To be truly non-nuclear, SNP should not be building warships

Nuclear weapons, of which there are numerous types besides Trident, cannot be split warheads from means of delivery. If an individual provides a second individual with a weapon, and the second carries out a criminal act with the weapon, responsibility for the criminal act is shared equally. Nicola Sturgeon, having legal training, is aware of this principle. Let her own up publicly to being aware. On her performance so far on this issue, she is either a fool or a knave.

The SNP came very late to the idea of joining Nato, with sincerity in question and opportunism on display.

A declaration by the Scottish Government to have no future involvement whatsoever with nuclear weapons would be both honest and logical; simultaneously excluding building in Scotland warships for any nation which possesses nuclear weapons, membership of Nato and visits of warships and aircraft from any nation which possesses nuclear weapons.

Members of the SNP who appreciate these inconsistencies will be tempted to silence in pursuit of a Yes result. But hypocrisy is behind the agenda of the SNP.

William Durward,

20 South Erskine Park, Bearsden.

DEPUTY First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has told her party's spring conference that Scotland would be "in the removal business" immediately after a Yes vote in September.

In the event of a No vote in September it occurs to me that Labour supporters wearied of being patronised and told to reclaim their party may do so at the Scottish Parliament election in 2016 and that Ms Sturgeon and her party may find themselves part of a removal process.

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.

I OFTEN find it hard to get to grips with Ian Bell's unclear assertions about reasons for separating from the UK ("Let's hear it for undecided voters in referendum debate", The Herald, April 12). His approach is to use terms like "the decadence of the British state", "unlocked potential", "self-respect", "an end to neo-liberalism" with no explanation or qualification. Hardly "magic words that will win hearts and minds" on their own. He strays into fantasy when he writes that there has been an "attempt to terrify the undecided with prophecies of a country laid waste by indepen­dence". The No side has indeed dwelled a tad too much on the negative side of separation (scare-mongering if you must) but its assertions are not always off target.

There are many positives for staying together which the No camp does need to promote vigorously. If Yes boils down to redistributing assets to the undefined needy from an undefined "rich" lot, and chucking out Trident and all other nuclear weapons and facilities, thus leaving the rUK with much-diminished international influence, then so be it, but this leaves out facing the inevitable fiscal gap financial difficulties which Mr Bell ought to address in reasoned detail rather than using reverse scaring tactics.

Anyway, it's strange to think that separating would newly release the capable self-respect which runs deep in Scotland's citizens, and has done for so many centuries.

Joe Darby,

Glenburn, St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall.

ALEX Salmond was right in his speech to the SNP conference ("Prospect of a Tory win in 2015 'increases chance of a Yes vote'", The Herald, April 14). There would be a massive amount of work to be done after a Yes vote in the September referendum.

The reason for that is that people are being asked to vote Yes with no clear idea of the consequences of this for the Scottish economy. Alex Salmond has promised the Scottish public and Scottish businesses that participation in a properly organised sterling area and continued EU membership are guaranteed, but those with whom he would have to negotiate this have cast grave doubt on it.

Those of us who point out Mr Salmond's failure to prepare properly for the momentous step he wants the Scots to take are accused of running Scotland down. On the contrary, we love our country and see no reason why we should take a reckless gamble with its future to satisfy the ego of one individual.

Keith Macdonald,

15 Bruntsfield Gardens, Glasgow,

IN his speech to the SNP conference, Alex Salmond was merely stating the obvious when he said that the vote on September 18 is not about him, the SNP or any other political party. The referendum is not a General Election to elect a government at Holyrood for the next five years. It is to decide if Scotland should be an independent nation for the next 300 years or more. It is surprising that so many people seem not yet to have grasped that fact, and are basing their voting intentions on personalities and party politics.

Over the past few months several people have said to me: "Of course I believe that Scotland could run its own affairs, but I won't be voting Yes because I can't stand Alex Salmond." When I pointed out that Alex Salmond would not be around for the next 100 years, and perhaps not even still in politics in five years, that didn't seem to have occurred to them.

Personalities and personal prejudices should have nothing to do with the referendum vote; it is far too important for that.

In fact, if Scotland becomes independent in March 2016, it is quite possible that the SNP could lose its overall majority at the Scottish Holyrood election two months later and have to form a coalition. There might even be another Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition, although I shudder at the thought. And having achieved its raison d'etre of independence, the SNP might become another left-of-centre party (unlike the current UK Labour Party) or might even split up, with members returning to their original political allegiances.

Whatever happens in the future, antipathy towards Alex Salmond or the nationalists is not a valid reason to vote No. The real questions to ask yourself are: Do you believe that Scotland is perfectly capable of running all its own affairs? Is it economically and culturally capable of surviving and prospering in the world? Or should we continue to be governed by another parliament in which we have a less than 10% representation and which pursues policies that are not appropriate for Scotland?

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

TALK about the elephant in the room: the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence lauds the Scottish contribution to UK defence ("Only Better Together is running a positive referendum campaign", Agenda, The Herald, April 14) and he doesn't once mention Trident. He is going to be in Greenock; he will be just 10 kilometres from the biggest nuclear arsenal in Europe, and he doesn't mention it. He does imply that, in the event of Scottish independence, all the UK defence contracts will shift south of the Border, yet there does not seem to be a contingency to relocate Trident to the Thames estuary. Perhaps Vernon Coaker will touch on this when in Inverclyde; any other discussion might as well concern the Titanic's deckchair arrangements.

Dr Hamish Maclaren,

1 Grays Loan, Thornhill, Stirling.

BOTH David Mundell and Philip Hammond are wrong in their assertions regarding a Yes vote at the forthcoming referendum ("Hammond: Everything up for grabs in event of a Yes vote", The Herald, April 14). There will be negotiations on Trident after a Yes vote. However, there will only be three points for discussion. The first is when are the weapons to be removed, the second is how do they go and third is what will the Westminster Government pay if Trident is still on Scottish soil after March 26, 2016?

Sandy Gemmill, 40 Warriston Gardens, Edinburgh.