You are here: Home » Comment »

The Westminster consensus on Trident is dead

January 31, 2012 11:34 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

The forthcoming Scottish referendum on independence has thrown up a new angle on the debate over Trident replacement. The home of Britain’s Vanguard submarines is the Faslane naval base west of Glasgowand the Royal Armaments Depot that stores the submarines Trident nuclear warheads is a few miles away at Coulport.

Should Scotland choose independence in a referendum, an SNP administration would force the Ministry of Defence to seek a new base for Trident south of the border in England or Wales.  This would take years to develop at an unknown cost. That is if a site can be found at all. A new report argues it would be more difficult to switch now to one of the alternative sites that were discounted back in 1963, when the government chose Faslane. If the Ministry of Defence has done more research in recent years, it hasn’t said so. Could a Labour Government afford to build a new submarine base and armaments depot inEngland? Anyway, aside from the referendum result, Labour has some real thinking to do.

The independence issue is only one of a number of reasons to question Trident, as the former Labour Chief Whip Nick Brown raised in a defence debate last week, when he said “The arguments, which were never that strong, are now moving away from Trident renewal.”

Nick Brown is right, raising the obvious economic question: do we continue to support other defence and public spending cuts – and of course the tuition fee hikes he specifically noted – when billions are spent on Trident? With the main decision on building the new submarines due in 2016, could a new Strategic Defence and Security Review following an election in 2015 be the opportunity to change course?

Before Christmas there was growing disquiet from MPs when the MoD announced it had no plans to publish the Trident Alternatives Review – the Cabinet Office review ordered to fulfil the agreement in the coalition agreement that Lib Dems could continue to argue for alternatives. The terms of the review are narrow, they don’t challenge nuclear weapons, more the delivery system and its costs.  But Lib Dem unease within the coalition over Trident is now coupled with consideration of the implications of Scottish independence. Meanwhile any discussion about public spending always raises the question why spend billions on Trident rather than our public services? Opposition to Trident is going to have a loud airing in the next few months and years, and Labour needs a policy for the manifesto.

Jim Murphy has himself stated that Labour’s defence policy review covering Trident is “parked until we see what the government’s evidence” in the Trident Alternatives Review and that he is “really not wedded” to a particular weapon system.  Whilst he is clearly committed to maintaining some sort of nuclear weapon system, this is something of a change of emphasis, and is a more flexible approach to the policy area than the traditional position of the Labour right which has been to close down debate on nuclear weapons by simply assiduously confirming that Labour is as committed as the Tories to nuclear weapons. Cheerleaders for nuclear weapons need to demonstrate the public want to keep Trident, as the polling suggests otherwise.  Ed Miliband clearly has an open mind: during the leadership election he said a defence review ”should look at the totality of our conventional and nuclear capabilities, considering both our defence needs and what our priorities are in the changing economic climate. Defence should not be exempted from the tough spending choices we need to face.” Since being elected, although his public comments have only been occasional they have confirmed that open minded approach to the policy area – notably welcoming the Trident Review at last year’s Labour Party Conference.

Whilst they are saying different things, whether it is Nick Brown’s backbench intervention, Ed Miliband welcoming the Trident Review or Jim Murphy waiting for Nick Harvey to report, Labour is adopting a more open-minded approach to Trident. The previousWestminsterconsensus on Trident – that it is a non-negotiable facet of the politics of the centre ground – is dead.

Daniel Blaney is the Vice Chair of CND

  • Anonymous

    If we maintain a deterrent the only real choice is submarine based. Land based silos are fixed targets, the UK is not large enough for mobile launchers and the RAF lacks the ability to deliver dropped bombs long range. Nuclear tipped cruise missiles are a possibility but lack effective range and to be truely effective need to be mounted in a vehicle with the option of stealth such as a submarine.

    “Cheerleaders for nuclear weapons need to demonstrate the public want to keep Trident…”

    I disagree here as the government of the day will frequently do what is ‘right’ as opposed to what the public wants – examples being  the death penalty for example.

    “Ed Miliband clearly has an open mind…”

    Or he’s being all things to all men to avoid having to make a decision which is not his to make.

    “The previousWestminsterconsensus on Trident – that it is a non-negotiable facet of the politics of the centre ground – is dead.”

    This seems to be more like wishful thinking as Labour has not come out against Trident and there is no really strong suggestion that it will.  Wait and see is not opposition.

    • Anonymous

      Having the codes to fire Trident would be a benefit as well.

  • Anonymous

    Seems to me that the best course of action for the UK Government is to minimise the risks to our deterent and start the relocation of all our facilities south of the boarder ASAP.

    As for Labour going all CND and continuing their retro-80s trip,   I am sure that the Tories would welcome that !!!!!

    Time to buy Ed a donkey jacket.

  • http://twitter.com/matt_j_little Matthew Little

    I can see why you might want to try to seize on current events to advance your cause but I’m afraid it’s wishful thinking. It is more than likely that in 20 years time British nuclear submarines will still be based at Faslane. Unilateral disarmament is not going to happen. Even if in some bizarre twist of fate the Lib Dems win a majority ( something that is much more likely to happen than unilateral disarmament).

  • Anonymous

    This is a dream to think Labour would not have Trident upsetting the American not a good idea which was why we followed Bush into war, and the promise of a few quid for the leader.

    But would Scotland close the Sub Base no of course not, it’s employment in an area of  high unemployment.

    The CND would of course love to have  trident scrapped so would I, but sadly Labours not going to do it.

    Mind you Milford Haven would love to have the Sb base.

    • Anonymous

      A really interesting point here – “But would Scotland close the Sub Base no of course not, it’s employment in an area of  high unemployment”.

      Despite claims that the SNP would close it, due to the effect that would have on the area for employment Scotland may choose a kind of semi sovereign base / long term lease for Faslane.

      • derek

        Konrad, your not reading the script properly? an Independent Scotland wants to be a nuclear free zone, nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel are to be replaced with renewable sources, Westminster may disapprove but many countries would welcome such initiatives.

        • Anonymous

          That’s what is claimed now, but it may not come to pass when a sudden spike in unemployment and a loss of talent is on the cards if an independent Scotland exists.

          • derek

            Two and a half thousands jobs and billions spent on trident?
            Would the creation of one hundred and thirty thousand jobs through renewable energies be a more distributive target to follow.

            Seems a question of where you’d like to spend the monies?

          • Anonymous

            Where does this figure of 130,000 ‘renewable enery’ jobs come from?

            It sounds like jam tomorrow – get rid of the jobs we do have in the hope a huge number of other jobs turns up in an unproven field.

          • derek

            The simple answer is the billions spent on trident only creates 2,500 jobs, if the monies was used else where it could create 130,000 jobs.

            I don’t think there is anyone that questions Scotland’s ability to create more jobs in the renewable industry but I guess your just another armed and loaded complainer who can’t see the forest for the trees.

          • Anonymous

            Ah i see. You’re making the error of assuming that all the money spent on the Trident programme would be switched to imaginary and non existent ‘renewable energy’ jobs. Nonsense i’m afraid as it would be split up into many different areas not delivered as a lump sum to some fictional Renewable Energy Job Centre.  

            Out of interest how did you calculate 130,000 jobs? Are they all minimum wage? What about geographic distribution?

            And of course, Scotland would not get these imaginary jobs you have conjured out of thin air as the Trident budget would not be a Scottish matter so they would be created South of the border. Which again raises the question of Scotland being happy to wave goodbye to jobs by forcining the closure of Faslane and associated bases.

            People would and should question the ability of Scotland to create more sustainable, economically viable jobs in renewable energy.

            I’m pretty sure that Trident supports more than 2,500 jobs as well, but we can use your figure. Where did it come from?

          • derek

            Well, the number of pointless jobs created by faslane is pretty sketchy, at best you’ll find no better quote than 2,5oo thousands jobs, some say that faslane doesn’t create jobs is just has the ability to destroy an entire nation.

            Scotland wants to be self sufficient in energy needs by 2020 by creating a 130,000 hi tech jobs in the renewable sector, so that’s a 100% requirement in renewable and non nuclear energy.

            Scotland already creates 25,000 apprenticeship jobs every year and a nation that can control it’s business rates has the ability to fund more renewable sources through our North Sea oils partnership.

            The idea that the trident cost wouldn’t create more employment if it were to be put into others areas is silly talk Konrad.

            Why on earth would a nation of just over 5 million want to be home to one of the most powerful nuclear forces in the world? 

            Sustainable energy is a vital need? are you saying that the trident is more vital than a nations energy and employment needs? 

          • Anonymous

            Are any Faslane jobs ‘pointless’ and how would that be determined?  Better possibly pointless than 100% fictional.

            What Scotland wants and what is feasible either are two different things.

            So now your figure of 130,000 is not based on using the Trident money, but is part of a (SNP?) policy? So where does your 130,000 actually come from – reallocation of the entire Trident budget or ‘hi-tech jobs’ in the renewable energy field?

            Cancellation and reallocation of Trident budget could create jobs but to claim that it would fund 130,000 renewable energy jobs is absurd.

            Why would they keep Faslane under an agreement? Because it provides money, jobs and technological expertise. An agreement may not be permanent but depending on whatever split happened, Scotland may need that money or agree to it as a gesture of friendship while new facilities are constructed.

            All – Trident, energy, employment –  are important but all are important for different reasons.

          • derek

            Your not following the maths?

            21.6 thousands jobs created per year in the renewable energy sector, we already commit to 25,000 apprenticeship jobs per year.

            Scotland wants to be a free nuclear zone that generates it’s own energy needs through the renewable sector. Trident isn’t something Scotland wants to pay for? we’d rather use the monies to fund more sustainable  and thoughtful employment.

            Konrad are you now saying that Scotland doesn’t have the ability to create new employment?

            I don’t know what your trying to argue against here? surely a nation has the right to plan it’s own forward progression. 

          • Anonymous

            What maths? You have a figure of 130,000 new jobs and can’t say where it comes from. One minute it is the Trident budget, the next it is some Scottish plan. The idea it would come from the Trident budget is absurd and if it relies on some plan to create new jobs then Trident is unaffected.
             
            Are all these apprenticeships in the renewable energy sector? Or are these ‘additional’ to your mysterious figure of 130,000? If 21,600 jobs a year are created in the renewable energy sector in Scotland alone (a source would be nice here) then how does that affect Trident?
             
            Wants and has are two different things. Obama wanted to close down Guantanamo for example but real life has a habit of getting in the way.
             
             
            An independent Scotland would not pay for Trident and no one is saying she would. Neither would Scotland ‘save’ or get any money from the Trident budget as it would not be a matter for Scotland.
             
            No, I am not saying that Scotland can’t create new jobs but you seem to be dealing in phantom  figures.
             
            What I’m saying – and have continually said – is that an independent Scotland may not want Faslane to evacuate ASAP as it can provide jobs and skills that may be very welcome.

          • derek

            Renewables?

      • Anonymous

        I remember in the UK when Castlemartin firing range was hired out to the Germans, it did not go down to well with locals until they found out how much work it brought in, well paid work as well.

        I doubt Scotland will want to be seen as losing jobs, and then expect people to vote for independence  especially if they vote to stay in with the Union.

  • derek

    Konrad, tidal, wind, carbon capture, aren’t some kind of  dreamed up technologies, there real and already are being used in many nations, developing and extracting those types of technologies have the potential to create the number of jobs quoted?

    You seem to be making the suggestion that England or Westminster alone pay’s for trident?

    I’m simply pointing out to you that, the cost of trident could create more employment than is currently based at Faslane.

    I’d agree that any move of trident and clean up operation wouldn’t happen like a flick of a switch, it would take time? just like the build up of renewable energy sector.

    If your basing your idea that trident will be the defining argument for the retention of the union, well, I kind of think that the argument against is more powerful. 

    • Anonymous

      No one claimed they were ‘dreamed up’ technologies so you are arguing a point no one has made.

      Why can’t you say where your claim of 130,000 jobs came from? What leads you to believe that 130,000 jobs could be created in Scotland alone based on renewable energy?

      No, I am not suggesting that England alone pays for Trident. But an independent Scotland would not pay for Trident, neither would an independent Scotland receive any money, refund or rebate if post independence the rest of the UK had nuclear disarmament.

      The cost of Trident could do a lot of things and you have made a specific claim of 130,000 jobs in renewable energy with no support for this. The point that has been made to you is that an independent Scotland may want to allow the Faslane nuclear base to continue post-independence because of the jobs and skills it provides.

      Of course I’m not making Trident the defining argument of retaining the Union. This is another figment of your imagination.

      • derek

        Jeez! the jobs would be created in the renewable energy sector as Scotland follows the path of targeting 100% renewable ability?

        I don’t understand the point your making here about the end of trident and the cost involved? by your measures Scotland wouldn’t be responsible  for any break up cost? seems to me that if trident was removed then there would be a massive sum available, surely Scotland would receive some of that cost?

        But look, an Independent Scotland wouldn’t remain static in the jobs market, it would be applying all it’s knowledge and effort in creating new jobs in the energy sector and else where,  without trident.

        Why would you want to support the continuation of WMD’s rather than the politics of creating new employment for more? 

        • Anonymous

          So I was right originally – jam tomorrow based on apparently imaginary jobs as opposed to the actual jobs and skills currently present.

          You still can’t provide any basis for your claim of 130,000 ‘renewable energy’ jobs other than a hope that somehow they will mysteriously be created.  As you are so fervent in your belief, how and why would 130,000 jobs be created in Scotland based on a renewable agenda? It may be your intention but does it have a basis in reality?

          If Scotland left the UK and Trident went South, Scotland would not get a ‘share’ of any money that the UK would then save if it later abandoned Trident.

          If Scotland left the UK and wanted Faslane to shut there would be a joint effort to decommission with the cost to each nation being negotiated.

          We have no idea what Scotland would do jobs wise post independence, but I hope – for their sake – they don’t put their faith in tens of thousands of jobs appearing out of thin air.  Do you think other new nations (such as the old Iron Curtain European nations) haven’t applied all their knowledge and effort to create jobs?

          I personally believe the UK needs to retain Trident and your final point does not hold together, partly because of your inability to answer questions. There are loads of things we could scrap to provide employment for more people but it does not mean we should do that or that it would even happen. You do not have a policy here, just some phantom numbers.

          • derek

            Hunterston B and Torness generate about half of Scotland’s energy needs, research establishments like Dounreay also put into the grid, Scotland has no wish to extend any of the nuclear power stations life line and has set a course to produce all our energy needs by the use of renewable by 2020, that means jobs. new jobs and plenty of them.
            So you now what Scotland to pay for the clean up operation when trident is removed from Faslane.

            I guess you can’t find a good reason why trident should remain an expensive liability that only employs a few non jobs. 

          • Anonymous

            “new jobs and plenty of them”.

            This remains nothing but a claim so far and one full of wide eyed hope. Is this part of your claim of 130,000 jobs from renewable energy?

            No, I did not say that Scotland would pay for Faslane but it is likely there will be some cost to her even if it is tangental to the cleanup and decommissioning.

            2500 (a guesstimate figure) is not ‘a few non jobs’ and rather them than your imaginary jobs which appear to be based on more guesswork.

            Neither is Trident maintained to provide jobs, but they are a side benefit to the programme.

          • derek

            How is it imaginary jobs if your setting a course to produce all energy needs in the renewable sector and over a period of time closing all existing nuclear power plants.

          • Anonymous

            From wikipedia:

            “It is base to 3,000 service personnel, 800 of their families and 4,000 civilian workers, largely from Babcock Marine, forming a major part of the economy of Argyll and Bute and West Dunbartonshire.”

          • derek

            Argyll and Bute lost it’s American air-force bases some time ago? at best you’ll find 1,800 service staff and personnel in Faslane.

            Argyll and Bute’s future is here.

            http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/renewable-energy-action-plan 

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            @ Derek,

            forgive me please from jumping into a long-running conversation between yourself and KonradBaxter,

            is it really realistic for Scotland to aim to produce 100% of energy needs from renewables by 2020?  It is not my area of knowledge, but 100% in the next 8 years seems very ambitious to me.  Maybe Scotland has hit on the Holy Grail of energy technology, but at the moment the figures for renewables for the whole of the UK are I think less than 20%. We’ve got a solar panel on our roof, and I see my energy bills reduced by about 10% after the feed-in-tariff credit, but I’m still drawing 96% of our domestic electricity from the national grid, because solar is not yet very efficient (and we live in one of the sunnier parts of the UK). Our solar panel was installed by E.On for a cost to me of £99, and I’m sure they are making a bit of a profit, but surely not 900%.

            Also, there are something like 2.6 million jobs in Scotland now, and you believe that 130,000 new jobs will be created by renewables.  That’s 5% of the Scottish workforce in renewables.  Are you sure?

          • derek

            @Jaime,Technically Yes! because the whole range of employment varies from the complexities of management to the practical fields of engineering and harnessing our own extraction products. In many areas the concept is new and needs further development but like most new revolutions there is a nature to growth through investment. I think I’m right in saying that the Germans also intend to follow a non nuclear ambition. Transportation as well as the basic need of electricity are the feeding block to many needs, you can’t build cars or manufacture many components without the use of electricity, maybe you under estimate it’s usefulness? seems to me that your E-on adventure is a success at a ten percent reduction but I truly suspect that in most cases there would be a need to increase electrical capacity. I believe it’s a broader base need and one which will be more fruitful as the years go on.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            OK Derek, but what about that <20% to 100% leap in energy generation in 8 years?  I'm extremely sceptical, and notice you did not address that.

            i'm also extremely sceptical about putting on 5% additional jobs into a national economy in one specialised sector in a few years.

          • derek

            @Jaime , as far as I’m aware it takes something like 15 years to plan and approve a nuclear power station, never mind the actual build? If you accept the Scotland is already generating 13% of electrical needs through renewable, then there most certainly is a mountain to climb by 2020 and I suspect that those 8 years would be reduced to 6 years if the referendum was successful.  Hunterston B has a life time projection until 2023 however projections and good for delivery and once the renewable process was initiated I believe the rate of progress would be alarmingly fast. 5% growth in employment is achievable  and like I’ve said it’s a spread from educational resources to manufacturing and marine engineering. There was a plan to reopen a mine in the West coast, it was refused by local petition but wouldn’t be a problem in other areas like  the East coast, Longganent  springs to mind, a large spread into many areas @Jaime and absolutely worth the push and drive.

          • derek

            So sorry to my Fife friends!
            Longannet…oops!!!!

          • derek

            It’s probably fair to mention that  Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) has just invested 100m into offshore wind farms in Scotland and they have given  (David Brown)engineering company a multi million contract to build the gear boxes for the turbines. Estimated to create 500 jobs in Fife and safe guard and create apprenticeship and jobs in the West Coast. 

  • Anonymous

    Scotland is not going to vote for independence but I agree that the consensus on Trident might be going.  I certainly hope so.  Trident is a waste of money and would be cut by any sane government in this era of austerity.

    It is worth remembering that Labour actually won an election in 1964 with the promise to get rid of the “so called British, so called Independent, so called deterrent”.   Unfortunately, that government ignored this manifesto promise.

    In the 198os Labour did not return to that policy but moved to a policy of unilateral disarmament.  This involved getting rid of American nuclear weapons on British soil as well as the British deterrent.  Of course, this was a disaster and Labour moved to a policy of multi-lateral disarmament in 1989, which at first was a policy of negotiating away Britain’s deterrent.  Under Blair and Brown, this became a policy of no disarmament whatsoever and war mongering insanity in Blair’s case.  Their policy was another bit of New Labour paranoia about anything vaguely left-wing, which hopefully we are moving away from gradually.

Latest

  • Featured I Agree with Jack, End EU Elections

    I Agree with Jack, End EU Elections

    By Dan McCurry

    I agree with Jack Straw. EU parliamentary elections should be abolished. It’s not that we object to democracy, it’s that we object to failed democracy. We object to democracy that continues to exist as a pointless halfway-house absorbing considerable revenue without delivering anything in return. “The directly elected European parliament should be abolished after failing to achieve its purpose of bridging the divide between the European people and the European Union” is what Jack actually said at the recent IPPR event. [...]

    Read more →
  • Video Why are we losing police officers? asks MP

    Why are we losing police officers? asks MP

    Mp Clive Betts put Cameron on the spot over policing at PMQs, but do his arguments on “visible policing” really stack up? Watch their exchange and see for yourself:

    Read more →
  • News Gordon Brown slams Greek bailout – and warns Europe over austerity

    Gordon Brown slams Greek bailout – and warns Europe over austerity

    In an article for the Washington Post entitled “Europe’s shortsighted response to a worsening fiscal reality“, Gordon Brown has hit out at German-led austerity in Europe, lambasting: “policies that the whole world can see have already failed.” In fact, Brown goes further still in tackling head on the central argument around austerity – that any failings that arise from austerity are because there isn’t enough austerity: “the unfolding tragedy of a bankrupt Greece is only a symptom of an even [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured PMQs verdict: How could anyone have “won” something as dreadful as that?

    PMQs verdict: How could anyone have “won” something as dreadful as that?

    By Mark Ferguson

    So much of the coverage of PMQs is focussed on the snap verdict. Who won? Who lost? I’m aware that this blog is as guilty as anyone for playing that game. So let’s make this one simple – nobody won today. How could they have, when the event itself was so deeply, stunningly, mind bendingly dreadful. It started off relatively normal. Loud admittedly, but normal. Ed began with the NHS. Still normal. Cameron dodged the question. Still supremely normal. But something [...]

    Read more →
  • News David Davis launches a scathing attack on the government’s close relationship with big business

    David Davis launches a scathing attack on the government’s close relationship with big business

    David Davis has launched a broadside against the PM – and especially the government’s relationship with big business (or “crony capitalism” as he calls it) – in an interview with Prospect Magazine. The former leadership challenger (who lost out to Cameron in 2005) has spoken out against the government’s handling of Hester’s RBS bonus, tax avoidance and the media. Interestingly, the quotes have come to light on the same day as fellow Tory right big hitter Liam Fox returns to the [...]

    Read more →