The Royal Navy vs the SNP

Wilhelm

I agree with you Alex, its good that an independent Scotland will have nuclear weapons, in case a foreign European country headed by Broon might try anything dirty.

JohnMcDonald

Yep, and Alex Salmond has horns. Grow up.

Ronnie

It's good that the Iranians will think twice about attacking Scotland because they know there will be massive retaliation.

The case against the submarine base at Faslane has always been that it is very close to Glasgow and not far from Edinburgh.

Its proximity to the most densely populated areas of Scotland, where incidentally nuclear weapons are least popular, never seemed to concern the government in Westminister. As long as the base is as far away from London as possible, they are content.

There is nothing very confusing about this Alex.

NavyLookout

SNP are bonkers. An independent Scotland will be poorer either way. The UK will become weaker, everyone loses out. The Royal Navy does not have any 'conventional submarines' all are nucear powered and the only reason the 3 submarines are being moved form Plymouth to Faslane is as a favour to GB's scottish friends. The Navy is just a victim of shabby political games by Labour and the defence of the UK is too important to be left to our useless politicians.

Richard T

Of course if you're paranoid, the recent news about leaks from the nukes at Faslane explains why the Britsh government wants them removed from English waters.

DevonChap

Perhaps the UK government is expecting to be allowed to create an English Guantanamo Bay in Scotland after independence.
Otherwise it makes no economic sense, effectively closing down Devonport then in 5-10 years having to rebuild it all. Makes more sense to tell the Scots until they clarify their position in the Union we will not base any long term national projects there, and plan for Trident and the Astutes to be based in Plymouth.

Rhoda Klapp

Sub bases are (or maybe ought to be) picked for access to deep water, and in Polaris days, access to the northern patrol areas. And of course basing in the west of Scotland had a lot to do with pork, too.

Hawkeye

Why not ask the SNP, if they gain independence, what will happen to all those jobs when the navy moves out?

If they want independence then they can have it. They can have their d*mn banks back as well including the massive debts they are liable for.

It would be a massive boost to the English economy.

Big Alec

Hawkeye - isn't Northern Rock an ENGLISH bank? (Idiot)

Jeff

As someone else who is vehemently opposed to nuclear weapons perhaps I can shed some light on that mystery that has stumped you for all this time Alex.

Indeed, the SNP have been against nuclear weapons for so long I am surprised you haven't stumbled across the rationale before now, even just by accident.

Anyway, first up, who could such weapons ever realistically be fired against? They are hardly going to be used on the front lines against Al Qaeda or the Taleban. Who is left? Communist Russia? I think we've moved on from that particular problem.

Nuclear weapons is a funny sort of deterrent for an enemy who is willing to die for his/her cause.

Second, and not an altogether unrelated topic, the question of money. Figures have been bandied around in the tens of billions, even hundreds of billions but what we do know for sure is that this arsenal isn't cheap. £25bn seems to be the generally agreed cost of the new wave of nuclear weapons and I for one think that's a lot of money, particularly when we as a country don't seem to have any left.

Thirdly, there has long been a generally percieved notion that the Scottish public is anti-nuclear weapons whereas those south of the border are more in favour. Was there not a vote recently where more Scottish MPs voted against than for? Seems a funny sort of mandate for housing those same weapons in the backyard of those who don't want them.

The only valid concern regarding disposing of nuclear weapons is the jobs it will cost and the correpsonding harm Labour will face electorally.

Regarding the jobs, £25bn split 11,000 ways (adopting the more optimistic perhaps even exaggerated estimate of a nuclear weapon workforce) is £2.3m per employee. I think we'll find them all work with that sort of cash at our disposal, with change to spare.

As for Labour's electoral fortunes in and around Faslane? That shouldn't be an objective consideration but I can't help but think that it is.

Hope that helps solve the mystery Alex. Anything else, just let me know ;)

Will Yoxall

We don't have any conventional submarines, we haven't had any since 1995.

Alex Massie

Ronnie - Yes, the proximity to Glasgow has always been said to be part f the "case" against Faslane. Colour me unimpressed. It's not as though Plymouth - the most likely alternative to Faslane - is unpopulated. On the contrary, it has 250,000 people living there, while the county of Devon has a population of around a million. Not as many people as Strathclyde, but not chopped liver either.

The subs have to go somewhere and the notion - implied by many of the antis - that the government would be happy to "sacrifice" Scottish lives in the event of an accident or attack has always struck me as infantile and preposterous in equal measure.

Kittler

Hawkeye. I think the important point is, that although the submarines could move, the Faslane Base can not. Without the base the subs cannot operate. The base is not just a harbour but a very large and technically sophisticated facility, which, if it could be replicated, would take many years and many billions.

CA

Hard to see how it makes sense to have all your subs in one basket. A first strike target - and no base left for those at sea.

Ronnie

Alex, the Great Britain is an island.

Is it the case that the only location from which these vessels can sail and at which their weapons can be stored, is a few miles from major population centres including half the population of Scotland?

If your answer is yes then I conclude that you are simply being thrawn.