Kirk calls for more open policy on Trident

Published on Wednesday 2 February 2011 12:53

Church of Scotland leaders have called on the UK Government to clarify its position on replacing the country's nuclear deterrent.

• A Trident submarine makes its way out of Faslane

The Kirk has appealed for more honesty regarding the cost of the Trident nuclear programme.

It said recent spending plans raised doubts over Government assurances that no decision would be made on the replacement until after the next general election.

The church made the call after a freedom of information request by Greenpeace to the Ministry of Defence revealed a list of advance purchase items for the submarines, including structural fittings.

Reverend Ian Galloway, convener of the Church of Scotland's church and society council, said: "We are very concerned that the Ministry of Defence appears to be committed to spending over 2 billion of our money on submarines to carry Trident before the official decision on whether or not to go ahead with it.

"This will mean that many will argue that, having spent all this money, we can't cancel Trident."

Under the Trident programme, the Royal Navy operates 58 nuclear-armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles and about 200 nuclear warheads on four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines from Clyde Naval Base

at Faslane.

At least one of these submarines is on patrol as a continuous at-sea deterrent.

Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed in last year's Strategic Defence and Security Review the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system would be delayed by at least six years.

Mr Cameron has always maintained that the UK should keep the deterrent, and replacing Trident was a Conservative manifesto pledge in the last general election.

Reverend Galloway said spending money on Trident now would "prejudice" the decision being taken later.

He added: "The defence review indicated that a decision on whether or not to build a new generation of nuclear weapons would be delayed until 2016.

"Spending all this money now will prejudice that decision, and we'll get to the 2016 vote only to find out that we're already tied into various contracts.

"Familiar voices will then be saying to us that it's cheaper to go ahead with business as usual than to scrap Trident."