May’s promises to heal a divided country were broken over Trident

Send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

HMS Vigilant, one of Britain’s four Trident nuclear missile-armed submarines, at its Faslane base in Scotland (Getty)

What happened to Theresa May's promises to heal a divided country? There are arguments both for and against having a nuclear deterrent, but to accuse people who disagree with renewing Trident of being “the first to defend our country's enemies” is an outrageous slur and very divisive.

Sadly, this is the level of political debate in this country now: simplistic, evidence-free name calling. It looks like May believes in the “nasty party” after all.

David P Stansfield
London E14

At church this Sunday prayers were offered to thank God that we had a church-going daughter of the Manse, presumably Christian, as Prime Minister of this country. It was therefore chilling, a day or two later, to hear Theresa May say with complete confidence she would have no hesitation in unleashing weapons of mass destruction in retaliation. If Christianity is really open to that kind of interpretation, I think we should be told.

Jennifer Bell
Tiverton, Devon

Trident “reinforces the warning to other nuclear powers that if they use their weapons, they risk obliteration,” says the Daily Mail. In the event that an enemy uses their nuclear weapons, our “deterrent”, by definition, has failed.

Brendan O’Brien
London N21

The new Trident submarines are not expected to be operational until the mid-2030s, by which time it is estimated that the cost will have risen to approximately £200bn. Another debt for the future generation.

Sarah Pegg
Seaford, East Sussex

It seems strange that our democracy allows our elected MPs to decide on Trident, a major affair of state for years to come, but those same MPs are to be overlooked on the decision on our membership of the European Union – a major affair of state for many years to come.

Edward Hutson
Chichester

The Commons Trident debate exemplified the truism of the human period in the life of our planet: that, when all else is said and done, and despite the moments of compassion and glitter, there is no hope.

David Eagar
Manningtree, Essex

There will be no Brexit after all

As a 16-year-old unable to vote in the EU referendum, I believe Theresa May was right to say that she would consult Scotland before triggering Article 50. May’s sneaky tactics here will help to slow down Sturgeon’s aims in widening the fault lines that currently run right through the UK.

The SNP thrives when it seems as though Westminster is controlling all parts of the union. Now that May has suggested that the UK will come out of the EU in unity, Sturgeon has little room for manoeuvre. By calling a second referendum, she would be ignoring the voices of the 38 per cent of Scottish voters who supported Leave. If she was to try to block Brexit for the whole of the UK, England and Wales would be in uproar.

The EU has already made it clear that if the UK leaves, Scotland leaves too. And if Sturgeon does give May the all clear to leave (which she has to), then May can claim that Scotland was consulted and included in the Brexit negotiations, and therefore was not taken out of the EU against its own will.

There will be no second referendum on Scottish independence and the union will remain intact. Theresa May wins.

Lewis Chinchen
Sheffield

Has anyone yet speculated whether an electorate that votes to name an Antarctic research ship “Boaty McBoatface” is qualified to decide on important constitutional questions?

Richard Parry
Appleby

Selling the family silver

Yet another important English company is about to be sold abroad, with Japan’s SoftBank taking over Arm, the Cambridge-based chip designer. It may show that some foreigners post-Brexit are still prepared to invest in the UK, but it is another reason to worry about how far Britain can retain scientific entrepreneurial skills as we leave the EU.

Of course, Arm directors and staff and many other British shareholders will do very nicely; even better if the Americans come in with a higher bid. But it could be Autonomy all over again. Is there anything left of Autonomy in Cambridge after the HP takeover? Do we really want another important British company (and practically the only remaining British world player in IT) to be sold abroad?

Apparently without new legislation, the Government could not stop the sale to SoftBank anyway, and the Japanese company is saying it intends to double Arm’s staff in Cambridge. But we have seen so many broken promises before in these takeovers by foreign multinationals.

I would have thought a much better solution would have been to offer SoftBank a minority stake in return for investment in major expansion. That way, it would remain a UK company with the same entrepreneurial driving force, and everyone would gain: the company’s staff, the shareholders, SoftBank, Britain’s stake in important IT developments, and the UK taxman.

Gavin Turner
Gunton

The arguments for or against Trident seem to be somewhat unnecessary now that the Government has sold off the family silver in the shape of Arm. What other country would want to attack a small island with few assets and less and less influence in world affairs?

Tim Harris
Bridgnorth

The problem with antidepressants

Being fully informed and thus having the opportunity to give informed consent is a fundamental issue and a basic right when considering taking any kind of prescribed drug.

That said, it is questionable whether those being prescribed antidepressants are being fully informed. Recently published figures revealed that antidepressant prescribing had doubled in the past decade. But how many of those consumers were informed about the effects of antidepressants?

Considering the long list of effects associated with this class of drugs, it would appear that those taking the drugs are not making an informed choice. They may be agreeing to take the drugs, but they are making uninformed decisions. If they knew all of the effects of antidepressants, it is unlikely they would take them.

Worldwide, there have been 99 drug regulatory agency warnings regarding antidepressants. Of those warnings, 35 concerned suicide, suicide risk, and suicide attempts. There have also been 119 studies in 12 countries on antidepressant induced side effects. Of those studies, 23 of them concerned antidepressants causing suicide, suicide risks and suicide attempts. How many of the consumers know this?

While we might hope for an altruistic purpose in the manufacture of these drugs, there is an inescapable factor that gives pharmaceutical companies an extra production impetus. That factor is profit. Since 2000, £4.7bn was spent on antidepressants in England alone. This represents commercial success for the shareholders, but a nightmare for those who have to pick up the pieces and exercise damage control when things go wrong.

Psychiatrists and drug companies commonly say benefits outweigh the risks. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that when it comes to psychiatric drugs, profits outweigh the risks.

A person must be allowed to make a fully informed choice about the consequences of taking antidepressants. If that happened, it could have a knock-on effect and save the NHS billions in unnecessary spending.

Brian Daniels
National spokesperson
Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Davis Cup coverage

With your coverage of cricket, golf, cycling and four pages of football, did you not think Britain's quarter final win against Serbia in the Davis Cup worthy of reporting? A very impressive victory, considering it was done without Andy Murray – oh wait, perhaps that’s why you didn't report it.

Martin Heaton
Gatley