Conscription would throw a light on just what Britain is up to

Likewise, the RAF and much the same with the Royal Navy, top-heavy as it is with its Vanguard-class, Trident missile-firing submarines. The armed forces of the UK are wholly configured to act as well-armed and well-trained imperial auxiliaries in someone else’s military adventures.

If proper conscription were introduced the foreign adventures in the Middle East and anywhere else would grind to a halt if the lives of mandatorily-conscripted sons and daughters were on the line. With conscription, defence policy and foreign policy would cease to be an “elite” interest. Issues of war and peace would have an electoral salience close to the NHS, education and the cost of living.

The last thing that the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of Westminster want is the public poking around, subjecting their decisions of who to invade next subjected to proper public scrutiny.

Twenty-first century Britain’s military future is rather different from its imperial past. Think King Max of Bavaria in 1812, rather than the Queen Empress of the 19th century. The reason King Max sent more than 20,000 troops to Russia in 1812 had nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with using France as a shield against Vienna and later Berlin.

Likewise, the UK and its relationship with the 21st century’s only military hegemon. Much hot air will be expended around defence and foreign policy in the coming weeks, but the electorate that counts in terms of where and when our armed forces are deployed is in the USA.

Bill Ramsay, Glasgow.

READ MORE: Holyrood should declare independence on election day

READ MORE: 'Honest John' is taking us for fools over Matheson

READ MORE: Sunak has framed a realistic agenda on key issues

Knowing how the Forces work

ONE of the important areas where there is no choice between Labour and Conservative is defence. Both are committed to a nuclear deterrent. As a former National Serviceman who stayed in the RAF for 22 years, who was on a V-bomber base when they were our main delivery system, on a Thor base during the Cuban crisis and based at two Nato HQs, I have taken an interest in this and other aspects of defence. I have always thought a nuclear deterrent was a ridiculous waste of money but it has become more so since air defence methods have improved so much. Would we not be better upping our air defences against drones and missiles than waiting until many of us are killed before possibly firing nuclear weapons at our enemy?

Of course we have so few people in politics with Forces experience they do not know how the Forces work. All they think is that there are too many personnel and do they really need aircraft? The strength of the RAF has dropped from 93,300 when the Conservatives came to power to a current level of about 36,000. It is difficult to get financial figures for the RAF but as total expenditure is supposed to be two per cent of GDP and GDP has gone from around £487 million to £580m the expenditure must have gone to other areas than RAF personnel.

Now the Conservatives have suggested reintroducing National Service it is possible people could look more closely at defence. If we used National Service to train our youth it could do great things for our GDP. In my later life outside the RAF I was impressed by how many of my generation of people trained by the RAF had done well in IT and high-tech work. If done properly National Service could help with this but it would have to be implemented well.

Jim McAdam, Maidens.

The reality was stark

THE latest unexpected policy notion thrown up in the election campaign is that National Service should be reintroduced. Since the last conscript left the armed forces in 1963 and some had entered late because they had deferred service until after university, the numbers who remember the reality (I am one) must be falling fast.

That reality was stark. Conscription was enforced on all healthy males (women, miners and farm workers were exempt) for the sole purpose of maintaining an effective military force eight times the size of the force the UK has today and to stock a convincing reserve. It was not a vehicle of social engineering and the National Serviceman had to fight and die in Korea, Kenya, Aden, Cyprus and Malaya. For a few it was exciting and enjoyable, for most a tedious and unwelcome intrusion in their lives. Some learned obedience, most a surly disregard for authority, while the regular military hated the attitudes of the conscripts and the time consumed in turning them into effective troops.

So do not be fooled by this abuse of the term “National Service”. It bears no resemblance to the historic institution. It reflects a Tory wish to teach manners to what they regard as the unwashed youth.

James Scott, Edinburgh.

A pathetic distraction

WESTMINSTER lives in its own little bubble, not a very pleasant one, and for the Tories it's about to burst.

National Service is their latest fantasy after the very costly Rwanda fiasco. What planet are they on?

No worries. Home Secretary James Cleverly can explain. "We want to build a society where people mix with people outside their own community, mix with people from different backgrounds, different religions, different income levels," he told Sky News.

If he lived in the real world he might realise that's what ordinary people already do, certainly in Scotland.

They don't need to have "military training" or days sweeping the streets as "community service" exercises to do that.

This pathetic distraction from more important issues sums up the inadequacies, ignorance and arrogance of the Westminster machine.

And sadly Labour is no better. It has "a plan" for the country, but listening to Keir Starmer, and trying to decipher the detail behind his words, you wonder exactly what country he is talking about. He calls it "the UK including Scotland".

I suspect after he picks up the keys to Number 10 following the election Scotland will quickly learn that life under Labour will be no different to that under the Tories.

Andy Stenton, Glasgow.

Home Secretary James Cleverly (Image: PA)

Luckily, we have a fourth choice

THE crew of Rishi Sunak's sinking ship are taking to the lifeboats and we are being assured by Keir Starmer that his ship will take us on a voyage to a new, more prosperous and sunnier destination. Sadly I must warn you that many of the recruits to Mr Starmer's new crew will be the aspiring young generation whose ambition will be better served by choosing to back the winning side. They will be drawn from the same wealthy, privileged section of society as the deserters from the Tory party and Mr Starmer is taking particular care to provide a ship on which they will feel at home.

The best cabins have already been reserved by Rupert Murdoch and his friends. The rudder has been designed to make course alterations to the left very difficult and MPs with roots on the lower decks like former prominent Labour members Alan Johnston, John Reid or John Prescott will be very rare indeed. No wonder many southern voters are likely to opt for the serially unpricipled LibDems as the least worst option.

We are fortunate in Scotland to have a fourth choice.

Willie Maclean, Milngavie.

UDI plan is a non-starter

REGARDING the date of the General Election, Eric Begbie (Letters, May 27) declares: "I beg to differ. I strongly suspect that his reason for the choice of date was both deliberate and devious.

"While our local authority schools break up in late June, private fee-paying schools carry on for another couple of weeks. Sunak can be reasonably sure that far fewer Tory voters will be on vacation on that day."

This is nonsense; all private fee-paying schools shall have finished their summer term by the last week of June.

Further, he says "surely now is the opportunity to call a special session of the Scottish Parliament on July 4 to enact a Unilateral Declaration of Independence."

Not only will Holyrood be in summer recess, it does not have that power.

Peter Wright, West Kilbride.