Slashdot Mirror
Would Scottish Independence Mean the End of UK's Nuclear Arsenal?
Lasrick writes The referendum on Scottish independence on September 18th affects more than just residents of the United Kingdom. All of the UK's nuclear deterrent is located in Scotland, and Alex Salmond and the Scottish government have pledged to safely remove and permanently ban nuclear weapons from Scottish territory within the first term of a newly independent parliament.
Nope
They would just move it to England. Or Wales.
This might be the least intelligent question I've seen on Slashdot.
the Ministry of Defence has said that removing Trident to the English coast would be extremely difficult and abhorrently costly. Great Britain has thus staked out its position as having no fallback, arguing that even if one did exist, it would be a logistical and financial nightmare. This would be all well and good—if the Scottish government was not especially clear that it will remove the weapons as quickly and safely as possible after independence. With Scotland at that point an independent state, the remaining United Kingdom would have no legal authority to prevent this from happening.
Interesting. I would've thought diverse sites would be part of the strategy from the get-go with this sort of thing. Eggs in one basket, and all that
I guess we would have to detonate them all the second Scotland declares independence ;)
Any kind of future nuclear accident would ruin the golf courses.
Mean Russia gave up its nuclear arsenal? This title is a very stupid question. The rest of the UK is not going to give up the nukes because Scotland wants to secede, and Scotland will turn them over if it wants to ever have military cooperation from the rest of the UK, let alone the Five Eyes countries and probably NATO.
I believe Alex has mentioned before that "when" Scotland breaks free, they'll try and use their current position of being British to just seamlessly slot into NATO and the EU. I wonder if theyre allowed to stay Nuclear free zone whilst being in NATO.
More likely, the threat to remove the Nuclear weapons is a way of renting out the bases from the new English Commonwealth (or whatever us English will end up calling ourselves, most tend to coin the nUK moniker) goverment. Its a great distraction amongst the fact they'll not get a monetary union, Spain will veto their EU plans (over their own want-to-breakaway regions doing the same thing in the future).
I for one would be interested to see how an independent Scotland fares I wish them all the best, but more then anything, it will mean England finally gets their own parliament as well, kinda stupid that Scotland has power over England but not vice versa. Devo Max (if they vote No) would just make us even more jealous/angry over the whole situation. Maybe the marriage has run it course since our integration. Shame the Tories will be our government forever whilst we lose all the Labour voters north of Hadrians wall...
This was long then expected!
The Government have already looked into moving it and all the jobs related to it from Faslane to Portsmouth or Plymouth - sure, it will cost a few billion to move, but that's peanuts compared to how much Scottish independence will ultimately cost to enact. While the new base is being built and readied for use, the submarines will be homed at a US port already familiar with Trident.
The real question is what are Scotland going to do about their currency post-independence? Parroting the same old lines about a currency union is getting old, especially as all major UK parties have said it will not happen - sure, Scotland could continue to use the Pound long term without permission from the UK, but they want a say in monetary policy, interest rates and a seat at the table on the Bank of England monetary committee, which is what has been turned down by the UK parties.
And yet Salmond and his crew keep saying it will happen (their favourite line is quoting an unnamed "senior civil servant" as saying "of course it will happen" - an unnamed source saying it will versus the heads of all major UK parties saying it won't...) and refuse to outline any other plan.
Already thought about where it would go - Plymouth or Wales
Betteridge says no.
We'll just have to fine somewhere else to stick them.
Besides, the deterrant actually lives at sea. It's the ones not currently being a deterrent which are berthed.
I do find the anti-nuke stance naive and a bit pathetic personally. Sure, the world would be a nicer place without nukes. However, it's late 1940s tech and people who don't like you also have them.
If one wants to be all "nice" and "give them up" you're implicitly asking the US, UK/England and France to basically step in if something bad happens. It's basically freeloading since they know that the other countries will step in (as they have before) if they really have to.
Then again, a good part of King Salmond's personal independence movement seems to be about freeloading so that figures.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I hope it does mean the end of the weapons of mass destruction we have north of Glasgow, removing Trident is one of the major reasons for voting yes to independence next month. It's a shame this is the only issue that has caused it to be brought up on Slashdot.
In reality the submarines can be housed in England but politically many people in England don't want nuclear bombs next to one of their major cities. That London based politicians think it's fine to put them next to one of Scotland's major cities shows why we need this referendum.
The americans have enough already .. there's no USSR .. I wonder why they'd want to maintain an "arsenal" .. wouldnt a few thermo tipped pencils be enough deterrent ?
Anyone stupid enough to just dismantle nukes instead of selling them is a moron.
I sure hope that fat stupid prick doesn't get in to power, Scotland will be destroyed.
He is genuinely ignorant as to how international relations and economy works.
That is what Scottish independence would mean. But WTF, break what is left of the Kingdom up if you must.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
It should be noted that the nuclear armoury is based only 15 miles from Scotland's most populous area, the city of Glasgow -- which in the politics of the union is totally fine so long as it's nowhere near English cities. The system has had multiple failures and there have been attempted coverups of accidents at Coulport (where the weapons are stored). The Royal Navy also stores the decrepit and rusting nuclear submarines at Rosyth, a mere 10 miles from Edinburgh, our capital city. Again the thought of storing these at Southampton or Portsmouth would not be considered because it's too close to English who don't want rusting nuclear vessels in their backyard.
Senior MOD officials have been on the back foot in this debate even though most UK military assets have already been removed from Scotland (airbases have been shut and army decimated). Rather like in a divorce where one party tries to remove as many assets as possible before a possible split. The problem with the nuclear armoury is that none of the other areas of the UK want it and it would be political suicide for an English MP to accept into their area.
Scotland, if the vote is YES next month, would be a small country and it would not be right to have nuclear arms. Scotland wants to set an example by not having them on our soil. Scotland has only been invaded by one country in the last 1000 years, it's a country to our south. Scots like the English (this is not an anti-English referendum) - we just don't like the arseholes in Westminster telling us what to do (neither does large areas of England as it happens)
To learn more about the Scottish independence, see The Wee Blue Book
No. "I fart in your general direction"
bickerdyke
The whole UK nuclear deterrent is a colossal waste of money anyway. It would be far better to get rid of them (who do they deter? who would we use them against? And in the case of a global thermonuclear war it wouldn't even make a difference anyway) and spend the money on conventional forces that we can actually use and probably are more of a deterrent to potential enemies.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
If UK no longer is a country possessing nuclear bombs it would be a big PLUS for the world
This world needs fewer countries which have nuclear bombs, not more
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
without nuclear weapons?
Surely this will be a decision to be made by the first independent government. Alex Salmond may not be the majority leader. The SNP may not get a single vote (I can't think why anyone would want to vote for them afterwards).
If Independent Scotland chooses to ban nuclear weapons then that is theiur right as an independent state. If they choose not to that is also their right. But whether they actually do or not is a matter of national party politics, and notpart of the independdence movement. The fact that they will have the decision is a matter for the independence debate but what that decision should be is no.
Salmond seems to think the referendum is bout electing him Scotland's president.
because the waves of people who will head south once the Salmond Scottish Socialist Republic goes tits up will be huge.
My other half is from Inverness. ALL, repeat ALL of her family will leave by the end of the year is there is a Yes vote in September. They are not alone in preparing to move south.
If the Scotts think that the Highland Clearances were bad then they ain't seen nothing yet.
Salmond is only interested in the Central Belt and mainly the western end at that.
I am delighted to confirm that we have made plans to resite our Nuclear Deterrent. After much consultation and with the agreement of the Legislative Assembly, I am pleased to announce that in the event of a Referendum "yes" vote, the UK will be breaking ground on a new facility in the Falkland Islands.
This is an immensely popular decision that has the full support of all our inhabitants, stated the Chief Executive of the Legislative Assembly.
On hearing this announcement Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, President of Argentina, wept before exploding into flames.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The real question is why is anyone talking about Scottish independence? There's no popular support for it and the numbers are fairly stable. It's simply not happening.
Would Martians prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream if they existed? What color is bigfoot's fur?
He wrote to EDF power and told them he'd not object to extending the life of their reactors. Quite simply he's lying to the electorate to get the vote.
Mr Salmond wrote to the EDF Chief Executive Vincent de Rivaz, after holding a meeting with him in May:
Mr Salmond’s letter, obtained by Channel 4 News, said that: “ provided the necessary stringent safety considerations are met, we are not opposed to life extensions for Hunterston B and Torness.”
http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/salmond-tells-edf-independent-gov-nuclear-plants/4307
Currently estimated to cost 50 billion pounds. This will be straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. And not for the first time. In the late 1970's the UK seriously considered abandoning its nuclear force since it was unaffordable and the country was broke. So there's a good chance that if their option is to spend all that money building a new submarine base, which would take years and years before it's operational then they may decide to toss all of it. They're not thrilled with leaving France as the sole European nuclear power but there you have it. And the upside is that when Britain becomes another insane caliphate, at least they won't have atomic weapons.
I would unleash all my nuclear arsenal
You have a point about a libertarian source. But a communist source would be considered leftist by both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. What you're looking for is opposing perceptions of bias from other media.
There is a problem with nuclear bombs these days. It's not that any of the countries that have them are going to use them, in all honesty, it seems like the places that have them have no desire to use them.
So pissing off the countries that don't have them, means that if they can find a way to get them, they will use them on us. Why? Because No countries that have them will use them in retaliation.
So in all honesty, the best bet would be to get rid of them all, so no one can get their hand on them and use them.
They aren't protecting us anymore, they aren't protecting anyone anymore.
Be seeing you...
Martians wouldn't eat ice cream as we know it, and they sure wouldn't have vanilla or chocolate. So that question is a moot point. They might like banana ice cream though. Bigfoot, on the other hand, is a well known cryptozoological creature, whose fur color ranges from black to brownish to reddish to dark grey. If you include the Jetis as bigfoots, then the fur color range also includes all shades of pure white. If scotland gets their independance the important thing to ask is what happens to all the distilleries and their products? Who the heck cares about some milssiles with toxic waste as a payload, you can't drink that. Make sure whisky keeps it's quality and the logistics chain still work in delivering it to the bigfeets living in northern lattitudes.
You'll "temporarily" base them in the US. We've got trident subs, trident maintainers, trident spares, and a very healthy relationship with your military. Hell, we've just sold a few of our most sensitive spy planes to you guys. Not an issue. You'll get a "home port" eventually, but will find it cheaper to sail to the states to refit and whatnot.
do not want the weapons stored in Scotland never mind 20 miles from our largest city.
The prospective sites such as in the Plymouth/Southhampton area were deemed "too close to population centres" for the MOD..... hmmmmm but it's ok to lob them next door to Scotlands largest most populated city???
and they wonder why the YES vote is rising and rising???? well that amongst other things.
What is HILARIOUS is unionists tryto say "oh but Scotland wouldn't not get into NATO" or some such utter bullshit..... again the vast majority of NATO members have no nuclear capability.
personally i cannot wait to cast my vote and get the unionm, irt's nuclear weapons and it's fucking hideous foreign policy and domestic policies to fuck out of Scotland.
At any rate the Mutually assured destruction philosophy ios hardly relevant these days in how wars are waged and they certainly don't deter any terrorist act.... and have never done....personally i'd rather spend the money of schools,hospitals and pther such projects to boost and enrich the population rather than squander over 100 BILLIONS on a replacement for those fucking weapons and i say this as a Veteran of the Parachute Regiment who served from Northern Ireland to the 1st gulf war to Bosnia..... Alba gu brath agus Saor Alba
Is it just me or did anyone else visualize the warheads of these missiles being painted with mean looking sheep with fangs and red eyes...
Or perhaps sexy sheep in alluring pinup poses ah la fighter plans in WW2... :)
Britain does not have a nuclear deterrent what they do have is the U.S. Trident missile, even though they pay for the Trident missile the U.S. control it and have the launch codes for it. If the U.K. wishes to use the Trident missile they have to contact the U.S. first and ask permission to use it as only the U.S. has the launch codes.
Like them or loath them this is not true. The UK's Trident program is submarine based. Subs on active service are at unknown locations around to globe so they can not be targeted. They are also designed to be capable of reliable second strike (MAD) given the total and utter destruction of the entire UK.
Scotland wants a formal currency union.
Rest of the UK needs their nukes and has no place to put them.
A deal would be done where Scotland keeps the nukes on her shores until a suitable replacement site can be built, this would take a least 10 years, it's been suggested privately already by some Tory minister (I'm sure it was The Guardian that ran the story at the time). That said, this is all moot since the vote isn't going to pass unfortunetly.
its not like scotland would own those weapons. Just move them to the UK and continue business as usual...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The birth of a 'new' of a new nation normally involves a civil war in its infancy will this one be called the war of the one 'True scotsman'?
Riding the UK of Arsenal would be the best thing to happen! Think of all the Gooners they could clear out.
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
However, it would be vastly cheaper to pay a half million to the workers and let them spend the money directly. Total bill will be much lower and you don't have things that go boom and can't be used sitting around being a worry.
PS isn't your assertion just admission that this is a huge unemployment bill?
There is a problem with nuclear bombs these days. It's not that any of the countries that have them are going to use them, in all honesty, it seems like the places that have them have no desire to use them.
So pissing off the countries that don't have them, means that if they can find a way to get them, they will use them on us. Why? Because No countries that have them will use them in retaliation.
So in all honesty, the best bet would be to get rid of them all, so no one can get their hand on them and use them.
They aren't protecting us anymore, they aren't protecting anyone anymore.
Would prefer that anyone with any weapon would have no desire to use them; it's just not practical.
There is some level of herd innoculation going on here. Maybe if we did get rid of them all people would be fine, but attempting to unring that bell and being wrong would be unrecoverable.
It's a bit presumptuous of him to be setting out policy for the first government of independent Scotland. Is it not going to be a democracy?
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Are they selling them, or are they going to fire them off into space? seems to me that they would be best kept where they are, and the U.K. can still maintain them.
happy trials