A question of defence

WITH defence of the people the first responsibility of any government, it seems odd it has not been the first priority of the independence debate.

With the First Minister’s speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC last week, and Nato’s statement that an independent Scotland would need to negotiate entry to the nuclear alliance as a new member, defence is more salient.

While an independent Scotland would face no territorial threat, the burgeoning of West of Shetland oil fields requires a strong naval presence to counter terrorism. As we report today, a Scottish Defence Force could learn much from Ireland in terms of money, mission, structure and recruitment to build an efficient and effective military. While there is progress in the debate about conventional forces, questions remain about the nuclear dimension.

At Brookings, Alex Salmond said he did not believe a commitment to expelling Trident from the Clyde would stop Scotland joining Nato. But there is a world of difference between a state rejecting nuclear weapons for itself, and a state disarming a reluctant neighbour. That is Salmond’s scenario.

Would Nato be relaxed about its three nuclear powers being cut to two, especially by a club newcomer? For Salmond to have credibility on this, he must produce evidence Nato would side with Scotland over the UK on Trident.