John Fedup
The Bunker Group
In the event a separated Scotland self destructs economically, has there been any terms discussed for a re-unification? I am guessing they wouldn't be pretty.
Scottish Independence
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
Ha, when they go they go, there is no coming back.
...& there's the rub !
Too many people following the Highlander / Braveheart / Shortbread tin mentality.
WE hate the English, let's get rid of them & Westminster & the Queen & the Nukes, but we want our all benefits / social security, the pound, to be part of NATO, to retain the use of British embassy's & the rights of a traveller abroad, carrying a British passport, oh & all the other little intricacies of British life, like postage stamps. BUT, we don't want to pay for it, we don't want to be taxed on it & we want the oil money, 'cos it's ours !
IF we do vote YES, that's me n the wife outta work, I'll need to flog the house & move South, or try Canada / Australia AGAIN !
The 12 yr old rugrat's a little upset at the prospect, but my x2 eldest who are 20 & 22, they're telling me they're voting YES !
Now THERE'S gratitude for ya !
BTW, watch this for the last 30 seconds or so...
No Scottish Divide In Shipyards Of The Clyde
If you ever want to work on the build of an RAN ship (or sub) in the future you'd be better off moving to Spain, South Korea or Japan.:wah
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #85
Blair's a Scottish name. Not that that makes someone Scottish on its own: my surname's from Scotland, but that Scots ancestor of mine moved south before 1697, & David Cameron (how Scots a name can you get?) is English-born, with an aristocratic English mother - but his father was a Scot, Ian Donald Cameron, born & raised in Aberdeenshire.
Quite a few Scots in Cameron's cabinets, though mostly elected by English voters. Five out of 23 to start with, not counting himself. He then replaced one of the English with someone whose parentage I think is English, but was born in N. Ireland, grew up in Scotland & is an MP there. In 2012 it went down to four out of 22. But that's still twice Scotland's population share, & this year it sort-of went up to five: one new member was born in Scotland to Scottish & English parents, but raised in Wales.
Looking back, it seems to me that Scots have been pretty consistently over-represented in British governments. I also see many examples of people in government who it's hard to categorise by nationality, as in Scots or English. We're all pretty mixed up here. To me, that's a good argument against splitting up.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Do your two eldest still live at home, or do they have places of their own? If they stillat home, or close enough that they pop over frequently, you might want to point out to them that a successful Yes vote means them either being homeless, or moving to England as and the missus relocate to keep (or find) comparable work.
Or that they might need a passport and/or visas to visit family and mates in the rUK following a split. Or that an independent Scotland might not have trade or diplomatic relationships in place with other countries, thereby making opportunities to work or travel abroad more difficult.
From the clip, I do find it interesting how one of the men pointed out that only one of the two choices had any risk, and that particular side was not providing any real concrete plans with specifics. Perhaps you should ask you two eldest if they would be inclined to gamble, when there is a moderate to high risk of significant losses, with the potential for small gains.
Something else to potentially see if you can dig into, is the economic impact the defence and financial sectors have on the Scottish economy, and what percentage of those sectors would remain following a split. They might be a bit less enthused if they are told outright that independence could cost mum & dad their jobs/careers, or require moving.
I'm in the same boat - our lot moved down to work in the pits in the North East about 300 years back, my first name has the English spelling but the surname is pure Scots. And yes, I quite agree - I've seen no concrete explanations as to what it is that's holding back the Scots now, today, from becoming the dynamic power house they claim they will be post-independence, so why split up?
FirstSpear
Banned Member
For all to opine on:
Sources: Google Maps and AW&ST Art Dept.
Advertisement
A version of this article appears in the September 15 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology.
However they vote on Sept. 18, the four million residents eligible to cast ballots in the Scottish independence referendum are set to change the face of the British Isles and how they will be defended.
Few if any plans to deal with the possible transition toward an independent Scotland have been drafted by defense officials, but as the results of polls have narrowed in the final weeks of campaigning, there has been a dawning realization that a majority “yes” vote is now a very real possibility.
Even a “no” vote is likely to result in a radical devolution that will not only see the current Scottish executive gain authority but also prompt the revamping of politics across the U.K.
But what politicians fear most, of course, is a yes vote—a decision that would end 300 years of unity, with defense likely to be an early victim. Concerns about the vote have even prompted the U.K. Parliament to delay what would be a politically divisive decision on possible U.K. participation in airstrikes against Islamic insurgents in Iraq.
While the 2010 Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) actually has had the effect of significantly downsizing the armed forces’ presence in Scotland—in particular for the Royal Air Force—it remains home to Britain’s Trident armed ballistic missile submarines, the country’s collective nuclear deterrent.
While fighter aircraft and soldiers can be moved easily to new home bases and barracks south of the border, relocating the nuclear deterrent would be a major headache for defense planners. A belligerent Scotland could force Britain to remove the submarines quickly, without the necessary infrastructure in place to support them immediately available elsewhere—except perhaps the U.S. or France—and not in England for at least several years. This may result in the potential unilateral disarmament of the country’s nuclear capability, a move that would not go down well with NATO partners and probably the European Union—two organizations that Scotland aspires to join.
Nonetheless, the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) own rhetoric on the Tridents is clear. Its white paper on Scottish independence says they are an “affront to basic decency with its indiscriminate and inhuman destructive power.”
The SNP argues that by being independent, there will be no need for the country to be involved in the development of the Trident successor program, a project with an expected price tag of £100 billion ($161 billion) over the next 20-30 years.
The nationalists also claim that while Scotland currently pays in 10% of the current U.K. defense budget of £34 billion, only around half comes back. They also assert that without contributions from Scotland, the Defense Ministry could see £13 billion less in its £160 billion equipment budget for the next decade.
The 2010 SDSR had the effect of closing two major air bases: RAF Kinloss, previously home to the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft; and RAF Leuchars, an air defense base. This role has been transferred to RAF Lossiemouth in Moray. Kinloss is now an Army barracks and Leuchars may go the same way, receiving troops returning from Germany in the coming years. Furthermore, the Royal Navy bases none of its surface ships in Scotland. These changes have painted a dim view of the U.K. seat of government for Scottish voters. The Defense Ministry has argued that nearly 10% of regular armed forces personnel will be based in Scotland by 2020.
But a yes vote could also prompt Scotland’s small but important defense industry to move out as well. Shipbuilding, which employs 5,000 there, would be most at risk, particularly as current British government policy is to produce ships and submarines for the Royal Navy using national industry. The Aircraft Carrier Alliance is building the U.K.’s two new ships at Rosyth near Edinburgh. But shipbuilders are likely to feel they have to move south in order to support the -Navy’s needs.
The SNP says it should inherit a share of the U.K.’s defense assets to help it establish a defense force. Based on population, the party says Scotland’s share would be worth about £7.8 billion and would include at least 12-16 Eurofighter Typhoons for air defense, and six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules to form a tactical air transport squadron. It would also get a fleet of helicopters. This is likely to be the subject of significant negotiation, however.
A no vote will retain the union and allow defense planners to breathe a sigh of relief, but further devolution for the Scottish Parliament may prompt questions about whether its politicians should still have a say in the affairs of its neighbors, while counterparts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have no say about Scotland. This issue, dubbed the “West Lothian question” could invoke more transfers of power in other parts of the country.
If the people vote yes, the SNP intends to have a constitutional platform in place for Scotland to become independent by March 2016.
Sources: Google Maps and AW&ST Art Dept.
Advertisement
A version of this article appears in the September 15 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology.
However they vote on Sept. 18, the four million residents eligible to cast ballots in the Scottish independence referendum are set to change the face of the British Isles and how they will be defended.
Few if any plans to deal with the possible transition toward an independent Scotland have been drafted by defense officials, but as the results of polls have narrowed in the final weeks of campaigning, there has been a dawning realization that a majority “yes” vote is now a very real possibility.
Even a “no” vote is likely to result in a radical devolution that will not only see the current Scottish executive gain authority but also prompt the revamping of politics across the U.K.
But what politicians fear most, of course, is a yes vote—a decision that would end 300 years of unity, with defense likely to be an early victim. Concerns about the vote have even prompted the U.K. Parliament to delay what would be a politically divisive decision on possible U.K. participation in airstrikes against Islamic insurgents in Iraq.
While the 2010 Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) actually has had the effect of significantly downsizing the armed forces’ presence in Scotland—in particular for the Royal Air Force—it remains home to Britain’s Trident armed ballistic missile submarines, the country’s collective nuclear deterrent.
While fighter aircraft and soldiers can be moved easily to new home bases and barracks south of the border, relocating the nuclear deterrent would be a major headache for defense planners. A belligerent Scotland could force Britain to remove the submarines quickly, without the necessary infrastructure in place to support them immediately available elsewhere—except perhaps the U.S. or France—and not in England for at least several years. This may result in the potential unilateral disarmament of the country’s nuclear capability, a move that would not go down well with NATO partners and probably the European Union—two organizations that Scotland aspires to join.
Nonetheless, the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) own rhetoric on the Tridents is clear. Its white paper on Scottish independence says they are an “affront to basic decency with its indiscriminate and inhuman destructive power.”
The SNP argues that by being independent, there will be no need for the country to be involved in the development of the Trident successor program, a project with an expected price tag of £100 billion ($161 billion) over the next 20-30 years.
The nationalists also claim that while Scotland currently pays in 10% of the current U.K. defense budget of £34 billion, only around half comes back. They also assert that without contributions from Scotland, the Defense Ministry could see £13 billion less in its £160 billion equipment budget for the next decade.
The 2010 SDSR had the effect of closing two major air bases: RAF Kinloss, previously home to the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft; and RAF Leuchars, an air defense base. This role has been transferred to RAF Lossiemouth in Moray. Kinloss is now an Army barracks and Leuchars may go the same way, receiving troops returning from Germany in the coming years. Furthermore, the Royal Navy bases none of its surface ships in Scotland. These changes have painted a dim view of the U.K. seat of government for Scottish voters. The Defense Ministry has argued that nearly 10% of regular armed forces personnel will be based in Scotland by 2020.
But a yes vote could also prompt Scotland’s small but important defense industry to move out as well. Shipbuilding, which employs 5,000 there, would be most at risk, particularly as current British government policy is to produce ships and submarines for the Royal Navy using national industry. The Aircraft Carrier Alliance is building the U.K.’s two new ships at Rosyth near Edinburgh. But shipbuilders are likely to feel they have to move south in order to support the -Navy’s needs.
The SNP says it should inherit a share of the U.K.’s defense assets to help it establish a defense force. Based on population, the party says Scotland’s share would be worth about £7.8 billion and would include at least 12-16 Eurofighter Typhoons for air defense, and six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules to form a tactical air transport squadron. It would also get a fleet of helicopters. This is likely to be the subject of significant negotiation, however.
A no vote will retain the union and allow defense planners to breathe a sigh of relief, but further devolution for the Scottish Parliament may prompt questions about whether its politicians should still have a say in the affairs of its neighbors, while counterparts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have no say about Scotland. This issue, dubbed the “West Lothian question” could invoke more transfers of power in other parts of the country.
If the people vote yes, the SNP intends to have a constitutional platform in place for Scotland to become independent by March 2016.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I wonder what a "yes" vote will mean for the rUK with regards to the F-35 acquisition numbers.
They both live at home, Eldest shovels the proverbial, as he works as a stable hand, which is basic wages. Middle child has just started college, her 2nd course since she left school, hasn't worked a day in her puff & relies on us for funding of some of her social life & 75% of her travel.
The last time it was quoted to me, based on Scottish Govt. facts, it's either for Every single job that is directly defence/aerospace manufacturing related (circa 25,000), there are approx 7 additional people whom benefit / are employed(in the service / supply chain, in the corner shops & supermarkets, in the car repair garages, etc.). That's 175k people, out of 6 million, although the figure should be adjusted to more like 4.5 million (to remove children & the retired - i.e. those eligible to work). That's no lump of chump change.
The reality of those figures is that there's about 4 people for every one of those 175,000 that are subsequently employed, or are supported. No wonder there's rumours circulating that by the time those employers & businesses have moved on in the 2 year negotiation period, there will be approx 1/4 million people unemployed in the West of Scotland.
Meanwhile, 'the great unwashed', whom rely on state payouts, but are happy to run up & down the street, waving YES flags, really haven't sat down & worked out that if these 175,000 jobs go, that's 175,000 people who aren't paying taxes & putting money back into the country, to keep them in the lifestyles they have grown accustomed to !
As for my children, it's been explained to them what will happen if there's a YES vote (both me n the wife loosing the job, having to sell the house & probably move South to chase a job). NEITHER is non-plus'd about it. The eldest reckons he'd probably loose his job too, as people won't spend money on keeping pet horses, if they don't have jobs, and the middle child still has that imagination of a 5 year old, that everything will be rosy in the garden & Scotland WILL be better.
Rant over...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #92
there are a lot of people in here who have blood or ancestors from the north. even half my lot are scots, surname is scottish and the penny pinching side of the family is deeply ingrained...
if we were there we'd be voting No by a golden mile.....
if we were there we'd be voting No by a golden mile.....
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Hopefully Scots around the world are echoing the same message back home to those voting. Waking up the the next morning saying WTF happened will be too late.there are a lot of people in here who have blood or ancestors from the north. even half my lot are scots, surname is scottish and the penny pinching side of the family is deeply ingrained...
if we were there we'd be voting No by a golden mile.....
FirstSpear
Banned Member
Interesting article from USNI.
Royal Navy Faced With Tough Sub Choices If Scotland Leaves U.K.
By: Sam LaGrone
Published: September 16, 2014 7:00 PM
Updated: September 16, 2014 7:01 PM
HMS Vanguard arrives back at HM Naval Base Clyde following a nuclear deterrence patrol. U.K. Royal Navy Photo
The heart of the United Kingdom’s nuclear submarine enterprise could be cut out if Scotland leaves the U.K. in Thursday’s referendum on Scottish independence, British leaders have warned repeatedly over the last several months.
Scots voting “Yes” for independence say they’re happy to see the subs go.
At issue are the Royal Navy’s four Vanguard-class ballistic missile nuclear submarines (SSBN) and their payloads stationed at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde, tucked into a narrow bay in Scotland’s Southwest.
For more than 40 years, the Royal Navy has used Scotland to homeport its nuclear deterrent fleet and nuclear attack submarines (SSNs).
However — if the Sept. 18 secession referendum passes — an independent Scotland will almost certainly evict the Royal Navy’s boomers and their submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) from an independent Scotland.
“We believe that nuclear weapons have no place in Scotland,” read a 2013 policy paper published by the Scottish Government.
“We will therefore advocate that a written constitution should include a constitutional ban on nuclear weapons being based in Scotland.”
Separatists would consent to let the base remain until 2020, leaving precious little time for the U.K. Ministry of Defense (MoD) to find new homes for the aging Vanguards and the warheads for their Trident-II D5 SLBMs.
Military officials have warned the separation of Scotland from the rest of the U.K. would especially hurt the Royal Navy.
“The U.K. is deeply respected for its maritime contribution to NATO, with its maritime deterrent through its ships and submarines and marines, and that whole piece is part of NATO’s contribution to security,” wrote Adm. Sir George Zambellas — First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy — in April according to a U.K. Press Association report.
“Taking that apart would give us a much weaker result. The two components would not add up to the sum of the whole.”
Scots for independence argue that the U.K.’s reliance on its nuclear deterrent for protection has left Scotland unprepared for conventional conflict.
“The U.K.’s wasting money on Trident has left Scotland with totally unsuitable conventional defense capabilities – particularly maritime protection,” wrote Keith Brown, Scottish Government minister for veterans and former Royal Marine in a Sunday opinion piece.
“With independence we can invest in defense and security forces which reflect our needs in the 21st Century.”
HMNB Clyde — and the about 160 nuclear warheads stored there — has been the target of several protests and is a major political sore spot with the Scots long predating the independence push.
View Moving the Vanguards in a larger map
The Faslane base was stood up in the mid-1960s as a homeport for the Royal Navy’s four Resolution-class submarines — 8,500-ton boomers fielding 16 Polaris A-3 missiles. The nearby Naval Armaments Depot at nearby Coulport stores the warheads.
Since the Polaris era, Royal Navy has made significant investments in HMNB Clyde to accommodate the Vanguards and the missiles and warheads.
Any accommodation for the Vanguards in Britain’s existing naval bases will be expensive and the logistics of basing the boomers in France or the U.S. are complex — not to mention the politically challenging.
“Several options exist as a replacement base but none appear to be as good as the current facilities in Scotland,” Eric Wertheim, author of the Naval Institutes Combat Fleets of the World, told USNI News on Friday.
“Some are considered too close to population centers while others raise sovereignty issues or require very extensive financial investment and modification.”
U.K. Basing
If the U.K.’s sole nuclear deterrent leaves Scotland, the Royal Navy will have to replace not one but two facilities — the operational base for the Vanguards at Faslane and the warhead storage and loading facility at Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport.
There are some U.K. options, but none are ideal from the Royal Navy’s perspective.
View Southern Options in a larger map
When the Royal Navy was searching for a base for the quartet of Resolutions in the 1960s, it created a shortlist of ten locations, according to the 2002 paper published in The Nonproliferation Review, titled: The United Kingdom, Nuclear Weapons and the Scottish Question.
Of those original locations, two — one in Wales and one in Southern England — might be suitable for Vanguard basing, according to authors Malcolm Chalmers and William Walker. Chalmers was one of the original architects of basing the U.K. boomers at Clyde.
The most obvious choice is in England — HMNB Devonport.
The largest naval base in Western Europe, the site already conducts the nuclear refueling and refits for the Vanguard boats.
The few of HMS Vigilant in 2012 shortly before returning to service after a refit at HMNB Devonport. Royal Navy Photo
But space at the installation is already at a premium and it might be impossible to maintain prescribed minimum safety distances between a replacement for the Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport, other ships at the installation and nearby housing developments.
“The main issues with Devonport did not relate to recreating the facilities of Faslane, but of Coulport, and without Coulport, there is no deterrent,” read a 2012 report from the U.K. Parliament’s Scottish Affairs Committee.
Milford Haven in Wales is a deep-water port and could easily accommodate the comings and goings of the boomers. It’s also far from population centers. However, there’s a large oil refinery near by and military leaders in the 1960s scrapped the plan due to safety concerns.
A possibility not on the original Resolution list is Barrow-in-Furness, home of the U.K.’s BAE Systems submarine manufacturing base in Northwest England. The Royal Navy would have difficulty creating an operational base due to the lack of a reliable deep-water approach to the facility.
“That would restrict submarine access to convenient monthly tides without significant dredging, and the size of the dock which would not, at present, have room for more than two Vanguard-class submarines,” read the report from the Scottish Affairs Committee.
“Coulport is not just a storage site, but also possesses the huge floating dock where the warheads are placed inside the missiles.”
Any of the U.K. sites would require an expensive and intensive construction program that could take up to a decade to complete. At least one U.K. think thank said the cost for a new facility could be almost $5 billion.
Some Scottish leaders have said they want the warheads and the Vanguards gone by 2020.
U.S. and France
View Foreign Options in a larger map
Two sites that could more easily accommodate the Vanguards and the nuclear warheads are on foreign soil — France and the U.S.
The likeliest foreign home for the Vanguards and the payload would be Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Ga.
Begun as a military ocean terminal in the 1950s, the base began converting to a homeport for the U.S. boomer fleet starting in 1976.
The base is already integral to the U.K.’s ballistic missile submarine organization.
A total of about 58 Trident missiles were bought by the U.K. and are considered “mingled assets” with U.S. Tridents, according to Combat Fleets.
“The missiles are randomly selected from the U.S.-U.K. stockpile at Kings Bay, Ga. and loaded onto submarines. The British submarines then sail for the Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport,” reads the entry in Combat Fleets.
HMS Vanguard Launching a Trident II D5 missile in 2005.
With the U.S. converting four Ohio-class submarines to guided missile carriers in the last two decades, there would likely be room to accommodate the warheads and the Vanguards.
“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 U.S. for our missiles and for an awful lot of intelligence,” said Air Commodore Andrew Lambert with the U.K. National Defence Association — a group that advises U.K. should increase defense spending — in a Saturday speech quoted in the U.K.’s Sunday Express.
“We could easily run Trident from the US for ten years, and prepare the rest of the U.K. for whatever the follow on might be.”
The U.S. Navy would not comment on any proposal to relocate Vanguards and warheads to Kings Bay when contacted by USNI News.
The French Navy has kept the submarines of its Force océanique stratégique (FOST) at Île Longue nuclear submarine base since the 1970s.
Currently, its four Triomphant-class SSBNs operate from the Brittany peninsula.
Île Longue might have become more politically palatable for the British in recent years. France and the U.K. have two bilateral defense agreements ongoing — including operating both British and French aircraft from the nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91).
Though closer than King’s Bay, space maybe tight in the facility and it might not be able to accommodate all four Vanguards.
Next Steps
Pro Independence Campaign Poster. Yes Scotland Image
If Scotland votes for independence on Thursday, it is unclear what the U.K.’s next steps will be with regard to its nuclear deterrent.
The U.K.’s sole nuclear deterrent are the ongoing Vanguard patrols following a late 1990s retirement of their nuclear bomber force.
In an era of shirking U.K. defense budgets, preserving the boomers and the U.K. nuclear deterrent could be financially unreasonable given the extra cost of developing permanent basing those submarines elsewhere in the U.K.
The split could also make the U.K.’s SSBN Successor SSBN program more difficult to fund.
English politicians, as well as Scots, have been critical of the cost of the so-called 100 billion pound Successor program.
“Nuclear deterrence is aimed at states, because it doesn’t work against terrorists,” said Tory Member of Parliament James Arbuthnot in 2013.
“You can only aim a nuclear weapon at rational states not already deterred by the U.S. nuclear deterrent, so there is only a small set of targets.”
Much of the Yes vote literature breaks out the cost of the Trident program and compares it to domestic spending for social services — and the message is appearing to resonate.
According to the most recent public opinion polls — the split between a Yes and No vote is still too close to call — a dramatic shift toward Scottish independence in only the last few weeks.
Recently, U.K. leadership has undertaken a mad scramble to shore up support to keep the British Isles together.
“If the British nuclear deterrent is forced out of Scotland, one of the alternative options will have to be chosen,” Wertheim said.
“But that will likely have a significant and negative impact reverberating from the Royal Navy to the national economy, and eventually could be felt by all 28 members of the NATO alliance.”
Royal Navy Faced With Tough Sub Choices If Scotland Leaves U.K.
By: Sam LaGrone
Published: September 16, 2014 7:00 PM
Updated: September 16, 2014 7:01 PM
HMS Vanguard arrives back at HM Naval Base Clyde following a nuclear deterrence patrol. U.K. Royal Navy Photo
The heart of the United Kingdom’s nuclear submarine enterprise could be cut out if Scotland leaves the U.K. in Thursday’s referendum on Scottish independence, British leaders have warned repeatedly over the last several months.
Scots voting “Yes” for independence say they’re happy to see the subs go.
At issue are the Royal Navy’s four Vanguard-class ballistic missile nuclear submarines (SSBN) and their payloads stationed at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde, tucked into a narrow bay in Scotland’s Southwest.
For more than 40 years, the Royal Navy has used Scotland to homeport its nuclear deterrent fleet and nuclear attack submarines (SSNs).
However — if the Sept. 18 secession referendum passes — an independent Scotland will almost certainly evict the Royal Navy’s boomers and their submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) from an independent Scotland.
“We believe that nuclear weapons have no place in Scotland,” read a 2013 policy paper published by the Scottish Government.
“We will therefore advocate that a written constitution should include a constitutional ban on nuclear weapons being based in Scotland.”
Separatists would consent to let the base remain until 2020, leaving precious little time for the U.K. Ministry of Defense (MoD) to find new homes for the aging Vanguards and the warheads for their Trident-II D5 SLBMs.
Military officials have warned the separation of Scotland from the rest of the U.K. would especially hurt the Royal Navy.
“The U.K. is deeply respected for its maritime contribution to NATO, with its maritime deterrent through its ships and submarines and marines, and that whole piece is part of NATO’s contribution to security,” wrote Adm. Sir George Zambellas — First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy — in April according to a U.K. Press Association report.
“Taking that apart would give us a much weaker result. The two components would not add up to the sum of the whole.”
Scots for independence argue that the U.K.’s reliance on its nuclear deterrent for protection has left Scotland unprepared for conventional conflict.
“The U.K.’s wasting money on Trident has left Scotland with totally unsuitable conventional defense capabilities – particularly maritime protection,” wrote Keith Brown, Scottish Government minister for veterans and former Royal Marine in a Sunday opinion piece.
“With independence we can invest in defense and security forces which reflect our needs in the 21st Century.”
HMNB Clyde — and the about 160 nuclear warheads stored there — has been the target of several protests and is a major political sore spot with the Scots long predating the independence push.
View Moving the Vanguards in a larger map
The Faslane base was stood up in the mid-1960s as a homeport for the Royal Navy’s four Resolution-class submarines — 8,500-ton boomers fielding 16 Polaris A-3 missiles. The nearby Naval Armaments Depot at nearby Coulport stores the warheads.
Since the Polaris era, Royal Navy has made significant investments in HMNB Clyde to accommodate the Vanguards and the missiles and warheads.
Any accommodation for the Vanguards in Britain’s existing naval bases will be expensive and the logistics of basing the boomers in France or the U.S. are complex — not to mention the politically challenging.
“Several options exist as a replacement base but none appear to be as good as the current facilities in Scotland,” Eric Wertheim, author of the Naval Institutes Combat Fleets of the World, told USNI News on Friday.
“Some are considered too close to population centers while others raise sovereignty issues or require very extensive financial investment and modification.”
U.K. Basing
If the U.K.’s sole nuclear deterrent leaves Scotland, the Royal Navy will have to replace not one but two facilities — the operational base for the Vanguards at Faslane and the warhead storage and loading facility at Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport.
There are some U.K. options, but none are ideal from the Royal Navy’s perspective.
View Southern Options in a larger map
When the Royal Navy was searching for a base for the quartet of Resolutions in the 1960s, it created a shortlist of ten locations, according to the 2002 paper published in The Nonproliferation Review, titled: The United Kingdom, Nuclear Weapons and the Scottish Question.
Of those original locations, two — one in Wales and one in Southern England — might be suitable for Vanguard basing, according to authors Malcolm Chalmers and William Walker. Chalmers was one of the original architects of basing the U.K. boomers at Clyde.
The most obvious choice is in England — HMNB Devonport.
The largest naval base in Western Europe, the site already conducts the nuclear refueling and refits for the Vanguard boats.
The few of HMS Vigilant in 2012 shortly before returning to service after a refit at HMNB Devonport. Royal Navy Photo
But space at the installation is already at a premium and it might be impossible to maintain prescribed minimum safety distances between a replacement for the Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport, other ships at the installation and nearby housing developments.
“The main issues with Devonport did not relate to recreating the facilities of Faslane, but of Coulport, and without Coulport, there is no deterrent,” read a 2012 report from the U.K. Parliament’s Scottish Affairs Committee.
Milford Haven in Wales is a deep-water port and could easily accommodate the comings and goings of the boomers. It’s also far from population centers. However, there’s a large oil refinery near by and military leaders in the 1960s scrapped the plan due to safety concerns.
A possibility not on the original Resolution list is Barrow-in-Furness, home of the U.K.’s BAE Systems submarine manufacturing base in Northwest England. The Royal Navy would have difficulty creating an operational base due to the lack of a reliable deep-water approach to the facility.
“That would restrict submarine access to convenient monthly tides without significant dredging, and the size of the dock which would not, at present, have room for more than two Vanguard-class submarines,” read the report from the Scottish Affairs Committee.
“Coulport is not just a storage site, but also possesses the huge floating dock where the warheads are placed inside the missiles.”
Any of the U.K. sites would require an expensive and intensive construction program that could take up to a decade to complete. At least one U.K. think thank said the cost for a new facility could be almost $5 billion.
Some Scottish leaders have said they want the warheads and the Vanguards gone by 2020.
U.S. and France
View Foreign Options in a larger map
Two sites that could more easily accommodate the Vanguards and the nuclear warheads are on foreign soil — France and the U.S.
The likeliest foreign home for the Vanguards and the payload would be Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Ga.
Begun as a military ocean terminal in the 1950s, the base began converting to a homeport for the U.S. boomer fleet starting in 1976.
The base is already integral to the U.K.’s ballistic missile submarine organization.
A total of about 58 Trident missiles were bought by the U.K. and are considered “mingled assets” with U.S. Tridents, according to Combat Fleets.
“The missiles are randomly selected from the U.S.-U.K. stockpile at Kings Bay, Ga. and loaded onto submarines. The British submarines then sail for the Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport,” reads the entry in Combat Fleets.
HMS Vanguard Launching a Trident II D5 missile in 2005.
With the U.S. converting four Ohio-class submarines to guided missile carriers in the last two decades, there would likely be room to accommodate the warheads and the Vanguards.
“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 U.S. for our missiles and for an awful lot of intelligence,” said Air Commodore Andrew Lambert with the U.K. National Defence Association — a group that advises U.K. should increase defense spending — in a Saturday speech quoted in the U.K.’s Sunday Express.
“We could easily run Trident from the US for ten years, and prepare the rest of the U.K. for whatever the follow on might be.”
The U.S. Navy would not comment on any proposal to relocate Vanguards and warheads to Kings Bay when contacted by USNI News.
The French Navy has kept the submarines of its Force océanique stratégique (FOST) at Île Longue nuclear submarine base since the 1970s.
Currently, its four Triomphant-class SSBNs operate from the Brittany peninsula.
Île Longue might have become more politically palatable for the British in recent years. France and the U.K. have two bilateral defense agreements ongoing — including operating both British and French aircraft from the nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91).
Though closer than King’s Bay, space maybe tight in the facility and it might not be able to accommodate all four Vanguards.
Next Steps
Pro Independence Campaign Poster. Yes Scotland Image
If Scotland votes for independence on Thursday, it is unclear what the U.K.’s next steps will be with regard to its nuclear deterrent.
The U.K.’s sole nuclear deterrent are the ongoing Vanguard patrols following a late 1990s retirement of their nuclear bomber force.
In an era of shirking U.K. defense budgets, preserving the boomers and the U.K. nuclear deterrent could be financially unreasonable given the extra cost of developing permanent basing those submarines elsewhere in the U.K.
The split could also make the U.K.’s SSBN Successor SSBN program more difficult to fund.
English politicians, as well as Scots, have been critical of the cost of the so-called 100 billion pound Successor program.
“Nuclear deterrence is aimed at states, because it doesn’t work against terrorists,” said Tory Member of Parliament James Arbuthnot in 2013.
“You can only aim a nuclear weapon at rational states not already deterred by the U.S. nuclear deterrent, so there is only a small set of targets.”
Much of the Yes vote literature breaks out the cost of the Trident program and compares it to domestic spending for social services — and the message is appearing to resonate.
According to the most recent public opinion polls — the split between a Yes and No vote is still too close to call — a dramatic shift toward Scottish independence in only the last few weeks.
Recently, U.K. leadership has undertaken a mad scramble to shore up support to keep the British Isles together.
“If the British nuclear deterrent is forced out of Scotland, one of the alternative options will have to be chosen,” Wertheim said.
“But that will likely have a significant and negative impact reverberating from the Royal Navy to the national economy, and eventually could be felt by all 28 members of the NATO alliance.”
As a member of the Scots diaspora I hope they remain within the UK, but a little part of me would like Scotland to become independent and fail miserably. People aren't thinking with their heads about the outcome of this, SNP has done a wonderful job selling independence; Westminster hasn't given it the attention it deserved thinking it wouldn't happen, now that it's actually pretty close they are making all sorts of rash promises to Scotland which will in turn piss off the rUK. It's a massive cockup in which nobody will win whatever the outcome.
Here's an article prepared by some of the young engineers employed in the Shipbuilding Industry in Glasgow...
A letter to the Scottish Government and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders work-in veterans | Better Together
A letter to the Scottish Government and Upper Clyde Shipbuilders work-in veterans | Better Together
the concerned
Active Member
If the people vote for independence I can't see there being a ship building industry on the clyde. The UK government has made it clear that RN warships will be built in the UK so if Bae is forced to look for alternate shipyards in the UK then I can see most of the workforce moving to wherever the yards are regardless as to what nationality they are . Being patriotic is one thing having to go where the work is would be much more of a priority to 90% of the employees
t68
Well-Known Member
That about sums it up, very well written open letter.
Well it’s the 18th good luck lads hope it ends well for you guys.So what’s your prediction?
If the no vote gets carried will this be put to bed once and for all our will it still simmer away at the heart of the Scottish Nationalism?
Nick underscore
Member
If it's close, there will be another go for sure - maybe 15-25yrs
If the margin is higher (20%+), many commentators have suggested this won't be revisited for quite some time. 35yr+
I'll admit, I'm hoping we stay together (and Salmond falls on his sword or someone sticks it in him.. Whilst not forgetting Nicole Sweeney..)
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Why break up the greatest union in history?
There seem to be many small parochial and nostalgic issues pushing the yes case, and there hasn't been enough push on what incredible things this union has achieved through history.
Most of the really big things that affect our lives have come out of this union, really big things, like the development of the scientific method, the industrial revolution, parliamentary democracy, all amazing, world changing stuff.
Plus the largest empire in history and its often, but not always, successful devolution into a collection of robust, independent states. The yes campaign should of been focused around 'Stronger Together' than the wimpy 'Better together'.
I too am from the Scottish diaspora on my mothers side.
There seem to be many small parochial and nostalgic issues pushing the yes case, and there hasn't been enough push on what incredible things this union has achieved through history.
Most of the really big things that affect our lives have come out of this union, really big things, like the development of the scientific method, the industrial revolution, parliamentary democracy, all amazing, world changing stuff.
Plus the largest empire in history and its often, but not always, successful devolution into a collection of robust, independent states. The yes campaign should of been focused around 'Stronger Together' than the wimpy 'Better together'.
I too am from the Scottish diaspora on my mothers side.
Last edited: