Letter: Bad timing for Scottish Lib Dems' plans

Leaving aside the argument about how much would be raised from the Liberal Democrat plans for Scottish Water (your report, 5 April), there is the claim of investment for 100,000 jobs.

Since we already have a ratio of public to private sector jobs that is too heavily weighted towards the public sector, I assume they mean the bulk of the jobs would be private sector.

The problem is that manifesto promises cannot instantly generate private sector jobs. Aside from providing business with investment finance, before a business can take and use that finance it needs to have a stimulated market to sell its products and services.

There is no point in having easy finance if there is no way to generate the revenue to repay it.

Meanwhile, down at Westminster another Liberal Democrat party is making cuts which are causing the public to reduce their expenditure. People fearful of their future employment tend not to want to increase spending.

Since these conditions and the slow increase in market growth are predicted for the whole length of the Westminster Parliament, it is unlikely the Scottish Liberal Democrats' plan is going to have many applicants. They might be better off putting their idea in storage until the next Scottish election.

Bruce D Skivington

Strath

Gairloch, Wester Ross

I find it ironic that the Scottish Conservative Party is viewed as a toxic brand due to its association with Thatcherism (leader, 5 April).

Margaret Thatcher's government did so much good, clearing up the economic mess left by the Labour Party, empowering ordinary people through council house sales and standing up for British interests abroad.

In every respect, the present government is a failure by comparison. Its failure to tackle the deficit inherited from Labour is particularly egregious.

Contrast the Falklands War with the present Libyan imbroglio. In the former, the Argentinian military dictatorship attacked British territory inhabited by British nationals. The national interest was clear, the Thatcher government acted, the islands were recovered and the dictatorship fell.

In Libya, we go to war for no discernible British national interest, directly after massive cuts to the armed forces, while we continue an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. We don't have the slightest clue whom we will bring to power by overthrowing the Gaddafi regime. Nor will the government rescind the defence cuts. Surely, it is the Scottish Conservative Party's association with the present government rather than with Margaret Thatcher's great reforming administration that should render it toxic.

Otto Inglis

Inveralmond Grove

Edinburgh

At last, David Cameron tells Pakistan that the British Empire is to blame for many of the world's problems.

Little wonder that between 1500 and 1997 as many as 70 nations have left the British Empire, which has now effectively been dissolved.

None of these counties wishes to come back under Westminster rule. Do not be surprised if Gibraltar and Falkland Islands are next to go their own way.

To our cost we Scots still suffer in silence. It is time for change for the better. We should follow the path of all these other nations and have a say in our own destiny.

Donald J Morrison

Haig Street

Buckie

I expect a lot of people will be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought that we could soon have a system which enables us to elect someone we didn't want to vote for.

This is akin to "voting" in pre-1990 Poland. You could vote for either one of two parties, but they were both the same one. One was the Communist Party and the other was the Country Party.

Now, we can vote for the party we want and give a second vote to the least unappealing party as an alternative. It's clever, but I don't actually know anyone who wants to vote for a second party. Labourites want to vote Labour and Nationalists for the Nationalists. Not too many Tories would want to vote for Alex Salmond and I do not detect a thunder of hooves racing from the Socialist Workers' Party to vote Lib Dem.

What exactly is the benefit of getting the other party we didn't really want to become the government in London (ie the real government)?

Don't tell me - we could have another coalition, meaning we too could have total disarray and indecision as a norm, like Italy for most of the post-war period; like Israel in which some lunatic extremist party can guarantee to upset the peace process by selling its votes for more building on the West Bank.

Alternatively, we could emulate Belgium, which doesn't even have a government! What a wonderful prospect! Oh - sorry. I was thinking in the Scottish context then.

Andrew HN Gray

Craiglea Drive

Edinburgh