Sir, The in phrase in politics these days seems to be “a fairer society”. Somehow it would appear, or at least our political masters would like it to appear, that there is a vast and growing community of downtrodden, impoverished Scots whose lot in life is nothing other than foodbanks, benefits and charity.
We are implored to focus all our efforts on rescuing this “huge” group from the jaws of capitalist greed and malfeasance by the crude redistribution of wealth where it can be identified.The great levellers see this as a popular way to power knowing that in today’s climate the politically correct pundit is unlikely to voice any opposing policy.The burden, of course, will fall on the talented, skilled, enterprising people of endeavour and those who value education, self-reliance, self-discipline and ambition to improve their family’s lives and prospects. This is the group that left-leaning politicians have a certain contempt for, tinged with, I suspect, a modicum of envy, for reasons I don’t fully understand.For any country to be successful it requires its most able wealth creators to be given rein to use their ability and enterprise to create industry, and thus employment, through innovation and risk taking. Their motivation, ultimately, is to be allowed to reap the rewards of their endeavour without punitive taxation, as the levellers would prefer.The capitalist system has its faults but nowhere on the planet is there a system which gives those within it a more secure or better standard of living nor a fairer chance of personal success or, indeed, national success.Socialism, communism or dictatorships have failed spectacularly wherever they have been dominant. People create wealth not governments. The role of governments is tocreate the stable environment for wealth to be created. So, let’s talk about rewarding success rather than encourage dependency and support enterprise, endeavour and self-reliance rather than capitulate to failure and self pity.A vigorously affluent society automatically helps with the “unseen hand” the less fortunate, as Adam Smith the greatest of Scotland’s (and arguably the world’s) philosophers and economist espoused.Certainly, we must ensure safeguards are in place to protect the truly vulnerable in society, but let those who can create wealth flourish, and society will prosper with them. Nothing can be fairer than that.Iain G Richmond.Guildy House,Monikie.Applaud, don’t ridicule itSir, I applaud Harry Key’s letter about the Rev John Cameron (November 21). I also find it hard to believe a man of the cloth could write such rubbish. Maybe he should read Philomena by Martin Sixsmith, a true story giving an accurate account of her life after having her son taken away from her.Alas, that’s not all, as the Reverend Doctor then writes again under the heading Aid is not helping (November 24).My recollection of the singers getting together was not seen as them parading as paragons of virtue or being crass and vulgar, I saw them as a group of people who came together at their own expense and for a single cause.Ebola is a terrible illness which at the moment is pandemic in Africa, this could become an epidemic if not treated and contained.It broke my heart to see a child not allowed to speak to her dying mother in case she also became contaminated. I believe most of society knows the money raised is no panacea for all the troubles in Africa, but surely it goes some way to relieving the suffering of many?I am proud of what they are doing as I am, also, of the volunteers who are giving their all in Africa at the moment. Sir Bob Geldof also knows this is no panacea, but he speaks articulately and with a humane wish to help. Surely this should be applauded and not ridiculed?I suggest the reverend should book a time for reflection and retreat at Iona Abbey to enable him to accept society and all its foibles and most of all to remember the words of Jesus and that we should love one another.(Mrs) Sheena Rae.15 Ballinlochan Terrace,Pitlochry.Provoking a responseSir, Oh deary me! more criticism of poor old Dr John. I have come to the conclusion like one of your previous writers that the content of the letters is so outrageous that he is simply provoking criticism and having a laugh.I like to read the latest “rant”, oops, sorry! epistle according to the Rev Dr John Cameron and have a wee chuckle as the image of the Rev I M Jolly comes into my mind.Dave Gordon.7 Milner Street,Dundee.Use the money for our ownSir, It never ceases to amaze me the diverse points that Rev Dr Cameron findsmto complain about in The Courier’s letters page.However, for once, I totally agree with him and his comments regarding Aid for Africa, although probably for different reasons!Whether I agree with it or not, both the Westminster and Scottish Governments dish out aid to foreign countries, paid for by the taxes collected from British citizens.It is a known fact, shown in various documentaries, that little of this aid actually reaches the right place. The bulk of it is syphoned off by corrupt people/governments.So, now that we know the money sent overseas is in fact being wasted let us spend the millions in our own country, on our own elderly and vulnerable for a start.While we are at it, let’s also dismantle that obscene weapons system on the west coast and add the millions saved there as well.Sorted!John Gunn.15 Strathmore Road,Glamis.House of Lairds will be neededSir, AA Bullions is quite correct to state that Holyrood seems to have more MSPs per person, than Westminster has MPs per person. However, Westminster does have a further 789 representatives in the House of Lords.Admittedly these people are not elected by anyone, but they are part of the governmental process at Westminster.This means that Westminster has a total of 1439 representatives at roughly 43,780 members of the public per representative at the Houses of Parliament. As quoted by AA Bullion, Holyrood has 129 elected representatives, elected using a form of proportional representation for the public to choose those representatives.If Holyrood is to reduce to the 53 representatives sug-gested then we must be going to require a second chamber, as at Westminster.Scotland has a number of Lords and Ladies so a House of Lairds is surely possible. Although can we be sure that Sturgeon, Davidson, Rennie and whoever becomes Scottish Labour leader have the ability to appoint the correct people in the same way that Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg have chosen their donors for Westminster?Ian Ferguson.13 Blackwood Way,Dunfermline.LibDem griping is tiresomeSir, In his letter, Deal needed for stability (November 24) ex-councillor George Hayton forgot to mention that he was the leader of the LibDems in the last SNP/LibDem administration.Just prior to the local elections in 2014 the LibDems had seven councillors and five convenerships/vice convenerships. I don’t recall the LibDems saying that they wanted the positions to go to opposition parties, other than Scrutiny which they agreed had to go to the Tory majority opposition.He seems to think that the SNP administration should have been altruistic in giving a non-administration councillor a quasi-judicial convenership yet when he was depute leader of the administration he did not seem to feel that way as the development management position was held by Cllr Willie Wilson, also a LibDem.While I can appreciate that an ex-LibDem politician might feel he has to attack the SNP at every opportunity. I feel that The Courier readership don’t want to read the negativity and sour grapes of a dwindling number of LibDem politicians in the letters page. I know I certainly won’t be replying any more to politicians whose only gripe is that they are no longer getting added responsibility allowances.Cllr Elspeth Maclachlan.Perth City North.122 Dunsinane Drive,Letham, Perth.