I BELIEVE that any staff member employed by WDC has to record hours worked on a daily basis.

Why are councillors the exception?

There are too many councillors employed full time elsewhere for handsome remuneration yet are only working a short week for their constituents, whilst claiming a full monthly salary and benefits from the cash strapped public purse.

It would most certainly have influenced my vote at the last elections had I known this and I feel hoodwinked that I was not furnished with this information.

Furthermore, attendance at surgeries must also be questioned.

The statistics taken from the WDC website are as follows, however, with the exception of a handful of councillors, one would be hard pushed to find them actually turning up at the surgeries in the first place.

It is quite obvious from these figures who is committed.

Those who give the most time, and can always be found at their surgeries, are the ones who work on a full time basis as an elected councillor.

Those who do not should be embarrassed to claim their wage from us.

12x Labour Party Councillors (33h30m) Average 2.79hrs pppm, 7x SNP Party Councillors (22h) Average 3.14hrs pppm, 1x Independent (5hrs) Average 5hrs pppm, 2x Community Party Councillors (18hr) Average 9hrs pppm.

Whoever stands for local elections this year and is privileged enough to be elected by the good people of West Dunbartonshire, please do us the courtesy of declaring BEFORE ELECTIONS if you intend to represent us by doing a full time job for a full time wage.

We as constituents deserve to be able to make an informed decision and should not be shoehorned between full time studies and well paid employment elsewhere.

Gail Whitton, Secretary, The Community Party

IN just a few months’ time we will be going to the polls to decide who runs our local public services in our local councils.

If one thing is clear to me it is that the last party we want doing that is the Tories.

As their track record shows in running other public services shows they cannot be trusted.

Over the Christmas period the British Red Cross said the state of the English NHS in a "humanitarian crisis" (Guardian, 6 Jan 2017).

What a surprise that only last week the media in England has started to debate privatising the NHS as we saw on Sky News (Sky News, 9 Feb 2017).

It’s all the more worrying that when Theresa May was in America meeting Trump she refused to rule out opening up the NHS to private US health providers as she desperately seeks a trade deal with Trump (Independent, 25 Jan 2017).

Equally worrying was that Tory health secretary Jeremy Hunt was in the States “to discuss the close links between the UK & US health sectors” (UK Consulate in New York Tweet, 3 Feb 2017).

With such mendacious behaviour towards a national institution like the NHS would you trust the Tories with your local public services?

Even if the Tories get to privatise England’s NHS it will cut the overall public spending Westminster still decides for Scotland putting pressure on our public services like the NHS.

The Tories will be hoping that people who reject their policies don't turn out in the council elections so that they get a bigger share of the vote and more councillors.

So the only way to send them a message that people don't want them to run public services which they then want to sell off for profits is to turn out and vote to stop them.

Bill Wallace, Glasgow, via e-mail

LESS than a year ago the Government promised that this country would do its bit to help with the greatest refugee crisis Europe has faced for 70 years.

They agreed to help some of the most vulnerable unaccompanied children arriving into Europe to be transferred to the UK.

It was a proud moment, which is why it is so heartbreaking that we have now learned that the 'Dubs' scheme will be closed long before it has done its job.

In 2016, over 30,000 unaccompanied children arrived by sea in Greece and Italy but the Government has announced they will transfer a total of just 350 vulnerable children from Europe under the Dubs scheme before it comes to an end.

We are told that the scheme is ending because local councils cannot take any more children.

By the time it comes to an end, councils with responsibility for children in the UK will have taken an average of less than two Dubs children each.

To claim that this is all that can be managed is an insult to our councils.

On 23 February there will be a major debate in Parliament on this issue and it's up to every MP to make clear that the government must do more for refugee children in Europe and that our communities stand ready to help.

I’d urge your readers to write to their MP, asking them to attend the debate and ensure the Government does more to protect vulnerable refugee and migrant children in Europe.

Sol Oyuela, Director of Public Affairs at Unicef UK, via e-mail

HEART disease is heartless.

Thousands of people in Scotland are killed each year by these terrible conditions, so the need to find new, life saving treatments, is urgent.

Around 70,100 people in Glasgow alone are living with these terrible conditions.

This month is national Heart Month, and the British Heart Foundation is calling on the local community to help us stop heart disease in its tracks.

We’re launching a calendar of over 80 incredible challenge events both in the UK and abroad, to inspire people to get active and help us accelerate the fight against heart disease.

From fun runs and marathons, walks and treks, to the BHF’s prestigious cycling series sponsored by Tesco and Jaffa, there’s no reason not to get involved this year.

We’ve got something for everyone – even life-changing adventures abroad for the thrill seekers among you, and we have everything you need to get you to the finish.

We are looking for Champions to take on one of our legendary challenge events and help us power vital research that could make a difference to millions.

You can sign up to a BHF event today by visiting bhf.org.uk/events for a full list of events and ways to get involved.

Shonali Rodrigues, Head of Events at British Heart Foundation, via e-mail

IF the leader of the Scottish Tories, Ruth Davidson, is such a consummate politician how come only two days after appearing on the UK BBC's EU referendum debate to make the case for Remain did that Remain side lose?

Polls were moving in Remain's favour in that final week.

Surely if she was so "brilliant", as some pundits have said, then shouldn't the Remain side have won?

That Remain didn't win may suggest Ms Davidson's hectoring, pointing and shouting actually put many off voting Remain.

What entertains the pundits may actually repulse the ordinary voter.

After all she was leader of the Scottish Tories in 2012 when they recorded their second worst council election result in 40 years, and also leader in 2015 when the Tory share of the vote was the worst since 1865!

As for 2016 the Tory share of the vote was still below that of the lowest Margaret Thatcher ever got in 1987; and with Tories spending £978,921 - three times more than the £273,462 they spent in 2011 or a 258% increase - while Labour only spent £337,814 - less than half the £816,889 they spent in 2011 - it appears "success" in overtaking Labour was more down to pounds sterling than sterling ability.

Tory spending increased four times more than their vote to get a result worse than Margaret Thatcher!

Now we have Ms Davidson appearing to think she can get away with promoting a Brexit she said was based on "lies" whilst showing no shame in abandoning her post-referendum support to keep the UK in the single market.

We also hear her using irresponsible language in Scottish political debate - talking of "slaying nationalists" and accusing others of "fratricide" and "weaponising."

Just who does she think she is sending a message to with such language?

Maybe now is the time to challenge the myth of Ruth Davidson being a principled and responsible politician; because the record is showing someone who changes her position at behest of Theresa May and who uses irresponsible language.

William Paterson, Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh. Via e-mail.