MPs do not deserve 10 per cent pay rise

So the rest of the country will take their lead from their elected representatives and demand commensurate rises, then be condemned for selfishly putting the "recovery" at risk.

As a test case for anti-austerity pay rises championing MPs' pay is risible. Yes, they work long hours away from home; true, they have an eclectic caseload of constituency complaints, concerns and demands . But the world-load for many in the public and private sectors is equally onerous but without the support of paid assistants, free transport generous expenses and an enviable pension .

It is true that MPs are damned if they do and damned if they don't on pay, but whose fault is that? Over the years there have been too many MPs whose behaviour in office has undermined public respect for politicians.

The sad demise of Charles Kennedy has simply intensified the feeling among the public that few MPs are worthy of genuine respect and large pay increases). For every Charles Kennedy there are a plethora of Alastair Carmichaels and Eric Joyces.

James Mills,

29 Armour Square,

Johnstone.

IF a week is a long time in politics, one month into a five years' "hard labour" Conservative Government already seems like an eternity. Nobody really expected David Cameron to honour his promise to show respect to Scotland and the SNP Government, but George Osborne's lack of basic courtesy at not consulting John Swinney over the cut in funding to Scotland is an ominous warning of what is to come ("Swinney attacks Osborne over £170m Holyrood cuts", The Herald, June 5). But then, apart from their single MP Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne have nothing to lose in Scotland, so respect is just another cut, along with the other £177 million.

However, what also leaps to the eye is that Mr Osborne's latest announcement of cuts didn't appear out of the blue. It must have been a glint in his eye during the campaign, one he obviously forgot to share not only with John Swinney but with the rest of us, and the ominous signs are that the next four years, 11 months of austerity will already have been cut and dried, just like the welfare budget.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

IT seems an almost daily occurrence that we read of some bank or other being found guilty of criminal behaviour or financial chicanery and being fined a derisory amount by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The apparent impending penalty to be imposed on Lloyds Banking Group, which is on top of the original fine for originally mis-selling PPI, is essentially being levied because the FCA feels that the bank has been less than fair open and transparent in dealing with customer complaint ("Lloyds set to be fined £100m over PPI complaints scandal", The Herald, June 5).

Considering the bank has put aside £12 billion to settle customer complaints. the longer they can stretch the claims procedure is to their benefit, a few million as a fine is a joke. Why is it up to the banks to decide who gets what when they caused the problem and have a vested interest in not remedying it speedily, if at all?

When one considers that it is estimated that customers were diddled, conned out of, robbed of, hoodwinked out of billions by the PPI scam the FCA response is pathetic.

It seems, just as in the case of Fifa, that it can be "the talk of the steamie" that banks are corrupt venal and rotten to the core but they are just so internationally influential and line the pockets of so many in the establishment that we just have to sit back in open-mouthed amazement as scandal after scandal unfolds.

If I steal from the banks I go to jail, if the banks steal from me they don't. Democracy implies equal treatment of all citizens; in a true democracy the people would own the banks, in the UK the banks own the people and the government.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3 131 Shuna Street,

Glasgow.