Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

SNP goes nuclear over PM's refusal to remove Trident subs

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: 18 March 2009
GORDON Brown, the Prime Minister, was last night challenged to fulfil a pledge to reduce Britain's nuclear weapons arsenal by removing Trident from Scotland.
He came under pressure from the SNP after using a major speech to promise that Britain would be at the "forefront" of an international campaign to prevent nuclear proliferation and to accelerate multilateral nuclear disarmament.

Britain currently
has four submarines capable of carrying Trident warheads. The UK government announced last month that plans to extend the life of the missiles until 2042. The Vanguard submarines are based at Faslane, on the Clyde.

Mr Brown, in a speech at Lancaster House in London, said that "Britain stands ready to participate and to act" in global negotiations on reducing the number of nuclear weapons.

He said the UK had cut the number of its nuclear warheads by 50 per cent since 1997, with the total now less than 160.

The government was committed to retaining the "minimum force necessary to maintain effective deterrence", he said.

Mr Brown added: "If it is possible to reduce the number of UK warheads further, consistent with our national deterrence requirements and with the progress of multilateral discussions, Britain will be ready to do so."

Angus Robertson MP, the SNP's leader in Westminster, welcomed the Prime Minister's call "for a world free from nuclear weapons".

He said: "Of course, Gordon Brown could lead by example by scrapping the Trident nuclear weapons system and hyper- expensive plans for its replacement.

"The Scottish people oppose nuclear weapons as do the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. The time is right to get rid of Trident."

The Prime Minister said all countries had the right to develop nuclear power to help tackle climate change. But he admitted that countries holding nuclear arsenals had no right to lecture others about not developing their own nuclear bombs unless they made efforts to reduce their own reserves.

"As possessor states, we cannot expect to successfully exercise moral and political leadership in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons if we ourselves do not demonstrate leadership on the question of disarmament of our weapons," he said.

He also used the speech to repeat his warning to Iran that its current nuclear programme was "unacceptable" and left it facing a "clear choice" of tougher sanctions or allowing the United Nations to oversee its schemes.

"It's refusal to play by the rules leads us to view its nuclear programme as a critical proliferation threat," he said.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said the Prime Minister had to act on the illicit trade in nuclear weapons technology and the financing of nuclear weapons.

But he called for stronger European sanctions against Iran for failing to admit international weapons inspectors.

Mr Hague said: "On Iran, we agree with him that Iran has the right to develop civil nuclear power provided that it cooperates fully with the IAEA and complies with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"The latest report of the UN watchdog on nuclear energy confirms that it is still not possible to rule out the existence of a secret military nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

Des Browne, the former secretary of state for defence and for Scotland, said: "Multilateral nuclear disarmament was given a shot in the arm this morning.

"This welcome restatement of government policy on disarmament and non-proliferation could have been made by Barack Obama.

"The Prime Minister has now committed Britain to a leadership role in the only process that can deliver a world free of nuclear weapons, the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review. Since 1968, global nuclear disarmament has been the main purpose of this treaty," Mr Browne said.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

webwise,

Scotland 17/03/2009 22:11:09
Has anyone asked Iain Gray his views? Does he support the removal of Trident? Does he feel the money could be better spent?

Does Iain Gray have a personal view on anything?
2

RufusT-Firefly,

17/03/2009 23:53:39
Angus Robertson MP, said: "Of course, Gordon Brown could lead by example by scrapping the Trident nuclear weapons system and hyper- expensive plans for its replacement.
=======================================================

So Mr Robertson will be quite happy to throw 11,000 people on the dole in Scotland will he?

The SNP is an absolute disgrace.

Political dogma first, the welfare of the Scottish People a very poor second.


3

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 00:02:53

"Welfare of the Scottish People a very poor second." (Firefly)

Please stop being moronic.

At least we can find our weapons of mass distruction without killing anybody or spending billions in the process.
4

,

18/03/2009 00:18:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

,

18/03/2009 00:18:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

RufusT-Firefly,

18/03/2009 00:22:22
5 irenecu,Kirkcaldy 18/03/2009 00:18:57
Thank God for the SNP,once again the only party standing up for Scotlands interests.
=====================================================

Yes indeed, 11,000 people thrown on the dole by the SNP.

Now that is what I call standing up for Scotland's interests.
7

DouglasT,

18/03/2009 00:45:09
Good to see your concern for jobs in Scotland Rufus. I trust your compassion extends to the thousands who have forfeited their employment as a result of Mr Brown's reckless abuse of the economy.
8

RufusT-Firefly,

18/03/2009 00:49:49
DouglasT, there is a global recession on.

You may have noticed.

Be happy we are not independent or we would all be on the dole.
9

as13,

Sunderland 18/03/2009 00:58:41
11,000 people thrown on the dole?
to whom do you refer? people employed at Faslane?
10

Edward,

18/03/2009 01:00:37
Its a great pity that we are not Independent, if we were, we would have been one of the richest nations outside the Arabian Gulf and would have more than likely faired better.
Why do I sayrichest nation- simple in one BBC documentary last year about the oil, it was stated that Scotland would have had anoil wealth similar to Kuwait and in a more recent documentary (Diomhair) it was revealed that successive governments knew that an Independent Scotland would have been the richest country in europe with the then eec beating a path to Edinburgh pleading for Scotland to join up!

So for those idiots that think an Independent Scotland would have been worse off, think again as it has already been proven otherwise!
11

Billiam Wallace,

18/03/2009 01:03:29
Wufus, Wufus, there you are. I was looking everywhere for you yesterday to defend your great leader on another thread where he was being ripped to shreds by the electorate whom he has failed so miserably. Since it was an anti-NuLiebore story, however, you were absent. Shame on you leaving Gudrun hung out to dry, where is your loyalty?

So, you reckon 11,000 people are employed to keep Trident operational, (when the subs aren't broken down that is). How many jobs would be created then if we spent the enormous sums earmarked for Trident on conventional warships? I'm fairly certain we could get much better value for money, be better able to protect our coastline AND be a good example of de-proliferation into the bargain.

Also, the annual review at Spithead would actually start to resemble a fleet and not a day out at a boating pond.

Saor Alba Wufus (itsumo baka da yo!)
12

,

18/03/2009 01:07:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Billiam Wallace,

18/03/2009 01:08:06
Edward, you are absolutely right but the blinkered ones do not want to see. They are happy to be part of a Great Patriotic Britannia, even though the glory days are long gone. They are now pinning their pathetic hopes on becoming lap-dogs to the NWO. Brown-nosed Wufus will be at the head of the queue to get a chip implanted, head shaved and bar-code tattooed on his todger.

Saor Alba
14

,

18/03/2009 01:18:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 18/03/2009 01:26:05
H'mm, another figure puts it around 8,000, although there are those who say it aint even that much.

Now given that some of them are service personel, they should be ok, because we all know how much Gordon loves the forces.

As for the rest, given the money that would be saved and could be used in other work related ways, that shouldn't be a problem either. It's called work creation, something else gordon and his mob are supposed to be keen on and like they keep telling us, there's ton's of jobs out there anyway.

16

,

18/03/2009 01:36:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

W Smith,

Middle East 18/03/2009 01:44:26
So the SNP who think there is a "strength of feeling" in Scotland for support for Palestinian terrorist groups believe the Prime Minister should give in to Salmonds communist friends Kate Hudson(CND) and Lyndsey German (Stop the War Coalition).

BTW
The 'coalition' in Ms Germans organisation is between English communists (mainly) and Islamists.

Miss the one did you Salmond?
18

W Smith,

Middle East 18/03/2009 01:46:38
The SNP communists should just shut their treacherous devious mouths and go away and darn some socks.

BTW
Gaelic is a dead language walking - GET OVER IT!
19

RufusT-Firefly,

18/03/2009 01:47:08
Yes Billiam, everyone makes typos, but that is totally unrelated to your lack of knowledge of Gaelic, isn't it?

As for your life story above, I have never heard anything so boring.



20

Billiam Wallace,

18/03/2009 02:02:17
#19 Dufus said: "As for your life story above, I have never heard anything so boring."

Weren't you at the NuLiebore conference in Dundee then Dufus? At least mine was short and to the point.

Alba gu Brath
21

RufusT-Firefly,

18/03/2009 02:06:14
20 Billiam Wallace,18/03/2009 02:02:17
#19 Dufus said:
================================================

First you called me Wufus. Now Dufus.

Very clever and very witty.

Only 24 more letters to go.

Keep up the good work.
22

Billiam Wallace,

18/03/2009 02:08:33
W Smith of the BNP, (at least from the tone). Yes, I think that, generally speaking, we Scots have a strong sense of fairness and it is plain to see that, although there is wrong on both sides in Israel, the Israelis are acting more and more like their former oppressors in Germany. The British are famous for siding with the underdog, why not this time?

Saor Alba
23

,

18/03/2009 02:15:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

RufusT-Firefly,

18/03/2009 02:19:34
23 Billiam Wallace,18/03/2009 02:15:17
Wufus said: "First you called me Wufus. Now Dufus"
Well Wufus they are both so appropriate, Wufus makes you sound like a chinless, inbred, aristo scrounger who dreams of empire and you are a total dufus so if the cap fits...
=======================================================

Oh Dear.

Poor old Billiam is now analyzing the merits of 'wufus' and 'dufus'.

Tells us all we need to know.
25

,

18/03/2009 02:26:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

Billiam Wallace,

18/03/2009 02:30:25
p.s. and the only merit you have isas a recruiting sergeant for the SNP. I hope that makes you happy. Cheers me up no end. Hahahahahaha!

Alba gu brath!
27

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 02:41:48


#5 irenecu,

"Thank God for the SNP,once again the only party standing up for Scotlands interests."

Yer,....'havvin a laugh', are you not!?

As our Banks fold, and the SNP, can only bring to Scotland, the "Elliot Ness" Day's with their attitues towards drinking and smoking!

"TAX IT!, TAX IT, BECAUSE WE ARE THROWING A TRANTRUM"!
"LEGISTATE, IT! LEGISTATE IT, BECAUSE WE ARE THROWNG A TRANTRUM"!....

.."And don't Know any other way tho handle it"!

Yes! This Speaks, 'Scottish Moutains, from 2year olds!




28

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 02:47:39
RE:, errors removed @#28,

#5 irenecu,

"Thank God for the SNP,once again the only party standing up for Scotland's interests."

Yer,....'havvin a laugh', are you not!?

As our Banks fold, and the SNP, can only bring to Scotland, the "Elliot Ness" Day's with their attitudes towards drinking and smoking!


"TAX IT!, TAX IT, BECAUSE WE ARE THROWING A TANTRUM"!
"LEGISLATE, IT! LEGISLATE IT, BECAUSE WE ARE THROWING A TANTRUM"!....

.."And don't Know any other way tho handle it"!

Yes! This Speaks, 'Scottish Mountains, from 2year olds!

29

RufusT-Firefly,

18/03/2009 02:48:38
26 Cynicus in Exile,18/03/2009 02:29:37
Rufus, we could employ 30,000 young women by legalising prostitution. Would that justify it?
=================================================

Could we?

How do you know that?

What would be the percentage split between males and females?
30

RufusT-Firefly,

18/03/2009 03:21:45
Does anyone remember this post?
=======================================================66 Brian Hill,Edinburgh 07/11/2008 15:12:05
Only one lesson to be learned, the setting up of a Rapid Response Team to counter unionist lies, distortions and half truths as they arrive and if the SNP already has that, then it needs beefed up big time.

This team should be anticipating and preparing in advance and responding to issues as they happen and of course, like out own Traquir, they should have URL's or other sources where possible to back up everything they say. People love and NEED proof of what they are being told.
Indeed the person behind Traquir would make an excellent head of such a team.
=======================================================

HAHAHAHAHA

Did Traquir, the biggest bore on the planet, become your new team leader!

It all went very quiet.

Dont forget special agent Jimmy Le Pie for uncovering all the exclusives and Billiam Wallace as your Gaelic Spokesman.

You have the making of a great team there.

Add in Nevsky the Norwegian Ambasador, and Observer as your security consultant and your 'SNP Rapid Response Team' could take over the world.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

What sleepless nights Gordon Brown must be having.
31

,

18/03/2009 03:52:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

Hamish MacBeth,

NZ 18/03/2009 04:08:22
Well done the SNP leading the way forward again.

Once again we see Unionists spewing bile why Scotland and the Scots should know their place under the heel of Westminster (miss)rule.

But slowly the Scottish people are beginning to wake up to the fact that by running our own affairs Scotland can be a great place to live, this is despite Rufus the fool throwing insults at the SNP and Salmond, for your information Rufus you will never succeed with your lies.
33

Castaway™ ,

18/03/2009 04:45:05
The number of civilian jobs which directly rely upon the Trident programme is estimated to be 936 in Scotland.Geoff Hoon - 21 February 2005

Civilian personnel. Katy Clark MP asked the Secretary of State how many civilian personnel were employed at Faslane and Coulport. In reply Adam Ingram MP said that there were a total of 1,750 MoD civilians. 1,080 of these were at Faslane and 670 at Coulport.
He said that in addition Babcock Naval Services employed around 1,430 across both sites. Combining these figures gives a total civilian workforce of 3,180

Quotes from Cancelling Trident - STUC report
11 Mar 2007::http://tinyurl.com/d8m528
34

,

18/03/2009 04:58:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

PMK,

18/03/2009 05:14:31
#2 YES, lets double the trident subs! and we could do it all for only x squillion pounds, all for the sake of another 900 or so jobs.

In all seriousness, Trident replacement is meant to cost anything between 25 and 75 billion. How much infrastructure could you build with that? Could get started on the Forth road bridge pronto, expand/upgrade much of the road network, replace or refit hundreds of schools … introduce a series of meaningful tax-cuts to get businesses through the depression.

How many jobs could potentially be created or saved by redeploying the money in these constructive ways and others? Literally tens of thousands. A lot more than either of the official figures as stated by Labour Minister or provided to Labour MP Katy Clark, or even your made-up back of a fag-packet one!

So don’t tell people that (illegal) renewal of weapons of mass destruction is a way to ensure high employment that is simply a lie. The destruction of potential employment by wasting such money on a system you will never use and gives no tangible benefit is criminal. Labour is keeping people on the dole by wasting such vast quantities of money that could be spent improving the country as a whole.

Wufus, if only you knew the recruiting sergeant role you are effectively playing for the SNP with every one of your ridiculous posts! Nothing comes through but your irrational hatred of anyone associated with that party or independence.

You are a walking, talking parody of yourself and your beliefs.
36

Geoff,

sa 18/03/2009 05:37:14
Angus Robertson is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks we will ever live in a world free of nuclear weapons. The nuclear genie is out of the box and there is no way its going back in. These are dreadful implements of war-agreed, but if you think the likes of Putin and all the other N Korean,Iranian,Pakistani and other motley nuke and nuke wannabees are going to meekly hand in their arsenal, well-give me Brown and Labour any day!
37

,

18/03/2009 06:38:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

Hamish MacBeth,

NZ 18/03/2009 06:39:37
Rufus what about the Devenport v Roysth debacle in 91?
You must remember that one, how the Tories rigged it, so the contract went to Devenport (which was a marginal seat) This cost 3000 Scots to lose thier jobs.
I was down there doing an inspection of a submarine a few years ago, and the lads there also told me that Devenport did not even have the proper facilites.

Therefor the UK tax payer has had to fork out over one billion to builds these facilites, that Roysth had in the first place. Please explain that you r@ckwit.
But as usual you will be silent, as usual you have NO aurgument against the fight for Scotland to run it's own affairs.
Oh and by the way, I was told that Scotland would be used to be the dumping ground for the spent reactors. But I guess as an Englishman your happy with that.
39

Castaway™ ,

18/03/2009 06:44:06
HOW MUCH WILL IT REALLY COST TO REPLACE TRIDENT?
buying replacement weapons system / £15 - 20 billion
operating new system 2024-2054 / £49 - 59 billion
operating existing system 2007-2023 / £26 - 31 billion
total cost 2007-2054 / £90 - 110 billion

Des Browne, admitted that the cost estimates had been revised. "We went through an exercise recently to make sure that we were identifying as accurately as we could the costs that are associated with our nuclear weapons systems," he said.

Des Browne that it was "perfectly legitimate" to assume that Trident would continue to absorb five or six per cent of the defence budget. On that basis, calculations suggest, the total cost of maintaining and replacing Britain's nuclear weapons between now and 2054 will be between £90 and £110 billion (see table above). Sunday Herald, 11 February 2007
40

donald anderson it's me,

glasgow 18/03/2009 07:15:04
Will Unite lead a demo against Westminster nukers?
41

overton,

aberdeen 18/03/2009 07:21:40
If Scotland is to run its own affairs then the last thing we need is to be governed by the SNP as their track record so far is one of utter incompetence and mismanagement.

a. Scrap bridge tolls and then propose to build a new bridge.
b. Create a minimum charge on alchohol whilst one of our biggest most profitable (remaining ) industries is the whiskey industry (and during a recession).
c. Propose to scrap trident and risk our ability to defend ourselves, cancel out at least 10000 related jobs and during the worst recession in living memory.
d. Lease out our forests???

Time for Alex and his pals to wake up and start to create jobs instead in instigating enquiry after enquiry and holding up potential civil contracts that are agreed and in the pipeline.

Did Alex no used to work for the B of S and did his money management training there?
42

tartan army 2222,

18/03/2009 07:31:08
Rufus

The SNP is an absolute disgrace.

Political dogma first, the welfare of the Scottish People a very poor second.

************

The Labour Party is an absolute disgrace.

Nuclear weapons first, the environment, increased cancer rates, millions of dead a poor second.
43

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

18/03/2009 07:35:52
Interestingly, BBC Radio Scotland are doing an 'in-depth' analysis of the Nuclear industry reporting live from Torness, where Gary Robertson has been joined by the power station manager and Iain Grey...so no pro-nuclear lobbying from the impartial BBC then...

Questions I'd like to hear. Who owns British Energy? and How often does Gordon Brown talk to his EDF employed brother about Nuclear issues?
44

,

18/03/2009 07:45:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

TWC,

Ex Labour 18/03/2009 07:46:42
The Sotttish Parliament agreed that there would be no new nuclear power stations, not the SNP.
Jack McConnell said no more Nuclear power Stations until the waste question of disposal, where, when and how was answered and committed to give that answer to the Scottish Parliament.
Brown says yes, Elmer (poodle no 2) says yes and the BBC immediately run a huge item on it on Good Morning Scotland
The pro nuclear case was well beaten on BBC Scotland this morning.
There is definitely an election in the offing Labour are bouncing every subject under the sun trying to touch their vote -- don't be distracted vote them out
46

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 08:04:10
Have a look at the identity of those who would defend the presence of WMD in our waters, thirty miles from our largest centre of population.

Step forward serial moron Rufus and yon weird guy W Smith (from Bathgate or somewhere in the middle east) who believes that the SNP is a front for Al-Qaeda.

Kinda says it all really.
47

overton,

aberdeen 18/03/2009 08:06:53
46 DemocraticScot,Europe

In answer to your childish, racist rant:

1. Bridge tolls were a guaranteed income and due to their the low cost could have been left in place without impacting people.

2. Well done on the whisky spelling (did you spell check you own bitty like?) but I'm sure you knew what I meant. More Scottish than you son and with more interest in the success of the country. Liam Donaldson really should not be dictating economic policy to any Government and should perhaps concentrate on social education. Whitehall certainly told him very quickly that his proposal was a non-starter.
3. If you're trying to make a point you don't need to lapse into vulgarity. Your response is basically flawed and ill thought out anyway as well as being factually incorrect. Service industries to Trident and the base will account for at least 10000 employees.
4. What's the difference between RBOS and HBOS? They are surely as grossly incompetent as each other and which ever one it was spawed Alex indeed trained him to live outside the real world of economics.

Soor Alby
48

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 08:10:29
43 overton,aberdeen 18/03/2009 07:21:40

Memo to Lard George:

My briefing notes appear to be somewhat inaccurate, please update asap as I am being made to look foolish.


Regards
overton.
49

walter,

18/03/2009 08:12:30
#11
Since it was an anti-NuLiebore story, however, you were absent.

I thought this rag was the Labour mouth piece and only printer anti SNP articles given to them by their Labour bosses.

#16
As to Scotland commissioning warships, I think that they would acquire some from England upon independence and buils a few more for coastal and fisheries protection.

Firstly: Are you suggesting that Scotland will purchase naval vessels from England after separation.

Secondly: The SNP have promised that all Scots will be employed under the same terms and conditions in the SDF that they are employed under in the UK armed forces.
50

john z,

edinburgh 18/03/2009 08:17:01
How can ANY government anywhere even remotely consider paying over 100 billion pounds for a nuclear deterrent like trident when the country is bankrupt.

Gordon Brown has sh*fted the Scottish economy, yet still wants to spend money on nuclear missiles on the clyde. Now, if we had a border with North Korea I might understand, but that just isn't the case.

Scotland has NO NEED for nuclear missiles, and it is truly bizarre to suggest otherwise. 100 billion pounds squandered on nuclear missiles could, in reality, build one helluva lot of hospitals and schools.

The IMF has just announced that the recession will last longer in Britain than any other country in the world. Brown needs to wake up to reality, we just can't afford nuclear missiles anymore.

Nuclear missiles on the clyde is a 'macho english colonialist' posturing machine, which Scotland has NO NEED for.

The SNP seem to be the only party really aware of fiscal realities, and prepared to fight for Scotland.
51

David MacVicar,

web 18/03/2009 08:17:13
Time to Debunk the disdraceful lies by trolls such as rufus.

he states categorically that 11,000 scottish jobs are dependant on trident.

An official Government response stated that less than 900 people are dependant on trident. See Hansard, beakdown of jobs listed.

"Des Browne: The latest available figure for civilian jobs that directly rely upon the Trident programme in Scotland is 859, as at December 2006."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080721/text/80721w0029.htm

Rufus - Begone you stinking scumbag troll and Brit agent provocateur.



52

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 18/03/2009 08:19:38
Just who are we detering with Trident anyway? The cold war is over, Russia are only interesed in their own sphere, so are bumping up their conventional forces primarly (though they are doing something about their antiquated nuclear arsenel - probably more to scare the west into push for more disarmament).

So who is the enemny we are targetting - Iran? the Taleban?, The teletubbies??
53

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

18/03/2009 08:22:32
Here we go BBC Scotland have the Nuclear issue on after the news at 9.00 am on Morning Extra 0500 92 95 00.

This is the most biased pro-nuclear reporting the BBC have ever indulged in. Jim Mather got a constantly interrupted 90 secs whereas Iain Gray given a relaxing three minutes to put the boot into the SNP Scottish Government, followed by pro-nuclear comments from staff at Torness. Utterly disgusting abuse of impartiality.

54

Hamish MacBeth,

NZ 18/03/2009 08:25:19
Overton, your talking p!sh as usual for a braindead Unionist.

The VAST amount of Whisky that Scotland makes is for export, so how is putting up tax in Scotland going to affect it?

Trident will cost 100 billion, or maybe more in it's life span, value for money????
Even Obama is talking to the Russians to reduce the amount of weapons that each side has, why? Well it makes the world that little bit safer, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper!!!

As for having a go at Alex Salmond, well is it not Crash Gordon that has been at the centre of goverment policy for the last 11 years?????? So how is Salmond got to do with this pile of sh"te we're in?

Also I lived over the hill from Overton at Blacktop for 40 of my 47 years. Maybe one day we could go for a wee pint in the four mile and "discuss" the state of Scotland, thats of course you live there???
55

,

18/03/2009 08:26:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
56

Salthorse,

Room wi a view 18/03/2009 08:32:19
Aye, and the lads and lassies in the military jobs can be retrained and absorbed into the existing conventional Fleet and wider Naval Service. The Royals can be absorbed back into their Brigades. Don't forget their will be a Scottish Defence Service on gaining Independence so jobs will replace those that have been lost. Further more the peace camp will have run out of a reason for existing and the folk of Gareloch Head can get their bairns tae school!
57

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 18/03/2009 08:33:05
#56 - Interesting - unchallenged - facts coming out of it though - Torness and Huntertson have only been available for 30% of the time since they came on line - wind generation capacity approved in Scotland - that is wind power alone - is greater than our energy needs. Both Longannet and the fired power staton in Peterhead can genarate far more leccy than both nuclear plants combined - and will be around for 20 years - longer than the nuke plants - and the bogus stat that the nuke plant supply 65% of Scottish electricty - Longannet can supply 100%!!

Shame the BBC is happy to continue the nuclear industrie's habit of distorting the truth...
58

ExpatNL,

glasgow 18/03/2009 08:37:40
#11-#31 (various posts)

Rufus v Billiam

What a boring load of krap, give us a break people.

Life is finite.
59

TWC,

Ex Labour 18/03/2009 08:39:52
56 Gussie Fink-Nottle,
I agree, within minutes of any output from Labour, BBC Scotland hit us with spun pro Labour rubbish.
Gary Robertson managed to get himself into Torness nuclear station for todays programme and sought the opinions of all the employees about Nuclear power. Naturally they were all against.
The people who spoke about actual data all said that Scotland would be a net exporter for decades while they develop more Natural power. It kind of back fired on them.
They really are becoming very obvious in their bias are things so bad for Labour???
60

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 08:41:14
You really are a disgrace rufus, a snivelling right wing apologist." (Pugnaces)

You give him credit where none is due.

He's a typical Internet sadist; posts garbage early in the morning hoping to provoke some reaction and probably enjoys watching the reaction.

He's a nonentity. The casual reader sees that, the rest should laugh him off. He has nothing to say. Let him drop his postcards from Loneliville, Nowhere. We have more important issues to deal with than the near certified.


61

David MacVicar,

web 18/03/2009 08:44:27

Just to repeat.

The OFFICIAL government figures for Civilian Trident jobs in Scotland is
======
856
======

Labour Brit Central
======
10,000-11,000
======

Labour seems to follow the ethos of:
If you are going to tell a lie make it a great big one.
Quislings.

AKA, Fear Uncertainty, Doubt, deception.
AKA How to keep the public voting Britsh Labour for Dummies.
62

The Ayrshire Bard,

18/03/2009 08:54:24
This is the second time in a week that I agree with Charles Linskaill. Is this the start of dementia and should I consult a psychiatrist.
63

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 08:55:22
john z (53): "How can ANY government anywhere even remotely consider paying over 100 billion pounds for a nuclear deterrent like trident when the country is bankrupt."

We're not bankrupt yet, and the money is spent over several decades. For comparison, the cost of incapacity benefit is some £13 billion every year: incapacity benefit has cost more than the total cost of Trident since 2001.

"Gordon Brown has sh*fted the Scottish economy, yet still wants to spend money on nuclear missiles on the clyde."

Not just Scotland's economy: Brown, Darling and Goodwin have done more harm to England than any Scot since the 14th century! There's a more fundamental point here, however: given obvious Scottish opposition to Trident, and the increasing probability of independence, why is it rational for Trident to be left in Scotland? Despite the disadvantages of Devonport, it is in England's interest to move Trident there immediately. Sadly, this seems an unlikely decision from our Scottish PM. In other words, he is causing problems for both England and Scotland.

"Nuclear missiles on the clyde is a 'macho english colonialist' posturing machine, which Scotland has NO NEED for."

In that case, I hope you agree that Trident should be moved to England.

64

Hamish MacBeth,

NZ 18/03/2009 08:58:07
Come on Overton, we're waiting for a reply!!!
65

Dragonlord,

18/03/2009 09:09:59
The Uk arsenal is 160 warheads? 60 is enough to destroy the world, so what do you do with the other 100?
66

,

18/03/2009 09:23:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 09:31:14
Dragonlord (160): "The Uk arsenal is 160 warheads? 60 is enough to destroy the world, so what do you do with the other 100?"

They're not pleasant things, but this is false. It's enough to destroy several dozen cities, but little more. Most nuclear weapons are in the energy release range equivalent to 5-6 on the Richter scale, with even the largest reaching 7. For comparison, see the following table of earthquake data:

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

We've had 5 earthquakes over Richter scale 8 in the past 5 years, each of which had the energy release in the gigaton range, i.e. corresponding to a thousands of the largest hydrogen bombs in the US arsenal. It's also worth remembering that the blast radius increases as the (1/5)th power of the energy release -- so increasing the energy output by a factor of 1024 increases the blast radius by a factor of 4.
68

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 09:34:21
70 Joe,Relugas Road. 18/03/2009 09:20:13
“Would Angus Robertson MP for Moray be advocating scrapping
Trident if thousands of jobs in his own constituency were
involved.? I think not”

The SNP stood in the Dumbarton constituency at the last election on a ticket which included “No to Trident”.

There was a swing in this constituency from Labour to the SNP of 8.9% and this may now be regarded as a winnable marginal.

Where do you get this idea that “thousands of jobs” are involved?
69

,

18/03/2009 09:35:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
70

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 09:37:01
(#3) – (Los Angeles) – “At least we can find our weapons of mass distruction without killing anybody or spending billions in the process.”

Which is worse, knowing you have weapons of mass destruction or realizing you don’t but those who are threatening you do?
71

Queen D,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 09:40:06
Fairfax, you did not cheer me up at all.
That was a little too dismissive for my taste!
What's a few cities between enemies eh?

To any of you who may have indulged in pilot bashing on the Herald website , may I draw your attention to the Mail online?
Interesting article about racism in BA.
Some of the comments from our dear neighbours are worth savouring!
Come to think of it I may have found a use for trident after all!
72

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 09:41:37
(#7) – (DouglasT) – “. I trust your compassion extends to the thousands who have forfeited their employment as a result of Mr Brown's reckless abuse of the economy.”

Can you detail them please DouglasT?
73

Good debator,

18/03/2009 09:42:18
Did you know the war in Iraq was illegal? How long before Gordon Brown Nukes Edinburgh or Aberdeen because he hates the scots.

Foulkes drinks, did you that? All unionists vote Labour and support the extraction of data by torture. Fact.
74

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 09:51:58
(#10) – (Edward) – Are you talking about wealth per head?

Why would it matter that UK government knew an independent Scotland would be wealthy due to oil?

If the concerns of a UK government are for the average person in the UK what advantage would there have been to the UK government to highlight the potential advantages for a part of the UK if it was independent?
75

Number 6,

Germany 18/03/2009 09:53:16
Yet another misleading headline "SNP goes Nuclear". This insinuates that the SNP have reacted like the unionistas do with fury and outrage.

The SNP welcome Brown's latest pronouncement, and simply want to hold him to his word.

An almost impossible task I grant you, but if anyone can do it then it's the SNP.

How does this play with the Scottish labour detatchment? I thought they were rabidly for nuclear weapons, especially if based in Scotland.

They become more and more irrelevant with each passing day as their London masters change policy on a whim.

Have Gray and Murphty sent their letters of protest yet to their london masters, ref Norn'irlands First Ministers meeting Obama?

Priceless stuff.
76

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 09:58:47
Fairfax (77): "Fairfax, you did not cheer me up at all.
That was a little too dismissive for my taste!
What's a few cities between enemies eh?"

I didn't mean to be dismissive, only to emphasize that our nuclear arsenal is really quite limited. If you want to be depressed more, the US has some 4000 nuclear warheads. That's still an enormous decrease from its 1966 peak of 32000 warheads!
77

Marian,

18/03/2009 10:03:27
Why does New Labour want to keep the Trident nuclear attack submarines based in the Clyde when the overwhelming majority of Scots want them removed from Scotland?

Why Is it part of the "Union Dividend" to have hundreds of Nuclear weapons kept 80 miles from Edinburgh and 36 miles from Glasgow?

Why does New Labour want to build more nuclear fueled generation capacity in Scotland, when Scotland already has electricity generation over-capacity and bountiful reserves of sources of alternative energy?

Why does New Labour want to build more nuclear fueled electricity generation capacity in Scotland, when Countries which are very similar to Scotland, i.e. Denmark, Eire, Finland, and Norway, who are facing the same energy demands, do not deem it necessary or desirable to invest in nuclear power?
78

mark mccann,

Leighton Buzzard 18/03/2009 10:04:33
Edward(10)has done the unthinkable, pointed out the elephant in the room. Why does everyone ignore this FACT? Because it renders all these petty, stupid, arguments null and void, thats why! Simple FACT: If we were independant we'd be minted. If we were independant we could use the oil fund to finance advances to wave power technology that would secure our country's energy needs for ever, without the devastating mess that nuclear power leaves behind.
So stop bickering everyone please! Wake up! Smell the coffee! Stop ignoring this well documented FACT! We've got more oil than Kuwait! It will last another 30 yrs, just on existing developed fields!
Why are you ignoring this FACT to waste time slagging each other off? If you truly love Scotland then do the decent, honourable thing. Vote for a free independant Scotland.
79

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 10:05:58
(#79) – (Good debator) – “Did you know the war in Iraq was illegal?”

Can you show us your irrefutable evidence?

“How long before Gordon Brown Nukes Edinburgh or Aberdeen because he hates the scots.”

Have you ever heard of paranoid projection?

“All unionists vote Labour and support the extraction of data by torture. Fact.”

Again can you give us irrefutable evidence for your findings?
80

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 10:08:11
"Which is worse?" (Randall)

I don't think you understood my previous remarks - until you stop posting specious questions that communicate nothing except your inability to communicate with others, I will not give you the time of day. All you can expect from me to your monomanic compulsion is ridicule. You make yourself an easy target.
81

brownlie,

18/03/2009 10:10:24
85 sm753

In what respect does the UK qualify to be a "major player"?
82

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 10:12:28
"The UK has the smallest nuclear arsenal of the major powers. That's something to be proud of on moral grounds." (SM753)

Or perhaps not. having a few has more to do with taxes available to squander without causing alarm amongst the electorate. The courageous moral thing to do is remove all WMD, to lead by example, then use money freed to make the UK a better place in which to live.
83

brownlie,

18/03/2009 10:18:41
89 sm753

The question you were asked was why the submarines were there when the majority of Scots want them removed. Presumably, you acknowledge that the majority want them removed but, for the UK Government's operational reasons, they have to stay.

Your comment "Are you stupid? Ah you're a nat" says more about you than all your other comments put together.
84

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 10:19:10
Marian (84): "when Countries which are very similar to Scotland, i.e. Denmark, Eire, Finland, and Norway, who are facing the same energy demands, do not deem it necessary or desirable to invest in nuclear power?""

In fact Finland generates roughly one third of its electricity via nuclear power, with total output only slightly less than the entire UK's nuclear capacity. Norway is also considering building new prototype nuclear generation. Denmark is nuclear-free, but I believe it does buy power from Germany (26% electricity via nuclear power, i.e. roughly twice the UK's nuclear output) and Sweden (46% electricity nuclear generated, roughly the UK's nuclear output).
85

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 10:24:08
sm753 (85): "US know-how and support while still retaining operational independence"

I've never really believed in full operational independence. After all, the Trident guidance system is US software, so I would be surprised if it would allow us to target Manhattan. I suppose they might let us nuke parts of Detroit, but who would really notice?
86

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 10:24:24
"Welcome back to the scotsman LA" (Wardog)

Many thanks, oh lion at the gate.

I see the standard of Unionist debate has not, in general terms, improved over past insult burped from the base of a beer can. It's a relief to come across an informed Unionist who has genuine reasons to keep the Union intact.

To those few I offer respect.

To the others, head bangers, the balloon twisters, the purveyors of Internet snark and twitter, their only stance to curse the SNP, I caution they add more adherents to the cause of independence by parading their stupidity in writing.

87

Miss H,

18/03/2009 10:31:11
Re the 11,000 jobs nonsense. This is a number used repeatedly by Jackie Baillie. 11,000 jobs depend on having Trident at Faslane she says.

We can see where she has got it from. The ‘ HMNB Clyde website gives these numbers ‘6,500 personnel - drawn from the Royal Navy, Ministry of Defence civilians, Babcock Naval Services (the MOD's industrial partner at the Base) and external contractors. A further 3,000 Scottish jobs are supported indirectly by HM Naval Base Clyde and more than £250 million is spent in Scotland on wages and contracts awarded each year, directly related to the Base.’ So she has added up 6,500 and 3000 and come up with 11,000.

Not bad for a Labour MSP but apart from getting the sum wrong, she is also wrong to ascribe every single one of these jobs to having Trident. The Faslane base is RN headquarters for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Northern England. There is a lot of stuff that goes on which is not related to Trident.

The figures themselves are also suspect. When he was asked how many civilian jobs were dependent on the Trident programme, the-then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said that ‘The number of civilian jobs which directly depend upon the Trident programme is estimated to 936 in Scotland... The number of civilian jobs which indirectly rely on the Trident programme is estimated to be 300 in Scotland.’ (21 February 2005). So that is 1,236 - not the 3000 claimed.

The STUC published a pretty detailed report on the economic and employment consequences of cancelling Trident for Scotland. It finds that the reduction in direct,
indirect and induced civilian employment across Scotland would be less than 1,800.

It’s an interesting read:
http://www.stuc.org.uk/files/STUC%20-%20CND%20Trident%20Report%202007/STUC-CND%20Trident%20Report.pdf

88

overton,

aberdeen 18/03/2009 10:34:39
57 Hamish MacBeth,NZ

I have nowhere stated my political stance all I have said is that if Scotland is to be independent then we cannot affoard to be run by the incompetents in the SNP.

Creating a minimum charge on whiskey will result in lower sales in Scotland and will affect the industry.

Trident means jobs/work/industry - much needed now as ever.

Alex is hampered by his narrow nationalist vision which limits his ability to view the bigger picture even in terms (locally) of a country the size of Scotland.

Doubt if you'll manage for a pint in the 4 mile as they don't let troublemakers in there.
89

overton,

aberdeen 18/03/2009 10:36:49
58 DemocraticScot,Europe

Stop being so presumptuous and get out there and get a job.
90

TWC,

18/03/2009 10:37:04
This is just anothr wee weight added to the Non Labour sode of the Balance for me. Tey just tell lie after lie after lie.
91

Tris,

18/03/2009 10:37:11
#6 Rufus A logical extention of your argument... that of justifying weapons of mass destruction on Scottish soil by the number of jobs that it creates.....would be for us to have hundreds more WMDs. We could soak up the whole of the Scottish unemployment problem by doing that.

They are 36 miles form Glasgow, because I imagine that the English wouldn't want them anywhere near London or Birmingham.

Stocking nuclear weapons suggest to me that a non- nuclear adversory could cause a nuclear explosion by bombing our bombs. Wouldn't want that near anyone important would we?
92

Miss H,

18/03/2009 10:41:39
103 You condemn the SNP for incompetence without having the slightest clue about what you are talking about. I suggest you are in fact an incompetent commentator.

You have not read the proposals. You have no understanding of them. Why do you feel it is appropriate to comment?

The Scotch whisky industry will be completely unaffected by the SNP's proposals. The aim is to address the situation where an adult man can drink his entire weekly recommended alcohol intake at a cost of less than three pounds.

If you would like to point out a shop or store anywhere in the land where you can buy Scotch whisky at that price I am sure we will all be very interested to know.

Pray enlighten us.
93

Good debator,

18/03/2009 10:44:47
Rufus is a Labour vote so he supports illegal war and torture. The SNP are going to win independence for the Scotland whether you like it or not.

Alex Salmond is the new messiah and will lead us to the promised land, not illegal war.

Nukes are bad, don't you know they hurt people? All you need to do is run a leaflet campaign if China or Russia start bullying us.

The Chinese and Russians respond very well to polite requests, it's this Empire oppression that is the real problem. We are evil.

An independent Scotland would use "slogans not bombs" because we are well respected world-wide.
94

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 10:46:15
Tris (107): "They are 36 miles form Glasgow, because I imagine that the English wouldn't want them anywhere near London or Birmingham."

Those nuclear warheads were constructed at AWRE Aldermaston, a short drive west from London, and an even shorter drive from Windsor Castle.

Writing as an Englishman, I would be delighted for Trident to be removed from the Clyde to Devonport, together with all other nuclear-capable equipment, such as Type 45 construction. Given the relatively small number of jobs involved (some 2000 according to Miss H above), there seems little reason to delay. After all, given the non-trivial probability of Scottish independence, it is irrational for England to take even the smallest risk of dependence on a potentially hostile nation.
95

,

18/03/2009 10:50:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
96

Miss H,

18/03/2009 10:52:01
112 I think potentially hostile is a bit OTT.

But certainly all those who actually believe that nuclear weapons bring economic and employment benefits should logically be clamouring to have the weapons located near to them.
97

Tris,

18/03/2009 10:52:32
112. Fair comment.
98

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 10:54:01
(#90) – (Canes Pugnaces) – “87. Conversing with yourself again?”

Wouldn’t that make the person asking the question me or are you confused?
99

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 10:54:07
2 Rufus - the majority of Scottish MP's and Scottish MSP's have voted against Trident so your (silly) criticism applies to the political majority in Scotland. The Scottish government (whoever forms it) has a mandate to oppose Trident. The majority of Brown's Scottish colleagues disagree wth him.
100

,

18/03/2009 10:55:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
101

Number 6,

Germany 18/03/2009 10:55:16
103 Overton,

Have they allocated you a handler yet?. If not they will soon. Clearly, you are clueless.

It's people like you that Labour target with their garbage. You will have swallowed, hook line and sinker, Ballie's baseless claims about 11500 Scottish jobs going .

Your concern with whisky just about sums you lot up.

Have they sent you a scare-letter yet, telling you the nasty SNP are going to put the price of Buckfast out of reach of the unemployed, or similar garbage?.
102

TWC,

18/03/2009 10:57:15
This remember, is a non story provided SNP, LibDems, Margo and the Greens(with honest Labour MSPs) out number Elmer fudd and his tame Brownites plus the Tories.
Like Nuclear power they are beating their gums on something they have no power over, rather than Fiscal powers where their actions are questionable. I refer to the BBC ALBA exposee and I look forward to seeing it on Panorama (SOME HOPE)
If BBC were honest it should be screened before every election
103

,

18/03/2009 10:57:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
104

Number 6,

Germany 18/03/2009 11:00:11
Fairfax 112

you have nothing to "fear" from an independent Scotland. We will treat you with the compassion that
you deserve, but have been denied these last 10 years or so at the hands of those nasty Scottish PMs.

Of course, we know you don't make freinds easily, just ask anyone in Europe, but we promise you, we wont go "hostile" until you do.
105

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 11:01:22
"From the two leading story's it appears that both the Labour and Liberal Groups are in an open turf war over Scotland's future." (Pugnaces)

From the "quick study" I managed to do, I can see Tavish Scott is angling to create a coalition with the SNP. Rather late in the day, but welcome in present circumstances.

He has to understand independence is NOT the end game, but the door to radical change, and the only political mechanism by which progress made is not withdrawn.

It's difficult to find anything positive to say about Labour's Gray. He really is Mr Sellophane, his utterances anti-Scottish, not anti-SNP at all.

Labour in Scotland are still unable to shake off their wee nebby toon cooncillor image, every night amateur night. Gray amplifies that perception. The most inexperienced SNP MSP is made to look a lauded academic statesman in comparison.

106

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 11:01:30
Miss H (115): "I think potentially hostile is a bit OTT."

I did say potentially hostile, not hostile. My point is simply that any state should avoid crucial dependence on another state. For similar reasons, I would prefer more independence from the US in our nuclear forces.

"But certainly all those who actually believe that nuclear weapons bring economic and employment benefits should logically be clamouring to have the weapons located near to them."

Absolutely.
107

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 11:04:31
"Frankly you are guilty of exactly the same charge of early morning provocation." (Vincent)

I see what you are say - the person asking the tormentor to stop his actions is no better than the tormentor. Is that what you call reasoning?

You are indulging in snark by perpetuating a falsehood.
108

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 11:05:48
Number 6 (125): "you have nothing to "fear" from an independent Scotland. We will treat you with the compassion that
you deserve"

That's very kind. However, I said "potentially hostile", not "hostile". For good measure, Scotland should also view England as potentially hostile following independence.

"Of course, we know you don't make freinds easily, just ask anyone in Europe"

This from a man who posts from Germany?
109

,

18/03/2009 11:07:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
110

bluehead,

edinburgh 18/03/2009 11:09:25
I cannot think that any Scots people would not want freedom from England,
a land free of brown ,darling and the rest of that creepy mob must surely be an improvement,
not wanting independence seems to be almost traitorous,
particularly when the labour goverment have done their level best to destroy this once great country, poor old Britain is only a shadow of it's previous greatness
and is, sadly, beyond repair,the labour goverment must be the worst lot in political history
I see some people still want to vote for them,is this not a sign of madness?
111

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 11:10:43
DemocraticScot (130): "I am posting from Glasgow and endorse his view 100% wil that do for you?"

In that case, would you regard England as potentially hostile following Scottish independence? After all, if we find it so difficult to make friends -- unlike the Germans, say -- then presumably that would be rational.
112

Good debator,

18/03/2009 11:15:17
The SNP will use conventional arms. If someone has advanced technology to overpower us then our friends will protect us for free.

Because the Americans, English and the French would say "we wuv woo scotchland" here is some free billion dollar technologies.

Everything will be okay. If they try and missile us we use convential arms. It's dead easy to shoot a missile travelling at 4 times the speed of sound, just chuck some bagpipes at it.

And if we get overpowered. Oh well, whoopsidasies, still our heart was in the right place. Working out your days in a Gulag can be fun too, you know.
113

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 11:17:32
(#91) – (Los Angeles) – What makes you think that I didn’t understand your previous remarks?

What about my questions are specious?

If I was communicating nothing except an inability to communicate with others would I not in fact be communicating that to others?

“All you can expect from me to your monomanic compulsion is ridicule.”

Isn’t this becoming a bit of an obsession of your trying to create something out of an inability to answer a question?

If you find me such an easy target are you trying to tell me that you just have a terrible aim?
114

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 11:18:41
DisplacedGlaswegian (133): "Would you agree that it would also be irrational for Scotland to do so?"

Absolutely. My comment was a general one applicable to any state: in military matters, a high degree of self-reliance is key, since there are no permanent friends amongst nations.

"I'm not suggesting hostility in terms of raising arms (that's just crazy) but hostility regarding; threatening to withdraw the council tax rebate, London and south east infrastructure projects spending, EU fishing rights negotiations, re-drawing the maritime borders, a prime minister not willing to engage with our first minister, withholding information regarding our natural resources, lying to us regarding the abundance of our natural resources, insisting that we are not capable of being independent etc."

This recurrent bitterness in Scotland only reinforces its potential hostility following independence. I'm glad you agree.

"Even your example about the research and development investment being kept in the 'right' place"

I merely pointed out that the view that no nuclear warheads were close to London was incorrect: they are assembled in Berkshire.

"You speak as if Scotland should be grateful that England allowed us to host them."

On the contrary. My point is that, if Scotland might soon become independent, then it is rational for England to minimize military dependence on Scotland. The same argument would, of course, apply to Scotland.
115

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 11:23:20
"If you find me such an easy target " (Randall)

You use every opportunity to squander your post.
116

,

18/03/2009 11:23:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
117

TWC,

18/03/2009 11:24:05
Back to the point.

We Scots will use our vote to stop Trident irrespective of Big Brown. We don't want it and we won't have it. If necessary then we'll vote for the SNP and the Libdems.
I can only tell you I asked my MP who is Labour and was told that she is against Trident. Ask your MP for their position and if you don't agree vote them out.

We have the power not the TRolls, and it's the same with the Fiscal Powers.
118

Good debator,

18/03/2009 11:24:41
Did you know that the clyde was strategically chosen because of the difficulty in conducting covert marine attacks in the event of war?

Well, it's true.

Oh no wait, you're right. The English hat the Scottish, yes that sounds more plausable.
119

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 11:26:27
We need to keep the nuclear shield as the West is the last bastion of civilisation and Britain and America are the last line in the sand to support the West. It ain't rocket science. If you want to go and stone women for adultery and enslave them, uneducated and in burkhas, then go live in their countries but they can't attack and invade us while we retain the ultimate deterrent. We must never surrender it.
120

,

18/03/2009 11:26:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
121

,

18/03/2009 11:27:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
122

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 11:28:15
139 yes that is the point TWC. All this distraction from Fairfax is rubbish. There is a democratic mandate to oppose Trident in Scotland. Brown may ignore that, but it's there.

140 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
123

,

18/03/2009 11:30:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
124

,

18/03/2009 11:32:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
125

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 11:32:31
"My point is that, if Scotland might soon become independent, then it is rational for England to minimize military dependence on Scotland." (Fairfax)

Or pay a realistic rent for the facilities, and sign a time limited contract. Otherwise it is one country basing its weapons in another without first seeking permission to do so.

These little discrepancies have amassed over the years since the Act of Union was signed and its principles gradually set aside, what we might call "idiosyncracies" wherein a goverment feels free to impose unwanted aspects of its political outlook and culture upon the people of another nation by the reason it had no opposing government to respect.

Those days are gone.

126

,

18/03/2009 11:33:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
127

,

18/03/2009 11:34:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
128

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 11:35:06
Observer (144): "All this distraction from Fairfax is rubbish. There is a democratic mandate to oppose Trident in Scotland."

I was agreeing with the second statement. Arguing that Scottish opposition to Trident is a good reason for it to be removed from Scotland hardly seems to be distraction. Let me try again: it is to the advantage of the SNP to convince English MPs that it not rational to rely on keeping Trident subs in Scotland post-independence.
129

,

18/03/2009 11:35:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
130

,

18/03/2009 11:35:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
131

Good debator,

18/03/2009 11:36:16
We have the bagpipes. We are uniquely placed in Scotland to play the bag pipes in the event of war.

That is ownly if saying please doesn't work first.

Thankfully there isn't a resurgent Russia or well armed China.

There is no chance that America will default on its massive debt to China and defend that default with its army.

None of those things make the world unstable and a deterrent necessary. It's just a simple matter of London Labour hating Scotland.
132

,

18/03/2009 11:40:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
133

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 11:41:28
(#96) – (Los Angeles) – Can you prove the number of nuclear weapons we have is due to the amount of money available from taxes?

Do you believe that to do the courageous moral thing will automatically shield the country from those who do not have the same morals?

If the weapons were not there wouldn’t government possibly reduce the level of income rather than use the extra money on projects to improve infrastructure?
134

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 11:43:55
150 ''it is to the advantage of the SNP to convince English MPs that it not rational to rely on keeping Trident subs in Scotland post-independence.''

Yes that's right. You don't need to bring ''hostility''into it. I think the chances of that are pretty minimal.
135

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 11:44:00
#52 ""Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently, or are likely to, face"

The bit "or are likely to" is the important bit. I want insurance against the unlikely bits thank you and that is called Trident.
136

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 11:53:38
(#137) – (Los Angeles) – “You use every opportunity to squander your post.”

Were you cut off or were you squandering your post?

Are you being charged per character and are a little short on the folding?
137

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 11:55:44
Observer (156): "You don't need to bring ''hostility''into it. I think the chances of that are pretty minimal."

I was careful to say "potential hostility", not hostility. I agree that the chances of hostility are low, but states should hope for the best whilst planning for the worst.
138

,

18/03/2009 11:57:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
139

,

18/03/2009 11:59:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
140

Billiam Wallace,

18/03/2009 12:01:25
159 Fairfax, "but states should hope for the best whilst planning for the worst."

Is that why Britain no longer makes any ordinance for its weapons All the ordinance factories, which used to make some of the best and most sophisticated ammunition in the world, have been closed down. How dumb is that? We now rely on supplies from continental Europe.

Saor Alba
141

John S,

18/03/2009 12:05:39
It isn't a question of the UK not having nuclear weapons but of Trident being based in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament has rejected Trident's replacement and so did the majority of Scottish MP's and so did the respondents to this survey.
YOUGOV SURVEY - March 12-15, 2007 Sample Size: 1144
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement ? If a majority of Scottish MPs vote in parliament against the replacement of Britain's Trident nuclear missiles, that replacement nuclear missile system should not be sited in Scotland.
Agree - 65 : Disagree - 23 : Don't know - 12
142

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 18/03/2009 12:08:29
The world's navies are unco co-operative, and congregating in the Gulf - even the Chinese. So nations like America have in fact been abolished if anyone is bothered about this. The Royal Marine, of course, is utterly incapable of dealing with pirates with boats, or dugouts with Yamaha outboards. Too much time crawling along the mud.

Is it real aliens or a disinformation scam. Who worries?
143

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 12:11:28
(#147) – (Los Angeles) – Why would a UK government pay rental on land which is under UK jurisdiction?

If Scotland was morally against the weapons being on Scottish soil would Scotland be bought and sold for UK gold by accepting money for the placement of such weapons on its soil?

Can you name the little discrepancies you are talking about since the act of union?
144

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 12:14:08
"I want insurance against the unlikely bits thank you and that is called Trident." (Mikko)

The Twin Towers were brought down by a handful of fanatics, a few pen knives, some weeks training to fly a plane though not to land it, and the willingness to die for their cause. Knowing that ought to make us realise Trident and all nuclear weapons are mankind's folly.

Amassing them is a simple step-by-step affair of brainwashing the population.

First, offer the scientist in charge of the project awards and honours so long as he complies with the conditions of government support. If he exhibits principles and scruples find a few venal colleagues willing to sell their integrity - and him - for status and money.

ext, smear the innovative scientist to a point he is unable to resist his project being defiled and used for ends never planned by him, and then remove him from the project and hijack it, placing the tame scientists in charge with a new agenda.

Next, place the project in the exclusive and secretive ownership of the military to be further developed as a fearsome weapon.

Tell your enemies you are building it.

And last, pump out as much fear propaganda of the enemy almost at the door to cause the population to accep vast amounts of their taxes spent on creating the weapons and on stockpiling them, in perpetuity

Should anybody protest about the situation, ring alarm bells loudly and incessantly warning an entire industry will collapse if
the weapon are removed, or more weapons are not made. By this time the population will have forgotten the industry did not exist years earlier but was artificially devised.

If anyone questions to status quo spread more fear over lost jobs, the hopes and aspirations of workers destroyed by misguided peacemongers.

If that fails appeal to warped patriotism.


145

,

18/03/2009 12:14:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
146

livilion,

livingston 18/03/2009 12:14:51
#153 Good debator, 18/03/2009 11:36:16

With a moniker like that I should steer clear I suppose.

We have a malt whisky industry, in the event of approaching Armageddon just pack a few shipping containers with Strathspey's finest export, some shorty Irn Bru etc, and fire that into eg the Kremlin, by the time the party had finished they'd be our pals for life.

Far fetched? only as far fetched as thinking that Trident has deterred anything since it was deployed.

Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, The Falklands, The World Trade towers(twice), Iraq, Afghanistan, N.Ireland and many more all happened inspite of nuclear deterrances.
Iran, N.Korea, Russia et al 'need' nukes to defend themselves from our nukes.

We must have Trident for our war on terror?
So are we going to nuke eg Saudi Arabia or Pakistan for harbouring Al Qaeda terrorists?

Who exactly are we deterring with these big boys toys we can neither afford to pay for or to use?
The old Soviets have given up the nuclear arms race and are now concentrating their limited resources on threats and concerns nearer to home. The Chinese have displayed no interst in 'projecting force' beyond their immediate neighbours.

Also what would the US have to say about us using their missiles to drop our newkiller warheads on anyone without their express say so, has Suez been forgotten, and wouldn't they have used theirs before we even got close? in which case the gemme would be a bogie anyway.

What happened to our commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty: do as we say - not as we do?

Mind you- the Labour party pressing the nuclear self destruct button just before an independence deciding general election might not be the worst thing that could happen in Scotland.
147

,

18/03/2009 12:17:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
148

,

18/03/2009 12:21:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
149

,

18/03/2009 12:21:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
150

livilion,

livingston 18/03/2009 12:25:28
167 DemocraticScot
little discrepancies since the act of union?
watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saqQnj0LKlQ
151

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 12:26:17
Billiam (162): "Is that why Britain no longer makes any ordinance for its weapons All the ordinance factories, which used to make some of the best and most sophisticated ammunition in the world, have been closed down. How dumb is that?"

I completely agree that we should be more self-sufficient in military areas.
152

Luke Skywalker,

18/03/2009 12:34:58
The simple fact that Salmond does not appear to understand is that defence is not a devolved issue. End of. The decision to keep or remove Trident submarines rests with the Government and not with him.
153

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 12:38:38
(#167) – (DemocraticScot) – “It was stated the Scottish mint would remain open it shut within 3 years of Act of union”

Did it say for how long it would stay open?

(#169) – (DemocraticScot) – “no person would be taken from their land and sent to colonies for non payment of rent....”

Was anyone sent to colonies for non payment of rent at the time of the clearances or at any other time since the act of union or were people offered a new life in the colonies?
154

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 12:38:45
#100 Fairfax

sm753 (85): "US know-how and support while still retaining operational independence"

We don't own the fekin missiles either.

We lease them from the USA and then pay the full cost after we test them or use them, after the good ol' USA has told us it is OK to do so.

155

Fairfax,

18/03/2009 12:38:54
Luke (174): "The simple fact that Salmond does not appear to understand is that defence is not a devolved issue."

Defence isn't devolved, but Salmond has adroitly used unintended consequences of devolution to expand the Scottish Government's effective power. It's surprising what a competent FM can do with planning and environmental legislation, for example.
156

Linoleum Blownapart,

18/03/2009 12:40:00
People people people! I take a morning off and you've antagonised the controller with the red pen. What's up with you all? Get a grip.
157

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 12:40:55

Nuclear bombs can only ever be launched by madmen because those with some semblance of sanity know they are not specific to the target. They wipe out ALL life, not only human life, for hundreds of miles from the bomb's epicentre. The degredation is absolute, the effect lingering for decades thereafter.

The chances the enemy will retaliate by launching their own weapon are extremely high, more out of fear than hostility, the parallel result just as devastating.

No one wins. Everybody loses.

A better way to cause the collapse of a civilisation is to play on man's inherent envy and greed by devising ways of making money from imaginary paper deals and, as the deals spread and stockpile, someone realises they are worthless, their value built on sand, at which point the entire capitalist edifice is undermined without a shot being fired, the catastrophe happens within days, the outcome far rfeaching, more devastating than a nuclear bomb, throwing millions out of work, closing companies of all sizes, bankrupting individuals, flattening commerce and industry, and removing all confidence in the system.

This is known as suicide finances bombing.

158

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 12:42:13
174 the majority of Scottish MP's as well as MSP's voted against Trident. So are you saying the majority opinion in Scotland does not count, and that Trident can be imposed on us anyway ?

Why ?
159

IainGlasgow,

18/03/2009 12:45:14
#6

Yes it was Alex Salmond who single handedly brought about the global financial crisis.
160

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 12:49:24
110 Good debator

"Rufus is a Labour vote so he supports illegal war and torture."


You know I don't think he is.

I think he is just a wee Orange westcoaster wrapped up from head to toe in a Union Flag.

He just hates anything that does not ring to his tune.

You work out the words.

An Empire Loyalist to his last breathe. You will only get his Union Flag out his cold dead hand.

God Save The Queen!
161

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 12:50:38
#180

On a matter which has to be voted for in the UK parliament it doesn't matter. The detterent is at faslane for operational reasons, not because they are scared to base it in England, there is nowhere to base it. Defence is not devolved and decisions reference strategic nuclear detterent will continue to be made at the UK level.
162

,

18/03/2009 12:52:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
163

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 12:54:11
#184

Planning permission for what?
164

,

18/03/2009 12:55:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
165

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 12:57:17
183 Thanks, so you believe that Trident can be imposed on Scottish soil because Westminster deems it operationally advantageous, despite the clearly expressed opinion of our democratic representatives that it is unacceptable to the Scottish people to host WMD.

Silly Westminster shouldn't have devolved planning then should they.

Because the UK govt doesn't control that.
166

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 12:57:29
176 Indeed, also AWE assemble the warheads however many physical parts come from the US as well.

The list of bits on the boats themselves are also expansive, the UK would not have a sub deterrent without Uncle Sam.

Indeed I believe there was press reports recently about the substance used to seperate the two fissible spheres that effected both warheads.

From a technical and engineering view it does make sense to use as much of the US kit as possible, why reinvent the wheel.

Of course it is then entirely risible to then say the UK has an independent deterrent, when of course it isn't.
167

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 12:58:16
185 Permission to transport the nukes for a start.
168

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 13:01:16
If anyone here bothers to read the Westminster law, they will discover that The Crown has plenty of loopholes to avoid the necessity of planning permission for reasons of national security - like Trident. Just as well.
169

The west awake,

Argyll 18/03/2009 13:01:36
Faslane is in my turf, and estimates of employment range from 3000 to 11,000.
I suspect the figure is around 3-5000, although a lot of people in Faslane are Navy and come from outwith Scotland.
I doubt if there will ever be a time when there is no Navy activity at Faslane, either it will be a run-down UK Navy facility or a Scottish Navy base. In any case though, I reckon the housing of the UKs entire nuclear deterrent on the Clyde will end, my guess soon.
Even if Brown manages to persuade the world he is abiding by the conditions of the NNPT, which Trident replacement clearly breaks, his MOD chiefs MUST be hugely concerned at having all their nukes anywhere in Scotland. Whether the SNP gets in soon, later or never, that's a chance they can't take. They must be thinking that a change of venue is unavoidable.
170

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 13:02:24
190 so they can be fired entirely independently from Uncle Sam then smee ?
171

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:02:49
You don't need to alter the base at all, the new submarines are likely to be standard US modular missile sections with Astute type C2 and propulsion systems bolted on. Like the V boats were Ohio class missile tubes with bits of T boat technology. They will quite happily fit on the current SSBN berths. The arguement vice replacement of the ship lift is still ongoing. If you are going to make stupid comments to somebody who actually knows what is going on get some facts to back them up.
172

Good debator,

18/03/2009 13:04:08
Why can't observer get it through his thick skull that the military is a reserved matter?

If the UK government wants to site a military bas in Glasgow for strategical reasons then the SNP can fekk off.
173

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 13:04:27
191 I think you'll find they don't.
174

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:05:15
#193

Yes they can, all targetting info etc is UK based. All the Us could do is turn of the GPS system and their is a UK designed secondary Nav system in place. No US presence on UK deterrent patrols and no input into firing orders. Command authority lies with the PM.
175

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 13:06:24
195 Excuse me I'm a she not a he.

So - you think Westminster is picking another fight with the SNP then eh ?
176

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:06:48
#196

Nobody wants to build anything, transportation is a matter of national security. Plus they could just do it by water using the RN, nobody would even know.
177

,

18/03/2009 13:06:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
178

Good debator,

18/03/2009 13:08:16
198 Observer

I don't care what gender you are.

Westminster doesn't pick fights with Holyrood, it simply overrules them. Get it through your thick skull!
179

John S,

18/03/2009 13:08:52
Ref: The Scottish Parliament has rejected Trident's replacement - The Scottish Government and Parliament may not have the constitutional right of decision on such policies, but they have the unquestionable right, and indeed duty, to express themselves on any issue that concerns the welfare of the people and land of Scotland and where possible take the appropriate measures (all legal means) to carry out the will of the Scottish Parliament.
180

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 13:09:25
173 I know there have always been debates about how much kit is UK produced and how much is sourced outside the UK.

A good example is helicopters, if you were to give the army the choice between 100 new Lynx's or 100 new Black Hawks, what would there preferred choice be?
181

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:12:03
#202

It is a very interesting point you make, on one side I agree but on the other they were actually wasting their time debating and voting on something they have no control over.
182

,

18/03/2009 13:12:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
183

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 13:18:07
204 Well clearly the battle lines are drawn. According to you, it will be Westminster imposing it's will against the united civic strength of Scotland. Bring it on.
184

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 13:18:11
190 You've changed your tune, in our last debate many moons ago you said that the deterrent was independent, not just operationally.

And I would still question your premise about operationally independent and before you cut and paste your favourite Commodore, the risible suggestion was not just mine and others but also recently Michael Portillo.

I also read with dismay the MOD are continuing to fail to install a proper point defence system on the 45's. Obviously the lessons of the past have fallen on stoney ground in whitehall.
185

redcliffe62,

18/03/2009 13:18:18
whilst people suffer to pay their bills at least we have some big toys to play with so that we can pretend we are really important.
186

,

18/03/2009 13:19:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
187

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:22:05
#206

Actually public opinion is Scotland is quite split. Also there are no new nukes to move the D5 delivery system is having a life extension to carry it through until 2040. we are cutting warhead numbers and building some new submarines. same system different taxi.
188

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 13:23:15
If you can put aside the cliched claptrap for a minute" (Vincent)

The only cliche is yours, and it's a howler. In a nutshell your view is this:

We don't know if nuclear stockpiles are a deterrent therefore they work. If we drop one no one wins, we all die, therefore we might as well keep them.

All else you have to say borders on waffle. We want rid of the weapons from our soil and waters. It is as much a moral stand as a political outlook. If you do not want to deal in political ethics or morals, if you don't want the obsecene amounts of money spent on creating them used to benefit the nation, if you'd rather deal only in known geographical facts, please count me out of your circle of targets.



189

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 13:26:03
"Observer is an excellent contributor to these sites who rarely (if ever) descends to your kind of nasty cheap insults."

- says Vincent ... having just one post earlier said:

"If you can put aside the cliched claptrap for a minute."

Sheesh. And he expects to be taken seriously.

190

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 13:27:14
210 Not according to the polls it isn't. And not according to the wide alliance of groups which opposes the siting of Trident in Scotland.

I think this is all academic really, Westminster actually have no intention of taking on their own politicians, the STUC, the churches, etc etc. Won't happen. And they are also aware Trident in all probability has no long term future in Scotland. So they are looking at plan B.
191

,

18/03/2009 13:29:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
192

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 13:31:23
190
sm753,
18/03/2009 13:01:12

Can you not get it through your think Unionist skull that the missiles are leased!

The unlock codes are held by the Americans and can only be released if they decided to hand them over.

Jeez

Operationally independent?

I wish you were.
193

,

18/03/2009 13:32:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
194

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:33:08
Polls show 50% dont want it 30% do and 20 undecided so its about 60% 40% against. Not 80 or 90 despite waht people lead us to beleive. There is no plan B all nuclear submarines in service will be based at faslane as the T boats are withdrawn from servive in Devonport and replaced with Astute class.
195

John S,

18/03/2009 13:33:53
The Planning Laws.
THE Scottish Government has no direct control over defence policy, but is in charge of the planning process and campaigners believe this could be used to hinder the development of the nuclear fleet in Scotland.

The Ministry of Defence is looking at the possibility of building a new dry dock on the Clyde for its nuclear submarines. It has already held meetings with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to discuss the issue.

Planning permission from the local council would almost certainly be needed and its construction and use would be subject to pollution controls administered by SEPA. In both cases Scottish ministers would have the power to say yes or no.

The Scottish Government also has other powers over activities that might pollute the Clyde, including increased sewage discharges and these could also be used to delay or hinder any future developments at Faslane.

'Weapons may be Illegal'
One of the most straightforward methods of stopping the siting of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil would be to win a legal challenge.etc etc
'Stopping the Convoys'
Scottish ministers and anti-nuclear campaigners are likely to focus on the transportation of nuclear weapons across Scotland to hinder the development and further use of Faslane.etc etc
The Scotsman - 23rd October 2007 :: http://tinyurl.com/dg9trs
196

,

18/03/2009 13:34:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
197

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 13:35:19
The missile: Dan Plesch, of the School of Oriental and African Studies, told us that the Trident II D5 missile was designed and manufactured entirely in the United States; that the UK did not own its Trident missiles in any meaningful sense, that they were, in effect, leased from the United States and held in a communal pool at the US Strategic Weapons facility and were not identifiably British; that servicing of the missiles was conducted exclusively by the United States at King's Bay, Georgia; and that the Mark 6 guidance system used on the UK's Trident missiles was designed and made in the United States by Charles Stark Draper Laboratories.[58]

From The House of Commons Defence Committee

http://tinyurl.com/dnl3ge

Now go away and play with your Union Flag bedecked Hornby Train Set
198

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:35:54
#215

What unlock codes? Why do some people never beleive the truth. Do you really think that the military establishment would be capable of keeping a secret like that? The US has NO operational control over the UK deterrent.
199

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 13:36:52
80. It is important to distinguish between two different types of independence: independence of acquisition and independence of operation. We heard that independence of acquisition is what the French have opted for at a significantly higher cost to the defence budget. Independence of operation is an alternative concept of independence and it is this which the UK has opted for at a lower price.

http://tinyurl.com/dnl3ge

We are vassals of the Yanks O' Union One!

200

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 13:37:00
215 I didn't know there were leased.
201

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:38:07
#220

Mid life maintenance is carried out at Kings Bay, UK missiles are held at the EHJ on Loch Long. The software upgrades to the guidance system and target programming is conducted in the UK.
202

,

18/03/2009 13:39:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
203

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:39:30
#222

Indepenedence at an "operational" levelallows for the independent conduct of operations, e.g. the deterrent patrol.
204

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:40:56
#225

here you go.

http://www.alba.org.uk/polls/yougovindependence.html
205

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 13:41:00
225 I'd like a link to all his evidence. Everything I have posted is in the public domain - it's been widely reported in the papers, and is well known to anyone involved in anti-nuclear campaigns.
206

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 13:41:34
The missiles are built, maintained, and serviced in the U.S.,
207

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 13:43:06
221 Who supplies the UK with it's GPS targetting data and guidance software? If you were the US would you hand over all that technology and firepower without even the smallest check or balance in any decision to launch the weapon?
208

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:44:16
#230

Seviced once every 20 years routinely maintained at Coulport.
209

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 13:46:21
229 Pulling out your favourite Commodore to cut and paste again, somehow I knew that you would reach for that comfort blanket.

What would happen if the US deny the UK access to GPS information?
210

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 13:46:44
''Lying to Parliament, were they?''

Hardly unknown is it.

211

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:47:26
#232

GPS is a global based system you cannot build an error into individual units that would not be immediately spotted as the other systems check the position. Targetting data is supplied by UK or US assets we have complete intel product sharing. I will say it again they cannot interfere with the launch or targetting of the UK deterrent.
212

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 13:48:56
#235

Only way to do that is turning whole system off, sub has other means of determining position, once it knows where it is the Missile has a secondary astro nav system to hit the target. Must go now and do some work.
213

The west awake,

Argyll 18/03/2009 13:49:47
Vincent "You are quite right to state that the accuracy of nuclear weapons is such that there is widespread damage and radiation. Therein lies the daftness of your suggestion, if the base were moved to the other side of the Solway, the danger to Scots would be nearly as great."

- I cannot disagree with this, indeed unless it was only one nuke being dropped than it possibly wouldn't matter whether it was in the UK or not. If we ended up in a nuke shooting war then the games up wherever you are, it's back to the stone age for us all.

However since we are therefore talking theoretically, then it does matter if the Scots decide (as we have done) that we don't want nukes in Scotland, (regardless of who gets vapourised first). Quite simply, our wishes should be respected if you consider yourself any kind of democrat.

Secondly, there is another dynamic in such a circumstance. From what I understand, the only viable locations for our rejected nukes would be in the south of England, close to major English centres of population. Brown/Cameron/whoever would have to sell that to the English.
- I suggest that's a place no UK PM wants to go, - having WMDs on the Clyde is one thing - near huge swathes of English voters would be quite another!

I have my differences with the English at times, but one aspect of their character I do respect is their attitude to being told what to do. The English are far more prone than us Scots to tell their government where to stick their nukes - and I reckon they would.
214

,

18/03/2009 13:51:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
215

Allan(handofgod137),

18/03/2009 13:52:44
gnats whine instead of proposing measures to help the workers during a recession.
216

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 13:52:57
205 Vincent-W,

I note that Finland, despite having a massive border with Russia sees no requirement to have WMD, and neither are they members of NATO.

Equally Sweden seems quite happy with its defence arrangements, despite no WMD or NATO shield.

Norway, whilst being a member of NATO has no WMD, neither has Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Ireland or indeed any other European or Scandinavian country apart from France.

What makes Scotland, or if you prefer the UK, more susceptible to Russian invasion than almost every other country in Western Europe?
217

Good debator,

18/03/2009 13:53:05
The SNP bloggers are stupid, stupid, stupid.

The US does not hand over its technology because it does not want its secrets sold on. Once it has satisfied itself there are no spies etc in UK instutions it does sell on some it.

The reason has nothing to do with operational control, it simply just not want Russians, Chinese etc reverse engineering it and inventing capable defence systems.

It is all to do with the technology not getting downstream, nothing at all to do with the UK being a vassal state or operationally dependent.

Honesty, you SNP crack-pots are conspiracy nuts.
218

Good debator,

18/03/2009 13:54:35
244 Bully wee brain

The European countries all use US nuclear missiles. They borrow them and train with them in case they need them.

Will you stop inventing rubbish please?
219

P Rayner.,

London. 18/03/2009 13:59:07
Scotland is not and is never likely tobe , independent of the UK . Irrespective of Salmonds flatulance defence is a UK matter . Those responsible for Britains nuclear deterrent evidentally consider its Clyde base as the most effective . The idea that states such as Iran , Israel , Pakistan and North Korea can be nuclear armed but Britain not is a foolishness of the extreme . In the next few years with China and Russia expanding their armed forces Britain needs to remain vigilent .
220

,

18/03/2009 14:00:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
221

,

18/03/2009 14:00:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
222

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 14:02:17
238, 239 both systems are of course Uncle Sam's, again without the USA no can do on missle launch old bean.

The frequency that the UK would rely on is a reserved military channel, that has to been authorised for use.
223

,

18/03/2009 14:03:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
224

Good debator,

18/03/2009 14:04:57
Democratic Scot

Your assertions are based on a flawed and invented premise.

The UK does not have nuclear arms to "influence" anyone, that would suggest aggressive posturing and threatening behaviour. There has been and never will be any evidence of this.

It is a "deterrant"! Get that through your thick skull, the only influence it has is making foreign powers think that if they breach our sovereignty by force then their major cities won't be inhabital for a century or so.

If they attack us they go straight back to the stone ages so they think, maybe we'll not attack.

Honestly, you SNP nutters make up so much bull.
225

,

18/03/2009 14:06:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
226

Good debator,

18/03/2009 14:07:12
253 Democratic Scot

You are claiming that the UK threatened Iraq with a nuclear bomb?

You are an idiot.
227

Good debator,

18/03/2009 14:08:40
253

I mean get real, you are a lunatic. The UK does not threaten countries with our nukes.

Threatening to nuke someone is, well, it's a diplomatic no no. I mean ffs, you watch too much x-files.
228

,

18/03/2009 14:14:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
229

,

18/03/2009 14:16:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
230

Linoleum Blownapart,

18/03/2009 14:18:16
2007

"Many on the Labour benches resent the fact that, for the second time on a piece of contentious legislation, the prime minister has relied on Tory votes to get his way.

Close to 100 of his own MPs refused to be swayed and voted against his policy of replacing Trident - the second largest revolt since the Iraq war vote four years ago."

New Labour = Old Tory.
231

,

18/03/2009 14:18:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
232

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 14:20:39
#179) – (Los Angeles) – Without too many of the details haven’t you just describe the creation of the regimes of the 1930s/40s, the second world war and its ultimate ending with Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

233

AJM,

18/03/2009 14:21:56
#253 Dem Scot Having informed us yesterday that Mr Mugabe runs elections better the UK. Today you are suggesting that Iraq has been threatened by the UK with a nuclear attack. Perhaps the story about obese fish will better suite your anti UK stance conspiracy theories.
234

pwd,

Hawick 18/03/2009 14:27:12
#36 PMK

"...if only you knew the recruiting sergeant role you are effectively playing for the SNP..."

If you believe this site has any effect worthy of note you are living in cuckooland. Hysterical opinion swapping by giddy nats is of no importance in the real world. Rufus is simply having fun winding you all up.

(17%)
235

AJM,

18/03/2009 14:28:04
The Nats stance is pure showboating. Lets take out the word nuclear and substitute radioactive isotopes. Are the NATS suggesting that all radioactivity including anything that produces radioactive waste be eliminated from Scotland. If so perhaps they will explain where low level radioactive waste will be kept in a post independent Scotland.

Medical equipment has radioactive materials and needs to be deposed of at some point. The usual high mighty stance, short on practical detail and unsustainable.
236

livilion,

livingston 18/03/2009 14:32:58
#245 'Good' debator

So it isn't only generals who are condemned to fight the last war, thickos like you are intent on having their own 1980s version of the Maginot Line.

The world moved on twenty years ago and puir souls like you have still to cotton on.
Who exactly are we going to use this £27bn white elephant on anyway?


BBC Newsnight 17/03/09
Russia's military rethink
"Tim Whewell has had rare access to two of Russia's elite army units and discovered that the shape of the country's military shake-up speaks volumes."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
237

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 14:37:08
263 Iodine-125 - 60 days half life

Plutonium 239 - 24,000 years

Oh aye no big differene there!
238

,

18/03/2009 14:37:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
239

livilion,

livingston 18/03/2009 14:40:28
263 AJM
Let's take out the term deterrence and substitute force projection, or phallic symbolism.
Why not, using the same logic, try all assault cases in Scottish courts as attempted murders?
You must have been told a million times that exaggeration is just counter-productive and makes you sound very silly.
240

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 14:41:21
(#266) - (DemocraticScot) - Can you supply any irrefutable evidence including UN resolutions which state the war against Iraq was illegal?
241

,

18/03/2009 14:42:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
242

Good debator,

18/03/2009 14:44:47
Democratic Scot

I quite clearly said that the UK did not agressively posture with Nukes.

You then said that they did in Iraq.

You are a fool. The UK has never threatened anyone with Nuclear attack.
243

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 14:44:52
"Can you supply any irrefutable evidence including UN resolutions which state the war against Iraq was illegal? " (Randall)

Do you rely entirely on local Internet sites for your political research?

Do you not think to come prepared with answers and facts to refute argument?

Do you still use a bean back to sit on at home?

244

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 14:49:32

"The Nats stance is pure showboating" (AJM)

Political parties exist to represent certain views and aspiration of sections of society.

The SNP did not arrive at an anti-nuclear stance by casual chat over a coffee break in the Parliament.

Tens of thousands hold a similar view, people not members of the SNP, a good few who do not wish independence for Scotland.

Your all-encompassing scorn is wasted.
245

livilion,

livingston 18/03/2009 14:49:45
270 Good debator
The British government and its US partner warned that if Saddam attempted to deploy WMDs against their invasion then full retaliatory strikes would be made with Allied WMDs.

A bit of huffing and puffing right enough, but they said it.
246

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 14:50:28
270 Apart from the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, otherwise what was there function?
247

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 14:52:54
Has everyone forgotten the Letter to the Times from the retired Generals pointing out that Trident was useless and that it wasn't independent as it was unthinkable that it would be used without US say so. They said Trident was a cold war weapon not fit for today's world.

They said this was a political argument not a military one.

i don't usually agree with Generals but I did with them.
248

livilion,

livingston 18/03/2009 14:54:11
270 Good debator
How do you not posture when you deploy nukes?
The fact of having them in service is all the posturing you need, until some wee religious extremist tweeks your tail and says 'go on nuke me - if you dare!'
249

,

18/03/2009 14:54:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
250

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 14:55:03
268 Why don't YOU answer a question. What was the cassus belli ? If it was a made up pack of lies (which it was) then that makes the war illegal.
251

Good debator,

18/03/2009 14:55:22
273

"retalitory" strikes.

That suggest to me a defensive and not offensive use of nukes then?

You SNP clowns twist everything in a childish way to try and support your wild and fanciful claims. Grow up.
252

Good debator,

18/03/2009 14:57:21
277 Democratic Scot

You clearly offered Iraq as an example of the UK threatening another country with an unprovoked aggressive nuclear attack.

It is is written in black and white.
253

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 14:59:45
270 Good Debator

"The UK has never threatened anyone with Nuclear attack."

How do you know?
254

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 14:59:46
(#269) – (DemocraticScot) – Is UN resolution 687/8 a lack of UN resolutions?

If it had been illegal wouldn’t there have been a resolution which stated this?
255

Good debator,

18/03/2009 15:01:42
281 Connaughtboy

The UK has threatened many countries with nuclear attack.

It hasn't done so offensively thought. NATO and our other military allies are primarily defensive pacts.
256

,

18/03/2009 15:01:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
257

Good debator,

18/03/2009 15:04:31
Democratic Scot

You said that at post 253.
258

livilion,

livingston 18/03/2009 15:04:39
279 Good debator
We made the world unfit for human habitation by turning it into a nuclear wilderness, but it's ok we did it in self defence...
T't
259

Miss H,

18/03/2009 15:06:15
270 Good Debator (that should be Debater by the way) says: ‘The UK has never threatened anyone with Nuclear attack’

The mere possession of nuclear weapons carries the implicit threat that you are prepared to use them. That is why they are considered to be a deterrent. They are not, of course, but that is how the nuclear deterrent theory goes.

Some people think that theory of deterrence – or perhaps simply the joy of being able to waggle their nukes at the neighbours - is worth paying for, some don’t.

It has very little to do with defence, post Cold War. It’s about status. Political Viagra.

I could not put the case against Trident on a UK basis better than Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham and General Sir Hugh Beach did in their letter to the Times.
For Scotland, there is absolutely no logical basis for supporting spending billions of pounds of public money on maintaining the appearance of being some kind of half-arsed superpower when we are no such thing – and do not want to be.

The UK was a person I fear it would be Peter Stringfellow - desperately struggling against the inevitability of its own decline
260

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 15:06:30
275 I remember it as well, it was honest of them. I also remember Michael Portillo commenting on the letter that any notion that the UK deterrent was independent was risible.

And himself a former tory defence secretary, jings will wonders never cease.
261

,

18/03/2009 15:06:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
262

,

18/03/2009 15:07:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
263

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 15:09:55
#283 Debator

"The UK has threatened many countries with nuclear attack.

It hasn't done so offensively thought. NATO and our other military allies are primarily defensive pacts."

Have you not just completely contradicted yourself?
264

Geomac 1,

Scotland 18/03/2009 15:10:03
Yet another ill thought out policy in the current climate - when is Salmond and his merry band going to put pragmatism above petty SNP dogma? Do they really want to put political posturing above jobs - goodness knows there are fewer and fewer jobs around these days - except, of course, in the public sector - and we all know that 100% public sector does not work!!
265

Good debator,

18/03/2009 15:10:16
I think Democratic Scot and Gordon Brown have a lot in common.

They say the most ridiculous things and then deny they said them or try and twist and squirm their way out of it.

Miss H, "deterrence" theory. That is Game Theory and it is correct. Nukes make Britain a safer place.

Nukes do mean that Britain and France can punch above its weight, that is a good thing.
266

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 15:10:41
(#278) – (Observer) – What about not fully complying to the ceasefire agreement from the previous gulf war?
267

,

18/03/2009 15:11:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
268

Good debator,

18/03/2009 15:12:03
292 Cannaughtboy

No I haven't contradited myself.

When you attack someone you do so either offensively or defensively, the UK would only ever use nukes defensively. The threat is retaliation, not imperialism.
269

,

18/03/2009 15:12:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
270

,

18/03/2009 15:13:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
271

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 15:15:03
294 Debator

"Nukes make Britain a safer place.

Nukes do mean that Britain and France can punch above its weight, that is a good thing."

Now you really are on shaky ground. Those statements are your opinion, plain and simple. You have no way of ever proving one way or the other.
272

,

18/03/2009 15:15:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
273

The west awake,

Argyll 18/03/2009 15:15:51
Vincent - "Look, nobody wants the damn things on their doorstep and all this talk of polls is nonsense - most people would vote to put them somewhere else.
If you had responsibiliy for the whole of the UK where would you put them?"

- If I was a UK PM I would be an amoral, deceitful and ruthless person, capable of doing horrible things.
I would therefore keep UKs nukes on the Clyde exactly where they are right now, on the basis that my English voters wouldn't wear them being in England, and frankly I wouldn't want them on my doorstep either - far better up the wilds of Scotland where only some Nationalist Jocks would get creamed if the kak hits the fan (that one would be a bonus actually).
Of course , that would only work as long as the daft Scots keep voting for Unionist parties. As soon as they started getting funny ideas of deciding things for themselves it would spoil that nice little arrangement.

- It was all so easy before May 07!
274

Good debator,

18/03/2009 15:19:20
Democratic Scot is talking mince, he clearly said that the UK had threatened an offensive nuclear attack on Iraq. He was totally wrong in saying that.

The twerp is now trying to pull a "Brown" by removing the word "nuclear" from his argument when the whole point of the debate is nuclear orientated. While this does highlight his rhetorical lunacy and irrelevance it still does not change any facts.

Democratic Scott "No I said "Tory" boom and bust."
275

,

18/03/2009 15:20:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
276

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 15:20:18
298 Debator

Here is the prima face evidence that you contradicted yourself:

#281 Debator - "The UK has never threatened anyone with Nuclear attack."

#283 Debator - "The UK has threatened many countries with nuclear attack."

Case proven, I think.

277

Ewan Randall,

18/03/2009 15:22:51
(#271) – (Los Angeles) – What makes you believe I entirely rely on local anything?

As I am trying to determine if those writing posts are doing so due to them coming prepared with answers and facts to refute argument what is wrong with me thinking of the questions to determine if that is the case?

Who says that I am on here to argue?

Though it is bean bag and not back, what is wrong with me sitting on one?
278

,

18/03/2009 15:23:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
279

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 15:27:17
308 Debator

I notice that your idea of a good debate is to accuse me of being a "childish smarty pants".

You need to take responsibility for the points you make. Re-read your statements in my post #306. Your position is untenable.
280

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 15:29:19
308 Debator

"There are two ways to attack someone, in unprovoked offensive or when provoked into self-defense. The two are clearly different."

Again, wrong. There are maybe two "reasons" to attack someone, but I can assure you that the result would feel pretty much the same to the target of the attack.
281

Good debator,

18/03/2009 15:30:21
309 Cannaught boy

You are still being a childish smarty pants.

You took comments out of context.

The first context you removed was an aggressive context.

The Second context you removed was a defensive context.

As I have explained to you. Offensive and defensive attacks are seperable and opposite.

Please do grow up.
282

Miss H,

18/03/2009 15:31:10
302 The correct answer would be can you supply any evidence that the Iraq war was legal?

It was not authorised by a UN resolution. We have the word of the UN Secretary General on that.

It was not - surely - an act of self defence.

On what basis was it therefore legal?

You will never get a clear cut answer because there is no World Court as such.

It comes down to the law of the jungle at the end. The USA got away with it because it could. If Iran, for example, had decided to invade Iraq on the same basis that the USA decided to invade do you think it would have been 'legal'?

283

Good debator,

18/03/2009 15:31:40
310 Canaught boy

Yes, this is correct. But again you're twisting and squirming. One attack is justifiable, the other not.

How long is this going to take for simple data to get across your rather thick boundary?
284

,

18/03/2009 15:33:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
285

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 15:33:49
311 The difference between you and me is that I am not resorting to insults whereas you are, indicating that you feel you have lost the argument.

Neither of your statements were taken out of context. You need to take responsibility for what you say in a debate.
286

Good debator,

18/03/2009 15:34:09
Cannaughtboy, Democratic Scot, Miss H and observer playing happy families courtesy of you and me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5004431/Family-who-are-too-fat-to-work-say-22000-worth-of-benefits-is-not-enough.html
287

Good debator,

18/03/2009 15:36:02
315

You are still acting like a childish smarty pants.

You did take my comments out of context. The fact that you say you didn't tells me that you do what a context is.

Please do grow up.
288

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 15:36:02
#313 Debator

From where I'm sitting you are the one who appears to be "twisting and squirming".

Am I right in assuming that you have never participated in a proper debate?
289

Good debator,

18/03/2009 15:36:46
318 Connaughtboy

You cannot have a proper debate with a childish smarty pants.
290

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 18/03/2009 15:37:03
I suppose all those military hi heid yins who recently said that tridend was awaste of time and that the money could have been better spent were wrong as well.

Which is strange considering they were most likely estalishment unionists types.

Now why do you think they said it?
291

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 18/03/2009 15:39:34
305 Vincent-W,

The logical location to locate the deep water UK deterrent submarine first strike “deterrent” would be Sullom Voe in Shetland.

Not that I would wish my friends in Shetland to be saddled with this monstrosity, any more than I would wish my friends and relations in Arrochar to have this on their doorstep.
292

Miss H,

18/03/2009 15:39:54
293 Erm - these are public sector jobs.

If you take Jackie Baillie's (vastly exaggerated) claim that 11,000 jobs are dependent on Trident that works out at:

Scotland's share (8%) of 75 billion pounds = 6 billion.

6 billion divided by 11,000 = 545,454.54 per job.



293

,

18/03/2009 15:40:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
294

,

18/03/2009 15:42:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
295

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 15:43:21
#246

It is called "collective responsibility" the Dutch, Germans Spanis and Italians all train to use US air launched nuclear weapons on their strike aircraft.
296

Good debator,

18/03/2009 15:43:46
Democratic Scot has a lot in common with President Bush, do you remember him standing on a ship caliming "Victory".

So we learn that not only does democratic scot have the temerity and blitheness of Brown, but the arrogance and self-importance of Bush.

Classic ex-Labour voter now voting SNP profile. Shameless. I bet the dinner party invites of this type has long since dried up.
297

,

18/03/2009 15:44:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
298

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 15:46:37
#314

You really do live in a littel fantasy world. I know you hate being British but as the majority of Scots are content then get over it.
299

,

18/03/2009 15:49:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
300

The Dark Side,

18/03/2009 15:53:32
#329 Democratic: do you really not appreciate our newly designed "thinking man's British Flag/St.George", or are you just being obtuse as usual?
301

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 18/03/2009 15:56:26
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKArsenalRecent.html

Perhaps this link will help sort out who owns what etc where Trident is concerned.
302

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 15:57:29
I simply don't understand the anti-nuke folk here at all. We have the ulimate weapon for defence: anybody attacks us and they know we'll utterly obliterate them, so they don't attack us (excluding a few small time terrorists which our security forces are pretty good at tidying up). What's wrong with that?
303

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:02:46
332 That's interesting, did the might of the US nuclear arsenal stop Osama?
304

Good debator,

18/03/2009 16:08:31
336

Nuclear Bombs aren't for terrorists. What party of that can't you understand.

There was an exculsion zone agreed in the Falklands war, therefore the only land based target for the nuke would have been the Falklands themselves. Why can't you figure anything out.

Just more lazy and skewed rhetoric from a man with less than average intelligence.
305

,

18/03/2009 16:08:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
306

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 16:11:51
337 Debator

"There was an exculsion zone agreed in the Falklands war, therefore the only land based target for the nuke would have been the Falklands themselves"

Clearly you don't understand what an exclusion zone is !
307

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:13:28
338 Is there not an old saying in the army that Military Intelligence is a contradiction in terms!

Also those conventional forces are not properly equipped and manned for the job that they are being asked to do by the politicians in Whitehall.
308

,

18/03/2009 16:13:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
309

,

18/03/2009 16:16:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
310

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:17:37
342 "It would be quite simple mein Furher, sorry Mr President" and "Look mein Furher I can walk"

A great film, Sellars was at his comic best.
311

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 16:19:57
Debator gone into hiding??
312

Good debator,

18/03/2009 16:20:04
If we need more money for conventional forces, can I suggest we close Holyrood and force Alex Salmond to resign his westminster seat salary that he only claims because he's greedy.

Having the nukes is a good thing. I stand corrected, Thatcher did threaten to nuke the Falklands, she threatened that to the French. France was so terrified she would do it, they handed over the disarming codes of the excocet missiles.

So, we can see that having the nukes did help us win the Falklands was. Contrary to some dodgy farkin' claims by SNP Natwits.
313

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 16:20:36
Maybe he's frantically looking up the definition of "exclusion zone"?
314

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/03/2009 16:21:31
347 Debator

Oh, for god's sake............
315

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:23:21
343 In what way? I admit my first sentance was an attempt at humour. My second was not and was right on the money.

Look at Afghanistan, lack of tactical UK aircraft, lack of UK helicopters, lack of UK armoured vehicles.

Not my observations but those who are serving and have served there, some have even resigned in protest.

Because of the lack of manpower UK forces cannot occupy ground they have won from the Talliban, so after they leave the scene. The Talliban just filter back, this goes against every military doctrine in the book, you must occupy an area to deny your opponents from gain ground.
316

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:24:40
347 Have you lost the plot pal, all yer dugs just aren't barking!
317

,

18/03/2009 16:24:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
318

The Master,

18/03/2009 16:25:09
Nuclear weapons exist: fact. Given this, is it wrong to possess them for the express purpose of deterring others from using them against us? I just don't get where the Nats are coming from on this one (but that's par for the course!)
319

,

18/03/2009 16:28:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
320

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:28:16
354 MAD.
321

The west awake,

Argyll 18/03/2009 16:28:24
Mikko - "I simply don't understand the anti-nuke folk here at all. We have the ulimate weapon for defence: anybody attacks us and they know we'll utterly obliterate them, so they don't attack us"

- This "defensive" power has been the base of US and to a lesser extent UK foreign policy since after WW2. Because of course, weapons are not only for defence, they are for potential and actual attack. One example of this was recently when the US "persuaded" Pakistan to assist them against the Taleban. How did they persuade them? According to Musharraff by threatening to "bomb them back to the stone age".
Everyone has a "defence force" these days, no-one has an "agression force" although we do get the odd admission that our armed forces are used to "project British power" in a region (nice euphamism). Unfortunately things aren't as simple as you suggest.
322

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 16:28:52
332
Mikko,
Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 15:57:29

Mikko, we have already been attacked by terrorists and home grown ones at that.

So what ferkin use was Trident there?

Fancy bombing the shíte out of Luton then?

Don't answer that.
323

Good debator,

18/03/2009 16:29:28
354 Canes

Thatchered threatened to use the nukes on Argentina if the French didn't provide codes.

The French arsenal is as irrelevant to this argument as you are to logic.
324

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:29:40
352 I try not to use humour or wit as I am rubbish at it.
325

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:30:34
359 The Airport or sorrounding area?
326

Good debator,

18/03/2009 16:33:33
SNP logic

We have bombs, we were attacked by terrorists, the bombs don't work.

More SNP logic

I have a comb, I can't cut my steak, the comb doesn't work.
327

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 16:33:39
353 You make a significant error in assuming that all opponents of Trident on Scottish soil are nationalists. It can't be stated too many times that there is a mandate to oppose them, as the majority of elected politicians have voted against the son of Trident.

And it can't be stated too many times that there is very significan opposition within the military to this ridiculous waste of money and forelock tugging to the Americans.
328

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:35:14
364 All to the strains of we'll meet again, a classic indeed.
329

Good debator,

18/03/2009 16:38:00
Observer

The missiles are not being replaced you dip stick. Only the submarines are. Technologically capable submarines can be used for more than nukes.

I am thinking specificalyl of the fact that antartica treaty expires soon. Think of that, a whole continent of unclaimed land, oil and resources. There will be plenty of fisti-cuffs.
330

Good debator,

18/03/2009 16:40:40
Incidentally, the British have made a claim on a segment of Antartica.

Who will enforce that claim? Think of that, a whole new continent as the world thaws. WWIII ahoy.
331

,

18/03/2009 16:41:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
332

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:43:19
372 Man you are loosing the plot.
333

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:45:47
374 Complete and utter windup merchant.
334

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 16:46:23
Look people, it's not rocket science. If I have a great big bomb and simply go about my business as we all do but you get all hostile and decide to mount a huge military attack on me (not just a small terrorist attack, which is nasty and horrible but like a midge bite compared to a real war) then you will have second thoughts before striking me - knowing that my bomb will wipe you and your whole country off the planet. That's why it is called Mutual Assured Destruction. That is why we still have a planet to live on.
335

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 16:50:48
372 Oh dear. We are proposing to spend more than £20 bn on nothing then ?
336

The Master,

18/03/2009 16:53:27
#367 Observer: " It can't be stated too many times that there is a mandate to oppose them, as the majority of elected politicians have voted against the son of Trident."

How can that be, given that Scottish Labour politicians who oppose are part of the wider UK party and would no doubt resign and join the Nats if the question of nuclear weapons were really that central to their moral compass.

#358 Wardog: yes, Kubrick is my favourite director and I never tire of mounting repeat screenings of his masterpieces on my home cinema system.
337

Good debator,

18/03/2009 16:55:44
"Home cinema system"

Definate benefits claiminat. Can I have lower taxes instead of paying for creeps like you?
338

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 16:56:01
381 Define a real war? Midge Bite?

Is Afghanistan a real war? Iraq?

The whole purpose of trident was as a parry to the Soviet union.
339

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 16:56:38
Also to the previous poster mentioning the Falklands conflict: At the time there was discussion on the news about using Vulcan bombers (in service back then) to drop nukes on Buenos Aires if it started going badly for us. Fact.
340

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 16:58:40
383 I have no idea why the unionists have such an issue with this, Master. This is not merely a matter for nationalists.

This is a cross party and no party campaign. This also encompasses the faith groups, the STUC, and many other civic groups. It's not just an issue for the SNP. Don't you people get it ?

Think of it like the opposition to the Iraq war. Only we have a good chance of winning this one.

That is why I rather doubt Gordon Brown will put Labour MP's or MSP's on the spot. He can't afford resignations. And they couldn't afford not to resign.
341

Miss H,

18/03/2009 17:00:14
353 Nuclear weapons exist – fact.

Most countries don’t have them – fact. Because they don’t need them – fact.

Interestingly, when countries like Iran decide that yes they might need them because after all America has invaded all their neighbours and it looks like they are next everyone gets all uptight and says how outrageous, this is a threat to world peace. Even though Iran is actually just trying to put the classic theory of nuclear deterrence into effect.

But the world has some logic on its side because there are lots of treaties and so on saying we are supposed to get rid of all our nukes in the end – fact. No-one really believes that especially the nuclear club but they pretend they do.

In Scotland most elected members in the Scottish Parliament and in Westminster have voted against a renewed Trident being based here – fact. Opinion polls show strong public support for that – fact. So the SNP is not out of step with political and public opinion, they are in step with it. You personally may have learned to love the Bomb but most people haven’t.

At the end of the day the case against Trident is simple. It’s stupid and it’s a waste of money. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have died due to lack of basic equipment because the MoD doesn’t have the money to provide it – fact. If we can’t provide our troops with the basic gear necessary to protect them from dying unnecessarily then either don’t send them to war or don’t spend money on stupid nuclear weapons which don’t offer a damn bit of protection to anyone but simply make us targets.
342

Good debator,

18/03/2009 17:00:21
Observer

The Scottish parliament has no influence on defence. So they can be as against it as they want, it will make no difference.

That is why they're against it. Because it's more popular, not because it's better. A bit of free populism for politicians.
343

Good debator,

18/03/2009 17:04:19
Who is the biggest hairy pie?

Observer or Canes Pug?
344

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 17:09:02
#388 Miss H. I take it you are just being silly? Because I just know that if and when, God forbid, some nutter nation comes along and threatens to nuke us off the planet you'll get all scared along with the rest of the liberal left chattering class - and demand something is done to save your bacon.
345

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 17:09:47
389 Yes you are right. Removing WMD from Scottish soil will be a very popular move. Hence the reason I imagine why there is so much support for it, both inside and out the Parliament, and both inside and out the SNP.

It's really only right-wingers like you dreaming of the days when half the globe was coloured pink who want Trident renewed. Even the Generals know it's a waste of money.
346

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 17:11:52
#391 Yes. Some young idiots blowing up a bus and a few underground trains is an appalling outrage but hardly a full scale war between nation states.
347

Miss H,

18/03/2009 17:13:55
392 When you leave school you will find that nothing is that simple Nikko.
348

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 17:14:33
390 A deeply sad and lonely Troll.

381 / 386 I've read some stuff but that takes today's biscuit. Why would they use a bomber rather than a polaris missle?

You are aware that it took every bit of long range fuelling kit the RAF had, also the plane had to make an emergency landing in Brazil.
349

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 17:16:58
394 Prey tell what nation states do you think will use there nuclear arsenal first and last?
350

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 17:19:01
386 Why didn't Britain just launch a warhead into Patagonia, surely that would have been enough to end the conflict using your logic.
351

Good debator,

18/03/2009 17:20:39
397 Hairy pie

First is a matter of historic record.

Last in unknown and will be forever.

Could be a case of first and last, let's hope so.
352

RufusT-Firefly,

18/03/2009 17:22:00
Dear oh dear, another Anti-English racist attack, this time in Edinburgh.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/English-mans-eye-smashed-in.5082486.jp

If it is not young women being attacked in the streets of Aberdeen, or young kids being attacked in Inverleith Park for wearing England football tops, it's innocent people getting their eyes smashed in whilst waiting for a taxi.

Anti-English racism is alive and well in Alex Salmond's Nationalist Scotland.
353

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 17:24:18
Nuclear bombs didn't deter anything during the cold war. They were a displacement that's all. Instead of the countries in the nuclear club fighting each other they got wee countries to do it for them. All over Asia, Africa, the middle East, South America, you name it, the East and West played cat and mouse with each other killing thousands in the process. Some of the consequences of that are still with us now.

The nuclear deterrant just ensured that the fighting was done by proxy. There was nothing moral or successful about that. Unless you count not blowing up the world a success.
354

Good debator,

18/03/2009 17:26:56
Observer

So, by your own admission, you concede that nuclear bombs for countries to fight using conventional arms.

That is what Game Theory predicts. I'm glad that after 402 posts you finally grasped the reality of it. Nuclear arms succeeded in ensuring containment of war.
355

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 18/03/2009 17:28:01
400 What planet are you on.

401 RTF, I've been away for a wee while, your contributions have been opaque and down right daft at times.
356

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 17:30:25
403 They didn't contain any war. They just moved it. And in many cases made other people fight it for them. Nuclear weapons are useless, they have no advantage whatsoever, apart from making inadequate politicians think they have bigger toys to play with than the other guys.
357

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 17:30:57
#399 yes indeed. I didn't comment on my own view I merely said they discussed it - even on the news. And if Argentina had somehow won the Falkland War I have no doubt Mrs Thatcher would have given them an ulimatum to get out or be nuked. They were a tin-pot military junta at that time.
358

Good debator,

18/03/2009 17:32:34
405

"They didn't contain any war. They just moved it."

In the same way that a glass doesn't contain water. It just prevents from spilling everywhere?

You are a thicko.
359

RufusT-Firefly,

18/03/2009 17:36:57
Hey Spook.

You got the black armband on today?

Your favourite Woolworths is being turned into affordable housing.

You never know, you may end up living there.
360

RufusT-Firefly,

18/03/2009 17:39:19
Good Afternoon Tormod.

Well you would say that.

We have totally opposing viewpoints.
361

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 17:39:41
408 Err it did spill everywhere.

Because of the faux deterrant, you didn't see Soviet troops fighting US troops. But what do you think all the stuff in - take Afghasnistan for example - was about ? Who created the Taliban and why ? The CIA to oppose the Soviets - and look at the consequences now. Do you get it ? The nuclear deterrant was supposed to have maintained peace during the cold war - but that is an illusion. It didn't keep everyone safe, it didn't mean peace. All that was achieved in the cold war was not to blow up the planet. Nuclear weapons are useless.
362

Good debator,

18/03/2009 17:42:58
Observer

You are thick. You are saying the cold war happened because of nuclear bombs?

What would have happened without them? World War 3, or... no, let me guess... hmmm, SNP logic hat on.

We would all be singing and dancing in peace.

You are thick. You have no concept of reality.
363

RufusT-Firefly,

18/03/2009 17:43:29
412 Observer,,Glasgow 18/03/2009 17:39:41
Nuclear weapons are useless.
=====================================================

World War II historians would probably disagree with you.
364

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 17:43:42
#412 "All that was achieved in the cold war was not to blow up the planet. Nuclear weapons are useless."

Well I disagree, I think achieving "not blowing up the planet" is a good thing.
365

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 17:49:24
413 You are a stranger to logic and I'm off now.

414 Well the folks who invented the bomb wish they hadn't. I would have to agree.

415 Perhaps me not burning down my own house is a good thing, but I would think avoiding storing flammable and explosive materials would help.

366

The Master,

18/03/2009 17:55:49
419.I wouldn't mess with the debator, if I were you! I'm still reeling from having a strip torn off me at #384(even if there was a great deal of truth in it lol!)
367

Linoleum Blownapart,

18/03/2009 17:56:18
Are you lot STILL at it? It's good to see some sensible debating going on - apart from the idiotic grammar-salad piffle of Good debator (sic). What a dumpling HE is. A troll's troll if ever I saw one. Right where were we?

Will the Trident Subs stop the trams? If so I'm all for it - if not yadda yadda yadda ....
368

Good debator,

18/03/2009 18:04:13
Observer has run away tail between his legs.

When asked whether or not Nukes prevented WW3 from taking place because of the fears of nuclear war being involved, he ran away.

I therefore claim victory in the name of the bomb.
369

TWC,

18/03/2009 18:05:05
401 RufusT-Firefly

Was it a nuclear attack? if not then it has hee haw to do with this Thread this is about Trident and we Scots don't want it or Poodles who are undemocratic.
Most of the underclass who attack people are Labour supporters anyway. They were encouraged because Labour was ripping Scotland off for 40 years.
I'm no Nat but I'll vote for them rather than Labour.
Give us control over our finances and Scrap Trident if you want to save the union
370

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 18:13:48
406
Mikko,
Drumnadrochit 18/03/2009 17:30:57

Do you really believe what you said in this post?

You actually believe the stuff that News, yep the BBC says, jeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You are one scary person.

Cue the music from

The Twilight Zone

DoooooooDeeeeeeeeeeeDeeeeeeeeeeeDoooDoo!
371

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 18:14:30
#412

The cold war was going to go hot somewhere without nuclear weapons that place would ahve been Germany/France/Norway with Soviet bombers bombing the UK. MAD horrible as it is kept it to SE asia and small countries in Africa. No 2 nuclear armed countries have ever gone to war. No 2 countries with Macdonalds have ever gone to war, both facts.
372

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 18:17:53
Talking about The Falklands,

What was the difference between General Galtieri and Maggie Thatcher?


Well one was a despotic dictator, allowing no dissent within the ruling cabinet, opportunistically using an offshore war to deflect the peoples' eyes from serious economic problems at home and, the other spoke Spanish,
373

Noisyparker,

18/03/2009 18:20:24
Does any one know what happened to AM2 and Nikostraosphere, they used to be regulars on here, but they seem to have disapeared, no sign of them at The Herald either. have they gone of together? We should be told. The Union will not survive without them.
374

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 18:20:32
#428

One was democratically elected
375

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 18:22:57
She got in on the postal vote
376

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 18:23:24
and most of the votes came from South Africa
377

Luigiana,

Aberdeen 18/03/2009 18:24:56
It's strange that bankrupt UK plc can find billions and billions to pay for son of Trident, and yet can barely afford to fly airworthy military aircraft or protect soldiers in Afghanistan with suitably equiped armoured vehicles and flak jackets.

Or maybe it's not so strange, after all?
378

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 18:25:59
With a majority of 63 and a 76% turn out? No mandate there then.
379

Faux Cul,

18/03/2009 18:28:00
Did most of the votes actually go for the Tories?

Just a question sure that you have the answer at your fingertips.
380

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 18:32:11
"One was democratically elected."

(All Politicians Are The Same)

Ah, your monker is misleading. You do, in fact, believe there are differences between some politicians.

I had a wager you could not exercise your legend post after post.
381

Los Angeles,

18/03/2009 18:37:50
"Does any one know what happened to AM2?" (Noisyparker)

He continues to post banal statements in the Herald under the boring name of "Bill." He does so frustrated he cannot add a ton of unreadable cut and paste quotations to prove all his opinions are borrowed from other people.
382

Noisyparker,

18/03/2009 18:44:40
LA 437, So he's still, around what about the Niko one?

D
What keeps AM2 from posting here, is he fed up being beaten in his arguments?
383

Winters,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 18:59:53
I am sure that an Independent Scottish Government would demand the removal of the Trident base from Scotland. And that would be its right.
However if an English government was to set up a Trident base on the Cumbrian shores, and that would be its right also. I wonder then what the position of an Independent Scottish Government would the be to that.
384

,

18/03/2009 19:14:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
385

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 19:30:52
#436

Sorry for the delay and a mistake in my previous post the majority was actually 44 they won 63 seats more than previously. Conservatives had 13,697,923 Labour 11,532,218. As for my moniker I was merely pointing out that Thatcher though many disagreed with her politics was democratically elected.
386

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 19:31:36
423 You really are a remarkably silly man. The chief purpose of the nuclear deterrent is to avert wars right ? And so because there hasn't been a nuclear conflict that is a success right ? Wrong, logical fallacy.

Alternatively, as there hasn't been a major European conflict like WW1 and WW11 that proves that war has been averted, right ? Wrong, logical fallacy too. The theatre has changed, that's all, and the style of fighting. And the ratio of combatants to civilian deaths.

Nuclear weapons have not achieved anything. They are a giant waste of money.
387

,

18/03/2009 19:36:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
388

TWC,

Ex Labour 18/03/2009 19:36:31
440 sm753,
None of this Matters Holyrood won't suppport trident replacement, so you won't get it.
The Scots don't want it and we will vote out any MSP who supports it.
Labour are finished in Scotland and possibly England too.
BTW a list of Troll shave all input to Calman with one song we support some fiscal powers but not Fiscal autonomy. Must be the same hymn sheet
389

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 19:37:34
449 I dunno why you bother arguing with him Wardog, he is a narrow minded obsessive. Completely blinkered and actively looking for ''evidence'' of his perverted (and I use that word deliberately) view of nationalism.
390

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 18/03/2009 19:40:04
#452

The money has been allocated and the initial phase of project is due to go through in September. It is a done deal.
391

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/03/2009 19:44:27
455 No - we have reached the ''Initial Gate'' part of the project. That's why the political debate is hotting up. Nothing is a done deal. Nothing.