Nuclear dilemma

It is being said that if Scotland votes Yes, it will have to wait a long time before being admitted to Nato and the EU.

This will present an interesting situation in 2016 when Scotland does become fully
independent. Scotland will then become a “foreign country”, which will not be considered by rUK for building warships.

However, the Trident submarines will still be situated in the Clyde. How will this look? The Nato nuclear defence capability situated in a foreign country, which is neither a member of Nato nor the EU.

Since the submarines will be situated within Scotland’s
territory, Scotland will surely have the right to take over the whole command structure, and transport it to Edinburgh.

Once that is in place, rUK is no longer in charge of the nuclear deterrent. Will England therefore be removed from Nato, and also, possibly, from the UN
Security Council, with Scotland filling the vacant seats?

Will Scotland also be
rapidly invited to join the EU? If rUK denies the transfer of the
command structure (as it will), Scotland will still be entitled to close the exit from the loch within its own territory.

I think England (rUK) will be so desperate to continue at the top table that it would do almost anything. Practical naval experts have said the removal of the
submarines and their base would be relatively easy and much less costly than figures quoted by the MoD.

Building suitable facilities to replace those at Coulport for storing nuclear warheads would take much longer.

A suitable site has been found near Falmouth for the submarine base. Unfortunately, the local residents are strongly
opposing the suggested move because it would be in a very lovely area and the presence of nuclear submarines would be bad for tourism.

They will therefore do everything to keep it where it is. Does that mean that the current area has no claim to beauty, and tourism doesn’t matter?

(Dr) E L Lloyd

Belgrave Road

Edinburgh