[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Nukes are great, probably the only reason why the Red Army never came crashing through Europe to kick off WW3.

It says something about humanity that the only time we are less willing to kill each other is when we are staring down the barrels of our own imminent destruction.

there's the moral side of it too.

Take money away from weapons that you don't intend to use, and instead spend it on ones that you do 😯

New Zealand is nuclear free. Didn't stop the French bombing us.

Nukes are great, probably the only reason why the Red Army never came crashing through Europe to kick off WW3.

The Cold War is over, MAD doesn't work any more.

Take money away from weapons that you don't intend to use, and instead spend it on ones that you do

Scotland has no intention of getting involved in any more overseas adventures. We'll need some fishery patrol vessels, a few things to keep an eye on the oil rigs, that's about it. Instead we want to spend the money on schools, hospitals, things that help people.

The UK has less than 2% of the nuclear weapons in the world

There is more than enough nuclear weapons to blow up the World many times over. 2% is a massive amount of firepower. It could lay waste to an entire Continent at least.

Nukes are great, probably the only reason why the Red Army never came crashing through Europe to kick off WW3.

Agreed.

There is more than enough nuclear weapons to blow up the World many times over. 2% is a massive amount of firepower. It could lay waste to an entire Continent at least.

But in the scale of disarmament, it's not enough to make any difference to the balance of power.

Why not arm the middle east so that peace may break out?

Scotland has no intention of getting involved in any more overseas adventures. We'll need some fishery patrol vessels, a few things to keep an eye on the oil rigs, that's about it.

So what are Scotland offering to NATO?

All the shortbread they can eat.

But in the scale of disarmament, it's not enough to make any difference to the balance of power.

That doesn't make any sense.

Ben - I pointed out before that you either can't or won't try and understand how a Strategic Deterrent works.

I can understand the unilateral disarmament argument, however I disagree with it, I strongly believe that we must keep a strong military or a situation similar to the 1930's could develop. We all know what that leads to.

Nobody knows what the World is going to be like in 5 years time, never mind in 20 years.

Just let them use the Scottish pound no one in England bloody accepts it anyway ad I found out on my return to the Independent Republic of Yorkshire

Scotland has no intention of getting involved in any more overseas adventures. We'll need some fishery patrol vessels, a few things to keep an eye on the oil rigs, that's about it.

Just because you are not going to invade Afghanistan why do you think you are going to have next to no military?

As has been pointed out on here numerous times, nobody knows which political party will be leading your independant country.

Also, as a member of NATO you will be expected to contribute. Unless you don't want to be in NATO, which would be the moral thing to do as NATO has a massive nuclear capability.

So what are Scotland offering to NATO?

The same as Iceland (who are in NATO) - we're one end of the GIUK link. In fact a bit more than Iceland, as we'd have the capability to patrol the GIUK link.

Ben - I pointed out before that you either can't or won't try and understand how a Strategic Deterrent works.

I understand exactly how it works. A deterrent only works when the people you're trying to deter believe you might use the deterrent. There's no scenario where that's possible with the UK's nuclear weapons - either the enemies are so small they can't be attacked with nukes (terrorists) or so big we would be obliterated without being able to inflict a decisive response (Russia).

I strongly believe that we must keep a strong military or a situation similar to the 1930's could develop. We all know what that leads to.

SO nearly a goodwin.....so nearly

Yes if the Scots give up all their weapons then nazism will once more sweep through europe

A deterrent only works when the people you're trying to deter believe you might use the deterrent. There's no scenario where that's possible with the UK's nuclear weapons - either the enemies are so small they can't be attacked with nukes (terrorists) or so big we would be obliterated without being able to inflict a decisive response (Russia).

As has been pointed out on here numerous times, nobody knows which political party will be leading your independant country.

True, we could all paint our bums blue, take up arms, and try to take York again 😀

I think it's reasonable to assume, as a small Northern European country, we'd have a military capability on the par with other small Northern European countries.

Speaking of which, the Norwegians have some very kick-ass patrol boats:

[img] [/img]

😉

Thus proving you don't "understand exactly how it works."

Okay, explain it to me.

Yes if the Scots give up all their weapons then nazism will once more sweep through europe

Loony Lord George Robertson, the man with the world's smallest mouth, reckoned it would bring about the end of Western civilisation 😀

as we'd have the capability to patrol the GIUK link.

With what? What are looking for? I would suggest Russian submarines.

You need a bit more than a few fishery patrol vessels to achieve this.

A deterrent only works when the people you're trying to deter believe you might use the deterrent.

Why do you think the UK would never use nuclear weapons?

so big we would be obliterated without being able to inflict a decisive response (Russia).

This is wrong. The RN submarines do very well at hiding from Russian subs. 1 Trident submarine could obliterate Russia. Even if the UK is destroyed the SSBN would still be operational. This is the whole idea of MAD.

We'll need some fishery patrol vessels, a few things to keep an eye on the oil rigs,

That doesn't match the white paper commitments:

12-16 Typhoon
6 Hercules
Rotary wing fleet
A second naval squadron to [u]contribute to NATO and other operations outside home waters[/u] incorporating the naval command platform, and a further two frigates with tanker and support ship capacity
All Arms brigade’s capabilities to include three infantry battalions, light armour, artillery, aviation and medical

Headcount of 15k regular, plus 5k reserve

As I hinted at first thing the independece bonus issues highlights the extent to which the DO is prepared to deliberately mislead. Not only were the numbers made up but the extent to which he tried to hide the fact shows the contempt that he has for all of us. It's as if this was a vanity project rather than an important issue!?!

The DO starts pretty much every brief with the economic issues (followed by an anti English Tory jibe) - plus we have seen how voters intentions are determined by financial considerations right from the outset. So to then dismiss them in favour of fluffy cotton wool dreams seems somewhat irrational.

deter means it stops them attacking you - well I think that is what they are getting at

Today poll from everyone's favorite newspaper
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-no-lead-at-record-low-1-3507723

The Cold War is over, MAD doesn't work any more.

Explain, theres a reason why Putin has yet to throw his weight at Nato countries such as Finland and Poland.

A deterrent only works when the people you're trying to deter believe you might use the deterrent. There's no scenario where that's possible with the UK's nuclear weapons - either the enemies are so small they can't be attacked with nukes (terrorists) or so big we would be obliterated without being able to inflict a decisive response (Russia).

We have a second strike capability, Russia would cease to exist as a functioning country if we retaliated to a nuclear strike. Secondly, nuclear proliferation is very real. Hopefully non-state actors/small states would think twice about using them if they knew that the consequences to their use would be places such as Mecca becoming uninhabitable.

Explain.

MAD only works when there's total destruction and it's assured. 40 warheads would certainly kill millions of people, but against such a large country as Russia or China wouldn't do more than make them very, very angry.

Nor is it assured - we're pinning everything on the Russians not finding and sinking our one at-sea sub. Then we're hoping the Russians' anti-ICBM system doesn't work.

Hopefully non-state actors/small states would think twice about using them if they knew that the consequences to their use would be places such as Mecca becoming uninhabitable.

We'd nuke Mecca in retaliation for a terrorist attack in the UK? That would, if anything, encourage the terrorists and would make us a pariah state - perhaps inviting attack from others.

MAD only works when there's total destruction and it's assured. 40 warheads would certainly kill millions of people, but against such a large country as Russia or China wouldn't do more than make them very, very angry.

Nor is it assured - we're pinning everything on the Russians not finding and sinking our one at-sea sub. Then we're hoping the Russians' anti-ICBM system doesn't work.

40 warheads would overwhelm Moscow's defences and besides, Russia's ballistic missile defence is centred around Moscow only. Those 40 missiles would be enough to destroy 40 other major cities within Russia.

If anything, your argument just increases support for spending more on the military seeing as the world is going to become less stable and more focussed on agriculture and resources in the far north. Russia, in part due to the impact of climate change, is set to become one of the biggest economies in the world. To add to this dilemma that Europe finds itself in, we have seen that Russia like a Leopard cannot change it's spots.

We'd nuke Mecca in retaliation for a terrorist attack in the UK? That would, if anything, encourage the terrorists and would make us a pariah state - perhaps inviting attack from others.

Do you think that a nuclear attack on the UK would elicit anything other than a retaliatory nuclear strike on a country such as Iran, or a group such as Isis?

Any chance we could get vaguely back on topic ?
Interesting PM that the polls are still in the balance and the dont know ditherers will decide.

Any chance we could get vaguely back on topic ?
Interesting PM that the polls are still in the balance and the dont know ditherers will decide.

Yes - a FB friend said she finds the whole thing really boring and she's just going to vote the way her boyfriend tells her 🙄

Quick ben get on to the BF then 😉

I have often thought their needs to be a test before you can vote but I guess [ hope] idiots cancel each other out

Tom - its worth also pointing out that 40 warheads with one sub deployed is only the 'flexible response' load that has been carried in recent, relatively peaceful and low threat times

[i]“A minimum nuclear deterrent capability that, during a crisis, is able to deliver at short notice a
nuclear strike against a range of targets at an appropriate scale and with very high confidence.”
[/i]

Transition to a state of war is not an 'overnight' thing, tensions ramp up over a period of time, even during the cold war - full trident deployment with up to 160 warheads could take as little as a few days dependent on the urgency, however a longer period of world instability could see us ramping back up to 700 plus warheads if necessary - the point is that possession of the capability doesn't require constant deployment at maximum capacity to retain its deterrent effect.

Which is why Nuclear disarmament is a load of complete crap Ninfan, Japan is not technically a nuclear state but as I remember is supposedly "1 turn of a screwdriver" away from being one. As they have the scientific knowledge, plenty of fissionable material and missiles capable of being converted for use as ICBM's.

I guess that put's their nuclear capability at risk of being destroyed in a first strike policy, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had the plans set in place to knock out a load of weapons in a few weeks from underground shelters if need be.

I doubt Japan have a centrifuge cascade set up ready to go - they might do in a bunker somewhere, but seeing as it's against their constitution to have nuclear weapons it seems unlikely. Especially as starting from zero it's a bit more than "turning a screwdriver" to make a nuclear warhead, and they would need to make hundreds.

But, even supposing it's true, so what? Any industrialised country could make a nuclear weapon if they wanted - hell, I could make a crude one in my workshop with to little help with materials. The point is we don't need or want them, they have no useful purpose, cost a colossal amount of money, and are morally repugnant.

The point is we don't need or want them, they have no useful purpose, cost a colossal amount of money, and are morally repugnant.

I agree that they are morally repugnant and cost a colossal amount of money.

I don't really want them either, however, as long as the likes of Israel, India, China and Russia have them, then I would say we need them. Unfortunately.

Many countries within NATO don't have nuclear weapons, yet all are protected under the umbrella of those countries with weapons.

I'd be very happy to see them disappear from Scotland, and head off to Pembrokeshire or Cornwall, which would be strong contenders for the role if Coulport closes.

The UK nuclear deterrent is terrifyingly powerful, it could easily lay waste to China and Russia. I am sure that they could very easily do the same in response. Having nuclear weapons allows us to stand up to countries like China and Russia knowing that they can't use theirs against us. Russia has just supposedly shot down a civilian aircraft as well as invaded two European countries recently, we need a deterrent so that we can put them in their place if needs be.

Sorry, but if you think the UK could put Russia or China "in their place", you're deluded.

Just as an aside FNF .
When did Russia change from their story that it was the Russian sympathizers in Ukraine who shot down the aircraft?
Which 2 European countries has Russia recently invaded?

Ben Russia and China have poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us and our troops have real combat experience.

Gordi, they invaded Georgia and slyly invaded Ukrainian Crimea as well.

Ben Russia and China have poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us and our troops have real combat experience.

I'll file that under "Yes" 😉

The point is we don't need or want them, they have no useful purpose, cost a colossal amount of money, and are morally repugnant.

And conventional weapons are different how? conventional weapons and armies cost far more and have killed far more - 95% of the UK defence budget is on conventional forces that have no useful purpose, cost a colossal amount of money, and is the use of them not morally repugnant? Is not a policy of conventional weapons, with bombs raining down, with missiles, with aircraft, with submarines, torpedoes, tanks - Are not all weapons of war based on the possibility of threat and is not your response to any threat 'Look! If you attack us you will have such a terrible time that you cannot win!' ?

you cannot disinvent nuclear weapons -the knowledge, the information, the precedent - You cannot just act as if there had never been nuclear weapons. If conventional war started again, the race would be on as to who got the nuclear weapon first. in that one moment! That person would win!

There is another reason for smaller countries like us: the nuclear deterrent is the only thing which enables smaller countries actually to stand up to a bigger country. You could never do it on conventional weapons alone - if our armed forces were 20%, 50%, 100% bigger, they would not carry a fraction of the deterrent that Trident does - a smaller democratic and stable country standing alone can stand up to a bigger one only with nuclear weapons. And lets remember this, Historically, Britain had to stand alone. All of Europe was occupied by Hitler. We were alone, on the brink of defeat, hours from invasion. America had not yet come into the War. Hitler had not yet attacked the Soviet Union. We've been there before, at huge cost to our nation, and we nearly lost - Thats why Britain retains Nuclear Weapons, its the ultimate insurance policy

Godwin.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer ]Type 45[/url] equals air superiority

Duh, Godwins law was hit 170 pages ago! (Hitler comparisons on page 49...) plus nowhere did I [i]compare [/i]anything to Hitler or Nazism, so its a technical fail as well 😆

Pffft, close enough.

🙂

Who got the Hitler comparisons?

I'm guessing either THM on Salmond or Ben on Cameron or some other Tory clone.

Oy, don't put words into my mouth PM 😉

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28780811

Here's hoping this one's going to be good this time.

The UK has less than 2% of the nuclear weapons in the world - removing that number won't make much difference to the world situation, but it'll make us safer - and there's the moral side of it too.

I can understand your stance from a financial point of view ben, but cannot help but think that if International governments get to the position of launching nuclear weapons at each other, we will be no safer whether we have nuclear weapons or not. I reckon we are all f*d. I think you are ping in the wind there. Doesn't appear you care too much about the future of the World, however that's par for the nationalist course, but how then does Scottish independence rid the UK of nuclear weapons? A government you have not even the right to vote for may well keep them and move them a few hundred miles South. Good luck if you reckon that also keeps you safe.

I had forgotten about the Georgian war FNF although I do suspect the Russians are largely welcomed in Crimea .

athgray - Member
...but how then does Scottish independence rid the UK of nuclear weapons? A government you have not even the right to vote for may well keep them and move them a few hundred miles South. Good luck if you reckon that also keeps you safe.

About 350 miles from Glasgow seems like a safe enough distance considering most of the South of England would be ashes.

But much better than 20-30 miles from Glasgow.

About 350 miles from Glasgow seems like a safe enough distance considering most of the South of England would be ashes.

And that about effing sums it up. I should not have to say more. 😥

That has to be the ultimate isolationist view. At least you won't have to pretend to care about London's urban poor. Who has the Che Guevara t-shirt today btw?

athgray - Member
"About 350 miles from Glasgow seems like a safe enough distance considering most of the South of England would be ashes."
And that about effing sums it up. I should not have to say more.

That has to be the ultimate isolationist view.

Not at all. We don't want the bloody dangerous things up here because of that risk.

If you want them, then you accept the risk surely.

Or do you only want them if you can put them somewhere where disposable people take the consequences - the old "no matter if they fall" policy?

fasternotfatter - Member

Having nuclear weapons allows us to stand up to countries like China and Russia knowing that they can't use theirs against us.

fasternotfatter - Member

Ben Russia and China have poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us and our troops have real combat experience.

So they "couldn't nuke us" but we need nuclear weapons to stop them using theirs against us ?

In other words you believe we need nuclear weapons to stop them doing something which you claim they couldn't do even if they wanted to.

Have you fully thought this through ?

Read my previous post. If International governments start launching nuclear weapons at each other you are as well putting your 30 mile tape measure in the bin for all the good it will do. I have family in the SE and unlike you I care what goes on there.
The talk that nuclear weapons are on the Clyde as Glasgow's population is somehow 'disposable' is nothing less than unhelpful and a bit stupid.
If the unlikely event of nuclear armageddon is being considered, it makes talk of currency union, oil reserves and energy policy ring a bit hollow, but it does not fail to show apparent socialists in the true "we will be alright Jack" light that they are!

Athgray What is it that you thinks the various organisations that make up Better together are doing for poor and vulnerable people in London or anywhere else?

Doesn't appear you care too much about the future of the World

Amazing how you get to that from the fact I want to get rid of nuclear weapons.

😆

this debate is comedy gold

At least ernie meant it

Aye a hypothetical debate about nuke locations does indeed

show apparent socialists in the true "we will be alright Jack" light that they are!

All the quote shows is you hate socialist so much you will clutch at straws to insult them.

But much better than 20-30 miles from Glasgow.

But the SNP have repeatedly stated that Faslane will [b]still[/b] be a major naval base, and has no problem with it continuing is its role as a major conventional armaments depot

[i]'Jobs at Faslane would be protected in an independent Scotland, but as a major conventional base rather than a home to the UK's nuclear weapons.'[/i] Bill Kidd, SNP MSP

So, given its vital role as an NATO depot, it remains a prime target anyway - nothing to do with the nuclear weapons, which are deployed deep in the oceans thousands of miles away.

So they "couldn't nuke us" but we need nuclear weapons to stop them using theirs against us

I thought his point was perfectly clear 'they couldn't nuke us' because we have a second strike capability that would guarantee their own destruction.

The talk that nuclear weapons are on the Clyde as Glasgow's population is somehow 'disposable' is nothing less than unhelpful and a bit stupid.

Indeed - Faslane has been the predominant UK submarine base since WW2 - those criticising the government for homing nuclear weapons there out of some 'disposable' concept seem to forget that we homed both the Atomic Weapons research base and Greenham Common 40 odd miles from London...

We certainly appear to have entered some kind of mirror world where wanting rid of nukes makes one an enemy of mankind, and the UK could beat Russia or China in a war.

gordimhor. I have never claimed better together speak for me. Unlike some I need no campaign group to represent me. I also reckon UK governments don't do enough to help the UK's poorest, but I reckon Scotland can do it's bit. At heart it depends on whether you wish to create a fairer Scotland or a fairer UK. I just think one is more difficult, and one is the easy path. You decide which is which. I just take issue with nationalists that claim they are the ones in support of a fairer society. I will take the difficult path thank you very much.

Athgray What policies would you adopt to help the poorest then?

I thought his point was perfectly clear 'they couldn't nuke us' because we have a second strike capability

I didn't see any mention of "second strike".

But I did see a mention of "poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us".

So if they can't nuke us why do we need a second strike capability ?

I knew you would come back JY. You always pretend to be a neutral referee, but pounce on something I say after a poster says it would be better if the SE was turned to ash. I think you need to have a word with yourself.

Ernie, perhaps it would have been better if he had typed:

[i]poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us [because we also have nuclear weapons] and our troops have real combat experience.
[/i]

Though the meaning was obvious to anyone not trying to be a dick, although I disagree on his point regards combat experience, we'd be swamped with prisoners or run out of ammunition long before we managed to make a dent on their military

I think it's you that's trying to be a dick mate.

[i]poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us [because we have nuclear weapons] and our troops have real combat experience.[/i]

The reason given for their inability to "nuke us" was poor outdated equipment. Realizing what a ridiculous argument he has presented for us retaining nuclear weapons, if they couldn't use theirs against us anyway, you simply changed the reason to "because we have nuclear weapons".

That's not the reason he gave as you well know.

The reason given for their inability to "nuke us" was poor outdated equipment

poor outdated equipment couldn't nuke us...
poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us...

Go on, see if you can find the vital comma - its the difference between helping your Uncle, Jack, off a horse....

athgray - Member
...At heart it depends on whether you wish to create a fairer Scotland or a fairer UK...

We don't have the power to make a fairer UK without exterminating the denizens of the House of Lords, so we'll settle for a fairer Scotland.

I will take the difficult path thank you very much.

Gordimhor, I am not sure of the best response, however increasing the top rate of income tax seems resonable for starters. Some may disagree. A jobseekers system that truly helps people back into work, rather than the tick box system it seems to be just now. (I have first hand experience of this). Perhaps get rid of nuclear weapons from the UK. I don't know the in's and out's. That is what I pay politicians for.

gordimhor. I have never claimed better together speak for me. Unlike some I need no campaign group to represent me. I also reckon UK governments don't do enough to help the UK's poorest, but I reckon Scotland can do it's bit. At heart it depends on whether you wish to create a fairer Scotland or a fairer UK. I just think one is more difficult, and one is the easy path. You decide which is which. I just take issue with nationalists that claim they are the ones in support of a fairer society. I will take the difficult path thank you very much.

Good post.

Although it may have been relative to those around it. It's seems honest at least, which counts for a lot in this debate so full of folk painting pictures as biased as possible to suit their viewpoint.

Yet apart from the fluff, who is defining what fairer is or how it is going to achieved? No one. There is the odd reference to individual policies (v sectively done) and a vague notion that such policies are exclusive to one party. Again just fluff. Somehow as if by magic the DO is going to magic away problems faced by many developed economises ignoring basic truisms that have existed though history in the process. Kindagarten aspirations rather than grown up thinking. A debate of this importance should be respected by a qaility debate of core issues instead of deceit and lies. An independence bonus anyone......?

teamhurtmore - Member
...Somehow as if by magic the DO is going to magic away problems faced by many developed economises ignoring basic truisms that have existed though history in the process...

Ah, if only he could.

We don't expect an easy ride with what is promising to be a hostile neighbour to our south (judging by Better Together pronouncements). In the long run we will sort out our problems. A far smaller price than gaining our independence the other way.

We are capable of running our own country.

34 days to go

Yet apart from the fluff, who is defining what fairer is or how it is going to achieved? No one.

By it's very definition, a government chosen by the people is fairer than one that is not. A government in Scotland, chosen by the people of Scotland, is fairer than a partly-unelected government that only has minimal support in Scotland.

Fix that, make the government represent the people, and then you can start fixing everything else.

It's not about specific policies - I'm a Green, some SNP policies I like and some I dislike - it's about having the freedom to elect a government that can implement those policies.

At present, if the UK government acts in a way that's detrimental to Scotland, there's not much the Scottish voter can do about it. After independence, if we don't like what the government is doing, we can just elect a new one.

That's fair, and it's remarkably easy to achieve, the people of a Scotland just have to vote for independence.

I'm English and in Glasgow at the moment with work. I had a long chat with the guys here and, possibly influenced by what is seen as a highly successful Commonwealth Games, they are swinging towards a yes vote.

They feel the biggest things holding back 'Yes' support are:
1) Alex Salmon - he seems to be a despised figurehead
2) Not much else really; they're a bit uncomfortable with the uncertainty over many of the things discussed on here, ad nauseum

The attraction and excitement of going it alone and being self-determining is out-weighing the fear of the unknown.

They told me that excitement is building amongst their friends in the city towards a possible 'Yes'

(A small straw poll of young professional male Glaswegians, who previously leant towards 'no')

who is defining what fairer is or how it is going to achieved

Obviously the former is inherently "fairer" and democratic.

A debate of this importance should be respected by a qaility debate of core issues instead of deceit and lies

Just to leap in on nukes. If you want to have a nuclear deterrent, sub based ICBM born nukes are the best cheapest and safest thing available.
- They can't be pre-emptively attacked like a land based ICBM, so wiping a sub equipped nation off the earth doesn't stop a response.
- The fact that they are safe from pre-emptive strike means you don't have to decide to "respond" until you're sure an attack is happening, making accidental armageddon far less likely.
- ICBMs can't be shot down, unlike cruise missiles or bombers (aiplanes, not the MTB fork), so are again a real deterrent.

As for moving them from Scotland, the base was never a nuclear target in itself as the deterrent subs are mostly at sea, and if any part of the British isles is attacked then the fallout won't respect the border in either direction - an attack on any part would be an attack on all. So Scotland would enjoy all the protection of the deterrent without 'contributing'; smart or cynical? They do however lose some highly skilled jobs and industry.

And as for 'nuclear waste' released from the base, the nuclear industry is so tied up in green inspired regs intended to render it unworkable that the water from the bucket used to mop the sub's floor would be considered 'nuclear waste'.

There may or may not be reasons to vote yes, Trident isn't one of them.

[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2009/04/28/nuke_waste_spill_rob_edwards_strikes_again/ ]Nuclear incidents at Farslane[/url]

the nuclear industry is so tied up in green inspired regs intended to render it unworkable

Apart from that an excellent post

Trident relocation costs inbound

I'll triple those estimated costs

Ben, strip away the fluff and you see that since the war, Scotland gets the party it voted for more often than not - indeed around 2/3 of the time. So the democratic position. Is equivalent to England's.

The fluff seems little note that on occassions we get Tories and some of us don't like that. But that is not a coherent argument that stacks up.

So Ben, the first para in you point above does not stand up to scutiny. Granted the period that grates north oft he border most is the Thatcher period where Scotland did not get the party it voted for. Still gave them a hate figure to blame for the inevitable decline in certain secondary and primary industries exacerbated by the impact of NS Oil on the exchange rate. Both of which have been taken into account now, surely....??????

Bizarrely, Scotland gets the party it voted for more often than England, but that is a separate story.

Though the meaning was obvious to anyone not trying to be a dick, although I disagree on his point regards combat experience, we'd be swamped with prisoners or run out of ammunition long before we managed to make a dent on their military

Unfortunately, without US intervention, the Russkis or Chinese would walk all over our military.

I genuinely believe that we have the finest military in the world, but our forces are far better suited to a guerilla style conflict as opposed to a 'land war' purely due to numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

And a fun, but interesting article: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/we-asked-a-military-expert-how-to-invade-and-conquer-russia

I was amazed yesterday, looking at the coverage the BOE's pronouncement that it had contingency plans for independence. Amazed, that people would have any doubt that this had not been in place for some time.

The MoD have done similar planning, and have looked at alternative sites. I don't have the figures to hand, but the number of skilled jobs centred around the bases (that are not RN) are likely to be pretty small. For me though, it is about whether you want to have nuclear weapons at all. Basing that decision on whether it is going to safeguard some jobs is wrong IMO, as the issue is far broader. The rUK wants to remain a UN Security Council permanent member, which it believes it needs nuclear weapons to do so. That's fine. I don't believe Scotland would have any pretensions to that, but it would likely want to have the protection of NATO.