Yeah, but the Large Hadron collider creates miniature black holes, we can literally explore what it means to experience the end of the universe
The Edinburgh tram takes you to Leith... 😉
I'm wondering if, about 10 years after a yes vote, we will see the highlands and islands arguing for greater devolution/independance because scottish policies are seen as too Glasgow/Edinburgh centric.
10 years, give it 10 minutes, Shetland are complaining even before a 'Yes' vote.
The money spend on Trident/Wars etc leaves this country (UK) and goes to the US as Trident is a US missile system we bought from them. Ergo - get rid of it, no more payments.
Not all of it, a lot gets spent designing, building, maintaining the Nuclear Subs which all happens in the UK, employing a lot of people.
konabunny - Member
Konabunny how do you think that just because she is no longer in Scotland that this vote will not affect her on a daily basis...A typical ignorant viewpoint. It's like saying your less Scottish because you don't live in Scotland at the moment.It will not affect her on a daily basis because she does not live there and does not work there. What happens in Scotland really doesn't affect people who live in England,
What utter nonsense, you may not have noticed, but our currently just devalued as a result of this garbage. Then the absolute con, letting 16 yr old kids vote yet expat Scots that might have a bit of sense and might want to return to something that resembles the home they love don't, it's despicable.
That Man is an utter chancer, a snake oil salesman and you folk are foolish to be taken in by him.
Beat me to it Ninfan. See also the money spunked on the parliament building
The money spend on Trident/Wars etc leaves this country (UK) and goes to the US as Trident is a US missile system we bought from them. Ergo - get rid of it, no more payments.
What about the jobs at HMNB Clyde?
Those bases only really exist on the scale that they do to support the subs.
They employ a lot of people directly and even more indirectly.
I am not suggesting that SSBN's are the most efficient job creation schemes, however, once they close the immediate effect on the surrounding area will be dramatic. Ask anyone who lived in Dunoon during the 90's and what happened when the US Navy left.
The money spend on Trident/Wars etc leaves this country (UK) and goes to the US as Trident is a US missile system we bought from them. Ergo - get rid of it, no more payments.
I'd like to see some actual figures of how much of the Trident money (and those other things you mentioned) stays in the UK, both in terms of original outlay and maintenance/staffing.
See also the money spunked on the parliament building
Who built it? Where did the materials come from?
regardless, Trident (more accuratley the entirety of the nuclear deterrent) is only about 6% of the overall defence budget
I am not suggesting that SSBN's are the most efficient job creation schemes, however, once they close the immediate effect on the surrounding area will be dramatic.
I wouldn't be surprised if the submarine bases stay where they are for the time being.
rUK will just lease them form the Scottish government.
Are you suggesting the English are ignorant, unproductive and lazy?
No. However some of you are incredibly paranoid and manage to turn any discussion into an anti-English one.
What about the jobs at HMNB Clyde?
520 jobs according to the MOD. Not thousands.
[quote=bencooper said]
520 jobs according to the MOD. Not thousands.
Is that people at the base itself only ? Or does it include all the local industries/businesses who rely upon the base ?
What local industries and businesses who rely on the base?
There isn't a wee cottage industry of nuclear bomb repairmen in Helensburgh, happily tinkering with warheads in their sheds. HMNB Clyde buys very little from the local economy.
The base needs food, cleaning, maintenance; the engineers need supplies etc.
HMNB Clyde buys very little from the local economy.
How do you know?
No. However some of you are incredibly paranoid and manage to turn any discussion into an anti-English one.
Not really. Your post clearly suggests that the population of Scotland is "above average".
520 jobs according to the MOD. Not thousands.
520 well paid secure jobs. Plus hundreds more employed as contractors, for maintenance, diving services, tugs, support craft.
How many pubs, shops, hotels will stay open in Helensburgh if the subs went?
What about the house prices?
The base is at the heart of the local economy around that whole area west of Loch Lomond.
520 peoples jobs directly on trident (ie. the missile system) not the entirety of the nuclear deterrent and the nuclear submarines, which are co-located for obvious reasons
The base needs food, cleaning, maintenance; the engineers need supplies etc.
Yes, and these are bought by Babcocks etc from other large national or multinational companies. They don't nip down to the local Co-op to buy their bog roll.
HMNB Clyde buys very little from the local economy.
And a hell of a lot less when we build a nice new base in England (wales maybe) so another plus for the rest. There must be a few government call centres up there too that can be closed. I wonder if there will be a Scottish Embassy in London?
I worst of the possible impacts is if the start any stupid corporate tax rate crap to get nameplates over the border.
I wouldn't be surprised if the submarine bases stay where they are for the time being.rUK will just lease them form the Scottish government.
I agree with @somewhat this will be the solution for the medium term at least.
Not really. Your post clearly suggests that the population of Scotland is "above average".
Well someone has to be 😀
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/278036-scotland-most-highly-educated-country-in-europe-ons-report-shows/
HMNB Clyde buys very little from the local economy.
Probably not.
However, the workers who get their income from it do.
Seriously though, saying Scotland is good is not the same as saying England is bad.
The 2012 MoD budget was £35billion in total, so Scotland's share was around £4billion
That £4billion has been spent many times over, even if Scotland sacks everyone and turns bombers into ploughshares
(Oh, but hang on, Clyde shipbuilding is guaranteed, as have been the jobs at Leuchars and Arbroath)
It doesn't add up.
However, the workers who get their income from it do.
Probably not an awful lot - 520 people, quite a few of whom are contractors who don't live locally anyway, can't spend all that much in the local stores.
Certainly not enough to justify keeping a hugely expensive and immoral weapons system.
We could give every single worker £1m per year to sit and play X-Box instead, and still save money. It's the worst job creation scheme ever.
Yes, and these are bought by Babcocks etc from other large national or multinational companies.
And where does that get sourced? Seems likely that much of the money stays in the UK, or even Scotland.
It's the worst job creation scheme ever.
It's not a job creation scheme, but I'm suggesting you look beyond headline cost figures.
The basic question you guys need to ask yourself is- does Trident return more to the Scottish economy than it takes out. I don't have numbers but it seems incredibly unlikely (if it does, we should build some more!) Pointing at corner shops and saying "Hey, the base employs cleaners" doesn't add up to billions of quid. Then you need to contrast that with the contribution to the local economy that basing the surface fleet there will make- nobody's talking about leaving an empty hole where the navy used to be.
Everything we spend in the UK creates jobs and returns money to the economy; the question on that is always, is it an optimum return. Is the peacetime divident of Trident better than spending the same sum on more surface boats, or creating jobs in hospitals and schools...
Personally, I'd be totally content with the idea of leasing Faslane and Coulport to the UK government indefinitely- best of all worlds in my book, we get rid of the bill for the white elephant and the bad karma, but still get the jobs and the money. But not everyone is that prosaic about it.
It's not a job creation scheme, but I'm suggesting you look beyond headline cost figures.
I do - as I've said many times, getting rid of Trident is an overwhelming moral imperative. The cost savings are just a bonus.
But would the rUK create a Guantanamo prison within those leased bases?
it is one solution and the Russians and US do it all over the world - why don't we open it up for offers... 😉Personally, I'd be totally content with the idea of leasing Faslane and Coulport to the UK government indefinitely-
On the other hand we should close it for a period to find out what the likelyhood of oil is off the west coast...
I do
Hmm.. well your original post mentioned quite a few projects where the money was 'wasted', and you seemed keen to simply focus on the headline costs. It's almost as if you are being disingenuous to try and boost your own argument.. hmm..
Trident really is decent enough IMO for the deterrent (<5 % of the yearly NHS budget). Considering cheap borrowing is based on having a stable country etc. then it will help offset the cost.
Clyde shipbuilding is guaranteed
Has AS seriously promised this!!!! FFS!!!! No chance.
BAE only survived because the MoD built the T45's and most of the carrier work was done there.
Then you need to contrast that with the contribution to the local economy that basing the surface fleet there will make- nobody's talking about leaving an empty hole where the navy used to be
White paper suggests the total size of the Scottish Navy will be about 2000 personnel- thats a pretty big empty hole compared with the 6,500 plus RN and Civilian staff currently employed there.
Does Scotland think it doesn't need a nuclear deterrent because rUK will still have it and so covered by that?
I can supply them with an derrent just as effective as Trident for 20% of the price, just as long as they promise not to open the box.
No we think we don't need one because no-one is going to nuke us.mudshark - Member
Does Scotland think it doesn't need a nuclear deterrent because rUK will still have it and so covered by that?
No we think we don't need one because no-one is going to nuke us.
Then why are you planning to join a military alliance which commits itself to a first strike nuclear policy?
Scotland can guarantee its own military shipbuilding goes to the clyde. Anything else... Well, it's complicated. The MOD insists that they won't build frontline warships outwith the UK. But they also say they're committed to the T26 frigate and that it's the best option for the UK. And realistically, that probably means Clydebuilt- BAE Portsmouth was the closest thing to a suitable location to build them in the rUK, but it was "outdated and unsuitable" even before they started shutting it down and laying off their workforce
So without a massive re-investment, on a [i]very[/i] short timescale (construction is scheduled to start next year, and the old ships are due for replacement), the rUK isn't building these ships themselves. So the MOD/govt argument looks flaky at best.
Where uncertainty comes back into it is that this still doesn't guarantee Scottish building- because frankly defence procurement is a load of bollocks anyway and the T26 which is definitely the right boat today, might suddenly become the wrong boat and they end up ordering something from elsewhere anyway. Though BAE remain a British company even if building in Scotland.
(the white paper says Scotland would commission some T26s too. Am skeptic, it's a big, advanced boat, it doesn't seem to fit our needs)
mudshark - MemberDoes Scotland think it doesn't need a nuclear deterrent because rUK will still have it and so covered by that?
I think scotland doesn't think it needs a nuclear deterrant for the same reason as most other companies in the world. Do you think Germany is hiding behind the UK's skirt too?
I dunno, I disagree with it, ask them. I wouldn't join nato.ninfan - Member
No we think we don't need one because no-one is going to nuke us.
Then why are you planning to join a military alliance which commits itself to a first strike nuclear policy?
I'd also have a much smaller military than the nationalists envisage.
I hope a protectionist trade war doesn't break out. With prohibitive taxes on Irn Bru and Tunnocks Teacakes
the white paper says Scotland would commission some T26s too. Am skeptic, it's a big, advanced boat, it doesn't seem to fit our needs
I would be very skeptical.
The T26 is also known as the Global Combat Ship. It has a 6000t displacement and 7000' range. Doesn't fit in with the small SDF concept?
I think basically what we need is some fishing boats full of guys with belaying pins and one guy with a radio. And a couple of typhoons and another radio at lossiemouth.
How on earth are you going to pay for it?
By not spending billions on Trident, billions on illegal wars, billions on white elephant rail networks,...
The fundamental point most people are missing is that it's not about where the money we spend on Trident is spent, but that it costs about 0.3% of total public spending. That's not going to pay for much of the dream. I've no doubt that the other big headline cost savings ben mentions are similar.
Perhaps we could just buy those boats the French have been building for the [s]Soviets[/s] Russians?
@Northwind. I would expect Trident has a net cost to the UK as a whole and likewise to Scotland. If you like its the cost of having the deterrent.
Germany doesn't have nukes as it wasn't allowed them, that's partly what NATO is for. I would imagine Scotland would be encouraged (pressured) to join NATO and would pay for Trident/nukes indirectly via a contribution to that.
Anyway I think these defense arguments are secondary, there are far larger bills to pay elsewhere for Scotland.
As for impact on the UK this is one area where the UK will have a higher cost as we will be paying for the whole of the armed forces (ie more per head of population) as we cannot realistically have less planes/ships etc.
We can if 'we' recognise we're not a superpower anymore and stop trying to play global chess.