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.

Comments

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope

Re:Nope

[Eunuchswear]

For two reasons -

1. Thingumy's law of headlines.
2. The bombs and subs aren't glued into place.

They'd just move it all to Portsmouth.

Re:Nope

[_Shad0w_]

Or just build a new base in Cumbria and move it over the border. Shame they got rid of RNAD Broughton Moor really.

Re:Nope

[mjwalshe]

yes and Scotland is afraid of losing all those high paying MOD / civil service jobs

Re:Nope

[Simon Brooke]

What, all 47 of them? I think we can manage without.

Re:Nope

[idontgno]

520 working the Trident program at Faslane alone.

Not thousands, but not mere dozens either. So don't minimize. It's not good for your credibility.

Re:Nope

[dies-el_co_uk]

To clarify, this would only affect those living in Actual-Cumbria. Rich people: Your empty holiday homes in the Lake District are safe!

Re:Nope

[mjwalshe]

A huge amount relative to the total in Scotland I sat in on a debate recently in Glasgow and its a major issue for all the civil service - Scotland doesn't have a lot of high paying middle class technical jobs and there is a risk that a lot would be repatriated back to the UK after devolution,

Re:Nope

[Barsteward]

Scots would probably lose all the normal ship building jobs in Glasgow etc as well

Re:Nope

[u38cg]

No, that's 520 civilians employed on-base at Faslane. There are a lot of MOD personnel who live and retire locally and a huge number of people employed by the knock-on effects of having a major facility. I could walk the streets of Garelochhead and find you 500 people whose employment depends on the base in some way by lunchtime. Thousands is a lot closer to the truth.

Re:Nope

[idontgno]

I know this is Slashdot, and R'ing TFS is almost too much to ask, but please note that we're focused primarily on the impact of withdrawing the UK's nuclear capability from Scotland. In this sense, I put forth the very narrow example of the civil workforce at HMNB Clyde and working very specifically on Trident II and Vanguard-class operations.

I was just pointing the absurd underestimation of Simon Brooke's claims of less than 50 affected jobs, which I must surmise was yanked out of his ass.

Yes. Withdrawing MoD's entire impact on the Scottish economy will be a substantial effect, even if pro-independence partisans promise that everyone thusly rendered unemployed will either find employment in the Scottish government or somehow continue to be able to work for the MoD... somehow.

FWIW, I sense a lot of handwaving on this issue from that side. Something akin to "It'll be fine because STFU."

Re:Nope

[HughJazz]

Kudos to the Scottish people for wanting to get rid of nukes in a principled fashion. As for an unprincipled British government (which is not the same as the British people), they should be constantly reminded by the media, human rights groups, and foreign diplomats NPT is not about just about preventing nukes in countries that don't currently have them. It's about getting nukes entirely.. If the countries that hypocritically continue to have nukes don't get rid of them, every nation that is part of NPT should eventually withdraw and start planning their own nuclear arsenals to act as a deterrent against countries with WMDs. (the BS argument that government's currently with WMDs use to justify having them 20 years post cold war). Perhaps if more nukes are pointed at the capital cites of nations currently with nukes, the governments of those nations will once again remember that they too are bound by NPT.

Re:Nope

[kaatochacha]

You do realize that all the countries that have nukes DO have nukes pointed at their capital cities, right?

No. It would not.

[Anonymous Coward]

They would just move it to England. Or Wales.

This might be the least intelligent question I've seen on Slashdot.

Re:No. It would not.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still early in the day.

Re:No. It would not.

[Krymzn]

They would just move it to England. Or Wales.

This might be the least intelligent question I've seen on Slashdot.

Perhaps you should RTFA; an alternative that is discussed is to move the system to the USA.

Re:No. It would not.

[Wootery]

Or you could actually read the article and learn that they didn't just stupidly fail to think of that.

'least intelligent', indeed. You ACs, really.

Re: No. It would not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe I did read the article, and the question the submitter asked wasn't in the fucking article, thus proving my point.

Re:No. It would not.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because they won't discuss the move to England for political reasons. But if the move becomes necessary, it's because the vote for independence passed and at that time a move to England can and will be discussed. England still will have a very long coastline, so they will find a spot somewhere. Don't forget the jobs associated with a naval base; quite a few coastal communities will be interested.

Wales and Northern Ireland would also be options besides England. That's potentially a sensitive issue given the number of jobs, which may explain why the "USA" idea is floated - to make clear that there are alternatives to Scotland without having to choose right now. But no UK politician is going to move all those jobs to the US.

Re:No. It would not.

[Sique]

England still will have a very long coastline

According to Benoit Mandelbrot, the coastline is infinitely long indeed.

Re:No. It would not.

[Archtech]

Most likely Newcastle-on-Tyne or Barrow-on-Furness. The main reason for siting the base in Scotland was presumably to get it as far away from London as possible.

Futile, though. Either the Russians decide to take out Britain, or not. (They might as well, since they have plenty of missiles). Half a dozen big warheads should render the entire country uninhabitable - why would they take out the Holy Loch and not finish the job?

Given the US administration's evident enthusiasm for starting WW3, the UK would be well advised to throw away - not drop - its nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. In a war they would make not the slightest difference to either side, but they would probably get us all fried.

Re:No. It would not.

[Archtech]

Sod it, I meant "Newcastle-upon-Tyne or Barrow-in-Furness". Too early in the morning... er. afternoon.

Apologies to citizens of those two noble towns.

Re: No. It would not.

[Anonymous Coward]

He obviously hadn't heard of Max Planck.

Re:No. It would not.

[Xest]

No, it's mostly where it is because they wanted to put it somewhere where it's easy to get it out into the deep water of the Atlantic - you can rapidly disperse them to places where they'll be almost impossible to find from the North Western side of the country. Putting it on the East coast like Newcastle isn't ideal because it's much easier for a country like Russia to get it's forces there to start searching, and there's less room for a sub to run.

So most likely places would, given that Ireland gets in the way to much of the West coast would be Wales, or Cornwall.

If you look at a depth map of the world's seas then you'll see that the current location gives some of the quickest access to very deep waters that our coasts offer.

Re:No. It would not.

[ArcadeMan]

Most of us still haven't had our plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

Re:No. It would not.

[TitusGroan8856]

it's not as silly a question as you might think. Firstly moving both installations (the sub base and the storage facility) is going to cost a bomb (if you'll excuse the pun). So you have that cost added to the fact Scotland will no longer be subsidizing the UK. rUK borrowing or tax would have to rise to accommodate.

Re:No. It would not.

[RegularFry]

Most likely Newcastle-on-Tyne or Barrow-on-Furness. The main reason for siting the base in Scotland was presumably to get it as far away from London as possible.

Futile, though. Either the Russians decide to take out Britain, or not. (They might as well, since they have plenty of missiles).

You don't put your arsenal all the way over there because you think the Russians are only going to target that. You put it all the way over there in case one of *your* guys screws something up and makes something embarassingly large go pop.

Re:No. It would not.

[metamarmoset]

Always hatin' on the Munroe Republic :(

Re:No. It would not.

[PPH]

They could just move them here.

Re:No. It would not.

[DerekLyons]

No, it's mostly where it is because they wanted to put it somewhere where it's easy to get it out into the deep water of the Atlantic - you can rapidly disperse them to places where they'll be almost impossible to find from the North Western side of the country. Putting it on the East coast like Newcastle isn't ideal because it's much easier for a country like Russia to get it's forces there to start searching, and there's less room for a sub to run.

Not quite. It's mostly because they wanted them in a location where they could reach their operating areas as quickly as possible - and back in the Polaris days when the base was initially sited, those opareas were to the north of England due to the missile's short range. (That the SSBN base itself would also be a target in a counterforce scenario was also a consideration, but it wasn't the only one.) Other than that, Faslane/Coulport sucks as an operating base because you have a long (6-8 hour) surface transit to the dive point and a fairly limited set of narrow exit points... perfectly sited for a hostile gatekeeper to lie in wait. (But, at the time, it was the best of several competing alternatives, and easy access to the US base at Holy Loch also played a role.)
 
Which is why Portsmouth is under discussion as an alternative - today, because of the range of Trident-II, the opareas lie to the west and southwest of England.
 

If you look at a depth map of the world's seas then you'll see that the current location gives some of the quickest access to very deep waters that our coasts offer.

The water doesn't need to particularly deep. I suspect that the Vanguard's can only dive to 1,000 feet or so, and you don't need nearly so much to dive and operate safely and patrol depths will also be shallower. (Patrol depths are limited by the ability of the launcher system to get the bird to the surface, typically in the range of a couple of hundred feet.) What SSBN's typically want is room more than depth, as they rely mostly on stealth and evasion for security. Depth isn't very much use against modern weapons, which can easily dive far deeper than the SSBN can.
 
But the UK's real problem when it comes to siting a new SSBN operating base is none of these - for safety reasons it's room to site the missile magazines away from both the docks and civilian population. (Which is why the missiles are stored and handled at Coulport and the SSBN's are based and refitted at Faslane.) Once Scotland is taken out of the mix, the UK has a real shortage of deep draft ports that are also isolated enough to provide a safety and security buffer around the missile magazines and (to a lesser extent) around the docks and refit areas.
 
Disclaimer: Former US SSBN crewman, long time student of SSBN operations.

Re:No. It would not.

[AmiMoJo]

In a war they would make not the slightest difference to either side, but they would probably get us all fried.

This. The UK has delusions of grandeur and standing in the world because it joins in with America's wars. Remember when the US was thinking about firing missiles into Syria to disperse chemical weapons over a wider area? The UK was thinking about joining in. The US would have fired maybe 200-400 missiles total, the UK perhaps 4 or 6. Complete waste of time and money, the only result of which would have been even more animosity towards us and more British citizens radicalized to go and fight with IS.

We just want to be players, but it costs too much money and doesn't make us any safer. Can anyone suggest a realistic scenario where having nukes might actually help?

Re:No. It would not.

[nukenerd]

They would just move it to England. Or Wales.

This might be the least intelligent question I've seen on Slashdot.

Perhaps you should RTFA; an alternative that is discussed is to move the system to the USA.

That is a newspaper article trying to wind up the readers. The article us utter crap; for example :-

The UK Government is not encouraging the Ministry of Defence to acknowledge or publish a backup plan for independence.... It is almost laughable that the government of one of the most powerful nations on Earth is trying to dismiss its opposition by keeping the fate of some of the most powerful weapons on Earth uncertain.

I must say I don't get what the "almost laughable" joke is supposed to be. I am an ex-naval officer, and the navy, like any military, has all sorts of plans on paper for all sorts of scenarios. They are mostly hypothetical and done as staff excercises. Many would be politically sensitive. Of course there will be outline plans for the loss of Scottish bases, but to publish them right now would be pre-judging the referendum. Independence is not going to occur the day after the referendum, there will be a vast amount of sorting out to do in which closing a naval base will be a drop in the ocean.

The "fate of some of the most powerful weapons on Earth" is not at all uncertain. "Fate" is a strong word for moving some submarines along the coast - the journo makes it sound as is they might be given to al Qaeda. No doubt they will be moved to somewhere else on the English or Welsh coast. Milford Haven would be ideal, but that might be politically sensitive, being in Wales. Cumberland more likely. It won't be in a city like Portsmouth or Plymouth unless temporarily.

FTFA :- "Right now, the choice is clear. Britain must stop playing games and acknowledge or publish a backup plan" No need unless and until the referendum votes for independence. I don't see any games there. This is a journo wishing he had something to wroite about already.

Re:No. It would not.

[Barsteward]

"Scotland will no longer be subsidizing the UK" - i think you are trolling, anyway london virtually subsidizes the rest of the UK on its own

Re:No. It would not.

[Pop69]

Minor but important point.

They're not refitted at Faslane. When they were sited at Faslane the quid pro quo for hosting them was supposed to be that they would be refitted at Rosyth on the Forth.

Sadly Rosyth got screwed over in favour of refitting them at Devonport to try to prop up some marginal seats.

Re:No. It would not.

[Sarten-X]

There will be the nation of States, where modern media portrays every minor annoyance as though it were the start for the ever-coming revolution, providing a convenient self-gratifying rationalization for racism, sexism, ageism, and all other discrimination that every group uses to oppress another equal group.

Then there will be the nation of United, wherein the citizens understand that today's conflicts are no different than any previous conflicts. The rich and the poor still behave just the same as they always have, though both are generally better off today than in centuries past, as the basic standard of living has risen tremendously.

Re:No. It would not.

[TangoMargarine]

But if they moved the nukes to London, the aliens would get them when they invade next Christmas.

Oh wait...or are we not doing it on a regular schedule anymore since Tennant left?

Re:No. It would not.

[u38cg]

Don't want to contradict one who knows, but as anyone who lives on the Gareloch can tell you, subs sail right into Faslane submerged. You rarely see them on the surface and generally they only do it for a specific reason, ie someone wants to look at them. If the light was right and the tide low, it was generally pretty obvious, though as the Gareloch isn't all that deep.

Re:No. It would not.

[HiThere]

Charlie Stross predicted that if the independence referendum passed, there would be some military bases leased to Britain (England?) on a long term lease. Of course, he's not a politician, but to me that sounds quite plausible.

Re:No. It would not.

[DerekLyons]

Two countries separated by a common language... :) What you call a refit, we call an overhaul. What I meant by refit in my original message was that period where the crew is swapped and maintenance performed between at-sea patrol periods. (Which is done in Faslane.)

Here's the interesting paragraph

[Wootery]

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

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Richard_at_work]

The article is a load of bollocks, moving the facilities has indeed been looked into but the MoD just hasn't committed to any plan given that no decision on independence has been made yet. The only thing the MoD have ruled out is keeping Faslane as a Sovereign Base Area similar to those on Cyprus.

And regarding the last sentence - Scotland does not unilaterally inherit the UK's nuclear deterrent simply because it happened to be on Scottish soil, so they do not have unilateral authority get to dispose of them. The will be passed to the rest of the UK post-independence, who will then make the decision about what to do.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[jandersen]

So, what they are saying, really, is that even after a referendum they will have to use common sense and work out a deal with the Scottish government. Stranger things happen at sea.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Richard_at_work]

And the article gets a pass on citations because ... why?

Anyhow - check out the following:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-s...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-s...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-s...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-...

http://www.theguardian.com/pol...

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I don't know what the wacky world of inheriting nukes in state breakups looks like in terms of precedent(given that our only real experience with it is 'making shit up while the Soviet Union crumbled' there may be little more than handwaving); but it wouldn't at all surprise me if both Scotland and the (slightly less)United Kingdom would have a very strong shared incentive to come up with an amicable deal.

Unless you have the ability(decent strategic air force, missile sub capabilities, or hostile neighbors within easy shooting range) and the desire to wave your nukes around, being a nuclear power is actually kind of a shitty job. Nukes are, well, the nuclear option, so they are of little use except in extreme circumstances; they are expensive and technically demanding to maintain, their PR value is deeply mixed, you have to protect them to avoid proliferation, and they have finite shelf life.

If Scotland wants to get out of the nuclear game; but the UK wants to hold on to some Global Influence, it would be a very, very, mutually convenient arrangement for Scotland to offer a sweetheart deal(if they have some sort of legal claim, maybe a relatively token payment or concession, otherwise just some handshakes and a photo-op) on the warheads in exchange for the UK packing them up, remediating any especially badly contaminated facilities, and otherwise making them Not Our Problem Anymore.

The hypothetical Scottish exit would likely be cleaner than that of the former Soviet republics, so they wouldn't be quite as badly situated; but the post-Soviet states that inherited fissile goodies were generally quite happy to accept Russian, American, or any other outside assistance in just getting the stuff off their hands as fast as possible. Having a real nuclear arsenal is expensive and requires commitment. Having a decaying one is just a proliferation clusterfuck waiting to happen.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[rapiddescent]

It should be noted that the BBC is an interested party in the referendum (the first "B" gives it away). There have been protests outside the BBC offices in Glasgow because of their support for the union (even though Scottish public have to mandatory pay for the BBC if they watch TV). The BBC takes a very pro-union stance (or vote "no" stance if you prefer) so please take that into account when reading or watching BBC coverage of #indyref

BBC Scotland viewers get an assault of fear stories from Better Together campaign every day on the BBC with little or no attempt to provide the other side of the story. The BBC tried to coverup and bully an academic study into bias that proved that BBC Scotland were not following their own guidance on #indyref coverage.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Richard_at_work]

In general, there isn't "another side of the story" because Salmond and Sturgeon are spouting the same disproven bullshit time and again - when they start actually giving decent information, I'm sure the BBC will present their side of the story.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how you can tell that the source isn't biased? Because both sides accuse it of being so.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[AHuxley]

A sweetheart deal may not be something that Scotland wants. They may like the optics and tourist friendly branding of been nuclear weapon free.
Like with the fall of the Soviet Union all the UK may be asked for is a totally decontaminated site, a museum.
Why would Scotland risk a second much later negotiation as Scotland would then own a contaminated site that the UK had already negotiated over and risk the UK walking away from as is?
Better to get the UK cleaning up once, totally moved out and all done while the UK can still afford to do so or can be asked to do so.
Scotland would not want to end up with a base location thats part of Empire forever, like a few other nations got stuck with.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[peragrin]

Funny I have been reading both sides from the BBC for the last year.

The trick is Salmond isn't saying much. he has no plan B if various parts of his plans fail. He just isn't saying things like we would still use the sterling if the UK didn't want a currency union. He can't imagine a scenario where a currency union wouldn't be agreed to. or a scenario where Scotland wouldn't immediately become a part of NATO or the European Union. He thinks that every thing will stay exactly the same yet Scotland would be independent. That just isn't possible or realistic. Some one is going to tell him we aren't bending rules just for you after the Yes vote and Scotland will get screwed.

Salmond Thinks he can bypass all the EU rules regarding joining the union without having the currency just because Scotland was a part of the UK. All the EU has to do is tell him no on just that one point. And his whole plan will fall apart.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Archtech]

"Nukes are, well, the nuclear option, so they are of little use except in extreme circumstances..."

Very true. To clarify matters, we might ask ourselves: against which nations are the UK's thermonuclear weapons potentially useful today? (I hope no one is going to suggest that they frighten ISIS, for example).

Russia? If so, why? Russia's interests do not clash with the UK's anywhere on earth - quite the contrary, it is in our best interests to live in peace with the Russians. Whereas we lived in fear (rightly or wrongly) of the USSR invading Western Europe, Mr Putin has shown supernatural restraint in not even invading Ukraine after 750,000 of its citizens fled to Russia for safety. As for Georgia, he was "in and out quickly", as the saying goes.

China? Likewise, only if possible even more so. The Chinese are quite extraordinarily pacific (especially compared to other superpowers that shall be nameless), and what's more they are very nearly on the far side of the world.

India or Pakistan? I don't see it. They're not quite so peaceable, but they have no quarrel with us, and we should make sure that remains the case.

Israel? Not really - they would probably get in a first strike, and they have far more missiles and warheads.

And as for France, that's just childish. We should be content just to go on annoying them.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[gbjbaanb]

Salmond thinks exactly one thing would change on independence - he'd become king.

I think this is the reason he has zero alternative plans, he's too busy running this wet dream over in his head.

Spain for one will stop Scotland joining the EU, they don't want to give the Basque and Catalan regions any ideas.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[gbjbaanb]

We do have precedent - Czechoslovakia is now 2 countries, as is Sudan and Yugoslavia.

I just hope Scottish independance goes better than the latter two.

Scotland may have some issue if they decide to get out of the nuclear game, mainly because of the number of jobs that will be lost when the base (and supporting businesses) gets closed.

At that point, Britain will almost certainly move the base to somewhere else in the UK, probably somewhere with lots of unemployed, ex-heavy industrial workers. As a result, they do have very good political value.

There is talk of just scrapping it completely, and relying on nuclear cruise missiles and bombers instead. I'm not sure how practical this is, but given the relatively stable state of nuclear politics (ie who would we potentially nuke today with our deterrent?) it doesn't seem so bad an option. The money could be funneled into traditional forces that end up being heavily used for peace keeping and humanitarian purposes.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[rapiddescent]

It's hardly fucking insightful to watch a state broadcaster, owned and run by the same state that has a vested interest interested in one outcome of the referendum.

It's a ruse by Salmond. He is goading the UK into saying "no" to a shared currency so that Scotland can't, by law, pick up a share of the national debt. George Osboune (the chancellor of the exchequer) is so lame that he walked right into it. Salmond will just use Sterlingisation, suffer short term interest rate rise and then sit on a hugely asset (rather than liability) backed economy. My personal view is that Scotland should share the currency and pay off it's part of the national debt. BoE will have to write a cheque for 4bn of Sco issued notes and many 100's of bn for quantative easing to "buy out" Scotlands share of the UK GBP.

Have you read Scotland's Future or the Wee Blue Book. Both are free and cover the currency question.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[drinkypoo]

If Scotland wants to get out of the nuclear game; but the UK wants to hold on to some Global Influence, it would be a very, very, mutually convenient arrangement for Scotland to offer a sweetheart deal

It's really quite simple. They get all the benefits of having the nukes (MAD) without any of the drawbacks (paying for them) just by having them next door. So yes, they really want them out. There are no drawbacks.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Wootery]

It doesn't get a pass. Neither do you. I can ask you for citations. I can't ask the article for citations. If in doubt, I'm afraid I'm inclined to give more weight to a random website than to a random slashdotter.

Writing an (unoriginal) article without citations is bad (unless you know, proper journalistic reasons). Challenging that article whilst providing no citations is worse: now I'm left with no idea who to believe.

Anyway, thanks for the sources.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Wootery]

Not necessarily. A libertarian-slanted, or communist-slanted article might be accused of bias by all sides.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Pinky's Brain]

I find it funny how much all that sounds like the UK exit "plans" from the EU.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[jecblackpepper]

It's a ruse by Salmond. He is goading the UK into saying "no" to a shared currency so that Scotland can't, by law, pick up a share of the national debt.

Instead what is likely to happen is that Sterling will be split into two: A British Pound and a Scottish Pound. Scotland will get its share of the Bank of England assets and the rest of the UK will get its share. Similarly the debt will be split so that Scotland takes their share of the debt and rest of UK takes its share. Currently the UK government is saying that it will back up all the debt to prevent the threat of independence causing a down rating of debt. It's highly likely that if independence goes ahead then they'll back track on that saying that the situation has changed and that borrowers will have their debt split between the two new nations. That or if Scotland say they don't want any of the debt then they won't get any of the assets either.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[LWATCDR]

RN closes the base and say good bye to the jobs, and the paychecks of the service people and their families that get spent in the community.
And Scotland has not voted yes yet.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[JonnyCalcutta]

I'd also suggest simply reading the Scottish Governments white paper on independence. You can read all about currency plan b (and c,d and e).

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Richard_at_work]

What "law" stops Scotland being required to take its share of the national debt if it doesn't take the currency? The debt is not linked to the national currency, its entirely separate, just like your debt is not linked to any particular currency.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Anonymous Coward]

I appreciate the fact your rose tinted fantasy land of unicorns and rainbows got moded "Funny".

Russia and it's obvious desire to expand is a serious problem, as is China's build of up of its naval forces. Israel really is a problem, and Iran may become one.

In fact Russia alone is making it look like that second aircraft carrier and renewing Trident is a really good idea right about now.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[the_leander]

Tbh I'm surprised no one has mentioned Devonport as a likely site, especially given that that's where the Vanguards, along with all our other submarines are sent for refits. The gear is all there already to support them.

If Scotland boots them out, they have a ready to roll port to go to, along with all the facilities to maintain them.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[u38cg]

The point of nukes is to have them at sea. Multiplying depots doesn;t really add any military advantage but multiplies costs and attendant risks (and Faslane is reasonably well protected naturally).

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[shutdown -p now]

Russia? If so, why? Russia's interests do not clash with the UK's anywhere on earth - quite the contrary, it is in our best interests to live in peace with the Russians.

If only the reverse was true. UK is still seen as US' lap dog in many ways, and one of the most hostile NATO members in Europe. Then there's a very long history of conspiracy theories that basically blame Britain for every single bad thing that happened to Russia/USSR since like 17th century (from that perspective it's the reverse, and US is a puppet state for the UK). Google for "The Englishwoman shits" to see some examples.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[richlv]

lack of understanding what russia does and what happens in ukraine right now is astonishing. where do you get your news, russia today ?

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[oldmac31310]

I really don't think you can compare Scotland the the Basque region and Catalonia.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Barsteward]

here's what could happen if they don't take their share http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[Barsteward]

yep, we'll have to find and pillory the ones that support Scotland staying in but want to be out of Europe

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[TangoMargarine]

Do you mean "The Englishwoman Shirts"? Rather changes the meaning.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[u38cg]

It's an often unremarked fact that nations tend to be a bit more amenable to living in peace with nations who have the capacity to lay waste to your country. Concentrates the mind wonderfully.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[shutdown -p now]

No, it's "anglichanka gadit", which is exactly what I wrote - the implication is that she shits on Russia. It is claimed to have originally being said by Suvorov, though there's no definitive attribution.

Re:Here's the interesting paragraph

[dunkelfalke]

This was not the first referendum on Crimea, by the way. The first one was in 1991, with a similar outcome. In fact, Crimea has voted for independence several months before Ukraine did, but for some reason, Ukrainian independence was regocnised, but not the Crimean one. Truly, some animals are more equal than others.

One solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we would have to detonate them all the second Scotland declares independence ;)

Re:One solution

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I guess we would have to detonate them all the second Scotland declares independence ;)

Silence, AC! Omega Override: Exigent Haggis is a heavily classified program. You can't discuss those sorts of security matters in a public forum.

Re:One solution

[bickerdyke]

Call the unexploded scotsman disposal squad?

Did the fall of the Soviet Union

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:Did the fall of the Soviet Union

[Richard_at_work]

Actually, more than one country gave up its nuclear weapons after the fall of the USSR, not just Ukraine. The Ukraine issue has much deeper running reasons than are usually discussed.

Re:Did the fall of the Soviet Union

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If memory serves, even more of the post Soviet republics didn't have much in the way of proper warheads-ready-to-roll; but were largely cooperative with international efforts to bundle up the alarming quantities of fissile goodness hanging out in various abandoned facilities that were 'guarded' mostly in the sense that some of the looters were also drawing paychecks.

Nukes, at least, can be waved around; but suddenly unfunded nuclear R&D programs are just a nightmare for everyone involved.

Re:Did the fall of the Soviet Union

[AHuxley]

A few sites where final assembly locations. The warhead was Soviet ready as a designed device but the surrounding say 'torpedo' would be locally put together like a nuclear Knock-down kit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Vast local bases, parts storage, good jobs, nice pay, warm accommodation.

Re:Did the fall of the Soviet Union

[Erikderzweite]

Belarus did this as well. South Africa did this too, albeit earlier and unrelated to the fall of the USSR.

Re:Did the fall of the Soviet Union

[Eunuchswear]

I didn't say "only one".

Amusingly I've got a "troll" mod from a kremlinbot.

Should be interesting RE- Nato

[Maquis196]

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!

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[Anonymous Coward]

Salmond is right; he has the right of free travel between Schengen countries. The UK & Ireland are the two EU countries who are not Schengen signatories (see if you can guess why). The UK & Irish governments have a separate agreement between themselves to allow passport-free travel across the border. That agreement wouldn't automatically exist in the event of Scotland becoming an independent country, and Salmond's EU passport wouldn't mean diddly. In fact it's an open question whether he would continue to even be an EU citizen.

Which means either a) Salmand really is so stupid he doesn't understand this or b) He's wilfully lying to people about the real issues that Scotland will face: see also NATO, currency union, North Sea gas & oil revenue, EU membership...

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[Xest]

"In fact it's an open question whether he would continue to even be an EU citizen."

I don't think it is an open question in anyone's mind other than Salmond's. Given that even those within the EU who would be responsible for making such decisions have made it abundantly clear that Salmond would have to reapply, and the likes of Spain's PM have said he'd likely veto them joining then I think it's pretty clear what the stance of Scotland's EU status would be.

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[Njovich]

Spain will veto their EU plans (over their own want-to-breakaway regions doing the same thing in the future).

Only England wants to play dirty games against the Scottish, the rest of the EU really doesn't care that much. Spain has already stated they will not veto Scotland. Why would other countries like Netherlands or Germany be interested in keeping Scotland out of the EU? It is a wealthy area, there are many business interest, and the people are *already* EU citizens.

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[JonnyCalcutta]

Here's a hint - name the nuclear members of NATO? Now name the non-nuclear members of NATO. So can you b

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[jozmala]

YEH. I think England and NATO would definitely ignore and not come to help if any third party capable of conquering Scotland would do so.
It serves them right, let them be Russian when being British wasn't good enough for them.
On same note USA would also Ignore if Russia would send short range nukes to some independent Island in Americas.

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[Vanders]

Spain has already stated they will not veto Scotland

Every source I can find seems to indicate the complete opposite.

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[JRiddell]

'I believe Alex has mentioned before that "when" Scotland breaks free' Being a skilled professional politician he will have been very careful never to say any such thing

'they'll try and use their current position of being British to just seamlessly slot into NATO and the EU' This is because we are part of these unions and there's no reason to think we'd be kicked out

"I wonder if theyre allowed to stay Nuclear free zone whilst being in NATO." why would it be any different from say Denmark or Norway?

"More likely, the threat to remove the Nuclear weapons is a way of renting out the bases from the new English Commonwealth" the SNP have been very clear they wouldn't do this if they are elected as the first government of an independent scotland

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[iainr]

I doubt that they'd have any objections as such (well I suspect Spain will be cagey) but there will have to be negotiations over the UK's opt-outs (the Euro, Schengen, etc) and the UK's rebate. I can't see the EU countries pushing the Euro issue that much but the rebate is currently an issue and I suspect the Schengen opt-out will require some quid pro quos.

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[Barsteward]

you need to get more info on this. All other countries that have areas within them wanting independence e.g. Spain, will veto Scotlands leap into the EU without going through all the necessary legal entry procedures. Once Scotland leaves the UK they are no longer EU citizens.

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[Barsteward]

"'they'll try and use their current position of being British to just seamlessly slot into NATO and the EU' This is because we are part of these unions and there's no reason to think we'd be kicked out" - the EU has already told them that they cannot do this. once out of the UK, they are out of the EU. Its even in teh scottish papers http://www.scotsman.com/news/p...

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[Jeremy Erwin]

To be fair, Theresa May is primarily concerned that her xenophobic policies will be undermined by Scottish independence.

"Buried deep in Alex Salmond's white paper is the admission that, just like the last Labour government, a separate Scotland would pursue a looser immigration policy.

  "That would undermine the work we have done since 2010, and the continuing UK could not allow Scotland to become a convenient landing point for migration into the United Kingdom.

If Scotland votes No, all her hard work will go down the drain when Labour eventually wins a majority
If Scotland votes Yes, the Tories will be entrenched for some time to come, and the only real threat to her work will be Scotland opting for a less Conservative immigration policy.

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[BlueScreenO'Life]

Not really - what all of those sources say is that Scotland's accession won't be automatic like Salmond suggests. Spain's government says they will have to go through the long, due process which current EU candidates are undergoing, which is only fair and obvious, and the current Spain's foreign minister can't comment on what they will do or refrain from doing at certain, hypothetical, point in the future, which is common sense. Any other comment could the be seen as interfering with Scotland's vote, and Spain's government may be completely different from the current one when and if Scotland applies to join the EU. As much as I despise the current Spanish government, those comments (which are more like a "no comment" answer) are the only acceptable comments.

And it's not like Spain has the political weight to cause a shitstorm in the EU. If any state were to veto Scotland, that would be other, more influential state, such as France, which also has secessionist movements. But I really doubt it. They're not really comparable cases.

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[BlueScreenO'Life]

it will mean England finally gets their own parliament as well, kinda stupid that Scotland has power over England but not vice versa.

Regardless of Scottish independence, England can create their own parliament, and keep Westminster's power restricted to union-wide matters. Why didn't that happen yet? Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Scotland has never opposed an England parliament.

Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato

[idontgno]

You're saying Spain should oppose Scottish independence on the basis that they don't want to give Basque or Catalan seperatists any ideas?

Interesting idea.

No it will not.

[Richard_at_work]

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.

Re:No it will not.

[Maquis196]

Makes sense though, all parties here saying it wont happen is designed to make it a NO vote, by saying "sure, it could happen" will make a yes much more likely to happen since its one of the biggest issues as you say with the whole thing.

We'd probably say no to it assuming a yes vote just to prove a point, but if Iceland with its 350k people can have their own currency, I'm sure Scotland can too, what could possibly go wrong.

Shame on Alex for putting his fingers in his ears and hoping something happens. Need a better plan then that mate.

Re:No it will not.

[Richard_at_work]

Uh, the recession did not happen because of a drop in GDP, the drop in GDP happened because of the recession - removing Scotlands contribution to the GDP will not trigger a recession because it does not indicate a contraction in output, its a redefinition of output (which sounds like a hand wave, but its perfectly valid). Even without the Scottish contribution to GDP, the UK economy will still grow at around the rate it currently is because nothing is happening to affect it.

Re:No it will not.

[Shimbo]

If Scotland votes Yes in September, without a currency union the UK will lose almost 10% of its GDP overnight

Whereas Scotland, which will lose 90% of it's GDP overnight will be just peachy, right?

Re:No it will not.

[Alioth]

The whole currency exchange actually increased the share of the "Yes" vote. The whole patronising attitude of the Westminster parties had the opposite to intended effect.

Re:No it will not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, the UK parties hate, hate, hate the thought of secession. So if they think being uncooperative on the pound will help scare Scots to stay in the union, they'll do that.

But once secession is a fact, that posturing will likely be dropped. UK is probably better served with Scotland staying with the pound than switching to the Euro.

Re:No it will not.

[AHuxley]

The real fun for that location up north is the clean up and long term care.
Most nations keep their nuclear gems locked up at one site with experts, contamination and all the skills for the next generation upgrades.
Moving all that in place equipment down south would not be very simple given funding and pension issues within the UK gov/mil. Where is the free cash going to come from for a massive reworking of very bespoke UK nuclear mil systems?

Re:No it will not.

[jabuzz]

Not that I am a Labour voter but I would point out that while the debt at the beginning of 2008 was higher in real terms, importantly as a percentage of the GDP it was lower than it was in May 1997 when Labour came to power.

It is like getting a new job with a higher salary and using the extra income to take out a larger mortgage and buy a bigger house. Could easily be that while the total debt goes up, as a percentage of your income it has gone down. Is that a bad thing? You might argue that it is, but it is not as clear cut as you would like to make out.

Re:No it will not.

[Archtech]

"The real question is what are Scotland going to do about their currency post-independence?"

Why not use the dollar, like everyone else?

Re:No it will not.

[jareth-0205]

Thing is, the UK parties hate, hate, hate the thought of secession. So if they think being uncooperative on the pound will help scare Scots to stay in the union, they'll do that.

But once secession is a fact, that posturing will likely be dropped. UK is probably better served with Scotland staying with the pound than switching to the Euro.

Why? We've *just*... *just* seen how badly a currency union without political union can go in the (ongoing) Euro crisis. Why do you think that's a good idea suddenly now, especially when the direction of integration is going in the wrong direction, towards more divergence. You can't have successful monetary union without shared fiscal policy, and why would Scotland want that after all the effort of independence?

Re:No it will not.

[Calinous]

There are quite a few rules for moving to Euro - one of them refers to three (I think) or more years of 1.5% inflation on the national currency... which the Scotland would not have. They'll need to prove they're a solid economy before taking Euro as national currency, and that will take some time.

Re:No it will not.

[Pinky's Brain]

Current account has gone down the shitter though, but can't blame Labour for North Sea gas decline any more than you can praise Thatcher for it's rise and the consequent results.

Re:No it will not.

[Pinky's Brain]

Worked so well for Argentina.

Re:No it will not.

[jareth-0205]

The whole currency exchange actually increased the share of the "Yes" vote. The whole patronising attitude of the Westminster parties had the opposite to intended effect.

Course it's quite hard not to be patronising to an opponent who seems to think currency union will happen because he wishes it, even though the other party in the union has said that it won't.

Re:No it will not.

[ultranova]

Why not use the dollar, like everyone else?

Because US economy can't back it anymore. Income is concentrated on too few hands to keep up the demand without accumulating massive debt, which is ultimately an unsustainable model. And as they've demonstrated, the US government can't even pass a budget without turning it into a crisis. It would be unwise to tie your economy to that of a country on its way to the bottom.

Re:No it will not.

[u38cg]

On currency, there's a lot of pre-vote posturing. The most likely scenario is that we keep the pound and major financial institutions continue to be regulated by the Bank of England. No-one is in the slightest bit keen on the groat or the mark.

Re:No it will not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded or something?

Re:No it will not.

[gsslay]

The whole currency exchange actually increased the share of the "Yes" vote.

Cite?

Re:No it will not.

[AmiMoJo]

Parroting the same old lines about a currency union is getting old, especially as all major UK parties have said it will not happen

It's not clear that they have any say in the matter. The Pound is as much Scotland's as it is the rest of the UK's currency. It might end up as a fight in the European courts but I doubt that the rest of the UK would win.

It's also unlikely that any future government would want to force Scotland to use a different currency anyway, because Scotland would then walk away from much of the national debt.

Re:No it will not.

[Barsteward]

you need to read this then http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/n...

Re:No it will not.

[Barsteward]

"UK is probably better served with Scotland staying with the pound than switching to the Euro."

i doubt it. Remember Salmond and Strugeon claiming "we're being bullied" when all the parties in UK said they will not allow a currency union. Imagine if there was a currency union and if Scotlands economy either overheated or collapsed and the only cure was to inflate/deflate the currency (or play with interest rates) but those actions would disrupt the rest of the UK, so its refused, just imagine what they will bleat then. That is why a currency union would be refused by the UK

Re:No it will not.

[Barsteward]

no, you have to be in the EU for that and they wont be.

Re:No it will not.

[camperdave]

Obviously you mean the Thistle Dollars that were minted in the 16th and 17th century. But like you said, everyone uses dollars: The Canadians, the Australians, Taiwan, New Zealand, Singapore, Belize, and a bunch of others. Why not do something different? Call them Crowns, or Nobles, or something. Or use a digital currency.

Re:No it will not.

[HornWumpus]

Economic policies != monetary policies.

Though they are closely related, but not the same thing. For example some small central American nations have adopted the US dollar. Apparently to control their domestic governments, which have a historic tendency to print money like they were the American government.

Re:No it will not.

[HornWumpus]

Good reasons not to adopt the euro too.

Re:No it will not.

[Eunuchswear]

no, you have to be in the EU for that.

No you don't.

Re:No it will not.

[stoploss]

Right, and the yen is a clusterfuck with Japan's 200% debt to GDP ratio, aging population, and history of "quantitative easing" (*cough*printingpresses*cough*).

Similarly, we have the yuan which is propped up by an artificial exchange rate, building ghost cities, and giany government run pseudocorps.

What's left? The ruble? Heh, well at least Russia is fueling Europe and Putin seems to give not a fuck about the sanctions.

Re:No it will not.

[u38cg]

The alternative is that Scotland keeps the pound on a dollarisation-style basis and England is left carrying the can in a crisis anyway (because letting an RBS go to the wall is not credible).

Re:No it will not.

[HornWumpus]

The English pound is the worst of the lot. By a good margin. They've been working on their debt ratio for about a decade...with accounting tricks. Debt ratio too high? Just take all the pension obligations off the table.

The Scots should float their own currency. Backed by Whiskey (or is it whisky in scotland, always get those confused).

Re:No it will not.

[stoploss]

The Scots should float their own currency. Backed by Whiskey

I see what you did there...

Betteridge

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:Betteridge

[Alioth]

What threats against Scotland would British nuclear weapons prevent?

Re:Betteridge

[rapiddescent]

Scotland has only been invaded by, erm, one country, many times as it happens, in the last 1000 years.

Re:Betteridge

[Archtech]

"Scotland has only been invaded by, erm, one country, many times as it happens, in the last 1000 years".

Nice try, and I agree with the spirit of your post. But have you forgotten Norway?

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

Although the Scots gave back as good as they got:

http://www.scotsman.com/lifest...

Re:Betteridge

[gtall]

That isn't the issue, Scotland is part of the West and should contribute to its shared defense. From this side of the Atlantic, Europe is starting to appear as a lot of spoiled brats hiding behind the U.S.'s skirts whenever things get difficult. And when they should act or could act on their own, they still insist on waiting for the U.S. lest your politicians get unelected.

Re:Betteridge

[Pax681]

Scoitland has been invaded by many groups of people and generally fended them all off from the Romans to the Vikings to the English.
however in 1706/7 from when the act of union was passed(in an illegally convened parliament btw ) GREED and corruption was used to sway the vote. the people of the time certainly didn't want the union as the riots all over Scotland from Dumfries,to ayr,Edinburgh,Glasgow,Aberdeen,Dundee.. all over testify.
Scotland was pout in a vulnerable position by naval blockade which ,apart from a shitty choice of trading goods, put paid to the Darrien scheme. Privateers were also commissioned to raid Scottish vessels too, then there was the alien act making it illegal to employ,trade with,house or shelter a Scot in England or even trade with them abroad
Now... while the towns and cities were actually ok for funds the merchants and noblemen were fucked by the failed investment in the Darrien scheme and also by the alien act.
A rather famous writer of the time was employed by the crown to bribe his way through the Scottish parliament and being in desperate need of funds or just being greedy corrupt bastards the vote got through
That was Daniel Defoe who was the paymaster and handler for the agents of the crown
Thus it can be said that the only country to totally defeat Scotland ...were... ourselves due to those corrupt fucks.
As a side note... if you look at the 'Bella Pasta' eatery on teh corner of the royal mile and North Bridge, in the basement of that building where the eateries toilet is now placed.. that's where the act of union was drafted and then completed for presentation to the parliament for the vote.
quite appropriate as it was concocted by shits and pushed through by shits and therefore ,generally,a bit of a shitter! ;)

Re:Betteridge

[Pax681]

erm.. do other nations who don't have nuclear weapons not contribute?????? i would say they do with sending their armed services to serve on NATO and EU missions and campaigns so your statement is fucking ludicrous that we cannot contribute without nukes...
You'll also find that Scottish politicians in high office are not that bothered about what American politicos think... Google Kenny McAskill and Al Megrahi for details

Hope So

[JRiddell]

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.

Re:Hope So

[Richard_at_work]

You realise the reason Faslane is there is because Scottish MPs wanted the investment and jobs in Scotland?

Re:Hope So

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope it does mean the end of the weapons of mass destruction we have north of Glasgow

You're going to close the pubs in Glasgow?

Re:Hope So

[Dupple]

Sorry but that's mostly rubbish. It's a tactical thing that has more to do with intercepting the Soviet Arctic Fleet and its submersibles, before it can get in the Atlantic as well as what the other replies have stated

Re:Hope So

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Especially for missile subs. There's a reason(aside from property values and a desire to keep tourists away) that the cold-war-classic hardened silos in the US were sprinkled around various parts of nowhere; because it was basically assumed that any fixed silo Team Ivan knew about would be getting nuked and so putting them near major cities and industrial centers was a bad plan; but the whole point of nuclear missile subs is highly resistant second strike capabilities through spending as much time sneaking around underwater as possible.

The risks of being caught in drydock are hardly zero; but a submarine base is a rather different asset from a silo.

Re:Hope So

[rapiddescent]

that is not true. It was chosen in the 60's (opened in the mid 70's) because of it's geography - deep water, protected harbour and faces west to the Atlantic. Only 520 jobs rely on the nuclear deterrent side of the operation.

While important for the Coul peninsula, the proposals are to base Scotland new navy at Faslane and so these jobs would be transferred.

Re:Hope So

[jareth-0205]

It could do that fine from North England. The problem is there just isn't a good place for a sub pen in England. Scotland meanwhile has loads of deep tidal water safely tucked miles from coast.

Don't start using actual practical reality now when we can hand wave apparent Westminster anti-Scottishness!

Re:Hope So

[LWATCDR]

Biase?
"About 3,500 of the jobs at the Clyde base are uniformed Royal Navy personnel, 1,700 are contractors and 1,600 are other civilian employees, most of whom work principally on other aspects of the Navy's submarine programme, rather than Trident."

If they move the Trident subs they will move all the nuclear subs. The RN does not have any large non-nuclear subs in service.
You would not just have those jobs leave but so would many of the jobs in the shops where the people from the base spend their money.

New Scotland Navy? Okay....

Really you just flat out trust a site that has a strong anti-nuclear stand to give you the truth about the down side of what they want? Do you no know human nature. They will do research and then stop once they get the answer they want. You have to have an open mind and try and see past any sites agenda.

Two weaker nations

[EzInKy]

That is what Scottish independence would mean. But WTF, break what is left of the Kingdom up if you must.

Re:Two weaker nations

[Pax681]

That is what Scottish independence would mean. But WTF, break what is left of the Kingdom up if you must.

that is a piss poor attempt at emotive bullshit.... it's uyp to the people of Scotland to decide by voting for what they want. It would not make Scotland weaker.. fiscally it would be in a much stronger position and morally stronger too being rid of Westminster bloody awful foreign policy and involvement in illegal wars.
And ,as i said in a previous post, i say this as a veteran of the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute regiment with service in Northern Ireland,1st gulf war and Bosnia to name the ones you would have heard of.
your point if utterly weak sauce.. is Norway a weak nation????? nopes it bailed out the world bank from it's pocket change... Iceland is actually recovering rather nicely ...oh and Ireland is recovering faster and better than the so called "UK".... there are lots of small countries that do very well thanks very much and Scotland can be one of them

Re:Two weaker nations

[shutdown -p now]

What good is a strong nation if that strength doesn't benefit its citizens?

Re:Of course it won't

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Independent Scotland will thrive while England, Wales and NI will go down the shithole (they're already halfway there).
Scotland in the EU will be a great plus. As for England, just ostracise that damn country. Or better give it away to the Americans. Although I don't think the Americans would be so fucking stupid as to take that island of crazies as a colony.

close to population

[rapiddescent]

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

Re:close to population

[Xest]

"There has been absolutely no appetite in England up until now for reorganising the system of government to provide improved localism. Scotland has consistently voted differently to the rest of the UK. The Scottish Parliament was an acknowledgement of that."

You don't see how nonsensical your argument is? really?

The Scottish parliament IS an example of improved localism and has seen consistently more devolved powers offered to it, as has Wales, as has Northern Ireland.

The fact you believe that somehow moving the power to Edinburgh when most of Scotland isn't Edinburgh seems to completely miss the point. Sure a bunch of people at the centre of power in Edinburgh will be more happy but then what of those areas of Scotland that are still not represented?

It's not like all of Scotland wants to be independent for the reasons I cited- say Scotland gets a majority for independence but areas such as the outlying islands whose ocean territory is oil rich want to stick with the union, then how do you think they feel being ruled by Edinburgh against their will? Do you feel self-determination is a thing that they deserve too such that the oil heavy parts of Scotlands coast that support the union can stay with it?

Again, the only people served by moving the centre of power to Edinburgh are those close to that centre of power in Edinburgh (who are already well served by the devolved parliament) - it does absolutely nothing to resolve the underlying problems of lack of representation for everyone else, and again, Salmond has proven that over and over with cases such as that of overruling a local decision against Trump, in favour of Trump because it suited him and those in power in Edinburgh, not the people of Scotland in general.

Re:close to population

[Pax681]

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

you are spot on sir....

Re:close to population

[Pax681]

"Scotland has only been invaded by one country in the last 1000 years, it's a country to our south."

Why do you think that might be? Do you think, if say, Scotland was independent and the rest of the UK left it to fend for itself that you wouldn't have been attacked by the Nazis?

The whole reason Scotland hasn't been invaded by anyone other than the English in the last 1000 years is because the English have been running the single biggest empire in history for most of it and Scotland has thrived and been protected as a result of that.

"we just don't like the arseholes in Westminster telling us what to do (neither does large areas of England as it happens)"

Sure, and I'm in one of those parts of England where we have even less localism than you because we don't have a devolved parliament, but the idea of independence is far more retarded because we'd be even worse off again - sure we'd have more local politicians but you think someone in Glasgow is really going to be any more represented by a parliament in Edinburgh than they are London? All Salmond is selling you is that he'll get to fuck you over instead of the politicians in London, god only knows if Salmond's deal with Trump to overrule the rights of a Scotsman and his local council so that Trump could build a golf course isn't evidence of that I don't know what is - he doesn't give a shit about you any more than the politicians in Westminster and he's proven that enough times already.

Moving the place the people in control of you sit changes fuck all, increasing the accountability of whoever controls you and changing it to a relationship of serving you rather than controlling you is the only option to achieve what you're after, and you can do that far more prosperously in the union.

But perhaps instead of chasing independence you'd have worked with those of us in England to get that accountability and improved localism for the regions we might have got somewhere, but instead you're taking the worst possible option out of laziness.

Thankfully though, it seems that plenty enough Scots aren't quite retarded enough to take the stupid option that you're pushing so fingers crossed we can soon start focussing on a solution that makes sense, rather than one that's destructive fed by petty populist nationalist rhetoric.

fucking save me from this poorly constructed bullshit nonsense!
Westminster even drew up plans to LET SCOTLAND BE over run by the nazis in world war two .
you entire statement is 100% pure,unfiltered bullshit and you know it
here's a link to an article that is fully attributed and you can check it's facts.......
London plans to abandon Scotland to Nazis in world war two
BTW... it's a matter for the Scottish electorate... :)

Re:close to population

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The whole reason Scotland hasn't been invaded by anyone other than the English in the last 1000 years is because the English have been running the single biggest empire in history for most of it and Scotland has thrived and been protected as a result of that.

Actually the imperial concerns really only took off in the 1850s, before that it was just a squabbling collection of coastal holdings and primitive demesnes. With the invention of the gatling gun and the field howitzer, not to mention the advent of the likes of dreadnoughts, the British empire did in fact conquer large areas of musket defended territory. That lasted for just south of a century, or about long enough for the conquered territories to equip themselves with modern weapons.

Re:close to population

[Xest]

So just remind me why Scotland wasn't Nazi Scotland during World War II?

No?

Can't answer?

I wonder why.

Re:close to population

[Barsteward]

Did you actually read the article you posted? This is in the first paragraph of the said article..

'Secret plan to let [the] Nazis take Scotland' claiming that 'Scotland would have been abandoned to the Germans in the event of a Second World War invasion, according to new research'. None of this is true, not in any way. It's a 'factoid' – 'an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact'. [Oxford English Dictionary] The problem is that this 'fact' has since been used frequently to justify a 'Yes' vote in the referendum, by re-writing history and, in some cases, pandering to anti-English sentiment, and it's been attached to my name, as the person who did the research.

I think you'd better read the rest of the article as soon as possible

Re:close to population

[TangoMargarine]

I thought most of the reason the UK didn't get invaded in WWII was because they managed to keep the Nazis from physically getting across the Channel (paratroop operations at the time were horribly messy and not very likely to be successful...nearly impossible unless you reinforced them via sea or land during the invasion). Just letting the Nazis conquer Scotland and get a proper foothold on the island is about the most colossally stupid idea I can think of, especially considering Hitler's penchant for invading countries that were neutral and he said he'd leave alone.

Re:Braveheart FART in your face?

[bickerdyke]

No. "I fart in your general direction"

Farce

[Alioth]

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.

Re:Farce

[Chrisq]

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? .

With Pakistan having nuclear weapons and Iran working on them I think it would be good to keep them.

Re:Farce

[dave420]

There you go again with your anti-Muslim nonsense again. Iran is not working on nuclear weapons, according to the intelligence services of Britain, Israel, France, and the US. Pakistan hasn't launched a weapon in anger, and whose only perceived enemy is India (which, at this point, are not really enemies but a countries sharing a historical feud tempered by bilateral understanding of benefit of mutual existence and no war).

Just admit you are an ignorance xenophobe and we can all move on. Don't pretend you're some sort of well-informed person simply trying to educate or participate in a discussion - no-one's buying that nonsense from you. You are pathetic.

Re:Farce

[MeesterCat]

I would have thought that as long as the US has them we don't need them.

Re:Farce

[Xest]

I used to think that, but then I saw the price tag of HS2. We could triple our nuclear deterrent for the price of that and what does it give us? 20 minutes faster journeys to new stations that are 20 minutes from the outskirts of the handful of cities you can visit giving no actual benefit in practice anyway and with no doubt much higher fares to use it on top?

Trident is an absolute bargain compared to some of the wastes of money our government has a love affair with.

Even the handful of trains themselves are going to cost 1.5x more than a 4 acre aircraft carrier. I used to think many military projects were a colossal waste of money until I saw the cost of HS2. Now I think they're a bargain.

Re:Farce

[Alioth]

20 minutes faster journey up north is infinitely more useful to me and millions of others than nuclear annihilation. The HS2 infrastructure is something (well, barring the aforementioned nuclear annihilation) that will be around in a century's time. Trident won't be useful at all and won't have that long of a service life.

Re:Farce

[Chrisq]

I would have thought that as long as the US has them we don't need them.

I would feel safer knowing that if a nuke were smuggled into a British dockyard we could say "set it off and your country gets the same". The USA might go along with that - but I'm not sure

Re:Farce

[Xest]

No you're missing the point of 20 minutes up north. It's 20 minutes up north to a station that's 20 minutes away from the place you most likely want to go. HS2 to Leeds is going to end at a new station that's 20 minutes away from the center where all the businesses and shops are, to Sheffield it's going to stop at Meadowhall which is convenient if you want a 3 hour shopping round trip from London but puts you a 20 - 40 minute tram/train journey from Sheffield centre.

The point is that HS2 is literally 100% useless it seems - it doesn't stop at the normal city center destinations, it stops at destinations that are far enough out from where you most likely want to be that all benefit is lost. Worse, studies (including the official ones despite the fact they "forgot" to include the relevant pages in the original report) show areas not served will suffer economically, so you'll even see economic decline as a result. I regularly travel between Leeds, Sheffield and London and I'll still just take the East Coast Mainline, or the Sheffield - St Pancras route, because it'll be direct to where I want to go rather than me having to hope between the end points to where I actually want to be at further expense.

So fundamentally HS2 isn't useful at all, it's the anti-thesis of useful, it has no benefits when built, and destroys many people's homes at colossal tax payers expense. Make no mistake - it's a scheme designed to create jobs at the tax payers expense, whilst achieving nothing useful in practice.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for Trident either, I agree I'm not convinced it serves any purpose, I get the feeling if we're ever at serious threat of being nuked then having a deterrent wont make or break the decision to nuke us anyway, but my point is that Trident if nothing else is at least a very cheap waste of money compared to pointless schemes like HS2 - on the money wasting scale Trident just doesn't even come close to the top of the scale. I'd rather we ditch Trident AND HS2 and have an extra £70bn to £100bn to spend on useful things like nationwide 1gbps internet connections, better maintained roads, additional capacity on the East Coast Mainline, free university tuition and so forth and still had enough change left over to make the NHS more awesome.

Re:Farce

[rapiddescent]

also, HS2 will be paid out the national infrastructure budget - which means that Scotland has to pay 8.9% of the bill (which includes the debt interest) even though it will never get within 200 miles of our cities. The new train lines in Scotland however, are all paid out of Scotland's own budget with no consequential to the rest of the UK. This is why #indyref has happened.

Re:Farce

[dave420]

There is a difference between calling someone, say, a "poopie head" and accurately calling out someone with a history of xenophobic posts. Seriously. Check his history. It's disgraceful. Letting people know that his "contribution" to the discussion was not born from considered thought but from a kneejerk reaction to scary brown people is helping the discussion.

Your strategy of misunderstanding what's happening is most definitely not a major contribution to anything.

Re:Farce

[JustNiz]

You're right I don't think Iran is a real threat, but I think that if ISIS/ISIL/IS ever somehow got their hands on a nuke, or even just some enriched uranium they would soon try to use it on the west at least as a dirty bomb. ...and meanwhile Putin is trying to move Russia back to the Cold War era politics too.

Consequently IMHO its probably good to keep a deterrent around at least for now, not that the UK ones represent much on a global scale.

Re:Farce

[Xest]

Well, England also pays for things in Scotland it doesn't get to use too, so that kinda works both ways I'm afraid. You could just as well argue that the rest of the UK has to pay 91.1% of Scotland's railways even though they're by definition not in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. I don't think that argument really has any logical grounding given it's two way nature.

Re:Farce

[TangoMargarine]

I liked the part where you casually handwaved generations of bitter resentment between India and Pakistan as "not enemies."

Actually, it does !

[Taco Cowboy]

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

Re:Actually, it does !

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Wae Don' needa nae Nukies! Wae gots... HAGGIS!

Re:Actually, it does !

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear carped bombing might improve gene pool and solve some terror related problems.
This is fast and relatively "low cost" solution. Comparing to current "War on Terror"
"You want to play terror game"? here is terror made properly....Nuke them and shoot them while they still glow in the dark!
After such action Scotland would be nuclear weapons free ... as side benefit.

Re:Actually, it does !

[Dogtanian]

Wae Don' needa nae Nukies! Wae gots... HAGGIS!

It's actually quite impressive that you didn't even say anything out loud, yet still managed to convincingly give the impression of the least-convincing Scots accent *ever*. :-)

I mean, what does the Italian-Chinese community have to do with it?!

Re:Actually, it does !

[TitusGroan8856]

Scotland has been economically raped by the UK for more than just the 30 years or so that north sea oil and gas has been around. Scotland has consistently paid more tax per head of population than the rest of the UK. Then there's the clearances. The proverb you are grasping for with lethologica is "together we stand, divided we fall" how do you think George Washington et al would feel about that statement if you had a time machine and suggested that to them?

Re:Actually, it does !

[Simon Brooke]

We've actually paid more tax per head, and received less back per head, than England for every one of the last 110 years, which is as far back as the available data goes. So it's long before the discovery of oil.

However, that's not the point. The United Kingdom has, through imperialism and military adventurism, very reasonably made itself the second most hated nation on the planet. I'm tired of being embarrassed to travel on a UK passport. I'm tired of paying taxes to bomb other people's countries. I'm tired of my country providing bases for the US to set up its torture centres. I'm tired of my country supporting every two-bit dictator who will buy weapons.

We can do better than this - and we will.

Re:Actually, it does !

[TitusGroan8856]

Alba gu brÃth!

Re:Actually, it does !

[s.petry]

I hope you are correct, but I imagine that there will be a whole lot of ballot stuffing and there will be no independence. As you point out, you are a revenue source for the crown. They don't give 2 shits about you, but they do care about your money. Or at least being able to take it from you, by force when necessary.

Re:Actually, it does !

[whoever57]

We've actually paid more tax per head, and received less back per head, than England for every one of the last 110 years,

Oh, really? Because Wikipedia doesn't agree with you. Spending per person:

The persistence of per capita public expenditure lower in England than elsewhere continues to attract calls for the formula to be renegotiated. Using figures for the financial year 2006/2007,[4] if a UK-wide per capita average were a notional 100%, identifiable per capita expenditure on services in England would be 97%, in Scotland 117%, in Wales 111% and in Northern Ireland 127% (this does not take account of non-identifiable expenditure, such as defence and debt interest, which are deemed to be for the benefit of the entire UK, regardless as to where the money is actually spent). In cash, this would work out as (per person):[5]

England £7,121

Scotland £8,623

Re:Actually, it does !

[arglebargle_xiv]

Wae Don' needa nae Nukies! Wae gots... HAGGIS!

It's actually quite impressive that you didn't even say anything out loud, yet still managed to convincingly give the impression of the least-convincing Scots accent *ever*. :-)

Och aye 'n fock off the noo!

Re:Actually, it does !

[dryeo]

The proverb you are grasping for with lethologica is "together we stand, divided we fall" how do you think George Washington et al would feel about that statement if you had a time machine and suggested that to them?

He'd probably say, "you're right, lets have a Continental Congress and unite the colonies, at least diplomatically and militarily"

Re:Actually, it does !

[Applehu Akbar]

But it would probably improve the taste.

Re:Actually, it does !

[HornWumpus]

Your not cooking it right.

First wrap the carp in a paper towel.

Then carry out a long and involved cooking process.

Then eat the paper towel and discard the carp.

Re:Actually, it does !

[Dogtanian]

I disagree. I think every country has the right to self defense, and possess these. However I'd be a big fan of a global nuclear weapon's ban that everybody signs. PS. What are the Scots thinking of trying to be independent? If I were them I'd be happy to be ganged up with England, as long as England is not exploiting me economically because I'm Scot, nor does it restrict my liberties such as freedom of expression, or practicing my own Gaelic mother tongue. tradition. But hey. they are the Scots, and you have to let them decide for themselves. I just think they are proving themselves stupid. Instead of separation, they should be trying to liberties and while united, and only if that's impossible while being united, when push comes to shove, do you have to lower your expectations and strive for independence. But they might be misjudging England, and its willingness to allow for broad reaching internal freedoms, within the UK, such as practicing your own language, etc. United is usually better than divided. The proverb says together we stand, alone we fall. But there are of course many exceptions.

Thank you for your half-baked opinion on why Scotland is "proving itself stupid".

In fact, the freedom to speak Gaelic (which is the "mother tongue" of very few Scots, and still only spoken by a small proportion) has little to do with the push for independence.

Your er.... *eloquent* speech on remaining together did nothing to address the contradiction that traditional Tory voters in their south-east England heartlands are moving against EU membership. The Tories-- afraid of losing votes to UKIP (the UK Independence party) who are pushing this policy- are pandering to *their* potential voters by promising a referendum on EU membership in 2017, which- if they win- would result in the UK leaving the EU.

Scotland is (in general) much more in favour of the EU, and UKIP support here is *much* lower than it is in the south-east of England. But, of course, if the English vote is sufficiently against EU membership... tough for poor Scotland who (hypothetically) remained attached to Little England. Should Scotland "stand together" with the people who didn't "stand together" with the EU?

Devolution has improved things somewhat, but control of the UK overall- including the economy and many devolved matters- remains with Westminster, which is run by an increasingly right-wing Tory government which the Scots did *not* elect, and whose political trajectory has been veering away from Scottish values for a generation. (Some readers may be surprised to note that the Tories once had a significant share of the Scottish vote. In the 1955 general election, they gained a majority of votes and a majority of the seats here. Such a prospect would be unthinkable now- there is only one Scottish Tory MP).

This has been happening since Thatcher came to power in the late-1970s, promising "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony"- either hugely ironic or intentionally hypocritical since she was a divide-and-rule politician with a "them and us" mentality that abandoned any notion of "one nation conservatism", decimated Scottish industry, squandered revenues from North Sea Oil- most of which would have belonged to Scotland if independent- on funding the unemployment her policies caused. In short, she pandered to the Tory heartland of the South East (England), and foisted her values on Scots who profoundly disagreed with them.

In the post-Thatcher era, we got the once left-wing Labour party selling out to stand any chance of being elected by the South East, to the point they were arguably more right wing and more pro free market than the pre-Thatcher Conservatives. Following Blair's nauseating arse-licking of George W Bush (which bought him nothing- as any idiot could see at the time- and was a result of his egotism, hubris and messiah complex) we got the Tories again, even more right wing despite initial pr

Re:Actually, it does !

[oldmac31310]

I don't know why you have been modded as flamebait. I applaud Scotland's will to be free. As an Irish guy living in the US, I'm cheering you on. If the Scots want to be nuke free - move them to England. The problem is they have been sweeping the issue under the carpet and have no contingency plan for relocating the arsenal. The implication being that they really do not believe that Scottish independence will happen. I dearly hope they are mistaken and get a nice surprise on September.

Re:Actually, it does !

[mjm1231]

Half of your argument is missing. You need the revenues collected information ("taxes per head"). If you get that and do the math, then you've got something.

Re:Actually, it does !

[whoever57]

Half of your argument is missing. You need the revenues collected information ("taxes per head"). If you get that and do the math, then you've got something.

Really? That's all you have? Not even a citation to prove a point?

The GGP claimed 2 things (1: more taxes per head, 2: less spending per head). I showed that the second was false. The other claim (greater taxes per head), I left alone. There is no math involved.

Re:Actually, it does !

[whoever57]

I should also point out that tax revenues per head are only higher in Scotland if oil and gas revenues are included in the calculations. Otherwise, they are broadly similar to UK average.

Even if oil and gas are included, spending per head in Scotland is approximately 1,400 more than UK average, while revenues are about 1,700 more than UK average -- really quite a small difference.

Re:Actually, it does !

[gweihir]

Nuclear weapons are unusable as defensive weapons. Believing such utter nonsense is really pathetic.

Re:Actually, it does !

[HughJazz]

Good observation. That hypocrisy has always bugged me. The British government under troll Cameron is clearly anti-EU -- but then calls for unity in Britain! While some people in Britain have begun to identify themselves as purely British (as opposed to using British in a geographic sense) the funny thing about the situation even Cameron himself isn't British. Even the Queen of Gotha herself is of mostly ethnic German ancestry. The term British people came into widespread use after the union of Scotland and England in the 18th century --- neither of which have anything to do with the original Britons (the closest they have to actual descendents are to the Welsh and Cornish). The modern British identity is based on revisionist history. While there is such a thing as British islands in a geographic sense there is no such thing as a British people. Its an invented ethnic group built on assimilation of actual ethnic groups.

Re:Actually, it does !

[jeremyp]

We've actually paid more tax per head, and received less back per head, than England for every one of the last 110 years, which is as far back as the available data goes. So it's long before the discovery of oil.

Citation needed there I think.

However, that's not the point. The United Kingdom has, through imperialism and military adventurism, very reasonably made itself the second most hated nation on the planet. I'm tired of being embarrassed to travel on a UK passport.

Mostly on the back of following George W Bush on his crazy adventures. Of course, the government at the time was being led by a Scot and the man in charge of the money was a Scot too.

Re:Actually, it does !

[HiThere]

I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't know. But Wikipedia is not a reliable source to quote. Too many ediots* with an axe to grind keep modifying too many articles.

* I couldn't decide whether to write idiots or editors.

Re:Actually, it does !

[Darinbob]

Haggis is the ultimate deterrent.

Re:Actually, it does !

[kuzb]

The problem with these treaties is that everyone signs them, and nobody abides by them. If you happen to be the one country that does, you wind up fucked by all the others that talked out of the side of their mouth.

The real problem is that there is no significant downside to violating UN sanctions. I mean, the US does it all the time.

Re:Actually, it does !

[kuzb]

..which is precisely why nobody has been nuked since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fear of this nuclear arsenal and the widespread carnage it would cause if X and Y started to throw them at each other is a very real deterrent. It's not at all pathetic to think that if everyone has a doomsday weapon, that everyone will be a lot more reluctant to push the button. Everyone loses such a war, and everyone knows it. The only way you don't lose is if the person you're targeting doesn't have them.

Re:Actually, it does !

[Triklyn]

holy hell batman, you just triple-downed on his racism. impressive :)

Re:Actually, it does !

[sillybilly]

And even nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not conducted properly. The military did not listen to Leo Sz. and the scientists asking for a demo. They said the chance for a demo failure is too high, so let's bomb. A demo might have stopped any civilian use, or at the very least a demo + Hiroshima would have definitely ended the war, saving Nagasaki. When it only happened to Hiroshima, the japs were wondering if it was a natural disaster like a meteorite hit, necessitating a 2nd bomb. Similar to how a plane colliding with a WTC might be thought of as an accident, or something strange out of the ordinary, but when it's duplicated, it's obviously not a mere accident. Without a demo there was automatic need for duplicate bombs.

Re:Actually, it does !

[matbury]

AFAIK, the UK doesn't actually have the authority or capability to launch Trident missiles unilaterally. The UK are basically "caretakers" to the US nuclear deterrent. In effect, the UK taxpayer is subsidising the US military. Britain and Scotland would be better off without it. Scotland would probably be better off with more autonomy and responsibility. The Tory govt. and the BBC have been pursuing an overt and shameless propaganda campaign, complete with misinformation and misdirection at every turn, against Scottish independence. With this in mind, I can't see how London has the Scottish people's best interests at heart: If they have rational, evidence-based reasons for Scotland not gaining independence then let's hear them instead of this nonsensical propaganda. (BTW, I'm English, not Scottish).

Re:Actually, it does !

[sillybilly]

Any diplomatic treaty is like that - fluff, air. But even that 0.0001% difference that it makes is better than nothing. By the way a common phrase to describe diplomacy is : good dog, nice dog, and keeping the dog down with talk while I'm looking to get a stick.
Which is why we have to put up space stations and live on them. The biotech threat of artificial miltary weapon diseases escaping the lab and killing everybody trumps the nuclear holocaust threat, because that one lacks intelligence.
The order of threats to humanity are:
1. Artificial intelligence that happens to not cooperate with you, but go against you, and try to eat you - what are the chances of that, - against which you cannot run away to outer space, unless you take 70,000 year trips to nearby stars, they you might buy some time, and call it semi -escape. This is the only true threat without solutions, all the others have easy solutions.
2. Biotech weapon diseases that eat up all eukaryotes, or computer virus like hackers fucking up all life on Earth. Living on huge Earth-orbit or Sun-orbit rotating cylinder space stations is a workable defense against this threat.
3. Nuclear. Everything else is peanuts, piece of cake compared to the other two, and this includes a total nuclear global holocaust - there are issues at Chernobyl, but it's not really a desert either. Life adapts, and it's easier to adapt to radiation, than to a semi-intelligent biotech disease. Of course at the height of the Cold War nuclear arms-race the two superpowers, USA and Soviet Union amassed so many nukes that some said there was enough to erase all life 7 times over on the planet. You can get out of proportion with that too, but the issue with small scale nuclear terrorism is nowhere near as bad as two superpowers, or many superpowers, building up stocks for a mutually assured destruction threat-counterthreat. And of course living on space stations is a solution to this threat too.
4. Global warming. The Earth adapts. Increased temperatures mean increased desertification, which mean increase solar reflectance. Some places, like Siberia or Russia, might even like it, however the water stored at the poles high up in the air as icebergs or Antarctica mountains, and on top of mountains that have snow peaks throughout the world, cause a global sea level rise to where people in Venice have to walk in thigh-high boots (they say it's cuz Venice is sinking constantly). The Kilimanjaro no longer has snow peaks, Lake Chad is gone, so with global warming if much of Antarctica melts, Florida and the like might go under water completely, including all major population centers that are ports, such as NY, SF, LA, DC, London, Paris, Hamburg, etc., etc, etc. Global warming has many easy solutions. One is to run away onto space stations, and then you don't give a fuck, if there are 7 billion people living on space stations, they are not really affected by the 7 billion down here screwing things up. The other solution is to put up shades, to artificially control the climate to a desired temperature, but it would require a massive scale buildup unheard of even to the ancient Egyptian pyramid builders. Another solution is to switch to carbon-neutral fuels, but I have a feeling people are too stupid, and once we're out of all oil, then all gas, then we'll go after all coal, and put it up into the atmosphere, increasing deserts even further and causing sea level rise. There is probably at least 200 years for that to happen, and there might be some global economic collapse that forces people to stop consuming so much, and shipping fuel back and forth stops, then everyone will be forced to survive sustainably, based on green grass and trees and food renewable energy sources. That's what you call a zombie apocalypse though, and it's not pleasant living through it.

Re:Actually, it does !

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Haggis is fucking brilliant. Meat is the only real food, and Haggis is king of the sausages.

Re:Actually, it does !

[Dogtanian]

I mean, what does the Italian-Chinese community have to do with it?!

holy hell batman, you just triple-downed on his racism. impressive :)

Well... not really. It just came across- or so it seemed originally- as a bad hybrid of stock cliche Italian and Chinese accents (which may well be considered racist now, but it's not like *I* was the one doing them! Mind you, we can't blame Jeremiah Cornelius for that either, at least not in intent- his only crime was being very bad at Scottish accents :-) ).

On reflection, though, it's *not* actually that much like Chinese at all- not even the most offensively stereotyped version- and it only looked cod-Italian because of the vowel at the end of "need(a)"- not sure how that's even incorrectly reminiscent of a Scottish accent!

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure *what* the fsck it *does* resemble, to be honest.... oh yeah, a very bad Scots accent. :-)

Re:Actually, it does !

[LienRag]

The Tories-- afraid of losing votes to UKIP (the UK Independence party) who are pushing this policy- are pandering to *their* potential voters by promising a referendum on EU membership in 2017, which- if they win- would result in the UK leaving the EU.

Indeed? Really?
Please please please, pretty please with sugar on top, could you let them do it?
Accepting the UK was the worst mistake than EU ever made...

Re:Actually, it does !

[sillybilly]

Nice reply. I don't claim to understand the Scottish-UK relationship, but your post help me gain insight into the mindset of some Scots. In fact I had not clue even that the UK is about to abandon EU membership, I live a sheltered life. I do know Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU for instance, they have long traditions of independence and things like right to bear arms, but France, and especially Germany want everyone united working together cooperating for a better future. And of course there are two sides to every story, all I know is that ultra-polarized extremes of any kind, including Soviet communism or mercenary merchant capitalism with slavery and pirates, neither of them is an idyllic world. Even the Chinese are relaxing on uber-communism and are allowing greater degrees of private ownership experiments with a strong central communist gov't still maintaining control and arbitrary decision of changing their minds back. Private property and individual rights vs. the tragedy of the commons and cooperation, both have their faults. So the people in England might have different views, especially when they have to drag the dead weight of Greece economically in the EU, which, it sucks for the Greeks, and I wish them happiness and good life and the best, but I think they must have some corrupt forces pushing them to such economic brinks, but facts are facts, and there is something to say about a friend in need is a friend indeed, except when its abused to where if I'm sinking and going under I'm pulling you down with me. It's hard to tell the future, or know whether united or divided is better, but Scotland united with England, is not the same thing as UK united with and dragging all the economic corruption weight of Greece and Ukraine and being bogged down by them to paralysis. It's like Greece and Ukraine will be dragged down as much as available from the EU to be dragged down by, so if they are somehow set independent, then there is nobody to drag down, you can't really go much below zero when there is nothing. I mean you can get debt but that's fluff, as debts get defaulted on and canceled and all that, so you have this hard wall of worst case scenario is there is nothing, zero, not negative, as opposed to being tagged on to the EU and Germany's and UK's economy and having something to feed off of as a parasite. I think the EU understands that the EU is not possible without equal economic well being throughout all member states, and that is extremely difficult, and the EU is shaking at its core, when you read things like Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic and Hungary discussing austerity measures so severe, that, to save fuel, when there is a stray airplane through their airspace, they sign treaties that once one of them launches escort fighter jets, they escort the stray plane through the whole airspace, without individual countries having to launch their own fighter jets individually, to save fuel, when it would be a perfect opportunity for practice drills in real case scenarios. So austerity measures everywhere, then you can't help thy brother. Am I my brother's keeper? Well, they might pose that question to you as in am I my brother's keeper when we're both starving and the brink of death economically, about to collapse, and there is stuff, wealth, food available, to where one might survive but not both, are you supposed to be altruistic and let your brother live and you die, or selfish, and compete for that food. Unemployment and oil revenues and what not, a UK with US supply ships could fend off Hitler, which, when divided into smaller pieces, might be more difficult. How long til the EU breaks down under the pressure of forces wanting it to break down, and not be strong, and then you have another Axis vs. Allies war. It has not even been a century since the last one. I think being allowed to maintain identity, such as mother tongue and even racial identity or being allowed to freely marry with your own kind if you want to, is more important than the economic drag the ruling group poses, as in compensation for that "fee" you do get a pretty good military defense. The British Navy defended Scotland for a long time too, and if Scotland had been alone, it might have been an easy prey to the Germans in WW2 without the UK military.

Re:Actually, it does !

[Dogtanian]

A word of advice- posting your comment as a single wall of text like that makes it very tiring to read and digest, and thus a lot less likely to get read. Try using paragraphs, and it might come across more credibly, rather than appearing as a train-of-thought comment.

I don't claim to understand the Scottish-UK relationship

You evidently felt that you "understood" it enough to judge Scotland "proving itself stupid" for wanting independence.

You come across as someone who lacks experience, someone who is thinking out the abstract principles, but applies them to a real-world situation that you don't understand the important details of at all.

Regarding WW2; yes, that is generally considered one of the better times of the British state. If Scotland had been independent then, I would hope that it would fight together with England (and the rest of the UK), and there are aspects of defence where I feel that the proposed independent Scotland may be relying too much on the efforts of others.

Still, the comments I made regarding the reasons for wanting Scottish independence were just a small proportion of the total I could have posted- in other words, there were many more reasons, but I did not have more time to add to a post that was already very long at that point.

Re:Actually, it does !

[TheRaven64]

We've actually paid more tax per head, and received less back per head, than England for every one of the last 110 years, which is as far back as the available data goes

A big citation needed there. The last time I looked at the data was in 1998, but back then English tax payers were paying an average of around £100 each for the upkeep of Scotland, if you didn't include the north sea gas revenues.

Why Is Alex Salmond making these promises?

[91degrees]

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.

Re:Why Is Alex Salmond making these promises?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Salmond seems to think the referendum is bout electing him Scotland's president.

It's not just him, it's Labour too: this survey asks if participants will be voting for Salmond on September 18th. Personally, I'm not because I'll be too busy voting Yes in a referendum that only offers "Yes" or "No" as the options. Never voted SNP, never voted for Salmond, never plan to. Mind you, I do intend to ignore the thinly-veiled propaganda trying to make this about the current First Minister - from whatever side it comes.

Speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Defence

[maroberts]

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.

Re:Speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Defence

[Xest]

I think Kirchner is too busy ruining her nation's economy to worry about that now. She seems to have dropped that topic now she's realised that it's no longer effective at distracting her populace from the fact that she's making them lose all their jobs and rapidly pushing them to a point where they wont even be able to afford things like bread.

The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:The real question

[Xest]

Right, but you have to remember also that Salmond has been allowed to rig this poll in his favour, precisely so even if the result is that close the Westminster parties can say that he couldn't even win the referendum on his terms.

It's unheard of in the UK for you to not be able to vote in a referendum because of your residency, rather than your nationality yet Westminster let Salmond have his own way on exactly this such that the 20% of Scots most likely to vote against independence (those not currently resident, but otherwise nationals of because they were born there) cannot vote in the referendum. Similarly he was allowed to continue with a loaded referendum question, and he was allowed to bring in the 16 - 18 bracket who are more naive to and hence swayed by populist nationalist rhetoric.

Given that Salmond can't even get a 50:50 split when the thing is slanted completely in his favour then I think saying there's no popular support is a fair argument. If all Scots were allowed a say rather than those Salmond has fiddle the figures for it seems the polls would be running closer to about 66:34.

This is a risky but potentially smart gamble by Westminster in letting Salmond have his own way - it means Salmond cannot come back and say the vote wasn't fair, that it should be re-run, he wont have a leg to stand on because everything was allowed on his terms and yet he'll still most likely lose it seems.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[citizenr]

there's no USSR

for the moment, but Putin is on top of it

Re:Start building a new wall (Hadrian mk2)

[Archtech]

"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".

Great, that means there will be lots of cheap houses for sale in that beautiful, tranquil (except near Lossiemouth) part of the world. Where are those estate agent pages?

Re:Does it really matter ?

[jareth-0205]

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 ?

Ultimately, yes, because you can't expect another country, even a close ally, to risk nuclear war for you. The UK can't guarantee that the States would retaliate if necessary, especially since they would be bringing likely retaliation, and millions of American citizens deaths, on themselves. Nuclear warheads suck, but once you have them you damn well keep them, otherwise the deterrent doesn't work.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[AchilleTalon]

There isn't any USSR, however Russia is still a nuclear power and there is many other nuclear power countries: China, USA, Pakistan, India, North Korea, France and possibly Iran at least. Not having this in your arsenal is to rely on someone else in the event of a nuclear war, even if the probability for such an event is low. In some sense, you put your soveignty in the hands of someone else in that case. That's the reason why UK will not throw away its nuclear arsenal.

Also, having more than one country in the NATO having such an arsenal is also a major argument against anyone who would like to start an nuclear conflict thinking suffice to neutralize and target only the one with nuclear warheads.

Salmond is NOT making Scotland non nuclear

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Salmond is NOT making Scotland non nuclear

[rapiddescent]

Nuclear WEAPONS. Now, I do agree that lobbing a power station at ones enemy, it might be seen as a weapon; but the general plan is that Scotland wants to be in a position to have 100% of power production capability by 2020. Keeping Nuclear power stations on a bit in case that goal is not reached 100% of the time seems sensible so long as no new nuclear power stations are built.

The Channel 4 expose is just muck-raking pre-referendum. If you really want to dig around the deals being done with regard nuclear power generation then look at the huge deal done with EDF in England that will make electricity production hugely expensive whilst the rUK retains clean up costs...

Re:Of course it won't

[Archtech]

"Anyone stupid enough to just dismantle nukes instead of selling them is a moron".

Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had this year! So, to whom do you suggest selling the British nuclear deterrent:

1. The USA (which sold it to us years ago, doesn't accept trade-ins, and has masses of more up-to-date equipment of its own);

2. The potential enemies against whom the deterrent has been directed;

3. Or nations that currently don't have nuclear weapons (thus breaking the NNP treaty and making the world a far more dangerous place)?

Or perhaps you would prefer they be sold directly to a terrorist group?

The issue is where to build a new sub base

[gelfling]

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.

Re:Start building a new wall (Hadrian mk2)

[drinkypoo]

Great, that means there will be lots of cheap houses for sale in that beautiful, tranquil (except near Lossiemouth) part of the world. Where are those estate agent pages?

Second this. Always dreamed of an estate there, I like rain and I drive AWD.

Re: Does it really matter ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not having this in your arsenal is to rely on someone else in the event of a nuclear war ..."

Oh look, they're having a nuclear war, let's join in. What a great excuse.

Re:Hopefully.

[RDW]

'400 rads, ladies and gentlemen. A lethal dose to anyone within ten yards. Get it while it's hot!'

Re:Start building a new wall (Hadrian mk2)

[karbonforms]

I'll see you for a pint in the Gellions bar.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[umghhh]

So it is good to have them - I agree, I also have this warm fuzzy feeling when I think about all these nukes stationed nearby.

However it seems to me that you did not understand the question - which was : what to do with deterrent if there is nobody to deter?

Source to the left of the left wing

[tepples]

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.

Re:Source to the left of the left wing

[Wootery]

Indeed. A 'perfectly center' source, or rather, a source written with a political bias which is the mean of the positions on the spectrum of two parties, might be considered biased by both. Likewise a perfect unbiased source (if such a thing can exist) might not reflect the world-view of either of two parties, and so again might be accused of bias.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[BradMajors]

You seemed to have missed Israel on your list of nuclear countries, but included Iran a non-nuclear country on your list.

The Problems with Nukes is

[Nyder]

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.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[Pino Grigio]

The UK's deterrent isn't like France's really. The US supplies most of the Trident missile system with the UK putting its own warheads on (I think we still do that, at least we used to make them at Aldermaston). The thing is it's not really an independent deterrent. The UK doesn't need US permission before using it but it's almost totally dependent on US technology to launch and maintain it. Regardless the deterrent was really only design to guarantee that the UK could completely flatten Moscow in the event of Russian aggression against the UK. I'm not too sure such a capability is all that relevant any more.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally, that's what Ukraine thought when it gave up it's nuclear weapons. Working pretty well for them, isn't it?

Though to be fair, they chose not to join NATO.

Re: Does it really matter ?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like:
UK: "Oh, they're firing nukes at our cities. Hey, USA, bestest bud, could you retaliate with your nukes please?"
USA: "That'd make us a target as well, so no, sorry, you're on your own."
UK: "Well fuck."

Re:Does it really matter ?

[drainbramage]

Are you thinking of one of the Americas as an ally?
One of today's Americas?

Re:Does it really matter ?

[jareth-0205]

The UK's deterrent isn't like France's really. The US supplies most of the Trident missile system with the UK putting its own warheads on (I think we still do that, at least we used to make them at Aldermaston). The thing is it's not really an independent deterrent. The UK doesn't need US permission before using it but it's almost totally dependent on US technology to launch and maintain it. Regardless the deterrent was really only design to guarantee that the UK could completely flatten Moscow in the event of Russian aggression against the UK. I'm not too sure such a capability is all that relevant any more.

Thing is, *is* that the only requirement, and is it going to be the requirement in 20 years, 40 years? I can't say, of course nobody can, so I'd rather keep it.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[aliquis]

On the other hand would anyone nuke the UK if they didn't had any nukes?

What suck is if the world get less powerful against the terrorists and Islamists.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[dunkelfalke]

Not really. Modern Russia is different to USSR in almost every way imaginable, including the things that were actually good.
The only country closely resembling the USSR of old would be Belarus.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[jareth-0205]

So it is good to have them - I agree, I also have this warm fuzzy feeling when I think about all these nukes stationed nearby.

However it seems to me that you did not understand the question - which was : what to do with deterrent if there is nobody to deter?

Given that you don't know that there's not going to be anyone to deter - you can't be sure now and definitely not about 20 years in the future - you keep it. Russia is hardly a benign friend now.

There's a big jump from "thankfully we don't seem to have a need for this anymore" to "we can get rid of them permanently because they will never be useful again"

the VAST majority of Scots...

[Pax681]

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

Re:the VAST majority of Scots...

[u38cg]

>> were deemed "too close to population centres" [citation needed]

Re: the VAST majority of Scots...

[u38cg]

Yeah, this shithead grew up within a stone's throw - literally - of Faslane. I also know how to Google. So again. Citation. Please?

Stylized Sheep

[DarthVain]

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... :)

Re:Of course it won't

[Pax681]

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.

holy fuck... now here speaks a typical unionist.. this referendum isn't about Alex Salmond it's about the constitutional future and the future for our children in Scotland.
When it comes to who is the First Minister post independence.. that's what election are for you blatant fucking MORON.....
As for being ignorant on economics.. he's an economist and specialised in oil and worked in that for fucking years.
Thgis makes him more qualified than that pretty much all the Westminster chancellors put together.. such as the latest one.. with a degree in art history... I mean really? is this the best debate you can put forward? no nonder you posted AC.. typical unthinking dogmatic moronic unionist bilge.... just like the "better together2 campaign declared that if Scotland became independent the roaming charges would be horrendous in Europe for Scots... and this on the same day the EU announced the end of roaming charges.. LOL,
. You sir are genuinely ignorant.... about everything especially Scotland,it's politics,what would happen post independence and it's political personalities
Again I stress this referendum has nothing to do with salmond and everything to do with independence... hence the name.. the independence referendum!

Re:Does it really matter ?

[Pino Grigio]

People don't like to admit it but the existence of Nuclear weapons has prevented a major conflagration between the `big powers', at least since the Korean War (MacArthur wanted to use them there, his boss didn't).

U.S. Trident missile.

[pigsycyberbully]

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.

Re:U.S. Trident missile.

[u38cg]

Wrong. In fact, UK submarines can launch unilaterally; they don't even need authorisation from London, although the system cannot be armed and activated by one person. US missiles are PAL-locked; the UK chose not to install the option when it was made available.

Re:U.S. Trident missile.

[JustNiz]

>> US missiles are PAL-locked;

No, the US went with NTSC.

Re:U.S. Trident missile.

[u38cg]

Typicaly yanks, choosing inferior technology just because you had to be different.

At least you didn't use SECAM. That really does justify a nuke.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel consistently denies their possession of nukes, so they don't count. On the other hand, Iran consistently denies their possession of nukes, so they must have them.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[shutdown -p now]

Putin's model is a combination of both.

Here is what would happen

[Severus Snape]

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.

The UK would just have them moved...

[Karmashock]

its not like scotland would own those weapons. Just move them to the UK and continue business as usual...

Re:The UK would just have them moved...

[Severus Snape]

Way to go for the most uninformed comment in this thread. They are stored under a mountain, nukes aren't exactly front lawn material. The cost of building a new complex to store them would be high and would take a considerable amount of time.

Re:The UK would just have them moved...

[Karmashock]

You're right... the UK is totally incapable of doing something any third world country could do... what was I thinking.

Forgive me.

Fucktard.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[oldmac31310]

Why have you omitted Israel from your list of nuclear powers? And why have you included Iran which does not as yet possess such weapons?

Re:Does it really matter ?

[oldmac31310]

Bullshit.

Best move ever

[Bayoudegradeable]

Riding the UK of Arsenal would be the best thing to happen! Think of all the Gooners they could clear out.

Re:Best move ever

[jeremyp]

I hear we've already tried nuking Manure's home ground but nobody could tell the difference.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[Rich0]

People don't like to admit it but the existence of Nuclear weapons has prevented a major conflagration between the `big powers', at least since the Korean War (MacArthur wanted to use them there, his boss didn't).

Yup. It is certainly a big factor preventing war over the Ukraine. If the Ukraine had nuclear weapons, it would probably remain intact.

Would the US nuke China over an invasion of Japan? Probably not.

Would the US nuke Russia over an invasion of Germany, France, or the UK? Probably not.

In the end, when you're talking about doomsday the stakes are pretty high. Just letting the other guy invade your ally tends to look like a very good option. If you don't want to get invaded, having your own nukes is better than relying on somebody else's.

Re:Of course it won't

[TangoMargarine]

The only reasonable choice is selling them back to the rest of the UK, I guess? If that's not what he meant I have no idea.

Alex Salmond

[jeremyp]

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?

Re:Hopefully.

[Tapewolf]

'400 rads, ladies and gentlemen. A lethal dose to anyone within ten yards. Get it while it's hot!'

"'Azure' is a codeword indicating that the property is under some kind of electronic surveillance." Which is amusing, because Grogan rather reminds me of Bill Gates.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[quenda]

Sir Humphrey: Russians? Who's talking about the Russians?
Hacker: Well, the independent deterrent.
Sir Humphrey: It's to protect us against the French!
Hacker: The French?! But that's astounding!
Sir Humphrey: Why?
Hacker: Well they're our allies, our partners.
Sir Humphrey: Well, they are now, but they've been our enemies for the most of the past 900 years. If they've got the bomb, we must have the bomb!
Hacker: If it's for the French, of course, that's different. Makes a lot of sense.
Sir Humphrey: Yes. Can't trust the Frogs.
Hacker: You can say that again!