Forum menu
Highlands & Islands Both Votes SNP
Mid Scotland & Fife SNP 1 Green2
South Scotland Both Votes SNP
Glasgow SNP 1 Green 2
West SNP 1 Green 2
North East SNP 1 Green 2
Central SNP 1 Green 2
Edinburgh SNP 1 Green 2
Edinburgh... Edinburgh... bloody hell its that sort of misnomer takeover that encourages separatism. I think you meant Lothians.
I don’t think most scots give a hoot about trident tbh. 😆 I’d rent out the land and sea access, job jobbied.
I suspect if we weren't paying for (our share of) it and in fact it was clearly contributing there would be quite a bit of tolerance for it. Right up until one of "their" subs sinks one of "our" trawlers and kills half a dozen fishermen. Then obviously it would be wrong, but the potential to kill 10 million times more of an enemy is all ok.
lazy copy and paste poly
the bombs are not stored or loaded in Scotland now I thought – all in the US and our subs go over there to load them
So you think we pop over to Kings Bay every time we complete a patrol and need to do maintenance? 🤔
Depot is at Coulport, IIRC the only interaction the US has with them is maintenance of the delivery vehicle (the actual missile) whilst we maintain our warheads.
Many RN people who get based there loathe it because it’s such a rubbish place for their families to live and work.
That'll be why so many stick about after they leave the service I suppose?
An alternative would be to try to base Trident at King’s Bay in Georgia, in the US, where Britain’s nuclear submarines go to pick up missiles from a common pool,
From the article in the grauniad
the bombs are not stored or loaded in Scotland now I thought – all in the US and our subs go over there to load them
The warheads are maintained/stored at Aldermaston (inconveniently for those who try claiming the government wouldnt have nukes near London) and also stored/loaded at the Clyde base.
Its the missile bodies which are done in the US.
Ta folks
dissonance - I have heard that exact argument used by politicians for not having the subs down south - all locations too close to urban areas
Yes. Exactly what I just said. The MISSILES are maintained at King's Bay. The warheads are entirely ours and removed before the missiles are returned to the US. The missiles and warheads are removed between patrols and stored at Coulport.
Anyway, I see Galloway has jumped on the "Freedom of speech - repeal the Hate Crime Bill" bandwagon. Tories have also moved to a rather fetching maroon and orange colour scheme 🧐
I have heard that exact argument used by politicians for not having the subs down south – all locations too close to urban areas
Often used but its wrong. Aldermaston isnt in an overly great position and Devonport is rather close to a large urban area. If you look at the historical sites for nuclear missiles and nuclear equipped bombers its pretty obvious that at the time it was selected the concern about urban areas wasnt a major issue regardless of which urban area you are talking about.
The reason that part of Scotland was chosen was because it provided both quick and also hard to track access to the north Atlantic area where they sail in circles.
Other locations would have taken longer to deploy and also be easier for Russian subs to hang around in the hope of following them.
"Devonport is rather close to a large urban area" - which is why its unsuitable according to politicians
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
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
Tory sleaze in effect?
https://twitter.com/KellyIpsosMORI/status/1466014673111822344?t=-IcmJCmghcXUHI7Zvr-3mA&s=19
Long Live Boris!
tjagain
Full MemberVery interesting. Gove has said westminster will not go to court to attempt to stop another referendum.
Why bother? Any referendum would not have any legal force as it is a reserved matter.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/29
http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2021/05/section-29.html
Wrong.
Unless tested in court it would be fine. Because unless tested in court the matter of its competence would remain unsettled
Recently Westminster won two court cases over this but the legislation had been passed and would have been binding if Westminster had not gone to court
So if the Scottish parliament passes a binding referendum bill UK parliament has two choices. go to court to test if the bill is within the competence of Holyrood or let it go unchallenged. If they do not go to court then the binding referendum bill is passed and enacted
The only way it can be stopped is via a court challenge
There is a smidge of an issue there. The EU referendum was expressly not legally binding, yet the UK government considered itself bound by it.
The more immediate legal issue is that the Scottish Parliament doesn't appear to have the power to hold referenda at all, whether about reserved matters or matters within its legislative competence. But I am not completely sure about that.
I am fairly sure they can hold a non binding one on reserved matters or a binding one on devolved matters
But the only way to know for sure is for it to be tested in court as in the case of the childrens rights legislation
So if Holyrood passes a bill for a binding referendum on independence UK government only has the two choices. go to court to test it or accept it without going to court
Uk parliament cannot just declare it to be outside of the competence of holyrood
I an not sure what you mean by "accept it" @tj. The UK gov can wait until the issue of whether the referendum was legal arises in a context where it matters, for example it gets to the stage where Scotland actually takes steps towards independence. If the referendum outcome is a No, then the matter never needed deciding in court.
greyspoke - the only opportunity to challenge it is after the bill is published and before it becomes law. Can you imagine the row if they did not go to court to stop the referendum but then after the fact try to claim its meaningless?? Once the bill is passed in holyrood it becomes law unless the courts strike it out as beyond the reach of Holyrood
UK government have two choices only - challenge thru the courts once the bill is presented or accept its happening
No way on earth could they wait for the result and then challenge it in court - apart from anything else then it becomes really easy for Scotland to use the provisions in the UN charter / international law on the "self determination of a peoples" which has a load of precedent including in Ethiopia / Eritra and in the balkens
The only way they could stop it is wait till the bill is presented and passed the nchallenge thru the courts immediatly. there is no other avenue legally or politically possible
Scotroutes - you know if there is not a referendum on the timetable of "middle of the parliament" Sturgeon will be out on her ear and her political career ended. Its absolutly clear that she cannot prevaricate any longer. It would take 5 mins for the coup and she will be gone and disgraced
So if Holyrood passes a bill for a binding referendum on independence UK government only has the two choices. go to court to test it or accept it without going to court
It's not quite so clear cut though. If they pass a bill they call "binding" without a section 30 order then the UK government (independence is not a devolved matter) just say that a referendum is not "legal". In that scenario a large majority of No voters will just ignore the referendum.
The Yes majority will end up being something like 90%. No voters will say that the referendum was irrelevant as it wasn't a legally binding one in which case the onus is on Holyrood to go to court to prove it was. And good luck with that!!
the UK government cannot just declare it not legal - they have to go to court for that.
We will know in a year Scotroutes. Referendum has to be by the end of 2023 or Sturgeon is gone and disgraced so the bill has to be within a year of now
Want an "eat your hat" bet on it? Or all the Greggs you can eat?
the UK government cannot just declare it not legal – they have to go to court for that.
The obvious counter argument is that the SNP can't simply declare it legal, especially as independence is outwith the remit of Holyrood.
None of us are constitutional lawyers so we are just all speculating, but my guess is that with a decision as big as this then it's the side demanding change that is probably going to be required to prove their case in court. The status quo is always likely to be the default condition.
They can tho Kenny - pass a law at holyrood. Its law unless struck down by a court
Its exactly how it went with the childrens rights thing. Holyrood passed the bill and it was referred to the courts by westminster and struck out as not within the competence of Holyrood If Uk government had not referred it to court it would have become law in Scotland.
Only the courts can judge if its within the remit of Holyrood and the default is it becomes law if passed unless court rules otherwise.
Only the courts can judge if its within the remit of Holyrood and the default is it becomes law if passed unless court rules otherwise.
And what way do you think (be honest) the UK court would rule? I think we all know the answer.
As I have said, independence is not within the remit of Holyrood so the SNP would have to come up with a very compelling case.
Assuming that the SNP does manage to get a referendum through the Scottish Parliament, what is to stop any individual taking the Scots Government to court over it?
A new poll shows a clear majority of Scots in favour of separation if the vote was tomorrow.
And yet it doesn’t.
Good question. I have no answer. I do not know if they would have standing
within the bills that set up holyrood there is a dispute mechanism that uses the courts. I don't think this mechanism is accessible to individuals just to UK government but thats a mightly fine question - I guess judicial review would be the answer
And what way do you think (be honest) the UK court would rule?
Actually on the cases I have seen go thru so far fairly reasonably on the merits not on the politics.
And yet it doesn’t.
eh? looks like it to me
you know if there is not a referendum on the timetable of “middle of the parliament” Sturgeon will be out on her ear
I'm not sure that's the credible threat many hardcore SNP members think it is. For that to be an effective strategy to winning an indy ref you need:
1. A leader who the whole party gets behind - no major infighting between factions
2. A leader who the majority of the country actually see as credible - not just the hardcore indy voters
I don't see any likely candidates who aren't likely to be just as hesitant if Sturgeon is (no point holding a ref you expect to loose - the opportunity doesn't come around often). If they pull the trigger on a leadership battle they risk getting some walloper at the helm who not only loses them the referendum but also the ability to retain their current holyrood strength.
and her political career ended. Its absolutely clear that she cannot prevaricate any longer. It would take 5 mins for the coup and she will be gone and disgraced
She strikes me as less of an egomaniac than her predecessor. I'm not sure she'd be totally devastated if "her political career ended". She'll be in her early 50's having led her party through its strongest period, having led her country through the pandemic and generally being regarded as doing well. She recently talked about (not) having children, having considered fostering etc. I could see her moving on to a new life (I assume her husband's time as party CEO is probably not going to last for too much longer!). She certainly wouldn't be disgraced. In fact, if whoever ousted her ****s up and loses the ref, ends up distracted in years of legal battles with Westminster, or the ability to command a majority (with a small coalition partner) at Holyrood - she'd probably be remembered fondly not just be SNP members but by the country.
I'm sure I've said it before on this site but it's probably worth reiterating, one of the issues with Independence is who do we see at the future "Prime Ministers of Scotland". Who do you see having useful discussions with the rUK PM on share of the legacy debt, border issues, fishing rights etc. I don't see too many obvious candidates. Of course, its compounded by the fact that come independence ALL THREE major political parties essentially implode and the political landscape changes; in my opinion that's most likely to be a good thing no matter which side of the divide you sit on - but it is difficult to imagine how the factions might divide and converge.
Sturgeon will be out on her ear and her political career ended. Its absolutly clear that she cannot prevaricate any longer. It would take 5 mins for the coup and she will be gone and disgraced
Tripe.
A new poll shows a clear majority of Scots in favour of separation if the vote was tomorrow.
And yet it doesn't
eh? looks like it to me
Look carefully - it shows the %ages for those "likely to vote" (and the headline figure of 45/55 is based on those "likely to vote, who have made up their mind"), but only 80-90% of the people surveyed indicated they would be likely to vote. Suddenly you are not into a "clear majority of scots" but rather "a clear majority of Scots who can be bothered to vote" territory - then there's the issue of the error bars, they suggest even within that group that Ipsos-MORI aren't absolutely certain that with their sample size etc that it couldn't be much closer (or maybe even a tie/other way round). Its close to saying what you think it does - but until it actually says that a clear majority of scots (not just scots who bother to vote) with sufficient confidence in the stats people will always be sceptical.
My feeling is that the glue that holds the broad church of the SNP together is under great strain.
the only way Sturgeon can continue is to have that referendum on the timetable she laid out. If that does not happen then the party will split into factions and she will be ousted and her political legacy will be that under her leadership the party fractured and lost its power and the chance for independence
I believe the SNP have been in power too long without proper opposition. After 10 - 12 years any government runs out of steam and ideas and get infiltrated by the power hungry and infighting sets in. the SNP are beyond that point
the chance needs to be taken now or it will be gone for a long time. I have great admiration for Sturgeon and think she is the best major political leader we have in the UK - head and shoulders above anyone else from labour, lib dems and tories north or south of the border