I CANNOT help feeling that our First Minister – whose politics I fully support and admire – may have missed a trick or two when she responded to her questioner at the Edinburgh Book Festival on the name of the Scottish National Party (The National, August 18). 
Not only does the word “nationalist” not appear in the title, any problem thought to be associated with the concept of nationalism actually lies in the loose, inaccurate perceptions of the idea, which so many people carry around with them. Of course the SNP is nationalist – but under which definition?
We have seen numbers of Scots who have recently become happy to vote SNP to propel Scotland towards independence, yet shy away from calling themselves nationalists. I hold to a definition of nationalism which challenges that reluctance.
Have not a large number of decent English folk woken up since the European referendum, surprised to be called nationalists for the way they voted and for their reasons for so voting? Well, I have news for them! They live in a country whose centre of power – the monarch – was fiercely nationalist from the 13th century or earlier, a country which did not diverge from that approach, even when democracy began to creep in hundreds of years later. 
There is little need to even mention those 1930s incidences of nationalism which were so overblown by fascism and which some of our opponents ridiculously see as the only and defining examples.
What am I trying to say? First, that we Scottish nationalists should not get hung up over one of our central political concepts. Outside voices may be louder much of the time but where they slot us into the world of politics can be so wide of the mark that one doubts one’s ability to explain the basics to such individuals. An example of this was seen in a recent letter writer to your sister paper: “Nationalism … is based on the premise that coming from a particular geographic location makes you superior to others.” It’s hard to say whether this is ignorant or just wilful misrepresentation of opposing parties which is such a large part of how British politics is conducted. The SNP have had to listen to this rubbish for the best part of a century. As independence gets closer, we should carry on unconcerned, strong in the certainty that our own definitions are right.
Secondly, we should point out something which our detractors don’t seem to notice: what nationalism is – and what it is not. It is not a self-standing position on the political spectrum, not a left, right or middle package on its own, like socialism, liberalism, conservatism. If any of these are bad, the attached nationalism will be correspondingly corrupted; if they are worthwhile political movements, any nationalism associated with them will equally be decent and moderate. (The 1930s examples were appallingly bad because fascist-inspired).
Make no mistake, we all recognise that nations exist and we all believe that people living in those nations are better qualified to run their affairs than is the government of a country which happens to be next door. In this sense, I aver that the vast majority of us are nationalist. (To those protesting “What about the EU?” my reply is this doesn’t disturb my definition, for the EU, a voluntary association, does not rule without consent. We rule ourselves by majority agreement to its proposals, in the same way that the elected party in a democratic parliament governs).
I see nationalism as having as its starting point a recognition of the existence of actual nations; then recognition of the belief that its people are best qualified to govern; and thirdly the right to claim the sovereignty to do so, should they wish. Nothing more. A fair definition? If so, surely not something to be feared, nor reluctant to participate in.
Michael F Troon
Gauldry, Fife

---------------------------------------------------------------

New aircraft carriers are worse than a vanity project

MICHAEL Fry hits the nail firmly on the head when he describes the new UK aircraft carriers as a £6 billion vanity project 
(The National, August 22). 

They used to say that generals always prepare to fight the next war as if it was the previous one, when they are never the same, of course. But it seems admirals are just as to the effects of change. The great sea battles of the Second World War are things of the past. New missile technology, both seaborne and land-based, is just one factor that makes carriers as vulnerable today as aircraft made battleships during the Second World War.

Strategically too, as Michael says, it’s difficult to see the practical relevance of a huge carrier, even if it actually has aircraft on board. The scraps that Britain seems to want 
to be involved in now are essentially anti-terrorist or neo-colonial exercises and mainly in the Middle East, which, in any case, the Royal Air Force has been bombing pretty well non-stop since its formation in 1918.

As for east of Suez? Well, Britain lost that battle in 1942 when it lost Singapore, and an empire to boot. In a time of austerity, with an annual deficit of £56 billion and total debt in the region of £1700bn, this is worse than a vanity project – it is a collective madness of Gadarene Swine proportions. Though perhaps the Revolt of the Pygmies is a better analogy.
Peter Craigie
Edinburgh

BIG Ben is the main icon of Britishness. I recall my parents listening to it, crouched before the wireless, as it rang out before the 9pm news. It seemed a reassurance to them that somehow or other Britain would survive the external onslaught that it faced.
Today, Britain faces another great threat, an onslaught not from 
an external military enemy but from 
an internal political one. Will Britain still be there when Big Ben returns? I have my doubts and so do many others. Hence the huge outpouring 
of emotion.
Alan Clayton
Strachur, Argyll

I READ with some bemusement about the emotional reactions of some MPs to the silencing of Big Ben for maintenance.
Odd that there is not the same choked-up response to child poverty, the increase in homelessness, the drug epidemic in our over-crowded prisons, the failure to improve literacy rates, increasing use of food banks, the looming economic crisis and personal-debt tsunami, rising prices and flatlining wages, poor infrastructure, the increasing dangers caused by problems of NHS staffing levels ...
Amanda Baker
Edinburgh

I READ the letter from Rory Steel regarding 16 and 17-year-olds joining the forces (Recruiting under-18s to the armed forces must be stopped, The National, August 22) and I’m not quite sure where to begin. The best thing I ever did was join the army, aged 16, back in 2002. If I hadn’t, I’d probably have spent the rest of my life in and out of prison.

What really is the difference between a 16-year-old joining up straight from school or an 18-year-old joining straight from school? A lot of the 16-year-olds who join up have better heads on their shoulders than the 18-year-olds.

To some kids, joining the forces at 16 is a lifeline. Contrary to what Rory seems to believe, it’s not about torture and brainwashing. The fact I read The National pretty much proves I wasn’t brainwashed! I learned and achieved more between the ages of 16 and 18 in the forces than I ever would have done on civvy street. In fact, if I’d had to wait until I was 18 I would probably have been a lost cause. If a reset button was pressed on my life I’d do the exact same thing again.

Having served on tours of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I’d argue that it was the 18-year-olds (after a few months of training) rather than the 16-year-olds (after two years of training) who needed looked after.

Rather than criticise the armed forces, Rory could spend his time more productively by finding out why it is that people like me feel the need to join at 16. Spend your time making opportunities available to 16 to
18-year-olds to try to prevent them feeling the need to join up, but do not take this lifeline away from the very people who need it the most. 
Name and
address supplied