Tories have also moved to a rather fetching maroon and orange colour
Scottish tories have been distinctly orange for quite some time now. Murdo and Adam in particular.
which is why its unsuitable according to politicians
No its because its not well placed to sneak boats out of. There are however multiple nuclear subs, including some due for decommissioning, located there but its not well position for missile subs.
the reason that the nukes are so close to Glasgow is the usual “scots don’t count”.
If you want to feel a victim perhaps but you would need to explain why its a special case considering just how many nuclear sites were littered around London. Why is Aldermaston located where it is or Porton Down for that question?
the reason that the nukes are so close to Glasgow is the usual “scots don’t count”. Plenty of other deep water sea lochs further north
That's purely your prejudices at work. Logistically, how do you propose those lochs are accessed via land bearing in mind the method of transporting warheads to and from Aldermaston? (those gates on the roundabouts and the road from the A82 to Faslane aren't there by accident). You also have the entire logistical nightmare of relocating the magazines at Glen Devon, oil terminal, staff, civilian contractors, support industry etc. all of whom are in the surrounding area. For what? If a warhead went off it wouldn't make much difference where it was, the fallout from a ground based explosion would see to that. If you're concerned about the base being targeted then the central belt is going anyway if we're at full scale war.
Guys - there is an awful lot around this but yes faslane was a good choice for some reasons but the idea that its proximity to Glasgow is irrelevant but other possible locations in rUK are too close to population centres says a lot. No way would Faslane be chosen nowadays
dissonance - The boats do not "sneak out" of Faslane - they go on the surface for miles! I have seen them many times. Everyone knows when they go in and out
come independence those subs have to go and everyone knows it. rUK play hardball and they have to go tomorrow. rUK are reasonable and then a lease for a limited time could be done
edit - my position is no more about my predjudices than yours is - its merely seeing things from a different angle.
I thought the main reason for Faslane was the railway access orginally
You wouldn't move to a different highland loch now - but they could have been put there orginally. But they are going to have to move bases thats for sure.
Ease of defence, very deep water close to shore, huge swathes of cheap land, closer to the icecap and reasonable proximity to transport and population all figured in choosing CSB (and Holy Loch for the yanks) over the south of England or remoter sea lochs further north.
tjagain
come independence those subs have to go and everyone knows it.
Mibbes aye, mibbes naw. Doubt it's a fore gone conclusion. opinion on trident is 50:50.
Mibbes aye, mibbes naw. Doubt it’s a fore gone conclusion. opinion on trident is 50:50.
I'm not sure its 50:50 - but its definitely not as "anti" as TJ thinks; the reality is like lots of politics only really strong views get aired. IIRC the new trident will last till something like 2042. IF there was indy ref 2 in 2022 (ambitious) and IF it was for independence (far from certain) and IF they negotiate sensibly on all sides - you'd be 2026 before independence at least. A 15 year lease to last the lifetime would not be ridiculous. Nor would it be ridiculous to extend that lease for a non-nuclear NATO sub fleet beyond that.
Given the SNP and the greens will be in power and both of them have it as hard policy - and Scotlands electorate support being nuclear free then I think it highly unlikely a lease would be granted - unless rUK actually does go for a co operative separation which given their antics over brexit seems highly unlikely
tjagain
Full Member
Given the SNP and the greens will be in power and both of them have it as hard policy
In an independent scotland? Bit of a leap to assume that.
The natural government in Scotland is a SNP/Labour coalition imo. And who knows where either of those 2 parties will land in the post independence political landscape either, nor what their policies would be.
I'd have a guess if there's money to be made positions will soften. Easy enough to be hardline on something you can't really effect the out come of. (which incidently, is why the chat about UBI at the minute smells a bit off to me too, pure electioneering that.)
longer term post independence yes I expect the snp to fracture and a big realignment in Scottish politics. - but that is well into the future. the government negotiating independence will be snp with maybe green support. the SNP and greens have it as hard policy that trident must go. Its a key issue.
I honestly don't think it's a key issue at all.
First day of negotiations after Scotland votes for Independence.
RUK "We have calculated your share of the national debt as..."
Wee Nicky "Weird; that's EXACTLY the same as the rental on Faslane for the next xx years!"
Or similar, not so much that they are there, although I would like them away to...It is more the waste of money replacing the whole vanity project in the next few years.
Great facts there @tjagain with excellent sources cited (that bastion of investigative journalism excellence, the Daily Record). Fact 1 falls flat on its face as the actual facts in the story say nothing about increasing stockpiles but rather each boat will be sailing with more warheads on board. That's akin to you owning 20 spanners and regularly leaving home with 10 until one day you decide to take 15. You haven't increased the amount of spanners you own, just the amount you leave the house with.
Honestly, if that's the kind of easily refuted stuff people lap up unquestioningly no wonder politics is where it is. I bet you believe we need the permission of the US to fire them too.
Full disclosure, I don't support nuclear weapons nor want them based in the country. That doesn't mean I'll just accept any old shite that fits my viewpoint with little more than a cursory glance. Frankly whoever allowed that shite to get posted needs a boot up the arse as it just makes them look like stupid kids who can't do basic fact checking. Referencing the Record ffs...
One of the reasons I enjoy this debate squirrelking - all info is good and i am well aware humbug wont get past you 🙂
I wasn't claiming any veracity for the SNP page - only that it shows how hard their position is on it all
duckman
Full MemberFirst day of negotiations after Scotland votes for Independence.
Maybe the negotiations should be before the indyvote. So we know what we are voting for?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-to-hold-a-credible-referendum-on-scottish-independence
The Spectator has more neck than a giraffe using the word credible.Good story though, pity it didn't apply to their beloved brexit eh?
I think it highly unlikely a lease would be granted – unless rUK actually does go for a co operative separation which given their antics over brexit seems highly unlikely
Obviously there is no lease without mutual cooperation. Its a bit of a superlative to state that. Somewhere in a parallel universe someone from a "rUK" perspective just wrote: "unless iS agree to trident staying there's no way we would have a co-operative separation. We've learned from Brexit that we can define our rules of engagement clearly."
I think its probably wrong to assume that a conservative government would be acting in the best interest of the rUK population though - more likely to be concerned about the various party members / donors with significant property / land interests in Scotland.
irc
Maybe the negotiations should be before the indyvote.
how's that going to work when they refuse even the principle of the democratic right in the first place? 😆
It would have to be two votes first on the principle of independence and the second on the deal available. Makes no real sense tho.
You'll be expecting them to have worked out the economic argument for Scexit and how the rUK border will work, and the currency they will be going into the EU with before they decide to campaign to hold the vote next.......
Stop being unreasonable.
The Spectator has more neck than a giraffe using the word credible.
It's all those Scots that write for it that are to blame
A double ref makes perfect sense
But the hypocrisy of the brexiteers (including the spectator) who campaigned so hard not to have one for brexit makes it very unlikely
It would also be a good vote winner for Sturgeon
Big and daft - as you know it was last time and will be this time
Kimbers - the problem with a double ref is what happens if the first one is yes and the second no? Renegotiate? Drop the whole thing?
If you had a further referendum on the deal then that just gives the Westminster government a second bite of the cherry to scupper the whole thing.
The scenario of the Scottish government going down to London asking for a good deal so the people of Scotland can approve it isn’t a strong negotiating position.
Big and daft – as you know it was last time and will be this time
If the economics are so marginal that they have to be redone at the last moment to be "up to date" they probably aren't going to be that convincing
The rUK border issue has been clarified by the UK-EU trade agreement, no reason why it can't be published
As I understand it Ms Sturgeon's policy is that a vote for independence is a vote for EU re-entry, so the currency question should have been worked out. It's not exactly a new issue other than the £ is no longer a currency of a EU member.
If there was a coherent plan that stood up you can bet it would be out there now as a vote winner. The reason it isn't is that the more time there is to scrutinize it the more time people get to think about what it really means for them and then the doubts creep in....
Salmond less popular than Johnson!
Ross is in trouble isn't he
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1387375766309068806?s=19
big_n_daft
Free MemberIf there was a coherent plan that stood up you can bet it would be out there now
Why would they start campaigning for IS just now? This campaign is about Scotland's right to choose. Whether independence is right or wrong is irrelevant and a different campaign.
The day Scotland "gains" independence to join EU, is also the day EU disintegrates with the start of internal conflicts in some of the EU states. I bet that plays directly into the EU bureaucrats hands because a "disintegrated" smaller EU member states (many will want to gain independence) means the EU bureaucrats can use that to their advantage by establishing themselves as the overall lord of all smaller states. The dream of EU superstates comes into reality.
Sturgeon is a fish in the hurry but time is not really on her side. At 50 she needs to get the job done in order to enjoy her fruit of her "new found" Scottish dynasty status. She has another 15 years before the sunset starts on her.
What the British government can do is to simply say No as often as possible then let them be. Play softball with Sturgeon. Be an eel with the fish. What can she do? Take up arms? Invade Newcastle? Bleed the British tax payers dry? Encourage EU to sabotage the British govt?
Who called up the Troll, shouldn't he be still telling us how wonderful Brexit is going to be for his adopted country?
Why would they start campaigning for IS just now?
I thought that was what the SNP have been campaigning for since it's creation, have they just been campaigning for referenda?
This campaign is about Scotland’s right to choose.
I thought they had? Or is the problem that they came up with the wrong answer?
Who called up the Troll...
This is why we need a new killfile, it would considerably improve the STW forum experience for many of us who don't wish to see the type of trolling that's supposed to be against forum rules.
So SNP need just 3 of their target seats for a majority without Green help
seems like a far bit of tactical voting on both sides of the divide
Alex who?
It’s all those Scots that write for it that are to blame
Posted 1 week ago
What does nationality have to do with their politics, or are you making stuff up again? At least you are consistent. Keep up the links to the spectator as evidence, at least they give us all a laugh.( Scottish and English readers just to clarify,before I stray into your batshit mental definition of being anti English.)
So SNP need just 3 2 of their target seats for a majority without Green help
Very interesting. Gove has said westminster will not go to court to attempt to stop another referendum. I assume the legal advice is it would fail and of course the political outcome would be any attempt to stop it will be counterproductive driving more people towards independence.
Also that using the law to prevent Scotland leaving alters the UK union from one of consent to one of coercion and force
UK Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove was in Glasgow to talk to the BBC. He said the UK would not take the matter to court if the Scottish Parliament passed legislation for another independence referendum
But he later denied he was giving the Scottish government a green light to pass a referendum bill
BBC
Gove seems to get that in a way that Johnson doesn't
Leaves snp with a problem, half the country won't take part if its not sanctioned by Westminster
A boycott would wreck the referendum - but if its a legal and binding referendum it will not be easy to get that boycott
Boycotting votes is an interesting idea. Like, at what point do we say turnout for an election was so low because of a boycott that it doesn't count?
For me? a turnout below 50% would not confer legitimacy
I don't think you can give any recognition to boycotts, if you did every election would be boycotted by some group or other.
But nor should you give recognition to votes other than those organised through constitutional channels.
For me? a turnout below 50% would not confer legitimacy
Then pretty much every local election isn't legitimate.
Yup.
How does a turnout requirement address the boycott issue? How do you know what the turnout would have been? It is a solution to a different problem.
Oh I don't think you can - Westminster did this in the vote in the 70s for a devolved parliament and it was widely seen as a wrecking tactic ( 40% minimum of the electorate required for YES to stand)
My answer was about how I saw it. If indy ref two has a turnout below 50% then its pretty much wrecked
