The Westminster Government has rejected a plea by MPs to draw up contingency plans for Trident nuclear weapons system should Scotland vote for independence.
The House of Commons defence committee warned in September that the possibility of Scottish independence "represents a serious threat to the future operational viability of the UK's nuclear deterrent".
The SNP Government has said it will rid Scotland of nuclear weapons as soon as possible after independence. The UK's nuclear warheads are stored at Coulport on the Clyde and carried by submarines based at nearby Faslane.
"The UK Government must now give urgent consideration to contingency options in the event of a Yes vote," concluded the defence committee, which is composed of a dozen cross-party MPs, not including the SNP.
The UK Government has now firmly rejected that recommendation. "We note the committee's recommendations regarding contingency planning," said the formal response from ministers made available last week. "However, the UK Government's position remains that it is not planning for Scottish independence and cannot pre-negotiate the details of independence ahead of the referendum."
The defence committee had heard evidence from Rear Admiral Martin Alabaster, who was head of operations in Scotland at Faslane from 2008 to 2011. He was asked what impact he thought Scottish independence would have on the UK nuclear weapons programme. He didn't disguise his view that it would be serious, saying: "It would be very difficult - in fact, I would almost use the word inconceivable - to recreate the facilities necessary to mount the strategic deterrent, without the use of Faslane and Coulport, somewhere else in the UK."
Experts have suggested it might be possible to move Trident to the Devonport base in Plymouth. But others argue this isn't feasible.
John Ainslie, co-ordinator of the Scottish CND, said: "Scottish independence would be an opportunity for the UK to scrap Trident because, as the former Faslane commander has admitted, it is almost inconceivable that the base could be rebuilt in England or Wales."
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