We deserve to be told the truth about SNP's EU legal advice row

Since then we have known the SNP was deliberately misleading the people of Scotland by pointing to advice from "eminent legal authorities" who insisted Scotland would be treated as a "succession state", enjoying a smooth overnight transition to full EU membership as a new, sovereign nation. Yet the fact that ministers have since spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money to obscure the absence of formal, authoritative legal advice is simply unforgiveable.

It is obvious why the SNP has sought to avoid asking the hard questions all along. Ministers have been crippled by the realisation that an independent Scotland would have to apply to join the EU and go through a tortuous accession process taking up to two years, our farmers would face a lengthy hiatus during which they would receive no Single Farm Payments from Brussels, our financial services sector would be left in limbo to await Scotland's compulsory absorption into the beleaguered eurozone and inward investment would come to a standstill as the prospect of new border controls between Scotland and England loomed.

It is incredible that SNP ministers would lead Scotland up the garden path in this way, basing their assurances on Scotland's future as a full continuing member of the EU on assumptions and presuppositions, rather than hard facts. Now the Government is getting round to requesting legal advice, the people of Scotland deserve to hear the unabridged content of any answers from Brussels without being met by further delay, obfuscation or deception.

Struan Stevenson,

Conservative MEP for Scotland,

The European Parliament,

Strasbourg.

This situation regarding legal advice to the Scottish Government about EU membership is so ludicrous it would be rejected as a script for television's The Thick of it.

The SNP has traded heavily on the perception that it represents a metaphorical breath of fresh air blowing through the corridors of power, flinging open the doors to let the light in.

It now appears to have been using our taxes to pay for a legal action to prevent us discovering information that doesn't even exist.

There are only two possible explanations: one is that it is utterly incompetent; the other is that it deliberately started a legal action to cover what at best is a mistake and at worst a lie. I didn't think my opinion of politicians could get any lower. I was wrong.

David J Crawford,

131 Shuna Street,

Glasgow.

So, finding themselves on the losing side after a very close vote on Nato membership, SNP MSPs John Finnie and Jean Urquhart are resigning from the party they've served for many years ("Two SNP stalwarts quit on protest after Nato U-turn", The Herald, October 24) .

Doubtless their stance is principled, but I wonder if they have sought the views of the folk who elected them. The haste with which they have resigned suggests not. If I'm right, and their decisions reflect purely personally held views, will they now do the decent thing and resign their seats?

Talk of taking a stand rings hollow in the ears of voters if it doesn't involve any sacrifice. Or maybe Ms Urquhart and Mr Finnie simply feel they're bigger than the party, and are content to go on drawing an MSP's salary while representing only themselves. How principled is that?

Christine Goldie,

3 Canniesburn Road,

Bearsden.

The SNP's pro-Nato resolution requires careful scrutiny as it comes with many back doors with several assumptions and conditions that have been missed by many.

"On independence Scotland will inherit its treaty obligations with Nato."

Really? The only obligation Scotland has with Nato is the Faslane Trident base which is being denied to Nato.

The resolution further states: "An SNP Government will maintain (sic) Nato membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons."

Scotland's successful application requires the unanimous approval of all 27 members. Will the UK and/or the US Government grant membership to Scotland while being denied the critical facility at Faslane?

There is more: "Nato continues to respect the right of members to only take part in UN sanctioned operations." This condition might offer Scotland a get-out-of -war card?

Then comes the summing up: "In the absence of such an agreement, Scotland will work with Nato as a member of Partnership for Peace programme, etc."

It is unlikely that Scotland will receive "such an agreement" (Faslane) and so the Partnership for Peace road is the way forward which was echoed in the popular C amendment: "That Scotland should not remain a member of Nato but instead co-operate as part of the Partnership for Peace programme."

So why the fuss?

Thom Cross,

64 Market Place,

Carluke.

"I have marched for CND and marched against the Iraq War. I am tired of marching," said Kenny MacAskill at the SNP conference.

The Justice Secretary and I have that much in common. I share his abhorrence of nuclear weapons. I too have marched for CND, against the Iraq War and Walked for the World. I too am tired, but I have one march (at least) left in me. To Strasbourg and back if needs be. For what? For an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster which arguably brought about the greatest ever miscarriage of justice in our history.

But I'm older, sadder and (if not wiser) certainly more tired than Mr MacAskill. Please spare me the effort. He should order an independent public inquiry into the shame that brought about Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi's conviction. When, until now, has the Crown Office been described as being "institutionally corrupt" (Scottish Law Reporter, October 17)?

If his hands are clean, if the hands of the law officers and those in the Crown Office are clean, if what happened at Camp Zeist can be said to be clean, what has he to fear?

Jock Thomson QC,

Mackinnon Advocates,

Glasgow High Court,

1 Mart Street,

Glasgow.