Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Faslane: two sides to the story

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 December 2006

FOR

STUART McQUEEN

Managing director of Garelochhead Coaches

I've grown up in the shadow of the Faslane submarine base and, like so many local people, I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it, both as a necessary deterrent and as a lucrative and successful local employer.

My father, Robert McQueen, moved to the area in 1967 to work at the neighbouring base at Coulport and, as a child, I had friends whose parents worked in Faslane. Today, the number may not be at the height that it once was, but it remains a solid contributor to the local economy.

If the announcement today had been that Britain does not require a nuclear deterrent and that the base was to close, there would have been a great deal of upset in the local community and a slump would soon follow. Faslane and Coulport employ over 7,000 people, making them the largest employer in Argyll and Bute and pumping almost £200 million into the local economy.

Although I do not have a direct contract with Faslane, I do have one with Coulport, for whom my drivers collect and return workers each morning and evening and I appreciate what both bases contribute to the economy.

There will be people who will ask what it's like living so close to the largest collection of nuclear weapons in Britain. My house and business in Garelochhead is just a couple of miles from the base, but for me its a redundant question. The question to ask is why would so many people work in the base and live in the immediate area if they felt at risk?

You just have to drive past the place to appreciate the level of security and I do not give it a second thought.

In fact, I would say that the greatest problem and inconvenience associated with the base is not the base itself, but the protesters who have flocked to it.

Although I respect their determination, I don't respect it when they break the law and inconvenience other members of the public. If they wish to stand on the pavement and wave a banner, fine. But when they step into the road and everything grinds to a halt, I'm not impressed.

My business is operating school bus runs and local services and there are constant delays as a result of the protestors. All they have to do is block the road and everyone is held up. The delays can be anything from 15 minutes to a couple of hours and they seem to be getting worse.

This has had a serious effect on the local economy. I read recently that the bill for policing in the last month was £1.7 million and the total cost of the year-long protest will be millions.

Unfortunately, central government is not paying for this. Instead, all the local authorities that contribute to Strathclyde Police will have to bear the brunt and I don't think that is particularly fair. Eventually, it will be coming out of our council tax.

Then there is the question of graffiti that is put up by protestors on walls and bridges.

If you were to take a poll of the surrounding villages and towns and asked them who do they support the Faslane base or the protestors, I doubt you would find many people who would side with the protestors.

I would like to think that the future of the Faslane base will be secure for a few more decades to come. I would like to think that it will provide work for another generation of local people and that, eventually, the protestors will drift away.

AGAINST


JANE TALLENTS

Peace campaigner, 48

THE warheads arrive in a slow- moving convoy, under police protection and armed guard. They roll along the road and then disappear into the base, behind the barbed wire and the guard dogs.

Yet each time, before they slip inside, my fellow protesters follow them as they pass and you can't help but feel a chill. You are as close as you can be to death and global destruction.

I've always felt, and I've now lived here for more than 22 years, that nuclear weapons are so malevolent and evil that they cannot help but contaminate all that lies around them.

There are those who will argue that the Faslane base provides jobs and security and helps the local cash registers, but I would argue at what cost? It is true that the base is a big employer and that it has a dominating effect, but it produces nothing, just a cloud of fear and anxiety. It's not like, as a community, we can be proud of what takes place behind that fence.

After watching a documentary on the threat of nuclear war, I was moved to join a protest at Faslane. I was arrested and when I returned for the court appearance, I made the decision to stay.

That was in 1984, and I've lived here longer than any other place and in that time I've seen the effect that this base has had on the potential of this beautiful area. Basing nuclear weapons in this area, obviously does have an effect. Tourism is an important factor to the area in Helensburgh. I think that is what I find so sad. There is a tremendous potential there to be so much more and I see the base as a drain. It is this very negative force that holds back the potential of the area.

The military does have an effect on people's lives - particularly the Trident submarines because they go away on patrol for two or three months at a time, under the sea, out of touch and I think that has a terrible effect on family life.

Even if I thought nuclear deterrents work and I thought we needed it, I would not ask people to spend three months at a time in a tin can; it is too high a price.

I know lots of people who work in the base, both on submarines and as civilian workers and there are some brilliant, creative, skilled people and they could be doing so much more.

They could be using those skills to address climate change and come up with an alternative energy supply.

There are a number of negative aspects to the base. When there is a military exercise on, which we had recently, then there are lots of young sailors from different countries. They want to go into town and socialise and there are times when our young people have to stay out of town because they can feel the tension.

Then there is the question of safety. We are all living so close to an array of nuclear weapons that if anything was to happen, we would be wiped out. People refuse to face up to this, they push it to the back of their minds, but it can punch forward like a jack-in-the-box in a minute. Years ago, there was an earthquake and the police lines lit up as hundreds of people feared a nuclear accident.

I have been arrested 40 times over the years. I spent six years living in the peace camp and then, in 1990, I moved into Helensburgh. This is my home.

I still persevere because I genuinely believe that we will win, that we will triumph and that eventually these weapons will be removed.

DO WE NEED TO REPLACE TRIDENT? lettersts@scotsman.com

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 December 2006 8:33 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Faslane
 
1

Guga,

Rockall 05/12/2006 02:15:29

I think they should move the base to the river Thames; right outside Westminster.

2

Hoops man,

05/12/2006 06:54:01

Dont you just love tree hugger jane tallents, sayins shes lived there for so many years, what dedication.

I was wondering, IF SHE HAD EVER WORKED A DAY IN HER PATHETIC LIFE, and who has paid for this great lifestyle she lives?

Get a job and get a life, then maybe i will listen to your protest

3

Media 1,

Cape Town 05/12/2006 07:55:23

I always wonder why they upgrade weapons they can never use! As a detterent? Perhaps!

I have always wondered what I would do in nuclear situation as a leader..

If the enemy fired enough weapons at Britian and we knew we could not redirect their course. In otherwords if we were doomed to die, all of us, the whole of Britain..Would I fire back? I am not sure I would, would you? Would Blair?

Would there be a reason to fire back?

4

Citylocal Fife,

Fairly near Rosyth. 05/12/2006 07:59:29

Firstly, I think that Tony Blair is more dangerous than Trident, he has cost the country a fortune and contributed nothing, and the focus should be on removing him and his ilk from power, rather than removing Trident from Faslane.

Having spent 20 years plus in the Forces, I firmly believe we need a nuclear deterrent. I do realise just how costly that is to maintain, but I see it as necessary.

That said, with a business perspective I cannot see why we as a nation have to pay for it all. We should be asking our EU colleagues to stump up and contribute proportionately. We are no longer an empire, and the unsustainable cost of policing the world in a manner decided by Dictator Blair, has resulted in a marked slip in our standards of living compared to other countries.

In summary, I have no problems with Faslane, or with indeed with Jane making her protests. I do however have a view that she would be better occupied camped outside the door(s) of various cabinet ministers than cluttering up the roads in Faslane and stopping honest people earning money.

Yours etc
Angus Whitton

5

maestra,

05/12/2006 08:11:38

2: Your post is well out-of-order.

6

Our Scotland,

Scotland 05/12/2006 08:45:46

www.our-scotland.org - Scottish Politics and Current Affairs Forum

7

Our Scotland,

Scotland 05/12/2006 08:46:21

www.our-scotland.org - Scottish Politics and Current Affairs Forum

8

Rob me blind,

05/12/2006 08:59:32

Well when we have elected members of the the government who see fit to break the law why should we expect anyone else to obey those laws. The week willed sheriff who past am two week sentance on the MSP a few weeks ago should be jailed for wasting public money. She should have been put to work for 500 hours cleaning up the mess in an inner city area so everyone could see her.

9

cuthbert,

05/12/2006 09:01:13

I agree with the sentiment of Hoops man in post #2. There are few things more pathetic than these "professional protestors" who, rather than working or actually doing something which might earn them (and consequently their views) some respect or a position to influence the issues they care about, they simply bitch, bitch, bitch and moan. After all why work hard when you can spend your life in a pleasant state of non-responsibility and no work while childishly screaming out your opinions? If the nuclear deterrent - in this country or any other - is ever done away with it certainly wont be because of the likes of "Jane lived here 22 years".

Post #4 names Tony Blair as being more dangerous than the Trident missiles. Well i wont express a view on the validity(though il say i despise the man) of that but what i will say is that he certainly wouldnt be in any position to be dangerous or influential or in the slightest way relevant if HE had decided to sit around protesting for 22 years rather than go out and achieve as he has done so that he might find himself in the positions of great power that he has.

10

megz,

glasgow 05/12/2006 09:13:14

If they need to replace it they can relocate it at the same time. If the English government want the nuclear deterrent then they can move it to the thames.

11

Kev,

Tiocfaidh Ar La 05/12/2006 09:36:11

2 - hoops man a rather sad post, and what is your great job? Will it make a difference to world peace, I doubt it.

You sure your no a rangers fan in disguise, rule britannia and all that.

Get rid of them now from Scotland, we don't need them and we don't want them.
Give this huge white elephant to the English, they want them they pay for them, end off

Use the money saved to properly outfit and equip our soldiers, they sure could do with body armour and vehicles that protect them

12

paul the binman,

05/12/2006 10:11:54

Tell me "KEV"why do we need to spend money outfitting our forces,after all,in the wonderfull world that will come after we get rid of Nuclear weapons the world will be a safer place for all.There will be no more wars,every body will live in harmony.We will all wear flowers in our hair and ride around in horse drawn transport.There will be no more nasty modern day life to upset the ying and yang of the cosmos.Get real,every one who seem to think the world would suddenly be a safer place because Britain does not have nuclear weapons should try and live in the world the rest of us live in
Me my self,on the question of if we should use nuclear weapons after a strike on Britain,bloody right we should.The fact that Iran is supporting the attacks against British troops in Iraq through bomb making assistance should make us even more aware of the danger of these countrys getting a nuclear weapon,also the fact that the Jewish state has nuclear weapons should make us think hard on the subject.

13

megz,

glasgow 05/12/2006 10:19:36

kev didn't say he wanted rid of them he just said that if the english wanted them then they could move them to england. I'm sure most if not all (sensible that is) scottish people feel the same.

14

Kev,

05/12/2006 10:32:19

Well PAUL the binguy, good for you, someone nukes us you'll will die happy knowing you've got them back! And who is this we? britain? hate to burst your ying but the empire's had its day in the sun boy. Lets get with the modern world like most of Europe, Germany, Spain etc, Japan, New Zealand the list is rather big PAUL.

If your ego cant handle being not being part of the "elite" list of nations with Weapons of mass destruction I suggest you do a bit of research of the many countries doing perfectly well without them, or perhaps you can move to say England or America. Maybe America would suit you better PAUL, you can buy yourself a nice BIG gun to have under your bed at night, it may help you sleep better.

Regards

15

paul the binman,

05/12/2006 10:33:13

Thats ok "megz"I'm sure any attack on the west will rule out a strike on Scotland.Mind you it would be nice to see what kind of defense will stop fall out at the border,or do you think a"smart weapon"is really that smart.

16

paul the binman,

05/12/2006 10:43:14

Tell me "kev"what action would you have taken over that nasty mr hitler then?do you think we were wrong to bomb Germany?The problem with turning the other cheek is some one will slap that one too.Still its nice to see the apologist are still around even after 1939.On the subject of research,Japan is at this time increasing its armed forces by buying nuclear powered ships from America.Two of the countrys on your list,Germany and Japan,dont have nuclear weapons because they were stopped prior to 1945 from getting them.Mind you all German heavy artillery have the caperbility to fire nuclear weapons,funny that huh.Hey you were right ,research is fun

17

paul the binman,

05/12/2006 10:46:31

Oh,and Spain gave in to terror only a few years ago and they still got attacked.France is also a country in Europe and they also have a nuclear force and a defense pact with Germany,or does defense pacts not count in the debate then.

18

paul the binman,

05/12/2006 10:49:57

As for sleeping at night,I have more to fear from the neds and nutters running around our own home due the PC partys and the fact that apologists can find reasons why they should not punish wrong doers

19

Kev,

05/12/2006 11:06:35

Paul -

16 - Eh it was actually Japan that got nuked
17 - France is also a country in Europe - Your correct.
They are also member of Nato along side the UK.

Note sure what your point is on Spain thou?, they got attack but so did London "our" nukes done a whole lot of good then?,
maybe you should rethink that one.

18 - Eh, so perhaps we should do what, nuked them! perhaps a wee nap is in order Paul

20

megz,

glasgow 05/12/2006 11:07:55

I just don't want englands WMD's on my doorstep. they want them they can keep them, same with the nuclear power stations.

21

Hoops man,

05/12/2006 11:13:40

# 5
In what way it is out of order, the fact i object to paying some "peace protestor" to never earn a penny in their lives, if she lives there she cannot be in full time employment, or do you justify your statement by implying people have a right to live off the state?

#11 kev
Is there anywhere in my statement i said my job helps world peace? No
Or do you advocate people lying around all day never working, cause if you do, i would love that job while other people pay for my foor and medical bills

22

paul the binman,

05/12/2006 11:19:59

I agree Japan did get nuked,but they were also about to get their hands on hard water from Germany just before the end of the war,mind you,cant see what this has to do with the weapons of today,Oh and they also are part of a defense pact,this means that although they dont have nuclear weapons they do have "friends" with them.Just as well what with North Korea.France is a country in Europe,wow you are right,how does its pact with Germany fit in with your list of countrys with out nuclear weapons,after all thats two of those countrys in your list protected by countrys that do have them.

23

Brian,

Glasgow 05/12/2006 14:59:44

#2 Hoops man,
Don't be so judgmental.
The fact that you are obviously enslaved to the glorious work ethic goes a long way in explaining your attitude to those who are not.
As a supporter of The Hoops myself I always find the Celtic fans to be very politically aware on many different topics, but you of course would appear to be one of the few who are not.

Paul the binman,
Considering the trash that comes out your mouth you should be frogmarched to the nearest bin sealed and dispatched.

24

YabbaDabbaDoo,

Edinburgh 05/12/2006 15:32:49

Hoops man #2, a week or so ago, a poster suggested prisoners are put on machines hooked up to dynamos to generate electricity for 8hrs a day.
Surely the Faslane peace campers would be up for that? In fact, all the unemployed could be put to work in green electricity "factories". Even people with disablilites coudl contribute - you could have machines for the legs, the arms, just one arm etc...

25

Dave,

Western Isles 05/12/2006 15:42:43

YabbaDabbaDoo

That's all a bit "Matrix" isn't it? Hooking humans up to create energy?

26

Geoff Paul,

england 05/12/2006 16:31:49

this is written by scots for scots

27

YabbaDabbaDoo,

Edinburgh 05/12/2006 17:05:11

#26 How's the weather on planet righteous?

28

Pete,

Paisley 05/12/2006 18:11:17

I keep wondering what planet earth would be like after a nuclear exchange. What satisfaction would we have knowing that after we were vapourised our enemies would be too. Look at the damage a tiny piece of radioactive material can do to a person (Alexander Litvinenko), what happens when the atmosphere of the whole world is contaminated for thousands of years with radioactive material? Anyone who comtemplates the use of nuclear weapons is certifiable; so why have them if their use is irrational. Mutual Assured Destruction doesn't sound like a rational policy to most people, yet our illustrious leadership seems to think it is necessary.

The lunatics have taken over asylum and we are calmly discussing this subject; we should take to the streets and string thes fakirs to the lampposts, every single one of them.

29

Euan,

Edinburgh 05/12/2006 18:11:37

I'm all for Britain's nuclear deterrent and I think it is necessary to upgrade them to stay in-line with the potential demands of 21st century politics.

I think that many people don't realise that you can't 'un-invent' something like nuclear weapons, you can't just sweep this technology under the carpet and think it will go away.

It has always amazed me seeing these protesters spending literally years outside bases like Faslane and Greenham Common in the '80's.

Fair enough it's something they feel strongly about and they get my respect for commitment, but it seems to me to be such a futile existence, struggling against something that will never go away.

If they are going to do it they should at least respect the people who chose to live and work in and around these facilities and let them get on with their day-to-day business unhindered.

30

Pete,

Paisley 05/12/2006 18:16:33

Incidentally, Stuart McQueen, the jumped up bus driver that thinks nuclear weapons are a good thing because they help fill his buses, is simply a clown. Only a clown could think such a thing; a simple minded clown like him shouldn't be allowed near a bus.

31

paul the binman,

05/12/2006 18:23:03

Good one Brian hahahaha,I see what you did,heheheh a play on words,wow just goes to show,what an wit.Do you think every one who disagrees with your point of view should be locked up then?
Thank god some of us have a work ethic,stops those who sit on their political views from starving whilst claiming benefits.As a"hoop" how do you feel on the wide range of political views expressed in you west coast football song book then .

32

Agent 99,

05/12/2006 20:01:56

The Scotsman must need its collective head examining, using opinion from these two. Your man McQueen, far from actually having anything useful to say about the issue, seems totally preoccupied with traffic issues and their knock-on costs. Analyzing what he's said, it wouldn't matter a jot what the people at Faslane did, as long as they were employed. His opinion is therefore irrelevant, being solely and selfishly concerned with his own economic state. Like many of the posters infer above, he could easily move south when Scotland gets rid of these things.

And Ms. Tallents? Well, lucky her to have so much free time at her disposal to dedicate to something she feels strongly about. But then she raises the point that "We are all living so close to an array of nuclear weapons that if anything was to happen, we would be wiped out". You did state earlier that you chose to live there, didn't you? Clearly someone who like to bring suffering onto herself.

There have also been comments above about MAD. The concept of MAD only works if all parties that are armed with WMDs exhibit some rationality. If you fear being blown up, you don't make the first move for fear of overwhelming retribution. MAD clearly needs brought up to date to account for the existence of [for instance] fundamentalists who will gladly go to meet their god in the knowledge that they have dispatched a boatload of unbelievers. When one side has nothing to lose, the whole concept of MAD as a deterrent looks decidedly flimsy. But trust the politicians to fail to point that one out.

33

Tim,

Perth, Scotland 05/12/2006 20:14:16

I fail to see why "it keeps the locals employed" is any justification for keeping nukes in the country. "Necessary defence", as long as that is true, fine, but not employment. That's just crap.

34

Bennie,

05/12/2006 20:29:25

What a bunch of tree hugging baffoons.
Listen and learn....
You don't go hitting a guy with a little stick when he has a dirty great club - get it?
A ten pound weakling doesn't try to hit Mike Tyson - noy unless you have a death wish (islamic fundementalists excepted)
Why the hell has there not been a nuclear war. What stopped the Russia/Cuban standoff.
Answer = fear. Why go after somecountry if that target is going to come back hard and wipe you out in retaliation.
Major fear is the only viable and ultimate defense weapon.

35

Scottish Unionist,

05/12/2006 22:11:36

The individual arguing no to Trident does not seem to have progressed from the level of argument put forward by left wing student associations/NUS etc.

Nobody likes nuclear weapons. But kept the Cold War cold. They have only been used once since their inception.

It seems utterly absurd with Kim Jong II and Iran pissing around with the idea of nukes, a Russia who seem to be increasinglly flexing their muscles etc, that we should now give up our security. I would not be surprised if the crypto-Communist Hugo Chavez from Venezeula (who is already spending colossal amounts on arms) would love a nuclear bomb.

That peace campaigner has been there 22 years and has not realised that our nuclear deterrent has kept us safe. She was probably one of those who did not regard the Soviet Union as a threat. The old Soviet apologists are back! But this time its not Labour vrs Tory!

Indeed, many point out that several Labour MP's were once members of CND. It is perhaps due to the realities of government, to secure the nation, that they have dropped their political niavety and back Trident. It's far easier to score cheap political points by highlighting the cost et al, but maybe if the Libs and Nats were faced with the reality of defending the nation that they would acknowledge the necessity of renewing Trident.

The Fib Dems want to delay a decision which cannot be delayed, the Nats see it as 'London's' nuclear deterrent. The government and her majesty's opposition call it security. Believe who you will.

36

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 06/12/2006 10:10:20

The least they can do is ensure that their dirty American nukes are never again secreted into this country.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.