OpinionOp-Ed
Op-Ed

A vote for Scotland's independence could reverberate through NATO

CommentaryOpinionBritainDefenseMilitary EquipmentScotlandPolitics
Scottish independence could spell the end of Britain's nuclear forces

Novelist and longtime Scotland resident J.K. Rowling did not mention national security issues when she recently donated 1 million pounds ($1.71 million) to the Better Together Campaign, which wants Scottish voters to reject the independence option in the Sept. 18 referendum. Rowling — creator of Harry Potter and Hogwarts School of Witchcraft — did emphasize the economic downsides of a divorce from the rest of the United Kingdom. But if her funds and celebrity status help "no" voters carry the day, she will share the credit for a real-life geo-strategic feat: saving Britain's nuclear deterrent.

The pro-independence leaders of the ruling Scottish National Party have pledged to terminate arrangements, dating from the 1960s, for basing British ballistic missile submarines and their nuclear warheads at Faslane and Coulport on Scotland's west coast. In June, they unveiled an interim constitution that would obligate a newly independent Scottish government to "pursue negotiations with a view to securing nuclear disarmament … and the safe and expeditious removal from the territory of Scotland of nuclear weapons based there." The proposed constitution does not specify a deadline, but if the referendum passes, the nationalists hope to see the submarines and warheads removed by 2020.

At the same time, the British government's case for replacing, beginning in 2028, the aging force of four Vanguard-class submarines (which carry U.S.-built Trident missiles) with a "like-for-like" fleet of four new boats has scored political gains over the last year.

In July 2013, the British Cabinet Office published its assessment of potential alternatives to the "like-for-like" plan. These include building only two or three submarines, replacing some or all of the Trident systems with yet-to-be developed nuclear-armed and stealthy cruise missiles, and abandoning the Royal Navy's "continuous at sea deterrence" posture, which requires one sub to be on patrol at all times.

Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, had insisted on the study, claiming that nuclear cutbacks would save money and that ending the continuous patrols (a "hangover from the Cold War," according to one Liberal Democrat leader) would speed progress toward disarmament.

But the assessment found that none of those alternatives offered the overall deterrence and operational advantages of the "like-for-like" approach. Moreover, some would cost more than the roughly $34-billion life-cycle price of the "like-for-like" plan.

And this month, an independent experts commission, including prominent figures linked to the coalition parties and the Labor opposition, concluded unanimously that Britain should retain and deploy a nuclear arsenal. According to the commission's report, "We cannot expect the United States to shoulder indefinitely the awesome responsibilities that lie in providing extended nuclear deterrence to Europe, particularly if the United Kingdom were to abandon its own nuclear force." Ironically, the commission had been assembled by BASIC, a small but influential British-American think tank whose stated goal is a nuclear weapon-free world.

The debate over the successor deterrent remains unsettled and might flare up during Britain's parliamentary elections campaign next spring. Even within the country's defense community, some argue that funds would be better spent for conventional military capabilities. Ultimately, the next government would decide, in 2016, how many new subs to buy.

However, if Scottish voters opt for independence, that picture will change radically. A defense ministry report to Parliament warns that any other arrangement for basing the deterrent force would involve "huge" costs. George Robertson, a former British defense minister and NATO secretary general, believes the costs of moving the nuclear force out of Scotland could be prohibitive. "Effectively, it might mean the unilateral nuclear disarming of the remainder of the United Kingdom," he told a Washington audience in April.

That would be a tough blow for Britain's two nuclear allies and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a whole.

For decades, the special nuclear relationship between the United States and Britain, underpinned by their 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement, has ensured that their respective strategies, weapons systems and operational concepts are well coordinated and mutually supportive. As is the case in the United States with the president, only the prime minister can authorize the use of his nation's nuclear forces. This complicates the planning of any potential aggressor, strengthening NATO's deterrence and collective defense pillars. The two governments also work very closely on sensitive nuclear proliferation issues, including Iran.

British-French nuclear cooperation is more recent and restricted. Under the 2010 Lancaster House treaty, the countries share two laboratories related to nuclear weapons safety and reliability. Yet, beyond the cost savings of such arrangements, the French have a strategic stake in keeping Britain in the nuclear weapons business. As retired Gen. Henri Bentegeat, a former chief of defense, told French Parliament members in April, "By helping the British … we are also protecting our own nuclear deterrent. Imagine the intense pressures that France would confront if they were forced to abandon their deterrent."

But for now, there's little that Washington or Paris can do to help London keep Scotland in the fold. President Obama's mention last month of America's "deep interest" in Britain remaining a "strong, robust, united, and effective partner" was an implicit rebuke to Scottish independence leaders. Recent opinion polls show a lead for the "no" vote, but a significant number of likely voters are undecided. And as the Economist notes, the nationalists "have fire in their bellies." Hence, louder expressions of concern by American or French officials may be counterproductive.

If the nationalists in Scotland win, however, British, American and French strategists will need all the wizardry they can muster.

Leo Michel is a research fellow at the National Defense University in Washington. These are his personal views.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
CommentaryOpinionBritainDefenseMilitary EquipmentScotlandPolitics
  • Kurdistan, Scotland and Catalonia: They just want to be free, or do they?
    Kurdistan, Scotland and Catalonia: They just want to be free, or do they?

    Massoud Barzani, president of Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdistan region, rattled many cages this month when he announced in parliament that the KRG would be moving ahead soon on a referendum on independence from Iraq. If Kurdistan goes ahead with such a vote, it would be joining two other...

  • LAUSD's students need better libraries, not iPads
    LAUSD's students need better libraries, not iPads

    Like Supt. John Deasy and others in the Los Angeles Unified School District, I am concerned about the educational civil rights of the district's students. While the iPad-for-every-student controversy has gotten much media coverage lately, a long-term problem has gotten very little...

  • L.A.'s rush-hour construction ban is costing taxpayers millions
    L.A.'s rush-hour construction ban is costing taxpayers millions

    Soon after taking office in 2005, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signed an executive order banning construction by "any city department or agency on major roads" during the morning and evening rush hour. It was a popular move, intended to reduce traffic delays and "improve our...

  • Will Scotland choose independence?
    Will Scotland choose independence?

    Voters in Scotland this week could end their country's 300-year-old union with England. That possibility perplexes not only many Britons but also President Obama, the leader of a country that chose to "dissolve the political bands" with England in 1776. In June, Obama said that...

  • A higher minimum wage makes sense for L.A., but it's no cure-all
    A higher minimum wage makes sense for L.A., but it's no cure-all

    Hardly a week goes by without some new study, quarterly report or economic forecast proclaiming the same troubling news — a combination of stagnant, low wages and a high cost of living has left far too many Angelenos struggling to make ends meet. About 25% of families with children in...

  • Football: Unsafe at any level
    Football: Unsafe at any level

    In 1893, Theodore Roosevelt published an article in defense of college football. As player injuries mounted, some critics had called for a ban on the game. Nonsense, the future president wrote. "It is mere unmanly folly to try to do away with the sport because the risk exists."...

  • The nuns on the bus have a new issue
    The nuns on the bus have a new issue

    This week, Republicans in the Senate blocked a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, a measure that would have fallen far short of the required two-thirds majority even if there had been a final vote. But fear not. The campaign...

  • Measles is back: a mother's warning
    Measles is back: a mother's warning

    I know that parents worry about whether vaccines are safe for their children. But they should also consider the dangers of not vaccinating, which is why I'm telling my family's story.

Comments
Loading