That great anti-war film, Dr Strangelove: or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb, quietly passed its 50th birthday last year.

Over time, and spared from nuclear holocaust, it seems that we did finally learn how to stop worrying, and to tolerate, if not exactly love, the bomb. Not so, however, in Scotland, where the removal of the UK Trident nuclear deterrent at Faslane became a Red Card issue in the Independence Referendum campaign.

The removal of the UK's nuclear deterrent from Scotland remains the outstanding contentious defence proposal of last year's referendum.

The other defence aspects, such as membership of NATO, projected defence spending levels, and proposals for the Scottish Defence Forces, were not, as it turned out, make-or-break issues during the campaign.

It is not difficult to figure out why Trident dominates the defence debate. On the Nationalist side its removal has unfortunately become a core principle of independence itself, almost on a level with control of the economy. Neither have I heard many nationalists asking the UK to leave its nuclear deterrent in place, as part of future defence cooperation between both countries.

On the Unionist side there has always been a vocal internal opposition to the UK having a nuclear deterrent at all. The costs of its retention, and the necessary replacement of the nuclear submarines, are horrendous and getting harder to explain.

The additional costs of Trident's relocation could well be the last straw for UK public opinion. UK without Scotland may hold its standing internationally, but without its nuclear deterrent it would be relegated to a lower division among world players.

The debate on Trident rumbles on with the recent bizarre allegations of poor security at the Clyde facilities. I say "bizarre" because it is hard to imagine security being so lax there, as suggested, that a terrorist could easily waltz into a Trident- carrying submarine and self-destruct.

Nevertheless, the removal of Trident is a strongly held position for many Scots; a position perhaps based as much on fear as on rational argument. The main objections seem to be: the danger of a nuclear accident; the fear that Trident presents a target for a potential enemy; and moral objections against weapons of mass destruction.

The facts are that the risks of a nuclear accident at Faslane are very low, and the safety track record there should be reassuring. Moreover, the worldwide experience is that there is far less risk of a nuclear accident on military nuclear installations than from nuclear power stations.

In time of war all military nuclear facilities have to be considered as potential nuclear targets. However, unlike missile silos, the Trident submarines can be put to sea, and stockpiled munitions relocated at short notice, greatly reducing the target value of Faslane to a potential enemy. Nor will a terrorist attack trigger off a nuclear explosion.

Accepted, there are moral objections to the use of weapons of mass destruction. However, if your potential enemies might be prepared to use such weapons against you, it is prudent to retain a comparable capability as a deterrent. Scotland as a potential separate future member of NATO should appreciate the retention by UK and France of a nuclear capability, as least until such time as nuclear disarmament is finally achieved.

The SNP Referendum policy that the UK must withdraw its nuclear deterrent "within the lifetime of this parliament" needs to be refined, to allow space for possible future negotiations. As stated, it is too restrictive. It is clearly not practical to expect the UK to reconstitute its nuclear deterrent capability elsewhere within such a short period as five years.

Perhaps the SNP could bring its "Trident out" policy in line with its more flexible approach on the phasing out of Scotland's two remaining nuclear power stations? The goal is ultimately the same- a nuclear free Scotland.

The agreed presence of a foreign military base, for a specified timeframe, does not necessarily compromise the sovereignty of an independent nation. There are many examples where it works well, and where it can be to the economic and security benefit of the host country.

As new defensive technologies develop Trident will be superseded, and will eventually end up as a footnote of history. In the meantime, its presence on the Clyde should not become an obstacle to Scottish independence.

Dorcha Lee is a former Colonel in the Irish Army, military planner and veteran UN peacekeeper.