He probably doesn't know that new regulations sensibly require more formal engagement with our neighbours on strategic planning matters, whether a council is part of a city region or not.

Out of 32 Scottish councils, 19 are identified for membership of the four city regions. Ours is the only one of those 19 council regions which does not abut a city. While it makes sense for the Glasgow authorities, and Edinburgh and the Lothians to work together, our position is different.

Do we want a planning process for the Borders which is informed by the local and regional knowledge of 34 councillors (with all our failings!) and their constituents, or do we hand things over to a new authority which would be difficult to access, more expensive and over which we would have minimal control? The two SBC councillors representing the Borders would be easily out-voted when the pressure rises for Edinburgh housing or windfarms.

The only answer I hear is the vacuous plea: "We must be at the table". What table? I was not elected to tinker in the affairs of Fife or Edinburgh, nor do I want a Central Belt view of what is good for the Borders imposed on us.

It is like what happened to brewing in the Sixties; all the little and medium guys got absorbed into the likes of Ind Coope. Fortunately, but after considerable damage, good beer is once again proving its worth. We have a quality product in the Borders and we need to sell it with pride, not throw in our hand and be homogenised.

Charles Humphries suggests that it is a done deal. Not quite. Encouragingly, there are rumblings that some MSPs aren't convinced that this is right for the Borders. Orders will be laid before parliament in the next week; MSPs then have 40 days in which to act.

An amendment leaving the Borders apart from the Edinburgh city region would be widely welcomed. Let's hope that if one MSP takes the lead, then others will have the conviction to offer their support.

Nicholas Watson

(The Borders Party)