Letters (June 3) defending Russia’s war in Ukraine, and dismissing UK defence investment as mere “war hysteria”, reveal both historical amnesia and strategic naivety.
To be clear: the first duty of any government is the defence of its people and allies. That requires a credible deterrent – not nostalgic invocations of post-war Soviet sacrifice or conspiracy theories about scuppered peace talks. Russia invaded Ukraine, unprovoked, and continues to wage a brutal war in breach of international law. The idea that Nato “provoked” this aggression because of Eastern European nations choosing to seek security in the face of Russian threats is not credible.
As for the UK’s defence budget: 2% of GDP may meet Nato’s floor, but it is woefully inadequate for the threats we face – especially for a nation that aspires to global relevance. Critics rightly bemoan overstretched armed forces and dependency on US equipment, yet scoff at increased spending. One cannot demand sovereignty without footing the bill. If we genuinely sought an independent defence, we would need to spend not 2%, but upwards of 7% of GDP, as France did in the Cold War. Within Nato, a more realistic and responsible figure is 3.5%.
The age of cheap defence is over. Even if Europe wants security with American support, it must pay for it. Deterrence isn’t warmongering – it’s realism. Those who refuse to face that truth risk leaving us dangerously unprepared in a world that is getting less safe, not more –especially with the scramble to secure rare earth materials essential for so-called “green” energy.
Ian Lakin, Aberdeen.
• Forget independence: the only political issue that matters right now is the severe risk of war with Russia.
Nato's Article 5 requires members to assist any ally attacked, but the degree is not specified. Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron continue to bait the Russian bear in the naive belief that should retribution ensue, Uncle Sam will come steaming in. Yet Donald Trump rightly regards the war as Joe Biden's, and is unlikely to send much weaponry.
The UK is at particular risk through escalation, since even if mutual bombardment is sub-nuclear, Russia is 70 times larger, with far more space for bunkers.
George Morton, Rosyth.
Read more letters
- Keir Starmer's desperate Churchill act won't fool anyone
- Labour's 'sunlight of hope' is now the darkness of despair
- Labour can beat Reform if it takes a grown-up approach to immigration
Let's get free of US control
The Government's Strategic Defence Review sets out 62 recommendations, which, we are told, the Government is expected to accept in full. Let us hope we have learned the lessons from the way the US has treated Ukraine and, indeed, the UK itself.
We must take this golden opportunity to free ourselves from US control over every aspect of our defence. We must not buy any more F35 fighter aircraft, we must develop our own. Nobody, but nobody, must have control over when and against whom we use our weapons.
Keir Starmer's shameless, grovelling give-away of our fishing grounds to the EU and our bioethanol industry to Donald Trump does not bode well for our autonomy as a nation.
Doug Clark, Currie.
Focus on welfare, not warfare
Across the length and breadth of the UK the NHS and other public services are in desperate need of additional funding. In England alone the predicted funding gap for local councils in 2025/26 is £3.4 billion, a figure expected to rise to £6.9bn by 2026/27 according to research by Unison.
In the third quarter of 2024/25 there were 106,000 workforce vacancies in NHS England with 27,000 nursing positions needing filled. One of the consequences of persistent understaffing has been widespread staff burnout. This has led to a mental health crisis amongst healthcare workers.
Bearing all this in mind it is difficult to comprehend why Sir Keir Starmer is evidently determined to spend billions more on defence. If the UK, US, Russia, China and others keep upping the ante by spending more and more on increasingly sophisticated weapons the only beneficiaries will be arms companies and their shareholders. The inevitable outcome of continued escalation of tensions will be nuclear war and mutually assured destruction. It is surely time for our government to focus on welfare not warfare.
Alan Woodcock, Dundee.
Approaching a watershed
I note excellent articles without undue slant this morning (June 3) from Kevin McKenna ("Out-of-touch Holyrood has sparked the rise of Reform") and Kathleen Nutt ("Is Farage’s rise a threat to the Union? Probably not") on the realisation of the change happening in UK politics and also our wee corner of it.
Whilst the mainstream parties resort to reverse-ferret policies and petty name-calling, Reform just seems to be getting on with the job. And it appears to be working.
At last year's General Election many Scots lent their votes to Labour in Scotland, not to oust the Tories but to remove the SNP. It worked well. However it has backfired with the apparent resultant betrayal of the UK working class by this Labour Party.
At the time many felt that the Scottish elections 2026 would be a shoo-in for Anas Sarwar. This is now nowhere near the case.
As with the UK Labour leader, he has flip-flopped on so many issues and it’s anyone’s guess what his actual thoughts and policies are.
This Thursday could be a watershed moment for Mr Sarwar and Scottish Labour.
It is the most interesting by-election for years anywhere in the UK, certainly not for the quality of the candidates, but merely to give us a snapshot of what the Scottish public really think.
Kenny Watson, Renfrew.
• I enjoyed Kevin McKenna’s reference to “the great Holyrood toilet debate". Given the modern trend for suffixing scandals with “gate”, may I suggest “Cludgiegate” as a suitable moniker?
Mike Flinn, West Kilbride.
Wake-up call to Scotland
The by-election in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse should be a wake-up call not just to the intending voters but the whole of Scotland.
It would be correct to say that politics north of the Border is in a very sorry state, but the voters on Thursday have the opportunity to show that this particular electorate, and Scotland in general, does not want to to be fodder for a party that is insignificant in UK politics, and is only interested in furthering the personal interests of the leadership of Reform UK.
If "reform" is the "in word", then it it should be used to reform, internally, our current national politics. We have the knowledge, expertise and personalities to do it ourselves.
Mike Dooley, Ayr.
Mind the language
I agree, as I usually do, with Kevin McKenna's analysis and commentary on the gap between the "political elite" and working-class, minority communities in Scotland ("Scotland's political establishment must shoulder the blame for the rise of Reform", The Herald, June 2).
As ever, Kevin uses strong and clear language to present his arguments. However, using language such as "evoking cheers and foot-stamping from the Bearsden Bolsheviks" and "troughers and frauds of the Scottish elite" simply adds to the range of invective and insulting behaviour that characterises the very tenor of debate of which he complains.
Bob MacKinnon, Inverness.
Welding snub makes no sense
News that Scottish Enterprise has refused to provide any support to an £11 million investment by Rolls-Royce in a state-of-the-art welding centre on Clydeside take one's breath away ("SNP in munitions ban hypocrisy row over Ferguson Marine", heraldscotland, June 3).
This facility, developed in conjunction with the University of Strathclyde, would provide skilled jobs and apprenticeships, with the potential to attract further inward investment, to an area of Scotland that desperately needs all these.
The decision seems to be based on the mantra that the Scottish Government doesn't believe in support for "munition manufacture".
This approach demonstrates a total lack of common sense, whether seen from a defence or an economic perspective.
Scots used to be known for their good sense. This decision, sadly part of a pattern under this administration, shows a total lack of it.
John Jarvie, Solihull, West Midlands.
Investigate these contracts
Your story about South Lanarkshire's financial problems ("Building contracts to cost taxpayers £165m", The Herald, May 31) is really applicable to every council which adopted this hire purchase type of privately financed building project after its introduction by John Major and enlargement by Tony Blair.
Supposedly legally binding contracts have resulted in substantial repayments for periods beyond 30 years. These contracts require investigation and auditing immediately. Are they equitable over long periods with varying bank rates? Who is benefiting from them at present times? Feuhold and leasehold terms have been revised despite having been historic legally binding contracts as it was recognised that – apart from administration charges – the fees were unearned income. Is it now the case that PPI and PPP are similar and excessive?
The Establishment and governments tend to favour investors without checking their financial effects on the public purse. Until last week Thames Water dividends were a good example of this policy. If an in-depth study of these existing PPI and PPP contracts reveals excessive profits, then they should be revised or made subject to windfall tax repayable to the councils involved.
JB Drummond, Kilmarnock.
Share