THE discourse between Bill Brown and Ian Thomson (Letters, September 9, 10 & 11) usefully teases out some issues around the operational use of drones. However it is equally important to look at military activity, particularly one as contested as drone warfare, through a strategic as well as an operational lens.

At the operational level drones may be cheaper than planes, safer, for the air force involved at least, sometimes more accurate, though many would contest that too.

However when looked at from a strategic perspective, that is, do they help you “win” a peace, I would contend the answer is no.

Armed drones are a 21st century version of Victorian imperial gunboats in the sky. They are, in fact, more an instrument of subjugation than a battlefield weapon – though of course there is no sign whatever that a population that lives under the constant gaze of the weaponised drones is effectively subjugated, on the contrary.

Such populations suffer for certain. They become fearful and present dreadful psychological illness, particularly amongst children. Ordinary people trying to live their lives are killed and maimed and see their infrastructure of civilised living is destroyed. As a result they flee, hence the current refugee crisis.

Inevitably this harrowing experience engenders anger as much as the presence of foreign boots on the ground. We now also know this anger can become viral, and the likes of IS is the result. However although weaponised drones are war losers they, like nukes, have utility and as with nukes their utility is in the political sphere back home rather than on the foreign battlefields where they are used.

Two years ago the supposedly sovereign parliament of the United Kingdom voted against using the RAF to bomb Syria. Two years later our government uses the RAF to bomb Syria with drones and the parliament of the UK is powerless to stop it. Moreover this usurpation of parliamentary sovereignty takes place during a parliamentary debate on a refugee crisis which in part is caused by the bombing of Syria.

Bill Ramsay,

84 Albert Avenue, Glasgow.

I DO not agree with Iain Macwhirter's strident assertion on the perception of Britain abroad (“We are paying a heavy price for being pariahs of Europe”, The Herald, September 10). He believes that the UK needs many more than the 160,000 immigrants called for by Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission. Mr Macwhirter lists all the ills that can be placed at the UK's door as being the root cause for the chaos in the Middle East at present. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and, of course, one has only to look at the ill-fated ventures into Iraq and Libya.

However, the UK was not alone, and since then the EU, Saudi Arabia and Russia have largely been sitting on the sidelines as the refugee crisis escalated far beyond the camps established in Lebanon and Jordan. Our £1Bn aid contribution in Syria is hardly the offering of a pariah state.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has made robust statements about the plight of the refugees but does not seem to accept that thousands of economic migrants complicate an already vexed scenario.

Where is the voice of the UN as these awful scenes unfold? Is the Security Council not concerned that many jihadists may seize the opportunity to infiltrate across boundaries to cause mayhem in European capitals? On a broader front the spread of Islam throughout Europe on such a scale could be of significant strategic importance in the years to come.

Like many other commentators Mr Macwhirter offers little in terms of how this increasingly global problem can be tackled on a co-ordinated basis.

Ronald J Sandford,

1 Scott Garden, Kingsbarns.

I READ the excellent letter from Iain AD Mann (September 11) on the Westminster debate on help for refugees and it rang a bell. I had listened to a very interesting talk given by our MP, Brendan O’Hara, at a local meeting and he described this same debate in almost identical terms. In particular he described the Tories as flooding out from their offices and the tearooms to vote down what was a very anodyne motion that had been supported by everyone in the Commons except the Government.

Mr O'Hara spoke on several topics on what happens at Westminster from the viewpoint of an insider and I paraphrase some of his comments here. He described the passage of the latest Scotland Bill in scathing terms. The Government took the Smith commission report, watered it down, then by using its majority, voted down every single amendment, regardless of merit and with little attention to any debate. he view of the Tories now appears to be: job done, move on to other important things. This might perhaps be to begin a bombing campaign in Syria; it is not clear at the moment, however, which warring faction of several might be the one supported by our efforts.

DS Blackwood,

1 Douglas Drive East, Helensburgh.