The issues today are pension proposals, courteous driving, threats to our existence, planning issues, and the right to demonstrate.
Anomalies within flat-rate pension proposals
Sir,-When I read about the proposed flat-rate pension scheme, I was alarmed at how blatantly unfair it was on so many levels.
For example, should there be a two-tier system. An old-scheme pensioner who has paid National Insurance contributions for 50 years or so, who is on the £97 basic pension, will get much less than his equivalent new-scheme pensioner, who has paid in for 30 years.
Alternatively, two classmates within days of each other in age, with identical work and National Insurance histories, could receive vastly different pensions.
These are just two anomalies of the pension proposal. I think most fair-minded people would deem this situation unacceptable and absurd.
I looked up the Government’s A State Pension for the 21st Century consultation paper online and realised this two-tier system was only option one of two the second option being a one-tier flat-rate pension but at a later date.
This brought out the cynic in me which made me suspicious that the Government may be aware of the flaws in option one and are priming us sheep-like to be driven to option two in our revulsion of the first proposal.
Option one was scheduled for 2015 or 2016. The next election?
Robert Ferguson.19 New Gilston,Leven.
Disrespect claim unjustified
Sir,-I am one of those elderly people who, if wearing headgear, will remove it and stand as a funeral cortege passes (April 4). I am also one of those “rude” drivers who has, on occasion, cut into a cortege.
The reason is simple. Except for the hearse and two or three easily identifiable funeral saloons, the cortege today usually comprises a train of ordinary, coloured cars which are indistinguishable from vehicles going about their everyday business and which travel with a variety of distances between vehicles.
If I have inadvertently overtaken and fallen into a line which I then realise was a funeral procession, I have simply carried on without any further attempt to overtake.
Your article highlights the interruption of corteges at roundabouts. That complaint is totally unjustified. How is the driver to know, as he waits for a roundabout to clear, that cars of ordinary appearance still approaching from his right, are part of a cortege which has just passed him?
When it is my turn to be the main passenger in a cortege, I do not think I will be overly concerned if my following friends find drivers cutting in.
It may well be inadvertent, though that is not to deny that there are rude and discourteous drivers around.
James Thomson.14 Vardon Drive,Glenrothes.
World faces greater fears
Sir,-Angus Ramsay (April 4) should not concern himself about the 250,000-year effect of radiation from plutonium rods. Probably not even the 25-year effect for that matter.
Other more significant problems, such as over-population and starvation, will take their toll on us long before the radiation gets us.
Malcolm Parkin.15 Gamekeepers Road,Kinnesswood,Kinross.
Councillors not subservient
Sir,-I missed your editorial comment that attracted a letter and the headline ‘Fife councillors’ subservience to paid officials’ (April 4).
I cannot comment on the relationship between councillors and officials in the Kirkcaldy and Mid Fife area but I know enough about the work of elected members and officers here in north-east Fife to make the following comment.
At a local authority planning meeting, if the majority of members do not agree with the recommendation from an officer to approve an application, the democratic outcome is that it is refused.
At last Wednesday’s meeting in Cupar, councillors refused nine out of 14 applications against the officers’ recommendations of approval.
The applicant has the right of appeal and some choose that course. The final outcome is then decided by a reporter appointed by the Scottish Government.
It is interesting that more appeals are dismissed than allowed.
All this is evidence that the councillors can and do make better planning decisions than the officials.
No rubber stamps in north-east Fife then.
Graham Lang.Westermost,Coaltown of Callange,Ceres.
Protect right to demonstrate
Sir,-In his correspondence in recent days, George McMillan displays a misunderstanding of the role of the police during demonstrations.
Within a free, democratic society it is vital that people are able to protest against governments and policies with which they disagree. We only have to look at recent events in north Africa to see how valuable this right is.
The role of the police in all this is actually to uphold democracy; to ensure that the protest can pass, with the safety both of the peaceful protesters and the general public protected.
What happened in London was that around 500,000 people (depending on whose figures you believe) protested peacefully against the UK Government, as is their right.
A few hundred people decided they wanted violence and ruined the protest.
Under Mr McMillan’s proposals, the vast majority would be charged to preserve democracy because of the actions of a minority.
How can this be fair?
(Cllr) Keith Legg.50 Chandlers Walk,Dalgety Bay.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL.