Trident: The hidden depths to the nuclear debate

What would happen to Britain’s Trident submarine fleet if Scotland opts to go it alone?

Experts and politicians debate the big issues relating to Trident.

Expert View Malcolm Chalmers, Director UK Defence Policy, Royal United Services Institute

“The overriding foreign policy interest of an independent Scotland would be to have good relations with the UK.

“Yet the task of achieving such good relations would be made immeasurably more difficult were Scotland’s Government to insist that, come what may, all UK nuclear facilities must leave by a fixed date. Scotland may not care for nuclear weapons.

“But the UK does and an attempt to force through its denuclearisation would risk any chance of creating the ‘special relationship’ that both the two states but Scotland most of all will need in the uncertain situation that would follow separation.

“The issue of Trident in Scotland is not primarily about NATO. Most other NATO members would be concerned if Scotland took a radically anti-nuclear stance, and would likely block a membership application if it were to be submitted.

“But Scotland’s main problem would be closer to home.

“With a fair wind and wise leadership, Scotland could achieve a fast track to membership in both the EU and NATO, perhaps by 2017 or thereabouts.

“But it could only do so if the UK was to support it strongly. Fortunately, after all the post-referendum recrimination and resentment had died down, wise heads would likely prevail and the UK would recognise that it had a strong interest in open borders and security assistance to its northern neighbour.

“But co-operation would have to go both ways. On Trident there could be a way forward. In the event of a Yes vote, the Scottish negotiating team could propose a joint feasibility study of options for possible Trident relocation.

“In the meantime, the two parties would agree to base Trident in Scotland until mutually acceptable alternative arrangements could be found.”

Expert View John MacDonald, Director Scottish Global Forum

“The Scottish government asserts that after a Yes vote, it will seek the ‘speediest safe removal’ of the UK nuclear force from Scotland, with a preference for removal by 2020.

“This is perfectly possible but it may be complicated if the UK Government wished to maintain its nuclear force in keeping with the current Scottish setup.

“The Vanguard-class submarines which carry the nuclear-armed Trident missiles can easily be rebased from Faslane.

“The nuclear warheads currently housed at Coulport could also be easily relocated to other UK nuclear facilities; however, none of those facilities are near where the Vanguard submarines would be rebased to.

“Faslane and Coulport are very close and linked by water. Recreating this arrangement in a facility elsewhere in the UK would thus be the challenge; it would be politically controversial and hugely expensive. If such a facility could not be built, or afforded, the UK Government might be forced to abandon Trident altogether.

“That decision would be for the UK Government who would likely push to delay Trident’s eviction as long as possible whilst it sought alternative basing arrangements.

“The international community would watch this discussion closely; continuing NATO membership for Scotland may well depend upon how reasonable its government was seen to be in assisting the UK government’s efforts.

“‘Reasonableness’ as perceived by the international community would likely require Edinburgh to avoid playing hardball and allow London ‘reasonable time’ in its relocation efforts.

“‘Reasonable time’ should, at worst, be no more than 20 years. Evicting Trident in the event of independence could be achieved in far less time.”

Yes Vote Keith Brown, MSP, Scottish Government minister for veterans and former Royal Marines.

“In less than 150 days, Scotland will decide what kind of country it wants to be. One of the big choices we face is whether Scotland remains home to weapons of mass destruction.

“It’s important to reflect how significant a moment this will be as the world’s newest country, one of the first things an independent Scotland will have the chance to do is rid itself of nuclear weapons.

“I can think of few more powerful statements we can make to the world.

“The lifetime cost of replacing Trident will run to some £100 billion an obscene waste of money, and one of the key reasons why Scotland will be better off with a Yes vote. Instead, we will invest in a better, fairer Scotland starting “with a transformational increase in childcare provision, creating jobs and supporting people into employment.

“An independent Scotland working within NATO will be a positive contributor to international peace and security.

“Our membership of the alliance will bring significant benefits for defence and security co-operation within our region, and will demonstrate a clear commitment towards working in close, responsible and peaceful co-operation with Scotland’s neighbours and allies.

“Of course, 25 of the existing 28 member states of Nato are non-nuclear.

“Let’s not forget that the UK’s wasting money on Trident has also left Scotland with totally unsuitable conventional defence capabilities particularly maritime protection.

“With independence we can invest in defence and security forces which reflect our needs in the 21st Century.

“But there is absolutely no chance of Scotland ever getting rid of Trident if we vote No, as all of the anti-independence parties are committed to maintaining the UK’s weapons of mass destruction.”

No Vote Liam Fox, Tory MP and former Defence Secretary

“For more than half a century Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, has played a major role in NATO, defending the freedom and values of our allies in Europe and North America.

“The UK is one of the nuclear powers, who, along with France and the United States, faced down the Soviet threat during the Cold War.

“Scotland shares in the safety and security that is offered by the United Kingdom having the fourth-largest military budget in the world with some of the best equipped and trained armed forces anywhere. Yet Alex Salmond wants to throw it all away.

“Scotland will be a “non-nuclear” state if independence comes about. As a non-nuclear state, it can hardly be part of NATO, which is a nuclear Alliance.

“At a time when global threats, including a resurgent Russia, are facing us, Scotland would have to go it alone. What that would mean for future generations can only be guessed at.

“Perhaps the nationalists would like to ask the Norwegians, the Swedes and the Danes how they feel about the new vulnerability that a Scottish absence from NATO would represent.

“Of course, there would be more immediate consequences for the Scottish people the loss of thousands of jobs at Faslane, as well as those small firms who are part of the supply chain, the loss of skills and a bleak future for both employment and investment.

“At best, “wishful thinking”, sums up Alex Salmond’s policies on Scottish independence.

“They have already come under attack from many different angles and there is no clarity on issues such as the EU or which currency the Scottish people would use after independence.

“No policy of the nationalists, however, is as dangerous as their ill thought out approach to defence.

“Whatever arguments are made on other issues, there can be no doubt of one thing we are all safer together.”