GLASGOW City Council has announced plans to improve access to the city centre using a tried and tested method.

The plan is to introduce two new bus gates, in Renfield Street and Oswald Street.

A similar scheme, launched in June this year, caught thousands of motorists unaware in a new bus gate at Nelson Mandela Place, subjecting them to fines and raising the blood pressure.

Access to the city centre for vehicles is already very poor and traders will be fuming at this latest blow, which will damage business.

Adding these restrictions to the existing stock of empty bus lanes, and even emptier buses, will simply succeed in further strangling the city centre for all motorists. The scheme is to be made subject to a feasibility study.

Our whole transport plan should also be made subject to a feasibility study...but do we have one?

Meantime, these new bus gates should help to worsen the current situation, trap the unwary motorist and help raise huge amounts of money for the council. Certainly sounds like a plan to me.

FOLLOWING a promotion in 1998, I was sent by the fire service to take up part-time membership of an EU safety committee in Brussels.

The committee consisted of members of the fire service from most of the EU countries and it met four times a year. After I had attended two or three lengthy meetings, I decided that I would make no further contribution to the work of the committee.

Its terms of reference were entirely unclear and it seemed to me a rather pointless and expensive waste of time.

The European Union has divided opinion since it was formed in 1957. The UK joined in 1973 and it would be fair to say that our relationship with it has been somewhat fractious. The UK is a net contributor to the EU, paying in some £12 billion and receiving more than £4 billion back in EU spending in the UK.

The net £8 billion we contribute annually is being brought directly into political focus both in the UK and Scottish Parliaments.

The surge of support for UKIP across the country saw them sweep to a European election victory in May. The Conservative party, in response to the UKIP threat, have promised an EU in/out referendum, should they win the general election next May next year.

Rather like buses, having waited many years for a referendum, it would appear that we Scots may have two in as many years.

The EU provides the UK with direct access to some 500 million customers and a tariff free trading status. UK exports to EU countries are worth far more than the cost of membership.

Yet despite these facts, there remains considerable frustration with a bureaucracy which costs more than 129 billion euros to support. Most EU countries don't want the UK to leave, and very few across the Continent want the EU to continue as it is.

Opponents of the EU cite the thriving economies of both Norway and Switzerland as examples of wealthy European countries who are not EU members. Others highlight the fact that the EU sells more to the UK than it buys from it.

So should we stay, should we go, or should we try to reform the EU?

In my opinion, the European Union seems to have somewhat lost its way. Its ambition and its terms of reference appear unclear. Has it become an expensive waste of time? In order to answer that question, I may have to reflect upon the instincts of a young fire officer from 1998.

EARLIER this month a worrying story developed around the potential for a large MoD contract to build Type 26 Frigates at BAE Systems Clyde yard to be awarded elsewhere.

The story was a little concerning at first as it was clear that many thousands of local jobs relied upon the award of the contract.

During the independence referendum the future of naval shipbuilding on the Clyde became a focus for both sides in the campaign. One of the arguments developed by the No campaign concentrated upon the need for UK ships to be built in the UK - something which could not be continued if Scotland opted for separation.

As an Admiral revealed that building the ships elsewhere, including France, was a real possibility, it became clear that the MoD were merely trying to obtain the best possible price from the sole supplier BAE Systems.

I said at the time that this was simply an exercise in posturing and pricing. This week, Defence Minister Michael Fallon confirmed that the ships would indeed be built on the Clyde setting aside any concerns.

All those politicians who became foolishly embroiled in this patently fake debate should think more carefully in the future.