Fears of independent Scotland prompt defence chiefs to seek a base south of the Border

Published on Sunday 15 April 2007 01:25

THE diffident son of a Scots clergyman gave Tony Blair one of his most uncomfortable moments during the first parliamentary debate on plans to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent.

Last December, Tory MP James Gray inconveniently raised an issue which, he observed, the Prime Minister had so far "rather dodged".

The member for North Wiltshire pointed out that in a Scottish Parliament with an SNP majority it was possible there would be a non-nuclear Scotland. He added: "In which case, a submarine-based deterrent would not be possible. Has the Prime Minister thought about what alternative might be necessary under those circumstances?"

Blair, keen to avoid any reference to the precise location of the new fleet of nuclear subs, refused to be drawn. "I am not prepared to engage in that hypothesis, for obvious reasons. Secondly, my experience is that people in Scotland are every bit as committed to the defence of the United Kingdom as people elsewhere."

At the time, Blair got away with his sidestep. Today, however, as Labour staggers from bleak midwinter to a barren spring, and as the Nationalists maintain their lead in the opinion polls, Gray's question has become unavoidably relevant.

For decades, the SNP has been convinced that Trident would eventually be expelled from Faslane, from Coulport and from Scotland altogether. Today, as Scotland on Sunday reveals, it appears that even the Ministry of Defence is starting to take the prospect seriously.

The Labour leadership has known for some years that it would face a decision on the future of the nuclear deterrent before the end of this decade - the fact was made plain in the party's manifesto at the 2005 General Election. While there was never any question of a government led by Blair refusing to renew or replace the deterrent, it still had to invest millions of pounds in researching the options available.

Although the present submarine-based Trident system will not be past its use-by date until 2020, the process of replacing it actually began several years ago, with in-depth investigations at the MoD and hi-intensity research, in conjunction with the Pentagon, at a massively augmented nuclear weapons installation at Aldermaston.

The white paper, The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent, which Blair unveiled last December, was the culmination of that work - but it does not contain all the answers.

"The White Paper extols prudence in the face of uncertainty," observed Prof William Walker, a nuclear expert from St Andrews University who is the leading authority on the political relationship between Trident, Scotland and Westminster. "Is it prudent to advocate spending tens of billions of pounds on Trident's replacement in order to guard against an undefined future threat, when it is uncertain whether the deterrent could be operated reliably out of its base in Scotland and whether the Union will still exist when the new system is due to be installed?"

The Scotland Act 1998, gives Westminster control of defence and foreign policy, effectively meaning the Scots have no say over whether Trident stays or not.

The Nationalists have pledged to hold a referendum on independence within three years of coming to power in Scotland. If the sizeable contingent of no-nukes in the electorate helps the SNP into a dominant position at Holyrood, it could be the first step on the road to independence, and that ultimately means independence from British weapons.

"An independent Scotland will be making a number of savings on defence," a recent SNP policy document declared. "To start with, we won't be paying for Trident, the UK's nuclear weapons system which is currently based at Faslane on the Firth of Clyde. In independence negotiations, the SNP will insist on Trident's phased, but complete removal from Scotland. Apart from being morally and militarily unjustifiable, Trident is also massively expensive."

However, even if the slide towards independence is slowed, or postponed, the MoD could still face enormous obstacles preventing it from asserting its legitimate authority in Scotland.

Anti-nuclear campaigners point out that despite - or perhaps because of - Trident's presence in Scotland, the level of opposition to the deterrent in the country is far higher than elsewhere, and embraces diverse groups including politicians and the churches.

"The opinion polls show quite clearly that there is a stronger opposition to nuclear weapons in Scotland than south of the Border by about 10%, so the anti-nuclear feeling is basically stronger," said John Ainslie, co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. "An anonymous survey of all the Scottish MPs by the BBC found that 30 out of the 59 were saying that they were definitely opposed."

An independent-minded administration in Holyrood could easily force a referendum on keeping Trident in Scotland.

The SNP has already given notice of its enthusiasm for mischief in obstructing the smooth process of replacing Trident: most notably through the pledge to impose a 1m toll on every nuclear shipment travelling on Scotland's roads.

At St Andrews, Walker, in an extensive memorandum on the subject to a committee of MPs investigating the viability of the Trident plans, wrote: "The SNP has already signalled that it will frustrate cooperation on Trident by various political and legal means if it gains ascendancy in the Scottish Parliament."

The British government has overcome campaigns of civil disobedience in the past. But it has never had to face the force of one directed and abetted by a legitimately-elected administration within its own borders. As a result, the in-depth inquiries into the future of Britain's deterrent included discussions over where it should be based, as well as what it should comprise.

Although Blair dismissed Gray's polite query as "hypothesis" - and Walker accused the MoD of taking a "head-in-the-sand" attitude - the department took a keen interest in the political machinations north of the Border.

"It is logical that we should look at other sites for basing and servicing the submarines, and for storing the missiles," a senior MoD source said last night. "We have to look at everything that might have an impact on this project, and the possibility of a change in the devolution settlement - however remote that may seem - is one of those factors."

The result was the resurrection of nine alternative venues originally considered alongside Faslane when the Macmillan government was seeking a base for the Polaris deterrent over 40 years ago. Given that five of these were also in Scotland, the MoD was left with only four venues that could remotely be described as fall-back options - Milford Haven, in Wales, and Portland, Falmouth and Devonport on the south coast of England.

Scotland on Sunday understands that Devonport, where the four Vanguard-class submarines are refitted and refuelled, was considered the next-best option - albeit a distant second to Faslane, as it does not have a facility to compare with the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at nearby Coulport.

In his finely-judged memorandum to the MPs' Defence Committee earlier this year, Walker warned that "the politics of Trident and its replacement are inextricably bound up with the politics of the Union, probably to the detriment of both". In the coming weeks and months and years, as both face the prospect of unravelling along with the UK's long-term defence strategy, Scotland shall see how right he is.