Trident divides the parties and even the countries of the UK. Will today's vote do anything to settle the matter?

Poseidon, trident in hand, looks down on Glasgow from atop the Clydeport Building. Just twenty five miles away is the base for the UK's Trident nuclear submarine programme. Photograph: Clydeport Building by Skin-UBX (License) (Cropped)

In virtually his last public act as Prime Minister, David Cameron set today for a Commons debate on whether the government should renew the Trident nuclear submarine programme (BBC, 2016). For the Conservatives, now under Theresa May's leadership, this should be the ideal issue - the Tories are united in their position and Labour are fragmented (Smith, 2016).

Trident certainly underlines the fundamental problem facing Labour at the moment. Between the different wings of the party, there is little common ground. Today, Labour will approach that divide by giving its MPs a free vote, considering nuclear weapons a matter of conscience.

Yet what that also means is that while the Conservatives can rebuild unity after the EU referendum on issues such as this and the SNP is unanimous and clear in its opposition to the programme (BBC, 2016{2}), Labour will stumble through another issue without a clear consensus on a position.

There have been efforts at proposing a common approach. One proposal from Paul Mason, journalist and part of the pro-Corbyn camp, is to accept renewal as the strategic element of a shift away from disastrous expeditionary warfare (Mason, 2016). Mason argues that with the Nuclear deterrent, held with a clear posture, 'keeping the peace' strategically and conventional forces redeployed to the NATO mission to safeguard Eastern Europe against an erratic Russia, the party can bury the issue, ending that particular cause for internal strife, and focus on the issues that people really care about - like the NHS.

Yet, especially at a time of open internal warfare for Labour - aimed without reservation or equivocation at Jeremy Corbyn - it is unlikely that Corbyn would be willing to compromise on an issue such as this, so fundamental to his own political identity that saw him resoundingly elected just nine months ago.

Beyond the issues it exposes for the Labour Party, Trident raises other important questions.

In the aftermath of the EU referendum, Scotland was shown to be distinct from England in its attitude towards the European Union. While the Conservatives see safety in the unity of their party on the Trident issue, it is a safety on that ground alone. On her accession to Prime Minister, Theresa May stated that her highest priority is the Union (Hill, 2016), yet there are few issues that could help further provoke the break up of the United Kingdom than Trident.

Currently in its third consecutive term of government at Holyrood and holding almost all Westminster seats for Scotland, the SNP completely opposes nuclear weapons and is particularly offended that they are based in Scotland (BBC, 2016{3}). Though no serious effort has been made to actually move the base for Trident, options for prospective alternatives include moving the programme to Wales (Chakelian, 2015).

Thanks to England voting to leave the EU and the Tories inflaming that divide with Trident, the question of Scottish Independence is firmly back on the agenda. While the Tories might heal their own rifts, they do so only by opening other wounds further.

Then there is the question of fiscal priorities. A renewal for Trident is a £31bn investment (Morris, 2015), at least, at a time of long term austerity - which has seen devastating cuts to public services and desperately needed public investment - and the economy taking a clear hit from Brexit.

Theresa May has already seemingly rolled back on George Osborne's commitment to a government budget surplus and Labour's current and prospective leaderships are both pledging vast amounts of economy-kickstarting public investment (Pope, 2016; Edwards, 2016).

In that environment, any spending decision has to be weighed carefully. And amongst the matters to be considered is the fact that there are something like 15,000 jobs depend upon the maintenance of the nuclear defence industry, a matter no politician is going to put lightly aside.

Which brings us last, but absolutely not least, to the question of a nuclear deterrent itself. To make a spending decision about a weapon system requires knowing if it even has a purpose.

So does it have a role to play? On one level, a nuclear deterrent is a huge investment in a weapon that is, hopefully, by intention and design never to be used. Analysts have argued that deterrence still has a strategic role to play - with concern over the renewed aggression of Russia cited in most arguments (BBC, 2016{4}; Mason, 2016).

The fact that no sane leaders of a progressive movement could, in good conscience, commit the appalling war crime of condemning tens, evens hundreds, of thousands to a nuclear death, not even in retaliation, seems to be treated as beside the point. For his honesty on the matter, Corbyn was condemned. But ignoring the facts as inexpedient serves no one.

Whatever tactical political advantage today's vote offers the Conservatives, through a show of internal unity and exposing their opponent's divisions, it isn't going to settle this issue. It will only drive Scotland further away, wedging yet another point difference between Scotland and England, and prolong an argument that can, ultimately, only end in one way: nuclear disarmament.

References

'Trident: MPs to vote on nuclear weapons system this month'; on the BBC; 9 July 2016.

Norman Smith's 'Why hold a Trident renewal vote now?'; on the BBC; 18 July 2016.

'MPs to vote on Trident nuclear weapons system renewal'; on the BBC; 18 July 2016{2}.

Paul Mason, Leah Green & Bruno Rinvolucri's 'Paul Mason: the leftwing case for nuclear weapons – video'; in The Guardian; 6 April 2016.

Paul Mason's 'A new defence doctrine for Labour: Keep Trident. End expeditionary warfare - In this essay and video I’ve tried to outline what a radical left Labour government in the UK should do about defence and national security'; on Medium; 6 April 2016.

Henry Hill's 'May must recast Unionism as well as Conservatism'; on Conservative Home; 18 July 2016.

'Thousands attend Trident protests across Scotland'; on the BBC; 16 July 2016{3}.

Anoosh Chakelian's 'What are the political implications of moving Trident to Wales?: Whispers of our nuclear deterrent relocating from Scotland to Wales could be a clever move by the Tories'; in the New Statesman; 28 January 2015.

Nigel Morris' 'Trident: Cost of replacing ageing nuclear submarine fleet has increased by £6bn: Ministry of Defence puts cost of four new nuclear submarines at £31bn as Government sets out decade-long defence plan'; in The Independent; 23 November 2015.

Conor Pope's 'McDonnell unveils £500bn investment plan to win over Brexit Britain'; on Labour List; 18 July 2016.

Peter Edwards' 'Exclusive: Owen Smith makes pitch as "Labour's future" and pledges £200bn New Deal for Britain'; on Labour List; 17 July 2016.

'A guide to Trident and the debate about replacement'; on the BBC; 18 July 2016{4}.