Sir, Although I disagree with the SNP on many things, I think they are right on Trident.
Your correspondent, Donald Lewis (April 14) gives no reason to believe that if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons the Russian incursions would not have occurred.
The idea that Ukraine would “nuke” Russia is ludicrous. The vast majority of countries without nuclear weapons have not been attacked.
Just why Britain might be, and by whom, no-one has explained. What do we have that makes us a special target?
None of the real risks Britain faces can be avoided by having Trident.
It did not stop 9/11 and cyber attacks on the US and its companies.
Nor has it any use in the fight against ISIS and their like.
I doubt any prime minister would order the massacre of many thousands of innocent people. They would contravene international law, making themselves liable to prosecution as war criminals.
The biggest risks facing humanity come from natural forces.
Climate change will lead to many more heat waves, floods and water shortages.
Large volcanoes in Iceland are likely to have major eruptions in the coming decades with calamitous effects on the atmosphere and weather, far worse than those in 2010.
Experts say there will not be enough military personnel to deal with the most probable dangers.
The funds spent on weapons of mass destruction would be better used to remedy this.
John Munro. 68 Buccleuch Street, Glasgow.
Trident vital for long-termnational safety
Sir, I have no doubt that the well-respected charity Mary’s Meals and other worthwhile organisations could make good use ofall the tax-payers’ money spent on maintaining ourTrident nuclear submarines, as Andrew Lothian pointed out (April 15).
Of course, children should be well fed and well educated but what is the point of that if those same children cannot be protected from potential enemies who might one day attempt to destroy them and their country?
Those submarines have not been designed and built by the United Kingdom Government for our amusement but to protect all of us from potential harm.
It is to be hoped that harm will never arrive on our shores but, if it did, thenperhaps Mary’s Meals and the children once served by that institution might not live to gain the long-term benefit.
Guns or butter? I know which I’d rather live without.
Archibald Lawrie. 5 Church Wynd, Kingskettle.
Selfishness of Baby Boomers
Sir, When will my Baby Boomer generation recognise that succeeding generations may see things differently from us and allow them to make their decisions?
All of the democratic processes applied to the plans to build the new Madras College at Pipeland, St Andrews, have endorsed that decision and by significant majorities of the population.
However, as anyone who has met and, or, heard the objectors, as witnessed at the predetermination hearing for example, will note that, they are, generally like me, from a generation who have either retired or are about to retire.
Now those baby boomers with nothing to worry about but their legacy (as they see it) are determined to thwart the wishes and indeed the needs of the next generations.
Parents on the other hand, with the stresses and strains of work and bringing up families are treated with contempt.
St Andrews is a wonderful place for all of us.
It will not look or be very different after the new Madras is built at Pipeland but it will have a facility capable of bringing out the best in our children and young people.
It is clear from Lord Doherty’s judgment that the school can only and will only be built at Pipeland.
Delaying that inevitable outcome further, is a gross misuse of the benefits we have gained as Baby Boomers.
That should not be our legacy.
Colin Brown. 4 East Grange, St Andrews.
No confidence in police chief
Sir, My reaction to reading your recent articles about consensual stop and search by Police Scotland is that this procedure is pure nonsense.
Consensual implies that the person being searched has agreed to it.
I would guess these searches have been carried out under some form of duress or where the individual is not aware he/she is entitled to refuse.
This is just plain old spin doctoring.
Where is the evidence of these so-called consensual searches?
Are the details recorded in police officers’ notebooks, countersigned by the suspects?
Have those persons searched been revisited and asked if they agreed to be so treated or under what circumstances they agreed to it?
It is not a case that the public may lose confidence in the police, that horse has long since bolted. Police Scotland cannot be relied on.
Not even the rank and file within the organisation have confidence in this new police regime.
A G Walker. Puddledub Cottage, Guthrie.