Scotland's opposition to Trident may be 'insurmountable' for Westminster

21st December 2007
By Ian Bruce, Defence Correspondent
The Herald
 

Scotland's political and civil opposition to replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent based on the Clyde could prove "insurmountable" to a future Westminster government, according to Bradford University's disarmament research centre.

The centre's study of nuclear policy is the first of a planned series questioning the strategic need, monetary value and global impact of the UK maintaining a flotilla of expensive submarines and an arsenal of 160 warheads.

It also says that, despite the current government's insistence that the £20bn project will go ahead, MPs will have another chance to veto it in 2012 when it reaches the stage of contracts being signed and commitments made to building new missile boats.

Dr Nick Ritchie, the author, said yesterday that a number of factors might undermine government determination to keep a British deterrent.

"If the SNP remains the dominant force in Scotland, it has the power to create major political headaches for Westminster on this issue. Environmental planning considerations is one route. Then there is a dominant groundswell of public opposition," he added.

"Any government in London wishing to preserve the union will have to be increasingly sensitive to Scottish issues with the threat of independence rising.

"Cost will be another major strand in the thread of the counter-arguments. Why spend £20bn or more on a Doomsday weapons system when there are other pressing spending priorities, not least in conventional defence?

"The decision taken by parliament earlier this year to replace Trident was not the final word."

The study argues that the government has left crucial questions on the need for a global-level deterrent unanswered and has pushed through its own rationale for belonging to the nuclear club on flawed assumptions.

"If Trident is the answer, then it remains unclear what the question was in the first place", it adds. The government "is convinced that Trident is a strategic military and political asset and shaped the debate to fit that conclusion".

But it then argues that while Westminster claims that future nuclear threats from a rogue Russia or an expansionist China are the underlying issue, "the rationales presented to support this can be unpicked to reveal a shaky foundation".

Dr Ritchie said: "One of the problems is that the policy-makers cannot conceive of not having nuclear weapons. They see them as being a crucial part of the infrastructure which underpins Britain's international identity.

"There is also an almost Yes, Minister' gut feeling among the decision-makers that France should not be left as the only nuclear weapon state in Europe."

 
Previous   Next   News Index