WHATEVER the currency arguments, whatever the devolution and federal sweeties cast before us, there are two issues which are matters beyond such fancies and can only be faced by an independent state and they are the fundamental issues of foreign policy and defence.

Now, the United Kingdom, as a post-imperial great power, has a very high self regard in these fields and considers that its voice is still respected in the councils of the world. Is such a view warranted? Quite clearly, the men and women of our armed forces are among the finest in the world, but are they properly equipped and supplied? Do we expend their expertise and lives in places where their presence is relevant to our defence or do we do it because there is some commercial profit to be had for some oil company or because there is some affront to our ex-imperial dignity? Is the UK allowed to sit at the top tables because it is a great power alongside the United States, Russia, China, an emerging India, the oil-rich Arab states, and the like, or is it because it has Trident submarines based on the Clyde? What is the general international view of the UK?

The concept that the UK is a great power is a myth. A great imperial power we once were, entirely due to our command of the sea, but despite legend we never stood alone.

Among the Few, and as we approach Battle of Britain Day it is worth recalling, there were pilots and ground crew from every corner of what is now the Commonwealth, to say nothing of the exiled pilots from occupied Europe and volunteers from the United States. As far back as the Peninsula and Waterloo we have depended on our friends, whether they were Portuguese cacadores or Hanoverian hussars or, as today, Gurkhas or recruits from Tobago or the Friendly Isles. Great Power? I think not. If anyone were mischievous enough to invade and capture the Falkland Islands today, not a hand would be lifted to help us.

We may or may not have the ground forces to recover the islands but we most certainly do not now have the merchant fleet to carry them there and even if we had we have neither the naval nor air capacity to protect them. There is virtually no surface nor air protection of Scottish waters. We do, of course, have nuclear submarines, three or four of which have horrific weapons of mass destruction which are just the very thing that are keeping all our enemies (al Qaeda, Isis and such like) at bay and allowing us to sit at all the important tables. Of course, another reason we might be allowed at such tables is oil.

So let us rid ourselves of the delusion that we exist in the last two centuries and let us, in Scotland, face the current century with confidence in our ability to carve our own place among other nations on the world stage, and in Europe, with foreign policies appropriate to whom we really are, and with defence policies that will protect our shores and play a truly meaningful role in keeping or restoring peace in this troubled world. And let us rid the Clyde of the most damaging nuclear target on the planet.

KM Campbell,

Bank House, Doune.

ALLAN Steele (Letters, September 9) pens a thoughtful and intelligent letter. However, he errs seriously in claiming "a federal settlement would involve Scotland regaining its entire sovereignty". Full sovereignty means having control over the life and death question of war and peace, and this is the sine qua non of independence.

Anything less, and the monstrous elephant still lurks in our kitchen. We still have the biggest arsenal of nuclear missiles in Europe, imposed upon us against the will of the people, the churches, and all civil society. We are still complicit in the ongoing war crime that is Trident. And we are still liable to be drawn into illegal wars on behalf of Big Oil.

Because it is the least disruptive, and the least demanding of change, devo-max is a superficially attractive policy. It is, in truth, seductive - but fatal, for the reasons I have just outlined.

No. Now's the time and now's the hour. It's stand up and be counted time. We must choose to abandon the British state idol Trident, or remain enslaved to it. The words of the great James Graham, Marquis of Montrose, must be our slogan:

"He either fears his fate too much,

Or his deserts are small,

That dares not put it to the touch

To gain or lose it all".

Brian M Quail,

2 Hyndland Avenue,

Glasgow.

IT is being said that, if Scotland votes Yes, she will have to wait a long time before being admitted to Nato and the EU.

This will present an interesting situation in 2016 when Scotland does become fully independent. She will then become a foreign country, which will not be considered by rUK for building warships.

However, the Trident submarines will still be situated in the Clyde. How will this look? The Nato nuclear defence capability will be situated in a foreign country,which is neither a member of Nato nor the EU. Since the submarines will be within Scotland's territory, Scotland will surely have the right to take over the whole command structure, and have it transported to Edinburgh.

Once that is in place, the rUK no longer is in charge of the nuclear deterrent. Will England therefore be removed from Nato, and also possibly from the United Nations Security Council, with Scotland filling the vacant seats? Will Scotland also be rapidly invited to join the EU? If rUK denies the transfer of the command structure (as it will), Scotland will still be entitled to close the exit from the loch within its own territory.

I think rUK will be so desperate to continue at the top table that it would do almost anything. Practical naval experts have said that the removal of the submarines and their base would be relatively easy and much less costly than figures quoted by the Ministry of Defence. The building of suitable facilities to replace Coulport for storing the nuclear warheads would take much longer.

A suitable site has been found near Falmouth for siting the submarine base. Unfortunately, the local residents strongly oppose the suggested move because it would be in a very lovely area and the presence of nuclear submarine would be bad for tourism. They will therefore do everything to keep it where it is. Does that mean that the current area has no claim to beauty, and tourism doesn't matter?

Dr EL Lloyd,

72 Belgrave Road,

Edinburgh.

WITH growing international instability and a clear threat to world peace, this is clearly not the time for Scotland to break away from the United Kingdom. Only by standing together can we play a part in the fight against extremism, injustice and deprivation. Under the circumstances I would plead with all those who are thinking about voting Yes to think again, before it is too late.

W Findlay,

Flat 64, Bishops' Gate,

20 Kenmure Drive,

Bishopbriggs.