[Closed] Faslane

Simple making plans just in case. However maybe it is time to boot the whinging kid out of the family home. See how long before the come back asking for more pocket money or to be let back in.

I hear Edinburgh is planning to do the same as it's mostly full of 'The English' anyway. 😉 (me included)

Our very own guantanamo 🙂

Maybe we could let the Scots have a reciprocal arrangement with Scotch Corner...

Stoner - Member
Our very own guantanamo

You never been to Cyprus - we've got 2 Sovereign Base Areas there already... Had our own Gitmo-style enclaves since Cyrpiot independence in the 60s, much longer than those Johhny Come Lately Yanks!

Hmmmm but is it just faslane as in the naval base with the subs. Or is it the interesting areas of mod real estate around there as well? '

Oh and I know it's a terrible bore and so not daily mail, but there is a distinction between what mouthy and embarrassing politician want and what a lot if people who live here want.

They'll need Coulport as well - don't think they'd need the bits up Glen Fruin.

Oh and I know it's a terrible bore and so not daily mail, but there is a distinction between what mouthy and embarrassing politician want and what a lot if people who live here want.

I have been in ABZ for the last 10 weeks, I have not met a single adult yet who is going to vote yes for independence. I think this might be because I am hanging around in engineering/oil industry circles, but I was V surprised. I thought I was going to be overwhelmed by a wave of nationalist froth..

Will there be a UN patrolled demilitarised zone around it? I've heard the natives can get a touch aggressive when they've been at the Bucky and fallen under the influence of Australians

[img] https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdI76j_OOGdkv8oiRVBSOMraSm-wcGcMqrrtgrVKXnxKppI8v8 [/img]

We could swap you for Newcastle.

So long as they continue to maintain the road between gareloch head and loch long because its teh awesomes on the road bike!

As a Jock living in (near) Newcastle - yes please!

Great city - about the only thing wrong with it is that it's the wrong side of the border 😀

I learned to sail at Faslane, back in the day. Fond memories of getting chased away from a nuke sub on its way in by MPs in boats.

Is that the Scottish equivalent of riding your BMX through the local shopping centre? It seems a touch 'high-risk'.

I find it a bit odd that after many hundreds of years of taking, keeping and giving away bits of the planet that aren't ours that this discussion arises now. Surely even the tories couldn't be that stupid!

Who was the source of this story? Wouldn't surprise me if it turns out to be an irritating little flab ball with a fishy name. Game playing on a huge scale - he moans of English arrogance and elitism and then happily puts his fat arse in a comfy chair of the Royal Box of whatever sporting event takes his fancy!

If the Scots go it alone, surely it'd be best to move the subs south? Jobs and investment into a rural coastal area doesn't sound too bad to me.

I'm not remotely surprised. 10's of billions? All political parties would have a tough time swallowing that badboy. It's only fair that the UK gives the scots something in return if it does happen. I volunteer Bridgwater. Really, it's my pleasure.
Does Salmond really want 6,000 extra unemployed people around faslane just for a small political victory? Is that how little he values his voters and fellow scots?

Does Salmond really want 6,000 extra unemployed people around faslane just for a small political victory? Is that how little he values his voters and fellow scots?

In line with every single other politician, of any colour, I'm pretty sure he couldn't give a flying **** about how many peoples lives and livlihoods are sacrificed at the alter of his gargantuan ego

[img] [/img]

Following on from the Newcastle thing, could Northumbria, Co. Durham, Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire join in? We could call it the People's Republic of Scotland and Northern England. That'd be super (and may actually be viable, which a large part of me thinks an independent Scotland wouldn't be).

As for this Faslane, just more Tory fuel to encourage Scotland to clear off with all their Labour/SNP voters and ensure their reign and destruction south of the border. Dirty tactics, as they seem to be using throughout this campaign.

I'd never vote for an independent Scotland, but don't think it'd be the worst thing in the world if it were.

Wouldn't put anything past Salmond, he is the archetypal slimy politician.

Does Salmond really want 6,000 extra unemployed people around faslane just for a small political victory?

Most of those 6,000 would stay, to service the Scottish navy vessels that would be based at Faslane. The proposal is to get rid of the nukes, not close the base.

There's also the small matter of the spare nuclear-powered hunter-killer subs that are currently cluttering up Rosyth because no-one knows what to do with them.

We could call it the People's Republic of Scotland and Northern England. That'd be super (and may actually be viable, which a large part of me thinks an independent Scotland wouldn't be).

I'd vote for that! (but not for independent Scotland)

IME most northerners have more in common with the Scots than they do with southern types.

Does Salmond really want 6,000 extra unemployed people around faslane just for a small political victory?

Perhaps he feels that without Scotland contributing to the £20billion/whatever Trident budget there will be more money available to create socially useful jobs ?

Of course England and Wales could do a runner after dumping the subs at Faslane, the decommissioning and cleaning up would probably bankrupt Scotland.

I'm sure a ready buyer could be found.

If the Scots go it alone, surely it'd be best to move the subs south? Jobs and investment into a rural coastal area doesn't sound too bad to me.

That might prove significantly more difficult than you think. Not only do you have to find somewhere that is deep enough to actually accomodate the subs, but you then also have to convince the locals that having them is a good thing.

That might prove significantly more difficult than you think.

And expensive :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/10/costs-moving-trident-analysis

gonefishin - try telling the 'locals' that about Sellafield, jobs trump NIMBYism in many parts of rural coastline. Abersoch maybe not...

The deep bit is a good point, preferably without too many sandbanks around.

The Trident replacement is going to cost £100bn - £10bn to move them to Milford Haven or wherever isn't that much compared to the total cost of the stupid things.

Of course it'd be much better to scrap the lot and spend the money on stuff we actually need, not willy-waving toys.

I'm sure a ready buyer could be found.

For what - nuclear subs ?

Most countries don't have them because they don't want them, rather than because of lack of availability.

The Trident replacement is going to cost £100bn

You include the maintenance costs for 30 years, and the decommissioning costs:

http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/04/america-tells-britain-pick-replace-trident-or-be-real-military-partner

From a Surrey Hills perspective, you can declare it the Independent Republic of the grim North (North being from Watford Gap) if you like, we don't care as we never (admit to) going there.

But there are conditions: 1. Britannia rules the waves, so we get to keep all the offshore oil assets. 2. We are still going to send you all our (and everyone elses) nuclear waste. 3. If you want to get goods to/from mainland europe, the border toll is going to be massive to use our roads (i.e. ransom strip of land) esp. as you you wont be in the EU so we dont have to pretent to be nice to you. 4. Faslane is staying with us - just like the rock (gibralta) and the islands (falklands) - we only gave hong kong back because it was long leasehold, and we are scared of china.

I am still open to other 'Set the revolting northerners free' manifesto suggetions (but from genteel southern intellectuals only). 😈

It's not just about water depth. Coulport is basically a hollowed out mountain where they keep the warheads.

Most of those 6,000 would stay, to service the Scottish navy vessels that would be based at Faslane. The proposal is to get rid of the nukes, not close the base.

Scottish Navy? What will that consist of? Faslane is basically all about the V boats. It has a few little minesweepers but they do not need the massive infrastructure and support that the subs have. You would not need 6000 people to run a small non-nuclear naval base.

Bit ironic that Salmond wants an independent Scotland to join NATO, which is based on a nuclear deterrent, but wants to kick out the local part of that deterrent....

You include the maintenance costs for 30 years, and the decommissioning costs:

well no. You said replacement, not whole life costs.

Semantics. Replacing Trident commits us to £100bn costs, whether it's paid up front or later.

gonefishin - try telling the 'locals' that about Sellafield, jobs trump NIMBYism in many parts of rural coastline. Abersoch maybe not...

Oh I agree about Sellafield, people who already know about the nuclear industry (or any other heavy industry for that matter) are more likely to be accepting of it and the wealth it brings. The trouble is that nuclear weapons are a different matter to a power station (in people's minds) and it is unlikely that there is a geologically suitable port for submarines in England that also has existing nuclear facility.

Replacing Trident commits us to £100bn costs

Oh I agree about Sellafield, people who already know about the nuclear industry (or any other heavy industry for that matter) are more likely to be accepting of it and the wealth it brings.

Yes - they know the tradeoffs. Rosie's grandfather was a senior engineer at Windscale/Sellafield, and the stories he told would make your hair fall out, but they still lived nearby.

Following on from the Newcastle thing, could Northumbria, Co. Durham, Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire join in? We could call it the People's Republic of Scotland and Northern England.

This +100000000000000

FWIW, the MOD have confirmed that only 520 jobs at Faslane and Coulport are dependent on Trident.

cb - Member

If the Scots go it alone, surely it'd be best to move the subs south? Jobs and investment into a rural coastal area doesn't sound too bad to me.

Good luck with that. The sort of rampant NIMBYism that exists dahn sarf, that won't permit a wind turbine, far less a high speed rail line, within spitting distance of their holiday home lest it depreciate by a couple of thousand quid, is hardly going to embrace a pollution-leaching nuclear silo with a theoretical Russian crosshairs trained on it the whole time.

We could call it the People's Republic of Scotland and Northern England.

The People's Empire of the North, Ireland and Scotland.

Perhaps the Countries United North of the Thames? 😀

wrecker - Member

Perhaps the Countries United North of the Thames?

Got a certain ring to it.

Perhaps its southern counterpart could be the Thames - We're All Tories - Sub-region.

FWIW, the MOD have confirmed that only 520 jobs at Faslane and Coulport are dependent on Trident.

The MoD are lying, or at the very least using some creative accounting to twist the numbers.

Coulport does absolutely nothing apart from look after the V boats.

A lot of jobs at Faslane will be general port infrastructure and support that you would need regardless. However, without the subs what would you need Faslane for? If you remove them, the size of the port and corresponding number of personnel is way too big for what's there.

We could call it the People's Republic of Scotland and Northern England. That'd be super (and may actually be viable, which a large part of me thinks an independent Scotland wouldn't be).

I'd vote for that!

I've said it before, but what we should be voting for is Independence for the South East of England. I think the rest of us could bump along quite nicely without them. And it'd save everyone in London the (frankly embarrassing) trouble of pretending that the rest of us even exist

I've said it before, but what we should be voting for is Independence for the South East of England. I think the rest of us could bump along quite nicely without them. And it'd save everyone in London the (frankly embarrassing) trouble of pretending that the rest of us even exist

Could we also be banned from working there too please?
As a west country type, I'm fed up of being expected to do the M4 corridor run. "it's only 100 miles".....It takes 4 ****ing hours!

Perhaps its southern counterpart could be the Thames - We're All Tories - Sub-region.

London which sits nestled on the Thames is very far from being "all Tory".

In 1997 London had 57 Labour MPs compared to 11 Tory MPs.

Even after the last election which returned the Tories to government London wasn't "all Tory" :

[img] [/img]

wrecker - Member

I'm not remotely surprised. 10's of billions? All political parties would have a tough time swallowing that badboy.

One of the MOD/RUK government assumptions seems to be that scotland would pay a share of the costs of a new base. Which is just nonsense frankly, and exactly the sort of high-handed presumptious crap that people are getting fed up of. Paying for decommissioning- fair enough. They want a nuclear deterrant afterwards? Up to them.

as a proper northerner (Northumbria) you can swear filter right off trying to lump us in with those north of the border. If anything we should be giving the south to France, that would teach em!

Perhaps its southern counterpart could be the Thames - We're All Tories - Sub-region.

London which sits nestled on the Thames is very far from being "all Tory".

In 1997 London had 57 Labour MPs compared to 11 Tory MPs.

Even after the last election which returned the Tories to government London wasn't "all Tory" :

Yeah, but you can't make a puerile acronym out of Thames - We're All Tories Apart From 57 London Labour Constituencies - Sub Region.

I suspect that if you zoomed out a bit then most of the map along the bit south of the Thames would be blue.

if scotland gets independance will i get dual nationality

if scotland gets independance will i get dual nationality

Quite.

So how about we define Scottishness and what entitles someone to a Scottish passport?. It can't simply be residence, as that then means that anyone of any nationality can be a jock, simply through location. In fact there may well be a minority of people in the country who were born there. Judging by my immediate locality there are literally thousands, probably millions of ex pat jocks throughout the UK, so what about them? Are they excluded from Salmonds vision?

What about me? Father being a Scottish Borderer, Mother from Penrith?

Personally, I'm all for devolution of government, and less centralisation, but in a world of increasing globalisation does this Little Scotland idea actually make any sense?

Simple making plans just in case. However maybe it is time to boot the whinging kid out of the family home. See how long before the come back asking for more pocket money or to be let back in.

That map is a bit misleading ernie. Stefs point mentioned the SE not London. If you take an indicative line from The Severn to the Wash the political map below that line will be mainly blue I imagine.

Seeing how the EU have half opened the door to an independent Scotland, do we think that the Basques are going to be allowed a crack at it as well?

The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.

That map is a bit misleading ernie. Stefs point mentioned the SE not London.

Stef's point mentioned "the Thames", not "the SE". London is the largest settlement next to the Thames.

The map shows the election results in London after the last general election which returned the Tories to power. There is nothing misleading about it.

On the other hand the "We're All Tories" comment concerning the 'Thames Sub-region' was somewhat misleading. Specially as in 1997 London elected more Labour MPs than the whole of Scotland.

[quote=scotroutes ]The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.

Good point, also wondering who the scotts will blame for all the problems once independant??

The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.

Can it trump the UN charter?

Specially as in 1997 London elected more Labour MPs than the whole of Scotland.

I'm guessing they also elected more Tories than the whole of Scotland?

Good point, also wondering who the scotts will blame for all the problems once independant??

Ourselves. And this is a good thing. Scotland [i]should[/i] grow up and stand on its own feet.

I'm guessing they also elected more Tories than the whole of Scotland?

About 11 more.

But for every Tory MP Londoners elected in 1997 they elected 5 Labour MPs.

Not quite the "We're All Tories" sentiment which was suggested.

Not quite the "We're All Tories" sentiment which was suggested.

Well, [i]someone[/i] must be voting for the buggers 😉

mikewsmith - Member

scotroutes » The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.

Good point, also wondering who the scotts will blame for all the problems once independant??

"Y'know, this self-determination thing ain't all it's cracked up to be. Let me slink back for another lick at the colonial jackboot."

Said no country, ever.

Seeing how the EU have half opened the door to an independent Scotland, do we think that the Basques are going to be allowed a crack at it as well?

The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.

I wonder if this is something that's been thought through? It's quite likely the Spanish Government will oppose the admission of an independent Scotland to the EU, as they don't want to set a precedent for Catalonia.

Y'know, this self-determination thing ain't all it's cracked up to be. Let me slink back for another lick at the colonial jackboot."

I suspect you might find the population of quite a few countries would take that option, albeit their governments may well not. Zimbabwe perhaps?

[quote=StefMcDef ] mikewsmith - Member
scotroutes » The Spanish constitution prevents the splitting up of the Spanish nation so the circumstances are completely different.
Good point, also wondering who the scotts will blame for all the problems once independant??
"Y'know, this self-determination thing ain't all it's cracked up to be. Let me slink back for another lick at the colonial jackboot."
Said no country, ever.

Whats that we have a population that has a lot of heart attacks, obesity, alcoholism, smoking and other social/medical problems and a declining source of income, thats right you blame the previous owners

Just to get back to the original point, cos it needs clarifying.

In the event of the Scottish voting yes to independence the British Govt has no intention of hanging onto Furslane, and the (or more accurately, a very vocal "some") Scots are very angry and say that's bullying.

So, the obvious question: wuh!?

I'm guessing they also elected more Tories than the whole of Scotland?

And probably northern England too*

* Cheshire isn't the north. Its a satellite state-lette of the South East

"Y'know, this self-determination thing ain't all it's cracked up to be. Let me slink back for another lick at the colonial jackboot."

Said no country, ever.

Well that's not the impression that I got in some Central Asian countries where I was told that if given the chance they would want to rejoin the USSR. Granted it might not be unversal but it is a widely held opinion.

mikewsmith - Member

Whats that we have a population that has a lot of heart attacks, obesity, alcoholism, smoking and other social/medical problems and a declining source of income, thats right you blame the previous owners

I'm sure your ideological forebears convinced themselves that the ****less populations of America, Canada, Ireland, India and countless others would never make a go of it without John Bull's beneficent guiding hand.

And Scotland is hardly Zimbabwe or a central Asian republic - it's a small, developed, relatively resource-rich nation in northern Europe. The Scandinavian states are probably more accurate comparators for how things might turn out.

All of which will probably turn out to be moot - but the potential is there for an independent Scotland to prosper.

[quote=StefMcDef ] mikewsmith - Member
Whats that we have a population that has a lot of heart attacks, obesity, alcoholism, smoking and other social/medical problems and a declining source of income, thats right you blame the previous owners
I'm sure your ideological forebears convinced themselves that the ****less populations of America, Canada, Ireland, India and countless others would never make a go of it without John Bull's beneficent guiding hand.
And Scotland is hardly Zimbabwe or a central Asian republic - it's a small, developed, relatively resource-rich nation in northern Europe. The Scandinavian states are probably more accurate comparators for how things might turn out.
All of which will probably turn out to be moot - but the potential is there for an independent Scotland to prosper.

Good on you give it a go 🙂

So long as they continue to maintain the road between gareloch head and loch long because its teh awesomes on the road bike!

klumpy - Member

Just to get back to the original point, cos it needs clarifying.

In the event of the Scottish voting yes to independence the British Govt has no intention of hanging onto Furslane, and the (or more accurately, a very vocal "some") Scots are very angry and say that's bullying.

Apparently the original point does need clarifying, because this is completely backwards. The original post was about the MOD suggestion to annex parts of scotland post-independence.

Apparently the original point does need clarifying, because this is completely backwards. The original post was about the MOD suggestion to annex parts of scotland post-independence.

Well, the Guardian said so - and they even quoted "sources" "spokesmen" and an ex-minister. The UK government, however, says different:

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23267584 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23267584[/url]

Does the Guardian have a stance on independent Scotland? Cos this kinda stirring could influence the vote.

I think it's more that the MoD was speculating without checking with the politicians.

The Guardian seems very anti-independence usually.

klumpy - Member

Well, the Guardian said so - and they even quoted "sources" "spokesmen" and an ex-minister. The UK government, however, says different

In fact the government haven't claimed the story is wrong or false, they've just said that the MoD suggestion isn't realistic.

mikewsmith - Member
Simple making plans just in case. However maybe it is time to boot the whinging kid out of the family home. See how long before the come back asking for more pocket money or to be let back in.

POSTED 16 HOURS AGO #

Sorry, I read that post at 7am, and I've only just stopped laughing!.

winston_dog - Member
...Scottish Navy? What will that consist of?

The ships they are intending to build on the Clyde for the Scottish navy.

As for Faslane, the sooner we get rid of a nuclear target 30 miles from a major centre of population, the better. I'm sure Westminster has some citizens it regards as disposable in England, so there's plenty other [s]targets[/s] locations they can pick.