Another day, another SNP rebuttal of someone else’s view. On Monday we read that defence spending, and hence the many defence-related jobs we enjoy in Scotland, could be at serious risk in an independent Scotland.
This is not an unreasonable, or a difficult view, to share.
The standard SNP response was soon rolled out: things will be better in Brigadoon and defence spending will be higher.
This is, frankly, hard to believe – and even if it were to be miraculously true, surely such spending would be spent in the rest of the UK to buy planes and tanks and so forth?
How would that help us and the defence jobs we have here? Are we to believe that we will be conjuring up defence companies of our own that will suddenly be world players?
Is it not about time that the SNP stopped behaving like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail? We don’t deserve to be treated with such contempt.
The Prime Minister spends billions on the next generation of US nuclear weapons, telling us that they are needed because North Koreans have nuclear missiles which can reach the UK … how long before he reveals that they can be prepared and fired in 45 minutes?
Some might believe it, but I couldn’t possibly comment. Time to get rid of his money-blinded Wild Bunch, and their dangerous toys, before they do a body some harm.
I too listened to the interview with David Cameron on his visit to Faslane. I did not hear any claim that North Korean missiles could hit Britain (Letters, 6 April).
What I heard was that the North Korean threats posed a risk to peace, in their region in particular. Does CND consider this not to be the case?
We all – not just CND – want nuclear disarmament. However, what we want is multi-national disarmament, not just for us to throw in the towel.
There are regrettably rogue nations such as North Korea which pose a real risk to world peace.
To compare David Cameron’s interview to the deception given to the House of Commons by Tony Blair prior to the invasion of Iraq is absurd.
David Cameron’s pronouncements on Britain’s need to keep the “British nuclear deterrent” displays an unfortunate lack of foresight into the probable sequence of events in the event of a war involving a nuclear enemy.
Instead of protecting Britain from nuclear blackmail, Britain’s ownership of the bomb is likely to ensure our ruin in a radioactive cloud.
A geographically large nuclear enemy would probably consider that a first strike against British nuclear bases would limit Britain’s retaliation and our enemy could therefore “win” a nuclear war by sustaining relatively light damage in their territory.
Britain would be much safer without the bomb, and we could fulfil our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and persuade all nations to disarm.
Probably a very few bombs would need to be retained under international lock and key to deter a possible future “Hitler” figure from developing nuclear weapons secretly and with ambitious for world domination.
A Nicholas Cowan