It's vital that COP26 proceeds, but not like this​​​​​​​ - Readers' Letters

Could HMS Queen Elizabeth be a secure venue for a slimmed-down COP26?

It is important that COP26 should go ahead, but perhaps not too late to alter its structure.

We have been told to expect up to 30,000 delegates from around the Covid-infected world, but almost all would have no opportunity to make any contribution to the proceedings.

Tens of thousands of others taking part in demonstrations would cause great disruption in Glasgow.

Around 30 countries are responsible for over 95 per cent of emissions and capable of taking action to reduce atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. On an individual basis the other countries could not take action which would have a measurable impact.

A small delegation from each of the large emitters, authorised to negotiate and enter into agreements, with the others given limited observer status, might achieve an outcome which we all hope for.

The total number of delegates would be in the hundreds rather than thousands, and such a conference could be held on a readily available cruise ship, or even our new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, anchored a few miles offshore.

Security would be more easily managed, the risks of a spread of Covid reduced, and a great burden removed from our already overstretched police.

WB Campbell, Edinburgh

Under pressure

Brian Wilson (Scotsman, 24 July) states that “three per cent of electricity is currently being generated by wind farms”.

That raises the question of how does Holyrood plan to supply schools, hospitals, homes and supermarket freezers should there be a repeat of these high pressure conditions, especially over the winter, once it has introduced a ban on fossil fuels?

Ian Moir, Castle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway

Cycling scare

After many years of driving, I experienced my first incident with a cyclist recently on an Edinburgh street. I was driving my car along a one-way street with cars parked on either side when a cyclist appeared from a side street heading in my direction.

He was looking down as he headed towards my car. I immediately applied the brakes and blew my horn for what seemed like an eternity.

He eventually looked up, saw my vehicle and miraculously swung away, narrowly avoiding a head-on collision.

The cyclist did not look when approaching the main street from the side street (he ignored the ‘give way’ sign). He turned into the one-way street and travelled down it in the wrong direction. He was looking down. He had large headphones on his head. He was not wearing a helmet.

It made me think of the cycling lobby seeking to adopt a “presumed liability” law where motorists are considered initially liable for all incidents involving cyclists.

If the cyclist had crashed into my car head-on and he had been injured/killed would I have had to prove my innocence? Would my insurance company have supported and funded my legal fees to prove my innocence? Would I have to meet the costs of repair to my vehicle since the cyclist would no doubt be uninsured?

Andrew Dodds, Bathgate, West Lothian

Something fishy

Claims by David Elder (Letters, 26 July) that "industrial scale" salmon poaching is a major problem in Scotland is quite simply nonsense, for the simple reason that it does not exist.

Scotland has the harshest salmon poaching laws in Europe and has had since Victorian times.

The salmon legislation of 1951 gives bailiffs the same powers of arrest as any police constable. Cars and fishing tackle can be seized and packages sent by post can be intercepted. Convictions can be obtained on the evidence of a single witness with no need for any corroboration and prison sentences can be imposed.