I CAN'T help feeling that the news from Ukraine has gone beyond war crimes. Shootings in front of families, booby-trapping bodies, stealing humanitarian aid and deliberately targeting civilians and using them as human shields are crimes against humanity itself. Keeping a dignified distance so as to avoid a third world war or damage our economy and the like are no longer options. Every nation must choose whether for or against, not the war itself, but the actions of the Kremlin.

If we haven't the courage, as Kennedy did with Cuba, to issue an ultimatum for war, then surely any country including Hungary and India must be immediately sanctioned. Now is the time for punitive sanctions against the pro-Russia friendly governments, even if it means increased taxes for the better-off to pay the price. What price is Ukraine paying now in human lives and in rebuilding costs for tomorrow? If it means delaying environmental matters, then what about the cost now in the pollution of the atmosphere from bombs and dust and potentially from radiation?

I suggest that this is indeed a critical point of no-return. We are either in support of freedom 100%, or in silence, putting our own interests first.

James Watson, Dunbar.

* IT is truly mystifying that anyone can be so naïve as to imagine that there is the remotest chance of delivering Vladimir Putin to the International Court at The Hague.

Rather than face any such ignominy and possibly more, if backed into a corner he would undoubtedly choose to destroy the planet. Is it really to be supposed that in extremis he would suddenly acquire scruples?

Robin Dow, Rothesay.

TIME TO PRESS FOR NEGOTIATED PEACE

I WONDER if we would have found ourselves in the situation we are in today if the original negotiations with Russia had been conducted by Europeans rather than Americans. This side of the Atlantic, we have more knowledge of the cultural and political divisions in Ukraine, increased our trade with both countries over the years, and enjoyed sporting rivalries, student exchanges and tourism. Russia was not our enemy.

It thus seems incredible to me that we have gone from that to a proxy war with Russia, sanctions hitting its citizens and our deadly weaponry used against its armed forces.

Unfortunately the war has happened – and it will not be forgotten – but all our economies are suffering and the time is overdue for European politicians to press for a negotiated peace settlement.

Iris Clyde, Kirkwall.

REMOVE BORIS JOHNSON NOW

BORIS Johnson has tried to slither from the grasp of the public who demand to have him brought face to face with his dissembling actions. The Tory Party members who try to prop up this Ozymandias citing the financial crisis and the war in Ukraine, saying that now is not the time to sack him ("PM resigning over Partygate would send wrong message to Putin, says MSP", The Herald, April 4), should remember that Chamberlain was replaced in 1940 by Winston Churchill whilst the Second World raged.

I am certain that Churchill did what Chamberlain could never have achieved. Perhaps now is the time to remove this person before the fury builds again against the abuse of privilege exercised over the past years.

Angela Fotheringham, Stow.

ACCEPTING THAT THE EMPIRE IS DEAD

RARELY have I read a better piece of frank, honest and realistic analysis of world events than Kevin McKenna's description of American-based corporate capitalism ravaging the world exactly as President Eisenhower predicted it would ("US wars on truth outlive other conflicts", The Herald, April 2). It’s a shame that, presumably due to lack of space, he was prevented from saying that the UK Establishment has aided and abetted America in almost all of its overseas activities or that what America is currently doing is exactly the same as the British Empire did before America became the dominant military power. Then again, all good things come to an end and China and India are waiting in the wings for their shot.

Prince William’s recent embarrassing Caribbean tour heralds the long-overdue acceptance that the British Empire is dead; perhaps the 50 per cent of the inhabitants of England’s remaining largest and most profitable colony and for whom the penny has yet to drop will start to question why all the other former parts of the Empire have successfully freed themselves but Scotland is still attached to the rotting corpse.

David J Crawford, Glasgow.

CHOICE HAS NEVER BEEN CLEARER

IN 2014 the unionist argument against Scotland’s independence was a mixture of promises like the infamous “Vow” and dire threats. Blair McDougall, the leader of the official No campaign, later claimed that those threats – including the destruction of pensions and a forced expulsion from the EU collectively known as “Project Fear” – were the key to his success.

We now know that most of the promises – and especially the threats – have been discarded and disproved by the following eight years of Tory government from Westminster. The 2023 referendum campaign has begun from a very different basis of experience and understanding.

I hope that the Yes campaign will stick like glue to the continuing positive message of regaining our own international voice for Scotland, our right to control and protect our environment, our vast natural resources and the welfare of our people. It makes more urgent sense than ever before.

Unionists, however, with relentless newspaper headlines and media attacks on the SNP Government, appear committed, as before, to negativity and demoralisation challenging the self-belief and hopes of the Scottish electorate under the ubiquitous gaslighting strategy of “SNP Bad”.

This begs the fascinating question about their view of the Scottish electorate: why, despite that unionist onslaught, do we still have such a huge majority of SNP MSPs in our Scottish Parliament? Might it be that most people are voting for independence as their priority, even if they feel angry or disappointed about some other issues?

No government escapes failures and mistakes – the continuing chaos of Brexit and cruel poverty throughout the UK are proof of that. Our Scottish Government is no exception. It must be held to account.

However, while the constant unionist attacks continue, surely our voting record since 2014 demonstrates that the Scottish electorate has already decided that our best chance of a positive future for Scotland is to remove the remaining elements of misrule from London, and the disastrous, shameful mess they continue to make.

The choice has never been clearer.

Frances McKie, Evanton.

RURAL SCOTLAND SOLD SHORT AGAIN

MARK Ruskell of the Scottish Greens writes that "we are investing £5 billion in improving our railways ("There is very little appetite for investing in public transport at Westminster", The Herald, April 2). However, he failed to declare what impact that spend will provide for Scots living in Durness, Braemar, Campbeltown or Kirkcudbright. Once again the SNP/Green Alliance splashes the cash in the Central Belt yet fails to match the spend in rural Scotland.

Ian Moir, Dumfries.

TRUE COST OF SALMOND TRIAL

FOR the sake of completeness I would add two items to your report headed “Crown Office investigating perjury claim over evidence given to Alex Salmond trial” (The Herald, April 4).

First of all, far from costing the taxpayer half a million pounds for its failed challenge against the former first minister, the opposition expenses awarded against the Scottish Government was reported to exceed £500,000 but this did not take into account the additional expenses incurred by the Scottish Government itself in raising, maintaining and ultimately conceding the proceedings. I have seen no disclosure of the amount of these latter expenses but can only conclude that it would have been a sum similar to the opposition costs and would certainly have taken the total costs to nearer £1 million.

Secondly, there is no doubt that the Scottish Government did trail an untruthful narrative in these proceedings. This was disclosed in correspondence published by order of the court in which the Government’s own counsel complained of the false and untruthful information provided by the Government leading subsequently to the concession of those proceedings when the true facts became known. Hence, as a result of the untruthful information presented by the Government, the taxpayer incurred the liability for the costs of both sides of the action.

Michael Sheridan, Glasgow.

Read more: Yes supporters will not wait for the SNP for ever