Trident tested?
Do you agree that Trident should be based on the Clyde?
Do you agree that decision is properly taken by MPs, including Scottish MPs, in the UK Parliament?
Do you think the Scottish Government has a role to play?
Firstly, let鈥檚 agree that those are distinct, although not mutually exclusive, questions. It is possible, for example, to say Yes to both one and three: to think that Scotland should be consulted but that the enhanced Trident should go ahead.
It is possible, further, to say No to question one 鈥 but Yes to question two: in other words, you don鈥檛 want Trident and believe that MPs, who properly have the final say, should reflect that view.
I am being more than customarily pedantic on this because of the rather heated commentary which has surrounded today鈥檚 summit on the subject, convened by SNP Ministers in Glasgow.
Questions. Can this summit decide anything on Trident itself? No, defence policy is reserved. That is why this was a convocation of the modest and the good in a posh Glasgow pub-cum-theatre at the top of Byres Road rather than a full-scale governmental gathering.
Does that mean it鈥檚 a complete waste of time? That鈥檚 where opinion divides. SNP Ministers say it鈥檚 part of their National Conversation 鈥 and they鈥檙e entitled to examine options within devolved powers for thwarting the practical implementation of the Trident upgrade.
Critics say that those same Ministers should start delivering on the promises in their manifesto which dealt with substantive devolved issues such as policing, schools and housing.
They say this is another example of SNP Ministers indulging in gesture politics while neglecting their own in-tray.
Are the Nationalists out to gain political capital?
Unquestionably. They are presenting a direct political challenge to Labour, particularly Labour in Scotland. They are after votes.
But perhaps there is a balance to be struck.
Arguably, it would be somewhat strange if the SNP offered no resistance whatsoever to Trident. Their opposition to the nuclear deterrent is of long-standing.
Further, as the elected administration at Holyrood, they have a right, if not a duty, to consider wider issues of concern to the Scottish people. I suspect most neutral observers would concede that Trident is of passing interest to Scotland.
Against that, though, there is some substance, is there not, in the Labour complaint that the SNP initiative in contacting the 189 countries who are members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty risks running across the UK鈥檚 diplomatic remit.
Don鈥檛 think we can push that one too far, though. I cannot see the bells ringing at the UN when the news breaks that Bruce Crawford is on his feet in Byres Road giving it laldy to an audience of unions, church leaders, Greenpeace et al.
In general, SNP Ministers will be judged as a Scottish government not by their stance on Trident 鈥 but by their success or otherwise on those very devolved issues advance by their critics today.
But let鈥檚 remember that one of the biggest fallacies in politics 鈥 in a long list 鈥 is the fallacy of priorities. Don鈥檛 do this, do that instead. 鈥淚 will take no lectures on ferret-taming from a politician who signally failed to tackle the problem of crop blight while in office.鈥
Anti-nuclear campaigners will say there is no bigger question than Trident. That doesn鈥檛 mean that SNP Ministers should spend every waking hour contesting Trident. They shouldn鈥檛, they can鈥檛, they won鈥檛.
Equally, it is rather bogus to say that there is absolutely no time whatsoever to consider Trident, even though it is reserved, for as long as other manifesto promises remain pending. If that were simplistically true, then ministers would never do anything at all, for fear of neglecting something else.
Voters, I suspect, know that 鈥 and will judge accordingly.
PS: Much happen while I was away? Apart that is from Scotland winning then losing, United gubbing Hearts and Ming standing down?
I'm 
Comments
Brian
Do you think the Scottish Government has a role to place. most definitely yes. The parliament at Holyrood has voted on this and it would appear there are some Labour MSPs who still remember the days when membership to CND was almost mandatory if you wanted selected to stand for Labour, some possibly believed in it.
I think the bigger debate is, what is a devolved item? To my mind nothing that effects the Scottish people, as Trident does, is a devolved issue. It should and must be discussed.
Critics say they should start delivering on their manifesto promises. Are these the same critics who think we are as brain dead as themselves, and think that we have suddenly forgotten the eight wasted years when these so called critics were in office but not in power? They only ever danced to London's tune.
Thought you might have mentioned the Scottish farmers being sold down the river by Labour and the Lib Dems when you were away. They could only bleat about Alex Salmond picking a fight, they could not stand up for our farmers, we are well rid of them.
Scots Government was quite right to try and involve the international community. After all, the same non-proliferation* treaty that is being waved in the Iranian's faces states that those countries with nuclear weapons have a responsibility to disarm, AND NOT REPLACE THEM WITH MORE DEADLY DEVICES THAT COULD BLOW UP THE WORLD THIS MANY TIMES MORE!
* Incidentally, isn't buying your nukes wholesale from the US like wheat or steel proliferation?!
In Scotland it is the London Government & 1 Jackie Baillie that are isolated not Holyrood - wee Wendy hasn't said a word yet! Go on Wendy, stand up for Scotland ... like on the compensation for foot and mouth restrictions ...
Well put!
Actually, in my opinion the whole thing is a lot of smoke being blown out of a considerable number of political nether regions. Let's have some common sense. We don't need the things anyway- if had to use Trident we would get one go with it before we and the rest of the world was obliterated. Then there wouldn't be anyone left to find out if it was right of us to have Trident in the first place. Trident won't deter Iran or any of the other 'crazies' from their aspirations in the nuke league.
Come to think of it - we don't need an army either.. England can defend us - by doing so they'll be defending themselves. Then they can keep their 'bows and arrows' in their own 'garden shed'. At least give us - the ones who have to live next to Trident - a say. May be the supposed english subsiday of 拢1500 per capita is meant to compensate us for not having a say - who knows?
Nuclear disarmament is part of the Scottish coalition agreement. THe fact that the UK has so far excluded defence from Scottish sovereignty may change. The composition of the government shows that a majority of Scots support the views of the leading parties. Therefore I would suggest that there is considerable majority support in Scotland for disarming Trident, and also getting rid of the equally dangerous nuclear power factories on Scottish soil.
Ben Gaia MA, Nuclear Free New Zealand
Brian, welcome back.
There used to be a tradition in peace agreements of giving hostages as surety of good faith. Thus I ask the question - would we have the nuclear deterrent base in Scotland if the families of the Westminster people making the decision were housed next to the base?
Let me declare an interest. My house is too dashed close to the nuclear submarine base for my comfort. Of course you might say this is a NIMBY (not in my back yard) reaction. It is. Just as it was for the Westminster MPs who agreed to put the and not in their back yards.
If we do get the base removed from Scotland I guarantee that it will not be relocated to the Thames.
The Westminster Labour Government has shown itself to be wantonly reckless when it comes to war.
2 Things - Why would we trust them with the Nukes?
Why on Earth would we want them in Scotland?
They are not required by what we are informed is the "new theatre of war" ie terrorism. They are absolutely redundant pitched against any of the big Three (China US and Russia) anyway.
We should do everything in our power to stop Nuclear weapons being sited in Scotland and work for the establishment of ADEQUATE traditional forces.
Just finished watching "Reporting Scotland" in the hope of some analysis of this matter of national and indeed of planetary consequence. Initial discomfiture that it failed to feature in the "items to come" billing was replaced by impatience as I sat through umpteen interviews on the demise of swans. This was eventually followed by irritation and then suspicion of editorial bias when, without pre-intimation, the event did get some coverage, but the only space to speak was accorded to a pro-Trident naval spokesperson. No mention whatsoever as to which bodies or personages were present. No interview with anyone anti-Trident, except that Bruce Crawford was given a few clipped seconds to respond to the put-down that todays convocation was "all bluster, wasn't it?" Very interesting news editing from "Reporting Scotland" this evening, wouldn't you say?
It is perfectly legitimate for the Scottish Government to be concerned about this and
good on Alex Salmond for seeking observer status at the UN to raise the profile not only
of Scotland, but of this issue.
It's a bit disingenuous to argue that they should be concentrating on 'domestic' issues,
eg hospitals, police numbers etc. What's more important than having these expensive
and useless weapons on our doorstep?
Think of the savings in not replacing Trident. How many hospitals, smaller class sizes
or extra police officers would that pay for?
Labour will be very scared when this National Conversation becomes the talk of the steamie... Billions on Trident or better schools, hospitals, tackling crime, tackling climate change.. you couldn't have a greater divide!
Scotland has a need to be involved in decisions and it was right a summit was held to highlight the opposition to renewa of Trident.
What a waste of money when we could use it for our public services - and/or to buy off many of the PFI deals then at least some good would come of the money.
Trident is not just a matter of morality but of cost. The bill for replacing Trident is enormous. Can the UK really afford it?
It is the duty of the Scottish Government and Parliament to express themselves on any issue that concerns the welfare of the people and land of Scotland, and to make representations where such are required.
The democratically elected Scottish Parliament has voted against renewing Trident nuclear weapons and against a replacement system.
No. (most populated area of Scotland duh!)
No. (but I'm a nationist)
Yes. (I you're right about balance, and the government seem to have got the balance right so far.)
time we god od rid of Trident and did not have a successor. why can we not use this money to pay off the PFI deals. Then the massive money will have been spent on something usel - not a big boys toy.
We do not want or need it - another argument for independence
Trident is -
Immoral in concept - It's sole function being the destruction of cities.
Irrelevant to foreseeable defence needs - no-one can describe a sensible scenario in which we would use it.
Counter-productive to national security - as its vast cost diverts funding from more realistic defence requrements.
Economically stupid - as handing huge amounts to USA provides less employment than building ships, or employing soldiers.
So sure we can quibble about the constitutional niceties of devolved powers, but the main point is to create a debate around the idiocy of renewing an irrelevant WMD. I am therefore proud that we have a Scottish government which is trying to obstruct its deployment here. It's not long ago that most Scottish Labour supporters would have been doing the same.
Wee Wendy is in great danger of shooting herself in the foot over this issue. I'm sure the Scottish protests will give heart to English CND supporters - and who knows? What if Cameron were to jump on that bandwagon too ...?
It is interesting that none of the above comments mention the 4500 jobs that would be lost to Scotland if Trident went down south. Has Alex got a job opportunity for these people? I think not. This whole thing is about picking an easy fight with Westminster, not Scotland's best interests.
Trident is dangerous and a waste of money.Defence spending is out of proportion compared to other essential services.
If people are prepared to spend their lives protesting against this monstrosity,who is right the or the politicians?
Who would these weapons ever be used against anyway ? The fact you have the technology to make them, if you ever thought them necessary, should be enough of a deterrent.
Scotland doesn't want them the Scottish Government doesn't want them so that should be enough reason to get rid of them.
#6 has it spot on
welcome back Brian btw.
This government went to war, killing 100s of our own men, precisely because of weapons of mass destruction!! Yet they want to maintain the UK nukes when they are no where near independently operated. Lets be clear, these missile are leased from Lockhead, serviced in Georgia and guided by US satelites.
I dont want them in my back yard, if London Labour are so obsessed with having them then store them on the Thames not the Clyde
ps the SNP government said in their manifesto, upon which they were elected, that they would openly protest on the issue of trident. They are therefore being true to the people who voted for them.
The SNP manifesto states the intentions of the party if voted in to power.I fully expect those promises to remain policy and fight Westminster both on the domestic and international front.
The haunting wall of silence coming from Wendy Alexanders ' Scottish Labour Party' confirms that Westminster have not pulled the strings as yet.
For those of us lucky enough to have kids, simply ask yourself would they prefer a nuclear free Scotland. Our offspring are the future, do the right thing for them.
Arms are for hugging your children !
The SNP are wasting their time - and our money - on blethering publicly about Trident. Defence is reserved to Westminster, and no one will shift them. Better to start delivering on some Election promises that directly affect us, like free prescriptions for sufferers from Chronic diseases. It is useless for Alex Salmond to confront Westminster head on. It will only antagonise them. Far better to work quietly behind the scenes, getting more powers devolved. Independence by the back door!!. After all, they will all understand where each is coming from, because the Westminster Government are all Scots!!
Much is made by Labour in Dumbarton and West Dunbartonshire about the loss of jobs if Trident was to be removed yet they say nothing about the salami slicing of jobs at Faslane over the past decade and the halfing of the Royal Navy's surface fleet over the same period.
Faslane offers a wonderful opportunity to be a central part of a smart industrial, recreational and residential renaissance of the Lower Clyde with plenty of room for a conventional naval base.
As the Scottish Government puts in place the building blocks to make this happen people will see through the Labour scaremongering. The locals don't trust Labour on this as evidenced by the fact that labour could not even put up any candidates in the council elections in Helensburgh and Lomond in May.
麻豆约拍 Scotland-Reporting Scotland is almost a contradiction in terms..... I hadn't really believed there to be any particular bias other than a bias towards minutiae, but when a major issue such as Trident and a leading figure of the Establishment is squeezed in between swans and sport, I begin to wonder.
It's obvious from reading these comments that there is a core group of SNP flunkies who make a point of flooding the pages of the 麻豆约拍 with their slanted opinions.
The SNP do not represent the majority of Scots. It is not even close.
Yes, Trident is an anachronism. ICBMs may soon be vulnerable to intercept technology that will make them as obsolete as the battleship. But a nuclear deterrent is still the only means of avoiding Chinese or Russian military blackmail. In the last century, these two powers murdered millions, and could still do so. Will the SNP protect us?
Britain needs a nuclear deterrent, but it should be a stealth cruise missile system launched from Astute class submarines without building Trident follow-ons. Cruise missiles could be removed in times of peace without scrapping the boats, and the need for a deterrence could be balanced with the will to abolish such weapons in the future. But now is not the time.
One reader calls himself 'Tartan Hero.' What a joke. The real heroes are the one and a half million British veterans who sacrificed their lives to save Britain, and those who are still prepared to do so. The SNP are an insult to their memory. So are their fantasies of unilateral disarmament and efforts to destroy Britain.
All these commentators seem to have forgotten the atrocities committed by Britain and British forces around the world of which the contributions of scottish forces were integral.
Nukes are bad but britain needs to keep and update trident too guard against the repercursions of thier deeds which is still manifesting around the world today.
Why does Alex Salmond and his supporters think the al-qaedas of this world would spare scotland if they wish to get at the UK. Face it. Britain needs a deterrent and it has to be housed somewhere.
Trident is -
Immoral in concept - It's sole function being the destruction of cities.
Irrelevant to foreseeable defence needs - no-one can describe a sensible scenario in which we would use it.
Counter-productive to national security - as its vast cost diverts funding from more realistic defence requrements.
Economically stupid - as handing huge amounts to USA provides less employment than building ships, or employing soldiers.
So sure we can quibble about the constitutional niceties of devolved powers, but the main point is to create a debate around the idiocy of renewing an irrelevant WMD. I am therefore proud that we have a Scottish government which is trying to obstruct its deployment here. It's not long ago that most Scottish Labour supporters would have been doing the same.
Brian,
welcome back. I have to agree with poster 1 - your opinion on the farming row is notably absent.
So what's your take? Do you believe that DEFRA has a responsibility to compensate the farmers, or should the already-squeezed Scottish government have to make a pay-out?
Another issue that arose in your absence was the ruling that legislation covering free care for the elderly was confusingly drafted. Do you believe Holyrood ministers had an obligation to defend Labour/Lib legislation?
This is more timewasting from the lot of overblown city councillors that sit in the tax drain that is the Scottish parliament.
They are paid, and paid over the odds, to discuss devolved policy not to throw lavish do's on events that they have no control in and don't influence to score cheap political points. Can they not see that whilst devolved they are still part of union and should possibly support the rest of the UK in national?
''I suspect most neutral observers would concede that Trident is of passing interest
to Scotland. 鈥樷
I think a bit more than a 'passing interest' Brian.
In the unlikely event of a nuclear conflagration Faslane would be one of the first, if not thee first target in the UK. I mean, neither London nor Auchertool is going to be considered much of a threat compared to Faslane with it's 'Strike Back' facility.
This Faslane is the same Faslane that's only 25 miles from Glasgow just as a matter of passing interest.
But we need Faslane as a deterrent to other powers. How many times has Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland been attacked in the past 50 years, even conventionally never mind with nuclear weapons?
Precisely. Get rid of it, let them have it at Richmond, or Henley, we don't want it and the SNP are doing us a great favour by fighting it. Labour of course are in their, oh so familiar Uncle Tom mode.
Brian Forgot to say welcome back.
Question you may be able to answer, or put to Brown if he was ever brave enough to be interviewed by you.
Just who would you use these Trident missiles to nuke?
Given that you have a track record of running away and hiding when things get tough, we would probably all be nuked before we could find you to make a decision, so why do we still have a weapon that will never be used?
Q. Do you agree that Trident should be based on the Clyde?
A. No! Scots don't want Trident.
Q. Do you agree that decision is properly taken by MPs, including Scottish MPs, in the UK Parliament?
A. No! A large majority of Scottish MPs voted against Trident in March 2007, but were out voted by English MPs.
Q. Do you think the Scottish Government has a role to play?
A. Yes! The overwhelming political consensus in Scotland is of opposition to Trident. The Scottish government have in reality a mandate to act against the imposition of nuclear weapons being based on the Clyde.
It always annoyed me that we in Scotland were good enough to have the subs on the Clyde but not good enough to get the contract for the refit.
As this is a Scottish matter the English MPs at Westminster should not vote on it.I wonder how that would go down.
alex salmond asks the question: are you really against Trident? By her silence Wendy Alexander has said 'no'. Vote Labour, vote WMD
hi brian,nice to have you back you were missed..
now then tell me do, why should we scots have to accept all westm. DONT
want nimby style,and keep our mouths
shut,WE DONT want trident in our waters,nor the son daughter, or indeed any other relation you can think of,i'm sure we'll be told this is the famous dividend we hear so much about, why is it that that alex
is picking fights, when he stands up for scotland, you know the bbc. leaves an awful lot to be desired,
just heared the 11o'clock news,the
word is out about our election fiasco, the first statmentyour female reader issued was wait for it,alex's idea of A.S. FOR F.M.
ALL THAT CHAOS,CAUSED BY THAT, never mind all the SERIOUS MISTAKES
I SHOULD HAVE PUT A BET ON IT, IM SURE I'M NOT THE ONLY EXPECTING IT,
麻豆约拍.MUST DO BETTER. WHY?
ANSWERS ON AUSED STAMP PLEASE.
The legitimacy, or otherwise, of Trident, is a straw man in this case. It comes down to a cold calculation of who has the power to implement it and who has the power to stop it.
Ben Gaia's (#4) post is illustrative of the faulty thinking on this issue. The Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. Neither is the Scottish Executive (which is still its correct title in Law). The Parliament of the UK in Westminster is sovereign. It has devolved responsibility to Holyrood in certain areas. The Scotland Act was about devolving of powers, and not ceding of powers.
Westminster may be content to allow Holyrood to block nuclear power in Scotland by use of devolved planning laws, but does anybody seriously think that they will sit around and allow a major plank of UK foreign policy to be derailed in a similar way?
This is a huge issue and in the same way we have the Parliament Act to ensure the will of the Commons always prevails over the Lords, I think Wee Eck needs to be careful that he doesn't end up simply making the case for similar legislation to ensure Westminster can leapfrog Holyrood should it ever be necessary.
Who knows, perhaps that's precisely the sort of confrontation the SNP wants with Westminster, one thing's for sure, if it comes to it, it'll not be pretty.
Of course, Holyrood should deal with anything involving Scotland. We are, after all, a country. The UK is but a political Union of four countries who would see Scotland silenced. However, the most significant thing is the laughable NuLabour claim the SNP should prioritise such as extra police officers. I'm over 70 now and Labour always had a majority of Scottish MPs in both Westminster and Holyrood. Thus, they are responsible for a shortage of police officers - not the SNP. Their present plaintive bleating only highlights Labour collective failures of the past.
Aefauldlie, Auld Bob.
Of course, Holyrood should deal with anything involving Scotland. We are, after all, a country. The UK is but a political Union of four countries who would see Scotland silenced. However, the most significant thing is the laughable NuLabour claim the SNP should prioritise such as extra police officers. I'm over 70 now and Labour always had a majority of Scottish MPs in both Westminster and Holyrood. Thus, they are responsible for a shortage of police officers - not the SNP. Their present plaintive bleating only highlights Labour collective failures of the past.
Aefauldlie, Auld Bob.
The rest of the UK should now respect the fact that - at best - the Scottish Government and people are ambivalent about renewal of Trident. They should ensure that for long term defence and strategic security, Trident is built elsewhere.
Does UK's regional Scottish branch of Labour support Trident?
I have never heard any member of the regional party in Scotland support Trident. But their London leaders now want to station its vile replacement in our country.
How can we be a proper country where people hold their heads high with pride, when we allow another country to station this obsenity on our land?
Answer on a postcard to Labour HQ, London England, UK.
Answer on a postcard to Liberal HQ, London England, UK.
Scotland free or a nuclear desert!
D McD
What benefit are these weapons to Scots or Scotland other than to make us look like a willing "Lackie" in the eyes of the civilised world.
Surely the money could be better spent on health, education, transport, industry, recreation and promoting Scotland as a unique tourist destination.
Nicol Stephen and the wee lass say Scotland's government should have no say in this matter, what limited ambition these people display, not fit to serve us in the parliament.
The elections in May have taught Scotland one thing, you can never trust unionist parties with our future ever again.
it dosent matter anywhy, if Scotland gains independence we wont have an army a navy or RAF and all those employed by these agencies will go to where the jobs are (ie england)thus decimating the scottish economy.
On the issue of F&M (i know its not part of what Brian was talking about however one of the comments refered to this), Richard Lochead is rural affairs and enviroment secetary, personally i would have assumed that it would be part of his remit to deal with this sort of situation? Why would we wont greater powers for the scottish parliament when the current executive dont even use the ones they have?
one final thought, although i agree with the idea of looking into the possibility or replacing trident (ie planning for the future,feasibility studies and the likes) why would we need to spend any money on anti-terrorism when we could simply clone John Smeaton and he would set about anyone planning to blow themselves up or site fire to their heads or whatever the latest fashion in martyrdom is these days.
I've read some of the comment here with interest. But there is a fair bit of naivety I'm afraid.
Firstly, to be fair, Trident is not necessary. A nuclear powered attack sub can carry nuclear tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles. So the cost could be reduced.
But to remove the capability altogether at this moment in history is folly. Too many countries have developed nuclear weapons systems. You cannot uninvent the bomb. It is also worth considering that other countries are not governed in the same manner as the UK, and certain countries would use a nuclear weapon more willingly than others.
Hypothetical situation: London is attacked by a terrorist using a "dirty" bomb, and the country sponsoring him is identified. The UK is attacked by a weapon of mass destruction. How do you respond with "conventional" weapons? We do not have or have ever had the numbers.
Therefore, you are attracting further attacks without fear of retaliation.
Maybe highly unlikely, but it could happen.
What Alex Salmond should consider is the economic penalty in getting rid of Trident. 11,000+ jobs rely on Trident. People need to feed themselves and their families. Faslane is not an ideal spot for regeneration.
I have no love for nuclear weapons, but until the human race grows up we need to maintain a deterrent of sorts. Short term political posturing is lethal for this country, especially when an egotistical First Minister wishes to raise conflict after conflict with Westminster rather than govern Scotland properly.
MMM,I find myself in a very strange and weird situation
I am a person who was a member of CND and was in fact arrested at Coulport, A person who has not only always voted SNP but campaigned on the doorsteps and spent many hours licking envelopes and folding leaflets to an exact specification.
Now in my late 30s I find that I am a person who supports the replacing and upgrading of Trident, But I am Scottish live in Scotland where the vast majority of MP's MSP's and the population en masse are strongly opposed to this.
So I find that my viewpoint while in the minority is being forced on the people of Scotland because of the parlimentary English Labour and Tory Party (can somebody please tell me the difference between them)
The labour party at hollyrood seem to complain but then fall into line with their London masters like sheep behind an agressive collie.
The defintition of union is of a joint and sevral relationship, this surely cannot be the case when one country of the union is having something forced into its boundaries by another part.
My suggestion is that this nuclear detternet be placed on the Thames, The humber the Severn.
I think this issue explains more clearly than any other why the Tories, Labour and LIb Dems are so opposed to a referendum on Scotlands future, They want the votes, Wendy Alexander certainly wants more money but they do not want the responsibility in acting on the wishes of the Scottish people.
So mister Salmond while I oppose your viewpoint may I say you have my full and utter support in your quest for at least observer status at the UN, For once Scotland has a voice that speaks out in the wishes and interests for Scotland and not that of the Labour Party
Why is Alex Salmond not at Westminster doing the job of an MP at the parliament which decides defence policy? He promised his electors he'd represent them when he was elected an MP and takes a salary for it. However at the first sniff of power he dropped them and is leaving his constituency unrepresented.
Trident along with all defence matters is a reserved matter. The people of Scotland understands that and voted overwhelmingly Labour.
I used to live about 3 miles from Faslane and it made no difference to my life. The reason Faslane was chosen was not to just stick it up the Scots as some here would believe. The area around the base has many natural advantages for a Nuclear base such as its cloud cover, rainfall and its relatively discrete location(as in you wouldn't know it was there on the Clyde until you sail up the Gareloch, then it hits you!) Where else would be a more suitable base in the UK I ask you?
At the end of the day, we are still part of the UK and if the UK Govt(for whatever reason) decide to base Trident on the Gareloch, then go vote for a Government who promote the disbandment of Trident. If you want a nuclear free Scotland, go ahead, make Scotland independent. For until Scotland becomes so Trident will be here. Long may that continue.
With the prospect of mad rogue states like Iran getting hold of nuclear weapons I think we need them now more than ever and therefore fully support Trident's renewal.
It's time for the Scots to have a say in this debate on a global scale.
We have had these evil weapons on the Clyde for far too long.
They cannot be used unless you are contemplating World annihilation.
They are placed in the backyard of our largest city,not at the request of Scots but at the behest of Westminster
The legitimacy, or otherwise, of Trident, is a straw man in this case.
Ben Gaia's (#4) post is illustrative of the faulty thinking on this issue. The Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. Neither is the Scottish Executive. The Parliament of the UK in Westminster is sovereign. The Scotland Act allowed for the devolving of powers, not ceding them. The difference is crucial: what is devolved away by Parliament can, without a referendum or the agreement of MSPs, be taken back.
I don't believe Westminster would do such a thing lightly. Clearly, for example, they are content to allow Holyrood to block further development of nuclear electricity generation in Scotland by use of devolved planning powers. But does anybody seriously think that they will sit around and allow a major plank of UK foreign policy to be derailed in a similar way?
This is a huge issue and in the same way we have the Parliament Act to ensure the will of the Commons always prevails over the Lords, I think Wee Eck needs to be careful that he doesn't end up simply making the case for similar legislation to ensure Westminster can leapfrog Holyrood should it ever be necessary.
Who knows, perhaps that's precisely the sort of confrontation the SNP wants with Westminster. I can understand why they might want to do that, but I don't think an issue the UK Government can portray as a matter of national security is the best platform for an argument over who runs Scotland.
Think of it this way: England cannot ensure its territorial integrity without airfields in Scotland. England cannot operate a strategic nuclear deterrent without bases in the natural deep harbours of the west coast of Scotland. Even if Eck demonstrates that eventually, the remote powers-that-be in London will always over-rule the will of Scottish citizens, thereby creating a groundswell of popular support leasding to independence - surely he must realise that any treaty repealing the Act of Union will come with some very significant military strings attached?
It is unthinkable that Trident, or its successor, would be mothballed as a result of independence. It is similarly unthinkable that anything the SNP tries to do with its current, limited remit, would be any more successful.
Now we've sorted that out, perhaps the SNP could give up the grandstanding and get on with delivering their manifesto?
There was a manifesto in the eighties where it was stated that the particular party would rid the UK of WMDs and take us out of Europe.
Who were they? The Labour party,thats who!
And ,yes Scotland needs a voice in the big bad world of WMDs!
And ,strangely I would expect the Scottish Government to be able to think of more than one thing at a time,I am therefore confident that they will continue to implement other policies while discussing this one.
It's obvious from reading these comments that there is a core group of SNP supporters who make a point of flooding the pages of the 麻豆约拍 with their slanted opinions.
The SNP do not represent the majority of Scots. It is not even close.
Yes, Trident is an anachronism. ICBMs may soon be vulnerable to intercept technology that will make them as obsolete as the battleship. But a nuclear deterrent is still the only means of avoiding Chinese or Russian military blackmail. In the last century, these two powers murdered millions, and could still do so. Will the SNP protect us?
Britain needs a nuclear deterrent, but it should be a stealth cruise missile system launched from Astute class submarines without building Trident follow-ons. Cruise missiles could be removed in times of peace without scrapping the boats, and the need for a deterrence could be balanced with the will to abolish such weapons in the future. But now is not the time.
One reader calls himself 'Tartan Hero.' Scotland's real heroes are among the one and a half million British veterans who sacrificed their lives to save Britain, and those who are still prepared to do so. The SNP's campaign to abolish Trident and wreck Britain is an insult to their memory.
The legitimacy, or otherwise, of Trident, is a straw man in this case.
Ben Gaia's (#4) post is illustrative of the faulty thinking on this issue. The Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. Neither is the Scottish Executive. The Parliament of the UK in Westminster is sovereign. The Scotland Act allowed for the devolving of powers, not ceding them. The difference is crucial: what is devolved away by Parliament can, without a referendum or the agreement of MSPs, be taken back.
I don't believe Westminster would do such a thing lightly. Clearly, for example, they are content to allow Holyrood to block further development of nuclear electricity generation in Scotland by use of devolved planning powers. But does anybody seriously think that they will sit around and allow a major plank of UK foreign policy to be derailed in a similar way?
This is a huge issue and in the same way we have the Parliament Act to ensure the will of the Commons always prevails over the Lords, I think Wee Eck needs to be careful that he doesn't end up simply making the case for similar legislation to ensure Westminster can leapfrog Holyrood should it ever be necessary.
Who knows, perhaps that's precisely the sort of confrontation the SNP wants with Westminster. I can understand why they might want to do that, but I don't think an issue the UK Government can portray as a matter of national security is the best platform for an argument over who runs Scotland.
Think of it this way: England cannot ensure its territorial integrity without airfields in Scotland. England cannot operate a strategic nuclear deterrent without bases in the natural deep harbours of the west coast of Scotland. Even if Eck demonstrates that eventually, the remote powers-that-be in London will always over-rule the will of Scottish citizens, thereby creating a groundswell of popular support leasding to independence - surely he must realise that any treaty repealing the Act of Union will come with some very significant military strings attached?
It is unthinkable that Trident, or its successor, would be mothballed as a result of independence. It is similarly unthinkable that anything the SNP tries to do with its current, limited remit, would be any more successful.
Now we've sorted that out, perhaps the SNP could give up the grandstanding and get on with delivering their manifesto?
Clearly a debate which is multi faceted, some driven by political ideology, green agendas, anti London rhetoric and the clear understanding of how shabbily Scotland was treated at the hands of Thatcher/Rifkind and was subsequently let down by promises from new Labour.
Political ideology which views all things nuclear as taboo although believers in such a philosophy seem quite happy to undergo x-ray examination when their health is at risk.
Green agendas seem to attack the longevity of nuclear waste; this must be clearly set against the short term destruction of the planet in any calculation; individuals will claim that that is safe technology even though this process produces the end product of nuclear waste.
Anti London rhetoric may well be understandable when it is considered how the jobs related to maintenance of these nuclear submarines were sold to Devonport to buy votes in the South West of England by Malcolm Rifkind doing his duty towards Margaret Thatcher in the hope of further party reward.
Malcolm Rifkind was given the safe Conservative seat of Kensington and Chelsea when he was hounded out of Scotland; Scottish jobs were lost as were the seats in the South West to Labour who once in power reneged on their promises to the workers at Rosyth for fear that they may destabilise their new seats in the South West of England.
Nuclear weapons or more correctly the threat of nuclear weapons after a clear and devastating demonstrations of their destructive power at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have kept us from World War III.
Scotland was the convenient place to position nuclear weapons and reactors far away from those London-centric decision makers; if we do not have the majority of benefits associated with such installations we should return them to London, 2500 jobs at Faslane and Coulport are small beer indeed when you consider what has already been plundered.
It's either feast or famine - one minute the blog's not accepting comments, the next minute all the ones we thought had been rejected start popping up!
Brian, I think you need to get the moderators in to do a little spring cleaning!
#49 Jon wrote 'It's obvious from reading these comments that there is a core group of SNP supporters who make a point of flooding the pages of the 麻豆约拍 with their slanted opinions.'
What do you base that comment on jon? Explain how you come to this conclusion?
As far as I can see this board is open to all and sundry, there aren't even that many comments posted. Let's all stick to giving our opinion on the subject, instead of complaining about being in the minority.
I would agree that the SNP Executive are merely cynically using this issue as grounds for further conflict with the Westminster Government. At the end of the day, this issue is a reserved matter and when taking that into consideration, it is particularly worrying that as a public servant, Alex Salmond appears to be so generous with taxpayers' money when it comes to organising policy summits that are utterly irrelevant to his constitutional role and the political remit of the Scottish Executive. It is the sovereign responsibility of the British Government and in particular, the 59 Scottish MP's sitting in the United Kingdom Parliament, which includes Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond, to represent Scotland's interests on defence policy as part of the United Kingdom, not the devolved Scottish Executive or Scottish Parliament.
I also feel that there has been a considerable amount of ignorance displayed regarding the actual role of the UK鈥檚 Trident System with respect to the pivotal notion of Deterrence theory and associated concepts such as Mutually Assured Destruction. A tried and tested theory that prevented the Red Army for steamrollering across mainland Europe and Scandinavia during the Cold War, it refers to a strategy in any field of potential conflict of being prepared to hypothetically inflict unacceptable damage on any aggressor, and making sure the potential aggressor is aware of the overwhelming risk so that he refrains from such aggression. It is therefore a form of self preservation and as a result it is intended, perhaps paradoxically, that Trident be never actually used except in the gravest of defence scenarios. It is therefore more of a strategic insurance policy against attack from any potential aggressors intent on total unconventional warfare, rather than being a weapon with any real tactical military applications. Taking into consideration however an increasingly belligerent Russia and the growing economic and military clout of communist China, I personally feel that it is a prudent investment to retain the 鈥渕inimum deterrence鈥 provided by the Trident system for the foreseeable future.
I also don鈥檛 see how the opportunity cost argument stands up to scrutiny either. Labour has already doubled spending on the NHS and Education since 1997, with what would appear to be less than satisfactory results for many, which leads me to the conclusion that better management and sustained policy implementation is what is needed, not simply throwing money at financial black holes for cheap populist gains. Trident isn鈥檛 even a particularly expensive investment in relative terms, considering even the diplomatic influence it gives the UK (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are also incidentally Nuclear Powers). Trident only accounts for around 3% to 4.5% of the annual Defence Budget, which itself has steadily declined from 4.5% of GDP in 1990 to just 2.1% of GDP today.
It is also not just a Scottish issue, it involves the entire UK Military-industrial complex. The W76 Nuclear Warheads fitted to the Trident D5 missiles are designed, manufactured and maintained by the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire. The Vanguard-class SSBN鈥檚 were built and are maintained by BAE in Barrow-in-Furness and DML in Devonport. The only reason Faslane, like the Holy Loch, was originally selected during the Cold War as a Strategic Submarine base was due to it鈥檚 convenient geographic position in the deep and narrow Gare Loch, which permitted rapid, stealthy and unrestricted access out to the North Atlantic and the patrolling grounds in the Barents Sea, whilst being close enough to major transport links so as to allow the practical transportation of warheads to and from the base. It was never a politically motivated decision, it was based on sound geo-political and military planning. The real issue for the nationalists is the potentially dire economic consequences for Argyll and Bute and West Dunbartonshire if the 3,000 service personnel, 800 service families and 4,000 highly-skilled civilian workers, not to mention the numerous local businesses and workers relying on the base, were to be lost to the region. Interestingly enough I wonder what effect this immature grandstanding will have on Jim Mather鈥檚 chances at the next election, although the SNP don鈥檛 have much to lose in West Dunbartonshire.