"I love the smell of napalm in the morning" is the memorable saying of Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore in Apocalypse Now.
In our ongoing apocalypse, there is no one who loves the smell of burning trees at any time of the day.
It is time we all faced up to the grim reality of climate change and realised, despite the barrage of propaganda from the usual source, that we will have to change our attitudes towards our entrenched dependence upon fossil fuels.
"Drill, baby, drill" is Donald Trump's constant war cry. "Burn, baby, burn" is nature's response.
With the evidence staring us in the face, we surely cannot remain blind to the facts of global flammability.
If we fail to learn our lesson even at this late stage when wildfires running out of control across the world are spelling out the danger of our insouciant attachment to our current obsession with the fire propellants, it will not be long before it is all too late for the life of our planet and our own survivability.
Back off we must from our over-long reliance on those reservoirs of crude oil and gas tempting us like the Sirens of Greek mythology.
We must now be deaf to the blandishments of such hidden treasures and stop our flirtation with them so that we can ready ourselves for the sacrifices before us which will demand a tightening of our belts for the foreseeable future, if we still have one.
Self-sufficiency, combined with dedication to renewables, will have to be our watchword from here on in.
We are experiencing the horror of the straw which broke the camel's back with every new deposit of crude oil and gas we bring out of the ground.
If we succumb to the demands to take advantage of those reservoirs available in the North Sea, that fuel could well turn out to be the final straw which reduces our planet to ashes.
Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.
Read more letters
- It's time to overturn the decades of anti-Glasgow policies
- Who will replace Sarwar as Labour leader - and do we care?
- Has Gary Lineker fumbled the ball with his tax proposal?
Keep No 10 North for England
In Scotland we have the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, there is the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont, in Wales they have Senedd Cymru in Cardiff bay, all working and doing the best they can for residents of these respective nations. Andy Burnham’s new Number 10 North in Manchester should become the English Parliament dealing with solely England issues. This would seem only fair, and then the Government in Westminster could go part-time (maybe just work mornings), get its act in gear and deal purely with issues affecting the UK, and stop being Anglocentric. Alternatively it could be totally disbanded and the Palace of Westminster could become a luxury hotel where people can holiday, dine, drink, relax and laze around, at their own expense and not ours.
Number 10 in Downing Street could become a pub as it lost all credibility and respectability when they were wheeling in suitcases full of booze, partying and breaking UK Covid rules. There is no coming back from that memory.
Linda FitzGerald, Killin.
• Wouldn’t the UK Prime Minister's Number 10 in the North be better labelled the "Number 10 in the Southern Midlands"?
Allan McDougall, Neilston.
How much has it cost?
Leaving aside the geographical nonsense of Andy Burnham forcing his beloved Manchester on to us as “the North" in the context of the whole UK, his Number 10 North proposal as an alternative seat of government to Downing Street concerns me as it makes me think of the similar compromise in the set-up of the EU.
To placate the French, the EU set-up has its parliament split between Brussels and its branch in Strasbourg with its members and staff shuttling regularly between these cities. Apart from the need to provide temporary living accommodation in Strasbourg for all involved, I understand that a dedicated train is required to move them, and there is a long truck convoy to move all their equipment and other paraphernalia. All this backwards and forwards throughout the year.
I wonder how much that costs the EU, and whether Prime Minister Burnham has bothered to work out the extra cost it will be for 10 North to function as his, and his Government’s, second home?
Also, I can only marvel at the speed at which Number 10 North has been set up, with fully-fitted offices (sourced and leased?), with Cabinet table and chairs and lots of appropriate signage (commissioned and bought?) and who knows what else. All that would normally take months rather than a couple of weeks. How come?
If this demonstrates how quickly things can be done if PM Burnham wants them done, can we now expect him to deal as quickly with other important matters such as stopping the small boats?
Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.
Holyrood must accept change
After years of SNP influence over our way of life in Scotland, hopefully the Labour Government at Westminster, under the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, will put into effect changes at Westminster, and by means of his proposed regional administrations have a positive effect throughout the whole UK.
The Scottish Parliament is going to have to accept change. It simply is not working effectively in the interests of the people of Scotland. The SNP administration may have been returned to office at the May Holyrood elections, but with a much lower level of votes.
It would appear that it is Prime Minister Burnham’s intention to be much more active in the regions of the UK than his predecessors. Such a policy on his part is very welcome because in Scotland, for example, it can only serve to reduce the influence of Scottish nationalism.
As I have said on numerous occasions, the administration in Scotland would thrive again under a Labour/Liberal coalition. Without the efforts of such a pact in days gone by, there would not have been a Scottish Executive, or Government as it has been conveniently renamed.
Also, most thinking Scots will be relieved to learn that the new Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear to First Minister Swinney that he will not give approval for another referendum on the question of Scottish independence.
Robert IG Scott, Ceres, Fife.
Non-existent mandates
Why are your Scottish nationalist correspondents so (deliberately?) ignorant? They take desperate John Swinney at his word – which is pretty naïve, to start with.
Mr Swinney bangs on about having a "mandate" for a new referendum, which is a load of codswallop. How can you have a mandate for something that is not within your remit?
Mr Swinney’s remit is a list of devolved responsibilities in the Scotland Act 1998. He, and Holyrood, have no locus whatsoever in the list of reserved responsibilities that are the remit of the Westminster Government. Among these is the UK constitution, and all matters pertaining to it, including referendums. Thus he can have no "mandate" for a referendum. Would nationalist propagandists please learn this off by heart and cease their very silly claims about "mandates" that do not exist?
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.
Deserting the sinking ship
Anas Sarwar’s decision to accept a seat in the House of Lords and desert Scotland confirms what we have all known for a long time, namely that most politicians are in it for what they can get for themselves. In the past Mr, soon to be Lord, Sarwar has said that Scotland was his first priority yet, when the offer was made, he jumped at the chance to desert the sinking ship of Labour in Scotland and move to rosier climes.
Alan McGibbon, Paisley.
No logic on Lineker
Dr Gerald Edwards’ letter (July 27) takes a scattergun approach to logic.
He states that he has no objection to Gary Lineker paying more tax but implies that his money comes from the BBC robbing the poor to pay him an inflated salary.
Does he feel the same about the CEOs of privatised utilities who have awarded themselves salary increases of a few millions, money which comes from the same group of people, or about hedge fund billionaires who haven’t been noticeably vocal about paying more tax other than by threatening to leave the country if tax rates go up?
He also suggests that Gary Lineker should be encouraging those on benefits to re-enter the world of work. This is an admirable suggestion, but how does he presume to know that Gary Lineker opposes it?
Sam Craig, Glasgow.
Share