Ian Bell is clearly disgusted by the SNP's move to back-track on its long-held policy that an independent Scotland would pull out of Nato (Nato-powered independence?
No thanks, Comment, August 12). I disagree with him about Nato's policy on nuclear weapons and can understand why he feels let down by this U-turn, but he should have seen it coming.
The SNP now wants to keep the Queen as head of state, and presumably of our armed forces. It wants to keep the pound sterling, which means that much of Scotland's economic framework would be determined by the Bank of England. And Alex Salmond and defence spokesman Angus Robertson now want to keep Scotland in Nato, which would mean accepting the decisions of that organisation. Clearly, that might include keeping the nuclear submarine base at Faslane. The Nationalist vision of independence has been transformed into something remarkably like devo max, and the sooner they own up to that, the sooner we can get on with a sensible debate.
Doug Maughan
Dunblane
Some 40 years ago, I was convener of the SNP's External Affairs Policy Committee and a member of its Defence Policy Committee, I was partly responsible for the SNP's current policy on Nato. I was also a personal friend of the late Billy Wolfe (Billy Wolfe would turn in his grave, Letters, August 12).
When I was invited to speak about the SNP's defence policy at a conference of Scandinavian defence experts at Aberdeen University, I compared the Norwegian position (Nato membership but no nuclear weapons in Norwegian territory) with the Swedish position (no membership of Nato and no nuclear weapons but effective conventional provision for defence). For me, either position could be a model for Scottish defence policy. It was then and still is relevant to consider whether opposition to Nato membership could lead to American as well as UK opposition to Scottish independence. In the run-up to independence might we be at risk of attack by the CIA as well as by UK "dirty tricks" – whatever they are currently called?
David Stevenson
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article