Trident should not be in Scotland for more than decade after independence

FOR Professor Malcolm Chalmers to insist that rUK armed forces would still be in Scotland 20-30 years after independence (“Armed forces of Scotland would still have to rely on the UK after independence, says defence expert”, March 17) is reminiscent of Churchill insisting Irish ports would still be in London’s control after Irish independence. I doubt any elected Scottish Government would find that tenable.

The Trident system is different as it will take time to build new facilities (priced at a measly £3.5 billion by Prof Chalmers in 2014), but there has to be a timetable for this: a decade is fair, after which boats could redeploy to Devonport and the missiles to AWE Aldermaston or Kings Bay in Georgia until finalisation of new facilities. Scotland has played no role in designing, building or refitting the Trident boats or warheads, and should not be expected to deploy them for another sovereign country.

As UK defence secretaries have previously stated that Trident could be utilised 1) as a “first-strike” weapon; 2) against a non-nuclear enemy; and 3), not necessarily on behalf of Nato, basing these weapons in Scotland longterm is morally dubious, given we have no say in their deployment.

There should be no “forcible denuclearisation” if both sides play ball, but the threat of vetoing EU/Nato membership for Scotland might remind other Nato members why they are supporting the Ukrainians’ “right to choose” over Russian bullying.

I don’t think rUK could veto Scottish EU membership, but nice try.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

This is like Churchill saying Irish ports would still be in London’s control after Irish independence