ROBBIE Dinwoodie wrote: ''The new Swinney leadership is resoundingly pro-European and opens up a debate about an accommodation on Nato membership, possibly on an associate or non-nuclear basis'' (March 1). For many of us in the SNP there are no grounds for accommodation with an organisation that continues to espouse nuclear weapons and in particular a first-strike option. To suggest that a country can be a ''non-nuclear member'' of an organisation based on nuclear deterrence is hypocritical and morally indefensible.

There is certainly nothing ''pro-European'' in being a Nato member. There is on the other hand a perfectly good case to be made for joining our non-aligned Nordic neighbours such as Finland and Sweden in working within the framework of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy to further European security and contribute to global conflict prevention through

a mix of enlightened development

co-operation and participation in

UN-mandated operations. A more balanced geopolitical system depends on the EU and its member states being able to act increasingly as a counterweight to a polarised American view of how to ensure global security and development.

For a party that campaigned tirelessly for the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland to sign up to the ultimate nuclear club will be a betrayal of ideals. A change in SNP policy on Nato will only weaken the case for the removal of the UK's ''nuclear deterrent'' from Scottish territory. I believe a majority of party members understand that a principled stand against nuclear weapons and nuclear power cannot be squared with Nato membership. The SNP has nothing to gain electorally from being accommodating on Nato and much to lose in terms of the principles on which the party has been built.

Alasdair Reid,

convener, Brussels Branch, SNP,

Rue de la Malaise 17,

B-1340 Ottignies, Belgium.