YOU suggest the UK needs to take some action over the situation in Iraq that but do not demand a recall of Parliament ("UK must respond to crisis in Iraq", Herald editorial, August 13).
Surely it must be a major cause of concern that any military intervention in Iraq could be considered without Parliament's approval?
The events in Iraq constitute a series of humanitarian and political crises that demand urgent consideration and action. Any precipitate intervention from the UK military could end up having dire long-term consequences. We have been here before under Tony Blair's Labour Government.
Indeed, Iraq is a crippled state created and instigated by the misguided Bush/Blair intervention that has produced far greater humanitarian calamities post-invasion than even under Saddam. The incredible chaos and human carnage facing much of Iraq has to be blamed undeniably on two principal sets of forces - the governments in Washington and London and the radical Muslim (Jihadist) response to that intervention.
The vote to invade Iraq was supported by all the main Unionist parties (but opposed by the SNP and the Greens out of Parliament). Alistair Darling was one of more 50 Scottish Unionist MPs who voted for the invasion of Iraq.
There are other recent UK foreign foul-ups in Libya, Afghanistan and Egypt and in Mr Blair's absolute failure as a peace-maker in the Gaza-Israel war.
The British state has not yet come to the realisation that the world has moved on in the post-colonial/post-imperial realities of a new world order in which the UK can only play a walk-on role.
Scotland as a new state would offer an alternative international voice free from the bellicose bombast of Westminster.
For me, the idea of a Scotland released from ancient imperial attitudes and actions, with a fresh approach to international relations based on trade and humane development policies, is an attractive rationale for coming to a decision next month.
Meanwhile, let the UK Parliament debate the several crises and consider appropriate responses.
TM Cross,
18 Needle Green, Carluke.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article