SOMEONE defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time. In which case the UK Government must be king of the asylum.

The MoD has been castigated for its failure to dispose of its obsolete nuclear submarines. None of the 20 boats decommissioned since 1980 at present stored at Rosyth and Devonport have been disposed of. They lie tied-up slowly rotting away.

The MoD has admitted that it has no developed plan for the disposal of the presently operating Vanguard (Trident) submarines, nor their Astute class hunter-killer support boats. A spokesman said: “The disposal of nuclear submarines is a complex and challenging undertaking”. It certainly is.

Plutonium-239 is used in the Trident nuclear warhead. Each warhead has 4kg of plutonium making the total required around 1.6 tonnes. This is one of the most lethal substances in existence, and has a half-life of more than 24,000 years – an insane legacy to bequeath to our grandchildren. If the ancient Egyptians had had nuclear power stations, we would still be guarding their waste. Future generations – if any there be – will curse us for our stupidity.

And what is the response from our government? Regrets, apologies, shame? Nup. They press madly on regardless with their lunatic schemes. The Vanguard submarines will be replaced by Dreadnought class boats, which will carry the new, modernised and improved version of Trident. This will give us even more of the same insoluble problems. Unless of course we actually use them for the only purpose they were designed for. In which case, it’s curtains for everybody and everything and there will be no one left to lament our folly.

The profound irrationality of this self-imposed intractable problem is a reflection of the innate insanity of having global destruction as a defence policy.

Brian Quail
Glasgow

AS the Westminster circus juggles the “bollocks of Brexit”, the MOD announced it is costing the UK £30 million per year to keep seven-year-old Polaris nuclear-powered submarines in cold storage and this has been the case for nearly 20 years! And to dispose of all nuclear submarines the cost would be £7.5bn!!

Remember these weapons of mass destruction, which will never be used without permission from the USA, are a mere 20 minutes from Scotland’s most populated area, Glasgow.

This is absolute lunacy in this age of right-wing Tory austerity. The people of Scotland can no longer host these weapons or be part of this disintegrating United Kingdom.

Grant Frazer
Newtonmore

IN Wednesday’s National David McEwan Hill points out that whatever view we might hold on the important subject of currency it will be to no avail if we do not win political independence.

I agree with him on that, I also agree on his commitment to a Scottish Central Bank and a full-reserve Scottish currency.

Indeed, if all of us who accepted that Scotland should have its own central bank and its own currency after political independence worked together, as a united group to win political independence, then this would be the sensible way forward.

The details of the type of currency and the reformed banking system we will need can’t be dealt with until we have political independence and can establish the required infrastructure, so it is pointless and can only assist our Unionist opponents if we spend too much time debating that now.

Scots have been prominent in world history for their knowledge of economic and monetary theory, and indeed in practical work in establishing such systems and institutions across the globe, so I think we can be assured we could manage to set up a system for our own wee country.

Was it not a Scot who set up the Bank of England, and indeed it was the Scottish banking system which rescued the British financial system in 1825 when the English banking system collapsed.

The current banking system in the UK is in deep trouble – you do not need to take my word for that, Mervyn King, the former Governor of the BoE, has been saying this as well – so the new Scotland will need a new reformed banking system and this can best be left in the competent hands of Scots.

I think many of us would have a good idea how to address this problem, when the time comes.

Andy Anderson
Saltcoats

I WAS fascinated by Alan Stewart’s interesting letter about Esperanto (Letters, April 3) and am attracted by the idea of a universal language. It’s a lovely idea.

My boast – that I speak Esperanto like a native, and hope to go there one day – may not be entirely truthful, but it is indicative of a major problem with Esperanto, namely that it is not rooted in the language, culture and history of any particular nation.

That is its strength – and its weakness, alas.

James Stevenson
Auchterarder