Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
9/12/2014
The vote for Scottish independence next week could have significant impacts on the future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent as Scottish leaders have vowed to remove the UK’s nuclear warheads and submarines from the base in Scotland that is their exclusive home should Scots vote for independence. There is no immediate alternative base for Britain’s four Vanguard-class nuclear-capable submarines and their complementary Trident II nuclear missiles, which are currently housed at Her Majesty’s Naval Base (HMNB) Clyde in western Scotland, and a vote for independence could trigger new relocation, negotiation and elimination options for the UK nuclear deterrent. Notably, while some experts have suggested that the UK—at least temporarily—could base its deterrent at a U.S. naval base on the East Coast such as Kings Bay, Ga., experts told NS&D Monitor this week that such an option does not appear likely.
Citing the UK government’s official stance that it is not planning for Scottish independence, a UK Ministry of Defence spokesperson declined to comment on whether British and Scottish government officials had negotiated about the future of UK’s nuclear deterrent. A Navy Strategic Systems Programs spokesman said, from an American standpoint, it would be “premature to speculate” about Kings Bay being a possible option.
U.S. Base Unlikely to be Home For UK Nukes?
The United States partners exclusively with the UK Trident program through the Polaris Sales Agreement, and a former senior U.S. defense official said that Kings Bay could be compatible with UK storage needs as there is already a common pool of U.S. and British missile parts at the base. A former senior U.S. defense official with knowledge of the situation said while the British and American governments have not discussed any contingency plans, part of Kings Bay could hypothetically be carved out for British use to allow the United Kingdom to maintain custody of its warheads until it finds a new home for the weapons.
Speaking more generally, the official also said that independent of any speculation of UK relocation prospects, Kings Bay is a “full-up” base that has berthing facilities for nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), repair facilities, training complexes and warhead bunkers. “London is still operating on the belief that the union will be maintained, and therefore, any active contingency planning to include asking the United States for help is unnecessary, and that’s why nothing has happened,” the former official told NS&D Monitor.
However, another expert has flatly dismissed Kings Bay as a viable option. Paul Ingram, executive director of the British American Security Information Council, called the alternative a “fantasy” and said moving the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons would symbolize weak dependence. “It would send the message that, ‘This country here was so dependent on the U.S. that it couldn’t even find its port.’ It undermines the point of the independent deterrent, which is to show strength and separation,” Ingram said. “I don’t think it would even consider it. It would just undermine the purpose of the deterrent too much.” Citing similar symbolic reasons, Ingram also rejected the viability of basing the nuclear weapons at Brest, France, which some experts previously highlighted.
Another potential issue with basing the UK subs at Kings Bay would involve burning up of large amounts of reactor fuel on long cruises across the Atlantic Ocean, and increasing costs, according to Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. “It is one of the fallback options that has been floating around for a while in the pundit community, but I have never heard officials talk about this seriously,” Kristensen said in an email to NS&D Monitor.
Bases in England Would Need Work
A recent study by the Royal United Services Institute listed Falmouth and HMNB Devonport, both in southwestern England, as the most viable options for an SSBN base and nuclear munitions replacement center, respectively. The two bases would sit 50 nautical miles away from each other, more than three times the distance between the current sub base at Faslane and storage center at Coulport—both part of Clyde.
Falmouth does not currently house a military base. Devonport, which already houses Britain’s Astute-class conventional-outfitted submarines, could also be converted to host UK’s SSBNs within a maximum of 10 years, the report found. Acquisition and clearing of land as well as facility construction at Falmouth could take 10 to 15 years. Ingram estimated the cost of moving to the potential new facilities at £3-7 billion. The former senior American defense official said options could involve co-locating subs and warheads, or separating them. “There are a variety of options open, and I don’t think at this point it makes much sense to try to do armchair quarterbacking,” he said.
NATO Implications
An independence vote would also force Scotland to reapply for NATO membership. For admittance, Scotland would require a unanimous vote from all 28 current member states, including the United Kingdom, and experts say membership is not guaranteed. While NATO has an open-door policy, an organization official said admittance is a lengthy process as NATO vets nations’ corruption safeguards, citizen-focused NATO informational campaigns and military oversight/structure. Scotland would become the newest member since Albania and Croatia joined in 2008.
The former senior U.S. defense official said the Scotland-harbored nuclear deterrent helps bolster NATO’s nuclear force. “It’s ludicrous to believe they should join NATO if, by becoming independent, they’ve taken steps to undercut one of the two nuclear deterrent forces which underpin the alliance,” the former official said. “I don’t think in the near term, NATO would admit them.”
A consultant for the pro-independence Yes Scotland campaign, Ian McKerron, however, had a different opinion. McKerron said it is “common sense” that Scotland would be seamlessly admitted to NATO. “[T]here are many countries within the NATO alliance that are non-nuclear countries, so why would Scotland be any different?” He said claims that an independent Scotland would struggle to join NATO are barriers manifested to provoke a no vote. Yes Scotland backs the nuclear weapon elimination platform. Calls from NS&D Monitor to Better Together, a political group that backs Scotland’s union with the UK, were not returned earlier this week.
Could the UK and an Independent Scotland Reach a Deal?
Some experts raised the possibility that the United Kingdom and Scotland, if it becomes independent, might negotiate a deal such as NATO membership or monetary compensation in exchange for allowing the weapons to remain on Scottish soil. “I don’t think it’s automatic at all that [UK’s Trident II’s] would be actually leaving, but it would definitely be part of the negotiations,” said Frank von Hippel, co-director of Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security. Nuclear location could become a powerful bargaining chip in post-independence negotiations, he said.
Hosting the weapons is one of the few cards in Scotland’s hand, Ingram noted. “[The Scottish government has] already said in public that they’re willing to contemplate this base being open for four years,” Ingram said. “The British government hasn’t been willing to give any indication at all as to what its position would be because they believe that if they give any indication before the referendum, it’s demonstrating a lack of confidence. But you can bet your bottom dollar that after a yes vote, the British government will be negotiating hard for a long period—I would say 15 to 20 years.”
McKerron said any nuclear relocation could depend on the party in power during independence. The current majority party in Scottish parliament is the left-leaning Scottish National Party (SNP), which has pledged to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland. He said he saw no potential for a deal if SNP maintains power. “They’ve made it very clear that there are no ifs or buts,” McKerron said. “It’s a firm policy that they will seek to have the nuclear weapons removed within the first term of the first Scottish parliament.”
