Readers' letters: Keir Starmer has neglected the defence of the realm

Your editorial (30 April) refers to “unseemly bickering between Badenoch and Starmer”. The Leader of the Opposition should be going for the Prime Minister’s political jugular. He seems oblivious to the warnings of our military leaders.

The shrinkage of our armed forces really began under a Conservative government which – to save money – fired so many soldiers, sailors and airmen. It quickly became clear that they had thrown the baby out with the bath water.

As recently as a couple of months ago, when HMS Red Dragon was dispatched to Cyprus it took seven days to prepare it for sea. France and Greece, Italy and Spain responded to the call by sending warships to Cyprus which arrived a considerable time before our Type 45 destroyer arrived off Akrotiri. It seemed to be of only passing interest to Starmer.

The First Sea Lord, Gwyn Jenkins, says the Royal Navy will not be ready for armed conflict until 2030. Sir Roland Walker, Head of the Army, points out that the army is hugely underfunded but, nevertheless, he hopes to double the army’s combat power by 2027 (how he doesn’t explain).

Several days ago former Tory Defence Minister Ben Wallace – whom I hugely respect – urged the government to “properly fund Britain’s defence”. In the past few days, we’ve discovered that Wes Streeting is prepared to put country before party by putting defence funding ahead of welfare.

We are at a critical crossroads. Kier Starmer is definitely not the man to lead the nation as we move towards a possible drone or missile attack by Russia. As the detestable Trump correctly observed: “Starmer is no Winston Churchill.” He is, de facto, a liability to the future safety of the United Kingdom.

Doug Morrison, Tenterden, Kent

Protect Falklands

Argentina invading a place which had never been Argentinian was clearly illegal. The Falkland Islands were first inhabited by British settlers in the 17th century. At that time, there was no country called Argentina. The Falklands have never been inhabited by anyone except those first and later British settlers, and their descendants.

Argentine governments perpetuate a phoney claim because patriotism is easier than governing Argentina properly or successfully.

Argentina would do better to remember their loss of hundreds of young conscripts, not to mention Britain’s loss of 250 professional and dedicated fighting men (women were not in battle in 1982).

Argentina should also remember the thousands of Argentinians tortured and murdered by their military dictators, who made a grab for glory to cover their own blood-drenched misrule and economic ineptitude. They fell from power by losing the war they unleashed. US administrations know that.

Tim Cox, Bern, Switzerland

Round in circles

The only way a country becomes prosperous is through trade and manufacture. That is why Scotland will never prosper until the prevailing orthodoxy of the various left-wing parties is binned. It doesn’t matter if you subscribe to a Labour, SNP or Green view, you believe in the same thing. In essence the belief is that prosperity stems from public expenditure. Private enterprise is scorned and anything that offers energy self-sufficiency is to be condemned. If a foreign country does it, that is fine, just not us.

This contempt was brilliantly demonstrated by Ross Greer, the Scottish Green spokesman during the leaders’ debate when Malcolm Offord told him about how wealthy he was (your report, 30 April). Greer’s response was classic. The sneer was etched on his face when he said that no one should have more than one house. In other words, no one should be prosperous. No one should be wealthy. No one should have aspirations.

That weird thinking is defined by a curious government ministry at Holyrood which always puzzled and intrigued me. It is a sort of SNP/Green Ministry of Magic. Probably other people are equally puzzled, so let me define it. The ministry includes the words “circular economy” in its name. What is a “circular economy”? In essence, it is an economy in which you simply re-use everything all the time. Like Escher’s stairs that always go up (or down) never-endingly, that “magic” is the endearing and completely false idea that sustains these people’s thinking. The one thing that is a certainty in this thinking is that public spending and tax sustain the economy. It is the economic thinking that drove the Soviet Union to bankruptcy.

Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh

Offord moment

Almost 50 years ago, in 1968, at the Linlithgow Academy prizegiving we had an “Offord moment”. The guest speaker was Jimmy Harrison, my dad’s joinery apprentice just after the war who got sacked for skiving off to a Scotland-England game at Wembley. He started making sheds in Philpstoun then built the first private housing estate in Linlithgow, became a millionaire, and sold out to a company that was later absorbed by Barratts. Alex Salmond would have been there that day.

In those days £1 million could have bought 250 of the houses he sold for £4,000 or 1,250 of the £800 Hilman Minxes that our neighbour in the Braehead scheme, Mrs Cutler, bought with her £4,000 bingo winnings that year.

I ended up buying two houses, paying 40 per cent tax for more than 30 years and helping my kids with mortgage deposits. My parents would be astounded and proud of what I achieved, and dismayed that I’ll probably lose what’s left in inheritance tax and care home costs.

Like Malcom Offord, whose 17 cars, houses and boats are peanuts compared to Jimmy Harrison’s purchasing power, I say this “not to boast” but to tell the Greers, Polanskis and McAllans of this world that once upon a time Scotland was a place where, for those with aspirational parents and the desire to graft, and the truly free, universal provision of hard-nosed school and further education, you could get on, legislated for by your “betters” in the Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties and encouraged by “middle-class” society.

They should be listening to us “angry old white men and women” and figuring our how to achieve a modern version of this environment. This would indeed involve taxing the well-off more, not to fund vote-buying freebies, benefits and bogus net zero, woke, luxury beliefs but to build infrastructure, plentiful low-cost housing, shoring up our defences and solving the childcare problems of working families.

Actually I don't think they have the brains, imagination, feelings or hinterland to do it.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Taking the credit

Pre-election claims and promises are par for the course with some being more fantastic and unbelievable than others. However, a recent one I noticed from the SNP really has taken it to a new level.

Following the state visit by King Charles to the United States, President Trump announced that in a spirit of goodwill for the King, tariffs on Scotch whisky would be lifted (your report, 1 May). To my surprise the SNP are claiming credit that John Swinney was responsible for this. Did I miss part of Trump’s statement? What next will Swinney and the SNP shamelessly claim credit for?

Paul Lewis, Edinburgh

Road rage

Driving up and down the A9 last weekend I noticed that at either end of extensive works preparing the ground for the next phase of dualling there are signs saying “sorry for the delay”.

Am I correct in thinking that this apology was made on behalf of the government in London for not having properly upgraded the A9 decades ago, long before the reconvention of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, let alone the more recent coming to power of the SNP?

Ni Holmes, St Andrews, Fife

Bad governors

It seems to be the general opinion that we are badly governed at all levels and I would like to pose the question whether this is because efficient government is so difficult as to be virtually impossible or because the people putting themselves forward to take part in government are useless at it.

S Beck, Edinburgh

Stop and think

With just under a week to go before the Scottish election polling day, voters must think hard about the consequences of the likelihood of another SNP administration.

As you hover over the ballot paper and think of putting an X in favour of the SNP, just think for a moment what they have delivered in office. A once world-leading education service being eroded, an NHS in turmoil with waiting lists longer than ever, road infrastructure promises such as the A9 dualling now broken, crime figures up, drugs deaths up and hundreds of million pounds lost on disastrous ferry procurement. Public funds spent in UK courts on vanity projects.

We are paying the highest rates of income tax in the UK and it seems primarily to pay for the relentless rise in benefits payments and an ever increasing public sector.

The voter must consider, before putting pen to ballot paper, “what has got better for me under the SNP”? The answer will come to you very quickly.

Richard Allison, Edinburgh

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.