Research by YouGov for The Times found that 45 per cent of people in Scotland are in favour of keeping the nuclear-armed submarines in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, with 34 per cent opposed and 21 per cent undecided.

YouGov interviewed 1,115 adults aged 16 and over in Scotland between May 18 and 23.

What was asked?

If Scotland became an independent country, would you support or oppose Trident nuclear submarines continuing to be based in Scotland?

Support – 45%
Oppose – 34%
Don’t know – 21%

According to the research, SNP voters were least likely to support retaining Trident after independence, with 28 per cent in favour of such a move and 55 per cent opposed. There is slightly more support for the weapons in the wider independence movement, with 30 per cent of ‘yes’ voters in favour and 51 per cent against.

If Scotland became an independent country, would you support or oppose Scotland becoming a member of Nato?

Support – 73%
Oppose – 8%
Don’t know – 19%

The poll showed strong support for Nato, with 73 per cent in favour of an independent Scotland joining, 8 per cent against and 19 per cent unsure.

You can read more on this here.

A second poll?

Yes, earlier in the month a new poll from Survation 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.

Majority of Scots back keeping Trident according to poll

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.

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
64 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jon
Jon
1 month ago

The previous poll was commissioned by a Scottish Unionist group who may have had an axe to grind, so it’s interesting to see the results repeated. I doubt there’s much to choose between Scottish voters and the opinions of UK overall. Wasn’t slightly in favour the proportion at the last general election?

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Agree nuclear weapon support is much the same in Scotland as any where else in the UK. It’s in the SNP DNA from the time it was a fringe protest party and no one has ever wanted to get rid of it as they had no reason to.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago

What is interesting is that if Scotland did become independent and wanted to join nato it would need to have the UKs permission as any NATO member can veto any nation joining…not that the U.K. would Likely do this, but if an independent Scotland risked the U.K. deterrent, the U.K. may just play a bit hard ball back.

James
James
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

As Turkey are proving it may well indeed be difficult for any nation let alone Scotland to join.

Naturally Erdogan will have ‘requirements’ for him to change his mind, once those are met then of course the ‘terrorists’ being kept nicely in Sweden and Finland will no longer be of any concern to him.

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

A very senior US diplomat has been quoted on a number of occasions as saying that the US would categorically block an independent Scotland’s bid to join NATO if they required that the rUK removed Trident from Scottish territory, as that would starkly contrast with the fact that NATO is a nuclear alliance. Something the SNP refuse to acknowledge. They are far too busy frothing at the mouth over horrible little England to actually consider real world practicalities. If they did consider any real world practicalities, and I mean genuinely consider them, then for me the independence argument doesn’t really… Read more »

James
James
1 month ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

Its what one would call a fantasy.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

What they say and what they do will be very different things, that’s polictics for you.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

Oh no a US official mouthing off about something that has nothing to do with him as it is his personal opinion not policy. Maybe he should put his efforts into gun control or one of the other many issues in his own country first. I say this as my personal opinion not policy. Good thing is the SNP do not represent all of the Scottish people. So when you look at roughly half want to stay, half want to go the solution should be a looser grouping to the U.K. leaving the eu was the same. A close vote… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Completely agree monkey, I do think the Union will need a constitutional review at some point. More and more we have a national government of London ( we see that very much in the NHS where we are asked in the rural extremities of the county to implement things that can only really work in the massively better funded NHS London). I think we are going to need a more federal model going forward, it’s world for Germany and the US. With a Parliament for each nation running stuff like tax collection, eduction, health. Law and order Then regional level… Read more »

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

That’s nonsense, the UK would be far more interested in Scotland being in NATO than Scotland would be in joining.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

It’s not nonsense Martin, read what I said: it’s a factual explanation of the mechanisms of a nation join NATO. I did not say the U.K. would block Scotland jointing ( infact I said the would not be likely do so…but you cannot ever say never in the geopolitics of nations, only a fool would say there was certainty). Don’t tell people thy are speaking nonsense without out actually considering what the have said.

Andy P
Andy P
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Don’t tell people thy are speaking nonsense without out actually considering what the have said.”

I’m not sure that’s how the internet works mate. 🙁

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

How can an independent Scotland risk the rUK deterrent? By definition it wouldn’t be a UK as it currently stand, and would rUK want to house its deterrent in a ‘foreign’ country? Even if we are more than happy to buy in foreign weapons as long as they aren’t capital Navy ships. And of course we don’t actually own the missiles anyway, only the launch platforms an warheads.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Simple really the cost of the infrastructure work to create a new base would likely mean the end of the U.K. deterrent and it’s name would still be the U.K. not U.K.r that’s something made up by nationalists. We do own the missiles they are simply pooled for the purpose of maintaining them. It’s sort of like shared equity…with the US owning most of the equity in the stock…….so if we don’t own our missiles neither does the US.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Why would it mean the end, rUK going in a huff? Relocated to somewhere else is not an issue, a few docks and that is it. As for the weapon storage there are plenty of places where the warheads could go instead of within fallout range of the Scottish Central Belt and would also shorten the travel distances to where they go for refurbishment. rUK is shorthand to compare with the current. Actually pedantically it could remain as UK, as that refers to the union of the crowns – kingdom! Given the woeful state of governance in current UK it… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

my understanding is would be a huge undertaking to move to the facilities and it simply with the new boats be a cost that was not something that could be managed. I do understand what rUK is, it’s just not actually a term. The term is U.K. is U.K. with Scotland as part of it and it will be the U.K. if Scotland leaves it.

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago

One startling outcome from the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been the direct threat of using nukes against the West. No subtlety or acknowledgment that they would get the same back, just blunt warnings! As long as the kremlin continues with that mindset we stay with our deterrent.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

The Genie is out the bottle now…North Korea et al will now use nuclear blackmal as part of their international negotiations.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

It is a poor game to play. If you don’t have nukes I can’t see a nuclear country firing them at a non nuclear country unless you are beating them conventionally and invading there territory. If you do have nukes and an enemy fire them at you, you return fire and both countries die.
What ever way you look at it everyone loses. Nobody wins so is it even worth having them outside of the USA and Russia, china

Last edited 1 month ago by Monkey spanker
Dave G
Dave G
30 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

In would say it is important NATO has at least 1 member other than the US with an independent nuke capability, even if small, to ensure article 5 is as robust and credible as possible. This gives a degree of redundancy to the alliances ability to respond in the face of a political, personal or technical barrier to a timely US response.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Which is probably why more people are happy to retain Trident, though the reduction in conventional forces to accommodate funding for the replacement boats is not necessarily the best option. All that is achieving is a means of saying we will nuke you back but otherwise cannot stop you conventionally.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago

I doubt many adults would want nuclear weapons but how to get rid of them? Like Ernest Bevan said ‘If they’ve got one, I want one with a bloody great Union Jack on it!’

Last edited 1 month ago by Barry Larking
Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

Barry nobody wants to fire nuclear wepaons but they are actively used every day as a deterent and have kept the peace (just) in Europe and North America since WW2 ironically giving the world the lowest death rate from war in recorded history. Paying billions to have nuclear weapons bobbing up and down in the oceans harming nobody has thus far been the best investment humanity has made for a long while.Maybe one day all nations will be at permanant peace and we can consider the options until then the grown ups will demand we continue as we are …

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark B

That will be the number one reason I can think of. It stops conventional war between countries that have them. Or that’s what it’s meant to do.
Would those countries have fought if neither held nuclear weapons we will never know. Unless there is a parallel universe without nukes on our timeline that we can visit

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Good point. Several observers would argue that, especially during the cold war, the east and west were engaged in various proxy wars around the globe. Each location carefully chosen such that nuclear war was highly unlikely regardless of the outcome. There were two conventional (world) wars during the first half of the twentieth century so you coulkd argue we might be on WW5 by now – but as you say we will never know.😀

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark B

Thank you. I know. I am old and know things.

john
john
1 month ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

Everybody from north Korea to Iran knows that those without nukes get pushed around by those that do. The nuclear disarmament camp has two types of people. First ridiculous airheads who actually believe that if we all just wish hard enough then reality itself will change (this sort of thinking is alarmingly common) and actual traitors.

Angus
Angus
1 month ago

Keeps the free World Free and cheaper than having massive standing conventional forces. Scots also know it means a lot of money to them too. They do have some common up North, except for that Witch in Edinburgh.
Note however the boats have 16 missile tubes with only 8 currently filled (but you never actually know for sure) with up to 8 separate weapons per missile, so a lot bigger bang than the previous class and enough to give others second thoughts

James
James
1 month ago

I do love a survey, we asked 0.0002% of the population what they thought and these are the results which then make it into headlines.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  James

Also without any background info on how the people were choosen etc. It’s easy to get poll results you want by adjusting the questions before the key one to guide the person into a specific answer or by choosing who you poll carefully.

grizzler
grizzler
1 month ago

Surely the same poll shoud have asked if thery support independance first …

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
1 month ago

I think the success of the SNP is because Labour, the conservatives and Liberals are not holding them to account. I think you will likely see a drop in the vote for the SNP over the decade as they become more and more extreme left wing. This is likely to turn off the average Scot eventually. I think the vote for the SNP is high as they have been exceptionally good at screwing the rest of the UK out of cash. I always thought both Labour and the conservatives should have just given Scotland the same cash as everyone else… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

With the exception of a handful of newspapers the SNP has a free hand in Scotland. TV and radio are up the SNP’s arse. I don’t know enough to say why but that’s how it is.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago

45% said they support it, how is that most? You can’t ignore the undecideds.

All you can say from the survey is in respect of the people with an opinion either way, more people support keeping it than not.

bill masen
bill masen
1 month ago

I doubt our boomers would remain in Scotland if they voted to leave the UK, and rightly so. You dont have your greatest and most expensive detterent parked up in a FOREIGN country. Especially a country that has quite a high level of Anglophobia on a good day. National security would dictate the moving of the subs to UK bases, and quite likely the removal of Scots sailors from the subs.

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  bill masen

Don’t be so sure Bill, I detect the SNP have actually peaked in popularity, the situation in the Ukraine has made many really think seriously about the greater Scottish question.

Scottish Labour appears to be starting to make back some lost ground, having been all but wiped out north of the border too.

Interesting to know what our Scottish contributors think?

Wolf
Wolf
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

Personally, if independence was to happen I wouldn’t really think they should be based here in Scotland. Not because I’m against Trident or anything of the sort but just because I don’t think it would be fair on the rest of the UK for it’s nuclear deterrent, at the heart of the UKs national security to be based in a foreign country as Bill said.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  bill masen

Wanting to move them south and being able to are different things. Firstly there is cost of building a new base Vs using existing. Then there is time required to actually build it and finaly and most key you need to find somewhere where it won’t be constantly blocked by the local council. No one wants nukes in their back yard

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve
Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

As a Scottish person I am in the fence for independence just now. Last time I voted yes as the more I got told it won’t work, Scotland can’t manage without England chucking cash at it, I thought f*** you then. We will manage and make you eat those words. After more time to think I do value the U.K. but the opinion of what I can assume are English in here with terrible comments like the Scottish are some lower class citizens. The SNP (along with MSP’s from other parties) have brought policies that make a difference to life… Read more »

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

You’re not alone, the SNP knows a win isn’t currently guaranteed and that is why they are trying to put off the vote, they say they have the mandate but aren’t calling one. They know full well if they lose it a second time there is zero chance of a third in their life time. They will wait until the time is right. I’m not sure the long term future of Scotland should be decided on a small margin and good timing, but I’m not Scottish and so none of my business.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

You are right it shouldn’t be decided by small margins. I would say 60% minimum to make such massive changes. I would of said the same for brexit as well. I think the current system as the best just now and unless the rest of the U.K. went really off the current track I think it should stay that way. Most people I see also think the same. What people seem not realise is that who ever is in the Scottish parliament gets the pleasure of blaming someone else when things go wrong and taking credit when they go right.… Read more »

Steve
Steve
30 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

It still is the position of the gov to blame the EU. Most of the issues we are having right now are because of the UK implementation of brexit, such as zero prep for border controls / immigration controls that are inappropriate for farming needs etc, but it’s all being blamed on the EU. Also the NI protocol is being blamed on the EU, even though NI ecomony is out performing the rest of the UK.

In the end it’s just polictics, always have someone else to blame. Look at the US with China.

Last edited 30 days ago by Steve
David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

The end of the Barnett formula for Scotland would free up £4bn a year every year for HMG.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Not really that simple, as there is the small question of the North sea oil to take into account. Also the £4b is the amount spent, and not the amount earned, Scotland is still a net contributor to the economy even after the formula.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Only on the basis of the SNP’s claims on Scotlands exclusive maritime zone. That is to put it mildly not widely shared outside SNP HQ.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

It will be brexit mark2, lots of fake claims and outright lies, plus stats being used out of context. I’m sure the SNP learnt from brexit. They just need to sort out their story on the currency this time, as that sunk the vote last time, or at least was the final nail.

The issue will always be that no one really knows what will happen in reality when it comes to the EU membership, national debt, NATO membership, natural resources etc. Anyone that says otherwise is either deluded or lying. I have a theory, but it’s only that.

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve
Stc
Stc
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

You are joking ? We are in trouble, most independent financial experts point out that Scotland debt is worse than Greece.If they are that successful why do the SNP refuse the subsidy in exchange for the full VAT ? It would clinch the financial argument amongst Scottish voters many who probably vote against independence with the heads rather than their hearts. So I challenge the SNP and their supporters to refuse the Barnett formula and clinch the argument. More chance of Putin winning the Nobel peace prize !

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

The debt question is awkward. Scotland didn’t run a deficit between 1979-2014. It put in more than it got back. One professor worked out the debt scotland owed is £106billion by adding up the extra pumped in to U.K. economy versus spending etc etc

Stc
Stc
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

The only thing the Scot do not get back is 50% of Vat. After you take into account Barnett it is nearer 8billion subsidy. That’s 2 extra aircraft carriers to you defence buffs every blinking year! Just think stop the subsidy and 5 years from now we could have more flat decks than the yanks! Cos we would be able to afford to fly kites only from them, but it’s food for thought.

nonsense
nonsense
1 month ago

I think that if it is a blind tax that does not know where it will go when it enters Scotland, it can turn northern England into a modernized industrial complex.

It is not normal for the government to extort huge sums of money every year from the threat of Scotland’s independence.

Seeing the gov being swayed by the idiots called SNP is enough to completely lose my respect for uk government.

Stc
Stc
1 month ago

Why would the UK agree to Scottish membership of NATO without continued use of Faslane to base Trident ? Where do these wokes get the idea our position should be anything other than that. Many seem to have been brainwashed on the idea that in the event of independence that 5 million people can dictate to the other 62 million what those terms of independence will be, it will not, if the PM wants to keep their job. Some think that Sturgeon does not really want independence, it’s just a way of keeping the SNP in power?

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

We are only one member of NATO though. Do we have a way a veto on new members? Would we really use it, considering the implications that would have polictically, with the new nation that we want to trade heavily with.

john
john
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

See Turkey making demands about Sweden and Finland to see what just one country can do if they feel like throwing spanners into works.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  john

Yeah but we are not realistically going to block them. Even if Scotland voted for independence, their will be too many economic and polictical ties between the two nations to not want to create a good diplomatic approach.

Plus internationally blocking them over trident basing, would just be seen as being petty.

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve
Stc
Stc
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

All NATO countries have a veto as you know. A nod to the yanks would all that would be needed. As for the trade I think they need us more than we need them. In fact ironically we would have initially more control over Scotland than we do now.

700 Glengarried men
700 Glengarried men
1 month ago

Faslane is the 2nd largest employer in Scotland with over 6k workers paying tax to the Scottish economy, this helps to provide the funding to Scotland expanded public service not to mention service families and service personnel using local shops pubs etc. If on Indy could Scotland afford to cut this and the other defence related including supply chain jobs.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago

I think the SNP judges every issue on one thing. Does it make independence more or less likely. If they decide getting rid of Trident would make it more likely those 6.000 workers are ‘flipped’

Mac
Mac
1 month ago

Of course the biggest lie about all of this is the one told to the SNP cult members that Trident would go, when it would actually be the first thing to stay.

Faslane is the one & only bit of leverage the SNP would have with the rUK in any break-up negotiations.

Keeping Trident will be the first (of many) big betrayal’s of its core voters, once the cold hard realities of needing money, post Barnett, to keep the lights on and paying pensions.

Jay R
Jay R
1 month ago

Who gives a crap. If every scot was against trident, it would make no difference. England would defend Scotland no matter what, just like we do the rest of the English Empire: Ukraine, Wales, Northern Ireland, Finland and Sweden.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

And Scotland just like wales would be standing agreeing and supporting as we all share common values.

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Nick Cole
Nick Cole
1 month ago

45% is not most! If you exclude the don’t knows then clearly there is a majority, but how does anyone know that the don’t knows wouldn’t support one side or the other. Mathematically it should be written that there were more supporters than opposers. That is the only true interpretation of the stats. But there again our political system is skewed statistically anyway. More people didn’t vote for the Tories at the GE than did; a quirk of the unequal size of constituences, yet this is taken by them as carte blanche to do what they like, the minority dictating… Read more »

Graeme
Graeme
29 days ago

I started supporting the SNP a few years ago as flet Scottish Labour were just a nodding dog for the Westminster version. Yes the SNP has done lots of good things in Scotland but there is always room for improvement. Since Brexit I have always felt that the Scottish Conservatives would probably do even better in an independent Scotland. Anyway, back to Trident. If there was independence the first thing that should be done is to call an election and all parties could present their defence policies. I am not against Scotland having its own Nuke capability. A limited number… Read more »

Dc647
Dc647
29 days ago

So if Scotland does become independent the UK government is willing to prop up the SNP government with billions in MOD money. I would rather they spent billions making a new base for trident south of the Scottish border especially with the SNPs anti nuclear policy. To much of a risk that a foreign government hold the UK trident hostage by denying access to the base. When I say a foreign government I mean a SNP government.