It is no longer a pipe dream for Braveheart geeks; Scotland may actually become independent. Unfortunately for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the realization of Scottish independence will bear some nuclear consequences.
Some have argued that if Scotland’s First Minister and Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond gets his way and Edinburgh becomes free of Westminster’s control, little will change in the day-to-day relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Indeed, citizens of both countries would cross the border and interact perhaps as we would between America and Canada – or perhaps more accurately between states. And as both countries are members of the European Union, citizens of Britain and Scotland would have no difficulty living and working in each other’s countries.
So why is UK Prime Minister David Cameron making such a big deal about the prospect of Scottish independence? Because beneath a surface of prospective equilibrium between an independent Scotland and a downsized UK are a plethora of rather complicated issues.
The issue du jour is what to do with Britain’s nuclear weapons that have called Scotland home since the Cold War?
Should Scotland break away from the UK, it no longer would have the right to own nuclear weapons under current European and international treaties. Incidentally, it will no longer be a member of NATO. Therefore the UK would have to find another home for its formidable nuclear arsenal.
The problem is that a ‘new home’ for the current Scotland-based nuclear deterrent sites may not exist.
A study published this week by John Ainslie of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) revealed that for the first time since Salmond and Cameron began sparring over the exact nature of the referendum that will decide the future of Scotland, UK Defense chiefs are taking the threat of Scottish independence seriously. Subsequently the UK Defense Department is buckling down to attempt to solve the prospect of having to relocate the Trident nuclear program based in Coulport and Faslane, Scotland.
A possible solution suggested by senior UK ministers would be a treaty with an independent Scotland that would allow Britain to keep Trident active. When asked about this during an independence debate in the Scottish Parliament last week, Salmond responded, “It is inconceivable that an independent nation of 5.25 million people would tolerate the continued presence of weapons of mass destruction on its soil.”
The CND study concludes decisively that there are no other viable alternative locations for the Trident nuclear program.
Sites once considered appropriate for nuclear defense units in England including Devonport, Barrow, Portland, Falmouth, and Milford Haven were all later deemed unsuitable by a 1963 Defense study attempting to find a home for the Polaris – Trident’s predecessor – program.
Ainslie’s study says that today, these sites are even less viable for environmental, cost, and a host of other practical reasons.
Moving Trident to the shores of allies France or the United States is also impossible due to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that would prevent the UK from using existing foreign nuclear facilities.
Kate Hudson, CND’s General Secretary said, “Trident is at a dead end, strategically and economically. Now we can add ‘geographically’ to the list too as Ministry of Defense 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.”
Defense Secretary Philip Hammond has indicated that if Scottish independence comes to fruition, Scotland would be compelled to pay for Trident’s relocation.
However, with reference to Hammond’s comment, the CND study said, “These are idle threats. 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.”
Angus Robertson, the Scottish National Party’s defense spokesperson, also responded to Hammond saying that in the case of Scottish independence, the nuclear missiles would have to go. He also said Scotland would not pay for their relocation. “Why should we [pay for the relocation of Trident]? If London really cared so much about nuclear weapons systems perhaps they would have considered public opinion in Scotland decades ago. They didn't and now they are asking themselves what are they going to do with it. I have to say, they might find it difficult to find locations in England, but perhaps they should have thought about that before foisting it on the people of Scotland years ago.”
Salmond chimed in, “The great argument in favor of having a Scottish defense force is twofold – one, you wouldn't have to have the biggest concentration of nuclear weapons in western Europe situated in Scotland, which many people support the removal, and secondly, of course, we'd have the right to decide whether or not to participate in international engagements.”
Salmond did, however, confirm that even in the event of Scottish independence the British monarchy would remain – at least in theory – Scotland’s head of state.
Ironically – or maybe hypocritically – two years ago Salmond was actually lobbying the UK government as part of Scotland’s defense review to protect 11,000 Trident jobs at Faslane.