By: Amiga500
- 3rd December 2013 at 14:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Because by declaring the rUK to now be foreigners, you are putting them in the position that carrying out their chosen defense policy may be untenable.
What is the alternative?
Continue to place nuclear weapons in a foreign country against their will?
By: jbritchford
- 3rd December 2013 at 14:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed, which is why I said it's messy. But for Scotland to act as if this isn't going to be hugely problematic for the rUK and still expect them to accept everything else on the SNP's shopping list of demands is unfair and unrealistic.
By: typhoon1
- 3rd December 2013 at 14:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not in a million years will the UK quit trident. Anyone who proposes that needs a serious reality check.
Scotland has a fortunate postion, if their 'independence' actually got anywhere, any real territorial threat to Scotland is a threat to England, nuclear or otherwise.
By: jbritchford
- 3rd December 2013 at 14:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the Scottish people as a whole didn't want it and their representatives reflected this, yet the "national" decision was to put it there; then that decision was taken through use of a non-Scottish (to be absolutely correct about it) majority in Westminster.
True, why stop there? What if the people of Argyle and Bute were in favor of it? Couldn't you say that they were being dragged against their will into a decision by the rest of Scotland? Why should Scottish be told what to do by English MPs? Why should people in Edinburgh be told what to do by an MP from Dundee? Why should someone in Musselborough be told what to do by someone in Morningside?
It all just depends where we decide to draw the arbitrary border...
By: Fedaykin
- 3rd December 2013 at 14:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And herein you miss the entire point about the English dictating to the Scots...
[simply by dint of there being more English MPs than Scottish, or Welsh, or NI... put together.]
If the Scottish people as a whole didn't want it and their representatives reflected this, yet the "national" decision was to put it there; then that decision was taken through use of a non-Scottish (to be absolutely correct about it) majority in Westminster.
Have you missed the entire reason for them wanting devolution? You don't actually think its because they just don't like the English?!?
Actually I think you have the missed the point. That is how representative parliamentary democracy works in a nation state. Scotland is currently part of the nation of Great Briton, the views or the people in Scotland are represented in the national parliament via their MP's. We currently have a first past the post winner takes all parliamentary system. You appear to be working from the position that somehow all people who live in Scotland are against maintaining a nuclear deterrent. When the UK adopted a nuclear deterrent the Tory party was a significant force in Scottish politics and presumably were supportive of it. They more then likely expressed that in the national parliament, there are many Scottish people right now who rely on the deterrent for jobs and more then likely support it. Unless Scotland votes for independence it has a voice in parliament just like everybody else, a parliamentary democracy means sometimes the elected government will follow a policy that is not popular in a particular region (have a chat with people from Portsmouth about that at the moment). Nevertheless you are represented! It works both ways, Scottish MP's have been used to impose legislation on English voters that doesn't affect them.
By: JangBoGo
- 3rd December 2013 at 16:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Brits who are so damn in love with N-weapons should always look at the map first and think as much as they can if N-weapons are there to guarantee British existence or if its actually a grantee for British extinction!
British nukes are meant for Russia primirially and for intimidating other non-nuclear weapon states when the conventional British muscle does not work...
So will Britain ever use nuke against Russia if Russia slap the Brits for too much fingering of the Bear ****? And just in case some trigger happy Brit do use it, do any sane Brit think that there will be any English left on that tiny island (compared to Russia) to fight another war?!
Hypothetically atleast we can say that Russia and US have landmass to take some N-strike. Do the Brits have this luxury? I don't think so. Britain will be confined to History once and for all if ever she employs her N-muscle.
(^ ignore the cat population ;) the map gives a better perspective to the size difference)
N-weapon is actually a burden for Britain as a nation and for the British tax-payers. Its better for the Brits to de-nuclearise and save lots of billions and spend those billions on welfare of the British citizen and on conventional Naval forces.
By: j_jza80
- 3rd December 2013 at 16:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hypothetically atleast we can say that Russia and US have landmass to take some N-strike. Do the Brits have this luxury? I don't think so. Britain will be confined to History once and for all if ever she employs her N-muscle.
This is why Trident is so important. Even if the mainland was completely nuked (which is possible with the Russian arsenal - just), the retaliation would come, and it could come from almost anywhere.
Air launched nukes, and cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads, aren't an effective deterrent.
By: Rockall
- 3rd December 2013 at 18:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shift the lot to Gibraltar - the new jetty at Faslane is moveable, there's plenty room at Gib and it puts the boats a bit closer to any potential targets ... ;)
By: swerve
- 3rd December 2013 at 18:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...
(^ ignore the cat population ;) the map gives a better perspective to the size difference)...
Mercator projection. No good for comparing areas. E.g. hugely exaggerates the size of Russia & Canada, & even more, Greenland. South America is 17.8 mn km2, (bigger than Russia), Greenland 2.2 mn km2, but on your map both Russia & Greenland are shown as much bigger than S. America.
By: typhoon1
- 3rd December 2013 at 19:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Having nuclear ICBM.SLBM capability gives far more than obvious offensive/defensive arguments. Think political and reputation. The world has much greater volatility than 'surface' relations represent. Idealism vs. reality.
By: Amiga500
- 3rd December 2013 at 20:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But for Scotland to act as if this isn't going to be hugely problematic for the rUK and still expect them to accept everything else on the SNP's shopping list of demands is unfair and unrealistic.
Indeed. But, from what I've seen of the SNP's policies, some of them are highly idealistic, others are outright naive.
By: MadRat
- 3rd December 2013 at 22:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So is this Gorbachev's revenge? I know Socialism in the states is a thin veil for counter-capitalism NGO efforts from the KGB no different than the west used NGO work to capitulate the Soviets. It's unfathomable that the economy will ever be strong enough to put everyone on welfare subsistence.
By: Amiga500
- 4th December 2013 at 07:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So is this Gorbachev's revenge? I know Socialism in the states is a thin veil for counter-capitalism NGO efforts from the KGB no different than the west used NGO work to capitulate the Soviets. It's unfathomable that the economy will ever be strong enough to put everyone on welfare subsistence.
Run that past me again please?!?
[They reason north sea oil money, coupled with selling renewable sourced power and potable water to England as generating a significant amount of revenue. I disagree with that assessment to a point; but also acknowledge they need independence to stop the extremely damaging centralisation of everything around London.]
By: MadRat
- 4th December 2013 at 11:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Explore the role of NGOs used by the West to manipulate public opinions before and after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Subtle charity monies warped public opinions against the Soviet leadership, influenced elections, manipulated trade and money, etc. NGO activity led to a bloodless replacement of the Soviets.
By: Amiga500
- 4th December 2013 at 12:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You don't actually equate socialism with communism do you?
Socialism, at least, the European version of it, and communism are poles apart.
Anyway, onto Scottish public opinion, both sides are using every means at their disposal to influence opinion one way or the other. The truth has probably long since been a casualty.
By: MadRat
- 4th December 2013 at 16:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its not about victory, its about sovereignty. We messed with them, now they return the favor. The idea of one country richer and more aware of everything and everyone is unsettling. I was raised during the Cold War and find a headless hemisphere in the East as a danger, especially with China taking position to be the counterweight.
Mutual assured destruction using nuclear weapons isn't about staving off a million man army, its about sovereignty. If the Scots blindly believe that they can rid themselves of nuclear weapons and remain a part of the NATO alliance it is wishful thinking. The UK will never allow the Scots to simply walk away. Letting the Scots leave means leaving a vital flank vulnerable in the islands, threatening the very existence of the remainder of the UK. The facts that the UK owns the sub base, not Scotland is plenty reason to assert itself to retain control.
The real question London ought to be asking itself is who is trying to make the change and where do they get their money. You'll probably find foreign influence.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 3rd December 2013 at 14:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is the alternative?
Continue to place nuclear weapons in a foreign country against their will?
Tantamount to an act of war.
Posts: 1,518
By: jbritchford - 3rd December 2013 at 14:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed, which is why I said it's messy. But for Scotland to act as if this isn't going to be hugely problematic for the rUK and still expect them to accept everything else on the SNP's shopping list of demands is unfair and unrealistic.
Posts: 657
By: typhoon1 - 3rd December 2013 at 14:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not in a million years will the UK quit trident. Anyone who proposes that needs a serious reality check.
Scotland has a fortunate postion, if their 'independence' actually got anywhere, any real territorial threat to Scotland is a threat to England, nuclear or otherwise.
Posts: 1,518
By: jbritchford - 3rd December 2013 at 14:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, why stop there? What if the people of Argyle and Bute were in favor of it? Couldn't you say that they were being dragged against their will into a decision by the rest of Scotland? Why should Scottish be told what to do by English MPs? Why should people in Edinburgh be told what to do by an MP from Dundee? Why should someone in Musselborough be told what to do by someone in Morningside?
It all just depends where we decide to draw the arbitrary border...
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 3rd December 2013 at 14:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually I think you have the missed the point. That is how representative parliamentary democracy works in a nation state. Scotland is currently part of the nation of Great Briton, the views or the people in Scotland are represented in the national parliament via their MP's. We currently have a first past the post winner takes all parliamentary system. You appear to be working from the position that somehow all people who live in Scotland are against maintaining a nuclear deterrent. When the UK adopted a nuclear deterrent the Tory party was a significant force in Scottish politics and presumably were supportive of it. They more then likely expressed that in the national parliament, there are many Scottish people right now who rely on the deterrent for jobs and more then likely support it. Unless Scotland votes for independence it has a voice in parliament just like everybody else, a parliamentary democracy means sometimes the elected government will follow a policy that is not popular in a particular region (have a chat with people from Portsmouth about that at the moment). Nevertheless you are represented! It works both ways, Scottish MP's have been used to impose legislation on English voters that doesn't affect them.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 3rd December 2013 at 15:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tory majority of votes & MPs in Scotland, & higher proportion of Tory votes in Scotland than England, quite often.
The assumption that Scotland has always been anti-Tory demonstrates ignorance of history.
Posts: 1,482
By: JangBoGo - 3rd December 2013 at 16:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Brits who are so damn in love with N-weapons should always look at the map first and think as much as they can if N-weapons are there to guarantee British existence or if its actually a grantee for British extinction!
British nukes are meant for Russia primirially and for intimidating other non-nuclear weapon states when the conventional British muscle does not work...
So will Britain ever use nuke against Russia if Russia slap the Brits for too much fingering of the Bear ****? And just in case some trigger happy Brit do use it, do any sane Brit think that there will be any English left on that tiny island (compared to Russia) to fight another war?!
Hypothetically atleast we can say that Russia and US have landmass to take some N-strike. Do the Brits have this luxury? I don't think so. Britain will be confined to History once and for all if ever she employs her N-muscle.
(^ ignore the cat population ;) the map gives a better perspective to the size difference)
N-weapon is actually a burden for Britain as a nation and for the British tax-payers. Its better for the Brits to de-nuclearise and save lots of billions and spend those billions on welfare of the British citizen and on conventional Naval forces.
Posts: 1,542
By: j_jza80 - 3rd December 2013 at 16:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is why Trident is so important. Even if the mainland was completely nuked (which is possible with the Russian arsenal - just), the retaliation would come, and it could come from almost anywhere.
Air launched nukes, and cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads, aren't an effective deterrent.
Posts: 85
By: Rockall - 3rd December 2013 at 18:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shift the lot to Gibraltar - the new jetty at Faslane is moveable, there's plenty room at Gib and it puts the boats a bit closer to any potential targets ... ;)
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 3rd December 2013 at 18:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mercator projection. No good for comparing areas. E.g. hugely exaggerates the size of Russia & Canada, & even more, Greenland. South America is 17.8 mn km2, (bigger than Russia), Greenland 2.2 mn km2, but on your map both Russia & Greenland are shown as much bigger than S. America.
Posts: 657
By: typhoon1 - 3rd December 2013 at 19:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Having nuclear ICBM.SLBM capability gives far more than obvious offensive/defensive arguments. Think political and reputation. The world has much greater volatility than 'surface' relations represent. Idealism vs. reality.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 3rd December 2013 at 20:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed. But, from what I've seen of the SNP's policies, some of them are highly idealistic, others are outright naive.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 3rd December 2013 at 20:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very true.
If the locals don't want it, then it shouldn't really be there. Anything else is just an abuse of power.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 3rd December 2013 at 20:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
All Scots? Your attempting to put words in my mouth. Not once have I said all, or indicated all.
Ugh, don't get me started on the abject failure that is representative "democracy".
Indeed it does. Its not a good system.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 3rd December 2013 at 22:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So is this Gorbachev's revenge? I know Socialism in the states is a thin veil for counter-capitalism NGO efforts from the KGB no different than the west used NGO work to capitulate the Soviets. It's unfathomable that the economy will ever be strong enough to put everyone on welfare subsistence.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 4th December 2013 at 07:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Run that past me again please?!?
[They reason north sea oil money, coupled with selling renewable sourced power and potable water to England as generating a significant amount of revenue. I disagree with that assessment to a point; but also acknowledge they need independence to stop the extremely damaging centralisation of everything around London.]
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 4th December 2013 at 11:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Explore the role of NGOs used by the West to manipulate public opinions before and after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Subtle charity monies warped public opinions against the Soviet leadership, influenced elections, manipulated trade and money, etc. NGO activity led to a bloodless replacement of the Soviets.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 4th December 2013 at 12:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You don't actually equate socialism with communism do you?
Socialism, at least, the European version of it, and communism are poles apart.
Anyway, onto Scottish public opinion, both sides are using every means at their disposal to influence opinion one way or the other. The truth has probably long since been a casualty.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 4th December 2013 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its not about victory, its about sovereignty. We messed with them, now they return the favor. The idea of one country richer and more aware of everything and everyone is unsettling. I was raised during the Cold War and find a headless hemisphere in the East as a danger, especially with China taking position to be the counterweight.
Mutual assured destruction using nuclear weapons isn't about staving off a million man army, its about sovereignty. If the Scots blindly believe that they can rid themselves of nuclear weapons and remain a part of the NATO alliance it is wishful thinking. The UK will never allow the Scots to simply walk away. Letting the Scots leave means leaving a vital flank vulnerable in the islands, threatening the very existence of the remainder of the UK. The facts that the UK owns the sub base, not Scotland is plenty reason to assert itself to retain control.
The real question London ought to be asking itself is who is trying to make the change and where do they get their money. You'll probably find foreign influence.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 4th December 2013 at 17:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seriously man.
Most NATO members don't have nukes.
Vulnerable flank?!?