Purchase today

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.

Jobs

User login

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

RSS

Could Trident remain in an independent Scotland?

Royal Navy chiefs say the UK would have no choice but to do a deal with Scotland.

By George Eaton Published 27 January 2012 12:35

Two weeks ago I posed the question of what would happen to Trident if Scotland won independence. Almost all of the UK's nuclear submarines are stationed at the Faslane naval base on the Gare Loch, while the warheads and missiles are stored at Coulpor on Loch Long, but the unilateralist SNP has long pledged to remove them from Scottish waters if it wins control over defence policy (currently a reserved matter for Westminster).

The answer, according to Royal Naval chiefs, is that Trident would have to remain in Scotland for up to ten years. Today's Telegraph reports that chiefs have concluded that "the Scottish naval base currently used to arm submarines with Trident nuclear missiles is the only site suitable for the task and building another could take up to a decade".

As I explained before, while the UK could find an alternative site for the nuclear subs (three are currently stationed at Devonport in Plymouth), there is no obvious location for its missiles and warheads. One defence source tells the Telegraph:

Berths would not be a problem - there are docks on the south coast that could be used without too much fuss. But there simply isn't anywhere else where we can do what we do at Coulport, and without that, there is no deterrent.

Consequently, should Scotland go it alone, ministers would be forced to persuade Alex Salmond's government to let it keep its nuclear weapons on Scottish soil while a new site is constructed, perhaps in exchange for concessions on other issues such as the national debt, sterling and North Sea Oil. The UK would not be the first country to station nuclear weapons on foreign territory. For instance, there are still around 200 US tactical nuclear weapons located in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey. But it would be unprecedented for a nuclear weapons state to base almost its entire force on the territory of a non-nuclear weapon state.

Yet with an increasingly wide range of political opinion recognising that the costs of Trident outweigh the benefits, would it really be unthinkable for the UK to finally abandon this national virility symbol?

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Scottish independence

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

19 comments

Fri, 2012-01-27 13:56 — JimmyRushmore (not verified)

Getting rid of Trident at a time when Iran is rushing to get a nuclear weapon would be criminally short sighted. The deterrent is vital for our national security.

Sat, 2012-01-28 14:39 — Andrew P Nichols (not verified)

Getting rid of Trident at a time when Iran is rushing to get a nuclear weapon would be criminally short sighted.

Really Jimmy? Do you know better than the IAEA and The US intelligence community who STILL say there is no evidence the Iranians are building a bomb.

Sat, 2012-01-28 17:16 — Ellie (not verified)

If the rest of the former united kingdom (as it will be if this scenario comes true) wants a nuclear weapons system then the MOD is just going to have to find somewhere to put them but it will not be Scotland's problem. And if the navy chiefs don't like it. Tough.

Fri, 2012-01-27 17:33 — JimmyRushmore (not verified)

@Edward

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Yes, other countries have nuclear weapons, which is exactly why unilaterally disarming ourselves would be stupid.

Sat, 2012-01-28 18:52 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

No ICBM sites in the UK. The English are not silly. As the Soviet military in the early sixties were appraised of the UK's strategic value as an unsinkable aircraft carrier, Soviet scientists were detonating 60 megaton plus nuclear bombs and demonstrating the USSR had the ICBMs to deliver such devastating payloads to targets in these islands.
Yes, the English took the Scot's goat. Siting Britain's nuclear base way north of the border, Whitehall breathed a sigh of relief that the Jock's had drawn the short stray yet again.

Scapegoat!

Fri, 2012-01-27 21:03 — Fraziel1

The large majority of Scots do not want them here.They would have to go.

Sun, 2012-01-29 12:48 — MarkR (not verified)

We do not want to pay for them, we do not want then in Scotland. They can take them and insert them up the Thames as far as they can go. If by some horror we need to take them for short time before they take them back, then they must be made to pay dearly for them such that there is amassive incentive for them to take them away from Scotland.

Fri, 2012-01-27 12:52 — David (not verified)

The simple answer is that we do not want WMDs on Scottish soil or in our waters. What they really mean is that they don't want their nuclear weapons close to the population centres in England as it would make them a target. Sorry chaps, but if Scotland becomes independent then you're going to have to take your expensive toys and keep them in your own back yard.

Fri, 2012-01-27 12:57 — Tommy (not verified)

The costs of Trident don't outweigh the benefits... it costs roughly £2.5bn per year as opposed to our regular military which costs £32bn per year and is far more effective at defending our country.

Scotland wouldn't become independent overnight, it would probably take the best part of a decade anyway and I'm sure we could get by using the submarines elsewhere. Even if we can only use 1/3 or so of our deterrent, it should be perfectly adequate.

Fri, 2012-01-27 13:26 — kenelm (not verified)

David is right, we want rid of the WMDs. It will mainly become Westminster's problem.

But ... George, do you rely on the Daily Telegraph for your information?

I wonder if you ever talk to people in the Scottish government or the SNP, who obviously have discussed a lot of these issues for years.

Fri, 2012-01-27 13:40 — David (not verified)

I didn't say anything about the evil English putting them near Glasgow. I said they are away from the major population centres in England because that would make them a target, which is a logical thing for them to have done as there is an inherent risk in placing nuclear warships near major population centres. The navy top brass don't want to: a) spend money renovating existing bases, or b) place nuclear weapons and submarines near to places with high population density, so they would rather they stayed where they are. Please don't misrepresent me.