Politics and nuclear weapons are indivisible. Ever since supporters of CND took to the streets in the 1950s, the campaign for disarmament has defined and emphasised divisions between left and right. The Faslane protests in Scotland were what briefly gave the Scottish Socialist party momentum. Opposition to Trident has boosted Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign for the Labour leadership. It remains one of the most instantly recognisable emblems of the Scottish National party.
Thus, when George Osborne announced more than £500 million of contracts for the Royal Navy’s submarine base at Faslane, he was fully aware that he was making a political statement that would enrage the SNP. Coming before a parliamentary debate on whether and how to replace Trident, it is tantamount to telling the Nationalists that their views count for little when it comes to the defence of the realm, and that the UK government will press ahead regardless, under the umbrella of maintaining that it is all in the interests of national security.
Nicola Sturgeon’s response, therefore, that the chancellor’s announcement is “arrogant” has some force. It sends out a signal to the Scots that he is calling the shots, and in doing so reinforcing his image as the voice of Tory detachment at Westminster. There is little doubt in anyone’s mind that, despite the promise of a debate on Trident’s future, the government will continue to back a replacement, and the Tory front bench will argue no doubt that now of all times, with President Putin flexing his muscles, and the Middle East in ferment, is not a good occasion on which to send out a message that Britain is softening on its defence commitments.
There is, too, the fact that this is a big commitment to the Scottish economy, with 6,700 jobs in the defence industry secured, and thousands more in prospect. For those who are already employed and those likely to secure new jobs, this is a massive boost in confidence. Meanwhile, sitting 40 miles across on Scotland’s east coast are two aircraft carriers under construction, which themselves have given employment to 10,0000 workers. It is legitimate to challenge the SNP to reveal where, under their proposals, such jobs and such contracts would be delivered. The reality is that most of them, in the event of Scotland becoming independent, would be lost. Ms Sturgeon may — and indeed does — argue that Faslane would be continued for conventional defence, but the loss of Trident would be a blow to employment.
This then, is harsh pragmatism, as well as political jousting. Mr Osborne will have calculated that there is nothing much to be lost by coming out with a strong government commitment to the defence industry and Scottish jobs. With the conference season almost here, there will be more of this.
Advertisement
Sensitivity has never been Mr Osborne’s strong point. He will be happy at being able to stand up on Scottish soil and make the point that he and his party are in charge of the United Kingdom as presently constituted, rather than any more flexible system that may emerge. That is the message from yesterday’s announcement, and it is one that the SNP may grow weary of hearing.
It is a year since the prime minister, relieved at having survived a Scottish vote for independence, announced wide-ranging though unquantified further devolution of powers to Edinburgh while also insisting on English votes for English laws. Nothing concrete has yet emerged from that commitment. This apparent nonchalance is in danger of lending credibility to SNP contentions of neglect by Westminster; it also risks alienating those who did not vote for independence but who trusted that the government’s promises during the campaign would be honoured. Mr Osborne’s investment in Faslane is welcome; his government must also deliver on last year’s promises.