Trident Vote - Page 2 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Trident Vote


Recommended Posts

So, the VP of CND abstained...

I did find it interesting that CND didn't even acknowledge the SNP motion, at all... In the slightest, not even a passing glance. I know they're focussed on February 2016 but a customary statement of "we welcome the motion for creating debate..." Or "the motion was a bit pish, the real debate is in February".

But nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Simple way to handle this delicate issue is to say that there would/will be a public vote on this post-independence.

These 520-10000+ jobs (depending on what you believe) are used as a political football by the union. Overwhelming public opinion is that we don't want the nukes, but then there's a percentage that either state that they do want them (for security) or issue their concern about those losing jobs (for the most part I think that is just finding a relevant excuse to be pro-union).

If it is put to a vote then the public would vote to remove them. It won't necessarily result in many more votes in an independence referendum but it removes one stick that the union can use to beat the Yes side with.

aye guid idea..

could work.

thats was the plan for betty and her benefit brood..

so why no for the nukes....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there would be weapons systems, there would be bombs and guns and other stuff there would be no Nukes thats all..

Not all employees work with nukes, does the wee woman in the canteen work with nukes? naw she makes the lunch and would continue to make the lunch after the nukes have gone,

your statement is a loada shite.

there are loads of other stuff going on there that is not nuclear based.

The Unions state only 520 people work on nuclear projects, everything else is general war/navy/killing stuff..

aye there will be guys repairing stuff, but they will still be there when the Nuclear subs go, there will still be non nuclear subs.

all that would happen is the nukes would go and the guys who maintain/run/monitor etc , them( 520) would go

the rest would stay

They are not talking about closing the site.. if they were, then your point would be relevant,

Stop throwing facts at unionist warmonger apologists. It upsets them as they're then left with nothing to frighten people with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So only 6 labour MP's vote with the SNP motion opposing Trident.

Ian Murray abstained on two votes then didnt vote on the SNP at all. This is the guy who said he was anti-Trident and part of Scottish labour who voted to oppose Trident.

Scottish political thought and will is a complete irrelevance to the Westminster parliament.

Red tories out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there would be weapons systems, there would be bombs and guns and other stuff there would be no Nukes thats all..

Not all employees work with nukes, does the wee woman in the canteen work with nukes? naw she makes the lunch and would continue to make the lunch after the nukes have gone,

your statement is a loada shite.

there are loads of other stuff going on there that is not nuclear based.

The Unions state only 520 people work on nuclear projects, everything else is general war/navy/killing stuff..

aye there will be guys repairing stuff, but they will still be there when the Nuclear subs go, there will still be non nuclear subs.

all that would happen is the nukes would go and the guys who maintain/run/monitor etc , them( 520) would go

the rest would stay

They are not talking about closing the site.. if they were, then your point would be relevant,

What would be based at faslane if not nuclear submarines? The UK doesn't have any non nuclear boats. The white papers laughable plan to base a Scotttish Defence force there is pie in the sky. My comments Shiite? Not really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop throwing facts at unionist warmonger apologists. It upsets them as they're then left with nothing to frighten people with.

Facts? Supposition more like. And who said I'm a Unionist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop throwing facts at unionist warmonger apologists. It upsets them as they're then left with nothing to frighten people with.

Facts? Supposition more like. And who said I'm a Unionist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you're peddling the unionist line, which is a heap of shite.

By your definition the Anti Trident line is peddled about by all nationalists then? Thats just not true. It's a SNP and Scottish Labour Party line. You do know the majority of people in Scotland don't belong to any political party don't you? Many of us who voted Yes disagree with a lot of SNP policies, conversely, there will be no voters who disagree with a lot of Tory/Lib Dem/Labour/UKIP policies.

The notion of independence isn't exclusively owned by the SNP you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your definition the Anti Trident line is peddled about by all nationalists then? Thats just not true. It's a SNP and Scottish Labour Party line. You do know the majority of people in Scotland don't belong to any political party don't you? Many of us who voted Yes disagree with a lot of SNP policies, conversely, there will be no voters who disagree with a lot of Tory/Lib Dem/Labour/UKIP policies.

The notion of independence isn't exclusively owned by the SNP you know.

aye the second half of your post is right. YES is not SNP... No means rule from London, the politics are all basically the same.

But to suppose we cant have non nuke submarines and other navy facilities at Faslane is havering a load o shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aye the second half of your post is right. YES is not SNP... No means rule from London, the politics are all basically the same.

But to suppose we cant have non nuke submarines and other navy facilities at Faslane is havering a load o shite.

Of course we can have non nuclear there. It just wouldn't make any sense. We don't have any non nuclear submarines at the moment, so there would be a substantial period of procurement and building, both of the Submarines and the infrastructure remodelling, which wouldn't be cheap, and would probably be vetoed for cost anyway. . As for surface vessels, theoretically we could easily use Faslane, but it wouldn't make any sense. it's on the wrong coast from the oil rigs for a start. With reference to the top part of your post, I totally agree that no means rule from London, but SNP is not exclusively Yes, which too many souls seems to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well take the nukes out of the subs , put in missiles or other big guns...

will cost a hell of a lot cheaper than 140 billion we are planning the now, and then we carry on as usual,

The subs will still be powered by nuke power (i think) but that is not the debate, Nuke Power Subs are not the problem, its the 1000's of nuke warheads they carry on the missiles that is.

Aye, people also think the SNP = Scotland.. and they cant see the difference between YES-SNP-Scotland.

FFS even the Queen remarked how many Scots there seemed to be in the Commons.these days....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the SNP only went on a platform of no Nuclear missiles, they would maybe have more kudos. The plan for a Nuclear free Scotland, including Nuclear power, is mental. There's only four Submarines in the UK capable of carrying nuclear missiles, there are a further eight nuclear fast attack boats. The white paper stated it would have got rid of Scotlands share of them as well. Mental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the SNP only went on a platform of no Nuclear missiles, they would maybe have more kudos. The plan for a Nuclear free Scotland, including Nuclear power, is mental. There's only four Submarines in the UK capable of carrying nuclear missiles, there are a further eight nuclear fast attack boats. The white paper stated it would have got rid of Scotlands share of them as well. Mental.

well no really, the subs with the weapons were to go immediately, the nuke powered subs were to be replaced when the were done, as with nuke power stations, there is a MAJOR difference between having weapons of Mass Destruction and having 4 subs powered by nuke power. So what you state is ,in reality what was on offer. No Nukes, meant no WMD , power was to be phased out. Phased out being the difference,

the two things are different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well no really, the subs with the weapons were to go immediately, the nuke powered subs were to be replaced when the were done, as with nuke power stations, there is a MAJOR difference between having weapons of Mass Destruction and having 4 subs powered by nuke power. So what you state is ,in reality what was on offer. No Nukes, meant no WMD , power was to be phased out. Phased out being the difference,

the two things are different.

The phasing out of Nuclear power is a mental idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The phasing out of Nuclear power is a mental idea.

it might be or it might no be, thats a debate to be had, but it has nowt to do with Faslane or Trident.

I think a no nuke power future is a fantastic idea. The waste from this lasts 10,000 years.. how dare we leave that for future generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does have a direct correlation with Faslane, thats where the majority of submarines are home ported. What would replace them to make this great employment utopia the SNP envisage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're job is dependent on a mutually assured destruction being in vogue. Then when someone decides thats a "mental idea" then the job goes as well. Same with civil servant jobs when the vogue of having shit tonnes of them goes out, or mining for coal or making steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does have a direct correlation with Faslane, thats where the majority of submarines are home ported. What would replace them to make this great employment utopia the SNP envisage?

its not about savings... its about getting rid on WMD ... it would be the same as now, but the subs would have no nukes on them...

there, thats as simple as i can make it.

now- subs with nukes

snp- subs with no nukes- but big guns....

everything else will be the same except the 520 guys who repair/fix/maintain nukes will be looking for work elsewhere.

No employment Utopia, just the same old same old...

what utopia are you talking about..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its not about savings... its about getting rid on WMD ... it would be the same as now, but the subs would have no nukes on them...

there, thats as simple as i can make it.

now- subs with nukes

snp- subs with no nukes- but big guns....

everything else will be the same except the 520 guys who repair/fix/maintain nukes will be looking for work elsewhere.

No employment Utopia, just the same old same old...

what utopia are you talking about..?

What would we need the subs for if we didn't have nukes to hide in them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would we need the subs for if we didn't have nukes to hide in them?

Taking out surface vessels, other submarines, listening in to sub communication, tracking vessels, firing ballistic missles without nuclear warheads, also science, polar missions. Creating buffer zones, stopping other navies from travelling in areas it patrols. look at the Argentinian Navy after HMS Conqueror made itself known during the Falklands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its not about savings... its about getting rid on WMD ... it would be the same as now, but the subs would have no nukes on them...

there, thats as simple as i can make it.

now- subs with nukes

snp- subs with no nukes- but big guns....

everything else will be the same except the 520 guys who repair/fix/maintain nukes will be looking for work elsewhere.

No employment Utopia, just the same old same old...

what utopia are you talking about..?

More than 520 people work on the Nuclear weapons side. Thousands.

Also, a SSBN without nuclear weapons is a pointless but of kit, so they'd be scrapped, as would the jobs.

Devonport would likely keep the Astute class then there would be no Faslane. Meaning no direct jobs, second tier jobs and indirect jobs in the surrounding areas.

Still IMO it's a moot point, we've just had our majority Conservative government re commit to the Successor Programme.

Independence was the only thing that could have changed the status quo.

J

Edited by Bristolhibby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...