2nd September 2021
Imagine Whitehall obsessing about somehow salvaging a post-imperial policy delusion costing billions – which we cannot afford and probably serves no modern purpose.
But enough about Brexit.
This is a post about Trident.
In the event of an independent Scotland, what would happen with Trident?
(And for those who think Scottish independence ‘would never happen’, remember other things that would never happen, until they did – like Brexit.)
The Financial Times has published some information on what the current United Kingdom government sees as the options.
💥 EXCLUSIVE; The UK has drawn up contingency plans to move Trident from Scotland to US or France in the event of an independence vote. Another option is to seek an independent British territory within indy Scotland.
Scoop with @helenwarrell @MureDickie https://t.co/z7RR50kGkV
— Sebastian Payne (@SebastianEPayne) September 1, 2021
But Devonport is located next to one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. And officials fear that the structure of the continental shelf means the Vanguard submarines wouldn't be able to dive as quickly, making them more susceptible to tracking. https://t.co/z7RR50kGkV
— Sebastian Payne (@SebastianEPayne) September 1, 2021
Option three would be to negotiate a new British Overseas Territory within an independent Scotland for "several decades", containing the Faslane and Coulport bases, dubbed by one insider as a “Nuclear Gibraltar”. https://t.co/z7RR50kGkV
— Sebastian Payne (@SebastianEPayne) September 1, 2021
The “Nuclear Gibraltar” option is preferred by some in Whitehall as the most realistic, not requiring immediate changes to the Trident programme.
But it would likely face strong political opposition from the SNP, which has long backed nuclear disarmamenthttps://t.co/WUM0ufmHPe
— Sebastian Payne (@SebastianEPayne) September 1, 2021
There’s a historical precedent for having a British naval base in a foreign country. In 1921 Winston Churchill negotiated use of three naval bases in Ireland after the war of independence. But 17 years later, Ireland demanded them back in run up to WW2.https://t.co/WUM0ufmHPe
— Sebastian Payne (@SebastianEPayne) September 1, 2021
*
Dramatic stuff.
But from a constitutional perspective – rather than a defence policy perspective – the notion of the rump British state having some sort of ‘pocket’ in an independent country is a curious one.
Of course there are examples such as the Irish ports mentioned in the thread – or the two bases in Cyprus.
Such naval and related arrangements are not novel.
But.
There seems a difference in principle as well as scale in the notion that a base for nuclear warfare should in another independent country, where that country will be assuming the risk of being targeted by nuclear weapons in return.
That would be quite a significant thing to have within your polity over which you would not have any direct political control.
And given the propensity of post-Brexit politicians to overestimate their position on the world stage, one would not really want to take on the risk of the (literal and metaphorical) fall-out of nationalistic bombastic posturing.
That said: perhaps leasing the site to the London government during the necessary transition period could provide the very financial injection that would make independence more viable than otherwise.
And so it could be a boon for Scottish independence – as well as a predicament.
But on any view: what to do with an unwelcome nuclear warfare base in a newly independent state will raise constitutional and political issues – at least in the short-term.
At least Whitehall is thinking through these issues in advance.
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
Nick Watt of the Guardian shook this one out in 2013 during the run up to the Scottish Independence campaign.
It looked obvious at the time that the UK government was preparing to clear the decks in the event of a Yes vote.
Perhaps the same thing is under way here in case the state sponsored Project Fear can’t deliver the desired result
In the last Scottish referendum Shetland and Orkney voted strongly against independence from the UK. Perhaps the good people of those islands might like to remain in the UK and take custody of Trident….
Indeed. Orkney, with Scapa Flow, is well acquainted with a strong Royal Navy presence. Better positioned with regard to submarine access than the Clyde bases.
“Indeed. Orkney, with Scapa Flow, is well acquainted with a strong Royal Navy presence. Better positioned with regard to submarine access than the Clyde bases.”
I think the idea of Orkney and Shetland remaining in rUK is quite plausible. And they would certainly be well positioned for the open ocean.
However I imagine a new Edinburgh government would prefer any future nuclear incident to occur a good deal further away from the Scottish mainland than Scapa Flow.
Sullom Voe perhaps? But then again Westminster might choose Scapa Flow out of spite. A nuclear Gibraltar of sorts, but not one the Scottish government could do much about.
Would Sullom Voe have enough space in fact?
Well it’s a lot bigger than Gare Loch isn’t it?
Thank you for the information.
They already look after the recently (2019) re-instated North Atlantic Early Warning system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Saxa_Vord
The MoD has clearly taken note of Cameron’s refusal to allow any planning for a Leave result in the Brexit Referendum and has rightly planned for a possible Scexit before anyone thinks of banning planning. This looks like an initiative by officials, but Ben Wallace is clearly capable of giving a nod to them.
It is highly unlikely that either Russia or China would target Faslane.
If a nuclear exchange actually took place, there would be little point as enough British missiles would have been fired to do serious damage (the old phrase was “spoil Marshal Brezhnev’s afternoon” – the official wording was “destroy the central institutions of the Soviet state.”)
If a war had broken out but a nuclear exchange had not taken place, attacking Faslane would make one more, not less, likely. If the submarine or submarines in Faslane were destroyed, and the base for servicing one of the submarines at sea were also destroyed, then the British Prime Minister would be faced with a choice between ordering the firing of missiles before the submarines were forced home or losing the ability to do so at all.
The only circumstance in which the possibility of an attack on Faslane could arise is if there has been a very serious miscalculation by Russia or China leading to an outbreak of hostilities. However ridiculous the posturing ninnies in the cabinet may be, they are not going to start a war. The only way in which we get into a war is if Russia or China miscalculates. If one miscalculates then it is extremely unlikely that it will want to escalate rather than find a way out of a conflict, simply because escalation to a nuclear exchange is suicidal. Putin and Xi will both know this. Therefore neither is likely to order a strike on Faslane when that pushes a Prime Minister into a corner.
Surely the real problem with Faslane is security. There would need to be effective arrangements for ensuring that the workforce is not infiltrated either by terrorists or by spies. One can see this being a far greater affront to Scottish independence than any risk of an attack on the base.
Lastly it is probable in coming decades submarines will be more easily detected so in some decades time submarine based deterrence systems will be as obsolete as Dreadnought battleships – and as you rightly observe a lease for the lifetime of the next generation of submarines could be very attractive financially to a newly independent Scotland.
I’d be very surprised if Moscow didn’t continue to target Faslane. It would make no sense not to do so. The Russians would want to retain the capability to immediately strike any opposing nuclear base as required, including Faslane.
Anyway, the issue is mainly political, not military. I can’t imagine a newly independent Scotland would agree to a rUK enclave remaining as a nuclear base. If still in coalition it could bring down the government.
My own view would be to disarm the useless Trident submarines and dispense with the need for the base. However, post Brexit remaining as a permanent member of the UN Security Council is even more of a priority and so maintaining a nuclear deterrent would by essential.
“However ridiculous the posturing ninnies in the cabinet may be, they are not going to start a war. ”
Well…
Situations in which floundering governments start wars as “something” or a dead cat have occurred. And I lack conviction this bunch of posturing right wing ninnies are proof against it.
Just a thought – has anyone validated that the options allegedly put forward by MOD are genuine as reported by the FT?
Whilst hardly in the realms of Clive ‘my secretary done it’ Ponting or Sarah ‘ who she’ Tisdall , I do wonder as to the complete veracity of this story.
Whilst I’d expect MOD /Government to make no comment, it would be good to triangulate that what’s been ‘published’ is Indeed pukka?
I am a unionist and don’t wish to see the UK break up, but with the ineptitude on display by HMG before and after the Brexit debacle and its apalling treatment of the devolved governments, I feat the only option is going to be the creation of a genuinely federal state.
Brexit has effectively killed Scottish independence – assuming (big if…) the EU welcomed the Scots with open arms, their single largest trading partner becomes a 3rd country state and the new nation would be forced to establish a hard border (to protect the EU single market) – it is a non-starter. A sovereign Scotland could never host another nation’s nuclear arsenal over which it had no control, so the economic argument there, fails too.
We need intelligent, competent government and as soon as possible. Bojo and the ship of fools have an inverse Midas touch – I shall leave it to your imagination as to the base subject that things they handle rapidly turn to…
There would have to be a transition period to allow the bases to be relocated, so it’s likely that there would be a lot of Scottish noise about the nuclear bases, but they’d grab all the cash available as a fee for that transition period
On the subject of ‘Things that will never happen’ this debate over where to park our Nuclear submarines reminded me of the dangers of fleets parked in foreign countries or foreign fleets parked in home countries, and especially of Churchill’s decision in summer 1940 to turn British guns on the French fleet ( supposed allies) to prevent it falling into German hands….at a cost of 1300 lives. In wartime ‘stuff happens’. Parking ones most critical defence barrier in a country not especially allied or aligned is surely to place one’s faith in hope, and hope, as Thucydides described , is ‘Danger’s comforter’.
Have Alaska or Antarctica been considered as an alternative base for the rBritish nuclear deterrent?
The Antarctic Treaty of 1961 bans military presence and activity on its geographical area as defined on the treaty. And I doubt the US would allow a third country to base its nuclear weapons on its shore. I’m not even sure if the US has a nuclear sub base in Alaska due to its proximity to Russia and China.
Like your little joke at the start about Brexit…Scotland may not decide to lease the base anyway even for a cash injection during transition. Yes it could possibly be targeted for one…however I recall an article about North Sea Oil being partially in Scottish and English Waters…so the money for it is split. There is another pocket of oil just off the coast of Faslane it said, however this is not currently being extracted due to the base….if the base were to move this oil is 100% in Scottish water and could be worth more to a potentially independent Scotland than a leased base.
“recent newspaper revelations that revealed that in the 1980s, the UK Ministry of Defence blocked oil companies from making further exploration off the coast of south-west Scotland after initial tests had indicated the likely presence in the area of recoverable reserves of oil and gas.
The reason given at the time was the proximity of the Trident base at Faslane, and that further drilling activities might interfere with nuclear submarine exercises”.
https://www.businessforscotland.com/government-confirms-independence-could-generate-west-coast-oil-bonanza/
In the 1980’s our nuclear deterrent was still Polaris, Trident was not deployed until 1992. Also, Faslane was not the only submarine base in Scotland at that time, there was a US Navy submarine base in Holy Loch until 1991 and I’m sure the US military may have had a (very) large say in oil exploration and extraction activities in the Clyde estuary and surrounding waters in southwest Scotland.
Wasn’t there the prospect of American Nukes falling into potentially enemy hands just a few years ago? I recall a coup attempt in Turkey in 2016? or around that time…something about Incirlic base housing US weapons?
It’s not just the missiles; Scotland is host to plenty of obsolete nuclear submarines that nobody knows what to do about. I don’t suppose an SNP government would want them cluttering the place up either.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/03/mod-criticised-over-500m-cost-of-storing-obsolete-submarines
“…a base for nuclear warfare… in another independent country, where that country will be assuming the risk of being targeted by nuclear weapons in return.”
Are we not simply in that position ourselves? We are, in effect, a base for American Trident missiles, which can’t be launched without the American confirmation code, which we don’t hold.
It’s said that a little knowledge is dangerous.
Don’t conflate Trident missile construction with the UK designed and produced
Warhead.
The fact that each missile has 12 independently targetable warheads doesn’t help your case.
The UK leases the D5 missile launching chassis in a pooling arrangement with the US. This is totally independent of any authentication codes needed from the US.
Simply put having a nuclear base in an independent Scotland is a no go from the start. The political cost for any party that agreed to this would be obliteration in the polls.
Getting rid of trident is the one policy that nearly every Scot agrees upon,. That is only likely to increase as the figures for reported incidents involving the movement and transport of necker weapons continue to soar.
If not in Scotland, then why the option of France or the US, aren’t they independent nations and the British nuclear deterrent would be on foreign soil? Apart from the cost and loss of jobs to the uk and there is no way it would go to France with this anti EU government, therefore America, but I suppose we are about to become an extra star on the US flag now that we are out of the EU?
“..but I suppose we are about to become an extra star on the US flag now that we are out of the EU?..”
We formally left the EU on 31 Jan 2020.
It strikes me that, had we somehow* become an extra star on the US flag at or very soon around that date.
Given what Uncle ( Sleepy) Joe Biden has done in Afghanistan, it’s genuinely unclear to me , that we would or ever could have become an additional star ( state) of the US.
*not apparent that there exists an existing legal route to accede to become a 🌟/state of the US of A.
Ps: we’d have had to join the US sometime around /near to, or just after formal Brexit on 31 January 2020.