Today’s correspondents focus on David Cameron’s comments on the second world war, looming defence cuts, the plans for Dundee waterfront, and the wearing of the burkha.
Damning indictment on our teaching of history Sir,-David Cameron’s error in commenting that the UK was a “junior partner” of the US in the war against Germany in 1940 is a damning indictment on the teaching of history in our schools.
The US did not declare war on Germany until December 11, 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on the US fleet at Pearl Harbour and therefore his comments on us being the “junior partner” were totally misguided and thoroughly inappropriate.
Let us hope this serves as a wake-up call on the teaching of history in our schools, which should form a vital part of the curriculum.
Alex Orr.Leamington Terrace,Edinburgh.
Just used by Tories
Sir,-As the defence review looms on the horizon I am reminded by the last one, conducted by the Labour Party when Gordon Brown was seeking ways to save money. He ordered a defence review and Geoff Hoon stood up in parliament and announced the desecration of our Scottish regiments. We organised a huge campaign saying this decision was wrong and we still continue to do so.
We read daily now a whole lot of spin on where the cuts will take place and that they will cut deep again to save money. The Conservatives were quick to use we veterans to their advantage spreading the word that they were dismayed at Labour’s decision and would back us to the hilt to restore our Scottish regiments.
The reports are now saying that regiments will go, naming them as The Black Watch, the Highlanders and the Argylls, famous names that are known worldwide. To have them disappear would be sacrilege.
If we can just remind the Tories, before the carving knife is taken up, of the many times they called on us pre-election for photo shoots and to make their party more popular and electable.
We had pledges from the whole of the Tory party at Holyrood, I was photographed with Maggie Thatcher, Howard Johnson and on two occasions with Liam Fox when they stood firm and stated that they would restore our Scottish regiments.
If they do more damage to our regimental system at a time when we need boots on the ground it will be a complete about face.
They used us when they needed us to get into power, and now they will stab us in the back if they attack our regiments again. It will be a case of another campaign and a warning to “never trust or speak to a politician again”.
Major Bob Ritchie.17 Bloom Court,Livingston.
Better safe than sorry
Sir,-Just how stupid do Forth Ports think Dundee folk are? The excellent article in Monday’s edition supports what I have been stating for some time wind turbines are not the answer to our renewable energy strategy.
With only a 17% productive rate which is even lower than the very low 30% originally bandied about, one questions whether the pressure for them by Scottish Government and Forth Ports is political self-interest or brown envelope induced.
As for the biomass proposal the argument against that still stands, the so-called expert testimony that it would not be detrimental is an opinion only. Who paid for that opinion, Forth Ports?
I’ve no objections to small local biomass operations, but there are strong arguments that large plants like this should not be built within a six-kilometre radius of populated areas and councillors and MSPs should remember that, where Dundee’s population is concerned, better safe than sorry.
J. Cruickshank.Meadowview Drive,Inchture.
A win-win situation
Sir,-The development of a biomass consumption plant at Dundee, and other sites elsewhere, is very good news for a Green Scotland, and for the generation of non-polluting electricity it is also good news for the Scottish forest industry.
In its growth, a tree consumes CO2 throughout its life, Scotland has admirable territory and climate for the tree crop. Unfortunately it is expensive to establish a forest, and it takes considerable time for a timber tree to reach commercial viability.
This is why the establishment of a market for the biomass contained in the immature tree is so important. At present, the removal of “thinnings” of immature trees to allow the final crop to develop is a costly exercise, and to be enabled to do so commercially would create a win-win situation for Scotland.
James Bruce.Dron House,Balmanno,Perth.
Rejecting our society
Sir,-I was astonished to read that, according to government sources, banning face-covering by wearing the burkha, in public, would be “un-British”. I take it, therefore, that the wearing of a burkha itself is not deemed to be “un-British”?
Nowhere can I find in the Koran a prescribed dress code, so any reference to “Muslim” dress stems from tradition and not from theological imperative.
Muslim morality is strict, however, the great majority of our Muslim fellow citizens conform to the culture within which they have chosen to live while still following their own religion, and they seem able to preserve modesty, as required, without face-veiling.
For example, the wearing of the habib headscarf says no more than, “I am a Muslim” in the same way as the wearing of a cross should announce that the wearer is a Christian.
But that’s not what wearing the burkha, or “Muslim dress” by men says to me. That plainly tells me, “I am not of your culture. I reject your society, I am not British and I do not wish to be”. Such a dress style tacitly condemns the great majority of British Muslims who do indeed wish to be British. I cannot see why it would be “un-British” to ban the wearing of what amounts to disguise.
James Thomson.14 Vardon Drive,Glenrothes.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL.