Sir, Your report that Kirkcaldy, uniquely, would have “perished” in the event of a nuclear attack during the Cold War cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. The headline and interpretation makes it seem as if Kirkcaldy was excluded from protection plans in the UK.
While the report accurately quoted a paragraph, it totally misunderstands its import. The statement said: “It will be seen that in all the county boroughs, boroughs (except Kirkcaldy) and urban districts there would be little difficulty in accommodating the people whose dwellings had a minimal PF of 10 or less in communal refuges with a PF of 150 or more.”
This means that most people, in common with the whole country, lived in housing that had a minimal PF. The plan was that where housing fell below that factor, people would be moved to a communal refuges (given sufficient warning of the attack).
The situation in Kirkcaldy was, due to the propensity of prefabricated housing, that a high number of people would need to take refuge in communal facilities, of which there were insufficient to hold them all. Dundee, for example, also had prefabricated housing but it had sufficient communal accommodation (halls etc) with a PF factor of 150 or more, enough to hold all those affected.
It is wrong to make out that Kirkcaldy was excluded from plans and more so to imply that Kirkcaldy as a whole would perish. The horror of sustaining a nuclear attack would have been as bad for anyone anywhere in the country. Given time, that portion of people who could not be sheltered in Kirkcaldy, could have been taken elsewhere.
Your view that the report “identifies the Fife Community as the only place in the land whose citizens could not be given proper protection” is a gross exaggeration.
Mike Scott-Hayward. Sawmill House, Kemback Bridge, Fife.
Effectiveness of good deterrent
Sir, As someone who was born and grew up in Kirkcaldy in the 1950s and 1960s, I’m grateful that its ability to withstand (or not) a nuclear strike was never put to the test. Why not, I wonder?
At that time, it was widely assumed that a Third World War would come sooner or later. That it didn’t is a testament to the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent, which implied retaliatory devastation on a scale that even those used to the destruction of the Second World War weren’t prepared to countenance.
It may be that such deterrent is no longer required. Or not. Replacing the Trident subs is a bit like buying fire insurance for one’s home.
Wise people do that and are pleased if they find they’ve “wasted” money by never needing to make a claim.
Dave Dempsey. 7 Carlingnose Park, North Queensferry.
Stop bashing land managers
Sir, It’s a shame that Jim Crumley feels the constant need to sour his otherwise interesting articles by making poisonous comments about land managers.
The modern world does not stop at the city boundaries. Scotland has been a managed landscape for hundreds of years, with the application of science and technology increasingly important. The government encourages and demands land managers to be ever more efficient farmers, produce ever more timber, and diversify their businesses, while also carrying out more conservation work and managing access for increasing numbers of the general public.
It is inevitable that noteveryone can be satisfied.
Responsibility for the security of food supply for seven billion mouths, plus an ever-growing timber demand for biomass and construction, cannot be left to nature alone. If it were, we would soon find ourselves with serious food and timber shortages, and food would become unaffordable for most.
Finally, bashing land managers may make for good box office, but it does little to educate people about the realities of practical land management.
Thomas Fothringham. Murthly & Strathbraan Estates, Murthly, Perth.
Moratorium danger?
Sir, The Scottish Government bent over backwards to keep Ineos at Grangemouth in 2013 with First Minister Alex Salmond burning the midnight oil with managers and union executives.
These days have gone and Holyrood’s moratorium on fracking should just about finish off any hope of retaining an industrial complex set up to use unconventional gas and oil.
Dr John Cameron. 10 Howard Place, St Andrews.
Disappointment re: Labour votes
Sir, In the last couple of weeks there have been vitally important House of Commons votes on austerity cuts and renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons programme.
To my disappointment, Labour supported the Tories’ proposal for a further £30 billion of austerity cuts.
For the Trident vote, very few Labour MPs bothered to turn up clearly a case of putting “bombs before bairns”!
As far as I can ascertain, my MP, Jim McGovern, Dundee West, was absent from both votes. As a constituent, I think I am entitled to know why.
So, on January 22, I emailed him to ask for his reasons. At the time of writing this, a full week later, I had not had the courtesy of a response.
Alan Woodcock. 23 Osborne Place, Dundee.