You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
taking control in our own hands
Hardly. You'll still have parliametary democracy and politicans. Unless you think they'll be somehow different simply because they are Scottish?
about building a fairer society
So you're taking whatever's offered and just hoping that it's the right thing. Hmm ok
What's being offered is the ability to pick our own government. Whether we get the right thing is then up to the people who live here.
Perhaps the UK should just have EU[ another foreign country] appointed ones then as it wont be any different?
They never said they would replace parliamentary democracy just that it would be one decided by the voters of scotland rather than the voter of [ primarily] England.
our own government
Hmmmm....
'Us and Them' again.
@Ben I suppose I am just repeating the same thing but you'll be picking a government which has far less room for manouver. Also as I understand it you are living and working in the UK so you will still have "our" Government anyway.
Funny isn't it
Spend half the time complaining all politicians are the same, then spend the other half saying how vital it is that you're allowed to choose between them...
SNP is not a national party ok!
SNP - pro immigration, pro EU, left leaning, pro people who live in Scotland, where ever they are from.
UKIP - Anti immigration, anti eu, on the right, pro 'British' people (what ever they are?).
The question is, and one that I wish had been asked of Darling on the radio this morning, is why weren't these powers announced ages ago if they've been in the planning for so long? And why doesn't their sudden announcement a) break the rules of purdah and b) show that they are panicking and have been complacent and are only suggesting these powers now to prevent a yes vote?
probably, and I feel he is right, hence the disaster of the "no" campaign and their nit picking negative campaign rather than a positive one looking at what Scotland contributes to the Union and the Union to Scotland
Yup,and now it is too late they have changed tact so much that even they don't know what the hell it is they are trying to say.The campaign of the naw's has played right into the chippy Scots who remember the Fatcher years,who remember hating England. The project fear element has just reinforced old perceptions of being told what to do by the English Tory Government. Now for all that the many contributors on this thread put that down to being oversensitive...why didnt they (BT) work out that these folk could vote?
The latest reaction the the err...some...more powers...lastmin.com devo max offer should make THM's wee heart glow...It would seem we are with your pal McCrone on how we view the promises/chances of Scotland getting extra layers of devolved power. Christ,they can't even get a Scottish flag run up properly!
You also seem to be bearing a grudge based on the political systems and democracy of the early 18th century. I hope for your sake you can get over that.
He's also still bitter about the clearances and seems to think they were carried out by the nasty English colonial masters. Just seems a bit confused in general really.
What's being offered is the ability to pick our own government. Whether we get the right thing is then up to the people who live here.
You already get to pick your own government (and vote for a UK government). What you are angling for is to probably have less control over your own affairs (due to the CU issues) because of an emotion-based desire to feel 'independent'.
this is complete unmitigated bollocks.
SNP is not a national party ok!
SNP loves Westnminster ok!
UKIP is not a nationalist party; it is a xenophobic one.
The SNP isn't really a nationalist party either; it's a funny sort of nationalist party that makes such a point to denounce xenophobia and racism, and spends so much time talking about how Scotland should be just like other European countries.
The SNP's popularity is not driven by fear and hatred. it's the party of government that has done not a terrible job of public administration with the powers it has - certainly in comparison with Labour (trams, Scottish parliament) and the Tories before them. the SNP has been around in significant numbers for decades and has a developed political platform and an established ideology and party line.
UKIP is simply a protest party built around one man that has actively sought to escape any executive responsibility once elected by simply not showing up.
none of what you said was correct ie unmitigated bollocks...
The latest reaction the the err...some...more powers...lastmin.com devo max offer should make THM's wee heart glow
On the contrary, I think it is unedifying and unnecessary. They should lay the facts out bare, abandons the US style non-compete bllx and then let folk decide. At least we have the governor of the BOE talking straight sense yesterday.
Christ,they can't even get a Scottish flag run up properly!
Boris-biked past MoTransport this morning with large saltire flapping in the breeze. Forget independence, this is reverse colonisation and without a gun being fired! Pathetic - and these are the muppets that we want running things.
Ben, you should be precise about nukes. It's not paying for them rather than not having them hidden away in Scottish waters. It's important.
The main similarity between UKIP and SNP is (1) mainstream parties don't know how to engage with/against people who spout BS and won't debate facts and (2) populism will swallow anything. Good job they don't promise a cheque in the post too.
Oh, and getting rid of the WMDs - that's pretty important too.
Is that a good idea as Putin gets particularly belligerent and China starts to throw its weight around a little more as it gets richer?
@ Molgrips its not to do with them being Scottish it is to with the people of Scotland being able to elect those who govern Scotland which they dont at the moment. Further to that there is an energised and politicised mass movement in Scotland now which I believe will diminish but not disappear after the referendum.
I have also said before that we need more participatory politics and much more accessible local politics.
I've just had a chat with a Scotsman I work with who convinced me that voting yes is a good move. His arguement went like this
Westminster Politicians - Incompetent fools
EU Politicians - Incompetent fools
Scottish Politicains - Incompetent Fools
But we have the chance to get rid of two sets of fools in one go and be left with our fools who we should be able to manage more effectively.
'Us and Them' again.
Yes, Us as in the people who live in Scotland - yet again, it's civic nationalism not ethnic nationalism.
Spend half the time complaining all politicians are the same, then spend the other half saying how vital it is that you're allowed to choose between them...
All Westminster politicians are the same, because the Westminster system produces that. A more proportional, fairer electoral system would produce politicians who are very different - as they are in Scotland.
Ben, you should be precise about nukes. It's not paying for them rather than not having them hidden away in Scottish waters. It's important.
To be precise, not having them is a moral issue. It's an over-riding moral issue for me. Not having to pay for them is a bonus, but even if getting rid of them didn't save us a penny, even if we had to spend £100bn over 30 years on some other white elephant, it'd still be worth it to get rid of them.
Possessing WMDs is just wrong. Full stop.
Is that a good idea as Putin gets particularly belligerent and China starts to throw its weight around a little more as it gets richer?
WMDs don't keep us safe from Russia and China, they just make us a target.
Molgrips its not to do with them being Scottish it is to with the people of Scotland
Lol!
As it stands, you are a UK citizen, and you get to elect a UK government just like everyone else.
@ Molgrips its not to do with them being Scottish it is to with the people of Scotland being able to elect those who govern Scotland which they dont at the moment.
What [i]does[/i] the Scottish Parliament do then? And I thought people in Scotland could vote for the government in the UK elections too.
You currently have more democratic power than anyone else in the UK.
A more proportional, fairer electoral system would produce politicians who are very different - as they are in Scotland.
Like Alex Salmond? Hmm....
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-foreign-investors-desert-british-economy-amid-fears-of-yes-vote-9720967.html ]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-foreign-investors-desert-british-economy-amid-fears-of-yes-vote-9720967.html[/url]
Top photo of this article. Can anyone spot a truly brilliant sign in the crowd?
Like Alex Salmond? Hmm....
Yes. Like him or not, he's run rings around every Westminster politician from the start. However a SNP majority in the Scottish parliament is an aberration - we're most likely to have coalitions with MSPs from lots of different parties.
[i]WMDs don't keep us safe from Russia and China, they just make us a target.[/i]
How do you work that out? the whole point of Trident is that it's invisible.
Also, can someone enlighten me what the 'Fairer Society' is all about? What does that actually mean?
Meanwhile:
[img] 
[/img]
So is this (and it's just down the road from a synagogue) worse than an egg?
How do you work that out? the whole point of Trident is that it's invisible.
Erm, Faslane? Coulport? The submarines may be invisible (you hope, if the Russians don't detect the one at-sea sub we've got), but the on-shore facilities that support the sub are very visible and an obvious target.
The one at-sea sub doesn't have enough nukes to deal an overwhelming counterstrike or counterforce blow, all it can do is make the Russians or Chinese very, very angry.
Also, can someone enlighten me what the 'Fairer Society' is all about? What does that actually mean?
It's a society where this kind of thing cannot happen:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/david-clapson-benefit-sanctions-death-government-policies
It's a society where this kind of thing cannot happen:
Not answering the question, really.
Erm, Faslane? Coulport? The submarines may be invisible (you hope, if the Russians don't detect the one at-sea sub we've got), but the on-shore facilities that support the sub are very visible and an obvious target.The one at-sea sub doesn't have enough nukes to deal an overwhelming counterstrike or counterforce blow, all it can do is make the Russians or Chinese very, very angry.
Ben - You really don't get it. Again.
You don't understand the power of even one Trident sub.
You don't understand how a strategic deterrent works.
You don't understand that if required all 4 subs could be at sea on patrol very quickly.
You don't understand how the UK and US attack subs are way ahead of the Russians.
One sub could easily destroy Moscow, St Petersberg and another dozen principal cities. What would be left?
The UK disarmed in the 1930's. Never again.
but the on-shore facilities that support the sub are very visible and an obvious target.
But the SNP plan was to continue the on shore facilities that support the submarines
The main similarity between UKIP and SNP is (1) mainstream parties don't know how to engage with/against people who spout BS and won't debate facts
the SNP is a mainstream party! you can't get more mainstream than having a majority. their views are unremarkable centre left European social democratic viewszzzzz.
it's equally facile to paint the SNP as populist. if they had been promising a free tartan elephant for every voter, they'd have been slung out years ago when they failed to perform as councillors, lords provost, MPs, MSPs, ministers and latterly as Scottish First Minister. they have a record of administration that is no better or worse than Labour, the Tories or the Lib Dems.
Well yes I am a UK citizen,and my country Scotland has voted Labour at every Westminster election since 1955.Still got Tory govts in 59,70,79,83,87,and 92 though and the Condems last time around. I think it is true to say that none of the Tories in govt are responsible to the people of Scotland except for Mundell.
It is absolutely true that Scottish mps should not have a say on rUk matters that dont directly affect Scotland.
Edit With Westminster still controlling the vast majority of taxation in Scotland and still controlling economic policy Scotland is still governed by Westminster
The UK disarmed in the 1930's. Never again.
no, it didn't. that global empire wasn't maintained by force of personality (and, in any case, the level of British armament was of no real significance to the rise of fascism and Stalinism, and the beginning of WW2
Gordimhor
How or why is that any different from a Tory voter living in the Borders, or a Lib Dem living in the Islands, getting an SNP or Labour government settled by the central belt?
Just to lighten the debate a little -
(Slightly sweary, but just about safe for work)
Ben - You really don't get it. Again.
Oh, I really do get it. The only purpose of Trident is to kill millions of innocent civilians after their leaders have killed millions of ours.
Morally that is indefensible - you can try to dress it up however you like, but they are weapons of mass destruction designed to kill men, women and children. There is no possible moral justification for possessing them.
How or why is that any different from a Tory voter living in the Borders, or a Lib Dem living in the Islands, getting an SNP or Labour government settled by the central belt?
Look how many Scottish Tories there are at Westminster. Now look at how many there are at Holyrood. Holyrood is more representative of the views of the people of Scotland.
no, it didn't. that global empire wasn't maintained by force of personality (and, in any case, the level of British armament was of no real significance to the rise of fascism and Stalinism, and the beginning of WW2
Utter bollocks.
Ninfan There will always be towns or cities or regions that voted against a particular government.I dont think there has ever been a democratically elected govt that got 100% of the vote but I believe that a general election is an exercise in national democracy. You either believe that Scotland is a country,and its people a nation or you dont.
I thought people in Scotland could vote for the government in the UK elections too.
They can but the votes in England decide what govt they got and [ almost always] what govt everyone gets hence the debate
You currently have more democratic power than anyone else in the UK.
Why do they need devolved power if they are so brilliantly represented in the UK?
They get "more" power as they have so little.
You either believe that Scotland is a country,and its people a nation or you dont.
Luckily that question has already been answered for you
[i]That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land
[/i]
They even gave you a currency union to go with it!
Ben - You really don't get it. Again.
[i]Oh, I really do get it. The only purpose of Trident is to kill millions of innocent civilians after their leaders have killed millions of ours.
Morally that is indefensible - you can try to dress it up however you like, but they are weapons of mass destruction designed to kill men, women and children. There is no possible moral justification for possessing them.[/i]
Erm, no Ben....you really don't get it.
Anyway Ben, I keep hearing this term 'fairer society'. Can you explain what that means, as I'm just not getting it?
You don't understand the power of even one Trident sub.
You don't understand how a strategic deterrent works.
You don't understand that if required all 4 subs could be at sea on patrol very quickly.
You don't understand how the UK and US attack subs are way ahead of the Russians.
You don't understand that bases can quickly become targets, not deterrents. Still, if you find yourself faced with relocating these weapons to say, Portsmouth, you might find out.
You don't understand that bases can quickly become targets, not deterrents. Still, if you find yourself faced with relocating these weapons to say, Portsmouth, you might find out.
Portsmouth is a navy town, they'd love more government jobs!
Erm, no Ben....you really don't get it.
trident isn't designed to kill millions of innocent people then? So when the subs go to sea, what are they targeting?
Ah the 1707 act of union. Here is the National Library of Scotlands documentation on the Act of Union.
[url= http://www.nls.uk/collections/rare-books/collections/union-of-parliaments ]Multiple protests[/url]
Ah the 1707 act of union. Here is the National Library of Scotlands documentation on the Act of Union.
Multiple protests
Hmm, you appear to have demonstrated that even when you have your own independent parliament, you don't always get what you want... you may even have proved that your own home grown politicians turn out to be just as corrupt as the Westminster ones 😳
Erm, no Ben....you really don't get it.
Okay, explain it to me - are you saying that nuclear weapons don't kill people?
nuclear weapons have killed a lot less people in the past sixty years than conventional weapons
are they immoral too?
Edit With Westminster still controlling the vast majority of taxation in Scotland and still controlling economic policy Scotland is still governed by Westminster
So how does 'independence' but being in a currency union with a much bigger economy help with that? 😕
They can but the votes in England decide what govt they got and [ almost always] what govt everyone gets hence the debate
No, the votes in the UK as a whole decide what government they get - because we are one country. I won't ever get the government I want either.
Why do they need devolved power if they are so brilliantly represented in the UK?
They get "more" power as they have so little.
They used to have so little until they got their own Parliament - now they get their own government AND they get to vote for the UK's government.
So Cameron explaining that there's no going back after a Yes vote. Why not? If we're all better together now, why wouldn't they want us back in 2 or 5 or 10 years time?
You don't understand that bases can quickly become targets, not deterrents.
Once it all kicked off the base is not really the target the subs are.
Of course Faslane and Coulport would be a target.
However, in the event of independance, even with no nuclear bases, as a member of Nato, Glasgow would be target anyway, as well as Edinburgh, the whole of the Central Belt and Aberdeen.
Wouldn't make much difference.
Hmm, you appear to have pointed out that even when you have your own independent parliament, you don't always get what you want...
This does not come as news to me.
Of course if it had been a democratically elected parliament in touch with its electorate who knows what might have happened 🙂
no, it didn't. that global empire wasn't maintained by force of personality (and, in any case, the level of British armament was of no real significance to the rise of fascism and Stalinism, and the beginning of WW2
Utter bollocks.
"Ten year rule" abandoned in q1 1932.
Defence expenditure:
1930: 118m
1931: 117m
1932: 113m
1933: 111m
1934: 116m
1935: 122m
1936: 146m
1937: 195m
1938: 206m
1939: 266m
Defence expenditure went down 7m between 1930 and 1933 (about 5%?), and then went up 88m (70%?) above the 1930 start point during peace time (that's excluding 1939 obviously). Hardly the UK having disarmed in the 1930s - in fact quite the opposite.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_1939UKmn_14mc1n_30#ukgs302
Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. If the other side have them to not be equivalently armed would be very dangerous. It's very naive to suggest we don't have nuclear weapons as we don't wish to kill civilians but out potential enemies have them to kill us.
We have plenty of nuclear power stations in the UK, the dangers of those are more significant as unlike a submarine they can't move off out to sea. The UK is more at the risk of a nuclear accident than is Scotland. If there is any hint of a conflict these submarines will be at sea, they are in Scotland at that's the easiest deep water access to the seas of the North.
I'm not sure the people of Scotland are that interested in the finer points of nuclear warfare strategy for them to change their vote one way or the other. I think they're more bothered about jobs, a free health service, a functioning welfare state and a broad based economy which benefits the majority rather than a tiny few in one particular region.
because we are one country.
except we're not. We're another country, united by the Act of Union.
Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. If the other side have them to not be equivalently armed would be very dangerous. It's very naive to suggest we don't have nuclear weapons as we don't wish to kill civilians but out potential enemies have them to kill us.
yep, look at all the times Norway's been invaded.
Still, if you want them, you can have them. That Portsmounth is a nice big naval base, should do fine.
Morally that is indefensible - you can try to dress it up however you like, but they are weapons of mass destruction designed to kill men, women and children. There is no possible moral justification for possessing them
Dan Carlin posed an interesting question at the start of one of his podcasts on war and he was discussing atomic weapons. Essentially the question was this: If you had the choice between a long and protracted war with 60 million casualties, or ending it instantly at the outset with a nuclear bomb, killing 3 million people, what would you do?
Probably less of a debate now with mutually assured destruction, but it still makes for a moral quandry.
Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. If the other side have them to not be equivalently armed would be very dangerous
What "other side"? Who is Scotland at war with? And why would Scotland be at war with anyone anyway? This is just more jingoistic "Britannia Rules the Waves" rubbish, which belongs in the 19th Century.
If you had the choice between a long and protracted war with 60 million casualties, or ending it instantly at the outset with a nuclear bomb, killing 3 million people, what would you do?
Well, yes. When there was only one nuclear weapon in the world, that was a sensible discussion to be having. Now there are thousands of them, so any war that goes nuclear will kill more people than every war before it put together.
yep, look at all the times Norway's been invaded
More recently than us.
Does anyone have a tally for who has been invaded more?
Times Norway has been invaded since nuclear weapons were invented: 0
There you go 😉
(Okay, technically they were under Nazi control already when the bomb was invented)
[i]they are in Scotland at that's the easiest deep water access to the seas of the North.[/i]
Its the only deep water spot in the UK that a sub can come and go to/from their base without being spotted. Therefore our enemies would never know how many subs we have at sea at any time. Its not there by accident and there's nowhere in England that is close to replicating the Faslane situation.
Rockape63 - MemberAnyway Ben, I keep hearing this term 'fairer society'. Can you explain what that means, as I'm just not getting it?
Let me help
Fair, adjective
a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.
b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.
7. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds.
8. Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.
Fairer = more fair.
[i]Now there are thousands of them, so any war that goes nuclear will kill more people than every war before it put together.[/i]
I think you've finally got it Ben!
Fairer = more fair.
Very good, but I didn't ask what 'fair, meant, I asked what a Fairer society meant?
What "other side"? Who is Scotland at war with?
No one at the moment.
However, an iScotland will be in NATO, so if the rUK are attacked you be obliged to declare war and assist us.
I am assuming that iScotland intends to join NATO?
1930: 118m
1931: 117m
1932: 113m
1933: 111m
1934: 116m
1935: 122m
1936: 146m
1937: 195m
1938: 206m
1939: 266mDefence expenditure went down 7m between 1930 and 1933 (about 5%?), and then went up 88m (70%?) above the 1930 start point during peace time (that's excluding 1939 obviously). Hardly the UK having disarmed in the 1930s - in fact quite the opposite.
Some figures in isolation? Pretty meaningless.
They do show a very low amount in 1933, which doesn't change a lot until 1937.
It needs to be considered when compared to what Germany was spending at the time and on what.
The vast majority of that UK spend would be for running and maintaining the RN to support the Empire. Not responding to the threat from Europe.
If the UK had been spending a similar amount in 1933 to what they did in 1937, their Armed Forces would of been in a proper condition to respond to Sudeten Crisis in 1938.
No, the votes in the UK as a whole decide what government they get - because we are one country. I won't ever get the government I want either.
That is sophist at best.
The numbers dont lie ; Scotland has the govt that England voted for.
You can spin it how you like but it wont make my point untrue.
Fact remains England picks Scotlands govt almost every time, and will do in the Union, hence the calls for independence get louder as Tory MP's get fewer.
And why would Scotland be at war with anyone anyway?
Maybe over economic interests at sea? Y'know, seeing as iScotland's gonna need all of that oil and gas...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
And why would Scotland be at war with anyone anyway?
Same reason the UK does. Or are you not going to give a shit about humanitarian disasters, genocide and so on?
Let me help
By quoting dictionary definitions we all know? Surely you mean 'let me be an arse cos I can't actually help?'
Therefore our enemies would never know how many subs we have at sea at any time.
Anyone who drives past Loch Long with a pair of binoculars can tell you exactly how many subs are at sea - they don't dive when they're at Faslane you know!
I think you've finally got it Ben!
I'm still trying to get it. So nuclear weapons are designed to kill millions of civilians, correct? So how am I wrong to say it's morally unjustifiable to possess them?
I'm struggling to think of any moral justification for killing, or even threatening to kill civilians.
Same reason the UK does. Or are you not going to give a shit about humanitarian disasters, genocide and so on?
Care a lot about those. The wars we've been involved in recently have little to do with humanitarian disasters or genocide. We cause the disasters, we don't fix the disasters.
The vast majority of that UK spend would be for running and maintaining the RN to support the Empire. Not responding to the threat from Europe.
So you're retreating from the statement that
The UK disarmed in the 1930's
And now you're just saying the UK didn't spend enough on armaments such that Hitler wouldn't have annexed the Sudetenland? under what circumstances would the UK have landed an expeditionary force on landlocked Central European territory to free a few Bohemians on 1938?
gobuchul do you lie awake at night worrying about nuclear war? I did when I was young, and aliens invading, earthquakes, volcanos etc. Thankfully I grew out of it and am now more bothered about things that actually happen and which are preventable/avoidable. I suspect the majority of people in Scotland are the same.
All Westminster politicians are the same, because the Westminster system produces that. A more proportional, fairer electoral system would produce politicians who are very different - as they are in Scotland.
remind me, which members of the Yes campaign are Westminister politians/ former Westminister politicians?
anyway assuming AS gets his way and iS is in the EU meet the people making the real decisions
[img] 
[/img]
and is it me or does a lot of the Yes campiagn sound like ABE (anyone but England)
The wars we've been involved in recently have little to do with humanitarian disasters or genocide
But as the yessers keep saying, we need to take the long view. The last couple have been highly questionable, but not all of them.
So nuclear weapons are designed to kill millions of civilians, correct? So how am I wrong to say it's morally unjustifiable to possess them?
Look, I'm a pacifist, but it's very obvious. They are a deterrent - on both sides. Just like conventional arms.
So how am I wrong to say it's morally unjustifiable to possess them?
Morals don't come into play when you have people trying to kill each other. It's no good being morally justified if you are dead. Having a deterrent keeps you alive.
The numbers dont lie ; Scotland has the govt that England voted for.
You can spin it how you like but it wont make my point untrue.Fact remains England picks Scotlands govt almost every time,
Of the last 20 general elections, the majority in Scotland voted for the same party that won in Westminster 13 times. So 65% of the time Scotland got the government it voted for.
They are a deterrent - on both sides.
What exactly do they deter?
[i]Anyone who drives past Loch Long with a pair of binoculars can tell you exactly how many subs are at sea - they don't dive when they're at Faslane you know![/i]
You think our nuclear subs need to surface to re arm/resupply at Faslane?
They may as well move to Portsmouth then! 🙂
and is it me or does a lot of the Yes campiagn sound like ABE (anyone but England)
Sadly it does. A lot of people voting yes because they think they hate the English. Two friends were having a debate on Facebook last night. The yes supporter is on the verge of a breakdown in my opinion. The no supporter was calm and rational. The yes guy told his no friend
"You're a disgrace to Scotland mate. Don't dare darken my door again"
But as the yessers keep saying, we need to take the long view. The last couple have been highly questionable, but not all of them.
Long view we'll be a part of NATO, but as an independent country able to decide for ourselves whether we want to get involved in things. Long view also, we (as in the UK) aren't going to be able to do anything militarily about Russia or China anyway.
They are a deterrent - on both sides. Just like conventional arms.
Say my neighbour is a psycho (he's not, he's a retired politics lecturer, but just say). He threatens to punch me. A gun is like me saying I'll punch him back. A nuclear weapon is like me saying I'll kill his wife and kids.
Conventional arms are designed to fight armies. They're pretty rubbish at other stuff - they're even rubbish at fighting terrorists. Nuclear weapons are even worse, they're no good for fighting terrorists, they're no good for fighting armies, their only purpose is to threaten to kill millions of women and children.
So, for that reason, they're morally very different and totally wrong.
You think our nuclear subs need to surface to re arm/resupply at Faslane?
Yes, where do you think they do it?
Morals don't come into play when you have people trying to kill each other. It's no good being morally justified if you are dead. Having a deterrent keeps you alive.
But you wouldn't be alive. Nuclear weapons just mean if you're dead so is everyone else.