Scottish independence would bring an end to the UK's nuclear deterrent as there are no other suitable locations for the base in Britain, warns a report from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
The Nowhere to Go report commissioned by CND revealed there is no viable alternative for the Trident nuclear weapons' bases than its existing sites in Coulport and Faslane in Scotland, implying that the bases have nowhere to go if Scots vote for independence from the UK.
Kate Hudson, the general secretary of CND, said, "Trident is at a dead end, strategically and economically. Now we can add 'geographically' to the list too, as Ministry of Defence sources have confirmed CND's analysis: that there 'simply isn't anywhere else' for Trident to go."
Asked in the Scottish parliament last week whether an independent Scotland would do a deal to keep the Trident, the Scottish First minister Alex Salmond replied, "It is inconceivable that an independent nation of 5.25m people would tolerate the continued presence of weapons of mass destruction on its soil."
However, senior British defence officials have suggested that they could negotiate a treaty permitting the Trident missiles, submarines and warheads to remain in Scotland. Philip Hammond, the UK defence secretary, has also suggested that Scotland would be forced to pay the costs of relocating Trident nuclear deterrent.
Meanwhile, slamming the imposition of nuclear weapons on Scotland, Scottish CND chairman Arthur West described Scotland independence as “an opportunity to make a difference and to put an end to weapons of mass destruction in Britain," from the UK.”
SSM/GHN/HE
Share this article:
Send to friendPrint this article
"....the Scottish First minister Alex Salmond replied, "It is inconceivable that an independent nation of 5.25m people would tolerate the continued presence of weapons of mass destruction on its soil."
ReplyDeleteUhm,..... Mr. Salmond, maybe you should look at a map of the Middle East. Israel has about 5.25m Jews living in an even smaller country with LOTS of weapons of mass destruction! Maybe you should re-think your position!
Whose land are the Israeli WMDs on?
ReplyDeleteAnd why would Scotland want to carry a liability like Israel's stockpile, which is vulnerable to GPS-equipped conventional missiles?
ReplyDelete"And why would Scotland want to carry a liability like Israel's stockpile"
ReplyDeleteAnd why do you think Scotland would have any choice in the matter?
Regime change, you ever heard of that?
The idea that Scotland would achieves greater independence outside of the UK is absurd. It would become an insignificant triviality to be pissed on by all and sundry, particularly England and the US.
Imagine Braveheart with nukes!
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a country would give up a nuclear deterrent because it did not have a 'suitable base' is an utter contempt of sanity. Disgraceful.
ReplyDelete"It would become an insignificant triviality to be pissed on by all and sundry, particularly England and the US."
ReplyDeleteNot if it kept the Nukes
"Freedommmmmmmmm"
Dear England,
ReplyDeleteI can think of several suitable ports that you could base your foul
little toys at. Try Falmouth,we used to park spare supertankers there ,
Regards,Ivan,New Zealand.