UK Minister Nick Harvey (why do so many coalition Ministers sound like posh shops?) floated the idea yesterday that a post-independence Scotland might tolerate handing over Faslane to the rump UK so they can continue their nefarious and implausibly expensive nuclear hobbies unhindered. The comparison was made to Guantanamo, America’s torture base on Cuba by disputed permanent lease.
It’s no wonder UK Ministers are considering it, too: the costs of decommissioning would be enormous (and UK Ministers want Scots to bear a proportion: thanks, but no), and as was reported earlier this year, there is no plausible English, Welsh or Northern Irish base for Trident and any post-Trident subs.
Pleasing as it is to see the coalition taking independence seriously, many Scots inside and outside the SNP think this sounds about perfect. We chuck Trident out and Westminster has nowhere to put it. An independent Scotland would be able to do what Scotland has never achieved within the Union: deliver a disarmed British Isles. And obviously that’s my preference too. What a great first contribution as an independent nation that would be.
That having been said, how daft is the exclave idea? They’re surprisingly common around the world. Some are exclaves within exclaves. The map above shows, amongst other things, an Indian exclave within a Pakistani exclave within an Indian exclave within Pakistan. It’d be like leaving Faslane within the UK, but keeping the mess-hall Scottish, except the kitchen, which’d also be part of the UK. Let’s not do that.
But if we did for some reason have to swallow this unpleasant idea, it’d also be a massive bargaining chip. What would it be worth to the rump UK to be able to keep its massive penis substitute afloat? As I found myself discussing with a Labour-supporting friend this morning, perhaps we could swap it for a bit of England or Wales? Berwick-upon-Tweed is a bit obvious, and besides they’ll probably join an independent Scotland of their own accord at some point anyway.
We agreed that some sun and sea might be nice, but that Blackpool was maybe not far enough south to get best value. Bournemouth might be an easier ask than Brighton, perhaps, although Brighton is as far as I know the only part of England to have been represented by an SNP Councillor. Perhaps they’d vote to join us: we wouldn’t want just to annex them, after all.
Given the multi-billion pound value of this theoretical swap, though, why not aim high? There are a fair few Cornish who would like to be independent: perhaps we could invite them to join an alternative union across the British Isles? Maybe the Welsh would feel happier partnering with us at that point too..
#1 by Gavin Williamson on June 14, 2012 - 4:09 pm
I don’t think its Faslane that gives the difficulty for the remainder of the UK, submarines can be based almost anywhere there is a harbour, its Coulport that is the real challenge for them, its the storage of the warheads that require such specialist facilities, and very hard to find a geological alternative anywhere outside Scotland.
#2 by James on June 14, 2012 - 4:26 pm
Aye, my lazy shorthand.
#3 by Iain Menzies on June 14, 2012 - 5:19 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Weapons_Establishment#Nuclear_weapons
Yeah theres no where else AT ALL you could put the warheads
#4 by Alasdair Stirling on June 14, 2012 - 4:49 pm
The UK has form here. In 1922, the UK kept control of a few naval bases in Southern Ireland and did not withdraw until 1936. More worryingly, the UK retained control of Southern Irish territorial waters for a similar period of time. Of course, if they wil try to run the same strategy again and retain control of Scottish waters oil.
#5 by Daveinmaryburgh on June 14, 2012 - 4:56 pm
There are alternatives to Coulport they just don’t want to use them, CND detail options. As for possibility of leasing Faslane, why, we would be handing over a facility that could be used by a conventional fleet or supporting other activities. At the same time this would maintain a nuclear fleet in Scotland operated by a government that would have little interest in ensuring safety etc was maintained, although not much difference from current situation.
The issue seems to be that the UK wanted to be a nuclear power and yet do it “on the cheap” and should have alternative sites for both the weapons and the subs. They didn’t and that is something that they should sort out not make out to be an issue for an independent Scotland to fix for them.
#6 by Antoine Bisset on June 14, 2012 - 11:02 pm
The reality is that Trident is unnecessary, even as a deterrent.
The modern Astute class submarines carry cruise missiles that can be armed with nuclear warheads. The missiles have a range of around 1200 miles, allowing a sub to be well out at sea when it fires off a missile to vapourise the enemy target in question, Washington DC, for example or if being strictly moral about it, Norfolk Naval Base. Just “for instance”, as an example only, you understand.
The nuke would be quite small, but nontheless undesirable for all that.
This could provide all the deterrence anyone could ever need.
It follows from this that the reason for maintaining Trident and spending untold billions on a Trident replacement is neither military nor obviously political such as retaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Possibly because the deal was secretly arranged some years ago?
#7 by Grahamski on June 15, 2012 - 10:43 am
Haggle?
I think not.
I suspect that the SNP will have more than enough to cope with when the UK Treasury along with every other UK government department publishes a green paper on Scottish separation.
#8 by Thomas Widmann on June 15, 2012 - 4:57 pm
It’s obvious that the rUK Navy has a strong interest in holding on to Coulport for some time. They really can’t leave overnight, but perhaps 10 years will be enough time to develop another base elsewhere.
They will therefore haggle to maintain it for some time — and whether that is simply as a lease, or whether the area becomes a temporary part of England is of less importance there.
It’s probably one of Scotland’s main bargaining chips, but I believe a compromise will be made. E.g., a ten-year lease in return for a seat on the BoE’s MPC.
#9 by Chris on June 15, 2012 - 10:30 pm
A lot of very strange comments on this thread:
1. We are part of the UK that kept bases in the Irish Free State. It was us too!
2. As Scotland has so far consented to being part of the UK, we have unfortunately consented to being part of the nuclear deterent. So we have to pay for our share of decomissioning costs. There are going to be a lot of upheaval costs in separating the UK, which we would have asked for, so I think at least we will have to pay our share. Of course there is an argument that the rest of the UK taxpayers should not pay one penny towards the costs of Scottish independence. It seems a bit harsh especially if getting hands on oil revenue is a primary motivation for indepdence for some, indeed many.
3. The MPC appointments are not representatives, not party political and are charged with making the best decision to meet government economic policy. They can’t actually serve two masters e.g. be deflationary for one country and stoke growth in another.
All of course supposes that a referendum will actually be called, will not be stuck forever in legal challenges, and most unlikely of all, will deliver a yes vote.
#10 by Ged Mitchell on June 16, 2012 - 12:51 pm
I said years ago that it could take up to 20 years to get the Nukes out of Scotland. The deal should be about the seat on the BoE (I’m even wary about that) and having Berwick legally returned to us after they have a referendum. I think that should be the line in the sand in return for a short lease until the rUK can sort out this problem. I think it may suit the rUK to do this as who is to say, in 20 years time, that there will be a serving Scottish government that is hostile to rUK’s nuclear arms.
Chris, the idea that the BoE cannot deal with two separate economies at once is just insulting to those who control fiscal policies. The current BoE attitude in devaluing (Quantitative easing) the pound is taking the sting out of the economic crises in the UK but that might not suit a more dynamic Scotland. Therefore, I suspect, that AS has plans for a future BoS to replace being a member of the BoE. 20 years anyone?
#11 by gavin on June 16, 2012 - 3:08 pm
All the R&D work, the design work, manufacturing the subs, the missiles and the warheads was all done outside Scotland. Thanks to Malky Rifkind, even the refits are done down south. Not one brass farthing for TRIDENT was spent in Scotland, so the Britnats have a brass neck on them to suggest we stump up for moving their asset south. As for Coulport, didnt Guy Fawkes find a big celler under the Commons?. Handy place for warheads. The Israelis are putting Nuke WMDs on cruise missiles to arm their German-made submarines. If Ruk wants WMDs ( apparently the English will not suffer France being the sole Nuclear power in Europe ), that would be the best way to go. Plymouth or Portsmouth would do for a home port. Rent out Faslane for 5 years then thats it.