RECENTLY, 40 charges of battery, ill-treatment and actual bodily harm were brought against 17 armed forces instructors after claims made by six 17-year-old recruits weeks after a training exercise at Kirkcudbright. It is claimed they punched and kicked recruits, used their boots to push their heads under water and smeared cow and sheep dung over their faces and into their mouths.

It is incidents like these that prove the armed forces are not safe psychologically or physically for under-18 recruits and that no amount of regulations and oversight can counter that.

Unfortunately, incidents like these are not uncommon in the armed forces. In 2001 and 2002, two 17-year-old recruits died of gunshot wounds at Deepcut barracks. In 2007, a 14-year-old girl drowned after being thrown from a speedboat during an army cadet training exercise.

In 2008, a BBC documentary, Undercover Soldier, exposed the abuse of young recruits at the Army’s biggest training base in Catterick where they were beaten, battered and urinated on.

In 2012, three Army instructors were sacked for bullying and humiliating recruits aged 15 to 17 by whipping them and forcing them to walk across rocks on their knees. In 2013, an 18-year-old recruit was stripped, tied up and had sniper tape applied to his genitalia because he didn’t want to go out drinking.

The Army has said that recruits aged under 18 are twice as likely as adult recruits to be injured during training, because their bodies are physically unprepared for the harsh training.

Abuse and humiliation helps break down the individualism of the soldier to ensure that he, and increasingly she, follows orders. Despite the numerous regulations and oversight that is put in place, due to the nature of the armed forces it is near-impossible to make such an environment safe from deliberate and accidental acts of abuse.

Some abusers are discharged and some charged in court and some may go to prison. But the fact is the damage is done. These incidents were allowed to happen because punishment and toxic masculinity are inherent in armed forces training and culture.

It cannot be made safe and so long as under-18s are allowed to join, we will be sacrificing their physical and mental welfare and violating human rights so that the Ministry of Defence can target “academically disengaged” young men to make up for the shortfall in infantry recruits aged 18 and over.

I’m all for votes at 16 and I’m all for allowing 16-year-olds to decide their own career. But it is not helpful or logical to take an ideological stance on these issues – it must involve evidence-based reasoning. We cannot equate voting – participating in civic processes – to the dangers of the armed forces and cannot therefore liken the armed forces to a typical career path. Even the police recruit at 18. We would not allow a 16-year-old to buy Call of Duty, but we would hand them a loaded rifle and teach them how to carry out a bayonet charge.

Even if we could regulate the armed forces to prevent abuse we would still be teaching young people in their formative years how to kill and be killed; minds are easier to mould at 16 and 17. Rigorous and harsh training will undoubtedly affect them for years to come.

Instead, we should continue to champion human rights, especially those of young people, and make their development and welfare a top priority. We have to make sure the abuse some young people suffered never happens again. Not one more young person should be humiliated, punished, beaten or killed.

This case may finally clear the patriotic fog surrounding the armed forces and hopefully lead the UK to joining the rest of the world in raising its recruitment age to 18.
Rory Steel,
SNP Youth National Vice-Convener

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Skye needs investment in roads not a cap on tourist numbers

IN response to your article (Tourism Chief rules out placing a cap on visitor numbers, The National, August 21), as a resident of Skye and someone who has known the island for more than 50 years, it is certainly true to say that we are now enjoying an increase in tourism the likes of which is unprecedented anywhere in Scotland.

When I was a boy in the 1950s the “typical tourist” was a family returning for two weeks of annual leave in the summer to stay with their elderly parents or close relatives. Today the “typical tourist” is more likely to be an international visitor from anywhere across the world and the season is not two short weeks in the summer but an extended period from early March to the end of October, with a small but still significant number throughout the rest of the year. Skye is Scotland’s second-most popular destination for inbound travellers.

I agree with Scotland’s tourist boss when he says there should be no cap on visitor numbers. What we do need, however, here on Skye is a focus on infrastructure investment. Indeed, it is safe to say that outwith the island’s main trunk roads, the minor and single track roads are much as they were in the 1950s!

It is here that investment is required. That investment is needed now and should be coming from the Scottish Government via the £300 million recently awarded to Highland Council as the Inverness City-Region Investment deal.

So far we, here on the Island, have heard nothing of any proportion of these funds coming our way.
Ian Stewart
Uig, Isle of Skye

I HAVE just read the article in which VisitScotland boss Malcolm Roughead blithely suggests “attempts could be made to spread tourist visits throughout the year”. There are already visitors throughout the year to Skye. Does he suggest we turn people back at the bridge, telling them “it’s kind of busy just now, come in a couple of months”?

Instead of spouting inane rubbish, perhaps Mr Roughead could suggest how Skye can get the infrastructure upgraded to cope with the continual stream of visitors year on year.

What we need are new roads – not necessarily wider, but definitely resurfaced to be more suitable for modern-day transport rather than the original horse and cart – better, supervised car parking facilities, and more toilets! In this modern day and age if there are no mains services available, then surely composting toilets and a bottle of hand sanitiser would not be too much to suggest?

What we need is money. Where from? Highland Council, the Scottish Parliament, the UK Government? Surely it could be possible for at least some of the tax raised (value added, fuel, road etc) in the different areas be returned to those areas for the specific purpose of upgrading and maintaining the infrastructure? Not only would it be of benefit to the visitors, but those who choose to live here would see some improvement in their daily lives too.
Meg Anderson
Earlish, Isle of Skye

WELL done to Andrew McCracken (Letters, The National, August 19) for highlighting the demise of trams in the UK as contributing to increased air pollution in cities by having fleets of diesel buses roaming the streets.

Tramways are without doubt the gold star of urban public transport – 100 per cent green – with low-floor ease of access for young, old and those with mobility issues. Light rail systems (trams) are being, or have been, constructed in cities world-wide – in Morocco, Algeria, Israel, Australia, China – even car-mad USA and, of course, mainland Europe.

Urban planners are realising that something must be done to limit car use in towns and cities. But it goes without saying that trams do not come cheap. Installing new infrastructure is expensive – but is, I believe, worth the price – for, once set-up, the asset is available for now and for future generations.

Many cities in Europe have trams and also trolley buses. Trolley buses are also 100 per cent electric and offer a cheaper alternative to trams – no need to dig up streets for them as only overhead wires are required.

Why can’t we have some visionary thinking on this? Hybrid buses are part of the answer, but only a small part.
Andrew Crombie
Edinburgh