Two-faced Sturgeon is a danger to Nato

Scotland’s first minister says she wants to stay in the alliance, but kick out the UK’S nuclear deterrent

Critics have already described Nicola Sturgeon’s address on Nato membership to a US audience this week as “delusional”. But there is another epithet worth using with this opportunistic politician, whose enthusiasm for the Western alliance has only emerged since Vladimir Putin’s forces invaded Ukraine. And that is: two-faced. Her words were stunning in their hypocrisy, given that she wants to join the Nato club but won’t pay the membership “fee”.

An independent Scotland run by the SNP would continue to oppose nuclear weapons, even while sheltering under the alliance’s nuclear umbrella. But much worse would be that in “her” Scotland there would be no place for the UK’S deterrent, currently based on the Clyde. Her government would aim to expel one of Nato’s three nuclear arsenals, potentially leaving only the US and France’s forces fully effective.

Sturgeon said the Ukraine war had strengthened her belief that it was “absolutely right and essential” for an independent Scotland to join Nato, claiming that membership would be a “cornerstone of an independent Scotland’s security policy”. Assisting her in reaching that conclusion was the fact that Sweden and Finland, who have always been much admired by Scotland’s nationalists, also intend to join the alliance.

But neither they nor the other non-nuclear member states appear to be opposed to living under the protection of the weapons possessed by the US, UK and France. And, needless to say, none of them, as far as I know, is currently calling for the expulsion of nuclear bases, either.

Nobody will be surprised to learn what Sturgeon didn’t tell her US audience – and nor did they seek to find out. The essence of her defence policy is the removal of the UK’S submarinebased Trident deterrent from the Faslane naval base on the Clyde if Scotland separated from the UK.

It is probable, in that circumstance, a UK government would seek to enter into some form of leasing arrangement for Faslane and its surrounding facilities, such as Coulport, where the missiles are housed. But even this proposal has met with stern opposition from SNP activists and Sturgeon’s coalition partners, the Scottish Greens, who remain implacably opposed even to Scotland joining Nato.

In a recent think tank document, Rear Admiral John Gower, formerly Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff, and the UK’S leading military expert on nuclear policy, acknowledged that the basis of Trident’s capability, which is geared to defending Nato as well as Britain, is “Continuous At Sea Deterrence” (CASD), where a Trident submarine is always at sea, somewhere in the world. But he added: “CASD is almost wholly reliant upon unfettered access to Scotland, its inland waters and territorial seas. Any change in the status quo will threaten … the UK’S most significant contribution to Nato security.”

There is also no obvious alternative site for the Trident boats, although they currently go to Devonport for refits. Rear Admiral Gower said that it was impossible to overstate the challenges – political and financial – that any move from Faslane might throw up. he warned that Britain’s allies may not have fully comprehended the risks, he added, ominously: it is almost certainly understood in Moscow. Manyscottish voters may see the departure of nukes as a “cosy, feel-good, risk-free by-product of independence”, but they should be aware of the repercussions for Scotland, the rest of the UK, and Nato.

For a life-long unilateralist, Sturgeon’s speech makes for remarkable reading. She seemed to be attempting to promote the idea that she was a long-time “Cold Warrior”, pointing out that Scotland had a “key position” on Nato’s northern edge, where Russian military aircraft and submarines “regularly encroached”. This observer had no idea she was so well schooled in matters strategic and it’s clear that Putin’s invasion has scared the living daylights out of her and forced her to reassess her ludicrous defence policy.

Her support for joining Nato, first agreed reluctantly by her party in 2014, is welcome but only if she accepts that membership brings responsibilities. And the most important, when Putin is rattling his nuclear sabre, is that the UK’S main defence – its Trident submarines – should remain in Scotland.