A disagreement over defence innovation and reliance on US technology surfaced in the House of Commons during Defence questions.
SNP MP Dave Doogan argued that what he described as an “America-first posture†is harming UK defence innovation, particularly in relation to the nuclear deterrent. He said the system relies heavily on US technology, citing components including “fusing, firing, arming, neutron initiators, the gas transfer system and the Mark 4 aeroshell.†Doogan also criticised plans to buy additional F-35 aircraft for what he characterised as “US-manufactured gravity-delivered nuclear weapons.â€
He questioned why the government appeared aligned with US priorities while, in his view, overlooking European initiatives. “President Trump will put America first, but it is difficult to understand why this Labour Government seem keen to do the same, while spurning the innovation opportunity of the £130 billion SAFE programme in the EU,†Doogan told the House.
Defence Minister Luke Pollard rejected the criticism and shifted the focus to defence investment and employment in Scotland. He said the government is increasing spending north of the border and supporting domestic industry. “We have rising defence spending in Scotland and more jobs in Scotland,†Pollard said, adding that ministers were investing “more in British defence firms and more in Scottish defence firms.â€
Pollard pointed to what he described as new opportunities arising from defence-related initiatives, including “a new Scotland defence growth deal†and activity on the Clyde and at Rosyth. He dismissed the SNP’s concerns, saying: “We just hear moans from the SNP about no new jobs.â€
Wow ,SNP arguing for a fully independent nuclear deterrent and UK developed tactical nuclear weapons.
Sing me up.
I think it’s a pity that Pollard ignored the question, for once from the SNP it was actually quite a sensible one.
There should be an honest and serious discussion in government about to what extent our deterrence should be based on the US, especially in the realm of sub-strategic weapons.
Come back to the discussion with the dreadnought replacement. Were too far in to change out minds now
Wrt the strategic deterrent yes agree, but as far tactical weapons are concerned the whole F-35A / free fall nuclear bomb plan seems ludicrous. We should develop a sovereign stand off tactical nuclear capability or partner with the French. That would meaningfully increase deterrence.
I think the comments was on sub strategic deterrence and there is very good reason for the UK to develop a second part of the triad or even two parts of the triad as a sub strategic nuclear deterrent.
We don’t have a triad
That is why I said develop ðŸ‘
TJ,
The projected load out of F-35A, w/ internal carriage of two B61-12s per a/c, each equipped w/ tail kit, should be sufficient for currently envisioned scenarios. Longer term, UK will invest in the development of multiple delivery systems including F-35A (w/ Block 4 HW/SW integrated) and GCAP/Tempest (presumed dual capable), as well as a plethora of UK/ENATO/EU CMs and IRBMs. The timeline, as per usual, dependent upon MoD budget. The DIP should presumably provide guidance re systems acquisitions for the next decade. Unfortunately, the availability of coin of the realm is generally the final arbiter of programme viability.
Let’s see how genuine this SNP concern is.
Let’s take the £22nd to join the EU’s SAFE loan scheme out of next-years funding grant for the Scottish government…
This is the same SNP/Scottish Government who last year held up the development of a specialist welding training centre because said welding centre was connected to the defence industry? That SNP?
The same Scottish government paying Poland to build its ferries….