The big issue is that the UK relies on American systems for most of the command and control beyond the television link between 10 Downing Street and the Vanguards/Dreadnoughts, including the defense radars and probably a substantial amount of the targeting.
right, polling my terrible memory of over a decade ago I feel like the main issue was that the US has a de facto technical veto on targets regardless of policy, contracts or treaty. not a problem when foreign policy operates in lockstep. big problem when the US is the threat.
it was a while ago obvs but I started reading about it in the 2 years leading up to the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum and came away with the conviction that no UKgov could ever practically authorise a strike independently of the US
I didn't take notes because although I was saying things at the time such as "Scotland needs to militarise and be prepared to defend the border against a fascist England", to much derision, I fell short of considering the possibility that NATO might need to defend a member with nukes against the US
Comments
https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm
2. Building our own fission weapons would take time. More time than it would take to invade.
3. If we had the warheads, we don't have any delivery systems other than UHaul
Canada wrote a third of the Geneva Suggestion.
Pretty sure that could be made to work.
(Jeebus that has the world come to just speculating about that)