Desperate measures from Mr Mundell?

Mr Mundell was most insistent a few months ago that the threat to the Scottish NHS was a devolved matter, thus, by obvious extension, nothing to do with him as an MP in the 2015 Election. Now it appears he is to “lead the campaign” locally to “save Hay Lodge Hospital”, despite no closure threat, and this being a devolved matter. Indeed, it is an issue for those living in the Scottish Borders Health Board area, not a resident of Dumfries and Galloway. The road speed on individual bits of the A703 is likewise a devolved matter.

Mr Mundell clearly doesn’t have enough to do in his real job – just like his colleague Mr Rifkind, who was forced to eke out a parlous existence on a mere £67,000 plus £15,000 a year, all expenses paid. This enforced idleness is confirmed by Mr Cameron, who has stated that his MPs have plenty of spare time to devote to other jobs and/or lining their own pockets.

I have some questions for Mr Mundell, which - unusually for him - relate directly to reserved UK matters, and thus the General Election in 2015, rather than the Scottish Parliament one in 2016. Mr Mundell should be able to devote time and energy to these issues.

Firstly, I want to know Mr Mundell’s stance on the possibility of dumping military nuclear waste at Chapelcross near Annan. As far as I know the site has still not been fully cleared up from making nuclear weapons 20 years ago - stuff like Tritium. Annan and surrounding area is a nice part of Scotland – it does not need to be blighted as Rosyth and Faslane are. Will Mr Mundell oppose this development?

Secondly, his hyperactive overgrown schoolboy colleague Mr Hague tried and failed to get us into a ground war in Lybia, and then in Syria – while claiming that a war would add “gravitas” to Mr Cameron’s status. We now face confrontation over British troops in Ukraine. Unlike Teddy Roosevelt - talk quietly and carry a big stick - we are running about spouting threats while waving a broken reed. Will Mr Mundell oppose the sending of British “advisers” to this conflict?

UK Armed Forces are not balanced to our needs and priorities. There is not one frigate/destroyer available in Scottish waters to protect the North Atlantic or North Sea. Nor has Britain contributed one to the Nato North Atlantic Force since 2009. There are likewise no Maritime Patrol aircraft available anywhere in the UK to patrol the North Atlantic or North Sea. These essential duties are being carried out on Britain’s behalf by two small, independent allied nations with populations the same or slightly smaller than Scotland - Denmark and Norway. The UK has removed RAF fighters from Leuchars down to the South of England, and they have to be sent up to intercept Russian “Bear” patrol aircraft over Northern waters. We have more admirals than ships, carriers with no planes, we can wipe cities off the map with Trident, but we can’t protect our own waters and coastline. Our conventional forces are overstretched to the extent that the Americans would like us to forget the fiction of an independent UK nuclear deterrent, and focus on the basics.

Will Mr Mundell, therefore, campaign against the renewal of Trident and campaign to rebalance our conventional defences?

Next, Mr Mundell supported bogus claims that a newly independent Scotland would never be allowed to continue with EU membership, and only by remaining within the UK could Scotland reap the benefits of trade within the EU. Will he campaign for the UK’s continued EU membership, thus protecting Scotland’s trade within the EU? Will he likewise fight the UK Government for Scotland’s identifiable share -specifically allocated by the EU for Scotland - to be given to Scottish farmers rather than being divided up UK-wide?

Further, Mr Osborne attempted to reduce the deficit by attacking unemployed, the low-waged, the disabled, while redistributing wealth to those on six-figure incomes, the super-rich, the dodgy bankers, the tax avoiders. He increased the public debt by 50 per cent in five years – more than the combined total of all the rises of all the Labour governments in history. He borrowed £207 billion more in order to make the economy £128 billion smaller (source: T.G. Clark AAV). £30 billion of cuts are still to come, and those least able will again suffer while any return to growth following 0 per cent average in total over the last five years will be siphoned off to those with the most.

Those on £71 a week can’t charge £5,000 for half a day’s work in their spare time. We are allegedly “all in it together”. Will Mr Mundell campaign for an end to easy tax avoidance, and a fairer sharing of the burden over the next Parliamentary term? Will he support a strict limit on paid consultancy and lobbying “jobs” for MPs and unelected peers?

Finally, Scottish Power pays a £40 million penalty to supply power from Longannet to nearby Scottish cities, while a power station in south east England would get a £3 million subsidy to supply the same cities from hundreds of miles away. Scotland pays 35 per cent of the cost of the National Grid.

Will Mr Mundell campaign against this iniquity?

Perhaps these would be a better focus for his attention than vote-chasing on devolved issues?

I am, etc.

Dave Robb Craigerne Lane Peebles SIR, As we hurtle towards the UK election in May, it is interesting to see the desperation from certain politicians.

Mr Mundell was most insistent a few months ago that the threat to the Scottish NHS was a devolved matter, thus, by obvious extension, nothing to do with him as an MP in the 2015 Election. Now it appears he is to “lead the campaign” locally to “save Hay Lodge Hospital”, despite no closure threat, and this being a devolved matter. Indeed, it is an issue for those living in the Scottish Borders Health Board area, not a resident of Dumfries and Galloway. The road speed on individual bits of the A703 is likewise a devolved matter.

Mr Mundell clearly doesn’t have enough to do in his real job – just like his colleague Mr Rifkind, who was forced to eke out a parlous existence on a mere £67,000 plus £15,000 a year, all expenses paid. This enforced idleness is confirmed by Mr Cameron, who has stated that his MPs have plenty of spare time to devote to other jobs and/or lining their own pockets.

I have some questions for Mr Mundell, which - unusually for him - relate directly to reserved UK matters, and thus the General Election in 2015, rather than the Scottish Parliament one in 2016. Mr Mundell should be able to devote time and energy to these issues.

Firstly, I want to know Mr Mundell’s stance on the possibility of dumping military nuclear waste at Chapelcross near Annan. As far as I know the site has still not been fully cleared up from making nuclear weapons 20 years ago - stuff like Tritium. Annan and surrounding area is a nice part of Scotland – it does not need to be blighted as Rosyth and Faslane are. Will Mr Mundell oppose this development?

Secondly, his hyperactive overgrown schoolboy colleague Mr Hague tried and failed to get us into a ground war in Lybia, and then in Syria – while claiming that a war would add “gravitas” to Mr Cameron’s status. We now face confrontation over British troops in Ukraine. Unlike Teddy Roosevelt - talk quietly and carry a big stick - we are running about spouting threats while waving a broken reed. Will Mr Mundell oppose the sending of British “advisers” to this conflict?

UK Armed Forces are not balanced to our needs and priorities. There is not one frigate/destroyer available in Scottish waters to protect the North Atlantic or North Sea. Nor has Britain contributed one to the Nato North Atlantic Force since 2009. There are likewise no Maritime Patrol aircraft available anywhere in the UK to patrol the North Atlantic or North Sea. These essential duties are being carried out on Britain’s behalf by two small, independent allied nations with populations the same or slightly smaller than Scotland - Denmark and Norway. The UK has removed RAF fighters from Leuchars down to the South of England, and they have to be sent up to intercept Russian “Bear” patrol aircraft over Northern waters. We have more admirals than ships, carriers with no planes, we can wipe cities off the map with Trident, but we can’t protect our own waters and coastline. Our conventional forces are overstretched to the extent that the Americans would like us to forget the fiction of an independent UK nuclear deterrent, and focus on the basics.

Will Mr Mundell, therefore, campaign against the renewal of Trident and campaign to rebalance our conventional defences?

Next, Mr Mundell supported bogus claims that a newly independent Scotland would never be allowed to continue with EU membership, and only by remaining within the UK could Scotland reap the benefits of trade within the EU. Will he campaign for the UK’s continued EU membership, thus protecting Scotland’s trade within the EU? Will he likewise fight the UK Government for Scotland’s identifiable share -specifically allocated by the EU for Scotland - to be given to Scottish farmers rather than being divided up UK-wide?

Further, Mr Osborne attempted to reduce the deficit by attacking unemployed, the low-waged, the disabled, while redistributing wealth to those on six-figure incomes, the super-rich, the dodgy bankers, the tax avoiders. He increased the public debt by 50 per cent in five years – more than the combined total of all the rises of all the Labour governments in history. He borrowed £207 billion more in order to make the economy £128 billion smaller (source: T.G. Clark AAV). £30 billion of cuts are still to come, and those least able will again suffer while any return to growth following 0 per cent average in total over the last five years will be siphoned off to those with the most.

Those on £71 a week can’t charge £5,000 for half a day’s work in their spare time. We are allegedly “all in it together”. Will Mr Mundell campaign for an end to easy tax avoidance, and a fairer sharing of the burden over the next Parliamentary term? Will he support a strict limit on paid consultancy and lobbying “jobs” for MPs and unelected peers?

Finally, Scottish Power pays a £40 million penalty to supply power from Longannet to nearby Scottish cities, while a power station in south east England would get a £3 million subsidy to supply the same cities from hundreds of miles away. Scotland pays 35 per cent of the cost of the National Grid.

Will Mr Mundell campaign against this iniquity?

Perhaps these would be a better focus for his attention than vote-chasing on devolved issues?

I am, etc.

Dave Robb Craigerne Lane Peebles