I WOULD expect nothing less than an even-handed analysis of the importance of the role of negotiation in the Grangemouth refinery dispute from Peter Curran (April 29), an acknowledged expert in the practice and teaching of that art. But sometimes the presentation of an apparently reasonable and ostensibly objective approach can obscure issues of justice that may lie beneath the apparent mutual positions of protagonists in disputes, not least of which - as in the case of most of the struggles of working people - is the disparity of power between them and their employers.

I WOULD expect nothing less than an even-handed analysis of the importance of the role of negotiation in the Grangemouth refinery dispute from Peter Curran (April 29), an acknowledged expert in the practice and teaching of that art. But sometimes the presentation of an apparently reasonable and ostensibly objective approach can obscure issues of justice that may lie beneath the apparent mutual positions of protagonists in disputes, not least of which - as in the case of most of the struggles of working people - is the disparity of power between them and their employers.

Until this event, most folk in Scotland hadn't heard of Ineos, let alone its publicity-shy owner, Jim Ratcliffe, nor of the motives and dynamics that should lead an apparently successful and profitable company to mount an attack on the living standards of its employees. Perhaps it is no accident that Ineos should do so.

Mr Ratcliffe is rather a "highly successful entrepreneur who has built a multi-billion-pound empire using lashings of debt' in some 10 years". Thus the need to sweat assets and "cut costs" becomes clearer. Are Grangemouth workers to forego pension rights to service Mr Ratcliffe's debts in acquiring their livelihood?

Mr Curran knows that the art of negotiation is a matter of exchange and bargaining. Sometimes there are things that it would be wrong to bargain away. Ultimately, working people have only their labour to bargain with. Sometimes they need to withdraw that labour.

Dr John O'Dowd, 3 Downfield Gardens, Bothwell.

AS THE leader of Falkirk Council during the Ineos takeover at Grangemouth, I do recall with some clarity various assurances given by the company at that time. Some of us had concerns over the structure of the company but there was a general welcome of the fact the site appeared to have been secured for long-term production.

Various assurances were sought and offered. One was to the specific question of the protection of the terms and conditions of the workforce. Also discussed was the requirement for investment on that site. There is no doubt that Ineos was fully aware of not only the need for capital investment but also the scale of that investment to ensure a sustainable future. At no time was it indicated this investment would be at the expense of the pension provision for staff members.

My advice to Mr Ratcliffe is to recognise that with power comes responsibility and to work with his Grangemouth employees and other local agencies. He should drop his raid on staff pension rights.

David Alexander, SNP Group Leader, Falkirk Council, 3 James Street, Falkirk.

THE threat by Ineos to close part of the Grangemouth plant unless the workforce surrenders pension rights shows the extent that private capital will go to in its efforts to squeeze every last ounce of profit from the workforce. What we have is a private company instigating a policy that will ensure poverty in old age for future workers while threatening imminent disinvestment and closure of a significant industrial enterprise. Such a strategy, if implemented, would have a seriously damaging effect on the Scottish economy. Could there be a better case for government to step in and nationalise the plant?

David Stevenson, 47 Cairns Road, Cambuslang.

NO-ONE in the UK now has a non-contributory pension scheme anywhere. Confrontation, from either side, seldom delivers an effective agreement.

Much of the angst is a direct consequence of Gordon Brown's decision to remove tax benefits from pension funds. I would suggest that this may be a major factor in provoking this strike - from both sides. Why do we so easily forget a political sleight of hand which has cost most of the population who are in their thirties and forties probably some 30% of their expected pensions for the future?

Why do we not examine in more detail the plans for taxation of pensions which were introduced this year and will - in about 10 years, if you follow the planned "cost of living" as opposed to RPI indexation - lead to a progressively increasing proportion of those with any occupational pension beginning to pay a 40% tax on their pension, before the imposition of income tax?

Patrick McNally, Kennoch House, St Quivox, Ayr.

D S BLACKWOOD writes: "We all want others to take actions other than us" (Letters, April 28).

I am fortunate to live in a town that has four excellent butchers and a fishmonger, but not everyone is so fortunate and even I have to go to the supermarket on the edge of town. Because transport became cheap, we came to rely on it, killing the facilities we could reach on foot.

Now that transport is no longer cheap, we are suffering the consequences.

There is a limit to what I as an individual can do, and some kind of government action, either through tax incentives or disincentives or through regulation, is the only way to change our conditions of life to encourage us to shop locally and avoid what ought to be unnecessary journeys.

William Whitson, 2 Chapman's Brae, Bathgate.