Paul Scott: Shifting power in Scotland will shake the foundations of the UK’s nuclear defence strategy

This implies that they are of so little importance that they could be left to a parliament in which Scottish members are, at present, outnumbered ten to one.

We should probably have even fewer seats in a devo-max arrangement. It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that it does not matter if we have no influence, or very little, over foreign affairs and defence.

It is precisely these policies which expose us to very serious dangers.

The most obvious of these is the insistence of successive Westminster governments to keep the base for nuclear submarines at Faslane and Coulport on the Clyde. They even intend to renew the submarines at great cost, said to amount to £100 billion. Part of this will fall on the Scottish taxpayer.

There have been reports recently that there are flaws in the safety arrangements and that these flaws are a dangerous risk to a heavily populated area of Scotland.

The base is an obvious target in a nuclear war. These submarines with nuclear weapons are a violation of our obligations under non-proliferation agreements, but the British government does not hesitate to urge other countries not to follow their example.

An independent Scotland would request the removal of the submarines from the base on the Clyde and it would probably be difficult for the government in London to find an English constituency willing to accept them.

If that led to the abandonment of the whole project that would be of benefit to all of us.

Probably the reason why Westminster governments have been anxious to maintain these highly-dangerous and expensive weapons is to give some substance to the illusion that Britain is still a great power and therefore entitled to retain a permanent seat in the security council of the United Nations.

Prime Minister David Cameron is evidently anxious about this because he frequently refers to it in his speeches. It is this anxiety to maintain an illusion that leads British governments to accept the leadership of the United States. Hence, the British participation in the disastrous Iraq war and in Afghanistan.

One of the most harmful consequences of the union is that Scotland has been obliged to follow these disastrous British foreign and defence policies. Many opinion polls have shown that the majority of Scots have opposed such policies.

An independent Scotland, like our European neighbours of a similar size, will be prosperous and have adequate, but non-nuclear, defence forces. Our example might even encourage England to follow a more realistic and less dangerous foreign policy.