Nat Myth No.5: Everything they say about Trident

Faslane is home to a number of submarines, a bit like the Beatles’ happy yellow one except armed with Trident missiles.

The base – commonly referred to collectively as Trident – is Scotland’s largest single employer and contributes £270million a year to the local economy. It provides 6,700 military and civilian jobs and 11,000 positions are indirectly reliant on it. 

But Trident isn’t there just to look mean. It’s there as a deterrent. It’s there to protect us, not to harm us. It’s like having our own big badass-looking bouncer warning the super villains of the world not to pick a fight.

Why can't all submarines look like this?

Despite it being a massive “fuck off” to would-be attackers, the Nationalists - not content with destroying the soul of Scotland through separation - want to axe Trident.

It’s worth noting that ridding Scotland of these weapons is not as simple as just chucking them over the border (and even if it was, nuclear fallout has never, as far as we know, stopped at national borders and pulled out a passport).

A report by the by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said that moving Trident nuclear submarines out of a separate Scotland would be “very difficult”.

Furthermore, Little Britannia’s very own uncle – now retired – was very high up in the Ministry of Defence and was based for many years at Faslane (we still don’t really know exactly what he did, but never mind). He gave us his expert opinion when we asked if Trident could be relocated: “NO.” That was the end of that conversation.

Let’s just assume that Trident was able to be given its marching orders. The chances are that it would be moved only as far as Barrow in Furness, meaning you could almost stand at the border and give it a friendly wave if you wanted to.

Before we go any further, Little Britannia wants to make it clear that we agree nuclear weapons are not nice. Like most people, they’re not exactly our cup of tea but we do think: would it not be better to have Trident and not need it, than to not have it and need it?

“Oh no, but it’s dangerous,” you’ll hear the Nats cry. The thing is, a nuclear missile cannot go off unless it is armed - and what most folk don't realise is that Trident's weapons are not armed. It’s like that tough kid at school who acts all hard then cries when he forgets his lunch. In terms of being a threat to us, it might as well be a giant cabbage.

When Little Britannia was Little Little Britannia, we had a Super Soaker 2000, the mother of all water-guns. We mostly used it to terrorise the neighbour’s cat. But while it might have made us feel like Rambo, unless it was filled up with water, it was about as threatening to Tiddles next door as a toothbrush in a sword fight.

It’s mind-boggling that the Nationalists use “the dangerous nukes” as a campaign ploy, especially when you consider this: the SNP have agreed with the US to allow American nuclear subs to sail up the Clyde and park in Faslane in a separate Scotland. Don’t believe us? Have a wee swatch at Chapter 7 of The White Paper.

We’re also a bit miffed as to why the apparently anti-nuclear Yes campaign seem completely unfazed by the many radioactive facilities we have around the country - especially when you consider that if a nuclear power station suffered a meltdown, we’d all be toast.  

Scotland has two nuclear power plants (Hunterston and Torness) and one research reactor (Dounreay). Although the risk of one of these exploding is pretty tiny, if they did then the outcome would be cataclysmic (think of Chernobyl and Fukushima). Even more to the point though, disaster is much more likely to strike at a nuclear power plant than from a weapon that isn’t even loaded. 

Why don’t the Nationalists preach about these potentially catastrophic nuclear facilities instead? Whatever their reasons, it seems that the Nats are just as bad as – and in many ways, are worse than - the Westminster politicians they so often berate.

As for the Nats’ argument that Scotland is Westminster’s "nuclear dumping ground,” that could not be more ridiculous.  Nuclear weapons are UK-wide, not just in Scotland. In fact, the majority of the UK’s nuclear arsenal is in England, so the Nats’ bold claim that Scotland is some kind of radioactive rubbish chute is pure fantasy.

Faslane was chosen as one of the UK's nuclear submarine locations during the height of the Cold War – the West’s long dispute with Russia and the inspiration for loads of awesome spy movies. The base’s secluded position at the entrance to the sea and the fact that it's deep enough to house its very own Nessie made it the perfect geographical location for stealth and safety.

Where it lies allows for quick, sneaky access through the North Channel to the sub-patrolling areas in the North Atlantic - the so-called GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, UK) gap to the Norwegian Sea.  

Quite possibly one of the silliest things we’ve heard about Trident has come from the wee mouth of Nicola Sturgeon (we see her so often we’re beginning to think she actually lives inside our TV). When asked what would happen to the thousands of Faslane workers in the event of relocation, the Deputy First Minister – on several occasions – has stated that they would still be employed.

So is there going to be some kind of naval-base-themed amusement park with all these people employed as actors? A sort of Faslane museum about ‘Scotland’s nuclear past’? No. According to the Nationalist Government, the deserted site will become the base for a separate Scotland’s defence force; hence, the workers of Faslane will nicely fall into the new jobs created.

This is mind-boggling. According to this logic, if someone works in the MoD, they can turn their hand to anything defence-related.

When Little Britannia was a struggling student, we had a part-time job selling double glazing. But just because we could sell windows, didn’t mean we could fit them. Or make them for that matter.

Transferring the workers of Faslane into brand new defence-related jobs would be like hiring a plasterer to do a joiner’s job because they both work in the building trade.

Perhaps the most obvious thing to consider is that nuclear weapons exist and ridding Scotland of them will not make them magically disappear from the rest of the world.

From the moment Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman discovered nuclear fission, the technology to develop weapons of mass destruction has been in our hands (unfortunately not always the best hands, mind).

Scotland can’t ignore this fact by sticking its fingers in its ears and legging it. We cannot un-discover atomic bombs so would it not be more logical to use our global influence and power as a strong United Kingdom to help rid the world of these weapons instead?