Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

MichaelMcGuire

(1,684 posts)
Mon Jan 30, 2012, 06:58 AM Jan 2012

Trident nuclear deterrent 'at risk' if Scotland votes for independence [View all]

There is no alternative base for the UK's nuclear deterrent than its existing sites in Scotland, leaving it with the prospect of having nowhere to go should Scots vote for independence.

That is the conclusion of a detailed study to be published on Monday on what is emerging as a huge question for defence chiefs. They are only now beginning to face the consequences of a possible future Scottish parliament voting to get rid of the Trident nuclear weapons bases at Coulport and Faslane.

Asked during the referendum debate in the Scottish parliament last week whether the government of an independent Scotland would do a deal to keep Trident, the first minister Alex Salmond replied: "It is inconceivable that an independent nation of 5.25m people would tolerate the continued presence of weapons of mass destruction on its soil."

His comments seemed to be directed at senior British defence officials figures who have suggested that they could negotiate a treaty allowing the Trident missiles, warheads, and submarines, to remain in Scotland

{snip}

Moving Trident to the US or France would not be viable, because the nuclear non-proliferation treaty would prevent the UK from using existing facilities there and new ones would have to be built.

Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, has suggested that Scotland would be forced to pay towards the costs of relocating Trident. "These are idle threats," says the report. "Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan found themselves as independent countries with large numbers of nuclear weapons. It is ridiculous to suggest that these three countries should each have paid Russia to build new nuclear silos."

Kate Hudson, chair of CND, said last night: "Trident is at a dead end, strategically and economically. Now we can add 'geographically' to the list too, as Ministry of Defence sources have confirmed CND's analysis: that there 'simply isn't anywhere else' for Trident to go. This detailed report, based on previous government assessments of alternative locations for Trident, comes to the same logical conclusion."

{snip}

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/29/trident-nuclear-deterrent-scotland-independence
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Good. The Scots never wanted the damn things in the first place Owlet Jan 2012 #1
Your right its not wanted MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #6
But what if Belgium invades Scotland? Without trident, they have no defense! ChairmanAgnostic Jan 2012 #2
You forgot MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #4
My last trip to Scotland was wonderful ChairmanAgnostic Jan 2012 #23
Glad you enjoyed the fine whiskeys MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #25
Jura's fine, but Oban was perfect. Of course, spending ChairmanAgnostic Jan 2012 #28
I smile when I think of an independent Scotland. polly7 Jan 2012 #3
Latest polls show 51%/44% for and 39%/45% against MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #5
You're a typical Nat; hating the English is more important than reality. Agent William Jan 2012 #12
You'll have to refrain from unfounded attacks on my character. MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #14
You don't have to hate the English. sendero Jan 2012 #26
6 high profile SNP members are English MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #27
One can still be English and hate England as well... Agent William Feb 2012 #34
Still waiting for the proof. Surely you couldn't make a claim of my "Anti-Englishness" without it? MichaelMcGuire Feb 2012 #40
In my opinion, Scotland has a right to the free services you mentioned, Agent William Feb 2012 #41
Well said. Boudica the Lyoness Jan 2012 #31
Nice though this would be in theory, I'd like to see the reasoning muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #7
The submarines aren't the problem MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #8
Thanks - that makes more sense than anything specified in the article muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #9
I'd rather not see the UK re-house them MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #11
Go, Scotland! sinkingfeeling Jan 2012 #10
kick MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #13
So... Scotland and the UK would not be able to make a treaty for this? Ohio Joe Jan 2012 #15
Joking aside MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #16
It was not meant as a joke Ohio Joe Jan 2012 #19
I was agreeing with you MichaelMcGuire Jan 2012 #20
Unlike Iran, Nuclear Britain has a history of aggression against other countries. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #17
WTF are you rabbiting on about? truebrit71 Jan 2012 #18
The UK is one of the most aggressive international outlaw states of all time. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #21
As compared to whom? Belgium? truebrit71 Jan 2012 #22
The US is number one for the last 225 years, for sure. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #24
Monaco and St. Croix ChairmanAgnostic Jan 2012 #29
Slavery! Boudica the Lyoness Jan 2012 #30
You're attempting to harrass the wrong anti-imperialist, Boudica. JackRiddler Feb 2012 #35
I'm so proud to be English. Boudica the Lyoness Jan 2012 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author polly7 Jan 2012 #33
What do you mean we? JackRiddler Feb 2012 #36
Minus "No other country" part I agree for the most part. MichaelMcGuire Feb 2012 #38
i drank a lot of tennants dark export..... rppper Feb 2012 #37
Sounds like a blast, no pun intended (nt) MichaelMcGuire Feb 2012 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trident nuclear deterrent...