A new poll from Survation has found that 58% of people in Scotland believe the UK should keep Trident and that only 20% were certain it should be axed, with the remainder undecided.

Additionally, the poll undertaken by Survation found that 82 per cent of Scots ranked UK membership of the G7, NATO and the UN Security Council as “important”, while nine per cent rated it as “not important” and a further nine per cent didn’t know.

You can look at the raw data yourself here.

Pamela Nash, head of Scotland in Union which commissioned the survey, said:

As proud Scots, maintaining our position and influence in the world is key. And it’s clear from this opinion poll there is little appetite to diminish our global standing. Scottish people want to continue to participate fully in the world, to make the most effective contributions to global institutions, and to retain the benefits of our membership. Remaining part of the UK is the best way to protect and enhance Scotland’s global influence, and to support our friends and allies across the globe.”

Ross Greer, the external affairs spokesman for the Scottish Greens, said:

“Nuclear weapons cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets. They are world-ending weapons of mass slaughter. No-one wins a nuclear war. Beyond that moral case though is the financial outrage of the Westminster government spending hundreds of billions of pounds on a new nuclear arsenal whilst refusing to help families struggling through this cost-of-living crisis.”

What is Trident?

Trident is the name given to Britain’s nuclear weapons programme, while technically it refers to just the missiles it has since come to be used to refer to the whole system, including the four submarines that carry it.

Consisting of four Vanguard-class submarines armed with Trident II D-5 ballistic missiles, the Trident system is operated by the Royal Navy. Each submarine can carry as many as eight Trident missiles. Only one submarine is deployed at any one time, while two others are used for training and one undergoes maintenance in order to ensure that at least one is at sea at any time.

FILE PHOTO: HMNB Clyde.

Trident is based at HMNB Clyde on Scotland’s west coast.

George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
43 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Roberts
John Roberts
5 days ago

On dear poor nicola won’t like that result !!!

G Hanson
G Hanson
4 days ago
Reply to  John Roberts

Fandabidosie

Joe16
Joe16
5 days ago

O/T, but @George: Can we have some more info on this?! STOL Reaper for naval ops

https://twitter.com/TotherChris/status/1524015564456345600

Jon
Jon
5 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

Cool. RAF ordered 16 Protectors didn’t they, so maybe they’ll be able to trial this STOL reconfiguration on the carriers. With the Seaspay 7500E radar could it better Crowsnest for coverage (admittedly without the command and control)?

Joe16
Joe16
5 days ago
Reply to  Jon

The video shows folding wings, so not sure if they might also have different engine, and aerodynamic stuff like wing area, flaps and things to help with the STOL. Alternatively, it oculd just be a sensor and software update that lets it manage take off and landing on a flight deck better. That’s what I’d like George to find out, although I acknowledge there may not be a lot of data out there yet! It would certainly give better persistence, I think Protector is upwards of 40 hours endurance compared to a Merlin likely less than 8 hours (?). I… Read more »

Jon
Jon
5 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

Not so much video as CGI, but GA state: MQ-9B STOL performance will come from a simple wing and tail kit that changes out the stock features on the aircraft. Maintainers can make the swap in a normal hangar or on a flight line with standard ground support equipment. After a few hours’ work, MQ-9B STOL is ready to go. However Another future goal for MQ-9B STOL is operations at sea. The aircraft’s modification kit could unlock the ability to operate from the Navy’s big amphibious assault ships or aircraft carriers. Not there yet, then. Hence the CGI. Still worth… Read more »

Martin
Martin
5 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

Wow that’s freaking awesome, the Rn should be all over that for $20 million a pop it’s a no brainer.

Martin
Martin
5 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

The RN and FAA should do what they did back in the early days of manned aircraft when they were cheap in the 20’s and 30’s. Order a few each year and try them out. The RN carriers could quite quickly be filled with protectors, sea vixens and banshees supplementing manned lynx, Merlin and F35 offering a highly flexible platform tailored to the required mission. Even the US could not dream about that type of mixed capability any time soon. CVF seems tailor made for such a concept.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
5 days ago
Reply to  Martin

I’m not sure that taking loads of randoms onboard helps. There is a massive cost in certifying something to use on an aircraft carrier. It is a very, very dangerous environment. That said this is a hand in glove fit. Much as people may critique QEC for its VTOL only load-out the fact remains that drones such as this and others are being developed to work off the USMCs much smaller decks. So happily these problems are close to being solved and not at crazy costs either. There might well be an RAF / FAA standoff as RAF might see… Read more »

Martin
Martin
5 days ago

“There is a massive cost in certifying something to use on an aircraft carrier. It is a very, very dangerous environment” That’s why we can’t have nice things anymore. Back in the day we would not have to go through multi million pound certification process taking two decades and 5000 private contractors and consultants. We just stick Eric Brown in it and have a go at landing it. We can do much the same with unmanned systems. Indeed POW is suppose to be doing that exact role and already has done it with banshee and a few others. Aiming for… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
5 days ago
Reply to  Martin

The concept of a duty holder was not around with Winkle Brown….

However. I do agree that most things in life are 80/20 problems and the cost of the last 20% is exorbitant and often not worth it.

Jon
Jon
5 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Cheap! Those things cost about £20m each.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
5 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

That is more than very interesting.

That would make QEC very formidable.

Martin
Martin
5 days ago

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2022/2022/05/general-atomics-unveils-mq-9b-stol-for-small-flat-tops/

Apparently the RN has expressed interest already along with Australia and Japan.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
5 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Good news

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Interesting- Japan and Australia has Helo carriers so this might be a means of equipping them with a strike capability that is beyond what their indigenous helos can deliver. Supplements Japanese acquisition of F35B for their Izumo class nicely.

Puffing Billy
Puffing Billy
5 days ago

The Greens, I call them the mud hut people, would, of course, be against Trident. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how important Trident is – we don’t have to give in to Russian blackmail.

Graeme McCormick
Graeme McCormick
2 days ago
Reply to  Puffing Billy

What does Trident have which makes Putin act rationally if he has a death wish ?

Puffing Billy
Puffing Billy
2 days ago

Mutually assured destruction. He might have a death wish but I doubt if other Russians around him would want to go to the grave with him.

Jon
Jon
5 days ago

I understood each Vanguard could carry up to 16 Trident missiles, although over the last decade they’ve only caried 8.

RobW
RobW
5 days ago
Reply to  Jon

And if each of those missiles carries just 5 warheads that’s 40 nukes. It doesn’t need to carry any more to be a serious deterrent.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 days ago
Reply to  RobW

I’d like to see them return to 128 warhead max loadout- why not? Russia has abolished its compliance with strategic arms controls, it has returned to developing intermediate range ballistic missiles. Therefore a UK response should be- fine we match you missile for missile and warhead for warhead. Knowing a trident is under the sea 24/7 with 128 warheads is more frightening then just 40 warheads.

Tosh 54
Tosh 54
4 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

The dreadnought class that will replace the vanguard boats which are nearing 30 years old will only have 12 missile tubes and carry the same trident d5 missile

maurice10
maurice10
5 days ago

Putin has demonstrated that the military balance has not really changed in 70 years. There is Russia and like-minded states and there is the West, and nothing tells me we are about to see any considerable change? That being the case, we can not contemplate scrapping the UK deterrent.

Jon
Jon
5 days ago
Reply to  maurice10

Get rid of our nukes, you mean a bit like Ukraine did? If you really can’t see a change in the map of Eastern Europe since the Berlin airlift, maybe you need to buy a new atlas.

maurice10
maurice10
5 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Don’t get your point Jon, I’m for the UK deterrent? The ‘nothing has changed,’ is the mindset of Russia. Even if Putin is removed there is no guarantee the Kremlin will change its spots. That being the case, we need to keep the N-Boats.

Jon
Jon
5 days ago
Reply to  maurice10

Apologies. I misread your comment as “can we not”, rather than “we can not”. I must stop posting while sober.

Stuart Paterson
Stuart Paterson
5 days ago

Keep it, just stick the subs and warheads down south.

GR
GR
5 days ago

How substantive a difference do you think that would make to Scotland, other than losing thousands of Scottish jobs?

Graeme McCormick
Graeme McCormick
2 days ago
Reply to  GR

please detail the thousands of jobs! most of the diminshed civilan workforce are holding on for theur redundancy payment.

JamesD
JamesD
5 days ago

You won’t survive the fallout bud so you might as well gain from the economics. I live within 20-70 miles of some of the juiciest nuke targets about, but I don’t care it’s a non issue to me and now more than ever I’m glad we have it.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
5 days ago

Has that Ross Greer paid any attention to what happens when countries abandon their nukes – on guarantees they will be protected? I understand there’s a bit of a contretemps playing out along exactly those lines right now.
No one would want nukes, ideally, but even in an age when politicians are constantly demonstrating their stupidity, he takes the Tunnock. No concept of timing whatsoever.

Knight7572
Knight7572
5 days ago

Yeah Ukraine has shown why Trident is needed

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 days ago

SNP always make noise. I heard that irritating woman on the radio talking of the “mandate” they got for another vote in the elections last year, even though they were local and constitutional matters are not relevant. They have no bloody mandate, they don’t mention more people vote for unionist parties than them, but the FPTP system makes them win seats as the union vote is split. In many of those constituencies the votes for others equalled or surpassed theirs. That is NO MANDATE Mrs Sturgeon. Same situation in NI other day. This is excellent news that many Scots appreciate… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
5 days ago

I actually thought the snp might reduce the noise about independence as they have broad support and by leaving it at the sidelines they could widen there appeal.
If they get a vote will there be a vote every few years after to see if Scotland wants to join back into the U.K? I’m in Scotland and Nobody asked me about my position on trident.
People will always be for and against anything. The government make the decision that the nukes are required to keep the peace. Whether they are right or wrong hopefully we never find out.

Last edited 5 days ago by Monkey spanker
geoff
geoff
5 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Good Morning MS. The need to retain the nuclear deterrent is the proverbial no brainer. Here is the logic. Will the nuclear nations ever give up their weapons? NO! How would we police any agreement even if such a treaty were possible? IMPOSSIBLE! Therefore the ONLY workable system is Mutually Assured Destruction. No sane leader would ever use Nukes BUT the only flaw in this statement is the possibility of there being an insane leader in a Nuclear power nation……….!

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 days ago
Reply to  geoff

You mean like Putin in Russia right now? He is without any doubt insane.

geoff
geoff
4 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Exactly!!

Stuart Paterson
Stuart Paterson
4 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Sensible as ever MS, never really see the point in publishing these types of surveys especially when it is commissioned by an organisation called Scotland in Union, only ever going to be one slant or outcome to the results. That is true for all of these types of surveys no matter what side of the fence you are on or who instigates them.

Graeme McCormick
Graeme McCormick
2 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Name a country which was formerly ruled from Westminster that asked to come back?

Graeme McCormick
Graeme McCormick
2 days ago

Scottish elections are not FPTP. They are de haunt! Scottish council elctions are STV.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 days ago

oh dear wee little jimmy cranky wont like this outcome. Thanks to Putin and his war of aggression support for our nuclear deterrent has probably never been stronger.
Would still like to see a rudimentary ballistic missile defence capability added with a mix of shore and sea based interceptor units- the UK needs the ability to intercept a salvo or rogue missile launch anything up to say 20-30 missiles would be a useful capability and mean the UK cannot be bullied or held to ransom by some lunatic who has his finger on the red launch button.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

So what I am advocating isn’t a complete screen- which would be hugely prohibitively expensive and require thousands of interceptor missiles. Just say 100-200 interceptors capable of defeating 20-30 ballistic missiles so that a single rogue launch can be defeated.