POLITICIANS of all parties like to use terms like "fiscal deficit" and "balancing the books" as if these were mysterious and complex processes that only people involved in government could possibly understand and deal with.

Yet in practice these are only a larger version of what most hard-working families are used to all the time in trying to make ends meet within their household finances.

A fiscal deficit is when total government public expenditure in any year exceeds the total income gathered from taxation and various other sources. Such excess spending can be covered only by short or medium-term borrowing via the financial markets, and the total national debt increases by that amount. Governments can always have some control over the annual deficit, either by reducing public expenditure, i.e. cuts, or by increasing taxation levels, or both.

At household level, the equivalent struggle is to keep total weekly or monthly spending within the limit of the total net income coming in, usually from wages or salaries of members of the family and from welfare benefits like children's allowance. The family equivalent of the national debt is usually a combination of bank overdraft, credit card balances and house mortgage, with obligatory regular repayments.

Unlike governments, very few families can influence the total income coming in, except perhaps by taking a second job, which is not always possible, or by borrowing more, the servicing of which then adds to the total family running costs. Cutting expenditure is extremely difficult as much of it is on essentials like food, utility charges, children's clothing, and rent or mortgage payments, all of which are obligatory.

I often wonder why politicians don't use the family budget comparison to explain more clearly the problems of national financing and "balancing the books". But perhaps that is because most of today's political leaders have never had to worry about how to pay the rent and the energy bill, or buy new pairs of shoes for growing children. Lucky them.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

IT has become clear that none of our party leaders is fit to govern. For none has bothered to answer the questions which should have been asked but have not been. That is because they have yet to ask them; yet to be briefed on the answers.

Replacing Trident is such a big issue. Who says we need to replace it at a cost of £100 billion? The Americans. But we buy it from them and it suits to make a profit of half that to pay for their own. If we can keep our submarines going for £3bn a year maybe we should. It would save a lot of money. Is it beyond the power of this very competent nation to finds ways of maintaining these, despite what is said about them?

Our deficit, we are told is £1.5 trillion. To whom do we owe this money? What is the rate of interest? It looks like 3 per cent (£46billion on £1.3 trillion, if Nick Clegg's figures in a TV debate are to be believed). If so, why is it so high? Since every country seems to have a deficit, some of them far larger than ours, is it really necessary to reduce it by stringent reductions? What is the advantage of other countries like the United States and Japan to retaining and even extending their deficits?

All the promises being made, everyone knows, merely show an intention which will be dropped as soon as reality intervenes. Politics is the art of the possible. Promises are the first things to go. Our politicians should be telling us how they propose to get a decent amount of tax out of tax avoiders, for that, like Trident and the deficit, is a large sum of money. I suspect that they just do not know. That is where they are all culpable: they have not spent the time understanding the problems in depth to be able to formulate viable solutions. This is critical: the answers determine the standard of living of everyone in the country, not just the workers.

When I look around at the local candidates my impression is of folk who have hardly ever read a book this last year and do not have the mental equipment to investigate properly these matters which will in a few weeks be their entire raison d'etre. They all look like people who have already failed the exam. Failing the country is just the next step.

William Scott,

23 Argyle Place, Rothesay.

ALMOST on his own Jim Murphy has kept the Scottish independence issue alive and kicking (among some) since his election as the manager of the Scottish Labour Party branch office. First off he grabbed at the declining price of oil and that became that the subject of continual repetition to remind Scotland that we should still dependent on handouts from Barnett. Lack of high and consistent oil revenues will "blow a hole" in an independent Scottish economy" according to Mr Murphy. Both he and Kezia Dugdale wore the tread out of this one and everybody just got bored. Now it is full fiscal autonomy (FFA). When the "respected" Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) guesstimates were announced, the price of oil fell off the Murphy train to be replaced by another so-called game-changer - FFA and a theoretical £6.7 billion black hole in the Scottish economy ("SNP in clash with Labour over budget 'black hole'", The Herald, April 11)

Let's get this train back on the track please. FFS is not going to happen, is it? FFA proposals would have to be passed by Westminster, and the SNP are the only ones who have any appetite for it. The longstanding opposition of Labour and Tories to any devo plus, devo max or FFA was expressed during the referendum, it's well documented. They wouldn't even have to vote it down, it would just never see the light of day as a proposal.

Even if it was a runner, FFA couldn't happen for years, yet the sums have already being done - and Scottish Labour have (again) grabbed at the theoretical results . FFA is the new and desperate mantra for Mr Murphy and Scottish Labour, the replacement for their worn out "oil black hole" message. It is the new red herring - frankly it is not even worth discussing outside academic circles.

This is 2015, a General Election is in the offing. The referendum is over. The No camp won but Scottish Labour found out that their natural support moved in droves to the SNP. Things are really bad for Mr Murphy but he might improve Labour's chances if he was to address the reasons why a huge wave of totally disillusioned Labour support moved away and stop trading in this fictional full fiscal rubbish. Perhaps a meeting with Mr Miliband at Head Office to agree on what Scotland budget is likely to be in a few months would be more productive.

Ian McLaren,

27 Buchanan Drive, Lenzie.

CONTRARY to David Stubley's claim (Letters, April 17) regarding the "hoped for enmity" (sic), there are those in the community who do not accept the referendum question is resolved.

Just as investors acting upon the advice of financial advisers must bear in mind caveat emptor, a similar caution applies to voters.

Blind political acceptance is a historical fact. Today's educated electorate, I believe, is more inclined to evaluate the contents of political manifestos and the consequences of its actions - before voting.

Coalition government, in all its forms, is a modern political reality. So, too, is tactical voting.

Ian F Mackay,

5 Smillie Place,

Kilmarnock.