So Osbourne announces that he’s going to spend more than £500m on the Royal Navy’s submarine base at Faslane, the home of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent. This will create more than 6,700 jobs in the area with many more helped as side suppliers. So that’s good for Scotland, right?
Well, ‘No’ according to the SNP and the Scottish CND wankers.
The SNP say that the Scottish Parliament opposes the replacement of Trident and basing nuclear submarines at Faslane. They also point out that the vast majority of Scottish MP are SNP and the oppose it and that 45% of the Scottish people voted for independence which would have included moving nukes out of Scotland.
Well that’s all very well. The Conservatives made the pledge to replace Trident in their manifesto and won a UK majority based on that manifesto. 45% is not a Scottish majority. 57 Scottish MPs in Westminster is also not a majority and they are welcome to vote against the proposal. The Scottish Parliament has no powers over UK defence. So as far as I am concerned they can just fuck right off!
As for the Scottish CND, they put their spokesman on the BBC yesterday morning. He reckons that expanding the base for conventional weapons would still create the same number of jobs – which is bollocks. When pressed to say what those jobs would be, he clearly had no idea. And, of course, if we disarmed than Faslane would be closed, causing mass unemployment in the area. But according to CND that’s OK because scrapping our nukes would make us safer FFS! Do I really have to explain why that’s nonsense?
Personally I don’t think Trident needs replacing, but the fact is that the government has a mandate to do it. The SNP certainly don’t have a mandate to scrap it for the reasons I have explained. If they wanted independence then they should have voted for it and they didn’t, did they? So end of…
And if the SNP / SCND do succeed in scrapping the base, I suspect their local support might just wane a bit in the wake of mass unemployment. As far as I can see it’s just another proof that Scotland can’t survive economically without English money. If they could, then they wouldn’t have just delayed their 2016/17 spending plans until after the Autumn Statement, would they?
Insult me directly by eMail
Dioclese 
It would serve the SNP & Scottish CND right if the UK government decided to close down Faslane and move the submarine base to Gibraltar as was proposed if the Scots had voted for independence. I dare say the people of Gibraltar would very much welcome such a move.
If the boot were on the other foot, and the Westminster government announced that they were going to close down Faslane, there would by one almighty outcry from the SNP about the number of job losses and how it was typical of the English to shit on the Scots.
As far as the SNP is concerned the UK government can't be right for being wrong. The SNP want the penny and the bun.
Having spent 8 years at Faslane, except when I was on patrol in Resolution and Repulse, I can vouch for how much the area depends on the MOD. Except for the submarine crews and the Royal Marine guards, all the ancillary duties are provided by civilians. Helensburghs' shops,banks,bars and restaurants thrive with Jolly Jacks spending money. The taxi's do a great service from the base into town and even the great unwashed who protest there are accommodated. By closing the base, the area would be devastated financially.
Britain nuclear deterrent is all a bit cold war aint it?,…time to let that dinosaur become extinct in my opinion…fuck the local community they will have to live with it like most of the East of England and its lost bases….we should pay no more money than the average Nato member for our forces, forget all the second world war glorification,,,,that was 70 years ago.
Anyway what about Life in the slow lane:
Have a look at Forest Eirann blog….its the Irish smokers lobby, they have had 4 different people posting 6 messages on the blog in 18 months….which is fuck all considering 2 of them must be family and friends of John Mallon the voice of smokers in Ireland.
Anyway the Irish smokers lobby don't want to repeal the smoking ban according to their website….you couldn't make it up.
I thought I would see what bumbling fumbling Simon Clark our British voice of the smokers has to say….this is really funny!
Forest FAQ…..answers to questions about Forest!
Do you have any well-known supporters?….he then lists Artists/playwrights and other arts and farts crowd….for fucks sake Simon what the fuck has your never ending celeb spotting/name dropping bollocks got to do with Smoking?……its as if the sucess of Forest and the so called lobbying it does depends on celebrity endorsements. which really means they have shown up for a fee or the promise of a free piss up on tobacco money.
Here is what Simon says about accepting restrictions on smoking…..”Of course. We understand the need for restrictions – even bans – on smoking in many public places”
and: “!We accept the health risks associated with smoking and other tobacco products and we accept that government has a role to play educating people about those risks”
This shite which Forset publish is the reason for the complete failure of smoking lobbying, its the reason Simon Clark is nothing more than a punchbag for Debs Arnot (ASH) …its the reason he distances himself and refuses to blogroll the majority of smoking blogs over the years who have a fucked up agenda of denial and conspiracy.
Smokers you let this happen, you never questioned Simon Clark, you let the complete failure of smoking lobbying happen, most of the smoking loon bloggers have fucked off defeated and confused….only Dick Puddlecote left trying in vain to gather some support ” Drafting a health bill consultation response” he blogs about….no-one gives a fuck do they Dick?
Simon/Dick…You might delete my messages on your blogs….the truth however won't go away.
Rickie
Cuntrary bastards aren't they? I'm sure your assessment of the SNP is spot on…
Yes, it would be a disaster – but that wouldn't stop the SNP cashing in on it by blaming the Tories.
Every time I hear the whiny, frankly bitter and racist SNP on the radio bleating on about this and that I want to rebuild Hadrian's Wall and pull every bit of funding. When do the English get a vote on Independence from Scotland?
Quite so. I'd like William Hague to explain why he thought it was wrong for Crimea to vote without asking the rest of Ukraine, but OK for the Scots to vote without asking the rest of the UK.
Still, at least we've seen the back of him. Good riddance. I remember when he led the Tories to a massive election defeat by campaigning to keep the pound when nobody was suggesting we get rid of it…
It is my belief that Trident is destined, along with Faslane, to become, eventually, the EUSSR's nuclear deterrent. The Yanks would be happy and the German and French defense costs would plummet.
Indeed, I suggest this is more of a present reality than we know.
Despite progress in global counter-proliferation and multilateral nuclear disarmament, the mad warmonger countries continue to acquire nuclear capability and the UK's global influence would be diminished if it unilaterally gave it up.
There are three parts to Trident – submarines, missiles and warheads. It is only the weapon missiles and warhead delivery components that cannot last indefinitely.
Each of the Uk's current four submarines has years of use left, and can last indefinitely at a push. They can easily be up-graded with modified new systems to deliver (shoot) the replacement better missile or missles, with each missile having new modern multiple warhead nukes.
Why the fuck is everybody moaning about the £billions cost of building new replacement submarines when all it should cost is few £millions to replace the weapons and not the £billions to replace the submarines that carry the systems for weapon delivery?
Only then, if there is enough cash in the defence budget left, should we think about “adding” a new submarine or submarines, not replacing the four we got.
XX Each of the Uk's current four submarines has years of use left, and can last indefinitely at a push.XX
NO ship can “live” indeffinately. Especialy if it is expected to take the thrust of I don't know HOW many pounds with a full salvo.
A Normal ship has a shelf life of what? 20 years? And that is with a couple of containers that do not wish to be launched into space at a minutes notice.
In 1873 The government of Puru launched a British built cargo and gunboat warship, the “Yapura” for its Peruvian navy. In 1976 the Peruvian Navy, converted Yapura into a hospital ship and renamed it “BAP Puno” after the name of it's original steam engine. The BAP Puno hospital ship, is today, still on commissioned active service in the Peruvian Navy.
And there are hundreds more (mostly from WW1 era) such oldie warships still commissioned, albeit refitted with mod cons, in navies around the world. And why should submarines be any different?
Sail BAP Puno at 300+ feet deep, for five years, in every sea in the world, including UNDER the polar ice, fire 14 Trident missiles from it, reapeat for another five years, and come back and tell us what shape she is in.
We are talking chalk and cheese.
The new chalk with the weapon-Trident system can easily be repaired into cheese, in the dry dock, and be good to go for more 5 year missions. After its last mission with Trident it can be dry docked again and converted into new-cheese with a new weapon system.
And don't say “the cost of repairing the old sub and installing new systems would be more expensive than commissioning and building a new sub”. Only politician and navy admiral tax-money wasters want us to believe that.
Gibraltar? Aye right…
It wouldn't be closed under independence. do get facts right.
You want to give Scotland a chunk of England? You actually think Wee Willy Hague has any relevance to this 'discussion'?
The stealth tiling on the hull, WAY out of date, the Preasure hull case, everything from the heads, to the galley sink, to the radar, the sonar, and the navigation equipment, is outdated.
You are talking about virtually re-building it from the keel up. In which case, a new U-Boot IS more cost efficient.
As to five years extra service, for all that work it would be in dry dock for nearly five years.