A plan by the SNP to expel Royal Navy nuclear-warhead submarines from an independent Scotland would imperil European security, according to Rear Admiral John Gower, a former assistant chief of defence staff.
Gower, a former submarine commander, warned that forcing out Trident subs would leave the West seriously exposed. His interview with The Sunday Times came after President Putin put Russia’s nuclear forces on a higher alert.
A rapid withdrawal of nuclear-armed submarines from Faslane is part of the nationalists’ blueprint and is supported by the Greens, their partners in government. The position was reiterated last week by Kirsten Oswald, SNP deputy leader at Westminster.
Scotland is home to four Trident submarines and will be the base for the new Dreadnought class, with the first boat expected to enter service in 2028.
Gower, who was MoD assistant defence chief (nuclear, chemical and biological) until the end of 2014, said the nationalist approach would incapacitate one of the three legs of Nato’s nuclear capability — based on readiness in the air, at sea and on land.
“To leave Faslane and Coulport in short order after a referendum, and that is the SNP’s position, would represent a very significant threat to the UK deterrent,” he said.
“A precipitate departure from Faslane would represent a clear and present risk to that deterrent. Seeing the departure of nuclear weapons from an independent Scotland might be seen as an easy gimme, a cosy feel-good, risk-free by-product of independence for many Scottish voters.
“However, they need to be made aware, on a factual basis, of the repercussions for Scotland, the rest of the UK, the wider Nato alliance. Allies, both in Europe and North America.”
He said: “Should the first minister succeed in triggering a second independence referendum, the Scottish people should be in no doubt about the potential effect on the UK deterrent and thus, in the worst cases, the consequences to the security of the Nato alliance and broader European security.”
Warning that Russia was “a malevolent force that continues to represent a real and genuine threat, a nuclear threat to Nato”, he said the SNP’s position could mean that an independent Scotland would be denied membership of the defence organisation.
“It is incumbent upon our allies, Nato’s member nations through the secretary-general, to make clear that a referendum decision that imperilled the continuity of the UK nuclear deterrent would not come without significant censure and subsequent negative impact, including blocking an independent Scotland’s application for Nato membership.”
Relocating nuclear weapons would be a problem for the UK. Alternative sites include Devonport, Plymouth, and Milford Haven, Pembrokeshire, but none is as well situated as Faslane. Other options could include France and America.
A deal over Faslane and Coulport would be “imperative, given the Russian threat”, said Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute.
He said that while SNP leaders opposed the retention of nuclear submarines, others in the party believed Faslane could continue as a UK base for an extended period.
“Faslane and Coulport are great bargaining cards for the SNP, keeping them as UK bases for a period but not permanently in return for reasonable and fair treatment in other parts of the (independence) settlement,” he said.
Opposition politicians were scathing about the SNP’s stance. Donald Cameron, the constitution spokesman for the Conservatives, said: “The SNP’s naivety to disregard a vital defence deterrent as part of their pitch for independence could put Scotland and the whole of the UK’s security at risk.”
Jackie Baillie, the deputy leader of Scottish Labour, said: “The facts are clear: the SNP cannot be trusted to protect Scotland’s national security. At a time of the unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the SNP’s defence policy will give Vladimir Putin comfort.”
The SNP said: “While an independent Scotland would seek to work effectively and collaboratively with our Nato colleagues and partners, Scots have made clear across several elections that they do not want to play home to abhorrent weapons of mass destruction, especially not just 25 miles from our biggest city and metropolitan area.”
