It will be a tragedy if Salmond destroys the hope of independence

WHENI heard Jean Urquhart had withdrawn from the SNP I took a glance out of the windowin case therewas a blue moon (“Two SNP stalwarts quit in protest after Nato U-turn”, The Herald, October 24).

Herewas a politician acting with integrity and principle. Even rarer there were two of them. John Finnie had also resigned. There should be no question of them leaving the Scottish Parliament. They have not left the party, the party has left them. I have no doubt both these MSPs will continue to serve Scotland with integrity and in good conscience as independents for independence.

At a recent SNP branch meeting, during a heated debate on the Nato issue, awoman member asked: “What happened to integrity?” Thiswas met by an embarrassed silence. It is an oft-repeated saying that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. At the SNP party conferencewe had Angus Robertson, supported by SNP ministers, proposing the party ditch a long-standing opposition to membership of Nato. Andwhatwas the reason given? That itwould deter some people from voting Yes in the independence referendum.

It is a policy of appalling cynical opportunism. Many members, myself included, believed independencewas a means to an end – a better Scotland – not an end in itself. Indeed, even Alex Salmond, declared thatwas the case in his concluding address.

Yet the party has just declared support for a nuclear-armed alliance. The suggestion Natowould let us joinwhilewe insist Trident is removed is frankly risible. Sowhy are they doing it? We are left with two scenarios in the event of gaining independence and an SNP Government. Either the SNP agrees to retain Trident and betray the thousands of peoplewho joined, or voted for the party, because of its opposition to Trident; or the party supports withdrawal from Nato and betrays the peoplewho voted for independence on the basis an SNP Governmentwould retain membership of Nato. Neither of these is a moral position.

In viewof the fact Angus Robertson has stated swaying the party faithful is not as important as swaying the publicwe can make a good guesswhich of these scenarios would prevail. Mr Robertson’s complete contempt for the party faithful and all those SNP activistswhose hardwork put him, and his fellowministers, in the positions they hold today, was astounding.

Even those, likemyself, who have long supported the cause of an independent Scotland knowit will be a complicated and challenging process but, if it is going to result in a country inwhich there is no integrity, no change and it is business as usual, why shouldwe bother? Much has been written about David Cameron’s dread of being the Prime Ministerwho presided over the end of the Union but thatMr Salmond and his ministers, by dismantling all the SNP stood for, should be the ones who destroyed the hope of independence would be a tragedy. Patricia Dishon, 62 Inchview Terrace, Edinburgh. I MUST take exception to your claim that John Finnie and Jean Urquhart are making a mockery of the list system of electing MSPs (“Salmond’s darkest day in government”, TheHerald, October 24). Implicit in your complaint is the notion that list MSPs should be regarded differently from constituency members, but this is not the case. Both are formally elected as individuals and both in practice are of course elected on the basis of their party affiliation.

List seats do not belong to a party; voters at an election vote for a list and regional seats are then filled based on ranking on the list. Once seats are assigned the process is complete exceptwhen it comes to filling vacancies. Regional members become MSPs and are then obliged to represent their voters to the best of their ability, not simply to always toe the party line.

Voterswould be right to be outraged should these individuals suddenly adopt a policy outlook entirely at variance with that they campaigned for election on, just as voters ought to be outraged if a party abandons its election manifesto.

These members are not doing this. Their purpose in leaving the SNP appears to be to remain as close to the platformtheywere elected on as possible. John Finnie and Jean Urquart have the right to remain MSPs and sit as independents. Iain Paterson, 2F Killermont View, Glasgow. THE Herald editorial sums up the position succinctly: “It makes a nonsense of the list system that two MSPs, both elected on party lists, can hold on to their seats and their salaries despite deserting the party.”

John Finnie and Jean Urquhart did not get into the Scottish Parliament because people voted for them personally. They have their seat and salary at Holyrood because of second votes for the SNP.

Nowthey don’t agree with SNP policy on Nato they should do the honourable thing and resign from Parliament and let two others who will dance to the First Minister’s tune take their place. Anything less is hypocrisy and makes a farce of the list system. David Whitton, Northbank Road, Kirkintilloch.