Scottish Independence and the Removal of Trident

[Galant]

This is something I hadn't at all considered in all this.

Evidently the removal of Trident from Scotland is a "red line" issue for the independence movement.

The counter argument is that removing Trident from Scotland brings destabilisation and isn't a wise move.

Honestly, I'm not at all sure about any of this but it's certainly give me something to think about.

The whole - 'we're a peaceful, democratic nation making a statement against ugly weapons of mass destruction' strikes me as rather naive or foolish, doesn't sound convincing to me. Still, that's about all I've got right now.

Anyone got any insights?

[adidan]

There's a Guardian article re this here: clicky

Some interesting quotes:

“Washington as a whole is not generally aware that there’s even a referendum,” said James Acton, a senior associate in the nuclear policy program at the Washington DC-based Carnegie Endowment.

The missiles that form the UK’s nuclear deterrent are leased from the American Atlantic Squadron pool.....Acton thinks there is a possibility that the warheads, and possibly even the submarines, might have to be stored back at King’s Bay – at least temporarily – if an independent Scotland goes through with the Scottish National Party’s stated policy of ejecting them. “I think it would be an interim solution,” he said, “but might end up becoming permanent.”

Dr Tim Oliver, of the Center for Transatlantic Relations, asked. “The US is frustrated enough already at the number of bonsai armies in Europe. There wouldn’t be much expectation that Scotland could do anything in Nato.”

Oliver also said he thought there was an issue of international trust at stake. “The US fought one of the bloodiest wars in their history to hold its union together,” he said. “They can’t take the UK seriously if they just let their union fade.”

I don't think anyone is really talking about this sort of issue enough.

[TheAnimus]

From what I gather, if you point out any flaws in Scottish Independence, you are some kind of evil bully.

Scotland apparently wants to be some socialist paradise, yet it dislikes sharing the oil wealth with those more needy (say Wales).

It is summed up elegantly for me in this: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politi...-2013020658754

[peterb]

It won't do much for the prosperity of the local area if the Clyde submarine Base and all the supporting infrastructure closes.

There are a few NATO assets in Scotland too.

[SeriousSam]

This is one of the areas of the debate which has been mentioned, but mostly ignored by the SNP, except to state their red line position and mumble some guff about creating new jobs in the area. In some ways I can understand the reticence to discuss it as from my understanding the whole thing is a legal and political minefield.

1. For starters it is the UK and not Scotland which is recognised in the nuclear proliferation treaty. So obviously it would need to be sorted out, and that means Russia has to be involved... lots of fun for Putin

2. On the one hand Salmond will be negotiating to join Nato and on the other closing what is regarded by the US as an important strategic base. An excellent way to make new friends.

3. The suggestion is that the base would be altered to support Scotland's new naval presence, created from assets which currently belong to the UK. You can imagine the scenario; "no currency union, no paying our share of the debt"... "ok in that case all these things you would like us to share are now collateral against that debt"

To be honest the thing that really saddens me about all this is that politicians all keep harping on about the level of engagement with the public and that a great debate is going on. So they need to learn how to keep that going in the future... all of which is utter baloney. There is no debate it is just rhetorical blather being thrown back and forth. The only intelligent speaker I have heard is Sir Ian Wood, who gave actual detail and reasoning about the of amount Scotland's oil reserves. Essentially tearing down the SNP's whole economic forecasts.

The only reason the people of Scotland are engaged is because it is the long term fate of their country which is at stake.

[Zak33]

"we no longer want these dreadful, appaling weapons of mass destruction"

I'll just email the link to the global-nutter-abroad-league-of-dictators-and-war-mongers.... that'll stop them making their weapons too, I'm sure.

good thread excellent discussion point

[adidan]

I'm just waiting for a news agency to suggest Salmond is Putin's half brother and Russia will invade Scotland when the nukes may have to go back to the US...

[Galant]

I'm just waiting for a news agency to suggest Salmond is Putin's half brother and Russia will invade Scotland when the nukes may have to go back to the US...

Well that's not too hard a jump to make. See, we know that Russia gets its name from the Rus. The Rus were a people who invaded/populated the region. It's believed by most western scholars that the Rus were Norsemen, i.e. vikings, and we all know how fond the vikings were of Scotland and northern England. That being the case, not only might Putin and Salmond share some sort of common genetic heritage, but we have a stage set where the Scottish can separate from England and seek unification with the viking peoples. Maybe that was the goal all along?

Sorted.

[kompukare]

Actually, a few months ago there was a news article in either the Independent or the Guardian about the MoD having some kind of contingency plan about wanting to annex the base. Now, that might have only been a piece of paper in that the military like to plan for things even if they had no intention to actually invade Scotland, but a gaff like that near to referendum might spur the yes vote even more than the party leaders parachuting in to save the no vote.

But how seriously can the Conservatives be about the no campaign since the parliamentary arithmetic for the UK without Scotland would tend to favour them with 40 less Labour MPs vs their singular one?

[adidan]

Actually, a few months ago there was a news article in either the Independent or the Guardian about the MoD having some kind of contingency plan about wanting to annex the base.

So the Clyde is the rest of the UK's Crimea? Interesting.

[Galant]

""With the referendum now imminent, I am writing to you to make clear what we believe would be the grave defence consequences of a Yes vote not just for the United Kingdom but for the people of Scotland themselves.”

Sir Mark, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff from 2009 to 2013, highlighted the recent warning from President Vladimir Putin concerning Russia remaining a nuclear state.

“Your plans for the removal of all nuclear submarines from Faslane in the event of Scottish independence would add a dangerous period of destabilisation in our nuclear defence posture at a time when the international picture is clearly deteriorating,” he wrote.

“On top of this, Scottish independence and its exit from Nato would be deeply worrying and unpopular with many of Scotland’s natural allies, particularly our friends in Scandinavia and the Baltic who depend on the United Kingdom for mutual defence of air space and territorial waters. Scotland has contributed so much to our collective security over the years that it would be tragic if it now came to be regarded as the weakest link in our defence shield.”"

"SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson said: “This letter quite clearly sets out the difference between the Yes campaign and the No campaign. While the anti-independence camp is determined to waste over £100 billion on unusable and obscene Trident nuclear weapons, a Yes vote will rid Scotland of weapons of mass destruction.

“It is demonstrably wrong of Sir Mark Stanhope to suggest that Scotland will not be a part of Nato. The UK’s most recent ambassador to Nato, Dame Mariot Leslie, made it abundantly clear on the basis of her vast experience and knowledge in this area that an independent Scotland will be welcomed into the Nato alliance - and that she will be voting Yes next week.

“An independent Scotland will work closely with our friends in partners in Nato, and play a full part in contributing to our common security.”"

Scotsman

Ban the Bomb are, of course, pushing the 'Yes' vote:

"The referendum campaign has gone nuclear. Today all British nuclear weapons are based in Scotland. The future of these weapons, called Trident, is a central
issue in the independence debate. The vote on 18 September will be an opportunity for Scotland to reject Weapons of Mass Destruction and to set an example to the world."

"If Scotland votes YES, then we can expect there to be no nuclear weapons in Britain. We have it within our power to set an example to the rest of the world."

[BobF64]

I'm just waiting for a news agency to suggest Salmond is Putin's half brother and Russia will invade Scotland when the nukes may have to go back to the US...

That's fine, I'm sure the UK will let them and just erect border posts. After all, we might be defending the outer islands from the Scots already, unless they join Norway.

[ik9000]

Well, if we really want to go machiovellian we could take a leaf from Putin and line up the tanks on the border ready for if they vote yes. They have no defence right now. Plus it's not like the US will do anything. They seem scared to commit troops to anything right now. No wonder Russia is flexing its muscles again, and China is building man-made islands in the South China Sea. Besides it's not like occupying a country ever went wrong... oh no wait!

[ik9000]

The Scotsman's claim that it would not leave a weak point in our defence is bull. Scotland will not be able to afford to maintain a viable airforce and navy to the level required. Without other countries sending their assets in to help them out, they will be a weak point.

[adidan]

Well they want to keep a couple of ships and a few jets, they could scare off invaders with synchorinised aerial acrobatics perhaps?

[Galant]

Well they want to keep a couple of ships and a few jets, they could scare off invaders with synchorinised aerial acrobatics perhaps?

Actually, they're rather well equipped for anti-aircraft defense: