It is not progressive to put our defence at risk

All that's left is Trident. But reducing the power of collective security may ironically make us more prey to bullying by such as Vladimir Putin. After all. once you don't have the big weapon will you stand up to the classroom bully who has it? Or will you cower before his threatening posture? And if cowering has to be your game will he be encouraged into more aggressiveness - making wars more likely?

That view that reducing collective security makes war more likely seems to be the true story of twentieth century history. The minute that collective security was shown to be weak in the 1930s aggressive dictators came out of the tall grass, and war was thereafter never far away..

Conversely despite the fact that aggressive dictators such as Stalin held sway after the Second World War we enjoyed a long period of peace based upon nuclear deterrence. It seems to me that people are too easily swayed by words such as progressive.

Andrew Vass,

24 Corbiehill Place,

Edinburgh.

THERE have been times during the process leading up to the General Election in May when those of us taking an interest have been reduced to a state of torpor, at other moments made acquainted with a feeling of disenchantment, because of the inability of politicians to engage in proper debate, and occasionally been stimulated by some contribution to become taken up in following a particular unfolding discussion. I do not think, so far, there has been much trouble in controlling our excitement.

However, some of us have reached the point of downright puzzlement. Why should that be ? Well, the answer lies in the use of the word "progressive" and its meaning. It has been bandied about almost willy nilly, as they would say in ancient England. Virtually all the political parties seeking our votes, some more desperately than others, have claimed to be "progressive". David Cameron has maintained that he is a 'progressive Conservative'. Nick Clegg has said that he is a 'new progressive'. The First Minister has talked about forming a 'progressive alliance'.

The word "progressive", I believe, has been so ill-used now as to be virtually meaningless. The politicians seem to think that, by incorporating the word in their language, it will give the appearance of being up-to-date and not averse to modern thinking. A problem arises for them, however, in that in making the word fashionable , as it were, it has now been debased and as a result it has no meaning or meanings, which are to be generally understood in the UK , and that is a regressive step.

Ian W Thomson,

38 KirkintillochRoad, Lenzie.

THE IFS effectively says all parties are misleading voters about the true state of UK finances. Annual deficits and accumulating debt really do get in the way of increasing spending on public services: all the electioneering proposals to finance increases do not seem to generate enough cash even to equal the extra expenditures.

This is hardly a revelation, the profligacy has been obvious and highlighted for years.

Our First Minster apparently might be the sole person who can perhaps influence Westminster to address the excesses so that the annual deficit is chopped down sufficiently to lead to a surplus in short order. This would enable the crippling £1500 billion debt to begin to be reduced (the interest alone is some £50 billion annually adding to the debt). Unfortunately, Nicola Sturgeon takes a kind of "'there is no alternative'"opposing approach to addressing perceived inequalities except by spending even more, increasing the annual deficits with no clear plan to pay them down. Instead she dismisses the IFS analysis as "based on flawed assumptions" - some acolytes say scaremongering - to justify this.

Her group know full well that they are giving the electorate a bum steer. What actually underlies this is a misinterpretation of the Smith Commission's "no detriment" clause. It did not mean that Westminster would "fill any hole in the finances" of Scotland. And a big hole it is already at £120bn accumulated notional debt and annual fiscal debt of nearly £15bn to add on.

We've been round and round all this last year. Little has changed except that the sums have shot up, making increased spending even more troubling. It is hard to see the SNP MPs making headway in getting the UK Parliament to "get the kind of changes we are arguing for" when financial instability would be increased - except for Scotland, which would have Westminster protection.

Joe Darby,

Glenburn, St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall.

I HAVE been struck by the holier than thou attitude of some relating to the tweets posted by the SNP Westminster candidate for Edinburgh South, Neil Hay ("Labour call for SNP hopeful to be sacked", The Herald, April 24).

These have been condemned by Nicola Sturgeon, but for opposition parties to wring hands and gnash teeth over this smacks more than a little of hypocrisy.

One high-profile Labour tweeter has, on various occasions, described the SNP as "fascist scum" and Labour defector Muhammed Shoaib used the phrase "coconut Pakistanis". As far I am aware not one opposition voice has been raised to condemn either of these individuals.

As with anything, there are a small number of individuals who overstep the mark, on all sides of the debate, but if we are to berate our opponents for such matters we should step up to the mark and berate our allies.

The only loser out of this is the political process itself and we all have a responsibility to try to repair its rather damaged image.

Alex Orr,

Flat 2, 77 Leamington Terrace, Edinburgh.

WITH due respect to John McMaster (who happens to be my brother) I could not disagree more profoundly with the attitude towards Scottish nationalism expressed in his letter of April 23. The "monstrosity of separatism" is a figment of the Unionist imagination, which sees nationalism as a destructive force whose aim is to "break up the country"; whereas in fact the SNP do not wish to destroy anything, but simply to end a constitutional arrangement which has outlived whatever usefulness it might have had in the past.

When this is achieved it will be possible to establish a new relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom (or its constituent parts) based on equality and mutual respect. The growing support for independence shown by the polls during the referendum campaign, and indicated subsequently by the phenomenal increase in SNP membership, makes it seem increasingly likely that this positive vision for our country will be realised in the not too distant future.

Ewen McMaster,

Flat 4, 20 Castlebank Gardens,

Anniesland, Glasgow.

IT was kind of James Douglas-Menzies to write from Hexham (Letters, April 24) to tell us yet again how dependent we are on our wealthy neighbours. Despite our educated population and impressive range of natural resources, our poverty, seemingly, is only held at bay by our "arm-lock to England".

The United Kingdom, he asserts with no hint of irony, is "mighty and wealthy" . We are poor and insignificant and, introducing a refreshingly new term of abuse, "a soft underbelly". Mr Douglas- Menzies' s patronising view of our history is wrong in so many ways that a single letter could not hope to put him right. May I, however, cite one example of the "boasted benefits" of our "arm lock " to the UK: the appalling slaughter of more than 100,000 of our young men because of the utterly senseless UK participation in the First World War. The quicker we free ourselves from "the arm-lock" the better.

Iain Hall,

1 Georgina Place,

Scone, Perthshire.

IN the absence of proportional representation (Letters, April 18) one must choose either to vote tactically for a party that you do not support but dislike less than an alternative, or vote for your preferred party in the hope that chance may put them in a position of influence after the election. If the former, your reluctant vote will be used as evidence for a mandate by the winning party. If the latter, your party will be expected to insist on the fulfilment of their "red lines" with no thought of compromise or respect for the policies of the larger party.

John Boss,

1 Ladyacre,

Kilwinning.

AS a fully paid-up member of the hoi polloi and the common five-eights, I object to wannabee politicians referring to us as "the ordinary people" I suggest that if a collective term is necessary, they use "the voters. Perhaps if they feel particularly brave they could use 'my voters' and see how they get on. Finding a decent collective noun for the self-same politicians is proving rather elusive.

Donald Macaskill,

35 Saltoun Street,

Glasgow.