Scotland’s independence-seeking government has reacted with muted curiosity to the unveiling of the AUKUS deal, writes Murray Ritchie.
Ever since the 1960s when the US nuclear presence arrived on the Clyde the Scottish National Party has opposed the presence of nuclear submarines and warheads at Faslane, a few miles from Glasgow, the country’s biggest city.
If and when Scotland becomes independent the Trident missiles and the subs that carry them must leave, according to the SNP. The policy has widespread support in Scotland except with the main opposition Unionist parties
Now, suddenly, there is speculation that Boris Johnson and his Conservative government might be considering doing the SNP’s work for it.
The hills around Faslane are said to contain enough nuclear warheads to be the number one target of an enemy who could vapourise Glasgow and much of the UK.
When AUKUS is established, it could be that the UK’s nuclear capability is transferred to the Pacific, either to the United States or Australia or both. Moving from the Clyde to the US would allow maintenance locally and expertise would be handily available. Trident is an American weapon after all, unlike its French equivalent which is truly French and therefore a genuinely independent deterrent.
Britain pays the US in billions for Trident which is due to be renewed in the coming years. It follows that having it deployed from the US would, in time, save some of those billions. Estimated costs for renewal could run to £100bn according to Trident’s critics, although that figure has never been confirmed by the UK government.
With Boris Johnson talking of the need for the UK to have a stronger presence in the Indo-Pacific as part of “Britain’s global reach” there is ground for assuming a local maintenance base is being considered. Where would that leave Faslane?
Presumably global reach must still include European waters where Russian naval activity is a constant preoccupation of the British government. Having to leave Scotland would mean the UK basing their nuclear warheads elsewhere – in England or Wales or even in Australia or the US.
But England and Wales are regarded as much less suitable for berthing submarines in deep water. Northern Ireland may not be British much longer.
The Clyde’s sea lochs were ideal given the prevalence of fjord-type waters and were the natural choice of the Conservative prime minister of the day, Harold Macmillan.
The hills around Faslane are said to contain enough nuclear warheads to be the number one target of an enemy who could vapourise Glasgow and much of the UK. This apparent vulnerability fuels anti-Trident passions in Scotland. Until recently the potential attacker was seen as Russia, although the UK’s plans for the Pacific are a sign that China is now regarded as the growing threat.
Abandoning Faslane would not mean abandoning Atlantic waters if Britain was serious about “global reach”, but it would make maintaining a presence there more complicated. It is hard, therefore, to see Britain simply transferring its bases to the other side of the world because of a perceived challenge from China. The Russians are not going away.
Britain’s nuclear submarines with their warheads travel the world for months at a time. Having to return to one base in Scotland is not exactly convenient, although stops for maintenance are made when necessary in the US.
AUKUS means that Britain is obviously happy to lessen its dependence on Faslane while looking over its shoulder at Scottish independence. It must now also be considering an alternative – and none is obvious.
