I AM increasingly doubtful that the Russian state is involved in the nerve attack in Salisbury. Craig Murray our former ambassador (sacked by Jack Straw for reporting on torture by Uzbekistan) who has good connections to the Foreign Office has shown in his blog that there is considerable doubt on the origins of the attack (Countries unite with UK over spy attack, The National, March 16).
Why would Putin agree to this when he had the Russian spy in prison for years? Also, he was swapped for Russian spies and the evidence is that both sides respect these swaps.
READ MORE: Letters: Why would we swallow everything the UK is telling us over Russian spy attack?
What is also concerning is the way in which the media have uncritically accepted the British government line, I do remember how we were lied to over weapons of mass destruction to get us into the war with Iraq.
I am also appalled at way Jeremy Corbyn is being treated for rightly asking for proof of Russian involvement before precipitate action is taken.
Finally we in Scotland as the home of our so-called nuclear deterrent would be a primary target in any hot war that comes out of this cranking up of the Cold War.
For all these reasons let’s have more analysis and evidence before cranking up the Cold War yet again.
Hugh Kerr (former MEP)
Edinburgh
I HEARD a Tory on the BBC, justifying the rush to judgement on the Salisbury poisoning incident by saying that if it quacked like a duck then it was a duck.
That seems to be the extent of Mrs May’s case, since she can quote no evidence other than circumstantial. I agree with many of your contributors (Letters, March 15) on this point.
However I must take issue with David McEwan Hill, who seems to object to the SNP going along with the general consensus on Russian involvement. Whatever the truth of the matter, imagine the firestorm of brimstone which Britnat politicians and media would pour out against the “unpatriotic” SNP if they expressed the slightest doubt. All of which would achieve absolutely nothing to promote independence. The SNP are right to choose their fights carefully.
Derek Ball
Bearsden
MIKE Russell has my greatest respect and I do not envy his task in negotiating with the British government on Brexit.
It must be difficult to negotiate with people who haven’t a clue what its terms actually are. Unfortunately this ignorance appears to be contagious and has spread to Richard Leonard and the British Labour Party at Holyrood where he continually raises matters that are reserved.
I’m not an expert but I would have thought that if something is not on the list of reserved powers then it is devolved and that basically is what all parties signed up to.
Surely even the British Conservatives in England and the British Labour Party in Scotland understand this simple concept, or am I being rather generous in regard to their intelligence?
Bryan Auchterlonie
Perthshire
THE direction we are to be dragged in after Brexit is becoming clear.
The British are laying the legal ground to allow American health insurance companies access to the NHS, and American agribusiness access to our markets.
What will happen when American gun manufacturers point out to their president that the regulations in the new 51st state are in clear violation of the Second Amendment, and are obstructing their undoubted right to make profit?
Coinneach
via email
KIRSTEEN Paterson’s article (‘Brexodus’ row after Unilever moves HQ, The National, March 16) makes interesting reading. What it omits to mention is that Unilever’s decision is a victory for the Brexiteers whose objective is to remove Johnny Foreigner from these shores.
I wonder if those who voted Leave are now wondering if that was the right decision. What is certain is that Scotland voted to Remain and every effort should made to stay.
If the people in England are still of the mind to leave the EU then they should be free to do so but do not drag Scotland out against our democratically expressed wishes.
Thomas L Inglis
Fintry
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here