Considering your **** is remote you still seem able to talk through it quite a lot. Simple facts: Faslane was selected as a nuclear submarine base for its geographic position and, if required, for fast and stealthy submarine access (as in submerged) through the North Channel into the North Atlantic.

 

I wouldn't want to second guess the military strategies used in warfare, but considering that US and Russian superpowers hold around 90% of the worlds nuclear arsenal, direct strategic strikes at each other would rapidly escalate to MAD of the world and no one will be around to claim any victory. So I would guess that in the nightmare scenario should a nuclear war ensue between the US and Russia for example, the initial low yield nuclear strike(s) would be played out over Europe and/or in countries that are geographically close where they would be able to rapidly mobilise their military from these remote allied bases, in countries that aren't able to retaliate with with their own nuclear weapons.

Fortunately the UK does have a nuclear capability that can be deployed outside our boarders. Because of this I would guess hostiles would think twice before actually pressing the button. How it would escalate beyond Europe I don't know, but one would like to think, at least, the leaders of the superpowers would come to their senses before it would escalate to MAD. So on the contrary I'm of the opinion that risk would significantly increase if UK abandoned its nuclear capability especially whilst still allowing the USAF to be stationed here.

 

Whatever the official reasons may be:

Its not remote, being located just to the west of Scotlands central belt

The Gareoch has a minimum depth of 13.4 metersVanguard class (Trident) submarines have a draft of 12 meters

Whilst they can and do submerge in the North Chanel, they have to surface for much of the firth of clyde and the Gareloch (where they are based)


What it is, is a very sheltered Anchorage hundereds of miles from Westminster.