Nato breakaway would leave us exposed

Published on Thursday 19 November 2009 21:30

Bill McLean (Letters 18 November) clearly does not understand the realpolitik of postwar Europe when he criticises Nato's actions and inactions. The agreements between the Western Allies and the USSR gave each side its own sphere of influence and both Hungary and Czechoslovakia fell into the latter's. Any attempt by Nato to intercede in either 1956 or 1968 would have started a Third World War.

Not content with that, Mr McLean then lambasts Nato for not interceding in matters that did not threaten or, in the case of Afghanistan, even figure in Nato's theatre of operations when the USSR invaded that country.

Mr McLean compounds matters by suggesting that Nato could have prevented the rule of fascist regimes which were already in place in Spain and Portugal when it was set up. Is he suggesting that Nato should have started a war in western Europe to achieve that outcome?

With enemies of Nato whose insight is so breathtakingly naive, I can only breathe a sigh of relief that the SNP, which nurtures similar views on Nato to those of Mr McLean, is in no position to remove Scotland from the alliance. Its views in this context, as expressed in the SNP manifesto, in relation to our nuclear deterrent and Nato are as Alice in Wonderland as Mr McLean's. Any future Scotland that broke away from the UK, as planned by the SNP, would be left like a lamb for the slaughter.

ANDREW H N GRAY

Craiglea Drive

Edinburgh

Robert Veitch seems to be confused about who he is debating with and what he is debating about (Letters, 17 November). He seems to assume anybody who disagrees with him about Nato must be in the SNP. I can't speak for others, but I am neither an SNP member nor supporter. I just happen to agree with the party on the issue of Nato.

He also seems to assume that Scotland leaving Nato must necessarily be a hostile act. He excludes the possibility of Scotland simply being a neutral country. He says we would lose influence if we left Nato but gives no examples of how this would happen.

He assumes that because I criticised Nato's acquiescence in ethnic cleansing of non-Muslim minorities from Kosovo that I somehow must be confused. No, Mr Veitch, I'm not talking about Bosnia. It is a well-documented fact that Nato troops stood by and did nothing while their KLA allies ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Serbs, Roma and other non-Muslims from Kosovo.

Finally, Mr Veitch finds my views "offensive" because he equates failure to support Nato's attack on Yugoslavia with "ignoring the sacrifices of British troops". This slur is itself offensive to anyone who supports living in a free country. It could even be seen as an attempt to bully dissenting voices into silence by playing the "don't you support our troops?" card.

It is precisely because I do appreciate our troops' sacrifices that I don't believe in putting them in harm's way to help the Islamic terrorist KLA to wage war on Serbia – our historical friend and ally in both world wars.

ANGUS COULL

Lanark Road

Edinburgh