thorbotnic Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 It's a big issue because some of us are driven by morals. And Trident is immoral and unethical. And while the UK might try and keep them, the narrowing political landscape and increased awareness/danger by having them in rUK means they are harder and harder to justify. And there are some who believe that Scotland forcing them South would in fact force rUK to scrap them. Let me put it another way, continuing to tolerate or excuse WMD does f*** all to rid us of them. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of nuclear weapons - they're a ridiculous burden and obviously, by definition, utterly useless. I'd scrap them in a moment. But (as some have pointed out above) Scotland has a great bargaining chip by allowing them to remain at Faslane, at least for the rest of their operational lives (circa 20 years, I believe). It would build goodwill with the rUK and create the real possibility of the UK's nuclear weapons genuinely being scrapped at that point - I just don't think that there's the political will in the UK as a whole for scrapping them at the moment, and the rUK government will go to whatever lengths are necessary to rehouse them in England or Wales, which changes nothing in terms of the security of Scottish citizens. 20-odd years down the line, who knows - that's a bloody long time in politics. It's all well and good taking a moral stand but I think being a little pragmatic would actually hasten a nuclear-free British Isles, and improve Scotland's hand greatly at the negotiating table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Who's not being pragmatic? No one is saying they'll be punted a week on Friday. Im reasonably certain SNP were targeting around 2020 as a fair timetable. But like currency debate, that's a negotiating position. I think there's every chance that could be negotiated out a number of years depending on how bad the negotiating time want currency union. But it's only because the Scottish Government have been insistent on Trident and currency union position that Scotland has a great hand at the negotiating table. I think the main priority for Scotland will be currency union. But I think rUK will want to secure a deal for both which puts them at a disadvantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariokempes56 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I don't think the chuckle-brothers in Downing St have a fekkin clue what they want nor will they have a clue as to how to deal with the shit-storm heading their way. What are their financial backgrounds exactly ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Who's not being pragmatic? No one is saying they'll be punted a week on Friday. Im reasonably certain SNP were targeting around 2020 as a fair timetable. But like currency debate, that's a negotiating position. I think there's every chance that could be negotiated out a number of years depending on how bad the negotiating time want currency union. But it's only because the Scottish Government have been insistent on Trident and currency union position that Scotland has a great hand at the negotiating table. I think the main priority for Scotland will be currency union. But I think rUK will want to secure a deal for both which puts them at a disadvantage. From the white paper: 'Negotiations on the maintenance of shared capabilities would not include nuclear weapons. This Scottish Government would make early agreement on the speediest safe removal of nuclear weapons a priority' Not leaving themselves much wriggle room there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilScotsman Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 From the white paper: 'Negotiations on the maintenance of shared capabilities would not include nuclear weapons. This Scottish Government would make early agreement on the speediest safe removal of nuclear weapons a priority' Not leaving themselves much wriggle room there. How no? The "speediest safe removal" implies there's somewhere safe for the subs and nukes to go. So the SG agrees to give rUK longer (than 2020) to sort out somewhere to stick them in exchange for x,y or z. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 From the white paper: 'Negotiations on the maintenance of shared capabilities would not include nuclear weapons. This Scottish Government would make early agreement on the speediest safe removal of nuclear weapons a priority' Not leaving themselves much wriggle room there. That's the SNP proposition for independence. There won't just be the SNP at the negotiating table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I think it's because the current Scottish Government have adopted the Fiscal Commission's recommendation of the best of five options. Which is fine but this is a decision monetary policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goozay Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 This is a very good thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishcumnock Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 I could disarm our nuclear weapons in 2minutes , aim them at isis and press the button , no need to re-home them in 2020. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 I don't think the chuckle-brothers in Downing St have a fekkin clue what they want nor will they have a clue as to how to deal with the shit-storm heading their way. What are their financial backgrounds exactly ? They are both very rich and did absolutely fuk all to earn it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 That's the SNP proposition for independence. There won't just be the SNP at the negotiating table. It will be interesting to see how much influence other parties get within Team Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hessen Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 When Rosyth had the only docks that could take a submarine for servicing Westminster gave the contract to Plymouth, where they had to build a dock with that capability. It was all about jobs going to England, but London knows housing the missiles anywhere in England is stirring up a hornet's nest! They will be desperate to keep Trident in Scotland, so we should squeeze them over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 It will be interesting to see how much influence other parties get within Team Scotland. It's a handy thing for the SNP. It means they don't have to get everything they promised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorbotnic Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 It's a handy thing for the SNP. It means they don't have to get everything they promised. A good point. I think that those other parties which are formally part of Yes (Greens, SSP) are generally speaking to the Left of the SNP on most issues (and wouldn't support typical pro-business SNP policies were they in a coalition government). Will they expect to have more clout in negotiations than, say, Labour? Or even the Conservatives? It will be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.