The elected representatives of Scotland, have a policy that says that Scotland will be defended by conventional forces only.
As previously discussed an independent Scotland does not want to have anything to do with Nuclear weapons, but wish to benefit from the collective defence offered by NATO. They seem to be of the opinion that because they are Scotland, they deserve special treatment. It should be pointed out that NATO’s collective defence has been built around the ultimate deterrence offered by Nuclear weaponry.
I suppose that Scottish political leaders are firmly of the view that defence relies on the goodwill of others. History teaches us that appeasement does not work and that by failing to have a strong defence and methods of deterrence we see the situation created by the Nazis on the 1930s and more recently by Russia in the Crimea. Being blind to the failings of others seems to be a failing of those that will only live on their principles. The opposite of “War” is not “Peace“, but “Surrender“.
Both the Labour party in Scotland and now England/Wales as well as the nationalist parties want to strip the United Kingdom of its nuclear deterrence, this is both idealistic and extraordinarily naive.
The Scottish government have expressed the desire that Scotland becomes a nuclear free zone – I would, therefore, recommend to the government in Westminster that when planning for the replacement for the current Trident submarines, that they also factor in the cost of the building of a new base for the fleet in England, probably in Devonport. When the time comes to decommission the bases at Coulport and also Faslane, that the cost of the redundancy is borne entirely by the government in Edinburgh, as the closure was entirely due to the policies of the Scottish Government.