Letters to The National, November 3: Labour's linking Trident with steel is dishonest

Dugdale insinuated that we should support Trident to save Scottish steel jobs. 

However, BAE Systems and the UK Mod have a different take on this.

In IHS Jane’s 360 on October 21, BAE stated that they “Did not foresee any impact from the announcements by TATA related to their Dalzell factory, on the programmes BAE Systems are currently delivering for the UK Government”. 

BAE Systems also stated that “The company purchase the vast majority of its steel from within Europe, including the UK”. The MoD stated that “steel for key defence programmes, including submarines, is sourced from a range of suppliers.”

From these evidential statements there is nothing apparently that locks either BAE Systems or the UK MoD into purchasing from Scottish or UK steel sources.

Dugdale also conveniently neglects to mention the non-military contracts for supply of steel such as oil and gas rig construction.

We know that the Scottish Labour branch office had to come up with some excuse for supporting the obscene Trident programme so they were not out of sync with Westminster Labour. To use the plight of Scottish steel workers as a prop for supporting hideous weapons of mass destruction is a tactic Scottish voters and steelworkers will not forgive or forget.

William C McLaughlin
Biggar

THE Scottish Labour Party’s vote against the renewal of Trident is good news for the SNP, they have got an ally in Westminster.

It may not be such good news for members of the Scottish Labour Party, who have woken this morning to the sounds of infighting in the party and trade unions over their gesture.

If the want to turn this into more than a gesture they will have to consider taking steps to remove Scottish Labour from the control of the Labour Party.

If Scottish Labour Party members are really serious about removing Trident then they will also have to consider whether or not there is any hope that this can be accomplished while Scotland remains in the United Kingdom.

John Jamieson
South Queensferry

Pensioners are no drain on society

IN Friday’s National we had Fiona Robertson’s passionately argued piece concerning the propaganda routinely hurled at “disabled” people, unemployed people and any other group that can be deemed a “drain” on public monies (Inhuman treatment of society’s vulnerable echoes Nazi Germany, The National, October 30).

Meanwhile, in the same edition we had Paul Burns, an independent financial advisor with Cedarwood Wealth Management, opining that: “We cannot rely on the state for our finances in later life any longer.” Yes, of course, Mr Burns is perfectly correct; but he is only correct on the condition that we choose to continue organising our economy as we presently do: along dogmatic ideological lines.

As a pensioner I am thoroughly fed up with the propaganda spread today by right-wing think tanks, libertarian anti-taxation organisations and others, who view people like myself as being a “drain” on public finances, while conveniently forgetting the huge contribution (financially and otherwise) that we have made collectively and as individuals during our working lives. 

Joe O’Loan
Barrhead

WALES’S relationship with the imperial UK is quite different to Scotland’s. Wales does not willingly form any part of a union with this empire. Wales is a colonial outpost, annexed with no regard for the opinions or wishes of her peoples. Scotland forms a part of this union, albeit against the wishes of almost half her population.

October 21 marked the 50th anniversary of the opening of Llyn Celyn resevoir in Wales, commonly referred to as “Tryweryn”. The creation of Llyn Celyn by the Liverpool Corporation led to the drowning of the community of Pentre Celyn, and was opposed by peoples and communities across Wales.

Tryweryn sowed the seeds of the FWA (Free Wales Army) and MAC (Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru or Movement for the Defence of Wales), both of which have orchestrated longcampaigns against our colonial overlords. These campaigns remain largely censored outside of Wales – how many people in Scotland know the opening ceremony of the first Severn road crossing was held entirely on the English mainland as the FWA threatened to annihilate the bridge during the ceremony, or that MAC successfully detonated a bomb during the investiture of Charles Windsor?

With the ongoing debate regarding Trident, and the increasing arrogance of the UK Government to the wishes of the peoples of Scotland, both the imperial British Government and the peoples of Scotland take heed of the lessons of Tryweryn, and not let the mistakes made in Wales half a century ago, create another Tryweryn (or Trident) within Scotland.

Rhidian Richard
Swansea

FRIDAY’S feature about the DWP made me think of Pastor Martin Niemöller’s words.

‘First they came for the socialists and I did not speak out.

Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out.

Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out.

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.’

There were various versions. In one he talks of the “sick, the so-called incurables” killed in Action T4.

I turned the page and there was the photo of a Greek man holding an unconscious migrant boy he fished out of the waters. What’s wrong with this world? Is our UK government so comfortable that we can’t help Greece cope with the migrants landing on their shores; that we can’t make room for these people fleeing from dictators?

Catriona Grigg
Embo

A MODEST, two-birds-with-one-stone-proposal for David Cameron: allow a mini-swarm of, say, 150 of the Calais-wretched into the UK on condition that they sit on the Tory benches in the House of Lords and he a) solves his “constitutional crisis” and b) gains a much-needed Brownie Point in respect of the EU migrant crisis. What’s not to like?

Douglas Eadie
Ceres

IN response to Robert Mitchell (Letters, November 2) I agree that road construction and maintenance is funded from general taxation which includes Vehicle Excise Duty. The point I made is motorists pay considerably more in taxation than cyclists, for example. The fact that a cyclist may own a motor vehicle is irrelevant. If you own two cars you pay the relevant taxes twice. 

Cyclists also play up the environmental friendliness of bikes but do not take into account all those who make extra motor vehicle journeys with bikes strapped to the roof so that they can cycle two or three miles along country footpaths. 

With regard to health, surveys have shown that cyclists in towns and cities can inhale up to four times more toxic gases and particulates than a pedestrian.

Mike Underwood
Linlithgow

IT has been interesting to read the range of views regarding Presumed Liability of motorists when involved in accidents with cyclists.

Last week I was pulling out of a garage in the south side of Glasgow. There was poor viability as it was a dark and foggy early morning. There was a tree partially obscuring the road to my right. As it was so dark I took extra care before pulling out and it was lucky I did as at the last possible moment I noticed a cyclist approaching quickly down the road. 

He had no lights or high visibility clothing on, headphones in his ears and was texting with both hands. He was not even looking at the road and sailed past me completely oblivious to my existence.

If I had pulled out and he went into the side of me I would be presumed at fault and liable for any injuries, damages to his bike and my vehicle. Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why on earth this would be fair?

R Bulloch
Glasgow