Letters: Proof of a liberal dose of opportunism

While it is always encouraging to see politicians change their minds, the most recent such volte face from the Liberal Democrats, on the minimum pricing of alcohol (your report, 6 June), reeks of sheer hypocrisy and political opportunism.

Last year the party could have supported the SNP, a minority government at that time, when it sought to address this issue but decided instead to vote with the other parties to defeat the SNP - just as it had on the Edinburgh tram fiasco at the time of the first minority SNP budget.

But now, with the SNP in a majority, it is a U-turn for the Lib Dems as they, not for the first time, wish to be on the winning side and to be in a position to claim, at a later date, that it was all their idea in the first place.

I agree and fully support the view of Dr Stuart Waiton of Abertay University, who said that the Lib Dems are "liberal with their principles" (Perspective, 6 June).

Alan McKinney

Beauchamp Road

Edinburgh

It was with much hilarity that I read the comments of Labour's Hugh Henry and the Lib Dems' Willie Rennie that Scotland is heading for an "elected dictatorship" (your report, 4 June).

The SNP won the election fair and square through an electoral system both these parties devised, and there can surely be no greater example of sour grapes than the ridiculous statements emanating from these moaning parties.

When there was a previous Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition at Holyrood there was a Lib Dem presiding officer, and when there was a Labour UK government with an overall majority, the Westminster speaker was Labour's Michael Martin. To therefore be critical of the election of the SNP's Tricia Marwick as Presiding Officer smacks more than a little of hypocrisy.

The focus of these two parties after devastating electoral performances should be to devise credible policies which resonate with the electorate, rather than attacking and belittling the success of others.

Alex Orr

Leamington Terrace

Edinburgh

Few people would doubt that Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie faces a mammoth task in restoring his party's fortunes. But he has made a brave and confident start in two ways.

He has tried vigorously to hold the justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to account over his remarks about the judges on the Supreme Court. Secondly, he has signalled a change in view on the minimum price for alcohol.

It may be late but it is welcome even though the Scottish Government can now get the measure through without the support of other parties.

Hopefully this heralds the start of more constructive opposition than we've seen in previous years. There were many reasons for the SNP's overwhelming victory in May.

One, I think, was a concern among voters that opposition parties had blocked the minority government's proposals in the last four years for the sake of it, and not on the merits of the case.Now that they have been suitably humbled, let's hope that they can be a bit more positive. Mr Rennie must know the horrendous consequences of alcohol abuse both in his former Westminster constituency in Dunfermline and throughout the east of Scotland area.

By facing down the critics of the minimum price, he can do two things. He can show that he has leadership qualities that bode well for a Liberal Democrat revival.

He can demonstrate too that he is aware of the results of alcohol abuse at grass roots level, and wants to try to end what is a scourge on Scottish society.

Bob Taylor

Shiel Court

Glenrothes, Fife

Vince Cable's speech, trying to browbeat and bully union members into accepting a cut in their living standards to pay for the egregious larceny of the racketeers and the crooks of the City of London (your report, 6 June), could have been written for him by the Tory right.

This is just the latest example of how the Lib Dems have sold themselves down the river for power. Vince Cable is David Cameron's court jester.

He would not dare go along to the CBI and tell them that it was the laissez-faire policies of light regulation and excessive bonuses which plunged the country into this economic crisis.

He would not tell the bosses they should be taking pay cuts instead of the average of 32 per cent increase that the boss of a FTSE company received last year.

No, instead Cable is deciding that the economic poison he, the Tories and the International Monetary Fund are prescribing should only be swallowed by the people who do not move in the same circles as him.

Cable is acting just as Liberal prime minister John Russell did when the Irish potato famine hit. Russell decided he would stand by and let the people starve rather than intervening with state aid, as it contravened his ideology.

By allying himself with the "robber barons" and warning of punitive action, Cable has shown the Con-Dem coalition is rattled by opposition.

It is imperative that as many people come out against a return to 19th century working practices on 30 June (the date earmarked for a potential mass public sector strike].

Alan Hinnrichs

Gillespie Terrace

Dundee