Claim Nato would turn its back on Scotland over Trident removal is poppycock

To offer some perspective: within the European Union, Scotland’s seas are the fourth-largest of core European waters. Not only do these seas offer Scotland a wealth-generating capacity that would be the envy of most other nations, but they impose a duty of responsibility that they be managed and defended effectively and responsibly, Nato member or not.

READ MORE: SNP slam report which says indy Scotland could fail to join Nato without nukes

To this end Scotland’s key role will be deployment of naval assets and Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft based at Lossiemouth to replace the erstwhile Nimrod fleet so incompetently ditched by the UK military. These aircraft have a formidable array of sensors and weaponry to track submarines and surface vessels in the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom) gap and elsewhere. A similar investment in P-8s has been made by Norway.

Who believes that Nato would turn its back on this role so vital it its defence? Not me. Do you?

Roy Pedersen
Inverness

HERE we go again. It’s quite unbelievable how gullible the establishment must think we are. September 2014: “We will not allow you to be a member of the EU”. April 2021: “We will not allow you to be members of Nato” (report from the European Leadership Network by Admiral John Gower).

The primary security concern of any state is of course to defend its borders and protect its sovereignty. For the UK, being an island nation, its maritime borders naturally form an essential part of the process of establishing this defensive perimeter and receiving international recognition of its borders.

Taking account of the UK’s current furthermost outposts in the North Atlantic –Rockall, St Kilda and the Shetland Islands – the area of defence responsibility is significant. Together with the maritime sphere of influence of Iceland and Norway, the UK contributes to a major part of Nato's integrated air and sea defences.  Essential to this is control of the waters and maritime channels surrounding Greenland, Iceland and the UK, collectively called the GIUK Gap.

Now, challenges from what seems to be an increasingly belligerent Russia in the most northern stretches of Nato's area of responsibility concern all of the nations that border this region, including Norway and Iceland. I would imagine that a determined, coherent,  consistent response would be required to any changes in the strategic defence environment of the North Atlantic in response to a Russian threat. These three nations, supported by France – and the USA, of course – form the backbone of nations that promote initiatives which strengthen Nato's maritime flanks. Whilst a significant lead and direction is provided by the USA, close links between all of these maritime nations are essential in order to maintain and strengthen their defence capabilities and exercise control of the sea lanes. Nato's defence capability depends on maintaining these secure sea lanes between North America and Europe including, I believe, the monitoring of Russian maritime activity through the GIUK Gap as they attempt to gain access into the Atlantic Ocean.

Imagine then the scenario. An independent Scotland with maritime territorial waters stretching half way to Iceland, excluded from Nato, opening up a vast area of the GIUK Gap, now minus any control or monitoring of Russian naval activity. Result: a further international humiliation of an English government given a firm dressing down by the USA. 

I beg to differ therefore with the learned Admiral, but the strategy of scaremongering by Westminster and its allies has now been firmly discredited. The value of Scotland as an independent partner in Nato and an independent member of the EU (if desired) no longer rests in the hands of moguls of Westminster and their establishment mouthpieces.

Finally, the question of the relocation of the Trident nuclear capability to the Solent is for another day.

Les Lambert
Kilbarchan

NEITHER Scotland nor England is individually a member of Nato. Following Rear Admiral Gower’s logic, may we assume that if Scotland becomes independent while the nukes are still in Scotland, England would be regarded as ineligible for Nato membership?

Richard W Russell
Bowmore, Isle of Islay

DEAR Rear Admiral Gower,

If nuclear weapons are so essential to Nato, why not move them to England, where they will be safe from any future Scottish ban? Why not try somewhere on the Thames, where your Tory pals could easily keep an eye on them? It would be a shorter journey, too, for the warheads, when they go back and forward by road to Aldermaston.

After all, if they are quite safe so close to Glasgow, our largest conurbation, they would surely be just as safe the same distance from London. Perhaps Wales, as part of the UK, would offer them a base.

Or failing that, why not ask one of the non-nuclear members of Nato, like Norway, to host them for you?

L McGregor
Falkirk

I COMPLETELY understand what Crìsdean Mac Fhearghais says regarding the pining for a more leftist indy-supporting party (Letters, April 5). However, I am more interested in how the parties will morph in an independent Scotland.

With the goal achieved it is impossible to see any party maintain their current make-up. Labour will no longer be tied to the UK version.

Could there be a fight between them and Alba or any left-leaning pro-indy party to become a focal point and attract the working-class vote, or will there be pooling of Labour and left nationalists under a more traditional moniker?

READ MORE: Working-class voters want candidates who really understand their lives

We have to remember that the rise of the SNP coincided with the demise of the likes of SSP and Solidarity as socialist independence-backing parties capable of electing members to parliament.

Would the SNP maintain a grip of the centre? Would the LibDems evaporate entirely?

And would the Tories task themselves as genuine representative of their base rather than one-trick ponies lashing out at anything of a independence bent? Would any of the Unionist parties campaign for a return to Westminster?

I have not seen enough evidence that the second vote for Alba would not harm the broader independence position – particularly with acrimony on the side.

Kevin Dyson
Largs

I AM very surprised that Stephen Paton would suggest that someone who uses their democratic right to vote for Alba, their party of choice, would somehow be cheating by gaming the system (How ‘tactical’ voting could undermine indyref2 case, April 5). The voting system in Scotland was “gamed” against us ever achieving independence. Now that we have another party of indy to pick up wasted votes, let us work together to gain as many MSPs for indy as possible. The movement for independence is more important than the party.

Rosemary Smith
East Kilbride

I AGREE with Keith Brown when he says “This is the most important election in Scottish history - every single vote will count” (Poll puts Yes on course to win a 29-seat majority, April 5). When SNP win all nine constituency seats in most regions their second vote is divided by 10, resulting in ZERO list seats. This is a BIG win for Unionist parties and a TRAGIC loss for independence. That’s why I will be voting SNP1 and ALBA2.

Jo Bloomfield
via email