I AGREE with David Torrance's analysis of the SNP's proposals on making Scotland a fairer society but not with his conclusion ("Ideas of fairer society tested when it comes to the crunch", The Herald, January 20).

He is correct in saying that, for all their rhetoric, there are no firm proposals coming from the SNP as to how they would specifically ensure that an independent Scotland would be a fairer Scotland.

I do believe that the electorate of Scotland, in the main, is more committed to social justice than the UK as a whole and I subscribe to the notion that this is a broadly-held view. Election after election reflects that.

However, David Torrance simply highlights the problem with the Yes campaign's debate. It is perceived by the electorate as being SNP-owned to the exclusion of the other political parties involved. Little oxygen has been given to any vision of an independent Scotland other than that of the SNP. A 640-page White (or should that be Anaemic?) Paper is no substitute for the vision and inspiration required to win the argument.

We need the other Yes parties (where have the Socialists been?) and individuals of significant political repute (where has the much-respected Dennis Canavan been lately?) to come forward to offer the Scottish electorate their vision of a socially just, green (where has the Green Party been?) nation.

We also need the non-Unionist element within the Labour Party to stand up and be counted or forever hang their heads in shame. They will not get another chance to shape Scotland in a way that the Scottish electorate has consistently shown it desires but has been constantly thwarted by the Westminster system.

Where I do disagree with David Torrance is in his final paragraph. He states that genuinely radical policies don't win elections or referendum campaigns. I would argue that the very lack of that radicalism is what will cost the Yes campaign the argument.

William Thomson,

25 Lithgow Place,

Denny.

BEFORE its publication, the people of Scotland were promised that the much-trailed White Paper on independence would answer all of our questions. As James Finlay points out (Letters, January 20), it has done no such thing.

Indeed, as well as the absurdities and evasions pointed out by Mr Finlay, the White Paper has added to our confusion, for example by asserting that an independent Scotland will still be able to discriminate against students from the remaining UK by charging them university tuition fees. This would be illegal under EU law according to every reputable legal authority.

It is, however, amusing that in the absence of any impact by the White Paper, we are now seeing more and more ridiculous proposals coming forward from the Yes camp.

Over the weekend these ranged from the adoption of the Egyptian goddess Scota as a new symbol of nationhood, to a spurious claim for damages relating to UK public expenditure in the 1980s, to the SNP's commitment that future Scottish forces should serve under the Hippocratic motto "Do No Harm". (This last showing that the Scottish Government cannot tell the difference between the work of a doctor and that of a soldier; it is also difficult to see how it would inspire people to take up arms in the same way as "Who Dares Wins" or even "Per ardua ad astra".)

These preposterous suggestions can only be seen as evidence of the failure of the White Paper, as supporters of independence clutch at the silliest straws in their growing desperation. We can expect to be similarly entertained as more such foolishness emerges before September, now that the SNP's best shot has proven to be a fiasco, and an expensive one for taxpayers at that.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road,

Glasgow.

JAMES Finlay should engage with reality more. "We cannot doubt that Faslane has served its purpose," he claims. But what exactly was its purpose during the period of collective lunacy know as the Cold War? Trident was designed to enable the UK single-handedly to "flatten Moscow" as Nick Clegg reminded Parliament recently. That is its primary purpose.

Trident is a first-strike system. Examining the weapon's technical capabilities proves this. Its combin­ation of extreme accuracy and high kill-power is critical to under­standing Trident. This might seem puzzling at first. After all, if you are going to pulverise Moscow, what does it matter whether you target the Cathedral of the Assumption in the Kremlin, or a hospital a few hundred yards away?

But Moscow is unique. It is the only city in the world defended by an anti-missile missile system, called Galosh. This is a series of missiles buried deep underground in silos round the city. High accuracy and kill-power is essential to excavate and destroy these. It is pointless targeting empty holes in the ground; therefore Trident is designed for a first strike, aggressive use.

This was explained by Robert Aldridge, head of the design team at Lockheed Martin that makes Trident, which is why he quit his job and now campaigns for nuclear disarmament.

In truth, the eyes of the world are on Scotland. We have a chance to get rid of Trident, and build a nuclear-free UK. We can support the universal desire for an international treaty banning all nuclear weapons - or we can go on posturing as a global superpower, claiming exemption from all the rules of war, which already outlaw weapons of mass destruction.

How shameful it would be if all we could offer the rest of humanity is more of the same.

Brian Quail,

2 Hyndland Avenue, Glasgow.

WE know now that following the decision of Rosemary Agnew, Scotland's Information Commis­sioner, we the referendum electorate are not to know the legal advice the SNP Government obtained on an independent Scotland's path to membership of the EU, rejection of the Euro and the Schengen agreement, retention of the UK's budget rebate "and other EU-related issues" ("SNP nearly in court for slow EU response", The Herald, January 20).

The elephant in this particular room is why on earth would the SNP wish to keep this advice to themselves unless it was in some way adverse to their supremely optimistic standpoint that achieving their aims in these regards will be seamless. If the SNP will not trust the electorate, why should they expect the electorate to trust them ?

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon's View,

Dunlop.

I THOUGHT that Richard Mowbray (Letters, January 17) was doing quite well with his demolition of the European Union until he came to his solution. Voting for the loopy right (in this case Ukip) is rarely a sensible solution to anyone's problems. In fact, it makes the European Union look really rather attractive.

The problem with the EU is that it obviously needs democratic reform.

Unfortunately, a semi-detached and not terribly democratic UK is clearly not the country to lead the way. It would, funnily enough, be an obvious role in the EU for an independent Scotland.

Dr James Nelson,

17 Watermill Avenue,

Lenzie.