MoD drawing up plans to withdraw Trident from Scotland
The SNP believes the people of an independent Scotland would not want nuclear submarines in the country. Picture: PA
DEFENCE chiefs are reported to be drawing up urgent plans to withdraw the fleet of Trident nuclear submarines from Scotland, amid fears that voters will back independence.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is concerned that First Minister Alex Salmond will win the independence referendum and go ahead with his promise to remove the submarines from the Faslane base, as well as the warheads held at the nearby holding site at Coulport.
Officials at the MoD were yesterday reported to have started planning for a new multi-billion-pound nuclear base on the English east coast, with locations near Plymouth or Portsmouth being considered. The moves come amid fears that the MoD would be left with nowhere for the fleet if Scotland becomes independent.
But officials are said to be concerned about spending funds unnecessarily if work on the new bases were to start now and Mr Salmond lost the referendum.
Defence chiefs were reported to have said that the operation was at the planning stage, but that no firm decision had been taken. Work on any new base could take up to a decade.
It is understood that the Royal Navy is considering whether to ask if Trident could remain in Scotland after independence, until a new base is ready. However, the MoD could demand compensation from the Scottish Government if it is forced to remove the submarines from Faslane immediately with no alternative storage space.
SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson claimed that Trident was “not wanted” by Scots, as he dismissed suggestions that the MoD would be compensated for the removal of the fleet in an independent Scotland.
Mr Robertson, who is also his party’s leader in the Commons said: “Westminster bullying Scotland over the future of Trident will backfire on the anti-independence parties given that these weapons of mass destruction are not wanted in Scotland and never have been.
“For the MoD to demand compensation when the same department is responsible for a £5.6 billion defence underspend in Scotland, accompanied by 10,500 job losses and base closure over the last decade, is incredible.”
The row comes after it was previously reported that the SNP was drawing up plans for its own army, navy and air force after independence.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 94 comments to this article
Page 1 of 7
Charlie McFarley
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 06:16 PM#94 Conformity to the English language, for starters. Methinks anyone who believes that support for independence is only 23% must belong to the same coven as the sage of Falkirk, whose stridently confident predictions about the last fixture were so hilariously askew.
redpathm
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 05:50 PMCharlie - Get a grip!!! It will never happen!! 23% in favour at this point. What part of "the statistic inform" do you not understand?
Jo'Burg Jock
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 05:33 PM88 LondonReader ---- Your comments are very level headed and absolutely logical. It's a pity that you don't represent the British Government in the matters that are about to be debated with Scotland's Government.
Charlie McFarley
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 04:07 PM#90 You are correct in your assessment that Scottish independence will be good for the people of England. With the new three-way union, the democratic deficit will become even more apparent and there will be pressure on the dinosaurs of Whitehall and Westminster, who have over the decades so badly served the people, to institute real reform and create a democracy which is real rather than notional. It could be considered slightly hyperbolic to employ a phrase such as "enemy of the people" when referring to the London establishment, but not when you sit down to list their failings and the interests they serve.
The West Awake
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 03:07 PM88 It's refeshing to see considered comment, especially on this forum. yes, I agree with much you say, but disagree with a couple of things. Firstly. the Tories are not extinct in Scotland, they still have support in the low teens, which may not be healthy but is far from last rites. In any case they were not the only party telling us we are "unable to afford self-determination", Labour has consistently been shoulder to shoulder with them in ensuring we Scots were told how ill-equipped we are to do something Montenegro can apparently manage. Although the worst excesses of this nonsense have tailed off, there are still plenty dinosaurs haunting that ice-age thinking. Secondly, Britain may well be worst off without Scotland, but I suggest that England and Scotland may not. Our independence will cause massive ripples through the UK nations and start a process of introspection and reflection, which I seriously believe is overdue. The only constant is change, and he who pees against the wind gets wet breeks!
Charlie McFarley
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 02:47 PM#82..."Calm down guys! There will never be an Independent Scotland." ....Of course there will. There is a growing trend toward acceptance of independence, which is further reinforced by demographics. Even in the unlikely event that 2014 did not see a majority vote in favour, a future electorate would carry the day. This can never be a question of "let's settle this for once and for all" - unless, of course, you are anti-democratic (you know who you are!). Would all you unionists care to cast your minds back to that game-changing day when you awoke to a crushing victory and an overall majority for the SNP, with annihilation of the London parties' place-men and wimmin? I can see how you are worried and still wish to cower under nanny westmidden's skirt tails. Panic not - we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
LondonReader
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 02:42 PM87 - That's very interesting. I take the point you made earlier that housing the present nuclear fleet would give the UK time to decide on and provide a solution to the loss of Falslane. It is the huge cost of replacing the war head storage that gives Whitehall and Osbourne a headache. The focus of debate on finances will, in my view, promote Scottish independence. The extinction of Scottish Toryism is evidence that you cannot convince a nation of people that they are unable to afford self-determination. Most Englishmen like myself recognise that Britain without Scotland is greatly diminished. It logically follows that a post independence relationship will be one of continued respect. Without the Scottish invention of radar the RAF would have lost the Batlle of Britain. Without the bravery of Scots Guards the British Army would have been perilously short of ammunition before the hills overlooking Port Stanley were captured. Matters that arise from Scottish independence should be matters for mutual co-operation, without the confrontational posturing of politicians.
The West Awake
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 02:03 PM86 - North Sea taxation comes mainly from Corporation tax, plus a couple of other smaller ones, this has just been raised by Osbornes smash and grab. My understanding is the anticipated take for 1112 is around £13-14b. Of course, there are plenty of those who reckon Scotland costs rUK money, so the "cost" of Scotland would have to be offset against this. Given how much of a basket case many unionists reckon Scotland is, they should be happy? Unless of course Scotland actually pays it's way already, in which case....
LondonReader
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 01:51 PMPrivate companies that extract oil and gas from under the North Sea do so under licence and pay for the privilege. Revenues are collected by the UK and Norway on the basis of an agreement between the two nations. An independent Scotland will negotiate a demarcation agreement just as the UK and Norway did and be entitled to charge companies for resource extraction. It will of course inherit a defence requirement to protect the oil installations.
The West Awake
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 01:19 PM82 - If what you say is true, we wouldn't be having this debate.
The West Awake
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 01:18 PM80 - I'm well aware that unless we nationalised the North Sea, (surprised the Scotsman hasn't "released" some nonsense based on that already actually), then the oil belongs to private companies. But where would those companies pay the huge taxes - to Scotland. If Scotland gets the money, how could the RUK expect oil and gas at the same price? Someone's got to pay unless the SNP has been shouting about getting control of the North Sea for nothing of course.
Danielrober2
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 01:18 PM# Gillie ........................ You just do not care about job losses in Scotland because those job loses will for skilled and respected Glaswegians. As long as you get to watch the cities economy burn down and then by the place out of the cheap later. Disgraceful towards that hard working city by an SNP chasing glory rather than jobs. But don not worry, come separation with a fall in real job revenue, the government can borrow to its hearts content and our kids will be given the bill in 20 years time.
redpathm
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 01:13 PMCalm down guys! There will never be an Independent Scotland.
The West Awake
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 01:12 PMAlthough calm reasoned debate is not normally a feature of this forum, I would like to say, that even as a committed independence supporter of more yeare than I care to think about as well as a committed CND supporter AND as someone who lives closer to the base than most, I would support if an independent Scottish Govt offers to house the existing trident system - but not any replacement. In other words, we should offer to house it until the UK Govt finds a way to sensibly replace it, albeit no replacement on Scottish soil or seas.
redpathm
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 01:07 PMDon't be stupid The West Awake - Scotland does not own the oil and gas. All it can do is tax the company that brings it out on their profits and ONLY if the company is registered in Scotland, which of course they will not be. End of that argument!!
Page 1 of 7
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.