Letters to the National, September 3 2015: Trident? Spend it on refugees instead

Instead the money would be far better spent showing a more caring attitude to the world through taking care of our sick, disabled and vulnerable; by removing children from poverty, and by ensuring that those on very low incomes have enough to survive on, instead of visiting food and clothes banks.

They might even turn a charitable face towards the refugees fleeing from war and poverty in the Middle East and Africa. Theresa May tries to tell us that this “swarm” of refugees will bankrupt the country and leave us all in poverty. What rubbish! We could probably give 400 refugee families enough to survive on for less than David Cameron made available to even more of his rich cronies through the recent 50 appointments to the unelected and unwanted House of Lords.

I believe Alec Salmond as First Minister offered to take 5,000 refugees into Scotland. That may seem a lot but we have over five million inhabitants here in Scotland. 5,000 represents 0.1% of our population. So, to give each refugee family the equivalent of the average working wage it would cost every person with an income just 1p for every £10.00 that they earn.

That means if you earn £500.00 per week, it would cost you 50p per week to pay each family £350.00 per week. They are more likely to be given around £100.00 per week, plus a free house at £75.00 to £85.00 per week. Therefore if you do earn £500.00 per week it would only actually cost you about 25p.

I only receive £110.00 a week in pension, but I would rather contribute 25p than have David Cameron represent his selfish, uncaring attitude as being representative of how I feel.

Working on the same principle, England, with 10 times the population of Scotland, could accept 50.000 without costing them more per person. They are being asked to accept far fewer than that by the German Chancellor.

Let’s just hope that when Parliament returns some of the Tory backbenchers will feel pangs of conscience and turn against their leaders’ present attitudes.

If my family and I were in the situation many of these people find themselves in I would hope someone would help. Please, Mr. Cameron, forget Trident and let Britain reach out caring and helping hands.

CJ Kerr
Address supplied

Why national tests are a bad idea

AS a former headteacher I was astonished to read that Nicola Sturgeon is considering returning to the failed Tory policy of national testing. National testing was massively criticised before and the First Minister should look at the reasons and the evidence of why this disastrous policy was dropped.

I now serve as a councillor and have been on our education committee for over eight years. I argued and voted for scrapping the league tables that accompanied national testing.

I suggest Ms Sturgeon should concentrate her energies on why, under the SNP, we have falling literacy levels, reduction in teacher numbers, larger class sizes, cuts in support for teachers, huge cuts in college places, and quietly drop the return to the failed system of national testing.

David May
Montrose

DAVE Thompson MSP was quoted in the National as saying that as a Christian he stood by social justice and fairness. Gordon MacIntyre Kemp queries this (Silly season is upon us but biased BBC is silliest of all, The National, August 28). As he says, he personally does not believe in God, yet he supports them too.

This is what Christians call the natural law, that sense of right and wrong which we believe God has planted in the minds and hearts of all human beings. Of course, if the Natural Law were honestly, universally and easily followed, we would not now have thousands of desperate refugees trying to reach our shores. I am talking here about civilisation as a refuge from barbarism. But the storm of good and bad is something that everybody has personally to navigate.

I am reminded of the words of DDC Pochin Mould, scientist, geologist and author, who, shortly after the war, wrote: “All morality stems from the idea of God as Justice, Truth, Goodness. […]The attitude of the 19th century agnostic scientists, who thought they could deny God but continue Christian morality without Him, was an impossible position – you could not suppose selected pieces of Christian ethic to remain suspended in mid-air like the grin of a Cheshire cat when their original basis was taken away from them.”

Despite all our mistakes, had the West not hung on to Christian belief and principles for so many generations, we would not now be seen as a haven by people desperately fleeing from other parts of the world.

Lesley J Findlay
Fort Augustus

IT’S amusing seeing The National portraying Ian Duncan Smith as a monkey in its weekly comic strippage, but a rattlesnake would have been more fitting. Just like the rattlesnake, Duncan Smith chooses to alarm his victims before he strikes.

He ensnares people into “lord in waiting” Gordon Brown’s (Flagship) Assessment Centres, many with learning difficulties and serious life-threatening illnesses then paralyses them with fear before striking. In the past five years Duncan Smith (as figures prove) has inflicted more carnage on his victims than the entire population of rattlesnakes in North and South America combined.

Chas McArdle
Wishaw

FOLLOWING Martin Hannan’s report (Gas field will eventually provide five per cent of UK’s needs, The N ational, September 1), surely this headline should have said: “Scotland would have been self sufficient in gas post-independence following the UK Oil and Gas Authority’s green light for development of the gas field.”

I have repeated the “green light” as Martin did but when hydrocarbons are mentioned the colour green suggests some sort of offshore environmental group – so that should go too!

Supply and demand will kick in soon ... prices for gas and oil won’t stay low forever.

Bob McNair
Johnstone

WITH the Hillary Clinton emails disclosures further displaying the duplicitous characteristics of many high-profile politicians today, it is refreshing to have such as Jeremy Corbyn in Britain and Bernie Sanders in the US appear on the main-player scene.

Both are old-timers and not only in general appearance but also in mannerisms and opinions espouse anything but spin and anything but “think-tank” politicking. Their fresh sincerity consigns even the late Tony Benn and similar others to a lesser category of serious competitive politics.

Maybe Corbyn and Sanders have surfaced at a better time for campaigners of this character than Benn etc, but the substantial amount of supporters behind the old-timer new arrivals are unconcerned about this kind of analysis.

The who-can-front-up-the-most-dollars typical presidential campaigns in the US and the who-can-best-serve-Middle England parliamentary elections in Britain, are being put firmly in their political place. A place not particularly high up in the democracy league table.

Let’s hope these aren’t more Arab Springs that can be detrimentally meddled with.

Ian Johnstone
Peterhead

MAIRIANNA Clyde(Letters, The National, September 2) states a new Yes campaign should be started.

We’d like to inform her that the Yes2 campaign, started by grassroots activists on September 19, 2014 is very much alive and active. Groups such Yes2, All Under One Banner, March for Independence and Hope over Fear are working together to ensure the Yes campaign is still kept prominent in the political landscape. Look out for the Yes2 stalls with information on the campaign in George Square on September 19 and the upcoming March for Independence in Glasgow on October 24 for the strength of passion and support still for Independence. The Yes2 Campaign is coordinated and run by grassroots activist and must be maintained as such to ensure as wide a political scope as possible are involved in our inevitable journey towards independence.

John McHarg
Yes2, Dunblane

CAT Boyd is spot on in her article (The starving must not be a politician’s afterthought, The National, September 1) in that she describes what is happening within the neoliberal world order and its treatment of the poor of the earth. The problem within her article is the lack of concrete analysis of how to change this.This seems to be true of all people from the left of which I count myself as one.

The iniquities within capitalism are built in in order to ensure the so-called strong should be allowed to increase their power and wealth while the weak should expect that theirs diminishes further. History shows that despite what they say this is the logical conclusion of many politicians who, although they would never admit it at least in public, are in the main, adherents of Social Darwinism.

I suspect there are not many readers of this paper who have no idea of what Social Darwinism is but when you look at the history of the British Empire, it matters not a jot at which period you pick, one can see that there were always the rich and always the poor even at the Empire’s peak.What was true then is true now, Social Darwinism rules and this is true of all capitalist countries.

The questions therefore we should be asking is how do we replace an economic system that has inequality as its very raison d’etre , not how we can change the system from within: it cannot be changed. So what do we do? References to a utopian socialistic state without concrete plans on how to implement it are not going to work. What is also unclear is how an independent Scotland could truly implement an equal society (not a more equal one, this is also a sham) within a neoliberal world. And therein lies the problem. Let’s not forget what a number of people have stated: it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. And yet that is precisely what we have to do.

Alan Hind
Old Kilpatrick, West Dunbartonshire