In a highly charged political move, the Scottish Greens have declared a proposal to “ban” the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines from operating in Scottish waters.
The pro-independence party, led by Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater, plans to include this ambitious commitment in their forthcoming Holyrood manifesto.
The primary vehicle for this proposed change is an amendment to the Marine Scotland Act, with the intended consequence of outlawing Trident’s operation from its Faslane base. However, the proposal has raised significant legal questions, given that defence matters are reserved for the UK Parliament.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
Scottish Greens’ marine environment spokesperson, Mark Ruskell, firmly voiced the party’s stance in a statement, saying: “The Tories’ nuclear posturing is reckless in the extreme and Labour’s ongoing support for Trident is a disgrace. The people of Scotland shouldn’t have to play their dangerous game.”
He highlighted the party’s commitment to protect the marine environment and the plan to use devolved powers to ban the transport of nuclear weapons in Scottish waters.
This proposal comes in the wake of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s controversial decision to increase the UK’s stockpile of nuclear weapons. Ruskell also expressed readiness to face legal challenges, likely to be posed by “the warmongers at Westminster”, effectively transforming the legal battlefield into a political arena.
However, despite the political conviction behind the pledge, it is vital to consider its legal feasibility. According to the Scotland Act 1998, defence matters, including the stationing and deployment of armed forces, are reserved for the UK Parliament. While the Scottish Parliament has substantial devolved powers, it cannot legislate on these reserved matters. Thus, the Scottish Greens’ ambition to amend the Marine Scotland Act to hinder the operation of Trident submarines from Faslane seems to confront significant legal obstacles.
Adding weight to this argument is Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998. This legislative provision empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland to veto any legislation enacted by the Scottish Parliament that modifies the law as it applies to reserved matters. Given the proposed amendment’s intended effect on Trident, a clear interference in a reserved matter, Section 35 could be invoked, leading to a veto of the Scottish legislation.
Previously, UK ministers used provisions in Scotland Act to block legislation making it easier for transgender people to self-identify, citing a conflict with UK legislation.
Expanding on the limitations of devolved powers, it’s key to note that the Scottish Parliament can’t legislate on matters that modify the law as it applies to reserved issues or have an adverse effect on the operation of the law concerning these matters. This principle extends even to situations where the legislation at hand appears to intersect with a devolved area but impacts a reserved one, as is the case with the proposed amendment to the Marine Scotland Act.
While marine affairs fall within the scope of devolved matters, the proposed legislation impacts the operation of Trident, a defence matter which is unequivocally reserved. Consequently, the ability of the Scottish Parliament to enact this legislation is highly questionable, further diminishing the legal feasibility of the Scottish Greens’ proposal.
While the Scottish Greens’ proposal seems to serve more as a political gesture to rally pro-independence and anti-nuclear voters, it does not undermine its symbolic importance in the broader political landscape of Scotland. It reflects the party’s opposition to nuclear weapons and aligns them closely with the SNP, signifying their shared goal of Scottish independence. However, the legal limitations of the proposal, notably the inability of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on reserved matters, significantly dilute its practical application.
I spoke to a prominent Scottish Greens activist, who told me on condition of anonymity:
“Even as a staunch supporter of the Scottish Greens, this latest proposal feels like a misstep. It seems more like a political performance than a thoughtful contribution to the serious and complex debate on nuclear weapons in Scotland. We need strategies grounded in feasibility, not fanciful gestures that distract from the core issues. It’s frustrating to see the party’s energy directed this way.”
It’s worth pointing out that the Scottish Greens, in attempting to use devolved powers in an arena where they have limited jurisdiction, appear to be engaging in political theatre more than proposing a viable plan. As a reader, you might feel that your time is being wasted with these impracticable pledges.
I must stress, my position is not driven by any strong feeling about nuclear weapons one way or the other. However, this sort of legal shadow boxing doesn’t seem to advance the conversation about nuclear weapons in Scotland or the UK at large. If anything, it diverts attention away from a substantive debate on this crucial topic.
The issue of nuclear weapons, their necessity, and their location is a serious matter that warrants thoughtful consideration and genuine dialogue. This debate won’t be won by proposing legally untenable strategies or stirring political sentiment without a corresponding practicable plan.
Such initiatives may serve to galvanise the party’s base, but they also risk muddying the waters of a deeply complex issue. The hope is that, moving forward, all parties will advance proposals and engage in debates grounded in practical, substantive measures rather than political posturing.
The citizens of Scotland — and the UK as a whole — deserve as much.
At the Paris airshow the Italians signed up to joining the Anglo-French FC/ASW.
https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/l-italie-rejoint-le-programme-de-mssiles-franco-britannique-fman-fmc-966793.html
Thanks for the information. Hopefully this will have a neutral to positive impact on cost and schedule? 🤔
With the experience of Italians in missile, It’s a positive news
I think its reflecting it will be the strike missile on both the RAF and Italian Tempests. It will also be compatible with both Sylver and Mk41 missile tubes and the Italians have a lot of Sylver as well I believe so logical upgrade path to match the French navy’s modernisation.
Yes, but we Brits have quite the history of walking out of BFI missiles programmes !
Just read it.
Slight Deja Vu with “Despite the differecnes between France and Italy”.
As a Scotsman it is an acronym to Scottish democracy that a party who has never gained a list seat and survives as the alternative to the SNP have any say in Scottish Government. The damage they have done and are doing to Scotland , particularly rural and island communities is beyond measure. The are forcing through policies that will result in the 2nd Highland clearances!!
Acronym? Anathema maybe?
How will the nuclear missile subs of other nations be prevented from transiting Scottish waters?
‘While marine affairs fall within the scope of devolved matters, the proposed legislation impacts the operation of Trident, a defence matter which is unequivocally reserved. Consequently, the ability of the Scottish Parliament to enact this legislation is highly questionable, further diminishing the legal feasibility of the Scottish Greens’ proposal.’
Cart before the horse. Scotland has to vote for Independence first. Always the details.
The mindset of Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer one of the Executive Co-Chairs of the party:
NATO is a ‘first strike’ nuclear alliance, meaning it claims the right to launch its weapons of mass slaughter against other countries without having been attacked first. There can never, ever be justification for murdering millions of innocent people like that. For this reason alone, never mind NATO’s history of provoking rather than avoiding conflict, the Scottish Greens are clear that an independent Scotland should follow Ireland’s lead and stay out. Instead, we should immediately sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which would not only make the Trident submarines at Faslane illegal and force their removal, it would also show that we refuse to let others use weapons of mass destruction on our behalf.
“Once again for the people in the back: Churchill was a white supremacist mass murderer.”
and here are a few more:
https://i.postimg.cc/MGDR45SS/Opera-Snapshot-2023-06-22-183859-order-order.gif
Yeah the British Government could easily tell the Scottish government, no we are not removing Trident
Yeah how quickly would this annoy America operate SSN and SSBN into Faslane
The Scottish Government as would have no authority to make demands as the base belongs to the British government as they built it in the decades before the Scottish government was even a thing and we were the British Empire
These Scottish Greens don’t realise that if you want to be realistic, can’t the British government crash the Scottish Economy as the British who are ones propping them up financially
Utterly awful
Fuck me mate I never realised how bad and extreme this muppet is! Do people really follow these clowns and if so are they aware of their real politics!
You`ve got to love social media for giving this type of idiot a platform to spout his shite. God help the people of Scotland if this loon gets anywhere near power.
He is in power here already!
I’m guessing he loves Putin, and bows to the memory of Stalin’s gulags.
Warmongers in Westminster? Britain has had nuclear weapons since the early 1950s, yet has never used one in anger. That is 70 years+. With a bit of luck, we will go at least another 70 years without having to use one in anger. That is the whole point of deterrence.
The people describing Westminster as warmongers seem to be missing two points. Firstly, Russia has proved itself happy to invade a non-nuclear power. Secondly, Russia has threatened the UK with it’s own nuclear missiles. So who is the warmonger? The country that invaded Ukraine and threatens the UK? Or the country that realises that if NATO gave up nuclear weapons Russian missiles would be heading our way! MAD may be mad, but it works.
Yeah the British Government will use its veto powers if they try to use this as what the Scottish Greens are wanting to do is a threat to national security
Yeah you have to wonder who is funding the Scottish Greens
Silly disreputable people with even more silly ideas and policies. What did we ever do to deserve such hapless irrelevancies in our political process, never mind letting them near power.
Pro eu Greens say to eu, yup we’re giving up nuclear deterrence, there to protect euro nato members. eu maybe less impressed
And more people are voting green, due to the current 3 party dross we have! But it’s interesting to see the Greens avoid NATO and military agendas when campaigning in England! They are fucking weak, with a mindset that suits the various agendas of overseas nutters and dictators. Giving up nukes and (as in previous elections) reducing the Brit Mil to a token home defence force to be used by the UN, is a gift to the crazies on this planet! But, I’m sure the Greens would be happy to be a bit of a Quisling or a Vichy, if the UK was ever invaded and taken over! Dangerous people with a false agenda.
The UK has took the lead in many world changing political and social situations, this century and last…a global player you all say on this site. Is it now time, for the UK to show real leadership, and be the 1st country to disarm it’s nuclear forces? The UK’s nuclear stockpile is tiny compared to Russia and China, so what is the pointy anyway (the UK has the special relationship for protection anyway, in nuclear war, like Germany and Italy)
Yeah except that may not be there as the British have seen the United States will not help them on occasion as demonstrated in the 20th century
Ha ha ha hilarious damn your knowledge is limited and troll like 💩
Ukraine was the first country to disarm its nuclear forces. As signatories to the agreement the USSR, USA, UK & others promised to guarantee Ukrainian soveriegnty & territorial integrety. That didn’t turn out so well.
The West & the UK are under continual attack from Russia & China seeking to destabilise our democracy, freedoms, ruthlessly hacking vital services & mounting cyber attacks. Russia has let loose assasination squads on UK soil & threatened the imminant use of nukes against us.
So do you really think making ourselves any more weak & vulnerable will benefit us rather than our agressive enemies?
Yes, Ukraine along with Belarus and Kazakhstan handed over the nuclear weapons on their territory but they had remained under Moscows central control for arming of the actual device ( The USSR much like the USA had safeguards to prevent local commanders using the weapons)
These weapons werent usable ( Ukraine had bombers and Ballistic missiles) like other nuclear countries and the bomb grade uranium- plutonium was removed for reprocessing to keep it out of the hands of disreputable forces.
As for a guarantee of Ukraine sovereignty that wasnt the wording of the Budapest Memorandum – wasnt even a treaty- it merely claims to take any territorial breach up with the UN Security Council . Thats it.
Such as s “commit to respect the territorial integrity’ or ‘Refrain from threatening..”
The only action statement is the one about the UN, plus one to “consult” if the worst happens.
link here for the Memorandum
Naive outlook, I’m afraid, especially betting on the special relationship.
Ummm the UK nuclear deterrent is quite large enough to be a deterrent….at present each submarine carries 40 warheads…that’s enough to remove Russia as a modern functional nation.
that could be moved up to 80 warheads per boat.
Still enough to fuck up Russia and obliterate the places within that matter.
I’m sure there’s plenty room in North Korea for these utter bampots! Kim would love to hear their arguments!
Having a debate about the relevance, or otherwise of a particular weapon system housed and operated from Scotland is a fair democratic process. If the outcome is a declared opposition then that is a fair reflection of public opinion. Should things not be discussed, just because a remote body decides it shouldn’t? We live in a democratic state not an autocratic dictatorship. The fact that the detached constititional decision making process will not take heed of a declared localised opinion doesn’t negate the discussion. Let us not forget that the nuances of the system means that the weapon systems are only of use somewhere in the North Atlantic (probably), which are an immediate target. The actual weapon stores based in Coulport are a secondary target but pose the greatest risk to the surrounding area, which has a high population within blast radius and not at all remote.
Relocate to England, plenty of English people that would be grateful of the jobs and business that goes along with supporting the base.
Same with ship building and the RAF bases.
Ditch Scotland and be better off without pi##ing away money on them whilst they sink into obscurity.
Comes with a bonus result of not having to listen to the bastards whining like babies continously.
are you talking to the scots in general or the SNP? the odds are in our favour as SNP support is declining, so to turn our backs on scotland would only make things worse.
plus im a scot (look at my name) in fact im a highlander. and the last thing id want is scotland to be ditched be westminister, in fact if need be id sew the border together with steel pipes as thread and lamposts as needles!😀
The little Green boat paddled out to sea and even though they looked and looked that wasn’t a nuke to see.🐉
oh and if the greens are scared off the world melting or flooding or somthing, then send them to the moon they’ll be safe there😉
safe without there oxygen packs that is😏
Maybe someone should point out the jobs lost and money spent elsewhere. Not sure how popular that proposal would prove then.
These people think we lived in pixie land where the worst things a leader did was wear pink hat flowers with an off tan shirt but unfortunately the world isn’t like that.
It would be great to not have nuclear weapons and no fighting across the world.
I would imagine he thinks the Bolsheviks were miss understood and not a powercrazed bunch of mass murders…
The Bolsheviks were a minor faction of the opposition to the post czarist government. So similar to the Greens
However right at the end of WW1 , UK, France, US Japan did invade Russia to influence the Red-White civil war
The UK invention in the Baltic area meant the baltic states remained independent and not sure what was to be gained for Britain in the Caucasus and Archangelsk region
Indeed, but the fact the Bolsheviks ended up on the top of the heap after the bloodbath that was the fall of Imperial Russia just shows what a power crazies bunch of mass murders they were…they simply out murdered and out brutalised all the other communists factions.
While hiding behind the NATO / UK/ US nukes.
Sorry ,but slight lol.
UK Greens are usually Left-Liberals pretending to be Socialists who have put on a skinsuit to look like Robin Hood.
Ask some real socialists for their opinion of the UK Green Parties.
Can we have our Nuclear Free Zone Sign back from the Museum?
Sorry for the off topic. But today’s circus only reinforces that UK and Europe need to invest in defence at similar levels to the cold war. Special forces centered capbility is nice, but you also need quantity.
As today proves the unimaginable can happen in an instant so best be ready. Russia is hardly stable, and other crazy stuff can still happen there in the future. Not to mention plenty of other countries in the world are becoming ever more challenging to western nations
These are the FACTS. The likes of Russia,North Korea,Pakistan, China etc. etc.will NEVER ditch their Nukes. A Nuke-Free planet is mission impossible. If only one madman posseses them then the rest of us are open to Nuclear Blackmail forever. Imagine if Hitler had acquired Nukes before the rest of us!! So, it follows that the good guys(no apology for this term)-the USA, UK, and France must maintain their Nuclear weapons as insurance. It is that simple. Anyone who advocates that the UK should abandon its Nuclear Detterent is either not thinking straight or has an anti UK agenda or is certifiably insane!
Bit chilly in Durban this morning but warming up nicely…
The pro-nuclear weapons debate unfortunately completely undermines conventional defence and means that we become more dependent in unleashing devastation much much earlier in any conflict. It is only necessary for one torpedo to neautralise the patrolling Trident and the whole last resort defence disappears. The next strike would be Coulport so we couldn’t even arm the standby submarines. This takes minutes and with our inadequate air defence and naval resources we could be overwhelmed very easily and rapidly, and as for fighting them on the beaches we don’t have enough trained manpower let alone weapons to do this. Then the US cavalry have nowhere to land undermining their ability to come to our aid. We may end up speaking Russian yet, especially if China comes to Russia aid.
In a Utopia you don’t need nuclear weapons but the genie is out the bottle. Those wishing to put it back are delusional and dangerously so. I don’t like nuclear weapons but in a dangerous nuclear armed multi-polar world they are a deterrent. Maybe when we don’t elect idiots or we have them imposed on us then the human race can get rid of them along with bio-weapons such as the covid-19 virus that was engineered in the country where everything is made these days.
Issues aside politically the Scottish Greens have their timing completely wrong on this front due to two reasons :
1) Russian actions in Ukraine must be making everyone nervous, – especially if Russian does not solve her internal power struggles. The end of the weekend mutiny is not the end of the matter.
2) Everyone must know by know our conventional forces are a lot thinner on the ground than they should be.
It is more likely to loose them support than gain it.
Sounds like a nice bit of self-sabotage.
Bearing in mind ” the must stop oil ” loons are funded by the guy who has made millions out of the British taxpayer billions subsidizing green energy. MI5 and the police should be investigating these green MSPs to make sure they are not in collusion with Moscow or China ! I’d place a small wager there is some sort of connection . What do the greens propose send 801 and 802 to detect and escort these subs out of ” Scottish waters”?