The Scottish Government this week unveiled its latest independence paper, the 11th in the Building a New Scotland series, entitled An Independent Scotland’s Place in the World. 

At the launch, External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson insisted that removing Trident from the Clyde would not be an obstacle to Scotland joining Nato. 

That view was roundly criticised by one of our correspondents yesterday. 

Read more: Does anyone fall for the SNP's pie in the sky indy papers?

The debate is carried forward today by a reader who argues that there are major obstacles to the Trident system remaining in an independent Scotland

GR Weir of Ochiltree writes: 

"Could I gently insist to Jill Stephenson (Letters, March 6) that rUK could not maintain the Trident system in an independent Scotland? 

"Scotland would be required to surrender sovereignty over part of its territory. That would require an involvement in Scotland by rUK security forces; military personnel resident in those bases would be outside Scotland’s legal system; and there would be requirement for a huge, agreed provision for recompense over a nuclear accident. 

"The UK has made it clear that Britain could (in extremis) use Trident in a ‚Äúpre-emptive strike‚ÄĚ, even when the UK was not under attack. Trident could even be used when Nato was not involved. Scotland could not be a party to this scenario without a level of involvement (oversight and a veto) which rUK simply could not agree to.¬†

Get the letter of the day straight to your inbox

"I think a reasonable time (10 years?) could be set to allow for new bases to be constructed, perhaps in Cumbria. 

"As someone who was involved with Standing Naval Force Atlantic (STANAVFORLANT), I am certain Nato would welcome our involvement; the geography of the North Atlantic Gap makes that obvious.

"Scotland pays almost £5 billion for UK defence, yet there is not a single large warship based anywhere in Scotland."