THE perception of threat from nuclear weapons has again been in the news over recent weeks. The continuing unsettled politics of Kashmir risks conflict between nuclear armed states. The American president is concerned about North Korea because their nuclear capability is seen as an unacceptable threat. But last month the threat of a renewed nuclear arms race was ignited with first the United States and then Russia suspending compliance with the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
We are a group of doctors, medical students and other health professionals, members in Scotland of Medact, an organisation working on how issues of politics and conflict interact with health. Our colleagues internationally were instrumental in a process which highlighted the terrifying humanitarian consequences of any nuclear conflict and resulted in the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Why write now? Because any risk of nuclear conflict is unacceptable and in a world of increasing uncertainty and environmental change that risk is increased. And whenever the issue reaches public consciousness we must remember and promote that groundswell of opinion internationally which opposes possession of nuclear weapons, including organisations such as the World Medical Association and the International Committees of Red Cross and Red Crescent. 122 nations voted in favour of the UN Treaty. That debate should be joined by nuclear weapons states such as Britain as an important step in the process towards disarmament.
Duncan MacIntyre, consultant physician (retired); Lesley Morrison, general practitioner; Guy Johnson, GP; Safiya Noor Dhanani, junior doctor; Danuta Orlowska, clinical psychologist; Judith McDonald, GP; Michael Orgel, retired clinician;
Martina Zeitler, medical student; Molly Donovan, medical student; Richard and Cath Dyer, retired GPs; Georgina Race, junior doctor; Margaret Craig, GP,
c/o74 Montgomery Street, Eaglesham.
Let Rudd's apology suffice
LISTENING to the interview with Amber Rudd on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 (March 7) I was deeply moved when I heard her articulate the amount of vile vitriol she has to endure on various social media platforms these days. During the programme she also expressed her sympathy with other people in the public eye who are forced to endure such similar disturbing and caustic comments. She went on to highlight the plight of women in general and women of colour in particular, sighting Dianne Abbot as an example. Now whilst a remark of that nature may appear offensive to some, it was obvious to most listeners that Ms Rudd’s comment was meant in no other way than to be supportive of Ms Abbot. Once she became aware that Ms Abbot considered her use of language in this respect a racist slur and that it had indeed caused offence Ms Rudd made an immediate and sincere apology ("Rudd apologises after describing Abbott as ‘coloured’", The Herald, March 7). She was genuinely mortified that her loose remark, which clearly she felt was being supportive of minorities, had had the opposite effect in some quarters. Her apology for this mistake should now be the end of the matter and not an excuse to bombard her with more hatred from obscure and cowardly trolls.
Christopher H Jones,
25 Ruthven Avenue, Giffnock.
I CANNOT but feel sorry when anyone, in political office in particular, is required to make a statement where reference to someone`s skin colour comes into the equation. At what point does a person become black as against white, as there are considerable gradations of colour in between ?
George Dale,
21 Oakwood Drive, Beith.
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