SNP split over Nato membership was 'tragically unnecessary'

The leadership exerted huge pressure on delegates and loyalty prevailed. The delegates placed loyalty to the leadership above fidelity to principle, and will pay dearly for this duplicity.

If ever a victory could be called Pyrrhic, this is it. A senior US Air Force officer has described Nato as "Snow White and the 27 dwarfs". Scotland will now make it 28. We have signed on to support failed US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and wherever next on the hit list. Nato is a relic of the Cold War, designed to respond to the paranoid fears of a Soviet invasion, and has since become a stooge for American interests.

The SNP is against Trident, but happy to be a member of a nuclear alliance. This is not just illogical, it is hypocritical and immoral. The Scottish people will see this for what it is.

As a result of this famous victory, the SNP is now split in two on a vital ethical principle. As I left the hall, one well-respected activist told me he was quitting the party. Others will follow. A few more such victories, and we are well on the road to defeat.

It was all so tragically unnecessary. The SNP could have remained faithful to the principled position it formerly held, and this schism would not have happened. Now it is tied to a two-faced policy on nuclear weapons.

At stake is the vision of what sort of Scotland we want. A second-rate little Britain, posturing on the world stage, desperate to be with the big boys, or an internationally minded country like Ireland or Finland, respected and valued throughout the world for its work in peace and reconciliation. A country where the military is used in peacekeeping work under the authority of the United Nations, not tied to a military alliance fashioned to suit American global interests.

I feel an odd pity for Alex Salmond. This, his moment of triumph, was also his undoing. The SNP has betrayed its radical and progressive policies to accommodate the British militaristic traditions it once abhorred. This tragedy is, in truth, an unpardonable folly.

Brian Quail,

2 Hyndland Avenue, Glasgow.

For the past 50 years I have been a staunch supporter of the SNP, but am now having second thoughts, thanks to their U-turn on Nato.

I think it is very important the people of Scotland understand what Nato is all about. With the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, Nato had outlived its usefulness and should have disappeared. It didn't. Instead it expanded eastwards to the borders of Russia. In 2010 the secretary general of Nato explained that Nato must expand further still. Nato must take responsibility for controlling the entire global energy system – that means pipelines, sea lanes and resources.

In May 2010 there was an international meeting headed by Madeleine Albright, secretary of state under President Bill Clinton. They issued plans called Nato 2020 and said Nato must be prepared to operate far beyond its borders without limit, meaning it must become a world-wide US military intervention force.

So Nato is no longer there to defend us from the Russians. It has become a tool wielded by the US to secure world domination, and that is why our soldiers are in Afghanistan.

Sandy Cheyne,

6 Skateraw Road, Stonehaven.

THE pathetic volte-face by the SNP regarding the Nato alliance is indicative of the squalid political expediency of wee Alex and his politburo of yes men.

If he can disgracefully alter the party manifesto on this central issue, what intelligent Scot would trust him or his disjointed party with the future of our country?

Come 2014, that cements a No for me and the majority of sensible Scots.

J Neil Young,

13 Ewing Walk, Glasgow.

Over the years the UK has spent billions of pounds maintaining a nuclear deterrent. My simple questions is, can anybody tell me who is has deterred?

Ken Mole,

312 Millfiled Hill, Erskine.

Over the past few years I've yawned my way through SNP conferences which have been too safe, too predictable, even verging on dull. There was never going to be anything predictable or dull about the party's debate on whether to change their much-cherished policy on Nato. In the event, the SNP reached down to its soul and lit up Scottish politics with an electrifying debate which crackled with passion, conviction and an almost painful sincerity.

After a rip-roaring two hours, it was not only the party leadership which won the day. The grassroots members of the party had shown the flowering of Scottish politics at its very best.

The triumph for the SNP was that it walked into Perth Concert Hall a united party and walked out of it a united party, its opposition to weapons of mass destruction, and its commitment to Scotland taking its independent, responsible place in the world solidly intact, implacable and irreplaceable.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.

The world as we know it is headed for self-destruction. The main factors affecting our demise are ethnicity, religion, social hierarchy, corrupt leadership at personal, national and governmental levels.

Although we are aware of these factors and may have been affected by some, we are not making much headway in overcoming them. Some governments and dictatorships are, in an effort to secure their future, relying on the development of nuclear weapons to secure their own future and warn their adversaries.

In such a situation the best path for Scotland is to follow the example set by Norway and Denmark by remaining in Nato but refusing to accept the establishment of any nuclear facilities and bases in the country, relying on a few other Nato members for defence. This may well be passing the buck but it does ensure the defence of our country and people in the event of a major international conflict.

Ian FM Saint-Yves,

Dunvegan, School Brae, Whiting Bay, Isle of Arran.

First Minister Alex Salmond's strategy of setting out his plan for an independent Scotland which minimises the changes involved, to reduce the perception of risk among voters, is a clever one. There are risks attached to maintaining these parts of the status quo.

Staying in Nato would likely draw us into more unwinnable wars such as Afghanistan, fought primarily for the benefit of US and British arms and oil companies. An independent Scotland wouldn't need a nuclear deterrent any more than Norway, but Mr Salmond's claim that Scotland could be in Nato without keeping Trident nuclear weapons here and continuing to pay some of the cost of them and their upgrade is doubtful, as the US and UK governments would have motives to block Scottish Nato membership on those terms.

The Ministry of Defence say it would take a decade to build an alternative base that could maintain and refit its nuclear submarines outside Scotland. The companies with UK government contracts to run the existing base in Scotland are all based in England or the US; Lockheed Martin, Babcock and AWE plc. Even more lucrative Trident upgrade contracts have also gone to Lockheed Martin, Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems. There is a revolving door of senior people moving between these companies and positions in the British and American governments and military, giving them influence over defence policies.

Keeping the pound would give us no control of interest rates and leave us unable to print currency. That risks a continuation of interest rates set in London to benefit the south of England – and a reliance on the UK Government to manage the money supply. Staying in the EU might require us to adopt the euro as a currency as a condition of membership, presenting similar problems.

Having our own currency and adopting Norway's membership of the European Economic Area (a free-trade area with the EU without EU membership) could be workable alternatives.

Duncan McFarlane,

Beanshields Farm,

Braidwood, Carluke.