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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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: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: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: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...

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: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:Braveheart FART in your face?

[bickerdyke]

No. "I fart in your general direction"

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?

Re:Betteridge

[Alioth]

What threats against Scotland would British nuclear weapons prevent?

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.

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 !

[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 !

[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 !

[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 !

[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:Betteridge

[rapiddescent]

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

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.

Re:Does it really matter ?

[citizenr]

there's no USSR

for the moment, but Putin is on top of it

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: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.

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: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.

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: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: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: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

[Pinky's Brain]

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

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 ?

[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 ?

[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"

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: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 ?

[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!