Letters: An independent Scotland would surely be seen as a global plus

But Mr Smith is correct, the next referendum will be different. The last 10 years have shown us that a “third option” is no longer believable. If Labour runs with this ticket, it will need to answer what powers any constitutional bill would contain; how it would get them through Westminster; how those powers would be entrenched against usurpation (as is happening with devolution in Edinburgh and Cardiff), by a Supreme Court and a Westminster which considers each new parliament as “sovereign”, and not bound by the previous one.

Scotland being independent would obviously not solve any of “the big questions the world is challenged by”, but a new democratic country emerging is surely a global plus, and a poke in the eye for the despots and autocrats.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

PUTIN WOULD HAVE WANTED YES WIN

THERE has been some debate in your columns as to whether Vladimir Putin would have been supportive or otherwise towards the Yes campaign for Scottish independence (Letters, March 4 & 7).

I would have thought that the facts that President Putin was engaged in 2014 in an arms race with the West and that, at about the same time, the then Scottish Government issued a draft constitution for an independent Scotland which, at clause 23, compelled the anticipated independent Scottish government to effect “the safe and expeditious removal from the territory of Scotland of nuclear weapons based there” were salient to that debate.

It would appear to have been logical, rational and even inevitable that Mr Putin would have wished for the success of the Yes campaign to secure that constitution for Scotland. Whether or not he would ever have gone to the lengths of interfering with another’s nation’s internal affairs is another matter but recent events indicate a willingness to do so.

Michael Sheridan, by Strachur, Argyll.

KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD

I SEE that Nicola Sturgeon has sent Ian Blackford out to deliver bad news to their followers: that they should focus on the Ukraine crisis and not expect a referendum in the short term (“Blackford doubles down on pledge to remove Trident amid nuclear tensions”, The Herald, March 7). In truth there was never going to be a referendum in 2023, Ms Sturgeon’s proclaimed favoured date. Some former SNP high-profile bloggers have abandoned that illusion to the extent of ceasing their campaigning activity.

We already knew that Ms Sturgeon was merely kicking the can down the road by announcing a vote in 2023. She cannot hold a legitimate referendum without the transfer of authority for one, with a Section 30 order, from the UK Prime Minister, who has steadfastly refused to provide one. She could hold an unauthorised referendum, but that would raise questions, probably legal questions, about the co-operation of local authorities with premises and staffing for such an event. An unauthorised referendum would not be recognised by other countries or international organisations.

Ms Sturgeon had already indicated that she was not planning to hold a referendum by having no mention of it in the recent 10-year SNP economic plan that isn't really a plan which was announced by Kate Forbes. Why would an SNP economic plan make provision for the next 10 years without discussing the circumstances of a separate Scotland if the objective was to hold a referendum in that period?

Ms Sturgeon’s followers are left wondering what a devolved "focus on Ukraine" is and why that stymies their dream.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

SECOND N-BOMB WOULD BE POINTLESS

ON BBC Radio 4's Any Questions at the weekend, from Penicuik, the second question was from one Thomas, who sounded very young, who asked the panel a very pertinent and searching question. If Mr Putin deploys a "tactical" nuclear weapon, how should Nato respond? Alister Jack, the Secretary of State for Scotland, said he was going to dodge that question. As a Cabinet minister, he clearly doesn't wish Mr Putin to know the West's game plan. Then he added, I thought with infinite condescension: "But don't worry. You can sleep peacefully at night, because the nuclear deterrent is protecting you."

But on Radio 4's A Point of View on Sunday morning, with respect to the deterrent, the writer Will Self did not share Mr Jack's equanimity. He made reference to Nevil Shute's apocalyptic vision of the end of the world, On the Beach, in which radioactive fallout destroys all life on Earth. He told us to be afraid, very afraid. I wonder what would have happened if, when the Russians shelled Europe's biggest nuclear power station at Zaporizhazhia, they had breached the reactors? Presumably the invading forces would have had no choice but to evacuate the theatre of war. It would have been a catastrophe for both Europe and Russia, but it is sobering to reflect that such an event might not be the worst-case scenario. At least it could have been spun as an "accident". Deployment of a "tactical" nuclear weapon, on the other hand, would be deliberate, and would predicate, according to the deterrent doctrine, a reprisal. And then we find ourselves on Nevil Shute's beach.

I wish Mr Jack had said to his young inquisitor, "Well, if Mr Putin explodes a nuclear bomb, he will have demonstrated that the nuclear deterrent doesn't work. So what would be the point in exploding another one?"

Dr Hamish Maclaren, Stirling.

DETERRENCE DOES WORK

IAN Blackford claims that nuclear weapons should be removed because they are not a deterrent (“Blackford doubles down on pledge to remove Trident amid nuclear tensions”, The Herald, March 7) but this familiar SNP talking point has just been proven wrong, by Vladimir Putin himself.

After all, Nato is refusing to escalate and establish the Ukranian no-fly zone or provide more active support that suffering Ukrainians and President Zelensky have been so desperately requesting specifically because we have been effectively intimidated by Mr Putin's threats of nuclear retaliation.

Nuclear deterrence demonstrably works – all too well – and while it binds our hands in the tragedy of Ukraine it also protects the other smaller nations formerly dominated by Russia. Recent events do not discredit nuclear defence, but show why we need it to limit Russian aggression.

Robert Frazer, Dundee.

* IN half a sentence, when Vladimir Putin alluded to the terrible consequences that could emanate from outside interference in his plans for Ukraine, any argument that nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent to war was immediately and unequivocally destroyed.

The argument is based on the logic that nobody wants mutually assured destruction, assuming that everyone, everywhere, in all circumstances, will act logically. As we are now witnessing, all it takes is one powerful individual to buck the norm and we are on the brink of global disaster. Worse, logic then suggests that if an egocentric individual like President Putin feels cornered by subsequent resistance, he may actually have nothing to lose by unleashing all his power on his perceived enemies.

And if he does, do we retaliate and unleash our own, on millions of innocent people unfortunate enough to have someone like Mr Putin in charge of their country? That too would be criminal.

The only way to avoid a potential nuclear war is for no country to have nuclear weapons, full stop. Hopefully, it is not yet too late to learn the lesson.

Liam Kane, East Kilbride.

NATO MUST DO THE RIGHT THING

ON Sunday (March 6), American Express joined the growing corporate boycott of Russia and issued the exemplary statement that one of its core values is “to do what is right". Nato should pay heed. Rather than reciting ad nauseam the mealy-mouthed mantra that Ukraine is not a Nato member, the western allies should adopt the same laudable approach as AmEx and impose humanitarian no-fly zones in support of evacuation corridors. Otherwise, in a long drawn-out conflict, Nato is condemning thousands of innocent civilians and fleeing refugees to their death in the coming months.

Ian Forbes, Glasgow.

Read more: Don't blame Nato or Brexit for Putin's evil