Harry Reid presses for Turkey to be admitted to the EU (“Here’s another big deficit: Europe’s democracy”, The Herald November 5), but says nothing about freedom of religion in that country. The ideology of so-called “secular” Turkey is, in fact, state-controlled Sunni Islam, with non-conformist Muslims and those other faiths severely disadvantaged.

It is true that “faith tourism” is to be encouraged, which may allow visiting Christians to worship at St Paul’s Church in Tarsus. A cross may, perhaps, be restored to an Armenian church on an island in Lake Van, and Russian expatriates may be permitted a place of worship on the Turkish Riviera. These are, indeed, small signs of progress, but Turkish public opinion has hardly begun to realise that EU membership must mean full acceptance of religious pluralism. Meanwhile, well-meaning silence from inside the EU can only store up trouble for the future.

John Coutts, Stirling.

Media coverage of David Cameron’s new position on Europe has so far concentrated on the minor question of the possible effects on internal Tory discipline and whether some “rebels” will break ranks and demand a referendum. What commentators seem to have missed are the potentially major effects on the fortunes of the UK if we have a government that wishes to be even more isolated in Europe than were the Thatcher and Major administrations.

Europe is our biggest trading partner. The world situation increasingly requires co-operation on a supra-national level to protect our security and our markets. The logic of globalisation is that European countries must combine forces in the face of American, Chinese and Indian growth, and potential economic and military dominance. If we are to prosper, the nations of Europe have to stick together. It is beyond reason and logic that the Tories have chosen this precise moment to signal their isolationist mentality.

Splits in the Tory party might be the immediate worry for some. Yet it is the deleterious effect on the UK’s ability to engage with and influence European policy and progress, at the time in our history when the UK needs to be at the heart of the argument, which will be the longer lasting and detrimental outcome if the Tories ever get into power – and if they follow David Cameron’s flawed and damaging isolationist instincts.

Alex Gallagher, Largs.

The apparently new position on Europe outlined by David Cameron is yet more evidence of Tory inconsistency and contradiction on Europe. This is the party that took Britain into the Common Market; the party that campaigned for a “yes” vote in 1975 during the EU membership referendum; that signed up to the Single European Act that created the political dimensions of the EU; and – biggest of all – gave us the Maastricht treaty in 1992, without even considering the prospect of a referendum.

It has been the UK Conservatives (not Labour or anyone else) that step by step since the very beginning of Britain’s involvement in the European project, made Britain part of it, shifting more

and more of its sovereignty to the European level.

So, for David Cameron to ask for a referendum on Lisbon, while trying to keep a straight face, is laughable. Lisbon is a tidying up exercise and is almost insignificant in comparison to Maastricht. It was the Conservatives who gave Britain the political Europe that they constantly condemn and it’s incredible how they somehow brush it off as if it were someone else’s creation. Well, it’s not: it’s their own.

At least the Eurosceptic members of the Tory party will find some consolation in a proposed Sovereignty Bill – aimed

at ensuring that British laws have supremacy over all others – should they win the next election. Someone should have the courage to tell them that this would not be possible, as European laws overrule all national laws. But perhaps they already know that. I wonder who they’re trying to fool.

Toni Giugliano, Edinburgh.

Alex Orr is all-too-quick to castigate David Cameron over the Lisbon Treaty. When Mr Cameron made his statement in 2007, he quite reasonably expected the treaty still to be under review and discussion in 2009/2010 – until the EU pressure on the Republic of Ireland and others pushed it through.

Furthermore, Mr Cameron would not even have been put in the position to propose a referendum had the government not completely reneged on its General Election manifesto promise so to do so. Then again, we know from so many aspects of New Labour that trust and ministerial responsibility are not matters with which they are in any way familiar.

Rob Morton, Glasgow.

Alcohol pricing

The latest claims of the Scotch Whisky Association in regard to minimum pricing rise to new realms of fantasy. It is stated that copycat pricing would cost the industry £600m.

This is based entirely on the supposition that export markets would then change their pricing policies as a result

of minimum pricing. That is then followed by an invented and worst-case

figure. This is the worst kind of propa­ganda masquerading as research from an organisation that seems increasingly deranged in its attacks on government proposals to restrain our out-of-control drinking culture. As far as I can see,

assertion entirely replaces evidence.

Let us reiterate what minimum pricing does. It places a floor on alcohol prices through a minimum price per unit (a price which would have little effect on that of a bottle of whisky). Its aim is to stop price-dumping, loss-leading and the use of cheap, high-strength drinks to lead people into a drinking culture. Evidence supports the link between consumption and price. And Scotland has a massive drink problem with people dying every day.

For a sane, reasoned, evidence-based approach, I can but commend the letter (November 5) from Bruce Ritson, Peter Brunt, Brian Keighley and Paul Waterson. And I commend the courage of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association in backing the medical professionals.

Hugh Andrew, Edinburgh.

Willy Slavin states (Letters, November 4) that the increase in drug programmes, methadone, rehabs, sanctions, imprisonment and drug experts over the past 20 years has had scarcely any effect on the escalating drugs problem. In fact, it is worse because of political interference.

This “war on drugs” began when the US government ordered the governments of India and Nepal to make hash illegal. This was supposedly to protect the American youth who were travelling there in their thousands in the 1960s and 1970s, me included. In the six months I spent in India and Kashmir in 1976, I don’t think I met one local who smoked hash. It was only westerners, who took it back to their homelands. It’s been going on since.

The only way change can happen is if people start to feel valued. Unfortunately, we have a dysfunctional society, in which millions of people suffer problems of self-worth. This leads to isolation and drug abuse, over-eating and addictions. The real experts on abuse are the drug users who have lived to tell the tale, and whose message is that it is possible to recover.

Danny Marley, Clydebank.

Wrong date

In my letter about minority government (November 4), I stated that I argued the position for minority government back in 2005. This was an error and should have read 2006. The point and the relevance of my letter remain unchanged but the mistake was entirely my responsibility.

Annabel M Goldie, MSP, Scottish Conservative leader, The Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh.

Undemocratic decision

YOUR story “Ofgem to inject £1bn into green electricity projects” (November 4) is likely to mislead casual readers. If the heading was “£1bn extra to be taken

from electricity consumers for new transmission projects”, it wouldn’t have quite the same appeal.

Most of the costs of transmission and renewable energy subsidies are added directly into electricity consumers’ bills. This being the case, both the UK and the Scottish Governments, and their agencies, have a duty to ensure it is spent wisely. Sadly, there is very little pressure on them to do so because the money is not taken as tax and redistributed to the utility companies, so the cost is not apparent to those who pay. The fact that Ofgem has given the go-ahead for investment in a Dounreay to Beauly line (which will feed into the Beauly to Denny line) before the announcement on the Beauly to Denny line casts further doubt that there was ever a genuine wish to examine that proposal. The thousands of people who have invested huge amounts of their time and money in engaging in that public local inquiry are unlikely to have their faith in the planning system strengthened.

The John Muir Trust notes, from First Minister’s Questions last week, that Alex Salmond regards the way in which the Trump proposal was progressed as more satisfactory. It seems unlikely that many of those without a vested interest in either proposal will think that either procedure has been a shining light for planning or democracy. “Quicker” does not equate with “better”. Democracy involves speaking to and listening to the public voice.

Helen McDade,

Head of Policy, John Muir Trust, Tower House, Station Road, Pitlochry.

As a hill-walker and lover of the Scottish mountains, and with many friends and relatives who visit Scotland precisely because of our landscapes (unequalled in the UK, and attractive even to my American friends), I’m concerned that the Scottish Government is about to make a huge mistake in sanctioning the building of the unnecessary Beauly to Denny transmission line through some of the wildest and most scenic landscape in Scotland.

The arguments have been well-rehearsed: the viability of subsea lines, the option to upgrade the existing line, Ofgem’s likely review of charging mechanisms, the erosion of wild land, the impact on tourism and so on. I’m all for renewable energy, in appropriate places and to appropriate scale. But we need to make sure we don’t destroy what cannot then be renewed: the beauty and wildness of Scotland’s countryside.

Heather Alexander, Glasgow.

Right lines?

After reading your front-page Briefing, “All aboard for £1000 rail trip”, about the rising cost of train travel, I turned on my computer and within five minutes found a return fare from Truro to Tain for £201.80 and an advance single fare of £92.50. I wonder what can be found in two hours?

Alasdair Young, Helensburgh.

Jesus would approve of controversial drama

As a “veteran” Christian, I have had to tackle many a thorny issue in the transition from 20th-century to 21st-century society. These include such matters as abortion, homosexuality and gay rights.

Far from being aghast at the changes, they have forced me to dig really deeply into my own prejudices and judgments, examining them closely to

try to find their origins and look at them in the light of the person of Jesus Christ, as I have discovered and believe Him to be. Would he object to the play Jesus, Queen of Heaven and its author? Certainly not. And if it helps others such as myself to be challenged and, in that process, have our eyes and hearts opened to a greater reality, then the writer and performer, Jo Clifford, is to be congratulated.

Janet E Cunningham, Stirling.

Murder of British troops illustrates the daily danger they face when locals fear for their own survival

Serving with tribal troops in their homeland has always posed a risk to British soldiers when there is a dissident movement based across a nearby border over which a disaffected man can go to receive a ransom for murdering a British serviceman. All local troops face the risk of retaliation for their loyalty should the British pull out, leaving them to face the inevitable takeover by the dissidents who may turn on them in a bloodbath of slaughter.

This is no theoretical situation. Those of us who served for a two-year secondment to the Federal Regular Army which took over from the Aden Protectorate Levies lived with this danger every day and night as hostile political parties prepared for our departure from Aden. There have been many similar situations.

Every Afghan soldier and policeman knows that he may face a Taliban firing squad if the west suddenly makes a quick exit: the temptation to kill, then to run for money and safety is there every day.

Our horror and condemnation of the murderous attack on our men by a rogue policeman are justifiable. But we need to think carefully about these hazards to our troops and to their Afghan opposite numbers as we all wait for a man in Washington to make up his mind about what will happen next.

Major Michael Hamilton (retired), Stichill, Kelso.

The latest horror in Afghanistan comes only days before we give thanks and pay our respects to all those of past and present generations who made the

ultimate sacrifice.

As yet more children are left fatherless, it is sad and humbling to reflect that a great many people, now in their sixties and seventies, grew up without fathers who were killed during the Second World War, and probably there are still alive some who lost their fathers in the First World War. The sacrifice of these people has lasted all of their lives.

It is depressing that more than 90 years after the end of the 1914-18 carnage, the UK is again at war. It should be the most serious responsibility of those who govern to find a way for nations, if unable to respect or understand each other, at least to be able to tolerate each other on this planet that we share. The lesson of remembrance is surely not only about acknowledging the courage of the fallen, but learning from the tragedies of the past. Otherwise, the church services and the prayers for the dead will be as insubstantial as the poppies we wear.

Soon there will be another poignant procession of the coffins of young soldiers, home from Afghanistan. Pressure must be increased on the UK Government to listen to the concerns of the public whose attitude is increasingly hardening behind a stark but simple and uncompromising demand: troops out, stop the war.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

remember when poppies had wire stems at the back and you could attach them easily to dress, sweater, jacket or coat? Now they have plastic stems and, unless you have a buttonhole, you have to struggle with some sort of pin. I always get two poppies now as I invariably lose one.

And has anyone noticed that English poppies are better? They have a nice green leaf: just look at Westminster and the news programmes. Perhaps next year in Scotland we could have poppies with a green leaf and wire stem – and we might see more people wearing them.

Maureen Semple, Glasgow.