Scottish independence - as an Englishman, am I "wrong" not to give a crap?

[weepiper]

if HMNB Clyde was just outside Govan you might have a point, but its not, its 40 miles away, and its prevailing wind does not go towards Glasgow. Devonport however is in Plymouth, its not even as far as Pacific Quay is from Central station...

in the event of Trident leaving Scotland, expect the MOD's assessment of Devonports suitability to change.

Well, they drove a convoy of 19 trucks carrying nuclear weapons right through central Glasgow on the M74 last night so I think I'll stick to feeling that I do have a point.

Motion S4M-08888: Bill Kidd, Glasgow Anniesland, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 29/01/2014

That the Parliament notes with grave concern what it believes is the regular transportation of nuclear weapons on roads throughout Scotland; understands that, in the early hours of the morning of 29 January 2014, a 19-vehicle convoy, which was transporting nuclear weapons from the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire to Coulport on Loch Long, used the M74 to drive through Glasgow; further understands that such convoys do not carry radiation warning symbols and neither the public nor the local authority areas that they pass through are warned about the material being transported; believes that the majority of the people of Glasgow and Scotland remain opposed to the UK Government's policy of maintaining and upgrading the Trident system, and hopes that public awareness of what it sees as this ongoing and dangerous practice will strengthen the calls to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons once and for all.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/currentmsps/Bill-Kidd-MSP.aspx

 

[brogdale]

Speaking after his meeting today with Salmond, I noticed Carney correct himself when talking about the hypothetical post Scottish independence remaining state; at first he said "...the rest of the UK"..., but then quickly corrected to "...the continuity UK...".

So, if nothing else, we've discovered what a post independence 'UK' state would call itself; the CONUK.

 

[DotCommunist]

continuity UK sounds well terrorist. home counties contras

 

[brogdale]

continuity UK sounds well terrorist. home counties contras

Ultimately though, they'll have to remain what's left because it can't be called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland". I suppose there's a possible one word switch that might accurately suffice? The "United Kingdom of South Britain & Northern Ireland"

 

[coley]

Plymouth seems to be pushing quite hard to get the new submarine base if its required - theres already lots of infrastructure there for both the SSN's and SSBN's - and an extra 5,000 well paid, high skill jobs, as well as the £3-5bn it would cost to build a new Faslane/Coulport at Devonport would be very welcome. if it comes to it, expect to find anyone opposing it locked in a cellar....

I was thinking more of the storage of the nuclear rubbish that will be generated by upping sticks from Faslane, they should also put on hold any warship construction planned for our Caledonian comrades.

 

[coley]

Ultimately though, they'll have to remain what's left because it can't be called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland". I suppose there's a possible one word switch that might accurately suffice? The "United Kingdom of South Britain & Northern Ireland"

I have had a suspicion for many years that the political elite in London would like to divest itself of the 'regions'

 

[phildwyer]

I have had a suspicion for many years that the political elite in London would like to divest itself of the 'regions'

Wogs start at Camberwell, as they almost say.

 

[kebabking]

Well, they drove a convoy of 19 trucks carrying nuclear weapons right through central Glasgow on the M74 last night so I think I'll stick to feeling that I do have a point.



http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/currentmsps/Bill-Kidd-MSP.aspx

the MSP thinks that the MOD should put an advert in the Evening Times as to when and where Nuclear Weapons will be moved around? hmm.. interesting logic - has he considered a career as a village idiot?

 

[SpookyFrank]

The MOD says the subs can't go to Plymouth because

the dockyard is in a densely populated area and, if there were an accident, thousands of people would be at risk. The worst accident scenario envisaged by the MoD would kill up to 11,000 people in Plymouth and would not meet the official criteria for what is acceptable, according to a new report.

which tells you everything about how much the government gives a fuck about Scotland and its people given that Faslane is 40 miles from Scotland's largest city.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/04/mod-nuclear-submarines-scotland-plymouth

I used to live in Plymouth. Pretty much every week on the local news it would be 'MOD accidentally dumps loads of radioactive shite into Plymouth sound'. They'd get fined about 4 quid every time and politely asked to maybe see about trying not to do it quite so often in the future.

Still, it's nice to know that killing 11,000 people does not fall within the criteria for what is acceptable. Then again with any other project that would pretty much go without saying.

I wonder how many people these criteria do allow the MoD to kill? Bearing in mind of course that they have enough nuclear missiles to obliterate roughly twice the population of Earth.

 

[SpookyFrank]

in the event of Trident leaving Scotland, expect the MOD's assessment of Devonports suitability to change.

IIRC there is no other harbour in the country deep enough to host these submarines.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

The MOD says the subs can't go to Plymouth because



which tells you everything about how much the government gives a fuck about Scotland and its people given that Faslane is 40 miles from Scotland's largest city.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/04/mod-nuclear-submarines-scotland-plymouth

It's a perfectly sensible risk analysis, and has less than fuck all to do with what country it may be in. Exactly why siting it in a city wouldn't be the first choice - you site nuclear facilities as far away from population centres as you can, within the constraints of geographical requirements.

Look where Sellafield is - in a relatively sparsely populated part of England, although not that far from the main central belt of Northern cities. If that went tits up, there would be significant effects on the north, but it is as far away as can practicably be within our geography. See also Dounreay.

We live on a small island - our choices for these sites are limited.

So nothing to do with disdain for Scotland, and everything to do with common sense and prudent planning.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

the MSP thinks that the MOD should put an advert in the Evening Times as to when and where Nuclear Weapons will be moved around? hmm.. interesting logic - has he considered a career as a village idiot?

Exactly. Just like Manchester declared itself a nuclear free city. As if that will stop the government transporting nuclear material through it if necessary. It's a national security and infrastructure issue, and local sensibilities are irrelevant as long as it is transported as securely as practicable.*

* yes, there are arguments about the safety standards but there always will be with nuclear material.

 

[DownwardDog]

IIRC there is no other harbour in the country deep enough to host these submarines.

Falmouth is deep enough but whether it would be politically possible to build the base there is another matter. They would probably just co-locate with the US Navy Atlantic Trident fleet at Kings Bay, GA as an interim measure at least. That would be a hell of a lot cheaper anyway.

 

[Tooter]

England is the reason why the UK is still a world power. Whenever Cameron talks of "our economy is the 6th largest and this is something we can all be proud of..

Haha oh dear! A double whammy of dissolusionment. The UK a word power? What world do you live in?

I think with oil and gas wealth along with textile, banking, whisky, petroleum/chemical exports valued at nearly 100 billion they would do ok. It would place Scotland amongst he top 35 exporters in the world.

45% of those exports beyond the Uk are to EU member states though
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fff67a62-88fa-11e3-bb5f-00144feab7de.html#axzz2rsNFRq3J

And most of those exports are to the rest of the UK which will no doubt be used as a bargaining chip :/

To be honest I wish them well, I reckon the Scottish people will vote for independence. Can't see the government accepting it though, I just hope the North follow suit )

 

[brogdale]

Another one that could have 'graced' any number of threads...

A former Scottish secretary has sparked outrage after claiming a vote for independence would dishonour Britain's war dead.

Lord [Ian] Lang of Monkton, a Conservative cabinet minister under John Major, said that splitting up the Union would "dishonour the sacrifices made in common cause of those who died for the UK".

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, condemned the "ridiculous" comments while the Scottish Conservative Party was forced to dissociate itself from the remarks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...onour-Britains-war-dead-Tory-peer-claims.html

 

[geminisnake]

Oh do fuck off!!

 

[danny la rouge]

He's always reminded me of a Vampire. A proper one, not these new moody teenager ones.

 

[weepiper]

He argued that the UK had been a "magnificent success story"

Oh so we're dishonouring our war dead by wanting to leave the UK? Huh.

Scotland provided more men in proportion to population than any other part of Britain, and lost more men than any other country participating in the conflict with the exception of Turkey and Serbia

A magnificent success story, that is, apparently, and we're the disrespectful ones.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/modern/intro_modern.shtml

 

[kebabking]

Haha oh dear! A double whammy of dissolusionment. The UK a word power? What world do you live in?...

its somewhat off topic, but what definition of a 'world power' do you think the UK does not meet, and doesn't do so by some margin?

in economic terms the UK is a 'World Power' at number 7 in the world. in military terms the UK is a world power at perhaps number 2 or 3 in the world - its nuclear forces, navy and air power put it there, rather than just having several million barely trained conscripts. in diplomatic terms the UK is one of only 5 permament members of the security council. in cultural terms the UK is probably only second to the US - language, literature, film etc..

what of the above does not meet any reasonable definition of 'world power'?

 

[Nylock]

Militarily we are number 5... Above us are the USA, China, Russia and India...

 

[DotCommunist]

Militarily we are number 5... Above us are the USA, China, Russia and India...

I could have them all

 

[Dexter Deadwood]

In terms of state sponsors of terrorism the UK ranks number 2, punching above it's bloated ego.

 

[danny la rouge]

its somewhat off topic, but what definition of a 'world power' do you think the UK does not meet, and doesn't do so by some margin?

I'd ask the question another way. Why does the UK (by which I mean the government) feel the need to be a world power? Why does it feel the need to have such high military spending? Is it a throw back to the Empire? In reality, all this addiction to being a "world power" achieves is getting the UK involved in illegal wars and conflicts, often on the shirt tails of the US.

It is my hope that in the unlikely event that the Scottish people vote for independence, that no Scottish government would be so stupid as to try to be a "world power". I hope they'd get rid of the nuclear weapons, vastly reduce military spending, and get the hell out of NATO. (NB. The SNP's current policy is to do the first, to be somewhat disappointing on the second, and to fail on the third).

 

[Dexter Deadwood]

I'd ask the question another way. Why does the UK (by which I mean the government) feel the need to be a world power? Why does it feel the need to have such high military spending? Is it a throw back to the Empire? In reality, all this addiction to being a "world power" achieves is getting the UK involved in illegal wars and conflicts, often on the shirt tails of the US.

It is my hope that in the unlikely event that the Scottish people vote for independence, that no Scottish government would be so stupid as to try to be a "world power". I hope they'd get rid of the nuclear weapons, vastly reduce military spending, and get the hell out of NATO. (NB. The SNP's current policy is to do the first, to be somewhat disappointing on the second, and to fail on the third).

Recently read Web of Deceit; Britain's Real Foreign Policy by Mark Curtis.
(Forgive the copy and paste, i think he sums it up quite well)

The view has long been held that Britain ‘has lost an empire and not yet found a role’, in the famous words of US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, several decades ago. Yet Britain’s real role is easily discovered if we are concerned enough to look; the problem is that the results of such a search are quite unpleasant. Britain’s role remains an essentially imperial one: to act as junior partner to US global power; to help organise the global economy to benefit Western corporations; and to maximise Britain’s (that is, British elites’) independent political standing in the world and thus remain a ‘great power’.

I think it is a mistake to see Britain simply as a ‘poodle’ of the US, as though Britain slavishly follows Washington for the sake of preserving a special relationship. The situation is in reality more serious. Most client states feel bound by their masters; Britain is different in choosing to support US actions and in being willingly subservient. Many of the worst US policies are supported by British elites because the latter agree with the US quite independently, not simply out of loyalty to a special relationship. Those elites acted with complete disregard for moral standards when they ruled the globe so it is hardly surprising that their successors give the same latitude to the US.

If, as the myth goes, Britain generally supports popular, democratic forces struggling against elites, why did Britain not support the African National Congress and instead choose to back successive apartheid regimes in South Africa?; why did it not support a succession of progressive movements in Latin America struggling against US-backed elites, but chose to side with the US in undermining them?; why didn’t it support the various popular African movements like the MPLA in Angola or Frelimo in Mozambique?; why doesn’t it support popular movements like the Zapatistas in Mexico?

 

[DownwardDog]

It is my hope that in the unlikely event that the Scottish people vote for independence, that no Scottish government would be so stupid as to try to be a "world power". I hope they'd get rid of the nuclear weapons, vastly reduce military spending, and get the hell out of NATO. (NB. The SNP's current policy is to do the first, to be somewhat disappointing on the second, and to fail on the third).

It would take a very long time for Scotland to get into NATO - at least ten years. They would have to work through the PfP - IPAP - ID - MAP process. Bosnia and Herzegovina became independent in 1992 and they only achieved MAP in 2010 and probably won't be full members until 2015.

 

[kebabking]

Militarily we are number 5... Above us are the USA, China, Russia and India...

not really - China, India and Russia are a slighty odd cases - Russia has a massive arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons with global reach, yet its conventional forces are regional at best, and despite the numbers of them, actually pretty limited. its Navy is a far greater danger it its own sailors than it is to anyone else, its Army is huge but relatively immobile, and its air force is largely obsolete. it has some 'world power' capabilities, but lacks many others.

China has about 30% more nuclear warheads than the UK, but unlike the UK a significant proportion of them are carried by tactical fighters and short to medium range missiles - so they are a danger to anyone near China, but not to anyone outside of a relatively small bubble. China, like Russia, has massive numbers, but the proportion of those numbers it can use against anyone it doesn't share a land border with is actually very small - again, like Russia, it has a large air force, but only a small proportion of that air force is modern (thats the bit they publicise..), and China also has very little in the way of 'strategic reach' - it has very little heavy airlift, or tankers, or AWACS, or electronic intelligence gathering.

India is similar - it has fewer nuclear weapons than the UK, and none of them have global reach, it has a massive conventional military in pure numbers, but only a thin crust of that military is modern or remotely mobile.

China is changing however - its cutting back on its Army and concentrating spending on its Navy, at the moment the PLA(N) is both limited in capability and reach, but that will change in the next decade - they are copying the USN model and going for large carrier battle groups, which will, certainly by 2025, be cruising the worlds seas. then they will truly be a world power..

 

[Belushi]

The worlds top military spenders in 2012.

 

[DotCommunist]

not really - China, India and Russia are a slighty odd cases - Russia has a massive arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons with global reach, yet its conventional forces are regional at best, and despite the numbers of them, actually pretty limited. its Navy is a far greater danger it its own sailors than it is to anyone else, its Army is huge but relatively immobile, and its air force is largely obsolete. it has some 'world power' capabilities, but lacks many others.

China has about 30% more nuclear warheads than the UK, but unlike the UK a significant proportion of them are carried by tactical fighters and short to medium range missiles - so they are a danger to anyone near China, but not to anyone outside of a relatively small bubble. China, like Russia, has massive numbers, but the proportion of those numbers it can use against anyone it doesn't share a land border with is actually very small - again, like Russia, it has a large air force, but only a small proportion of that air force is modern (thats the bit they publicise..), and China also has very little in the way of 'strategic reach' - it has very little heavy airlift, or tankers, or AWACS, or electronic intelligence gathering.

India is similar - it has fewer nuclear weapons than the UK, and none of them have global reach, it has a massive conventional military in pure numbers, but only a thin crust of that military is modern or remotely mobile.

China is changing however - its cutting back on its Army and concentrating spending on its Navy, at the moment the PLA(N) is both limited in capability and reach, but that will change in the next decade - they are copying the USN model and going for large carrier battle groups, which will, certainly by 2025, be cruising the worlds seas. then they will truly be a world power..

ignore this quoted post my comp is being wierd

 

[kebabking]

The worlds top military spenders in 2012.

China's total military manpower is well over 2 million people - they have to be fed, clothed, paid and housed. Russia's total of regular personnel is around 800,000 - the number of its reservists is 20 million.

spending does not equal capability, its what you spend money on that determines whether you have mobility and capability.

 

[Belushi]

China's total military manpower is well over 2 million people - they have to be fed, clothed, paid and housed. Russia's total of regular personnel is around 800,000 - the number of its reservists is 20 million.

spending does not equal capability, its what you spend money on that determines whether you have mobility and capability.

I was too busy gasping at the amount the USA spends