Posted on 09/13/2014 8:36:49 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
BRITAIN’S independent nuclear deterrent should be moved to the Unites States if Scotland gains its independence next week, senior military figures have said.
Speaking to the Sunday Express they said the plan would ensure that our four Trident missile-carrying Vanguard submarines would not remain in the hands of a Non-Nato foreign country and deprive Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond of any “leverage” in post -independence negotiations.
The call, which one senior US politician last night said would be “overwhelmingly supported” in Congress, comes only two days after Ministry of Defence chiefs finally green-lighted an impact assessment study on Britain’s defence in the event of a Yes vote on Thursday.
Last night Whitehall sources confirmed they were “very alive” to the US option, though, officially, the Ministry of Defence refused to confirm it was making any provisions for independence.
Speaking last night, Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, now attached to the UK National Defence Association, said: “The great leverage that Alex Salmond currently has over the British Government is the location of our nuclear defence base at Faslane. If the vote is Yes, we should move heaven and earth to move all our submarines out of Faslane as quickly as possible.
“We must decide how important, in the short term, the word independence is in terms of our nuclear deterrent. After all, we rely on the US for our missiles and for an awful lot of intelligence. Would it make a huge amount of difference if we asked the US if we could use a base to place our nuclear deterrent there as a temporary measure?
“We could easily run Trident from the US for ten years, and prepare the rest of the UK for whatever the follow on might be.”
The Clyde naval base is currently the largest single employment site in Scotland, currently responsible for 6,700 jobs though this is set to increase to 8,200 jobs.
A recent report by the Royal United Services Institute think tank estimated that recreating the facilities to house Britain’s nuclear deterrent south of the border would cost around £3bn and take up to ten years. But the costs of “renting space” in the US would be relatively small.
Last night Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, chair of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security said the move would command overwhelming support in the United States.
“I emphatically think this is a good idea,’ he said.
“The US and UK have developed a Special Relationship through two World Wars and the Cold War, and our nations have helped each other out when we have run into strategic or military difficulties.
“Obviously what is left of the UK, if Scotland does become independent, would not want to have a significant part of its nuclear deterrent housed in a non-Nato country.
“I believe that basing the UK nuclear deterrent in the US until such time as the rest of the UK was able to build the appropriate basis would be very welcome here.
It would have very strong Republican support in Congress. If the President did request any type of legislation in Congress, it would probably pass by a margin of three to one in the House of Representatives, and I could see it being overwhelmingly approved by the Senate when the vote comes up.”
The obvious location, experts say, would be the US Naval Submarine Base at Kings Bay, Georgia, which already hosts the US’ Atlantic submarine fleet and a major Trident refit centre, the largest drydock in the world.
Air Cmdre Lambert’s views were echoed by other senior military figures and defence analysts.
“This would present an entirely sensible solution as a temporary measure,’ said former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West, last night.
“We must remember that getting rid of Trident has always been a core plank for the SNP.
"The fact that they say they want to join Nato was actually a close run thing at the Assembly conference – an awful lot of them don’t even want to be in Nato.”
Former head of the British Army Gen Mike Jackson added: “Salmond’s position on Trident is clear and it will need some tricky negotiation in the event of a Yes vote.
"Britain must remain a nuclear weapon state not only over the remainder of the life of our current system, but also in terms of a replacement.
"Scotland will be a realm problem.
"Moving the fleet to the US would be an interesting and practicable proposition.
"The US are keen that we remain a nuclear state and I suspect they would be understanding.”
Luke Coffey, a former MoD aid to Dr Liam Fox and now with Washington DC-based Heritage Foundation said:”In the chance that the vote is Yes, the first policy paper I will be writing is to recommend that the United States Government does allow the hosting of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
"It is an idea that has already been discussed in Whitehall.
“Our Special Relationship is based around nuclear cooperation - this goes back to the 1950s.
"It’s the nuclear cooperation that makes our Special Relationship special.
“The US would make much more sense than, say, France which is less dependable over this kind of issue.
“There is zero debate here about nuclear weapons and the idea of having an extra four submarines would not be an issue.
"It’s a practical short-term solution and there’s a precedent – the US has nuclear weapons in other countries.”
Sure, why not?
They sent us their gold, didn’t they?
Why not an English port?
I have a friend who has done business in Scotland for years and used to have a facility there. He just returned from a two week trip this week and says if this vote passes the negative financial impacts will be huge - not just there but rippling all over the world.
And they trust that Muslim idiot Obama with them??
Dickweed might not like it
The article said, it’s because they don’t have the facilities elsewhere to dock them.
Specialized facilities for servicing nuclear subs need to be constructed. The assumption is that those that are in Scotland become the property of the Republic of Scotland, assuming the new nation becomes a republic.
Scottish Trident base claims ‘preposterous threat’
The British Government denies reports it is examining plans to designate Faslane as sovereign UK territory in case Scots back independence next year.
11 Jul 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10173371/Scottish-Trident-base-claims-preposterous-threat.html
Thanks.
Of course, Scotland could join NATO.
I seriously doubt it. Scotland has less than 10% of the UK's population. England will get on fine without Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland). Much of the English Crown's expansion into the rest of what came to be known as Great Britain was a way to forestall recurrent raids by the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish into England, the most fertile and productive part of the realm. The other part of England's rationale for dominating the British Isles was to deny the continental powers a staging area for the invasion of England. Today, the only thing the continental powers are marching towards is welfare state insolvency.
The Scots are coming, the Scots are coming!!! :-)
Because you don’t operate and maintain something as specialized and sophisticated as a nuclear armed nuclear submarine out of some random commercial port. Not even out of a high-end commercial port.
Lease the facilities from Scotland
Not to worry. Obama could screw this up too.
Why pay billions to Scotland that could be used to build a new facility? Uncle Sam will provide at cost (or for free) what Scotland will charge an arm and a leg to lease. Your statement suggests that you believe the Scots will deal in good faith. Actual SNP rhetoric indicates a philosophy not very different from Venezuela's late Hugo Chavez.
> Uncle Sam will provide at cost (or for free)
Why should the US pay for England’s problem?
The sad truth is that under this disgusting administration the United States is no longer a reliable ally to people who have bled for us. It's been that way for the better part of six years now, and we have two to go during which the keeping of foreign policy will remain in the hands of John Kerry and Barack Hussein no matter what the House and Senate look like, and anyone who thinks that the country and the world can't take permanent damage from it hasn't been paying attention.
Salmond has his own plans to turn the sub base of Faslane into the HQ for the Scottish Armed Forces.
Moving the subs out early would probably be a good idea for both sides, and on a much better timetable than mentioned below.
From a report on the last debate -
Alastair Darling said removing Trident would mean a loss of 8000 jobs. But, replied Salmond, we plan to keep Faslane as the base for Scottish Defence, with all the jobs that implies. Darling countered with the Royal United Services Institute’s claim that Trident couldn’t be moved until 2028. Salmond came back with the fact that RUSI actually said that setting up all the infrastructure elsewhere for Trident and its submarines would take that long. The removal of Trident could easily be accomplished in the proposed 5½ years. The fact that no one could use it for several more years would be to everyone’s benefit.
The EU especially does not like citizens getting ideas of self determination. They like citizens obeying instructions from non elected bureaucrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.