Readers' Letters: Calls to increase defence spending are rational, not hysterical

The Second World War was a very different conflict from one which Vladimir Putin might inflict upon us. My mother and I survived a parachute bomb attack by Heinkel bombers on Hyndland in Glasgow. The tenement next to ours received a direct hit. Ninety people died.

What a war 80 years ago and a possible future war with Russia will have in common is dead and maimed British people.

Although I am a lifelong Conservative, I greatly regret the resignation of Labour’s highly competent Defence Minister John Healey and former soldier Colonel Alistair Carns DSO, OBE, MC, the Armed Forces Minister.

These two, together with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said that to be able to defend ourselves against any aggressor, Keir Starmer must realistically and immediately, switch funds from welfare to defence.

As things stand, In no way could the United Kingdom meet its Nato obligations. Starmer has left our excellent armed forces hugely underfunded.

Nowhere have I seen any British plans for civil defence, which many other Nato members including Sweden, Finland, Poland, Norway, Estonia, Germany, Latvia and Iceland have had in place for some time. These nations are not jumping at shadows. They are not getting hysterical. They are being realistic.

Andy Burnham has already said if he were prime minister he would borrow if that is necessary to bolster the defence budget. But Starmer remains unmoved and does nothing.

Doug Morrison, Tenterden, Kent

Smoke and mirrors

Some time ago Keir Starmer threatened the Russian shadow tanker fleet going through the English Channel, yet months later, Mr ‘No Action Man’ has allowed nearly 100 tankers to traverse the channel with nothing being done.

The Minister of Defence resigns, quickly followed by the Army Minister. Two days later, the UK armed forces board and detain a shadow fleet tanker.

Is it just me, or does this sudden ‘action’ smell of a political diversion to make a Prime Minister who has failed the army, navy and air force look as though he is strong on defence?

Strong on defence would have been to give our armed forces the money they need to strengthen our defences, not political posturing. Let’s see what other rabbits the Prime Minister pulls out of the hat before the Nato conference. Smoke and mirrors, I suspect, but no extra money.

Brian Barbour, Haddington, East Lothian

Changing sides

I’ve been an armchair warrior all my life. Most of my military experience came from Captain Hurricane cartoons in the Valiant comic in the ’60s, my dad’s funny stories from his horrendous time as sapper in Sicily, many newspaper articles and some history books.

So when Brian Wilson (Scotsman, 13 June) says John Healey should have stuck it out as Defence Minister and gave his reason including insights on how the MoD and Treasury work, I changed my mind from praising Healey’s principled stand. Especially when I later read that Ed Milliband and Rachel Reeves had been on the point of resigning until Healey did.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Wind waste

Andrew Thorpe’s letter (11 June) illustrates yet again the main drawback of wind turbines – the worst power density of any system. This means that to replace our soon-to-be-closed Torness nuclear power station will require at least two generations of no fewer than 500 of the largest wind turbines spread over hundreds of square miles which, as well as killing birds, will eventually produce many thousands of tons of non-recyclable rubbish.

Interestingly a South of France village recently won its case, based mainly on the killing of golden eagles, to have a nearby wind farm demolished and the land restored to its former state.

A McCormick, Terregles, Dumfries

Pathetic sanction

So, the SPFL has decided that because of the pitch invasion on the last game of the season against Hearts, Celtic will lose 1,000 seats for one game ifa significant incursion takes place between now and 30 June, 2028. A fine of £7,500 has also been imposed (Scotsman, 12 June). A 1,000 seat reduction is peanuts for a stadium with a 60,000-plus capacity, as is a paltry sum of £7,500. Really, this “penalty” is akin to a child being told not to be a naughty or more sweeties will be taken away.

And did the SPFL consider the implications of the game being halted before time up and the ugly scenes of their fans confronting the Hearts players? Furthermore, their fans invaded the pitch at the end of the League Cup final, so they have history.

Frankly, this tells us all we need to know about how the Scottish football authorities are reluctant to stand up to Glasgow’s “big two”.

Fred Chrystal, Haddington. East Lothian

Money to burn

I read recently that a plucky Scotland fan is walking across America to Boston to raise money for charity. This endeavour is to be commended and I hope he raises the amount he hopes for, but with a huge black hole in Scotland’ s finances, is it wise for John Swinney to donate £400,000 of taxpayer money to the cause.

Surely the SNP should be concerned with more appropriate items to fund with that amount of money, especially now after a similar amount had already gone for a walk of its own.

Andrew Thorpe, Dunfermline, Fife

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won’t print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.