DAVID Cameron has been warned by a senior Conservative not to use the timing of the key Westminster vote on Trident to “play party politics” as a Cabinet split emerged over whether to hold it in March or October.
Some Conservative colleagues want the Prime Minister to delay the vote to the autumn so that Labour divisions are displayed openly at its party conference in September with the possibility of frontbench resignations. But others want to "maximise" the political pain for Scottish Labour in the run-in to the spring Holyrood elections by holding the vote to renew the Faslane submarine fleet next month.
At Commons question-time, Julian Lewis, who chairs the parliamentary Defence Committee, noted how Chris Grayling, the Commons Leader, had poked fun at a suggestion by Jeremy Corbyn that the nuclear subs could have their weapons removed and used as troop carriers; Mr Grayling branded the idea “madcap”.
But Mr Lewis told him: “It's one thing for you to poke fun at the Leader of the Opposition over his strange ideas on Trident's successor, as you did today, it's quite another for No 10 to adopt this policy on the question of delaying the vote, which everybody - from the MoD, industry and both sides of the nuclear debate in Parliament - expected to be taking place in the next few weeks.
"Can you look the House in the eye and tell us that No 10 is not playing party politics with the nuclear deterrent because, if they are, it is beneath contempt?" asked the Hampshire MP.
Mr Grayling replied that he, like Mr Lewis, supported the nuclear deterrent but could only tell his colleague that Trident would be debated “in due course”.
Recently, one senior Tory source stressed the Prime Minister had yet to make a decision on timing but said: "Ruth Davidson's preference is for an early vote but this is not a demand. Clearly, one consideration is the impact on Labour and what can give us maximum impact."
The Tory hierarchy is said by senior party sources to be divided on when to call the crunch Commons vote but it is believed Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, is pushing for it to take place before the Easter recess, which begins on March 24.
An early vote would mean that Mr Corbyn, as leader, would have to decide what policy line Labour would take as his party’s defence review is not expected to report until the summer. Given the deep divisions within Labour over Trident, it is possible that, as with airstrikes on Syria, he will have to concede to a free vote.
Meantime, writing in the House Magazine, Lord West, the former head of the Royal Navy and an ex-Security Minister in Gordon Brown’s government, branded Mr Corbyn's suggestion that the UK could deploy Trident submarines without nuclear weapons "dangerous and nonsensical".
The peer warned it would be "foolhardy" for the UK to abandon its deterrent in an "extremely chaotic" world and said claims that Trident could be scrapped to save money were "delusional".
He argued: "The case for maintenance of our minimum credible deterrent by replacement of the ageing Vanguard class submarines is so self-evident that I expect the Labour Party to keep its manifesto commitment.”
Noting how it was difficult to predict whether or not some countries might be prepared to use nuclear weapons, he said that it would be “foolhardy for any British government of whatever hue to make us vulnerable to possible threats by giving up the power to retaliate”.
Turning to Mr Corbyn’s suggestion, the ex-Navy chief said: "Having a Vanguard successor with missiles but no warheads fitted is dangerous and nonsensical. It would escalate tension dramatically, risk safe deployment and could result in a pre-emptive strike before the weapons are ready to fire."
He added: "The cries from a few military figures that dropping the deterrent will release funds for conventional forces is delusional and clearly those involved do not understand Whitehall. Indeed, no great sums would be released at all and in the early years there will be increased expenditure because of decommissioning."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel