IF the SNP does its choreographed u-turn on Nato membership, there will be a much more rigorous examination of its policy on Trident ("SNP says nuclear-free Trident could still be in Nato", The Herald April 17).
Its commitment to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland has been taken at face value up until now but that easy trust will no longer be appropriate. To maintain credibility, the SNP will have to produce specific proposals on process and timetable.
The obvious model to be followed is that of New Zealand. In 1987 that country passed an act prohibiting nuclear weapons in its territorial waters and land. Over the past 25 years this has continued to be a popular policy. The United States responded by withdrawing from any defence obligations to New Zealand under the Anzus Treaty. New Zealand does not appear to have been invaded.
This should be the model that Scotland follows but the SNP also needs to state what its post-independence timetable for disarming Trident will be long before the referendum. Vague statements or a lengthy delay will be interpreted as kicking the issue into the long grass. SNP spokesmen should not be allowed to claim opposition to Trident without being asked about process and timetable.
If this sounds distrustful, it is because major policy shifts create distrust and uncertainty and the many people who have given their support on this issue are inevitably more sceptical.
Isobel Lindsay,
9 Knocklea Place, Biggar.
HOW the SNP comes to a decision on whether or not it believes a new Scottish state should be a member of Nato might turn out to be in the eyes of significant numbers of Scots to be as important as the decision itself.
Getting debate out of the way quickly rather than have the public ponder had become an exclusively Unionist tactic, or so I had been told. However it would seem that at least some of the pro-Nato tendency within the SNP (not necessarily a mark of Cain in my book) is cut from the same cloth as the Unionists.
On the other hand, trade unionists like myself are to be afforded the opportunity of nigh on two years to discuss how Scottish statehood might impact upon matters relating to the working lives of the Scottish people; indeed, the STUC, while properly avoiding taking sides, has devoted a whole section on the agenda of the upcoming annual congress in Inverness to referendum-related issues. Indeed, given the referendum timescale, there was an expectation amongst some that these issues might be further developed at future congresses and even discussed within affiliates.
Meanwhile the debate around issues like who kills in our name, when they kill in our name, why they kill in our name and whom they kill in our name is to be closed down, quite literally, in a few weeks.
If that is so (and I accept that it may not be the position of all who support Nato membership) then it would seem that there are some within the SNP who share the view, common amongst political elites the world over, that strategic issues of war and peace are not to be discussed by the people, rather such decisions are to be made by political elites for the people.
Bill Ramsay,
84 Albert Avenue,
Glasgow.
I HAVE no idea if there is to be some change of heart towards membership of Nato within the SNP but I'll oppose any change tooth and nail. The SNP is currently in the strongest position of any Scottish political party on the whole nuclear issue and a change in favour of membership of Nato would be crazy. It would be hypocritical, ruinous to the gains in SNP membership and morally repugnant.
Michael Breslin.
Marchfield.
Toward.
IN Norway, Anders Behring Breivik is on trial for murdering 77 people. He admits the actual killing, but demands the right under European and International law to explain the reason for his action. This is granted.
In Scotland I and several others have been on trial for taking peaceful, non-violent direct action against Trident, the British weapon of mass destruction. We have demanded the right under European and international law to explain the reason for our action. This is denied. We have been found guilty, and gone to jail. Scottish courts, it seems, do not recognise international law.
In July 1996 the International Court of Justice ruled that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law". This was a vindication not only of CND, but also of the anti-nuclear policies of the STUC, the SNP, the Green Party, the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Bishops, and the more than 70% of the population who oppose Trident. The tactics of marginalisation, ridicule and disinformation that the pro-nuclear establishment had for years employed against CND was shown to be the lying propaganda that it always was. Far from being naive dupes of Moscow, subversives, hippies, drop-outs and impractical idealists, we are revealed to be the true upholders of the law and order, the custodians of traditional values.
The court unanimously agreed that any threat or use of nuclear weapons must also be compatible with the requirements of international law. Since the 1948 Genocide Convention forbids the mass murder of civilian populations, and the 1977 Geneva Convention outlaws indiscriminate attacks that do not distinguish between military and non-military targets, the deployment of Trident is clearly criminal and illegal.
It is in the light of this principle that we Trident Ploughshares supporters have conducted our campaign of NVDA (non-violent direct action) against Trident. We will continue this campaign until the Scottish Government and legal establishment find the courage to acknowledge the manifest illegality of Trident, forbid its deployment, and demand its removal.
Brian Quail,
2 Hyndland Avenue, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article