not to mess it up too much for future generations.
DAVID GERRARD
Spylaw Park
EdinburghKoichiro Matsuura, director-general of Unesco, states that "traditional language is vital for all societies", and that "culture counts" (Debate & Opinion, 19 August). He ends with an invitation to the UK government to take the necessary steps to become the 100th country to ratify the "convention", which was adopted by Unesco's General Convention 2003, and "help secure the UK's cultural heritage".
An important part of Scotland's culture is the Scots language, and it is vital for it to be accepted as a "living heritage".
In Scotland, a History (Oxford University Press) it states: "Historically the languages that were important to the formation of the idea of the Kingdom of Scotland were Latin and Scots."
Some Scots is known to the greater part of Scotland's population. The language is well documented and it requires only formal recognition to be restored to use in education and culture.
The UK government should take up the Unesco invitation to ratify the convention. If it does not, the Scottish government must be given the authority to do so.
IAN W D FORDE and SUSAN F G FORDE
Main Street
Scotlandwell, Kinross-shire The full article contains 620 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
