IN light of the disaster that was Iraq, the endless meaningless quagmire of Afghanistan and the latest attempt to bounce us into bombing Syria I am surprised that Arnold Bell (Letters, September 7) or anybody else should thinks it desirable to have Scotland's control of foreign affairs left with London.

As the UK's major defence appears to consist of making a Scotland without enemies the world's number one target in the event of some lunatic starting a nuclear war, leaving defence responsibility in the same hands is equally unacceptable.

Recently the Russian navy ventured into British waters off the coast of Scotland. It took 24 hours for the Royal Navy to get a vessel into the area. Contrast this with Norway, with very similar defence needs to Scotland with its navy of 70 ships (all built in Norwegian yards) or Denmark, with a similar number of vessels and a navy of almost 4000 men.

As a result of the continuous contraction of the UK's conventional defence forces I believe that Scotland now enjoys the protection of a total defence of about the same size as that of Trinidad and Tobago. Leaving defence and foreign affairs to a federal UK construct appears to be a major reason for whatever support there is for that distraction. From Scotland's end the case collapses on any sort of examination (though with oil revenues holding off UK economic disaster it will continue to be in the mix). There is, however, a perfectly sensible argument for a British confederation along the lines of the Nordic Council in which independent countries, large and small, freely co-operate in areas of mutual interest.

David McEwan Hill,

1 Tom Nan Ragh,

Dalinlongart,

Sandbank,

Argyll.

HAVING read Arnold Bell's lengthy letter I am now even more convinced that I should vote Yes in the forthcoming referendum on Scottish independence. The population statistics he quotes only prove that Scotland's 59 MPs at Westminster are grossly outnumbered by the 139 from the Greater London area alone.

His disenfranchised friends in Surrey, South Britain (sic) are in the same boat as my chums who left Scotland in the 1960s and 70s seeking a better life in Canada, America and Australia. They are mostly delighted at the prospect of an independent Scotland as they will no longer have to explain to all and sundry that their native land is not a part of England.

He quotes the late Donald Dewar as saying that the English don't want independence. Of course not - their parliament was never dissolved and transported 500 miles furth of their capital to become a minority group. Their only move was to shuffle along the benches at Westminster to accommodate the Scots. Inconvenient, but otherwise, no change.

Mr Bell's true colours are revealed when he then relates the Scottish nation to a sub-region of England in his idea of a federal government retaining control of foreign affairs, defence and, one has to assume, illegal wars and weapons. He arrives at the conclusion that Westminster is not working. That has not gone unnoticed - hence the referendum.

John Hannah,

39 Dunglass Avenue, Scotstoun, Glasgow.

I AGREE with the sentiments of Dr Graeme Finnie in which he articulates the strengths of Nicola Sturgeon and the brutish antics of Anas Sarwar (Letters, September 7) during their exchange in the recent Scotland Tonight: Referendum Special on STV.

If I were a Labour supporter I would have been cringing with despair at the vain attempts by Mr Sarwar to land a blow on Ms Sturgeon.

If there is ever a re-match then I would suggest that amongst other preparation Mr Sarwar should learn the art of listening to the other side instead of his incessant cross-talking, which overshadowed the real emphasis of the debate. Any points he wished to make were lost in an avalanche of hot air.

At the final bell it was astonishing that the two political experts who analysed the performances, Bernard Ponsonby and Colin Mackay, declared the head-to-head a draw. Were they really watching the same debate?

Christopher Jones,

25 Ruthven Avenue,

Giffnock.