Deterrence is key to defence debate

As was to be expected, The Scotsman conference on ­defence revealed a mix of ­realism and posturing (your report, 18 June).

The issue of Trident, and its proposed replacement, is the elephant in the room. As Professor William Walker of the University of St Andrews pointed out, the UK needs a debate about what the role of nuclear deterrence is.

The UK nuclear capacity gives a degree of comfort to America, the only country that has used nuclear weapons in war, in that it is not alone, but does not add ­significantly to our or its ­defence. Who can envisage a case where the UK might use nuclear weapons without the Americans concurring?

The purpose of the UK “independent” nuclear deterrent is to protect the UK seat on the United Nations Security Council, but the cost is that we cannot afford the Type 26 frigates, or the Ocean Patrol Vessels which the Royal Navy actually needs, and which, therefore, would do more to enhance the UK prestige than unusable Tridents.

Next we come to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. To keep Trident in Scotland after independence would require that the rest of the UK leased Faslane and Coulport as a sovereign base, at a very considerable rent, and for a limited time.

It would be better if the UK government looked seriously at whether it really needs, and can afford, to keep Trident, and to go on paying hundreds of millions for preparation of its replacement. If it is not going to replace Trident, it may as well admit that to itself now. The next defence review or the one after will reach that conclusion anyway, so it would be well advised to stop wasting money it requires elsewhere. We could then discuss the other, real, issues more rationally.

John Smart

Lossiemouth

We are led to believe that if Scotland votes Yes to independence it would have to negotiate to join Nato by retaining nuclear submarines at Faslane. This seems to be incorrect as there are numerous countries which, I think, are in Nato but do not have nuclear weapons, such as Canada, Ireland and Spain.

Your defence supplement refers to Clyde shipbuilding under a photograph of a nuclear submarine – all of which have been built at Barrow(with the exception of two built in the 1960s at Birkenhead).

The argument from politicians seems to be that Scotland would not be “invited” to tender for warships and there is talk that ships would be built in England.

Apart from the Barrow company there are no major shipbuilders in England. Over many years, politicians have let them disappear.

Jim Jarvie

Dunfermline