Holyrood flooding adds additional expense

Sir,—After much criticism relating to the cost of the Holyrood Parliament building, it is disappointing to learn that part of the building has been affected by flooding following the torrential rain of recent weeks.

However, one would have thought that bearing in mind the location is at the foot of a hill, and on the site of a former brewery, there would be, obviously, an abundance of water at Holyrood.

It is to be hoped that the problem will be resolved before the official opening, without too much additional expense.

Gurkha loyalty betrayed

Sir,—I have long been a critic of this Government and its shambles of an asylum policy.

Not only are we admitting more immigrants than America but we are failing to stop the flood of bogus asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

The majority of these people are unlikely ever to contribute to our tax system but will be able to use our country’s facilities since all they need to say is ‘racism’ and they will go to the head of any queue.

Before the pro- immigration groups rush to write letters, I would state that I have no problem with genuine asylum seekers but they are thin on the ground.

Contrast our treatment and handouts to bogus asylum seekers with our treatment of the Gurkhas.

Four hundred of them who have fought and risked their lives fighting for Britain have been denied British citizenship.

Many served with distinction in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

So they were good enough to fight for us but not good enough to get a passport.

We allowed Muslim cleric Abu Hamza to preach hatred yet we paid him benefits of over £25,000 a year. This smacks of double standards.

I hope that the words of Bidur Parkin, vice-chairman of the Brigade of Gurkhas Welfare Society, will bring a change of heart and that the brave Gurkhas will be given passports.

He said, ‘If we were to jump out of a truck somewhere near Dover I think we would get better treatment than we do as Gurkhas.’

It needs a Gurkha to tell it as it is so I hope this Government is ashamed.

SNP all things to all men

Sir,—Your analysis of how the new Dundee East constituency may vote at the next election (August 25) left out a critical factor.

That is, with the amalgamation of part of Angus with part of Dundee, we have two types of SNP involved that will not necessarily blend together as far as the voters are concerned.

In Angus, the SNP is virulently anti-Dundee, whereas in Dundee, it purports to be pro-city.

In such a situation, will the SNP candidate be viewed as pro-Dundee in the Angus area?

His wife, is after all, on record as stating that she would favour the extension of Dundee’s boundaries as before in Angus.

What the next election in Dundee will undoubtedly expose is the duplicity of the SNP and its inability to be all things to all people.

As a result, no doubt Dundee East will stick with Labour.

Regiments sold down river

Sir,—The MoD are not being allowed enough money by Gordon Brown to maintain the current number of infantry battalions.

I suspect that, with overstretch and the unforeseen, they really need to retain more than they have the money for.

They are, therefore, scraping the barrel to maximise resources and have said that they can no longer afford the current arms plot system of moving battalions every few years from, say Germany, to, say Northern Ireland, with the retraining and upheaval that entails.

Under this system, at any one time, a number of battalions are non-operational.

The question that the Defence Secretary needs to be asked is—how many operational battalions will be saved by doing away with the arms plot moves and the current regimental system, and what are the resultant cost savings?

This figure would then be the value that the Government places on the regimental system with its loyalties and traditions.

I suspect that the amount saved would be a fraction of the cost of, for example, the Millennium Dome, or of Holyrood. The future of The Black Watch, and other famous regiments looks like being sold down the river by this Government for a mess of pottage.

Wind energy case not proven

Sir,—We are told by the wind lobby and politicians that wind-energy technology, onshore and offshore, is proven.

Why then do we now have Governments contributing £10 million (August 27) to establish the feasibility’ of an offshore wind facility?

It cannot be claimed on one hand that wind technology is proven, and justifies littering the countryside with turbines, when on the other hand it is deemed necessary to spend £10 million to prove its feasibility.