The Scottish Affairs Committee met on Monday, June 5, 2023, to discuss issues related to the North Atlantic and the High North.
Chaired by Pete Wishart, the meeting also featured committee members Deidre Brock, Wendy Chamberlain, David Duguid, Sally-Ann Hart, Christine Jardine, Douglas Ross, and Dr Philippa Whitford.
Key witnesses, including Rt Hon James Heappey MP, Minister of State (Minister for Armed Forces), Clare Cameron, Director, Euro-Atlantic Security, and Brigadier Chris Ordway, Head (Military), Euro-Atlantic Security, were present to share insights.
Heappey acknowledged the significance of Faslane, describing it as an “integral and important part of the UK’s national security.” He further highlighted that both Faslane and Lossiemouth are considered to be of “enormous strategic importance to the UK and to NATO.”
“Everywhere that I have been in the northern parts of Europe and in North America, they are absolutely clear that Faslane and Lossiemouth—those two, most notably, as the two bases from which NATO can most credibly police the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and the High North beyond it—are of enormous strategic importance to the UK and to NATO,” said Heappey.
Addressing the potential implications of Scottish independence on NATO’s defence strategy, Heappey indicated significant concerns. He contended that relocating the base for nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines from Faslane to a location south of Ireland would disrupt the base’s strategic position.
“If we had to move the base for nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines to a different geography—one that is perhaps south of Ireland and creates a much longer route for submarines into the High North—the whole of NATO would be incredibly concerned by the loss of that base.
It is an enormously important part of NATO’s ability to police the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and to deter Russian nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered submarines from getting out into the Atlantic and threatening our NATO supply lines,” he said.
Heappey went on to respond to questions regarding the potential independence of Scotland in the near future and its impact on the Ministry of Defence’s risk register. Douglas Ross brought up the current First Minister of Scotland’s belief that the country will be independent within the next five years. Ross further questioned the potential impact on NATO if the nuclear deterrent at Faslane had to be moved elsewhere in the UK.
Heappey responded, “You will get plenty of NATO countries who would be cautious of opining on what they would regard as an internal domestic political issue for the United Kingdom, but you also wouldn’t find a single NATO country, I think, who would be in any way comfortable with the loss of that nuclear submarine base at Faslane.”
The possibility of a disruption to Faslane due to Scottish independence, he noted, would create a strategic problem for NATO—a point of view that adds a new dimension to the ongoing discussions about Scotland’s political future.
However, a source within the Scottish National Party (SNP) told me that an independent Scotland could maintain a nuclear-free policy while contributing effectively to NATO’s collective defence.
The source, who requested anonymity, stated, “While we understand the strategic importance of Faslane to NATO, we believe that an independent Scotland could explore non-nuclear contributions to the alliance. This aligns with our nation’s long-held stance against nuclear weapons. Our position does not undermine our commitment to collective security, and we believe that effective defence strategies can be maintained through other means.”
I wonder how the USA and France would react to seeing their Nuclear boats banned from an Independent Scotland.
I would have thought that an Independent Scotland would kill two birds with one stone, a lease. Agree said lease on Faslane etc (maybe Lossiemouth too) for say 10 years after which the base(s) would close and nuclear was gone. The lease to be at very high cost to ‘rump UK’ who would be over a barrel. This could be sold as win-win in Scotland and gives time to relocate south of the border. Not sure what “south of Ireland” in the article means but I assume that it would have to be on our mainland. This should allow USA… Read more »
I think that Scotland would find itself being the one over a barrel. The loss of jobs due to RN shipbuilding moving south plus the loss of jobs due to the loss of servicing and basing the submarine fleet would be a massive economic loss.
There’s no question for me that if the Scotts achieve their aim (which is not necessarily the wish of all Scotts) and if they push through with the ‘non nuclear on our soil’ policy then they must, absolutely must lose 100% of our defence work of any kind and any other defence related work.
The SNP will probably invite the Russians in anyway, they are all dictators together.
‘but I assume that it would have to be on our mainland”
Why would the UK nuclear deterrent be based in Russia?
One stupid comment deserves another. Short flight time.
Well, in fairness you’ve been busy posting the dumbest, and the most asinine fiction on this site for a long time.
😂
Well they might not defend Scots should the Russians come knockin …. Scotland will just become a battlefield which can’t be lost to the enemy.
Yes, Russia will invade Scotland. Of course. Everything we have seen emerge from the Ukrainian conflict proves that Russia is capable of launching a massive air and sea offensive to invade and hold Scotland.
Craig. Firstly Russia has attempted to take Ukraine despite it’s inability to actually achieve it. Secondly I think you are assuming that an independent Scotland would be able to defend itself or are you assuming that the English & the rest of NATO would come to it’s aid despite an Indendent Scotland putting the whole alliance at risk by undermining it’s ability to defend itself.
The most likely outcome of an indy vote would be Scotland’s immediate accession to NATO. Faslane kept on a long lease while options are explored, possibly resulting in a longer lease or relocation (at great expense admittedly).
Also, if Russia were silly enough to have a go at Scotland it would be in our, and NATO’s, overwhelming best interest to defend them at all costs.
Yes which is why it is in everyones best interests if things are kept as they are. Perhaps one day soon Russia will cease to be a threat and join the peace loving nations of Europe. Until then I’m not sure this problem is resolvable.
As much as it pains me to agree with you. I think that is only sensible and right. I’d think the Faslane lease would have to be £1/ year for the next 50 years otherwise if Scotland is seen to be profiteering the rest of UK would simply demand all forces leave the newly independent country and Scotland can go swing all by itself in the big bad world. What I find hillarious is Scotland wants independence so they can join the EU and then not have any independence ever again. Brilliant. So a union with a Federal European Superstate… Read more »
Regards joining NATO, I don’t think so as they have nothing to offer to the alliance. The Scottish economy could not support credible (independent) defence/ armed forces.
And then you woke up ,where would the tactical advantage be attacking a non combatant zone?
Nope Scotland would be less of a target without nuclear subs .with nuclear sub fleet at faslane they have a big target on their soil.
Ukraine removed Nuclear weapons from their soil and it switched them from A target to THE target. Putin will occupy any country which would give them a strategic or economic advantage especially if the country has shown weakness.
I think any chance of an independent Scotland, died with the SNP and the corrupt poisonous dwarf. We are stronger united!
Bravo here here
I’d like to have Sturgeon somewhere in my distant family. You’d get a new RV worth £80k wasn’t it?
Sorry it wasn’t an RV it was an SNP campaign vehicle. Given to that famous SNP campaign vehicle driver….the mother in law.😂🤣😂🤣😂
Yet again articles and statements made by SNP and other commentators made avoiding the facts and accepting misleading statements at face value. You cannot be a member of NATO and object to nuclear or conventional weapons being placed on your territory. FACT. The same as the UK could not have it’s own immigration policy and remain in the EU for instance. ( Bad example, I know) You want to be in the club you have to accept the all the rules.
Norway refuses to have nuclear weapons on its soil (including harbours). But this issue doesn’t bear scrutiny in truth. On the ever occasion the S.N.P. has put this central plank of its entire political identity to the Scots to vote upon it lost.
Judge a man, in this case a country, by its deeds not it’s words, especially where politicians are concerned. Like the UK, Norway has not signed the TPNW. Not doing much for Norways non nuclear virtue signalling is it ? There is also a difference in stationing such weapons rather than them being on your soil if the balloon goes up.
I am sure the Ukranians are bitterly regretting the abandonmentof their Nukes. Had they retained them it is unlikely that Russia would have launched their disastrous invasion, so from this I would think that most Scots would want to keep their share in the UK’s Nuclear deterrent. There simply is no alternative. Sadly, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle NEVER to be returned therein! With countries such as Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, China etc having these horrific weapons it is unthinkable for the core of the Wests nuclear capable countries-the USA, France and Britain to ever consider abandoning… Read more »
I doubt that the Ukes had the ability to maintain those weapons.
Or the launch codes.
Those weapons were as much Ukrainian as the US B-61 in Germany are German. Or Dutch, Italian, Turkish, Belgian in their contries.
Cheer leader for an illegal invasion and rape of a people quibbles over ‘ownership’. You disgusting piece of work.
I wouldn’t be sure of that Johnski my little lying Ruskfascist Putinbot. You know, as well as I do, that at the end of cold war 1 (we are now in cold war/ Luke warm war 2), Ukraine held the 3rd or 4th largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world on it’s territory. Mostly battlefield short or intermediate range or cruise missile/ bomb versions. Some 2000 warheads. Not all of these weapons would Ukraine have held launch controls for but a decent number they did have and could have used. Ukraine was asked under nuclear proliferation concerns to give… Read more »
Entirely agree that the Scottish question is academic. Mankind has never not used a weapon (ignoring the fact that Japan may argue we already have).
Another academic point, specific to the above question, is that Scotland would remain in NATO and thus be covered by associated nuclear capabilities by default. Perhaps the SNP would like to debate any potential moral implications stemming from their position.
Good Morning Gavin. The SNP would almost certainly have a schizophrenic view on the morality of retaining Nukes by default😄-similar to Nicola Sturgeons views on new Oil fields in the North Sea!😉
There’s 🤔 – & then there’s political parties….
NATO suffers enough already having Turkey playing its games. NATO needs dependable members. Alternative bases can be created at an initial cost but will become reliable long term assets that NATO can depend on after being relocated to England or Wales. Leave the Scottish so called ‘nationalists’ to wallow in self-pity over their imagined persecution at the hands of the English as they ponder being ruled from Brussels, Mecca, Moscow or Beijing.
Westminster needs to make a twenty-year lease a condition of ‘agreement to hold a referendum.’ If this is not acceptable then Northern Europe’s security would be compromised. After Stugeong I’m sure the SNP would be softer on the nuclear issue and would be more accommodating towards a lease solution. When all is said and done an independent Scotland would still be physically inside the European catchment.
It is a difficult issue. Indulge a persons fantasies or disabuse them.
We need to remember Faslane Naval Base is the property of the British government as it existed before the Scottish government was a thing as the base was opened in 1940, being a product of the British Empire
Considering the national debt noose that the British would have over Scotland’s neck to be blunt, they might have to let the British keep the base as the British could bankrupt Scotland if it wanted to
Hi Knight. Just a note,-the British are those from Britain-English, Welsh and Scots included. I don’t believe the South Britons would actively seek to harm their North British cousins in the event of a split. Even Alex Salmond said the rump UK would remain Scotland’s best friends and closest neighbour in every respect.
Regards
Indeed, its just silly to pretend otherwise. Even if the whole of the UK went their separate ways, we would still be each other’s most important partners.
I’m not sure it would be an amicable divorce. A lot of the Southern British would be mighty peeved off after subsidising the whining Scots for decades and decades. Talking to some businessmen and financial markets experts there would be huge capital flows out of Scotland and a generalised “move it south”, “close it down”, “move it out of Scotland” drive the very second Scotland voted for independence. Of course the initial impact to the Southern British would be significant but longer term it is Scotland most definitely that will be requiring an IMF bail out within 5-10 years. The… Read more »
SNP living in a bubble, same as usual. So there’s this guy called Mad Vlad who is in charge of the 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the world, Russia’s. He has already threatened Armageddon on the UK several times and the SNP think a disruption to one of NATOs 3 nuclear armed deterrent forces is a viable and sensible decision at this time. The UK government should just decline all rights to any concept of another “once in a generation” referendum for at least another 20 years or so. Scotland agreed to the last once in a generation referendum and… Read more »
Scottish inependance is up to Scotland. They voted against it last time in a once in a generation vote. I doubt very much another vote will happen within 10 years, let alone 5. What is important is wise & careful treatment of Scotland by Westminster to keep the majority happy in the UK. An independent Scotland would lose massively from the loss of RN shipbuilding that is concentrated ther plus all the UK bases there. Could Northern Ireland become a nuclear sub base if Faslane was lost? I hope & would expect in the unlikely event of either an independent… Read more »
OT I see PRC has now backed Argentine claims to the Falklands.
Blatant and shameless opportunists.
Has Argentina by any chance just replied that they support Taiwan ( a country of 27 million free and democratically run citizens) being subsumed by China?
Or are they getting a Chinese road and rail building loan in exchange for fishing rights, food discounts and military bases in Argentina?
As far as I can find out Argentina either does not support Taiwans independance, or is too scared of the PRC to express any opinion. They are well emeshed in China’s Belt & Road program. PRC offering much investment with massive strings attached(which is the whole point of it). PRC offering deals on military kit too including fighter jets & warships.
The have engaged & sunk Chinese fishing vessels illegally fishing in their waters inthe past decade though.
There’s little to no chance that the U.K. would consider building such a strategic facility in NI if Scotland went Independent, hell NIs place within the U.K. is just as questionable in the mid to long term.
rumour has it that tho’ the 4 Russian airforces have no objection to taking over the the East Anglian Triangle, & the red army likes the look of Catterick the Russian Navy wouldrefuse to abandon the relative comfort of Severomorsk & occupy Faslane. Thus the Clyde base is a real Force \For Peace.