LIBERAL Democrat Minister Nick Harvey is proposing a Guantanamo Bay situation on the Clyde should Scotland become independent ("Warning on Faslane post-independence", The Herald, June 14).
Colonialism dies hard.
The Ministry of Defence in London, according to his proposal, would have "complete freedom of action, complete control and complete sovereignty over the facility" so that the Westminster Government could continue to store around 200 nuclear bombs there and operate their deadly delivery systems from Scottish territory. In pre-Coalition days Nick Harvey was once much more sceptical about Trident.
The alternative he suggests is that Scotland should share the "gargantuan sum of money" to relocate the nuclear facility in England.
This is simply political bluster on two counts. Trident was imposed on Scotland against popular opinion and against the majority of elected representatives at that time and it would be entirely the choice of a Westminster Government to continue with it or not. Except that there is no choice. Nick Harvey knows that there is nowhere for Trident to go in England.
The Ministry of Defence carried out a study in 1963 to consider where a naval nuclear base could go. It was agreed that there were no suitable sites in England and Wales and the reasons given at that time are much stronger now given the huge size of Trident and the higher safety standards required. The evidence on this is outlined in the CND report Trident – Nowhere To Go.
So if an independent Scottish Government makes the decision to remove all nuclear warheads from Scottish territory, it would have the legal right to do so and it would achieve nuclear disarmament not only in Scotland but also in England.
There are many Liberal Democrat voters as well as Labour voters who would welcome that outcome.
Isobel Lindsay,
9 Knocklea Place,
Biggar.
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