The Merchant Navy has been ignored in the White Paper

The United Kingdom has set global standards and benchmarks for training, certification, and safety. Despite this there are still examples of unscrupulous ship owners who are allowed to flout the rules. If there is to be a new Scottish registry, what assurances do we have about the standards that would be maintained, particularly if we are in a competi­tive situation with what is left of the UK and the values embodied in the Red Ensign?

I note that the White Paper promises low corporate taxation as the incentive for investment in an independent Scotland. No industry is more vulnerable to this approach and the "race to the bottom" it would encourage than merchant shipping. Lower levels of taxation would attract the kind of ship owners who would also expect lower standards of regulation and enforcement.

Anyone who thinks this could not happen should consider the example of the Isle of Man-registered freight ferry which operates out of Stornoway under Scottish Govern­ment auspices, employing foreign labour at the rate of £4.19 per hour. The Global Maritime Labour Convention is now in place to ensure that seafarers' rights are protected. The United Kingdom has signed up to this. Would Scotland be prepared to do the same?

How would the recruitment prospects of youngsters from Scotland's maritime communities be affected if there were two separate registries, rather than one? Would it not be more likely that ship owners in the rest of the UK would recruit from their own colleges and apprentice­­ship schemes, rather than "crossing the border" to what would then be a foreign jurisdiction?

The British Merchant Navy has served this country well in times of peace and war. It deserves better than to be ignored in the White Paper or vague promises that "it will be all right on the night". We need answers now.

Duncan Gordon (Captain),

Chairman, Merchant Navy Association,

Western Isles Branch,

Coll,

Isle of Lewis.

I NOTE that General Sir Richard Shirreff regards the Scottish Government's defence proposals as "amateurish and unrealistic" ("Former Nato chief calls SNP defence plans amateurish", The Herald September 1). As someone who has had a major role in Britain's chaotic defence, and the almost non-existent defence of Scotland, one could say that Gen Shirreff should be well qualified to recognise amateurism when he sees it.

Before we criticise the SNP plans let us look at what the UK has provided for us. Scotland has 50 per cent of Britain's territorial waters yet no naval vessels routinely patrol off our shores. Since the scrapping of Nimrod (at a cost of £3-4 billion) the UK provides no routine surveillance of our territorial waters and the NE Atlantic. With terrorism as the major threat facing us are there any SAS or other special forces based in Scotland to provide a 24-hour rapid response back up to the police? What provisions are there for the protection of our oilfields against terrorist attack? Two of our three military airfields have been closed down. Army units have been slashed and morale among military personnel has been deeply affected.

Yes, we have two new aircraft carriers - no aircraft yet, but the ships have been built at a 200 per cent overrun on costs. They have proved an excellent job creation exercise but their practical role in the defence of Britain is as yet unclear.

Of course we also have Trident, which we have decided to upgrade at a cost of £120 bn. Here is a weapon which we will never use, can never even threaten to use, and if we are never going to use it what use is it as a deterrent?

The UK has had a long tradition of military expertise but it has been let down badly by a totally inept Ministry of Defence. Almost anything that Scotland could do would be an improvement, but most of all we need international co-oper­ation in defence matters with our neighbours including the rUK. It is just a pity that General Shirreff's comments do not bode well for such a future.

George Leslie,

North Glassock, Fenwick.