The Westminster parliamentarian made the call for the replacement of the vessels that carry Britain’s Trident missiles during a debate on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

The House of Commons debate on the future of Trident was called by SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party MPs.They called for the Trident renewal programme estimated to cost £100bn to be scrapped and the money instead used to help bring an end to austerity measures.

The Argyll and Bute MP labelled the SNP motion for Trident not to be renewed as “incoherent”, pointing out that Trident refers to the missiles which are not up for renewal, but the Vanguard submarines which carry them are.

Speaking in the House of Commons during the debate, Mr Reid said: It is very important to note that there are no proposals to upgrade the capability of the Trident system or to acquire additional nuclear warheads.

“Next year’s decision is purely about building new submarines to replace those that will soon go out of service.” The Lib Dem MP also paid tribute to those who work at the Clyde base, which is Scotland’s single largest employer.

He continued: “The submarine base at Faslane is in my constituency, and I pay tribute to all those who serve in our submarines and their families.

“Our submariners are very committed to serving their country and are away from their families for months on end. I also pay tribute to those who work at Faslane and the armaments depot at Coulport. They carry out very highly skilled jobs with an extremely high level of professionalism.” Following the debate only 35 members of parliament voted not to renew the Trident programme, with 364 in favour of keeping the nuclear weapons.

Around 250 members failed to vote on the issue and Labour MPs came in for criticism from the SNP in the run-up to the debate for a planned boycott, although a number did eventually take part.

The Argyll and Bute MP did reveal that he wants to see a world free of nuclear weapons and called for every effort to be put into the treaty talks to try to achieve that.

He added: “We have no idea what nuclear threats might emerge over the next 50 years. A nuclear deterrent is like an insurance policy; the intention is never to use it, so it may appear to some to be a waste of money. But if it succeeds in its aim of deterring possible adversaries, it has done its job and is worth the money.”