Replacing the Trident nuclear missile submarines will not create any new jobs but will only sustain the current workforce at a cost of nearly £20 million per employee, a report has claimed.
A study by the influential think-tank the Jimmy Reid Foundation found that a total of 600 civilian jobs depend on the existing Trident system in Scotland, with 11,520 more spread out across the UK.
It estimates the cost of renewing Trident to be £205bn, the equivalent of £18 million per person working on the project, and says that a replacement programme would not lead to any jobs boost in Scotland.
The report also warns that replacing the UK's nuclear submarine fleet would divert engineering jobs from other sectors of the economy where they are more needed, adversely affect the defence budget for years to come and will ultimately make the world less safe.
The Jimmy Reid Foundation commissioned academics Professor Mike Danson, Karen Gilmore and Dr Geoff Whittam to prepare the report, titled 'Trident and its Successor Programme – the case for non-renewal, employment diversification and contributing to peace’, which is to be presented to the Scottish parliament today.
The probe sets out the moral and philosophical, economic and defence-orientated cases for not replacing Trident, as well as examining the impact of job losses as a result of non-renewal.
The study claimed that the system offers little to the Scottish and UK economies in the way of economic activity and knock-on effects, and threatens to become a financial black hole due to "ever-increasing" costs of procurement.
The report's authors argue that money which will be spent replacing the weapons system would be put to better use mitigating the cuts to public finances brought about by the Westminster's austerity policies, and reversing job losses as a result of reduced budgets given to local government .
It also says that the renewal programme contributes to a "continued" decline in the armed forces which has already resulted in job losses on the Clyde and other defence centres, and said that the Ministry of Defence would be able to build more Type-26 Frigates in Govan, Glasgow, if Trident was scrapped.
The authors call on the Scottish Government to establish a ‘Scottish Defence Diversification Agency’, whose remit would be to plan for the diversification of jobs away from defence projects and promoting a greener Scottish economy.
Lead author Professor Mike Danson said: ‘Our report demonstrates that far, far more is to be lost than gained by renewing Trident. Trident does not save jobs but costs jobs. Trident does not enhance our skills base but degrades it.
"Trident does not bring economic benefits ’ to the local area but leaks them away from it. All in all, renewing Trident makes neither economic nor social sense. It also an affront to democracy and humanity, and makes the world no more safe than it currently is."
Professor Gregor Gall, director of the Jimmy Reid Foundation, added: "We very much welcome this robust and rigorously researched report.
"Without a doubt, it makes the case that renewing Trident is not in the interests of the citizens of Scotland. We look forward to politicians and political parties taking up its findings and promoting them in order to do all that can be done to stop the renewal of Trident."
An MOD spokesperson said: “The Royal Navy’s £31bn Dreadnought programme provides for four submarines that will provide the ultimate guarantee of Britain’s security through to the 2060s.
"HMNB Clyde is one of the largest employment sites in Scotland, is already home to 8200 jobs and will be the home of all of Britain’s submarines by 2022.
"The withdrawal or cancellation of Dreadnought would have colossal implications for future shipbuilding in Scotland.”
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