A Government review will provide "credible" alternatives to the like-for-like replacement of Trident, a Cabinet minister said today.
Liberal Democrat Danny Alexander dismissed Tory demands for a new continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent as "not financially realistic".
The junior coalition party insisted on the official review, which is due to report in June, as part of its deal with the Conservatives in May 2010.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Mr Alexander took charge of the study last autumn after Lib Dem defence minister Nick Harvey lost his job in a reshuffle.
In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Alexander repeated his belief that a like-for-like replacement was not needed.
"Given all the financial pressures across the whole of the public sector, all the things the Government has to do and wants to pay for, and all the pressures in different areas, I just think the idea that somehow, out of thin air, we can carve a multibillion pocket to pay for this, that is not financially realistic," he said.
"We are in a position where the costs of the successor have to be paid for from within the Ministry of Defence budget. There is no magic pot of money that is going to be created out of thin air to go on top of that. As a Government, we have been very clear about that. Certainly myself and the Chancellor."
Mr Alexander went on: "I would expect we will be able to set out serious, credible arguments and potential alternatives.
"I hope (the review) will open up a wide debate, in the public, among experts and the community, around the approach we take to nuclear deterrence."
The Government is spending around £1.4 billion on early design work for Trident replacement submarines, but the final decision about whether to go ahead - known as the "main gate" - is not due until after the general election.
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 hereComments are closed on this article