Dorcha Lee is a retired Irish Army colonel

The UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace’s recent comments on Scottish defence, made while speaking to the Scottish Parliamentary Journalists’ Association, should be welcomed by both sides of the independence issue.

The points he makes are pertinent to this overall debate and are worthy of discussion. Indeed, it is better that the security and defence issues are discussed at this early stage, and sorted out, well before a possible second independence referendum looms on the horizon.

His observation that an independent Scotland would be “definitely more vulnerable” to terrorism threats, as it would lose access to vital shared intelligence, is also an important consideration.

It could be said, however, that this point equally applies, not just to terrorist threats, but also to most threats right across the entire spectrum of national security and defence.

Nevertheless, it is understood that an independent Scotland would aspire to membership of both NATO and the EU.

READ MORE: Analysis: Defence in an independent Scotland

Through these organisations, Scotland could reasonably expect to have access to shared intelligence, at least to such intelligence that is relevant to its own national defence.

An independent Scotland’s intelligence needs would be different from the UK’s in one key respect: it would not require the same global projection as the UK’s.

The UK is a significant regional power and will, even after Scottish independence, continue to play an important global role in international security.

On the other hand, in a future context where the UK loses one third of its territory, rUK will realise that it, too, will be vulnerable without access to intelligence sharing with Scotland.

Scotland’s intelligence assets may not affect the rUK’s global projection but will be vital for the survival of the rUK itself.

The Defence Secretary’s argument that Scotland would be more open to Russian aggression if the Trident nuclear deterrent was removed from its Faslane base is debatable.

Scotland would be no more vulnerable than other NATO or EU countries that do not have nuclear weapons on their soil.

There is also the counter argument that the presence of the Trident deterrent in Scotland would make Scotland more likely to be attacked, than nuclear-weapons free rUK, itself.

Still, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey are storing US nuclear weapons, without any great public concern.

True, as far as we know, these weapons are tactical while Trident is strategic. This distinction is moot unless you believe that it is possible to fight a war with tactical nuclear weapons without the losing side escalating to the nuclear strategic level.

I do share the Defence Secretary’s concerns about the current growing tension between NATO/EU and Russia.

As a defence analyst, I'm on record for putting most of the blame on Russia, and its ambassador to Ireland has publicly expressed his displeasure with me, only last month.

The UK Defence Secretary’s view that Russia may have an interest in magnifying nationalist division around Europe is also credible but so is the view that Russia has an interest in undermining public confidence in Western governments generally, linked to its current low intensity hybrid warfare operations.

While Russia feels threatened by the westward expansion of NATO and the EU, it is not at all clear that the Russian threat would be a game-changer over Scottish independence.

The current location of the Trident nuclear deterrent should not determine the future constitutional position of Scotland.

Weapons systems come and go throughout history. Nuclear weapons are, sadly, only one means that mankind has developed to cull itself. They will, in time, be superseded by more efficient means, not necessarily land based.

In the seven years since the first independence referendum, there have been enormous changes that impact on all aspects of security and defence. These changes are political, technological, economic, demographic and social.

As an outsider looking in, it seems to me that it is up to Scots to set up the necessary structures to resume active studies on Scotland’s national security and defence policy.

I suppose it might be a bit much to expect London to offer its considerable technical expertise to the Scots. After all, turkeys don’t vote for Christmas!

Colonel Dorcha Lee (retd) is a leading Irish defence analyst