Today’s letters to The Courier.
Sir, An increase of 36,000 in employment in Scotland compared to 24,000 in the rest of the UK over the past year has been heralded as a triumph by those who would persuade us that separation from our family nations in the UK would be a good thing.
Any increase in employment is, of course, very much welcomed. What is worrying is the steep rise in youth unemployment.
Youth unemployment has increased by 25% in a single year to a horrendous 45,000. This is a 12-year high. New figures show that taxpayers are paying just under £2 million a week to support people aged 24 and under who have no jobs.
Any family will tell you how worrying and difficult it is to find a career for a young person leaving school or university.
What are politicians doing? What do we have a devolved Parliament for?
The SNP administration want to be exempted from UK immigration controls more immigration means more competition for jobs and housing.
What is the point of encouraging more immigration when our young people have to emigrate to find jobs themselves?
What it has done is to find cushy jobs for 12 civil servants in EU Brussels at a total cost of £700,000 a year.
But the SNP administration presiding over this folly cannot provide jobs for Scotland’s young people. That is the betrayal of an upcoming generation.
George Cormack.McLauchlan Rise,Aberdour.
Chance to keep care in-house
Sir, Your front page headline in Tuesday’s Fife edition says it all. Fife Council is indeed in disarray over their flawed policy of closing all 10 of their care homes.
Ever since the SNP/Lib Dem coalition threw out the public consultation held at the beginning of the year, which strongly came down in favour of a continued in-house provision, they have been backing a loser.
Fife Council agreed in 2008 to have a phased replacement of their own care homes over a period of years. This was widely accepted as the correct course to follow.
This February we experienced a travesty of natural justice when the ruling group decided to go for a private sector solution.
Everybody knows there will be cuts (sorry, savings) but why should the frail elderly members of our community be targeted?
The SNP council leader, Peter Grant, and his Lib Dem ally, Tim Brett, now have an opportunity to say that the council will finance the care home replacement programme, keeping the service in-house.
Ian Sloan.1 Lady Nina Cottages,Coaltown of Balgonie.
Break would help the Tories
Sir, People do generally admire bravery and Murdo Fraser’s bold initiative to create a new movement out of the Scottish Conservatives has created more interest in his party than anything I can remember since Holyrood began 12 years ago.
It has also created a new, confident politician. During the campaign, Fraser has taken on the air of a man who means business.
The Conservative Party in Scotland has struggled with a legacy of being anti-devolution and associated with Margaret Thatcher.
Losing the brand, and direct association with the Conservative Party in Westminster, will help create a break from the past.
With only 15 MSPs, the Scottish Conservatives need a different approach to win over younger voters, and this might make the difference. Likewise, with only one MP in Scotland, UK Conservatives have little to lose by supporting the initiative.
What is important for Scotland is to have strong representation across the political spectrum. It is good for parliamentary debate to have vibrant parties of both left and right of centre.
A new party that stands on its own feet will, I believe, galvanise current MSPs into creating policies suited to Scotland.
It should also attract new members who see the potential to have an organisation that has greater control over its identity.
There will be lots to play for in the next few weeks.
Ben Thomson.33 Inverleith Terrace,Edinburgh.
Cautious with the smallest risk
Sir, I refer to your article of September 21 on the European Commission’s proposals to relax the ban on including processed animal protein (PAP) in feed for chicken and pigs, and wish to clarify two of the issues raised.
First, the article stated that: ”Britain’s devolved chief medical officers have asked for the use of all proteins in feed to be retained”. The opposite is true.
All four UK chief medical officers have, in fact, written to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) recording their lack of support for the proposals to relax the feed ban.
Second, the report quotes the NFU in England and Scotland suggesting that the FSA board has ignored scientific evidence. Again, not true.
The board recognised that the scientific evidence showed that the proposed changes would give rise to a negligible risk.
It was, however, concerned that this was predicated on there being effective enforcement of controls.
The board was not confident that effective enforcement could be guaranteed.
After considering all available evidence, the board reached a unanimous decision that they could not identify sufficient tangible benefits from the proposed changes that would justify even a negligible increase in risk to consumers.
Given the history of BSE in the UK, it is right we take a cautious approach when considering changes to current measures.
Charles Milne.Director,Food Standards Agency.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL.