Engineering news
Moving the UK's nuclear deterrent out of an independent Scotland would probably cost far less than the tens of billions of pounds previously predicted, experts have suggested.
Relocating Trident in the event of Scottish independence would be feasible, although it could take more than a decade and spark significant local opposition, a new paper from the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) military think tank has found.
The submarines carrying the UK's Trident nuclear warheads currently operate from the Faslane naval base on the Clyde. The Scottish government is opposed to hosting the UK's nuclear deterrent, and in the event of a yes vote, would take action to remove the Faslane site.
Experts have previously expressed concerns over the costs and practicalities of relocation. The favoured and most obvious site for relocation is Devonport in Plymouth, where conventionally armed nuclear submarines are currently based.
The paper, published tomorrow, concludes such a move would be technically feasible and add between £2.5-3.5 billion to the cost of maintaining a nuclear-armed fleet, plus the cost of acquiring and clearing land - far less than a previously-predicted £20-25 billion.
“Relocation, Relocation, Relocation: Could the UK's Nuclear Forces be Moved after Scottish Independence?” looks at the financial and political hurdles of moving Trident if Scotland becomes independent. The report's publication comes just weeks before the independence referendum.
However, it could take more than a decade to recreate the facilities, rather than the four years to which the Scottish National Party is currently committed, the authors said.
Hugh Chalmers, a research analyst from Rusi and a co-author of the report, said: "When people start considering options for relocations it's only natural to assume that it would be quite expensive and very difficult and that is certainly the case. But importantly it is not impossible.
He added that the transfer could take a long time, and was unlikely to be completed by a target date of 2020. A more "natural timeframe" would be linked to the entry of a new generation of nuclear-armed submarines, currently anticipated to start in 2028.
The Scottish government said: "Trident is opposed by the people and Parliament of Scotland. The Scottish Government position is that Trident should be removed from an independent Scotland by 2020 - before we are hit with a share of the further £100 billion in lifetime costs, at 2012 prices, which are estimated for its replacement.
"We will also propose a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons being based in Scotland, ensuring they would never return.
"As the Trident Commission reported, when spending reaches its peak in the next decade, taxpayers will be spending nearly £4 billion a year on nuclear weapons at 2012 prices - that is unacceptable when there are so many other pressing needs which public money is needed for.”
The Ministry of Defence said: "The nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantor of our nation's security and no alternative would be as effective at deterring threats now or in the future. There are no plans to move Trident from Her Majesty's Naval Base Clyde and unilateral disarmament is not an option.”