Letters to The National, December 1: Corbyn's decision on free vote is a mistake

Do I think that adding a handful of ageing war planes will make a fundamental difference to the outcome of this conflict? Has this strategy of bombing people (back to the Stone Age?) worked before?

If bombing is Plan A , and, for the sake of argument, does not work, is there a Plan B? If our bombing destroys homes and infrastructure making life intolerable for the inhabitants, will we accept the responsibility of taking in the families made destitute through our actions?

If I vote for the bombing of Syria and another atrocity happens in the UK despite this, will my conscience tell me I was wrong and duly resign?

James Mills
Johnstone

NOW Corbyn has decided on a free vote, it’s likely we will be bombing Syria before Christmas. As almost every military expert agrees, it won’t stop Daesh but it will kill civilians. I hope those desktop warriors in the media and the Commons are prepared for the one certain effect – more refugees.

Hugh Kerr
Edinburgh

LABOUR MPs are key to whether Cameron gets the Commons go-ahead for strikes. Ahead of yesterday’s Shadow Cabinet meeting, Labour said 75 per cent of party members it polled opposed bombing. Their leader opposes bombing. What’s wrong with this party? Corbyn should have enforced some party discipline and employed the three-line whip.

Maggie Price
Edinburgh

DAVID Cameron is counting on support from Labour MPs to secure a vote for military action in Syria. It is still uncertain whether he will get enough Labour votes to compensate for a Conservative rebellion. Labour’s right wing are in a direct alliance with the Tories, but have used the media and the political vacillations and attempts at compromise by Corbyn to push their line. He has allowed the pro-war forces to make all the political running.

Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee

FOLLOWING the SNP’s extraordinary election gains in May, there were warnings that, as well as giving Scotland "a stronger voice" at Westminster, the party may be drawn into Westminster politics. How this might happen has become clearer over the last couple of weeks.

On the face of it, Nicola Sturgeon’s declaration that she was prepared to "listen" following the slaughter of innocent people on an ordinary Friday night out in Paris seemed both understandable and reasonable. It was also, perhaps, politically sensible, since the immediate emotional reaction to such unimaginable and random violence had also contributed to a climate where the rhetoric in support of military action in Syria more readily resonated.

However, the SNP must have expected that Cameron’s "compelling case" for air strikes in Syria would amount to little more than a repetition of the usual assertions. The subsequent debate has been concerned with whether or not RAF bombing can achieve the objectives being set for it, either in its own right, or as part of some vaguely drawn "wider strategic plan".

This has allowed the SNP to hammer out a clear position, based on legality and the need for hard diplomacy, which means its MPs can vote against the British government and those whose interests it represents.

Ultimately this is the only position the SNP could adopt, because it must be clear the main reason Cameron and his cohorts want to get the bombers in the air over Syria with such urgency is the same as always.

This is about maintaining the British state as it is currently constituted, and the interests that depend on it, through ensuring that it maintains its "place in the global order".

This is really why the 2013 House of Commons defeat was "a terrible vote" in George Osborne’s words, and why his party and its supporters want it reversed. The matter of real importance is the vote itself, and being part of the "international coalition of forces" led by the US taking action in Syria right now.

The danger is that, by adopting an initial "listening" position, implying the possibility of being persuaded, the SNP have also implied the possibility of compromising their inherent and necessary opposition to the British state.

This is the same British state that for similar reasons, little more than a year ago, marshalled all the means at its disposal to defeat the campaign for Scottish independence.

Consequently, even allowing for the tactical skill of the First Minister, it is important to keep a careful distance from the ancient pit of imperial power on the Thames. This can surely be done in such cases, as it was with the refugee crisis, through a stated commitment to fundamental principles articulated and argued for in terms of what a clearly Scottish national response would be.

Colin Sutherland
Edinburgh

IN yesterday’s paper there are two Syria-related articles. One by George Kerevan, which was a good account of the background to Daesh and why MPs should vote no in Westminster. The other was a poem in the letters page by George Robertson from Edinburgh. The poem said it all – Not In My Name.

As an ex forces person and a person who reads about military actions I know, as does David Cameron, that bombing on its own will not help. You need feet on the ground linked to a political plan. Anything else is a waste of time and simply prolongs the terrible conditions ordinary people suffer in the Daesh-controlled areas. Cameron, will you stop playing politics and do something positive that may work. Not In My Name!

Robert Anderson
Dunning

IN response to Piers Doughty-Brown (Letters, November 30). There are things in his letter which I agree with, such as that a Scottish MP will not become a Prime Minister again, the cuts to the renewable sector and of course the people being against bombing Syria.

But this rush he and many other groups have towards a second referendum is at present wrong. There is no-one more in favour of a second referendum than I. The problem being that we still need to convince a great many people.

We cannot go back to the electorate without the currency and pension issues – and whatever else the Unionists see as a weakness or chinks in our arguments – not being resolved. I also note that even with the poor returns from the North

Sea oil sector, they will not devolve it to us.

What we need to do is to keep on informing the public of the good things that the Scottish Government is doing, and pointing out the cuts and restraints we are being exposed to, by the UK Government. We cannot afford to lose again, as the Unionists could bring into law that we do not get a third bite at the cherry.

This time we must be sure, so to all the pro-indy groups my message is: slowly, slowly catch a monkey. Give the UK Government enough rope and the rest will take care of itself.

Robert McCaw
Renfrew

THE article about the legal battle to establish the rightful heir to the baronetcy of Stichill (Battling to inherit lauded title of Baronet,

The National, November 30) reminds me that the Act of Settlement makes it a legal requirement that any British monarch be a direct descendant of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, a granddaughter of King James VI.

Ever since DNA fingerprinting has become accepted in criminal legal circles, I have argued that any candidate for the British Crown should be required to prove his or her descent from the Electress Sophia by DNA analysis.

It should be quite straightforward to exhume the lady’s remains and extract a DNA sample for comparison with any future candidates’ samples, and then we could all be certain of the royal parentage (or otherwise) of anyone claiming the throne. Who could possibly object?

Neil Caple
Aboyne

Jeremy Corbyn allows Labour MPs free vote on air strikes ... so RAF may be in Raqqa by Thursday

Right-wing voices add to chorus of opposition to UK bombing of Syria

Hundreds join 'emergency demos' to protest against plans for air strikes

The National View: Corbyn’s refusal to lead will take Britain into war

Michael Gray: Bombing is the most dangerous strategy of all

Cat Boyd: Militarily and politically, this war will be a huge mess