The Scottish Greens are wasting your time on Trident

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.