The Scottish Government this week unveiled its latest independence paper, the 11th in the Building a New Scotland series, entitled An Independent Scotland’s Place in the World.
At the launch, External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson insisted that removing Trident from the Clyde would not be an obstacle to Scotland joining Nato.
That view was roundly criticised by one of our correspondents yesterday.
Read more: Does anyone fall for the SNP's pie in the sky indy papers?
The debate is carried forward today by a reader who argues that there are major obstacles to the Trident system remaining in an independent Scotland
GR Weir of Ochiltree writes:
"Could I gently insist to Jill Stephenson (Letters, March 6) that rUK could not maintain the Trident system in an independent Scotland?
"Scotland would be required to surrender sovereignty over part of its territory. That would require an involvement in Scotland by rUK security forces; military personnel resident in those bases would be outside Scotland’s legal system; and there would be requirement for a huge, agreed provision for recompense over a nuclear accident.
"The UK has made it clear that Britain could (in extremis) use Trident in a “pre-emptive strike”, even when the UK was not under attack. Trident could even be used when Nato was not involved. Scotland could not be a party to this scenario without a level of involvement (oversight and a veto) which rUK simply could not agree to.
Get the letter of the day straight to your inbox
"I think a reasonable time (10 years?) could be set to allow for new bases to be constructed, perhaps in Cumbria.
"As someone who was involved with Standing Naval Force Atlantic (STANAVFORLANT), I am certain Nato would welcome our involvement; the geography of the North Atlantic Gap makes that obvious.
"Scotland pays almost £5 billion for UK defence, yet there is not a single large warship based anywhere in Scotland."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel