White Paper's proposed defence budget is more than adequate

Mr Hammond's fleeting visit was supported by remarks by no less a person than Sir George Zambellas, the First Sea Lord (aren't serving officers forbidden to intervene in political matters?). The message was predictable - unless we continue to let Westminster control us, we Scots (and the rump UK apparently) will be at the mercy of every passing tribe of bandits who will invade and enslave us.

To introduce some degree of sanity into this aspect of the debate I have drawn up a table comparing the defence spending, population and GDP of Scotland (in and out of the UK) with a range of similar countries including Finland (which has a 1300 kilometre-border with Russia), Switzerland (landlocked and surrounded by big powers with bad histories), New Zealand, Ireland and Iceland. There are a number of key facts which emerge from this comparison, so for brevity's sake I will mention only two.

First, the defence budget proposed by the Scottish Government in the White Paper ($3.7bn - 1.6% of GDP) is well in line with similar countries and exceeds some (Ireland, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark) by a considerable margin.

Secondly, as part of the UK we are paying $5.8bn - 2.5 % of GDP) for our defence. This means that for every man, woman, and child in Scotland we are paying around £250 annually to support the delusion that the UK is still a global power. This money is paid to fund the wicked wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the useless Trident and the ludicrous aircraft carriers.

I am more than happy to give this table to anyone who is interested. Alternatively, anyone with access to the internet and an hour or two to spare could construct it for themselves.

Alastair Macpherson,

26 East Green,

Anstruther.

Philip Hammond's intervention in the independence debate is more than a little hypocritical, especially given the reality of the damage the defence cuts inflicted by West­minster have had on Scotland.

Decisions at Westminster have seen Scotland stripped of military assets and serving personnel handed redundancy notices, with more than 11,000 defence jobs lost in Scotland in the last decade. Yet while all of these deeply damaging cuts have been inflicted by Westminster, every one of the Westminster parties remains committed to wasting £100bn on replacing Trident.

The first duty of any government is to protect its citizens, but the reality is that under the Union Scotland has already been stripped bare of conventional naval capability by Westminster's cuts.

There are no ocean-going surface vessels based in Scotland and no maritime reconnaissance aircraft - that is an extraordinary and unacceptable gap, which has seen ships dispatched from the south of England to the Moray Firth in response to Russian naval activity.

That gap also means the UK is having to rely on Nato allies to help cover routine maritime patrol duties - a responsibility an independent Scotland will take more seriously.

The only way Scotland will be able to adequately defend itself is through independence, with a stronger armed forces north of the Border.

These forces, co-operating with those from the rest of the UK in areas of mutual interest, will collectively strengthen, not weaken, our impact.

Alex Orr,

77/2 Leamington Terrace,

Edinburgh.

LORD Robertson was castigated for his prophesying that the "forces of darkness" would benefit from an independent Scotland and the consequent break-up of the Union.

Now the defence chiefs of the UK, past and present, have confirmed that "dark shadows" would be cast by Scotland's attempt to interfere with the UK and Nato's ability and right to wage thermonuclear war in the cause of peace, so vindicating that good lord's wise words .

No reasonable Scottish voter should contemplate putting at risk not only the safety of the UK, but that of the Nato alliance by wantonly breaking up the Union, just to create a fairer society for themselves and their children.

We cannot say that we have not been given ample warning of the dangers of breaking away; a string of eminent London-based Scots, some of whom even have a vote, have relentlessly fought to save us from making a selfish decision on September 18 .

Lords McConnell, Foulkes, Reid, Forsyth, Lang and Wallace have all spoken up in defence of the Union and are somewhat bemused that other Scots would seek to upset the status quo which is so clearly working well for them.

The FEAR project (Fair, Equal and Respectful), so maliciously maligned by the separatists, has dented the specious nationalist argument that, just because they have contributed through their taxes, some UK assets were also Scottish assets too. Better Together has been fearlessly telling Scots that, when discussing assets, what is the UK's is the UK's and what is Scotland's is up for negotiation .

At long last UK Government Ministers have entered the fray and their undoubted expertise and gravitas should sway even the most committed Don't Knows; David Mundell has that effect.

James Mills,

29 Armour Square,

Johnstone.

MANY thanks to Ian Bell for his excellent article ("Unionists in a muddle over state that does not exist yet", The Herald, 16 April). For too long now, Better Together has refused to directly engage in the independence debate, being happier to present us with numerous red herrings, dead ends and false threats. Unionists must wake up, and wake up soon, to the possibility of a Yes result and what they plan to do afterwards.

We have already witnessed the vague offer of some crumbs from the Unionists if we vote No, but if we choose independence, where will they go from there?

Can we expect a conversion on the road to Damascus of monumental proportions, where they claim they were secretly planning for independence all along but just couldn't openly say so?

Or will we get a dummy-spitting tantrum?

I think we deserve an answer from Better Together. What will it do if it loses? What will be its role in creating a new Scotland?

Or, is it truly the case, that it has no vision beyond a No result? If so, it shows very poor strategic planning.

Alan Carroll,

24 The Quadrant,

Clarkston,

Glasgow.

HOW sad that yet another televised forum - The Referendum Debate from Kirkwall on BBC2 (April 15) - consisted of, in the main, stock answers and well-rehearsed soundbites from the politicians.

When Alistair Carmichael refused to answer Lesley Riddoch's question as to whether or not he wanted Scotland to become as successful as Norway he gave the game away.

On a televised debate when he had the chance to put forward a vision for the future, he point-blank refused to say just one word : yes. By refusing to come off-script - surely everyone would want a country to thrive in the modern world - he merely informed everyone watching that he, and by extension, the Westminster Government he works for, have no interest in Scotland and are more than happy to watch over this disgraceful, but clearly necessary, scene of an inexorable rise in queues at food banks.

Of course, yes is the one word Better Together really is afraid of, isn't it?

Dr Graeme Finnie,

Balgillo,

Albert Street,

Blairgowrie.

BOB Thomson ("Yes vote an act of solidarity with workers in Scotland and rest of UK", Agenda, The Herald, April 15) would like to "prompt political or constitutional change across Britain (perhaps towards a federation of English regions instead of a centralised Westminster state)". He sees the best way of achieving this is by voting Yes in the indepen­dence referendum.

It would make more sense to me to stay within the UK and join Rhodri Morgan, leader of the Welsh Labour Party and First Minister of the Welsh Assembly, in his campaign for a federal constitution of all the nations and regions.

The independence as offered in the referendum is very much a lighter version than many on the Left seem to expect. It will retain the monarchy and if it can, sterling, and be a partner in Nato and the EU. It is actually closer to federalism than to independence.

It is not, as Mr Thomson and others on the Left depict it, an opportunity for radical change. It is actually business as usual, but having separated Scotland from the levers of economic power held in the City of London. The demand for independence has not been based on a promise of radical change, but rather creating a low corporation tax economy that would make Scotland even more at the mercy of global capitalism than now.

The Red Paper Collective, on the other hand, calls for powers to democratise our economy and redistribute wealth across the UK. A federal arrangement allows for those powers but also gives the oppor­tunity for local innovation. We know that working people in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England share so much in common that counts for much more than a line on the map.

Pauline Bryan,

22 Lynedoch Street,

Glasgow.