Scotland has to break away from the warmongers of Westminster

Having US nuclear weapons here in the UK makes a nuclear attack on Britain more likely. In a nuclear conflict it is probable that Lakenheath would be targeted, as well as the nuclear bases on the Clyde, followed by strikes on cities across the whole of Britain.

In total, if one Russian warhead dropped on the centre of London it is believed almost a million people would die. If a nuclear bomb were detonated, the heart of the nuclear explosion would reach a temperature of several million degrees centigrade. The resulting heat flash would vaporise all human tissue over an area of 1.5 square miles. Outside the immediate area people would suffer fatal burns or would require amputations, they would be trapped in collapsed and burning buildings.

The smoke and flames going up into the atmosphere would prevent the light from the sun reaching Earth, this would mean it would be impossible to grow food crops. The whole population of the planet would starve to death. The temperature would go down to approximately 50 degrees below zero. A nuclear deterrent is not the answer.

The Scottish Government does not have the power to cancel Trident, therefore the only way we have to spend our money on things that matter to Scotland (but do not matter to the Westminster or the US governments) is to break away from the warmongers in Westminster and the White House, before they destroy our children’s future.

The control of the nuclear buttons lies with stupid old men who do not understand what nuclear conflict means to humanity. Scotland needs control of Scotland in order to spend money on Scotland’s population.

Margaret Forbes, Blanefield.

Read more letters

• The fighting with Westminster can be traced back to Sturgeon
• Muscular unionism is holding Scotland back

Vote today would be different

NEIL Mackay's article ("Scottish nationalism is an entirely different beast", The Herald, September 3) stimulated some further debate on Scotland's independence in these pages (Letters, September 4), with both A Blue and Victor Clements questioning the future of self-determination for Scotland. Perhaps those who consider that the independence debate should be shut down because a referendum was lost a decade ago should contemplate how many people would have voted differently had they known what the future actually held in store for them by sustaining the UK non-constitutional status quo?

One suspects that given the overwhelmingly hostile UK mainstream media at the time, plus general fear of the unknown, that many were reluctant to vote for independence and therefore effectively abstained, or in some cases, deliberately spoiled their voting papers. This group represented around 15 per cent of the electorate and if not much more than half of this group had been persuaded to vote Yes then the referendum would have delivered a positive result.

The fact that polls since have consistently shown support for independence at around 50% or greater indicates that many (perhaps even including some No voters) would indeed have voted differently if they had known Scotland would have been subjected to a hard Brexit (in spite of strongly voting to remain in the EU), that austerity would have continued for a decade (and now appears set to continue for another decade), that energy prices in energy-rich Scotland would continue to spiral (along with the prices of basic foods and house mortgages), all while genuine refugees arriving in the UK would be treated abominably by a UK government that not only would look away while tens of thousands of women and children were slaughtered but would militarily support the fanatical regime engaging in such a genocidal act.

Wes Streeting was clear in stating that for Labour-run Wales “all roads lead back to Westminster” (even in devolved matters such as the NHS) and in spite of the pathetically desperate attempts of Sir Keir’s puppet in Scotland (whenever he deigns to appear before selected reporters) to deceive the electorate otherwise, the people of Scotland know the truth of his assessment. It’s no wonder that the UK Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are not only intent on preventing independence but are scurrilously intent on thwarting democracy itself as even their own polling indicates that self-determination is what the people of Scotland truly desire.

Only Italy is deemed an older country to Scotland in Europe and the fire of independence in the people of Scotland will not be extinguished by political shysters or media distorters feeding from the trough of the wealthy British Establishment.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.

Get the Letter of the Day straight to your inbox.

Negative side to business

WHEN reading lists of suggestions from business and industry figures such as David Lonsdale as to how government can improve the economic climate ("Retailers face ‘challenging environment’ for the rest of year, new figures suggest", The Herald, September 3), I am reminded of a radio interview some years ago with the owner of a security firm just as minimum wage legislation was about to be introduced. While prominent figures in business and industry were lining up to tell us how it would destroy our competitiveness in a hostile economic climate he stated that he was all for it as it would drive out the “cowboys” who were constantly undercutting him by employing hordes of casual staff on minimal wages.

Unfortunately there is a negative side to business which can sabotage even the best and most reasonable suggestions for policy improvements. Each complaint about unreasonable wage demands is accompanied by a story of unrestrained rises in executive pay. Each complaint by landlords about rent controls is accompanied by a story about large groups of people living in cramped, damp-riddled properties. Each plea for help from the drinks industry or licensed trade bodies exists in a country that has continuing, well-publicised problems with drink-related deaths and illnesses.

While I recognise that not all businesses and industries are structured in such a way as to allow for self-policing and am not at all unsympathetic to calls for policies that would cut red tape and allow the business sector to flourish, I cannot help feeling that the occasional acknowledgement that government actions and negative public opinion are often prompted by the actions of small but significant minorities within their communities would help their case considerably.

Robin Irvine, Helensburgh.

Would people have voted differently in 2014 armed with today's knowledge? (Image: PA)

The way things work

AS regards April Stevenson’s assertion (Letters, September 5) that the “wealth-generating private sector” funds everything may I remind her that for many years almost 80 per cent of the GDP of the UK has come from the service sector? As such it is no different from the public sector in as much it simply provides services whether it be for example accountancy, service in a restaurant or the services of a plumber. The only difference is the public pays for the service directly rather than via taxation as it does for the public services.

Society is symbiotic and despite the fact that some sections are treated worse than others all sections are inter-reliant. How society works can be summed up by an apocryphal tale from Donegal of when a rich American put a £500 retainer on a suite of rooms in the Central Hotel before going to Sligo to check out the accommodation there. Convinced that he would want to stay in his hotel, as soon as the American left the hotel the manager took the £500 round to the local butcher and paid off his debt. The butcher then took the money and paid off his debt to the builder, the builder then went to the Central Hotel and put a £500 deposit on a wedding reception for his daughter. The Yank came back and decided he would stay in Sligo and got his £500 back but when he left with his money it had paid off several debts and everyone was better off.

That is essentially how the cycle works in the UK; the only difference is that in the private sector there is always someone at the top taking a cut of wealth others created for doing or contributing absolutely nothing.

David J Crawford, Glasgow.

What about the bishops?

THE Labour Government seems set on expelling the remaining 90-plus hereditary peers from the House of Lords for no good reason other than that they are there as of historical right rather than by political appointment. What then about the bishops, are they also to be expelled? If not, why not? Are they not only there because of a similar hereditary right?

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.