Readers' Letters: UK must resist hysterical demands for increased ‘defence’ spending

Even Russia, despite (or perhaps because of) the war in Ukraine has no capacity or incentive to attack us. Emerging threats to UK security are largely in the digital and cyber-security fields – which can come from anywhere in the world, including traditional allies, not least the USA.

Peace is best achieved and sustained through smart investment in technology and through diplomacy, not by feeding an insatiable military industrial complex.

David Hunter, Edinburgh

Broken promises

John Healey did the honourable thing when he resigned as Secretary of State for Defence. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have let us down yet again with broken promises, this time in terms of increasing defence spending.

It makes a change for a member of the cabinet to do the right thing and he is to be applauded for doing so rather than pretending somehow that a cut isn’t a cut.

I hope whoever takes over as prime minister honours the commitment to increase defence spending, and that Mr Healey is reappointed at that time.

Brian Barbour, Haddington, East Lothian

Defencive mess

Nothing better typifies the serious nature of the mess we’ve ended up in than the warnings sounded by the outgoing John Healy (Defence Secretary) and Al Cairns (Armed Forces Minister). We have singularly failed to adapt and adopt the lessons from war in Ukraine. This is most apparent in the acute mismatch and economic asymmetry between our domestic air defence capability and the potential threat of Russian drone attack: -

• Long-range, one-way attack drones’ cost anything between £15,000 and £40,000 whilst the UK’s ground-based air defence system which fires the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) ), costs hundreds of thousands of pounds on a per shot basis.
• The standard two-shot doctrine to shoot down a drone by the RAF, Navy, or army means it costs over £1 million to shoot down a Russian drone asset worth £20,000.
• Russia produces 30,000 drones annually enabling dense, well-co-ordinated swarming tactics; currently, a swarm attack would deplete the UK’s entire domestic inventory of land-based interceptors within hours.
• Drone innovation and manufacture is flexible and rapid, utilising commercially available components; replacing a CAMM missile can take months or years due to bureaucracy and brittle defence supply chains.

UK strategic infrastructure and our cities are all at risk – and Russian drone strikes on residential areas play a key role in the Kremlin’s military playbook. Reassuring to know, however, we’ll be able to watch drone strikes from the safety of the new zebra crossings in our side-streets, courtesy of the £4.5 billion government initiative just announced. Farcical!

This government has proven itself incapable of fulfilling its primary duty of “defence of the realm”. Time for its leadership to move over or move out. But who would be any better? Sadly, our military crisis is only reflective of the unending crisis that has become so ingrained in our politics. Prayer mats out!

Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns

Big problems

In response to Tim Flinn’s letter (12 June), I obviously don’t know what his preferred electricity generation method is, be that wind or fossil fuel burning, but dare I suggest that in the event of a repeat of the Storegga Slide, the loss of Torness and its ensuing radiation release, whilst definitely significant, would be but one of the many losses of concern including probably most of the population of East and low lying parts of Edinburgh, plus possibly Midlothian as well as most of the infrastructure for power, road and rail in the areas involved.

He also forgets, or fails to mention, that such an event would almost certainly wipe out all the windfarms in the North Sea and Northern Isles basins, plus any remaining oil production facilities, therein possibly leading to far wider losses of power for years to come if we continue to rely mainly on wind power.

Neil Robertson, Liberton, Edinburgh

Power dangers

I admire Tim Flinn for his tenacity. Fukushima was not a nuclear disaster but the result of a Tsunami which killed over 20,000 people. His claim that the same could happen to Scotland is a bit disingenuous – how about the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs ?

In Africa the waste (mainly depleted uranium) from a natural nuclear reactor has remained safely underground in the same place for millions of years. As I recall, a similar disposal method was at first agreed long ago for Cumbria but was then abandoned due to the actions of people of Mr Flinn’s persuasion. Finland sensibly has just completed such a system – and might take our waste?

There are really only three other methods of producing the energy needed for the future, viz, the movement of water or air and solar radiation.

There have been many accidents related to the first, the worst being in China (over 20,000 deaths) but even our titchy scheme had at least 40 in its preparation (but for Aberfeldy hospital I would have been one!). There have been many accidents related to wind power, and in the UK over the past year, as I understand, there have been over 160 rooftop solar panel fires, some of which have been really serious.

A McCormick, Terregles, Dumfries

Tram tricks

I agree with Kevin Lang that the Edinburgh North South tramline proposals risk being a fantasy project (your report, 11 June). The LibDem transport spokesman said there was “no credible funding plan” given the Government has not allocated budget while councils collectively face a £539 million black hole in 2026/27. The public has rejected both the Roseburn and Orchard Brae route proposals for the North South tramline between Granton and the Royal Infirmary, but will Edinburgh Council listen to democracy?

It’s clear that the majority of respondents, who were overwhelmingly Edinburgh residents, have had enough of spending billions on a mode of transport that is no quicker and no greener than electric buses, now being introduced in larger numbers. Budget spend of £3 billion is around 40 times the bill to repair all of Edinburgh’s potholes and given both previous tram projects were well over budget it’s difficult to make a valid economic case. According to the council’s own data the trip from Granton to the ERI would take about an hour, similar to the current number 24 bus. The idea that trams are quicker is a myth borne out by timetable data for the 100 and 17 bus routes to the airport showing that the bus is quicker than the tram from the respective bus termini to the airport.

Both proposed tram routes had serious flaws and the public made that clear in responses to the consultation document. It’s unlikely the council will back down, as The Scotsman's report suggests, with Labour transport convener Stephen Jenkinson calling for a business case to strengthen the council’s ability to get funding. Once again the council looks set to try to impose a transport solution against the will of the people it serves and spends money it doesn’t have.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

Holding us back

If anyone has said “SNP bad”, as Stan Grodynski alleges (Letters, 11 June), it is because the SNP has made an almighty Horlicks of trying to govern Scotland for almost 20 years.

So many indicators – regarding education, health, construction, drug deaths and much more – are evidence of that, yet Mr Grodynski keeps harping on about “broken Britain”, and saying “Liz Truss bad”, when no-one on these pages is saying “Liz Truss good”. This tone-deaf approach to politics helps no-one, especially when Scottish nationalists have no answer to Scotland’s problems beyond “independence now”, which is merely a slogan and not a programme. They cannot tell realistically how they would solve Scotland’s many problems, apart from their false panacea of leaving the UK, which would in reality impoverish Scotland.

Yes, Scotland operates with one hand tied behind its back – the one that the SNP utilises for one thing only: to denigrate everything about the UK and holler for secession. Had the SNP spent on actual government the time it has wasted on banging on about secession, Scotland might be in much better shape.

Unfortunately, the election we have just had – before the Murrell revelations, of course – means Scotland remains stuck with the one thing holding it back: An SNP regime.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Good enough?

Is it too much to hope that one of The Scotsman’s regular correspondents, Stan Grodynski, can do better than simply producing another version of “SNP/Independence” good?

Alan Phillips, North Berwick, East Lothian

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – no letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.