Plans for a single security and intelligence service in an independent Scotland will not offer the level of protection and support currently provided as part of the UK, according to a former chief of MI6.
Sir John Scarlett said British intelligence services have been built up over decades - "work which cannot be replicated in just a few years".
The Scottish Government set out proposals to create a single agency for security and intelligence to ensure Scotland's national security in its white paper on independence.
Writing in the Times newspaper, Sir John, who served as chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service from 2004 to 2009, said: "In my view, the Scottish Government proposals will not offer the level of protection and support currently provided by the highly-sophisticated British security and intelligence agencies."
His comments follow an intervention from Sir David Omand, the former head of GCHQ, who described the SNP's defence plans as "fundamentally flawed" and issued a warning over the future of cyber security.
Former Nato commander General Sir Richard Shirreff branded the SNP's defence policies as "amateurish" and "dangerous".
Shadow defence minister Gemma Doyle said: "Yet again, we see the experts saying one thing and Alex Salmond another.
"The SNP's defence and security policies fall apart under scrutiny. It makes no sense for us to pay more money for less security.
"The nationalists cannot tell us how much it would cost to set up new defence and security agencies, but it's clear from experts like Sir John Scarlett that we could not replicate what we enjoy now.
"As part of the UK, we benefit from a defence and security budget of £34 billion. Why give that up?"
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