Nato there for all

Published on Monday 23 November 2009 21:35

I'M sorry I mistook Angus Coull for an SNP activist (Letters, 20 November), though, given his views on Nato, I feel the error was understandable.

I'm also sorry I couldn't reconcile his "well-documented" account of Nato (including British) involvement in Bosnia/Kosovo with my own recollection of events there. I appreciate that Alex Salmond claimed Nato flyers acted like WW2 Nazis but he afterwards apologised for it. In any case, surely it was the presence of British army units in Kosovo that initially prevented the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim community that had earlier taken place in Bosnia. The KLA retaliation was not condoned, but ended by Nato intervention. Perhaps I have it wrong again but I also don't see why Scotland quitting Nato could possibly be construed as "a hostile act". What I said was that it would be stupid. Sorry again.

Speculating about whether an independent Scotland should join Nato must remain moot, and most probably it will never happen. However, anyone familiar with military planning knows that the position of neutrals owes more to wishful thinking than to realistic assessment. One need only run through a WW2 history to find lists of neutral countries overrun by an enemy, and many others occupied, willy-nilly, by their more powerful neighbours due to military exigencies. No neutral is "off limits" to an invader.

Also, there's more to Nato membership than self-defence and co-operation, intelligence and training for emergencies. There's also an obligation to the common cause. Ultimately, it's a matter of conscience whether one recognises a common cause or, like the SNP, does not.

ROBERT VEITCH

Paisley Drive

Edinburgh