Sir, – I have been lucky in the heroes I adopted.
To name a few, my father was a real miner (as opposed to all those politically motivated trade union leaders who destroyed our industry) and thus trained me to be reasonably good at my chosen trade.
And in Clement Attlee and Mrs Thatcher, I still can celebrate the sort of politicians who actually believed in what they were saying.
Attlee’s approach turned out to be disastrously wrong but policies such as wholesale nationalisation were, at the time, worthwhile and constructive measures after the horrors and deprivation Britain experienced before and during the Second World War.
It is a sad but solid fact that socialism (no matter how well meaning) is simply not in tune with human nature.
But that should never mean the end of Britain’s Labour Party.
If the party had copied the German Social Democrats in abandoning socialism (in 1959) then who can doubt Labour governments thereafter would have achieved so much more in making Britain more prosperous and secure than it is today.
Instead, we have seen a continuing cycle of Conservative governments having to avert financial crises caused by Labour’s economic blunders.
So, I, for one, hope for a reconstructed Labour Party which will produce potential leaders, who will be able to demonstrate the essential element of principled decency we saw during the Attlee era.
That in turn must lead to the extermination of the more insidious and nasty traits displayed by socialism.
There should be no place in any decent society for the sort of ruthless fanaticism demonstrated by the environmental or nationalist brand of leftie.
So, whatever our political leanings, let us get back to the days of mutual respect for differing opinions and an acceptance that in a healthy democracy, there must be a constructive potential alternative government.
Jim Parker. 9 Banchory Green, Collydean, Glenrothes.
Let’s havesome humility
Sir, – I fail to understand why The Courier pays Alex Salmond to publish his party political rantings.
The man does not contribute any positive points, but simply sets out to criticise his opponents.
He should get over the referendum result, get on with looking after his constituency and make a positive, rather than a negative contribution to the Westminster Parliament.
He might reflect on the fact that had the country voted yes, we as a country might now just be facing bankruptcy.
I don’t suppose evena small dose of humility could be possible from Mr Salmond?
Mev Braid. 15 Kinkell Avenue, Glenrothes.
Mr Salmond cannot hide
Sir, – The audacity of Alex Salmond to want to debate United Kingdom membership of the European Union with UKIP leader Nigel Farage is beyond belief and understanding.
Mr Salmond’s sole aim in life is to split up the UK, yet he wants to lead us to believe he wants the UK to be in Europe as a single entity.
It is time for him and the present First Minister to stop claiming that the entire population of Scotland wants to stay in Europe.
That will be decided when David Cameron names the day.
This fable that Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon speak for 100% of the population was disproved at the last referendum.
Mr Salmond has also gone on record as saying David Cameron and George Osborne must resign if the referendum results in an out vote but surely that should also be the case for the SNP foreign affairs spokesman if he is leading a Scottish stay in campaign and the Scottish voters also vote for out.
Mr Salmond cannot expect other people to fall on their swords and then hide in the background himself.
Colin Cookson. Hatton Green, Stenton, Glenrothes.
SNP wants it all ways
Sir, – In response to the letter, Ruth dodged hard question (February 12), I watched First Minister’s questions the day before and was astonished at Nicola Sturgeon’s complete avoidance of giving an answer to any question she was asked.
Her response to each question was to deride the opposition MSPs who had the temerity to ask her genuine and relevant questions.
What was equally astonishing was the performance of the presiding officer Tricia Marwick who did not compel Ms Sturgeon to answer the questions she was asked.
The question was also asked why John Swinney is reluctant to accept the deal from the UK Treasury.
May I suggest that like with most things with the SNP, Mr Swinney wants to have his cake and eat it.
Mike Rogalski. 82 Feus Road, Perth.
Scots subsidy to continue
Sir, – As our politicians struggle towards concluding the fiscal framework negotiations, the reason why this process has been so protracted is emerging.
As we know, the Barnett Formula is unfair in favour of Scotland, providing more tax receipts to spend per capita than other parts of Great Britain.
Our economic and tax outlook is less robust than the rest of the UK, particularly with Scotland’s population growing more slowly.
So the fiscal framework needs to perpetuate the Barnett Formula’s block grant unfairness.
If not, Scots face increased taxation or declining public services, or both.
Not a palatable pill for the SNP to ask us to swallow, especially in the run-up to an election.
But why should other UK taxpayers subsidise Scotland, if our devolved tax-take under performs relative to the rest of the UK?
And let’s not forget, the SNP intended an independent Scotland next month. There would have been no UK subsidies then.
It appears we are edging towards a compromise by which the UK Government, that target of Nicola Sturgeon’s contempt, will at some level subsidise Scotland’s devolved tax yield.
If I lived in Bradford or Swansea, I’d be seething; as someone resident in Edinburgh, I’m relieved.
Martin Redfern. 4 Royal Circus, Edinburgh.
Less rhetoric and more action
Sir, -Neil Findlay may well have been wrong to call Nicola Sturgeon a liar but dishonesty is at the heart of SNP politics.
Ms Sturgeon opposes Tory austerity, but backs the bigger cuts that would come with full fiscal autonomy.
She opposed George Osborne’s budget but stands shoulder to shoulder with the Tories delivering it in Scotland.
She claims her council tax freeze is protecting household budgets but her poverty adviser is clear that it is making inequality worse.
Worst of all, she promotes the idea that public services in Scotland can be revolutionised by tinkering at the edges and funded by cutting taxes. This is a Tory agenda.
After nine years of government, and an unprecedented majority, we have a First Minister who has offered Scotland nothing bold.
Despite the breadth and depth of political capital she holds, she is happy simply to comment on issues as they arise rather than implementing any of her progressive rhetoric.
If we are to keep our SNP Government, let’s keep Nicola Sturgeon true to her word and at least expect her to make some of her rhetoric reality.
Dr Scott Arthur. 27 Buckstone Gardens, Edinburgh.
Nation’s debt to Mrs Thatcher
Sir, – Allan MacDougall’s attack on the legacy of Margaret Thatcher was lame and misinformed.
He is correct to point to high interest rates in the 1970s and 1980s but these were a result of Labour’s mismanagement of the economy and the selfishness of some trade union leaders.
What he failed to admit was that after Mrs Thatcher’s economic tonic, interest rates fell throughout the 1990s as the economy picked up.
Why do hard-left nationalists hold up Mrs Thatcher as a totem of evil?
She stood up to bullying unions leaders who cared only for themselves and not their members.
She gave the working class hope, money in their pockets and a home to call their own.
Does Mr MacDougall think that Linwood and Ravenscraig would still be here if Labour had won in 1979?
Mrs Thatcher came along at the end of a decade when this country could not even keep the lights on.
Children grew up amid power cuts, knowing only drabness and industrial strife.
Mrs Thatcher turned the lights on and brought colour to the UK.
And don’t forget, Labour closed more mines than Mrs Thatcher and Arthur Scargill destroyed the miners’ unions not the Tories.
The hard-left nationalists do have selective memories.
Bob Anderson. Kirkton, Arbroath.