A total of 20 Labour MPs have defied their leader Jeremy Corbyn to take part in an SNP-inspired vote on Trident.
More than a dozen rejected his anti-nuclear stance to back a replacement for the UK's nuclear deterrent.
Another six voted with the SNP to oppose renewing the ageing weapons system on the Clyde.
But other Labour MPs including the anti-Trident shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray abstained.
The Labour leadership has urged their MPs not to vote, calling the Commons debate an SNP "stunt".
But a number of MPs were determined to rebel against Mr Corbyn, who is pushing to change his party's stance on the deterrent.
In all 14 Labour MPs voted for the party's current policy, which is to renew Trident.
Earlier the SNP's defence spokesman Brendan O'Hara denounced Trident as a "desperate attempt" by the UK to cling to its imperial past.
Mr O'Hara also hit out at Labour MPs for attacking Mr Corbyn's position.
Scottish Labour voted at its recent conference to scrap the nuclear deterrent.
That move was praised by Mr Corbyn who expressed optimism that it would lead to a change of heart in the UK party's position.
Mr O'Hara told MPs there was no "moral, economic or military case for Trident", adding it was "not a military weapon (but) a political weapon that can never and will never be used".
That argument was rejected by former Conservative defence secretary Liam Fox who said it was being used "every day - as a deterrent".
The current Defence Secretary Michael Fallon accused Labour of a "shambles" over Trident which would provide comfort to Britain's enemies.
He also likened the recent appointment of the anti-Trident former London mayor Ken Livingstone as co-chair of Labour's defence review to making "an arsonist the co-chief fire officer".
Prime Minister David Cameron announced yesterday that the cost of replacing Trident submarines could rise to as much as £41 billion.
Experts have warned that the overall cost of running the decades long programme could be between £100bn and £167bn.
The MPs who voted to replace Trident include former leadership contender Liz Kendall.
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