The Ministry of Defense can move British nuclear submarines abroad if Scotland secedes

[ad_1]

UK Defense Nuclear Updates

Subscribe to the myFT Daily Digest to be the first to know about nuclear defense news in the UK.

The United Kingdom developed secret contingency plans for the transfer of the Trident nuclear submarine bases from Scotland to the United States or France in the event of Scottish independence.

Another option under consideration is for the UK to seek a long-term lease of the Royal Navy’s nuclear bases at its current site at Wasslin and Colport on the west coast of Scotland. People who have seen the plans said this would create a British territory within the borders of newly separated Scotland.

The UK government strongly opposes Scottish independence, but the prospect of a possible breakup of the union worries the British government. The ruling Scottish National Party returned to power in May and pledged to ban all nuclear weapons in an independent Scotland.

Several senior officials told the Financial Times that contingency plans to move submarines highlighted the difficult choices ministers would have to make for Britain’s nuclear program after a possible Scottish secession.

People familiar with the plans said the exercises took place recently, although a senior government official questioned the timing.

The exercise concluded that the Trident program would have three options after the formation of an independent Scottish anti-nuclear state. The first is the relocation of bases elsewhere on the British Isles, with Royal Navy Base Devonport being cited as the most likely location to replace Vaslin.

An analysis by the Royal United Services Institute think tank before the 2014 Scottish independence referendum estimated the costs of moving such a move at between £3 billion and £4 billion.

HMS Vengeance leaves port in Devonport, Plymouth © Ben Birchall / PA

The second option is to move the UK’s nuclear bases to an allied country like the US, with one defense expert citing Kings Bay, Georgia, the base of the US Navy’s fleet of Trident submarines. Officials also considered moving the British submarine base to Ile Long in Brittany, France.

Moving the bases to the US is the UK Treasury’s preferred option, as it will require minimal capital investment, according to officials. But establishing a Trident base outside Britain could prove politically difficult, as it is more likely to be seen as a threat to defense supremacy.

The third option is to negotiate a new British Overseas Territory within an independent Scottish state containing the Vaslin and Colport bases, which one insider has dubbed “Nuclear Gibraltar”.

After negotiations over Scotland’s exit from the United Kingdom, Whitehall hopes to lease the land “for several decades,” according to officials.

The Ministry of Defense said there were “no plans” to move the nuclear deterrent away from Scotland, citing its contribution to the security and economy of Scotland and to communities across the UK.

“The UK is deeply committed to maintaining its independent and reliable nuclear deterrent at HM Clyde, which exists to deter the most serious threats to the UK and our NATO allies,” a spokeswoman said.

The Ministry of Defense declined to comment on contingency plans for Scottish secession.

Asked about the UK’s contingency plans, the Scottish government said it was strongly against the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons, and was “committed to the safe and complete withdrawal of the Trident from Scotland”.

Tom Blunt, Russia’s director of proliferation and nuclear policy, called such contingency planning “reasonable,” but said all options had “significant flaws.” Moving the base to another country, such as the United States, would also have operational ramifications.

“If we share the infrastructure [with the US] Blunt said, explaining that the logistics of deploying deterrence should be negotiated with the host country. “Once the boats are out at sea, they will remain independent as they are now. But once they are tied to their side, they will no longer be independent.”

Some in Whitehall favor the “nuclear Gibraltar” option – where bases remain in independent Scotland but are leased by the UK – as the most realistic as it would not require immediate changes to the trident program after Scottish independence.

But any negotiations to keep the bases long after independence will likely face strong opposition from the Scottish National Party, which for decades has made nuclear disarmament one of its core policies.

Scottish National Party leader and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, center, speaks at a rally against the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent in London in 2016 © Niklas Helle’n/AFP/Getty Images

Prior to the 2014 referendum, the Scottish National Party had said that an independent Scotland would prioritize the fastest possible safe removal of nuclear weapons. “This will be with the aim of impeaching the Trident during the first session of the Scottish Parliament after independence,” she said.

Experts have suggested that this timetable could be relaxed as part of broader discussions between an independent Scotland and the United Kingdom on issues such as currency arrangements, responsibility for the national debt and management of the new England-Scotland border.

However, any long-term or extraterritorial compromise on the Trident would run counter to the basic tenets of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who joined the campaign for nuclear disarmament as a teenager even before she joined the SNP.

“Like many other Scots, I have always been appalled that the British nuclear arsenal remained in my back hump,” Sturgeon wrote in 2019.

[ad_2]