Arms dealers lobbying our MPs should be ringing alarm bells

The National

15-07-2025

Mr Kane typifies the careerist apparatchiks who are prevalent in the major political UK parties nowadays, politicians for whom labels or ethics are inconsequential providing that their profile, pockets or ambitions are enhanced by membership of groups like the APPG irrespective of their righteousness or lack of virtue.
READ MORE: Probe launched after MPs accept cash from Israeli arms firm
It appears that at least 37 arms firms have allegedly sponsored this parliamentary group, some of which have been directly involved in supplying parts to F-35 fighter jets and targeting systems to the Israeli government to bomb the people of Gaza. Any of these companies can allegedly gain access to networking with group members of the APPG for just £1499, a paltry sum which allows multinational arms dealers to lobby individual MPs and this cross-party group itself, a set of particularly sinister circumstances that should ring alarm bells in any democratic framework.
The fact that the UK Government continues to supply technology and weapons parts to the genocidal government of Israel at a time when Netanyahu's administration is plainly guilty of serious war crimes is both amoral and utterly heartless. To learn that my own MP is part of a group that acts as enablers to arms companies is disturbing enough, but when we consider the part these companies continue to play in the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza, his participation is distressing and, quite frankly, deplorable.
Not in my name, Mr Kane, not now, not ever.
Owen Kelly
Stirling
REGARDING the seriously bloated piece from Mark Brown and his intention to join the new British radical left party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, of more concern to me is that The National deemed it worthy of a page and a half (Why I plan to join Scotland's new radical left party, Jul 11).
Firstly, to Mr Brown's lengthy list of supporters, I was left slightly disappointed that the whole thing didn't end with a rousing rendition of Old Uncle Tom Cobley and All. Unfortunately the list was slightly top-heavy with trade union officials and 'activists', and over the last few years I have concluded most of these are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
READ MORE: Explosive new poll puts Corbyn-Sultana party level with Labour
Mr Brown of course gave a few obligatory kicks in the passing to the SNP, which was formed in 1934 and has, he claimed, 'never so much as broken a window in the cause of independence'. How the hell does he know?
I would point out the wee matter of the Stone of Destiny, removed from Westminster Abbey by a group of young nationalists, supported by the SNP, and I believe some funding from the top of the party. So beat that, is all I can say to Mr Brown, the next time he contemplates going out to break a window in the cause of socialism.
I will close by recalling Glasgow's annual Celtic Connections extravaganza, which was reviewed in the Sunday National on February 2 by Mr Brown. I refer to him taking exception to John Swinney being invited by the organisers to recite a poem by the Bard at the Burns Supper event in the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum.
READ MORE: Polling on Jeremy Corbyn party is uncertain. Labour's worries are not
According to Mr Brown, the leader of Scotland's largest party, and also First Minister, was a curious and 'divisive' choice. However, for several years now I have noted that 'divisive' is a popular derogatory term much loved by generally aged Tory politicians to describe the SNP.
That said, it may come as a surprise to some interested in this new radical party that one of their number, Mark Brown, supports all the radical aims outlined in his columnar manifesto of July 11, but with one proviso, ie all this seismic societal revolution and upheaval must be carried out with no 'divisive' behaviour, as Mark is uneasy about divisiveness. Spooks the markets, you see.
Malcolm Cordell
Broughty Ferry
CRAIG Dalzell is broadly right (Could Scotland lead on the rich paying more tax?, Jul 14). To the extent that individual wealth is unearned (mainly through profit from public infrastructure investments), it should no longer be trousered by 'rent-seekers' but fully recovered, with a corresponding cut in taxes on working people.
Yet substantial wealth can also result from work and prudent, non-exploitative investment of savings. The state should respect our natural right to the full product of our labour, as enshrined in Old Labour's Clause 4 (but tellingly removed by Blair and Broon).
George Morton
Rosyth