WILLIE Maclean (Letters, March 4) asserts that Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine confirms that (a) nuclear weapons are a deterrent only against nuclear warfare and (b) Nato has not played a major role in keeping Europe peaceful and stable and instead mainly benefits the US arms industry.

The nuclear weapons of Nato members are indeed primarily a deterrent against nuclear attack – so far a successful deterrent. As President Putin threatens us by putting his nuclear arsenal on heightened alert against non-existent threats caused by a war which he started, is Mr Maclean implying that Nato states now should unilaterally surrender their nuclear defence capabilities whilst states like Russia and North Korea still maintain and develop their nuclear weaponry?

Nato exists primarily to ensure the defence of its members. Ukraine is of course not a Nato member and is now the victim of blatant and unprovoked Russian aggression. No doubt the Baltic states which are Nato members will not be regretting their decisions to join.

I too regret the decision of a majority of UK voters, including a substantial minority in Scotland, to leave the EU. That is an outcome which Mr Putin welcomed and schemed to bring about, presumably because he calculated that it would be bad for both the EU and UK. The decision by voters to authorise Brexit and the relish with which the current UK Government rejected the free trade deal negotiated by Theresa May’s administration and instead negotiated and signed up to our current predicament was undoubtedly bad for the UK and the EU – mostly the UK. However, to suggest that was much of a cause for Mr Putin’s aggression is clearly far-fetched. Surely that has much more to do with his grandiose ambition to re-establish Soviet-era influence regardless of the cost in countless civilian casualties in Crimea, Syria and now the rest of Ukraine.

Andrew Gordon, Bearsden.

WHY DID RUSSIA NOT BACK YES?

PETER Russell (Letters, March 4) states as indisputable fact, that the Electoral Commission concluded that Russia had not interfered with the 2014 referendum outcome. Then remarkably he goes off on a lengthy hypothesis about the intentions of Vladimir Putin, that Scotland voting Yes in 2014 (or at some future point) is what he wants.

Just where is the actual evidence for this, beyond the customary Better Together "it’s obvious, innit" sort of accusation that we have all become accustomed to? For instance, how critical are the UK’s 225 nuclear weapons in the context of the USA’s 5,000 and Russia’s 6,000, when the two superpowers could annihilate the world themselves?

If, for instance, Mr Russell is so sure of his "facts" (which are pretty thin on the ground) as opposed to assertions, then if this is the outcome that Vladimir Putin would have liked in 2014, why did he not seek to interfere, though on the Yes side? Why would he be so delighted that another small country has become independent, when that small country actually is larger than 25 of the 48 independent countries in Europe already?

David Leask reported early in 2014 that our then Prime Minister, David Cameron, was trying to recruit him to the No cause. Was Mr Putin OK then, just not now? Or, was this just another example of Mr Cameron’s famous lack of judgment?

But more than anything else, if Scotland became independent today, do you not think that a country freely and democratically exerting its right to self-determination and independence would be something of an embarrassment to President Putin given his current activities in Ukraine? The power of the West to support the brave resistance of the Ukrainians, or of the West itself to resist Putin and his ilk, is not in the gift of any country acting autonomously but collectively. In that case, does one more make much difference, other than to those of Mr Russell’s opinion?

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

GERMANY DESERVES ONLY PRAISE

I WAS born and bred in Scotland, but moved to Germany more than 40 years ago and have been here ever since. I am married to a German lady and I am as proud to be a German citizen as I am to be Scottish, as are my children. A good friend of mine in Scotland sent me a copy of Andrew McKie's recent article headed "Ukraine pays the price for decades of German selfishness" (The Herald, March 1), thinking, rightly, that I might disagree with the views expressed.

I have to say that I have rarely felt angrier after reading an article in a quality newspaper for which I have always had a high regard. The piece is full of inaccurate statements and contentious and ill-considered judgments and Mr McKie seems to be unaware of (or chooses to ignore) the complexities of the European political landscape, Germany's role within it since the key dates of 1945 and 1989 and the limitations on executive action imposed, for good reasons, by the German constitution.

Germany's caution in European and world affairs is informed by the events of the first half of the 20th century, and the country takes great pains not to act or be seen as "the dominant force in Europe". The German relationship with Russia can only be analysed from a historical perspective: statements made by German politicians, that "never again should Russians be on the wrong end of German weapons" mean something to people here and such deeply-felt views cannot be discarded at a day's notice. This is also true of the gratitude that Germans feel towards the Russian leaders who allowed reunification to take place in the early 1990s.

To accuse Angela Merkel of "cosying up to Vladimir Putin" is a staggeringly insulting and facile description of German policy, which for many decades has been based on attempts to always engage Russia in dialogue and foster economic and cultural ties, in the hope that this would lead to mutually advantageous liberalisation. Mr McKie can hardly blame Frau Merkel (and the host of other western politicians who acted similarly), for the fact that Mr Putin appears to have succumbed to megalomania and possibly insanity.

That it took Germany only four days after the invasion to completely re-align its policies is a cause for praise and not for smug "we did it earlier" criticism. Given that speed is of the essence in such a situation, the decisions were still reached with foresight, caution, circumspection and thought for the consequences. These are qualities which Frau Merkel possessed in abundance, and I am glad to see that her successor seems to have similar attributes.

Christopher Noxon, Eschbach, Germany.

HOME RULE THE BEST OPTION

I RETURNED from 32 years of economic migration in England more than a year ago and was struck by the diverse, strong opinions of perfectly sensible people on our constitutional dilemma. I have written the odd letter to The Herald on my path to my decision. There are four options: status quo; tweaking devolved powers; independence and home rule.

The status quo can be discarded; that horse has bolted.

Adam Tomkins (“Gordon Brown’s days as Unionists’ great leader are over”, The Herald, March 2) neatly articulated that a Gordon Brown-style search for a bone just big enough to satisfy the Scots is so last century and can be discarded.

Neil Mackay has on several occasions helped on the independence issue by separating out the SNP Government and the independence campaign. The SNP has an able politician in Nicola Sturgeon and the machine is an effective campaigning tool but it has produced no statespersons, poor government, poor governance, and no business ability. Looking at the pros and cons of independence the question comes down to “how much pain are you willing take for an emotionally driven decision?” For me the answer is “not much”.

We were shot in the foot with Brexit. The answer is to bandage the foot, not grab the gun and shoot ourselves in the other foot. The UK is a big market right beside the EU. Comparisons with other countries are facile. It will take 10 years of politics and commercial pressure to reset the relationship satisfactorily and repair that damaged foot – but it will heal. I do not want twice the pain from both feet with a destruction of the UK market.

So we come to home rule. How much better would things have been if Gladstone had got the finger out in the late 19th century with Irish home rule? Now we need a root and branch review following the principle that every power comes to Scotland unless there is a pressing need to reserve it to a new UK government, for example, foreign policy or defence. This ensures that Holyrood takes fiscal responsibility for itself and we voters can directly hold our government to account when they fail. Scotland stands on its own merits and by its own sense and industry from which we can take national pride without the rabid jingoism.

John Murdoch, Innellan.