Nato membership keeps options open

It is worth recalling the circumstances in which the then Labour leader Tony Blair set out in 1994 to reform his party’s commitment to the widespread extension of public ownership.

In practical terms, the policy had been redundant for decades. But it still came to symbolise for many voters a dogma, an adherence to the past, an economic irrelevance that was unattractive.

Mr Blair had just won a resounding mandate from the party as leader, and had a double-digit opinion poll lead that was staggering by today’s standards.

But he still felt the need to demonstrate to voters a readiness to take on the responsibilities of government and to recognise the reality of the modern world.

All but the wilfully blind could see that a combination of public and private enterprise was the only practical way to achieve social objectives.

Leadership is partly the ability to recognise a public mood. It has turned against collectivism and overt state control and Tony Blair knew it. There are some parallels with the SNP’s proposed new stance on Nato today.

Remaining a member of the alliance is not just a means of displaying “grown up” government and a modern approach.

It provides some options for a newly independent state. Nobody can predict what the colour of government an autonomous Scotland will elect.

But it will have the option surely of staying within the alliance under current circumstances, or going for a non-nuclear policy within it.

Acceptance of the alliance will also provide the existing Holyrood government with an increased credibility for the tough pre-referendum negotiations ahead.

It will show that Scotland’s government wants to look outward and be serious about international obligations.

Bob Taylor

Shiel Court

Glenrothes

The logic of Councillor Johnston’s support for nuclear weapons (Letters, 27 August) is baffling. The Trident system is a mutually assured destruction weapon which means that under treaty obligations it can only be launched after a first strike.

Since the aim of such a strike is to minimise retaliation, Faslane would be an initial target to destroy the remaining submarines.

The collateral damage could extend into North Lanarkshire with nuclear fallout. Why would China or Russia want to attack Scotland other than to eliminate the  nuclear fleet? Russia can control countries via its energy market and China would probably place Scotland way down the list of possible targets unless it perceived the nuclear-based boats as a threat.

The problem with the present world situation is that the boat at sea might not be able to be given identifiable targets for retaliation if the initial strike was from a non-state terrorist group.

Removing a target site from Scotland would be far more sensible. The French nuclear ballistic boats sail from Brest and their nuclear attack boats from there and Toulon.

Since the Trident boats get their long-term overhaul at Devonport it is possible for sites other than the Clyde to maintain them. Their removal would be expensive but not impossible.

The other point about Nato, aside from the nuclear aspects, is that treaty  organisations bring responsibilities and can draw countries into conflicts which should not involve them.

Nato is heavily associated with the USA and when we join, its “enemies” become our “enemies”, even if Scotland would normally not be involved.

Sweden, Switzerland and the Republic of Ireland, which is our nearest non-Nato neighbour, all managed to avoid the Second World War, and Finland and Austria also see no need to belong to Nato.

We should analyse the  situation and decide whether the threat is  improved or degraded by being in a USA-dominated  alliance.

Being the base for a nuclear force which would be under Nato control would be a priority reason for an  attack.

Bruce D Skivington

Strath

Gairloch, Wester Ross