Eddie Barnes: International policy will be a major influence on any Trident decision

THE question of Trident, its cost and morality, has already become one of the big issues of the Scottish independence debate.

THE question of Trident, its cost and morality, has already become one of the big issues of the Scottish independence debate.

This week, the SNP and Labour parties are still spitting tacks at one another over the exact number of jobs that could be lost if the nuclear subs in Faslane bid farewell to Scotland (anywhere from 500-odd to 20,000).

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Why let the “obscenity” of nuclear warheads remain on the Clyde, demands the SNP. But would the SNP be capable, as a newly signed up Nato member, actually to remove them, respond their opponents? All good questions, but the danger is that it looks at the future of Britain’s four nuclear subs from the wrong end of the periscope.

In the short-term, the correct way to focus this week might not be on Faslane or London, but Washington where President Obama makes his second inaugural address on Monday. Back in his honeymoon days of office, he spoke before adoring hoards in Prague about his vision of “a world without nuclear weapons”.

Progress has been at a snail’s-pace since then but there is speculation that, with the elections out of the way, he may signal a fresh assault on the number of warheads America holds. If the US were to reduce its stockpile still further, the effect, argue hopeful experts, would be to send a nudge to other nuclear states like Britain. Former defence secretary Lord Browne notes: “We need leadership from the Americans. We have the president that could do that.”

And given the hard facts of austerity, they may not need much nudging. In Britain, a Trident replacement, destined for Faslane, is likely to cost northwards of £25 billion if backed in 2016, when the decision is due to be made. George Osborne is insisting that the full cost falls not on the Treasury but on the Ministry of Defence. It means the pips are going to squeak, placing all the more scrutiny on why the nuclear submarines are needed.

Browne concludes as a result of the cash squeeze, whoever find themselves in government after the 2015 general election will have no option but to order another full defence review – with Trident included. “Any incoming government is going to be faced with a series of challenges that would compel them to review the position – even an incoming Conservative government will be compelled to review it,” he argues.

The betting is still that the UK will opt to pay for a replacement for Trident – as another former defence secretary Michael Portillo claimed last week, it is “pointless” raising the issue because Britain keeps them for reasons of “prestige”. But a marked shift in policy from the US and the over-riding lack of cash could see positions quickly alter.

In Scotland, the two sides are sure to remain locked in battle over how independence would affect the Trident subs. But by fighting it out, they may fail to notice that the geography of the battlefield has changed.