I congratulate the Sunday Herald on its editorial (No nukes must mean no Nato, Leader, October 7).

International law as set down in the Non-Proliferation Treaty 1968 will require that either an independent Scotland or rUK (the rest of the UK) become a non-nuclear weapon state. I think it can be assumed that rUK will become the successor nuclear state and not Scotland.

The problem remains of how to actually get rid of the nuclear weapons in face of likely rUK and American opposition, possibly with other Nato members opposing their removal too.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty does not prevent a nuclear weapon state from stationing nuclear weapons on the territory of a non-nuclear weapon state, so long as the nuclear weapon state has sole and total control over the nuclear weaponry.

This provision would enable rUK to keep nuclear weapons on Scottish territory provided Scotland was nuclear disarmed and the Scotttish Government has no powers over the use of rUK nuclear weapons.

An independent Scotland has three options: existing nuclear bases become Scottish territory and rUK has to remove the nuclear installations; the rUK is granted a lease over the bases for a specific period; or the nuclear weapon bases become sovereign base areas under the rUK's jurisdiction.

Only the first option is fully compatible with having no nuclear weapons in Scotland and joining Nato will just obstruct this achievement.

Aileen May

Edinburgh

You claim Nato's "raison d'etre is based on nuclear weapons". Surely Nato's real raison d'etre is the defence of Western liberal democracy against the encroachment of totalitarian ideologies from outwith its members' borders. In that respect it is an instrument of collective security which has had some success over the 60 years of its existence.

And while there is still scope for considerable internal debate about whether or not the achievement of that key objective still requires the residual possession of nuclear weapons by a minority of its members, an independent Scotland's chances of influencing Nato towards a non-nuclear conclusion would surely be immeasurably enhanced if it were operating from within rather than from outwith the organisation.

In the meantime the SNP leadership's goal of achieving non-nuclear Nato membership on the Norwegian model is a legitimate aspiration – even if, in the post-referendum negotiations, there is some slippage in the time-scale for its achievement – not least in relation to the logistics of decommissioning and ultimately removing Trident from Faslane.

Ian O Bayne

Glasgow