I AM disappointed that such a good broadsheet as the Herald has seemed more excited by the Westminster war of words than by the issues raised about military intervention in Syria. Your front-page headline (“Corbyn backlash a boost for Cameron air strike chances”, The Herald, November 27) does you no credit, even if undoubtedly true. Surely we should be talking about the consequences for the world and for Scotland, and after that what will happen to votes in Westminster?

Adversarial politics is the problem. We are all too ready to take a stand, to have strong opinions, to assume more knowledge, more wisdom than really is the case, perhaps biased by sound-bites or towards a party line.

Can we stop and think about this before we go any further? Even the one truth that is obvious, "for evil to triumph, all that is required is for good people to do nothing", needs to be looked at carefully. What can good people do? We need to welcome refugees and show them respect but can that be done when their children were killed by our bombs?

I am so glad we have armed forces who put their lives on the line to defend us but what are they defending? A balanced society, open, generous, at peace with other nations and itself? We now must prove that is the case before we build the bombs, train the tommies, prepare the planes.

What do the peaceful Muslims who rejoice in being British think? What do the majority of Britons (who know and care about the issues) think should be done? Are the Labour MPs listening to their party members or just watching the red-top headlines? We need to act within our nation's boundaries first to ensure we feel safe here. And you can do that through more interviews with opinion-formers, not opinion-spouters.

Alastair W Rigg,

Kirtlehowe, 3 The Meadow, Eaglesfield, Lockerbie.

DESPITE the political mire in which the Labour Party currently finds itself, there was something honest and transparent about their MP's tabling questions at yesterday's debate in the House of Commons on possible military action in Syria. They offered penetrating debate on both sides of the argument. This would represent the differing views of their constituents.

Contrast this with the carefully orchestrated questions by the black-faced sheep, also known as SNP MPs. These were universally negative and took no account of the Prime Minister’s responses to 103 questions from the floor of the Chamber. They say they will vote against military action in Syria.

This is not representative of the views of the people of Scotland but this is of little consequence to the SNP. Its political mantra is to confront, disagree, whinge, complain and divide Scotland from the Conservative Government irrespective of the subject of the debate.

Ally this to the policy of scrapping Trident, at a time when the world has rarely been such a dangerous place and ISIL are looking for nuclear weapons. The first priority of any country is to defend its citizens and not look for outside help when we raise the white flag.

What a sad wee country.

Jimmy Armstrong,

3a Abergeldie Road, Ballater.

WHEN I was a youth and sexual mores were less liberal than they are now, it was a common ploy to say to a girl that it’s all right to have sex; everybody is doing it.

That seems to be David Cameron’s argument for bombing Syria.

Angus MacPhee,

23 Eriskay Avenue, Hamilton.