THE warm assurances during the referendum campaign that Scotland was a valued equal member of the UK family of nations now seem like a distant memory.

The recent attitude of many MPs of all three Unionist parties towards the large SNP group in Westminster has so far been somewhat less than welcoming, even to the juvenile antics and petty squabbling by Labour over the front bench seats which by tradition have always been occupied by the third largest party, usually the Liberal Democrats.

More importantly, the implication that members of a party that is opposed to Trident are therefore a security risk and cannot be trusted to serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee, is a disgraceful slur ("Tory fears over allowing SNP role in UK security", Herald, May22), and should be immediately refuted by the Prime Minister. While Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom its elected representatives are entitled to an equal say with all other MPs on the security of that kingdom.

In any case, in these times of threatened further austerity and cuts to welfare benefits, it is an absurdity that massive sums of public money should be committed to replacing a horrendous weapons system capable of killing millions of innocent civilians and designed for an international threat which ended 25 years ago.

More to the point, why would any belligerent nation think it necessary to launch a nuclear attack on Britain? We are still the world power we once were, no matter the delusions of our leaders, and have little authority to intervene in the internal problems or rivalry of other national states. A much greater threat to the UK today is the growth of international terrorism, itself the direct result of our regular military intervention in the affairs of other nations. Protection against such terrorists at home is where our defence and security resources now need to be concentrated, rather than on continuing to posture as a benevolent world power while waving nuclear weapons at our perceived enemies.

Perhaps our 56 SNP MPs might bring some much-needed common sense and balance to the defence debate at Westminster, rather than being treated as if they were a security risk and part of the problem.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

WE are often told that the important work at Westminster takes place in committee and that the Punch and Judy Show in the debating chamber is just PR froth. If that is the case then a committee constituted of like-minded souls is the antithesis of democracy.

The suggestion that the SNP should be excluded from the Intelligence and Security Committee

(ISC) is an affront and insult on several levels. The inference that some MPs cannot be trusted with sensitive information covered by the Official Secrets Act and should be excluded from certain areas of scrutiny strikes at the core of parliamentary democracy. In light of the current Executive's reported intentions to essentially criminalise dissemination of information that challenges the official version of "fact" this confirms a dangerous mindset at the heart of governance.

The SNP and any other Scot who is capable of rational thought have every reason to be concerned about nuclear weapons since in the event of them being used, whether as a "first strike" or retaliatory fashion, Scotland will be wiped of tfhe map. Those who are not incinerated will soon wish they had been vaporised

I find it hard to believe that the group who will pocket most of the £100 billion plus we will pour down the drain for the next generation of nuclear white elephants have not factored their own personal survival into the equation in the event that some moron presses the wrong button.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3 131 Shuna Street, Glasgow.

GORDON Taylor (Letters, May 22) takes issue with my earlier letter (May 20) in which I said that the political space reserved for a modern, progressive, slightly-left-of-centre party is held in Scotland by the SNP.

Much of what he writes I agree with. In a letter last November, I commented that the SNP have talked slightly left and governed slightly right. However, they have certainly managed to give the impression that they're a modern and progressive party. They've been helped in that by their new leader, who is young and personable - and a woman. Mr Taylor may think none of that matters, but impressions do count.

Mr Taylor states that you only know a party's political colours when they gain power. Again, I tend to agree. But the SNP have been in power for eight years, and their support has grown enormously over that period. So perhaps it's more the case that you only know a country's political colours after you've counted the votes.

Scotland isn't as radical and left-leaning as some commentators like to pretend. Most people have moved on from the old labels of left and right; what they look for in a political party is competence, intelligence (both intellectual and emotional) and the ability to deliver practical policies that tackle the many challenges presented by the complex world we live in. Values and vision win people over; ideology turns people off.

Doug Maughan,

52 Mentieth View, Dunblane.

NICOLA Sturgeon's comments about energy policy ( "Sturgeon demands veto on Westminster energy policy" (The Herald, May 21) are remarkable for what is not said. There is no mention of the national grid, connection to which is essential for either importing or exporting electricity. Interesting and inevitable questions arise: an independent Scotland would not be truly independent if compelled to rely upon another nation for security of electricity supply; the other nation (rUK but mainly England) may not agree to pool this resource, and may react negatively to perceived bullying by the Scottish Government/ SNP. The Achilles' heel of the independence campaign is exposed, despite the First Minister's silence.

Mischief-making at Westminister by the feeble 56 may be droll now, but is more likely to yield antagonism than friendship.

During a Roman Triumph the victor had a slave on his chariot who continuously whispered in the victor's ear about being a mere mortal, the intention being to prevent the victor yielding to hubris which would in turn lead to nemesis. I understand that the slave was often ignored, but the intention was good. I wonder whether or not anyone whispers continuously in the First Minister's ear, reminding her that the majority of the Scottish electorate voted neither for her personally nor for the SNP and its policies.

William Durward

20 South Erskine Park, Bearsden.

JENNY Hjul ("Larking aside, how can SNP MPs make their mark?", The Herald, May 22). She was right to remind us that SNP MPs are committed to the break-up of the UK and not to making Britain stronger.

Their "larking about" during their first days as MPs in the new Parliament was not at all in keeping with the gravity of being the third largest party, but rather the behaviour of anti-social wreckers determined to impose their views on all the other MPs, no matter how discourteous.

Their happy-clapping mirrored Holyrood's SNP MSPs' actions in saluting even the most banal of discourses, and if it becomes their routine will degrade the standing of the mother of parliaments world-wide.

The promise to support advancing the wellbeing of the whole UK looks already to have been a cynical ploy - intended all along to "shake them up" at Westminster.

Joe Darby,

Glenburn St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall.