Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Experts attack Trident replacement as MoD faces a £9bn shortfall

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

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: 01 July 2009
THE government was yesterday forced to concede it faced "immense challenges" on defence spending after experts condemned plans to renew Trident as an unnecessary cost.
Defence Minister Bill Rammell said ministers remained committed to Trident but warned that it was under review.

In an apparent slap down of the government's policy, an ally of Gordon Brown's, Edinburgh South MP Nigel Griffiths, accused the Prime M
inister of "machismo".

Mr Griffiths said many Labour MPs opposed the renewal of Trident.

"I've got no doubt of the popularity on the back-benches and within the party (for scrapping Trident], and I believe we could carry the argument within the country," he said.

But he said that thanks to the Tory commitment to renewing it and concerns about the media coverage, this had become a "machismo issue" for Mr Brown.

"I happen to believe that's one of the reasons why we decided to invest in Trident," he said.

Defence spending is coming under increasing pressure and experts warn that the MoD could have a shortfall of around £9 billion.

Ministers are also facing calls to conduct a fresh strategic defence review so that the MoD can prioritise spending.

Lord Ashdown, who served on a panel for the Institute of Public Policy which produced a report warning the government to rethink Trident, said there was a £9 billion-a-year gap in the UK's defence budget.

"My personal view – not the commission's view – is that I can see no circumstances in which a rational review of Trident would lead you to the decision to replace Trident with Trident, but the decision is better taken in the context of a security review when you can look at the security situation and look at the options," he said.

He added that with the demise of western power, "we can no longer afford to maintain museum Cold War armaments".

Meanwhile, ministers also faced pressure over the Royal Navy's two planned new aircraft carriers after a former head of the armed forces questioned whether the country could still afford them.

Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank said that the two 65,000 tonne ships were "enormously expensive" and suggested that there were other, cheaper and more effective ways of delivering sea power.

His comments came after a leaked memorandum by the consortium building the ships disclosed that they were already running at £1 billion over budget – an increase of more than 25 per cent on the original estimated cost of £3.9 billion.





The full article contains 422 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 June 2009 9:17 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear defence
 
1

,

30/06/2009 23:22:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 01/07/2009 00:17:58
Trident is absolutely vital - we cannot sit by and allow tin pot nations like Iran and North Korea to threaten us. MAD has worked for some 60 years and kept world peace.
3

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 01/07/2009 00:48:29
And still the Hootsman seeks out a disgraced Labour MP.
4

Fletty73,

Stirling 01/07/2009 03:10:33
#3

Mikko - the world is not peaceful. Unless you watch the CBBC news?

Weapons of mass destruction when used achieve unimaginable indiscriminate mass murder.

The total obliteration of huge swathes of land.

Radioactive contamination of the air, ground and water for years to come.

Hordes of innocent babies, toddlers, women, men, elderly, everyone and every living thing will suffer horrific deaths.

Many miles from the target zone, thousands upon thousands of people will suffer radiation sickness, failing organs, skin falling off, hair falling out and long drawn out painful deaths.

Calling Iran a "tin pot" nation is xenophobia.

Xenophobia is what starts wars.

Nuclear weapons have never prevented any wars.
5

steve 1511,

aberdeen 01/07/2009 06:09:24
the gibbering eejit with the big banana smiles honesty can not be trusted, who trusts the numptie with trident


STARIIGHT JACKET FOR BROON
6

KampungHighlander,

01/07/2009 06:25:32
# 3 Mikko

"we cannot sit by and allow tin pot nations like Iran and North Korea to threaten us."

I agree, lets use the old Trident system on them and we won't need to buy the new one.
7

mr broon,

Edinburgh 01/07/2009 09:32:19
It is very doubtful if the UK would ever scrap Trident.

In the post-War period various multi-billion US weapons systems, including the first nuclear deterrent Polaris, have been sold to the UK on a deferred basis. However, the interest payments ran into billions of dollars. (Jane's Defence Weekly)

From pre-War independence, to post-War dependence
on the US.

Ever since the so-called Blue Streak and Skybolt
independent deterrents failed, the US has had to bail out the UK and has had it over a barrel ever since.

Pre-War independence has turned to post-War dependence on the US.

The Nassau Agreement allowed the UK access to US technology at a vast cost.

The declining UK still fails to realise that there is only one world super-power:
the United States of America.
8

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 01/07/2009 09:42:55
If one person reading this story thinks that if the UK, US and France had given up our nuclear deterrents during the cold war and Russia wouldn't have marched all over us then please seek therapy.
9

,

01/07/2009 09:51:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

ExpatBackinScotland,

Carnoustie 01/07/2009 10:13:19
Trident renewal depends on whether you think about the UK or Scotland as a nation.

We, if independent, would not need WMDS forming a giant bullseye over the clyde.

The UK on the other hand may want them as it has alot of enemies.

One thing is for sure, Scotland doesnt want them so would someone kindly move them to the severn or the thames.
11

Mcsnagpile,

01/07/2009 11:30:44
UK is a Tinpot nation on the verge of bankruptcy. A great deal of the financial problems of the UK has been caused by Tinpot thinking. The empire went down the tubes before WW1. As much as it goes against the grain, the future of the UK defence is within an EU framework. As opposed to any other nation within the EU, why do we have to pay for enormously expensive nuclear deterrents? Only France has any sort of personal nuclear capability. Time we stopped being a slave nation to bigger powers. Who are we protecting ourselves from??
Perhaps we should have a joint EU nuclear deterrent.
12

Queen D,

01/07/2009 11:42:39
Mikko, there is danger in retaining nukes on Scottish soil.
We are a target , frontline , for any madmen who might take offence at a foreign policy , not of Scotlands making.
We cannot claim the high moral ground , shifting sands which we have found under our feet in an unholy war in Iraq searching for non existent WMDs while claiming
" this is not about regime change ( That would have been ILLEGAL )this is about WMDs capable of deployment in 45 mins"That was a LIE.
Because we consider others to be rogue states , it is not beyond credibility that there are states which consider us ROGUE, because of our invasion on two fronts.
Should some madman think it right to nuke us mutually assured destruction is to be applauded?
I believe that whoever nukes first, the world and all it contains has had it and the fundamentalists of the two great religions can die slowly from radiation sickness as befits their martyrdom.
13

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/07/2009 13:19:54
For once Griffiths has got it right - this is pure ''machismo''and most people know that.
14

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 01/07/2009 13:26:39
So Trident + Carriers = somethings got to give.
15

Electric Hermit,

01/07/2009 15:18:05
8
Mikko

It's 2009. Honest! Ask anybody.

16

Electric Hermit,

01/07/2009 15:19:50
2
Mikko

"Trident is absolutely vital - we cannot sit by and allow tin pot nations like Iran and North Korea to threaten us."

If you feel threatened by "tin pot nations", perhaps you should seek therapy.

17

Darien,

Panama 01/07/2009 17:55:09
"Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank said that the two 65,000 tonne ships were "enormously expensive" and suggested that there were other, cheaper and more effective ways of delivering sea power."

He's right, and wrong. Right that carriers are very expensive. But wrong on need for "sea power" based on long-distance attack tonnage.

All Scotland needs is long runways to launch aircraft - which it has in relative abundance. Scotland or any nation would only needs aircraft carriers if it intends to attack far off nations. That may be on the agenda of a decaying and impoverished pseudo imperialist state like the UKofGB&NI, but it is not part of the geopolitical diplomatic gameplan of an independent Scotland, and thank goodness for that.
18

Electric Hermit,

01/07/2009 22:00:11
17
Darien

"Scotland or any nation would only needs aircraft carriers if it intends to attack far off nations."

You touch here on the SNP's well-known plans for world domination. Always looking for a challenge, the problems inherited from the imperialists didn't seem enough for Salmond and his team. So they set about...

You get the picture.
19

Brianwci,

01/07/2009 22:42:26
9/11 in the USA and 7/7 here shows quite clearly that all the fire power in the world won't stop determined terrorists from striking your country.

Trident is an unnecessary expense which would be best spent improving the UK's infrastructure.
20

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 01/07/2009 23:22:09
Well, I have always felt sorry for pacifists. It is basically the same word as cowards.

 

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.