I COULDN’T agree more with Dave McEwan Hill’s letter (August 18) about the waste of many billions of much-needed public money on the two massive aircraft carriers. These ships have very little relevance to defending our own waters or our interests around the world, and they are little more than a floating status symbol of the long-gone days when “Britannia ruled the waves”.
It will be several years before these hugely-expensive naval vessels even have any planes to carry, and of course the UK no longer has an aircraft industry capable of designing and building such sophisticated planes. So we must wait until the mid-2020s before the United States produces (and sells us at vast cost) the specially designed planes the ships need.
Of course the years of construction of the carriers brought much-needed employment to the Clyde shipyards and Rosyth Dockyard, which was very welcome, and that is in fact the main reason why the former Labour government awarded the contracts in the first place. It had very little to do with international defence or naval warfare, in which it is unlikely we would wish to become involved unless the Americans told us to.
A much more sensible use of public money would have been to build a large number of small specialised warships to defend our own coastal waters, and especially the vast stretches of sea around our northern and eastern coasts. These no longer have the protection of the RAF planes which operated from the now-abandoned RAF Kinloss. These specially-designed aircraft for many years patrolled the these areas, where the naval vessels and submarines of Russia and other countries wander about freely and mostly undetected.
But as usual the faceless ones at the Ministry of Defence got their priorities completely wrong. It never ceases to amaze me that UK governments can spend vast amounts of what is our money, not theirs, on vanity projects with little practical value.
Iain AD Mann,
7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel