Disarmament Diplomacy

Editorial

Scotland Votes to become Nuclear Free

Rebecca Johnson

On June 14, the Scottish Parliament voted by 71 votes to 16 to reject the replacement of Trident. This is important because the UK's nuclear weapons are all now based in Scotland. The nuclear submarines are deployed from Faslane, and the warheads are stored close by at RNAD Coulport, 40 miles from Glasgow.

In October, the newly-elected Government will hold a Summit of civic, political and union leaders to discuss 'Scotland's future without nuclear weapons'. The First Minister and head of the Scottish Government, Alex Salmond, explained: "I want to get to a position where we can persuade the UK government to change its stance both on the replacement programme and on the general principle of maintaining a nuclear deterrent."

These moves against Trident follow the historic ousting of the Scottish Labour Party from government in the May 3rd elections. The Scottish National Party (SNP), which became the largest party by one seat, has long been opposed to nuclear weapons. Though Trident was not the only reason for Labour's defeat it was a significant factor, as noted by the Summit's organiser, Bruce Crawford, Minister for Parliamentary Business: "All the polling evidence says the people of Scotland are against Trident renewal, the parliament has voted against it, and so we're following through the wishes of the parliament."

Scotland is in a peculiar position - the 1998 Scotland Act granted devolution of decision-making in some areas, but reserved powers to Westminster on matters relating to national security, defence and foreign policy. At the same time, the Act specifies that "observing and implementing international obligations, obligations under the Human Rights Convention and obligations under Community law" are not reserved matters. Together with international, European and Scottish Law, the Act therefore supports the view that Westminster cannot reserve and impose on Scotland something that is contrary to international law and Britain's own treaty obligations. In other words, if it's unlawful, it can be neither 'reserved' nor imposed.

The Scottish Government is currently considering several different kinds of approaches to put pressure on Westminster to get rid of Trident. One pursues this legal challenge, arguing that the Scottish government has the right to outlaw nuclear weapons and become, in effect, a non-nuclear country. This is the thinking behind Michael Mathieson's 'Prevention of Crimes Committed by Weapons of Mass Destruction (Scotland) Bill 2007', which aims to prohibit nuclear weapons in Scotland on the grounds that their deployment and use are contrary to international law. Reflecting extensive analysis on the uses of Trident as envisaged in UK doctrine and policy, the bill's framers have concluded that since it would breach international humanitarian law to use Trident in such circumstances, it is unlawful to threaten to do so. Hence, not only the replacement of Trident (which obviously violates the unequivocal undertaking by Britain in accordance with Article VI of the NPT to "accomplish the total elimination of the nuclear arsenal") but also the current deployment and 'deterrent patrols' of these nuclear weapons are found to be unlawful.

In an alternative approach based on the Scottish government's powers and duties relating to safety and environmental protection, European commission regulations governing the protection of the environment may be invoked to put an end to the convoys of nuclear warheads that are transported on public roads between the bomb factory at Aldermaston (near London) and Coulport. This may also be extended to the nuclear-armed and powered submarines going in and out of Scotland's beautiful lochs. If attempts to prohibit the transports fail, there may be moves to charge the UK Ministry of Defence £1 million each time a warhead is carried through Scotland. This would increase the costs of deploying Trident at Faslane very substantially.

Scotland has legal as well as moral, safety, environmental and political grounds to reject having nuclear weapons. But most Scottish people would prefer to go nuclear free in partnership with the rest of Britain. Many are hoping that Gordon Brown's wiser understanding of Britain's needs and role in the world will lead the government to reconsider.

If for once the Labour government would rigorously and honestly examine Britain's nuclear policy in the context of a comprehensive security, defence and foreign policy review, Trident would be seen for what it is - a costly, unusable, out of date attempt to bolster UK status as a 'force to be reckoned with'. This isn't the way to be taken seriously in the world today, as we should have learned from the Iraq debacle. When even Henry Kissinger is now arguing for nuclear weapons to be devalued and eliminated, British plans to commission the next generation of Trident bring nothing but ridicule and dismay, as seen at the recent meeting of parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Scottish Government ought to have Observer status at NPT meetings to represent its people's nuclear-free aspirations directly.

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2007 The Acronym Institute.