NO nation has ever voted to give up the bomb.
Scotland might just be about to be the first.
That, at least, is the way our referendum looks to international nuclear disarmament campaigners.
Ban-the-bombers across the globe, of course, don't care one way or another about this country's constitutional arrangements.
But they love the idea of a territory, any territory, essentially volunteering to disarm in a national plebiscite.
Last month Abolition 2000 - a sort of international equivalent of our own CND - met in Edinburgh and visited the UK's Trident base at Faslane on Gare Loch.
The event has gradually drummed up a lot of attention for the anti-nuclear stance of the SNP and its independentista allies in alternative media across Europe, not least in the Netherlands.
One of those inspired by the Scottish debate was Krista van Velzen, a former MP for the Dutch Socialist Party and now a campaigner for No Nukes in Amsterdam.
"I am jealous of the fact that you Scots have a referendum on independence," she said. "Because it's the first time a people will have the opportunity to vote on whether they want nuclear weapons."
Other nations have got rid of nukes. Canada won't have American weapons on its territory.
And both Kazakhstan and Ukraine gradually shipped out Soviet nuclear arms from their territories shortly after independence in 1991.
They did not vote to do so, however. Their governments, new and weak, simply responded to international pressure - backed in hard cash - to make sure only one nuclear state, Russia, emerged from the ruins of the USSR.
Wilbert van der Zeijden - a colleague of Ms van Velzen - has spotted the comparison.
"The independence of Scotland will, for international treaties, be regarded as a split of the United Kingdom," he wrote in a international peace magazine, NPT News in Review. "Scotland will not have to renegotiate every treaty of which it is part now.
"Like Ukraine or Kazakhstan, Scotland will find itself in the peculiar position of having nuclear weapons on its territory, to which it could in theory have just as much ownership rights as the remainder of the UK.
"But it does not want to take over the UK's role as a nuclear weapon state and it does not want bombs on its territory."
The rump UK state, van der Zeijden argued, would be at risk of breaching the terms of the international non-proliferation regime if it kept Trident in Scotland.
"It is the UK after all that maintains that the Trident weapons have nowhere to go but Clyde Naval Base in Scotland," he said. "So if Scotland exercises its sovereign right and ends the deployments ... where does that leave Trident?"
Vrij Nederlands - a high-minded left-of-centre news magazine first published underground during Nazi occupation - has picked up the buzz about the future of what it called Scotland's "English nuclear submarines".
Author Ko Colijn had a nice wee line, inspired by recent brinksmanship in the Far East.
Korea, he said, was made up of one nation in two states squabbling about nuclear armament.
The UK, he added, was two nations in one state squabbling about nuclear disarmament.
Colijn gives us some context. Scottish independence - and the threat to kick out Trident - comes just as Britain, and the MoD, slash budgets.
"If the Scots close the base on the Clyde, Trident's replacement and relocation will become very expensive indeed," he wrote. "That ratchets up the debate several notches, because suddenly the lofty ambitions of the United Kingdom as a 'world power' are in the balance."
Nato, he stressed, expected an independent Scotland to reapply for membership. "All the current member states will then have to agree," he said. "And that means the United Kingdom, which could attach the condition to Scotland's 'accession' that the Clyde must remain open.
"But Scotland is gambling that Nato will need the new state, with its strategic location in the north Atlantic, so badly that it will be able to play the nuclear free card.
"Great game! Maybe Cameron should lease a North Korean bay for Trident's replacement."
Can you sense the glee among international peaceniks at the threat posed by Scottish independence to Britain's nuclear might?
Then imagine the dread felt by some of London's strategic military partners, such as the United States and France, at the same prospect.
* Thanks to journalist Gordon Darroch and Scottish CND's John Ainslie for his help on this blog.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article