At war over independence and defence

The issue of independence is, therefore, crucial.

The military know that nuclear weapons can never be used but the UK government uses Trident to keep its seat on the United Nations Security Council and close to America’s attempted global control.

This disastrous and counterproductive imperialist policy leads to terrorist reaction to the extent that the UK is now putting anti-aircraft missiles on the top of London flats in preparation for the 2012 Olympics.

Scotland, however, has a chance to determine its own future.

For instance, my Labour MSP, Sarah Boyack, was one of the majority in the Scottish Parliament who voted against nuclear weapons and stated that “if we were NOT to replace Trident it would send a powerful message internationally, potentially a very positive move in multilateral disarmament negotiations with other countries”.

However, what she failed to say is that this can only be achieved with a vote for independence and not by joining the very conservative No campaign.

Ray Newton

Buckstone Way

Edinburgh

I AM stunned by the naivety of Bruce Skivington (Letters, 12 July). He suggests that there is an argument for devolving defence to the Scottish Parliament and cutting Scotland’s “share” of defence spending by more than two thirds from £3.5 billion to £1.1bn annually.

The provision of defence is an essential part of any state mechanism. If this responsibility was devolved to Holyrood, there would be no further need for a referendum as Scotland would become practically, and most probably legally, independent.

The world is rapidly getting less stable. The secular socialist regimes of the Middle East are falling to the Islamists. Soon Iran will obtain nuclear weapons. Turkey, once a close western ally, has already broken its security ties with Israel and is moving in an increasingly Islamist direction. China is becoming assertive over territorial disputes. The cyber-attacks on the Iranian nuclear programme are well known. Just as significant were the April 2007 Russian cyber-attacks on Estonia in the wake of the relocation of a statue. Given that Britain is running down its visible defences, we can be sure that the country’s unseen cyber-defences are woefully inadequate also.

In essence, the bet that the present UK coalition government is taking, no doubt with Mr Skivington’s approval, is that human nature has changed. As it hasn’t, and as the world is getting more dangerous, our military spending must be increased and re-focused towards new technologies.

Otto Inglis

Inveralmond Grove

Edinburgh

THE need for strategic alternatives is at the heart of the case for Scottish independence.

The issues of Nato membership and Trident raise the question: “What are they for?” Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the threat of Soviet tanks driving west has faded, and the United States has adopted a policy of “projecting power at a distance”. Successive UK governments have followed the US lead.

Afghanistan provides a test. Have the results justified the cost in lives and money? Soviet action in Afghanistan helped break the Soviet Union, and western involvement has been a major factor in the rise of the terrorist threat which is now our main defence problem. That involvement is also a large factor in the economic blight which has afflicted western states.

It is apparent that the “send in a gunboat” policy has failed, and US interest has shifted, with the rise of Russia, India and China, to the Pacific. Nato may evolve into, or be replaced by, a purely defensive European alliance, which would not need nuclear subs etc, and in that case an independent Scotland might join.

John Smart

Kinneddar Street

Lossiemouth