Sir, Have we become so dependent upon government benefits that any proposed reduction is perceived as a tax, when in actual fact those in receipt of benefits may never be liable for taxation?
The removal of housing benefit for additional bedrooms in accordance with government policy is not a tax, the reduction in benefit is a rebate or discount for working taxpayers as compensation for subsidising some for occupying houses larger than their requirements.
Social housing in Britain was a boon to a flexible and expanding population as it provided affordable rented accommodation for growing families and workers moving to jobs. Homes could be exchanged in accordance with needs, either for location or size.
Ill-informed government policy did, however, greatly reduce the social housing stock, but the criteria for allocation remained the same, that of need.
Whilst we may have a duty of care for those in need it must never appear more beneficial to take from the state rather than contribute.
Let us not become confused as to the difference between receiving and contributing.
Alan Bell. Roods, Kirriemuir.
Can’t see why they refused permission
Sir, I write in regard to the recent decision taken by the Kincardine and Mearns area committee to reject planning permission for a new hotel, caf and shop to be built at Auchenblae.
Am I not right in thinking that elected councillors are duty-bound to represent the views of the people they stand for?
It would appear this is not what has happened in this case.
It is a published fact that 160 representations were submitted in relation to this development and of the total, 101 were in support.
One could garner from this, therefore, that the majority are in favour of this development.
Public opinion is one thing, but the infrastructure services report that comprehensively details the proposal and findings and addresses the objections and concerns, ultimately recommends granting full planning permission for the development.
How, then, can councillors justify returning a result that defies the documented views of the majority they represent, and ignore the recommendation made by the planning department?
Considering the recent history of Auchenblae and the gas explosion that has left the village without a local hotel and bar it strikes me as incredulous that the area committee, after considering all the evidence and arguments, have voted against this golden opportunity that offers so much, on so many levels, for the present and future of Auchenblae and its residents.
Kelly Sim. Hillview, 2 Inverurie Street, Auchenblae.
Don’t put lives at risk in winter
Sir, Before the onset of winter may I make a plea for sanity and commonsense among the hill-walking/mountain-climbing community?
Rather than put not only their own lives but others’ at risk by their selfish and irresponsible decisions to enjoy their “sport” in the hazardous conditions often seen in our Scottish hills and mountains, perhaps they might care to see sense and stay at home.
If this saved even one life then surely it would be worthwhile.
Tom McDonald. 57 Durham Street, Monifieth.
Where is his “mandate”?
Sir, Mr Barber of the Edinburgh Secular society (Courier October 2) questions the mandate of the Church of Scotland to “impose it’s minority beliefs” on others and bases his argument on recent census figures showing that 37% of the population have “no religion” compared with 32% of the CoS.
The 37% he quotes contains followers of various “isms” eg secularism, humanism, paganism etc as well as those who have no religion but would not wish religion banished from schools in Scotland.
Mr Barber would have been better to compare like with like eg all the Christian Churches in Scotland with the “no religion”. This would show that 2.85 million were Christian out of a population of 5.3 million.
I leave Mr Barber to work out if he has any “mandate” to call for Christians to leave religion out of the educational process of our youth.
Philip Kearns. 47 Grove Road, Dundee.