Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

For 45 years the word has been 'No'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 12 March 2007
NUCLEAR weapons, those instruments of Armageddon, were introduced to Scotland by the words: "Dear Harold". After all, the Cold War threat of mutually assured destruction was no reason to dispense with a little courtesy. So, on 27 October, 1960 president Eisenhower, wrote a charming letter to Harold Macmillan, the prime minister, thanking him for the generous use of the Holy Loch as an extension of US territory and a safe berth for nuclear bombs.
After an introduction that, but for the eagle crest on the headed notepaper, could have brought an invitation to tea, the president of the United States continued: "I am delighted that agreement has been reached on the proposed berthing facilities fo
r our Polaris tender in the Clyde area. I deeply appreciate your splendid co-operation in making a tender site available at Holy Loch which our Navy considers most satisfactory for their purpose."

The purpose, of course, was to slip as swiftly and conveniently as possible into the north Atlantic, which for the next 30 years became a silent battleground where US submarines played cat and mouse games with their Soviet counterparts at depths of 1,600 feet. The decision to hand over the Holy Loch to the Americans was in order to secure their agreement to sell the Polaris nuclear delivery system, which then allowed the Royal Navy to operate its own nuclear submarine fleet from neighbouring Faslane.

Yet the reaction of Scots to the news that their nation had now been painted red and sat at the heart of a bull's eye target at which Soviet inter-continental ballistic missiles were suddenly aimed, was a mixture of outraged opposition and quiet acquiescence. If the majority of Scots simply shrugged their shoulders, a small but motivated minority created a blueprint of direct action that future generations in distant nations would then follow.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) was formed in 1958 in protest at Britain's nuclear testing and was inspired by essays written by Bertrand Russell and JB Priestly on the immorality of such destructive weapons.

The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (SCND) immediately demanded the removal of nuclear deterrent from Scottish lochs and, together, with the highly motivated Direct Action Against Nuclear Weapons (DAC) decided to greet the arrival of the USS Proteus, the American's first nuclear submarine at Holy Loch, with a 1,000-strong march on the base from Dunoon.

Ten days later the group doubled their numbers to 2,000, while on 20 March a small group of protesters attempted to board US boats. The following day their target was the piers used by the submarine crews. It was the first in what would become a long tradition of direct political protest.

"The presence of nuclear weapons in Scotland was definitely a spark that helped the counter-culture here," said Professor Richard Findlay, author of Modern Scotland. "Scotland wasn't the capital of the Swinging Sixties, but this helped."

By comparison, the local business community in Dunoon welcomed the arrival of the American navy - even if a number of local lads were uncomfortable about the naval crew's competition for their girlfriends' affections.

In Scotland the protests against nuclear weapons united a disparate range of people including a strong Christian element. Not, however, strong enough for Roger Gray, an optician from Skye. In 1965 he wrote: "I have long been convinced that if the world Church, with its vast potential and its peculiar access to the power of the holy spirit had been in the vanguard of the peace movement, already the possibility of nuclear annihilation would be as almost remote as a return to cannibalism."

Yet the political consequence of housing nuclear weapons was mixed. According to Brian P Jamieson, who edited a collection of essays, Scotland and the Cold War, the absence of conflict in which the population was engaged allowed a great period of political thought. He wrote: "Without actual warfare, that binding force which rallied nations was partially eroded, thus allowing greater contemplation... the Cold War could be described as a period of self-reflection for Scotland."

Winnie Ewing, however, used the imminent deployment of British Polaris nuclear submarines to the Gare Loch, as a stick to beat off Labour and become the first SNP candidate elected as a Member of Parliament. The first Resolution class submarine went on patrol the following year on the 15 June, 1968, and not a single second has passed by since without a British nuclear submarine on active patrol in deep and, at times, distant waters.

It took the decision by Margaret Thatcher to purchase Trident as an eventual replacement for Polaris in 1980 to re-ignite the debate, swell the membership of SCND and lead to the creation of the Faslane Peace Camp, set up by Margaret and Bobby Harrison, veteran protesters, who first pitched their tent in June 1982.

As Mrs Harrison said on the 20th anniversary of the camp, which would grow to include campervans, and, at one point, had separate sections for anarchists and socialists : "It was magic at the beginning. There was just a handful of us. When we pitched the tent I had no plans to stay. I was 64 and wasn't tough enough to live in a tent with no water and a lot of midges, but Bobby, who was 67, was a much better camper."

The peace camp then became a rite of passage for a new generation of politicians. While George Galloway and Tommy Sheridan remained true to their CND roots and considered any visit to Faslane which did not end with their arrest and forcible removal while displaying a two-fingered peace sign to be a disappointment, others such as the First Minister Jack McConnell, who once marched with a banner which read: "Trident is Immoral" decided that, actually, it isn't.

It is today's acceptance of nuclear weapons that disturbs Kenneth McNeil, 81, a retired teacher, who first joined Scottish CND back in 1958 and marched on those inaugural protests in May, 1961. "Back then there was a genuine anxiety that we might all be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust, today nobody believes that. I don't understand why if we accept that chemical or biological weapons are unacceptable that nuclear weapons are. I'm frightened that we'll miss the opportunity to get rid of them, and that they'll be hanging around in Scotland for decades to come."

ALWAYS PREPARED


THE Trident system was bought by Margaret Thatcher's government as a replacement for the Polaris submarine system and, since the first Vanguard-class submarine went out on patrol in 1994, there has always been at least one submarine at sea with a payload of up to 16 Trident D5 missiles and 48 nuclear warheads.

There are three elements to the deterrent system:

• The submarines. Britain has four Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarines, capable of patrolling for up to three months at a time. They were designed with an operational life of 25 years, although the MoD says that can be extended for a further five years.

The first submarine in the class was launched in 1992 and falls due for replacement in 2022 - the second boat is due to retire in 2024. At that point, it will no longer be possible to maintain the continuous at-sea cycle of patrols unless there is a replacement in place. The MoD estimates a new submarine will take 17 years to design and build which is why it says decisions are needed now. The government is planning to acquire four new submarines, at a cost of £15 billion to £20 billion.

• The missiles. Britain has acquired 58 Trident D5 ballistic missiles from the US, having turned down the option to buy an additional seven. As a result of test-firings, it now holds fewer than 50 and ministers say they do not believe it will be necessary to procure any more. The government is planning to join a US life-extension programme for the missiles, which will keep them operational until the 2040s.

• The warheads. The nuclear warheads are designed and built at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, although they are thought to closely resemble the US design with which they share some common components. The MoD says no decision on replacing the warheads is needed until the 2020s. The government has promised to cut its stockpile by a fifth from about 200 to 160.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 March 2007 10:57 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Faslane , Nuclear defence
 
1

Bill, Dunblane,

12/03/2007 02:14:50

It's STILL no. But do you think that Tony will listen?

He's still got Iran to do before he leaves office - legacy you understand, a Prime Minister HAS to leave a legacy.

2

Big Wullie,

Glasgow 12/03/2007 03:16:54

Bill i dont want to nuke anyone like youself, Legacy you say, Iran.
What would you like to happen to Iran?
I am here to highlight my quest for Justice and you want to kill people Bill.
Who's thread Bill do you think people will welcome the most.
Were you ever in the forces or have any family in it Bill?? I did have family and still have family in our Forces Bill and most would not want another war with Iran.
Bill do you mean we should follow America or should we go alone. Please make your intentions more clearer and maybe Tony will listen to you eh?????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WhJUjhequ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_GPX41Yt9U
Bill If You Really dont want to read anymore of my threads then i would suggest you simply Don't

3

BillyB,

12/03/2007 07:29:38

Article misses point most relevant to scotland today. mcconnell, kerr, jaimison, curran, lamont, the whole lot of them were anti trident1. So why are they pro trident2? Because gordon says so is the straightforward answer. These people would kill their own grannies for power. At least thatcher and co believed in trident1. This shower will waste 30 billion just to protect their own careers. Let's get them out I'm may and stop and trident and Brown too.

4

Malky's Back,

12/03/2007 07:48:02

#3 asks "the whole lot of them were anti trident1. So why are they pro trident2? "

-becasue they're political careerists whose values and opinions are shaped by those to whom they answer......and it is not the electorate.

5

The Strategist,

12/03/2007 08:28:04

We cant' afford it.

6

conservative,

Fife 12/03/2007 08:56:50

The usual tiny minority of vocal against-everythingers.

Luckily noone will pay any attention, just as for the last 45 years or so.

Heard the howls of protest about Rosyth losing some of 'England's' maintenance and repair work lately? Double standards rule as usual.

7

Bill, Dunblane,

12/03/2007 09:25:36

7 -conservative

Read your post, then look in the mirror.

8

Douglas, Biggar,

Biggar , Lanarkshire 12/03/2007 09:42:39

I have been an aniti nuclear protester for several years and have been arrested at Faslane. Please join the year long protest at the base. Its called Faslane365 and over 500 protesters have been arrested so far but they have'nt been charged partly because the local court could not cope with that number and partly because of the publicity it would provide to the protest.
Nuclear weapons are immoral, disproportionate, and polluting- their use signifies the end of of our world, and most Scottish people don't want them either.
They were developed in secret and without a vote after WW2, and only the bravest of politicians today will vote against their renewal.

9

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 12/03/2007 09:54:42

STEPHEN MCGINTY
What ails you? Even it is NO from me and my friends here.
Tanzania needs no nukes. We do not know how to make them, use them keep them forget about dumping the waste. We are safe from nukes. It is the annoying corrupted LAW that acts like a nuke, you muse. No, state this. Honest Nuke is out we live with lies, maize, bread of yesterday, and sleep on the streets. Nuke? Too expensive. The radar contract for the airport was given to UK. Looks like the parliament of Mr. Blair and Barclays blew this. Out president is very kind. He says that the previous president who goofed is an innocent. He has left the office so no one should comment on this and the matter is in the hands of the Police who are all new. Nuke. No Not for us Thank you. We are peace-loving people. Whatever God gives we take and give this to the Tax dept and the police officers.

10

jim lad,

the capital 12/03/2007 10:27:51

#9 Douglas,Biggar
Good luck with your protest, you obviously believe in it but not me. Your post contains no facts only assumptions on your part but that does not detract from your honest beliefs and for that i respect you.

11

William King,

12/03/2007 10:44:53

Good for the NO brigade.... I loved the CND and there colourful speeches and even more spectacular demonstrations...... This time it will no doubts be the same people in the same clothes looking older but probably none the wiser.......

Nuclear weapons are immoral and indiscriminate and polluting whilst 'smart' bombs are deadly and capable of letting themselves into your house if you happen to be out.... I've never yet been introduced to a 'moral' weapon.... as for pollution - well if we're aw deid who cares

So get rid of trident and lets get back to the more discriminate and less polluting trench warfare - another WW1 anyone?

12

IWright,

Edinburgh 12/03/2007 11:05:59

The only way for no to MEAN no is to establish an independent Scotland. No unionist government is going to give up Trident and its successors.

13

toryheaven.blogspot.com,

Edinburgh 12/03/2007 11:26:05

The only way to guarantee Scotland will have as much clout in international affairs and in defending the safety of Europe and the World as Lichtenstein does is to give up Trident and (as #13 suggests) to establish an independent Scotland.

14

James M,

Scotland 12/03/2007 12:40:04

I would only support Trident or its successor if it was truly independent and under Scottish control in an independent Scotland that was free of the reigns of Europe or the USA. That would never happen financially or politically so the English can take it to Bristol, Portsmouth or some other southern base.

15

tomfrom66,

Blackpool, UK 12/03/2007 13:01:53

Your first two paras confirm, should that be needed, that the British 'independent' deterrent is no such thing, but a fig leaf - provided by America - with which to camouflage the fact that Britain's great power status vanished in March 1941.

Whatever Blair & Co may wish, it is not coming back, and throwing an unknown number of billions of pounds at Trident is not going to alter that fact.

16

bill-alba,

Fife 12/03/2007 13:33:15

Toryheaven.....We have even less power to influence than Lichtenstein has NOW while we are under the wonderful nuclear power of Westminster..
(or should I say the US)

17

ScotsLass58,

Red Ken's Toon 12/03/2007 15:31:29

As I understand it, most of Europe is nuclear weapon free, Australasia is Nuclear weapon free, Africa is ....N.W.F. and South America is ...N.W.F. Now then if ALL thes regions can live happily (relatively) together WITHOUT Nuclear Weapons WHY CAN'T WE? Surely there is only one answer to this never ending story.( Ooops there go the flying pigs again!) :) The answer is to get rid of Trident 1 and 2 when it comes along. Unfortunately for those readers who are anti Trident but pro Union this does create a bit of a quandry for you. Can I be so bold as to suggest that you vote SNP/Independence? I believe in so doing you maintain your anti Trident stance. Once Independence is achieved you can revert to your Labour/Tory/Liberal beliefs safe in the knowledge that Scotland is finally Nuclear Weapon free and we all can concentrate on what is right for Scotland and her people. Something that is most definetely NOT being considered from all those "jobsworths" in Westminster.Surely that is something worth fighting for?

18

James England,

12/03/2007 15:47:41

Nuclear free Eroupe or a nuclear world is nothing but a myth.those who believe there is a utopia simply believe in Santa Clause.

19

Danepiper,

12/03/2007 16:09:50

Starve in the dark in your special little Socialist Orwellian world......

20

morris,

Edinburgh 12/03/2007 20:17:29

19
Ye might get a wee surpise very soon lassie! If the opinion polls are anywhere near accurate the United Kingdom is already terminally in decline.
Even Glasgow is showing signs of abandoning Labour and voting SNP,I never thought they were capable of emerging from a one party status. Who knows what could happen now !

21

IWright,

Edinburgh, home of the North British Daily 12/03/2007 21:08:03

#14

In the Union Scotland has NO "clout in international affairs". Independent we could have more of an influence than you seem to realise. Other European countries of Scotland's size have made quite a difference, though not the headline grabbing military adventurist sort that GB goes in for.

22

The Wizard,

OZ 13/03/2007 02:20:03

Why would Scotland want Nuclear weapons?
It's a complete nonsense.
If a nuclear war starts then we can put our heads between our legs and kiss our bum's goodbye.
A few Nukes stationed in Scotland would have no effect other than to increase the fallout.
Aussie and NZ are nuclear free and most of us down here are happy about that.

Get rid of Blair and Bush, install people with a modicum of intelligence and start looking at ways to foster peace.

GIVE PEACE A CHANCE

23

fearghus,

Antipodes 13/03/2007 03:54:02

There are NO WINNERS in a nuclear war and the fact that Scotland is expendable in such a conflict is why so many nuclear targets are situated in your backyard not England's.

Remember the old BBC documentary called the War Game ? It was very controversial, as was the Scottish Director's other docu-drama on Culloden, the philosophy of the overlords in both situations was very similar.

I guess things really don't change when your a colony !

Vote Independence and shape your own Destiny !

24

why can't I use my own name???,

13/03/2007 09:01:56

'Vote Independence and shape your own Destiny !'

Agreed! And preferrably without the likes of post#7 !

25

The Wizard,

OZ 13/03/2007 10:46:23

Where are Bill, Robbie, Weeshooie etc.

I'm lonely

26

von-Scharnhorst,

Berlin-Preußen (ex Bathgate) 13/03/2007 12:04:18

"17. Eddie D,
Is Trident a truly UK only Nuclear deterrent, under what circumstances could the UK alone use it. We are more likely to be tied to any use of Nuclear weapons by the USA. Can we even fire it without US authorisation."
Has your question mark key been nuked ?????

27

von-Scharnhorst,

Berlin-Preußen (ex Bathgate) 13/03/2007 12:05:52

"26. fearghus, Antipodes
There are NO WINNERS in a nuclear war "
Dunno. I missed the last one. Had to go the dunny just before they launched.

Any evidence for that?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.