I REFER to the article by Professor Richard Murphy in which he comprehensively describes “Why Boris Johnson’s foolish decision to commission more nuclear weapons will backfire” (National Extra, March 16).

He argues that removal of Trident from Faslane should be a central issue in post independence discussions with the rUK Government.

Whilst I agree with the arguments put forward two central matters to be resolved are where Trident submarines would be moved to and in what timescale that could happen.
Scottish CND published a report with a Road Map in 2019 which was based on the report Disarming Trident by the late John Ainslie, co-ordinator of Scottish CND which suggested a four-year timescale and rUK would have to decide where Trident submarines could be based in future.

READ MORE: Richard Murphy: Boris Johnson's foolish nuclear plan will backfire on him

The report outlined three steps to disarmament which included ending operational deployment of the submarines, removal of the keys and the triggers which would then be secured in a safe place on land and disabling the missiles.

All anti-nuclear campaign organisations including HANT (Highlands Against Nuclear Transport) will also have to highlight the fact that scrapping Trident will not lead to massive job losses at Faslane as RN personnel would be redeployed and the 500/600 jobs directly related to Trident could be redeployed in many sectors including renewable energy.

This fact was highlighted in a report by the Nuclear Education Trust in 2018 which researched diversification projects in other countries and applied the evidence to Faslane.

The majority of Scottish voters oppose nuclear weapons and there is the political will within SNP, Scottish Greens and some in the Labour movement to ensure priority is given to this issue after independence.

Tor Justad
Chairperson, Highlands Against Nuclear Transport

THE intention to increase the UK nuclear arsenal to 260 warheads must sure belie any discussion that Britain now stands alone, taking directive orders from no-one. Few in Scotland can welcome this decision and the thought of an accident wiping out the majority of the Scottish population. But post-Cold War, we are told we require a deterrent against “rogue states”.

A further decision of no benefit to Scotland is that of the Conservative government to reduce military personnel by 10,000 people. With Scotland’s hundreds of miles of remote sparsely populated coastlines, any incursion by a rogue state would hardly even require a naval force: the invasion could take place by pleasure craft, old bath tubs and troops riding inflatable green dinosaurs.

JD Moir
via email

THE demands placed on Scotland’s health service by the pandemic have intensified pleas for an increase in funding for Scottish NHS. However, although responsibility for the NHS in Scotland is devolved, its funding is not and has to be found from the Scottish Parliament’s block grant provided by Westminster.

If huge sums of Scottish taxpayers’ money were not being used to pay Scotland’s share of the cost of renewing and maintaining Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet, there would be funds available to properly support the Scottish NHS. However, this will only be possible when Scotland is able to raise and control all its own finances.

Susan Swain
Dunbar

I COMPLETELY agree with Iain Ramsay (Clyde must be tested for Faslane chemicals, May 25), who has highlighted the single most critical reason (out of so many!) for Scotland to become independent and be able to remove these nuclear subs and their terrible weapons from Scottish waters. We have to think of future generations above all else.

Tim Warner
via thenational.scot