Jump to content

Trident


jamborich

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

An independent Scotland could join NATO and would do.  
 

An independent Scotland that insisted on removing Trident from Faslane would not be accepted into NATO.  
 

All this nonsense about ‘just move Trident’ to England have no idea what they are talking about.  Having no secure Naval base for the Nuclear deterrent in our part of Europe would be seen as a significant security risk by NATO especially given current events.  
 

To be honest it’s absolutely typical independence supporting rhetoric, always wanting their cake and eating it.  It’s totally unrealistic in the real world.  


Yet again missing the fact that most NATO countries DO NOT have nuclear weapons, so there is no way that you can assert this as a given fact. These weapons are illegal and why Scotland uniquely should have to hold such weapons to be a member of NATO when the majority don't is lopsided and bullshit. 

They present no strategic value whatsoever in terms of protecting the UK from attack by Russia or anyone else when we are part of the "all-for-one NATO doctrine". 

I haven't discussed moving Trident, incidentally and I doubt that the MOD would site it anywhere in England as they already commissioned a report that states basing Trident in Plymouth presents to great a risk to the civilian population. 

This NATO policy which you seem to hypocritcally apply only to a future independent Scotland - talk about cake and eat it, does not exist and, if it did, then it would have to apply to all countries leading logically to massive nuclear proliferation. The sane amongst us simply do not want to see any proliferation of nuclear weapons - and before you start harping on about pacifism, I already said we cannot seal Pandora's Box but we can at least try to keep the lid shut. 

Like I said earlier, I did not want to see this thread derailed by the usual suspects taking any opportunity for a boot at Scotland - so I won't be engaging with either of you further on this subject. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Unknown user

    25

  • frankblack

    23

  • Gizmo

    9

  • Brighton Jambo

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Brighton Jambo
7 minutes ago, Gizmo said:


Yet again missing the fact that most NATO countries DO NOT have nuclear weapons, so there is no way that you can assert this as a given fact. These weapons are illegal and why Scotland uniquely should have to hold such weapons to be a member of NATO when the majority don't is lopsided and bullshit. 

They present no strategic value whatsoever in terms of protecting the UK from attack by Russia or anyone else when we are part of the "all-for-one NATO doctrine". 

I haven't discussed moving Trident, incidentally and I doubt that the MOD would site it anywhere in England as they already commissioned a report that states basing Trident in Plymouth presents to great a risk to the civilian population. 

This NATO policy which you seem to hypocritcally apply only to a future independent Scotland - talk about cake and eat it, does not exist and, if it did, then it would have to apply to all countries leading logically to massive nuclear proliferation. The sane amongst us simply do not want to see any proliferation of nuclear weapons - and before you start harping on about pacifism, I already said we cannot seal Pandora's Box but we can at least try to keep the lid shut. 

Like I said earlier, I did not want to see this thread derailed by the usual suspects taking any opportunity for a boot at Scotland - so I won't be engaging with either of you further on this subject. 
 

Pathetic.  Can’t engage in a proper debate so just write a lot of nonsense and then run away without giving the right of reply.  
 

My response was perfectly reasoned and rational and you start throwing terms around like ‘sticking the boot into Scotland’ when I did nothing of the sort.

 

As I said, pathetic. 

Edited by Brighton Jambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Pathetic.  Can’t engage in a proper debate so just write a lot of nonsense and then run away without giving the right of reply.  
 

My response was perfectly reasoned and rational and you start throwing terms around like ‘sticking the boot into Scotland’ when I did nothing of the sort.

 

As I said, pathetic. 


Neither of you answered any relevant questions so what the hell is the point of debating with two folk who a) never answer questions and b) bias everything through a Brit-nat lens.
Your hypocriscy is what's pathetic. :laugh:

My rationale is sound, but go on cheer leading for nukes just so you can have a pop. Knock yourself out.  🤡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
8 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

No! It was meant to prevent war. Russia don't care.

 

To deter nuclear war. Maybe Russia don't care but they would care less without the nuclear deterrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
Just now, Gizmo said:


Neither of you answered any relevant questions so what the hell is the point of debating with two folk who a) never answer questions and b) bias everything through a Brit-nat lens.
Your hypocriscy is what's pathetic. :laugh:

My rationale is sound, but go on cheer leading for nukes just so you can have a pop. Knock yourself out.  🤡

 

11 minutes ago, Gizmo said:


Yet again missing the fact that most NATO countries DO NOT have nuclear weapons, so there is no way that you can assert this as a given fact. These weapons are illegal and why Scotland uniquely should have to hold such weapons to be a member of NATO when the majority don't is lopsided and bullshit. 

They present no strategic value whatsoever in terms of protecting the UK from attack by Russia or anyone else when we are part of the "all-for-one NATO doctrine". 

I haven't discussed moving Trident, incidentally and I doubt that the MOD would site it anywhere in England as they already commissioned a report that states basing Trident in Plymouth presents to great a risk to the civilian population. 

This NATO policy which you seem to hypocritcally apply only to a future independent Scotland - talk about cake and eat it, does not exist and, if it did, then it would have to apply to all countries leading logically to massive nuclear proliferation. The sane amongst us simply do not want to see any proliferation of nuclear weapons - and before you start harping on about pacifism, I already said we cannot seal Pandora's Box but we can at least try to keep the lid shut. 

Like I said earlier, I did not want to see this thread derailed by the usual suspects taking any opportunity for a boot at Scotland - so I won't be engaging with either of you further on this subject. 
 

Right, I will answer your questions. 
 

I am fully aware than most NATO countries do not have nuclear weapons and I didn’t say that it would be a prerequisite of joining. Of course it wouldn’t or hardly any other countries could ever join.

 

However Faslane is of key strategic significance to NATO.  They would not allow Scotland to remove that base and to join NATO as it would create such significant risk to existing NATO members.  The reason  being that there is no Naval base that has even nearly the same natural defences.  That is the reason it would not be moved to England. 
 

This isn’t just my opinion:

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/14/nato-blow-snp-nuclear-strategy

 

I also do not want to see the proliferation of nuclear weapons and I have said nothing about pacifism.  I think you are confusing me with someone else.  
 

Disappointing that you need to get so personal.  As I said this isn’t only my opinion but as per the article is also the view of senior NATO chiefs

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
24 minutes ago, Gizmo said:


Neither of you answered any relevant questions so what the hell is the point of debating with two folk who a) never answer questions and b) bias everything through a Brit-nat lens.
Your hypocriscy is what's pathetic. :laugh:

My rationale is sound, but go on cheer leading for nukes just so you can have a pop. Knock yourself out.  🤡

More evidence of my rationale as per reply below:

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nato-chiefs-warns-snp-barred-2173702.amp

 

NATO chiefs warns SNP they will be barred from joining alliance if they force out nuclear subs from Faslane

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18855540.indy-scotland-cant-dump-trident-join-nato-warns-ex-british-spy-chief/

 

Indy Scotland can't dump Trident and join Nato, warns ex-British spy chief

 
So really not me trying to ‘do down’ Scotland at all.  I won’t hold my breath for an acknowledgment of that.  I just want us to have a grown up debate about trident and the realistic impact of independence.  You can join NATO or you can remove trident but it seems unrealistic to say you can do both. 

 

 

Edited by Brighton Jambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo_jim2001
3 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

More evidence of my rationale as per reply below:

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nato-chiefs-warns-snp-barred-2173702.amp

 

NATO chiefs warns SNP they will be barred from joining alliance if they force out nuclear subs from Faslane

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18855540.indy-scotland-cant-dump-trident-join-nato-warns-ex-british-spy-chief/

 

Indy Scotland can't dump Trident and join Nato, warns ex-British spy chief

 
So really not me trying to ‘do down’ Scotland at all.  I won’t hold my breath for an acknowledgment of that. 

 

 

Their loss ,we have the best troops in the British army in my humble opinion.and I am NOT a nationalist Scottish, British or otherwise 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jambo_jim2001 said:

Their loss ,we have the best troops in the British army in my humble opinion.and I am NOT a nationalist Scottish, British or otherwise 😀

I'm sure Putin would be shitting himself at that prospect. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo_jim2001
2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

I'm sure Putin would be shitting himself at that prospect. :rolleyes:

Think braveheart with jaggy pointy things😃🧐

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
4 hours ago, milky_26 said:

re your last point, how often is it reported that russian bear aircraft have been escorted away from british airspace as they have went near shetland

That's really different from the Russians taking over Scotland though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, EH11 said:

Last time we tested our capability, the missile launched in the wrong direction.

 

The most dangerous weapons to possess - those with random targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
1 hour ago, Brighton Jambo said:

More evidence of my rationale as per reply below:

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nato-chiefs-warns-snp-barred-2173702.amp

 

NATO chiefs warns SNP they will be barred from joining alliance if they force out nuclear subs from Faslane

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18855540.indy-scotland-cant-dump-trident-join-nato-warns-ex-british-spy-chief/

 

Indy Scotland can't dump Trident and join Nato, warns ex-British spy chief

 
So really not me trying to ‘do down’ Scotland at all.  I won’t hold my breath for an acknowledgment of that.  I just want us to have a grown up debate about trident and the realistic impact of independence.  You can join NATO or you can remove trident but it seems unrealistic to say you can do both. 

 

 

Says an ex spy? That doesn't sound very official.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
1 hour ago, Brighton Jambo said:

More evidence of my rationale as per reply below:

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nato-chiefs-warns-snp-barred-2173702.amp

 

NATO chiefs warns SNP they will be barred from joining alliance if they force out nuclear subs from Faslane

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18855540.indy-scotland-cant-dump-trident-join-nato-warns-ex-british-spy-chief/

 

Indy Scotland can't dump Trident and join Nato, warns ex-British spy chief

 
So really not me trying to ‘do down’ Scotland at all.  I won’t hold my breath for an acknowledgment of that.  I just want us to have a grown up debate about trident and the realistic impact of independence.  You can join NATO or you can remove trident but it seems unrealistic to say you can do both. 

 

 

 

That first one :laugh2:

 

From a decade ago, based on the rules saying you can't join if you're in a military dispute. That's very, very weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

That first one :laugh2:

 

From a decade ago, based on the rules saying you can't join if you're in a military dispute. That's very, very weak.

See below for two other articles.  One from this year, one from 2017.  Also just because we are a decade on does that mean all those comments are now irrelevant? If so please state why and what your source is.  
 

The ‘spy’ you have discredited is Sir David Omand, the former head of GCHQ, who said the SNP’s policies on Nato and Trident were guilty of “magical thinking”.  Clearly you know better than him.

 

I think this topic is important, I have just posted five different sources all of which state that it would be impossible or very difficult for an independent Scotland to join nato and get rid of trident.  
 

So far no one including you has come up with anything even vaguely compelling to say all those views are wrong other than personal opinion.

 

For me it does sum up Scottish independence.  All the evidence says one thing, doesn’t fit the agenda so it must all be wrong.  How can we meaningfully debate the benefit of indy when that’s the standard response? 
 

 

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/scotland-joining-nato-impossible-if-trident-forced-out/

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-referendum-nicola-sturgeon-nato-membership-independent-scotland-a7627481.html?amp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
7 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

See below for two other articles.  One from this year, one from 2017.  Also just because we are a decade on does that mean all those comments are now irrelevant? If so please state why and what your source is.  
 

 

Yes, these comments are, and were, irrelevant. They were supposition based on rules on entering NATO, namely that no country involved in military dispute could join. And they made a really tenuous link that arguing about trident was a military dispute.

 

7 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

The ‘spy’ you have discredited is Sir David Omand, the former head of GCHQ, who said the SNP’s policies on Nato and Trident were guilty of “magical thinking”.  Clearly you know better than him.

 

I think this topic is important, I have just posted five different sources all of which state that it would be impossible or very difficult for an independent Scotland to join nato and get rid of trident.  
 

So far no one including you has come up with anything even vaguely compelling to say all those views are wrong other than personal opinion.

 

For me it does sum up Scottish independence.  All the evidence says one thing, doesn’t fit the agenda so it must all be wrong.  How can we meaningfully debate the benefit of indy when that’s the standard response? 
 

 

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/scotland-joining-nato-impossible-if-trident-forced-out/

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-referendum-nicola-sturgeon-nato-membership-independent-scotland-a7627481.html?amp

 

You're being unnecessarily snidey, I might not be giving you answers you fancy but I'm giving answers.

It's utter supposition, and I'll say again, the north west corner of Europe can't be allowed to fall to an aggressor. Scotland will be looked after, for strategic reasons if nothing else.

 

Sir David Omand btw - 'In October 2020, he authored a book titled, "How Spies Think: Ten Lessons in Intelligence"; a book covering his views on long-term intelligence analysis gained from his experience working with British governments from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair.'

 

A Sir, a product of Thatcher governments, he's the epitome of UK establishment.

A trustworthy, unbiased opinion? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brighton Jambo
29 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Yes, these comments are, and were, irrelevant. They were supposition based on rules on entering NATO, namely that no country involved in military dispute could join. And they made a really tenuous link that arguing about trident was a military dispute.

 

 

You're being unnecessarily snidey, I might not be giving you answers you fancy but I'm giving answers.

It's utter supposition, and I'll say again, the north west corner of Europe can't be allowed to fall to an aggressor. Scotland will be looked after, for strategic reasons if nothing else.

 

Sir David Omand btw - 'In October 2020, he authored a book titled, "How Spies Think: Ten Lessons in Intelligence"; a book covering his views on long-term intelligence analysis gained from his experience working with British governments from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair.'

 

A Sir, a product of Thatcher governments, he's the epitome of UK establishment.

A trustworthy, unbiased opinion? 

 

I agree that Scotland would never be allowed to fall to an aggressor.  I have never said otherwise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

An independent Scotland could join NATO and would do.  
 

An independent Scotland that insisted on removing Trident from Faslane would not be accepted into NATO.  
 

All this nonsense about ‘just move Trident’ to England have no idea what they are talking about.  Having no secure Naval base for the Nuclear deterrent in our part of Europe would be seen as a significant security risk by NATO especially given current events.  
 

To be honest it’s absolutely typical independence supporting rhetoric, always wanting their cake and eating it.  It’s totally unrealistic in the real world.  

Once we are independent the nuclear subs will have to be moved. You really think the English government would let a foreign power control their nuclear deterrent???? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
Just now, XB52 said:

Once we are independent the nuclear subs will have to be moved. You really think the English government would let a foreign power control their nuclear deterrent???? 

I see no reason we couldn't keep a British army, navy etc. or some other compromise. Independence doesn't have to be hard Brexit style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo_jim2001

The one thing I've noticed is,it doesn't matter whoever is in government,we always get humped one way or the other 😠

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Smithee said:

I see no reason we couldn't keep a British army, navy etc. or some other compromise. Independence doesn't have to be hard Brexit style.

So we’d keep the British army and navy, you’d need to pay them the same currency and rate(s) and allow freedom of movement across the Island of Britain.. Isn’t that a devolved settlement ie what we have now ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Smithee said:

I see no reason we couldn't keep a British army, navy etc. or some other compromise. Independence doesn't have to be hard Brexit style.


If the sentiments espoused on here by the Brit-nats are an inkling into the aggressive, petty attitudes an rUK government would have towards independence negotiations, I rather worry about any attempt to negotiate in good faith. They couldn't negotiate properly or in good faith when they were the less influential party during the Brexit talks, so why on earth would we expect maturity and competency from this government should they be in that position?

Trident, the only good thing you could say about it is that it would represent a massive bargaining chip as there is no simple way to move that infrastructure. Indeed, the MOD report said the risk to loss of civilian life (presumably due to risk of a nuclear accident) if it was sited in one of the few viable places, Plymouth, was too high. 

I don't see the government ever agreeing to another referendum anyway. Nor do I necessarily think with the current instability in the world that its a particularly good time, as much as we are currently stuck with the most incompetent bunch of crooks running the show in most of our lifetimes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kingantti1874

Nationalists saying worthless need heads read. Absolutely essential in the face of renewed Russian aggression.  Unless you think we are a patsy / pussy nation and rely on others to ensure our security.

 

Time for significant investment in the British Army and capabilities.  
 


 

 

Edited by kingantti1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh

Would an Indy SNP government even attempt to join NATO? I suspect they'd go down the neutral route. For one thing I doubt they'd want to commit to spending 2% of GDP on defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kingantti1874
2 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Would an Indy SNP government even attempt to join NATO? I suspect they'd go down the neutral route. For one thing I doubt they'd want to commit to spending 2% of GDP on defence.


Like a Poundland Switzerland.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if UK Nukes are based in Faslane or based in the South of England. 1 nuclear missile could take out 10 Cities. If Scotland were Independent it wouldn't matter a feck if Russia only attacked England, we'd all die from exposure to radiation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
3 hours ago, jambomjm74 said:

So we’d keep the British army and navy, you’d need to pay them the same currency and rate(s) and allow freedom of movement across the Island of Britain.. Isn’t that a devolved settlement ie what we have now ? 

 

That's very weak, there's all sorts of ways things could be arranged, countries have joint ventures all the time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
2 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:

Nationalists saying worthless need heads read. Absolutely essential in the face of renewed Russian aggression.  Unless you think we are a patsy / pussy nation and rely on others to ensure our security.

 

Time for significant investment in the British Army and capabilities.  

 

What exactly would be different right now if UK didn't have trident?

Edited by Smithee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
2 hours ago, Gizmo said:


If the sentiments espoused on here by the Brit-nats are an inkling into the aggressive, petty attitudes an rUK government would have towards independence negotiations, I rather worry about any attempt to negotiate in good faith. They couldn't negotiate properly or in good faith when they were the less influential party during the Brexit talks, so why on earth would we expect maturity and competency from this government should they be in that position?

Trident, the only good thing you could say about it is that it would represent a massive bargaining chip as there is no simple way to move that infrastructure. Indeed, the MOD report said the risk to loss of civilian life (presumably due to risk of a nuclear accident) if it was sited in one of the few viable places, Plymouth, was too high. 

I don't see the government ever agreeing to another referendum anyway. Nor do I necessarily think with the current instability in the world that its a particularly good time, as much as we are currently stuck with the most incompetent bunch of crooks running the show in most of our lifetimes. 

 

We're getting into battered housewife territory, how much he'll kick off if we dare to try and leave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

That's very weak, there's all sorts of ways things could be arranged, countries have joint ventures all the time

Joint ventures.. so break up the U.K. 

leave NATO and ditch Trident in favour of a Joint Venture. Sounds like a plan and a half…

I am so glad that defence policy is devolved, Nicolas no fly zone and some of their supporters proposals are just dangerous and will be seen by the majority as grotesquely incompetent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jambomjm74 said:

Joint ventures.. so break up the U.K. 

leave NATO and ditch Trident in favour of a Joint Venture. Sounds like a plan and a half…

I am so glad that defence policy is devolved, Nicolas no fly zone and some of their supporters proposals are just dangerous and will be seen by the majority as grotesquely incompetent. 


Depends if you only read the headlines…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo

Due to the positioning of parts of the uk, NATO would wish us to keep the nukes.

This belief that we don’t need WMD is crazed.

I’d rather we kept them , and other nato members paid for their upkeep .

it’s beyond time that Ireland paid too, as sheltering under the umbrella that we pay for is a bit cheeky, frankly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kila said:


Depends if you only read the headlines…

Not really.. SNP green policy is clearly anti NATO - remove Nuclear and has very very limited actual military experience or knowledge behind it. It’s one from the CND playbook and not Sandhurst or other. 
Don’t get me wrong no one wants nuclear weapons.. but they are a major part of our defence strategy and an unfortunate reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ainsley Harriott

I think the last few weeks have shown us Trident is a valuable deterent along with our NATO membership. I wonder if Ukraine were members of NATO and had a nuclear deterent how different things would be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
51 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

Joint ventures.. so break up the U.K. 

leave NATO and ditch Trident in favour of a Joint Venture. Sounds like a plan and a half…

 

It's a shame you can't be grown up about it.

 

Independence isn't about **** England, everything that was British and wipe everything out - there are a lot of positive things that both countries should seek to continue.

 

Independence is purely about the Scottish electorate getting a democratic voice and being able to decide our future, whether in partnership or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
1 minute ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

I think the last few weeks have shown us Trident is a valuable deterent along with our NATO membership. I wonder if Ukraine were members of NATO and had a nuclear deterent how different things would be. 

In what way?

How would things be different if we didn't have trident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

In what way?

How would things be different if we didn't have trident?

 

We would be exposed to a threat of nuclear attack (post Ukraine) without means to squash it.

 

Too much hypothetical guesswork going on here.  Trident will remain as long as we have rogue states with nuclear weapons.

Edited by frankblack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

We would be exposed to a threat of nuclear attack (post Ukraine) without means to squash it.

 

We'd be just as exposed as now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

What exactly would be different right now if UK didn't have trident?

No one ****s with us because we are a Nuclear power. It gives us economic clout as well. Countries wouldn’t be so inclined to buy our products or give us beneficial  trade deals if they weren't protected or joint protected by UK, US and French Nuclear Deterrents. 

 

Australia on the otherside of the World also falls under that. They're intrinsically linked with the UK through blood. 

 

It's not just about us. It's about defending our allies and partners as well. We trade with these countries across the world. China could threaten Australia and block their trading routes without the understanding that the UK will defend that interest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
1 minute ago, Cruyff said:

No one ****s with us because we are a Nuclear power. It gives us economic clout as well. Countries wouldn’t be so inclined to buy our products or give us beneficial  trade deals if they weren't protected or joint protected by UK, US and French Nuclear Deterrents. 

 

Australia on the otherside of the World also falls under that. They're intrinsically linked with the UK through blood. 

 

It's not just about us. It's about defending our allies and partners as well. We trade with these countries across the world. China could threaten Australia and block their trading routes without the understanding that the UK will defend that interest. 

 

How would things be different if we didn't have trident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It's a shame you can't be grown up about it.

 

Independence isn't about **** England, everything that was British and wipe everything out - there are a lot of positive things that both countries should seek to continue.

 

Independence is purely about the Scottish electorate getting a democratic voice and being able to decide our future, whether in partnership or not.

Ehh, so you want a devo max. British Army… but wouldn’t we still have to send taxes to west minster to run it .. isn’t that what we have now ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
1 minute ago, jambomjm74 said:

Ehh, so you want a devo max. British Army… but wouldn’t we still have to send taxes to west minster to run it .. isn’t that what we have now ?

 

No I want independence. If you can't get your head round it I won't waste my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

How would things be different if we didn't have trident?

 

If we were also not part of Nato (which would be a consequence of not having trident) it would leave us open to attack.

 

Who would jump in to fight for a disarmed independent Scotland? We'd be the first country to go for as a soft touch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

If we were also not part of Nato (which would be a consequence of not having trident) it would leave us open to attack.

 

Who would jump in to fight for a disarmed independent Scotland? We'd be the first country to go for as a soft touch.


Open to attack? What sort of attack exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

If we were also not part of Nato (which would be a consequence of not having trident) it would leave us open to attack.

 

Who would jump in to fight for a disarmed independent Scotland? We'd be the first country to go for as a soft touch.

 

England, Europe, US, basically NATO. You think they'd allow a hostile presence to establish a staging point in the north west corner of Europe? 

 

Zero chance

Edited by Smithee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo_jim2001
1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

What exactly would be different right now if UK didn't have trident?

No glowing sea creatures in the Clyde🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

No I want independence. If you can't get your head round it I won't waste my time.

Independence with the British Army … and some other best of British parts… Possibly leave as is and work with what we have and put up with the Nuclear Deterrent, allowing us to sleep safely in our beds at night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

England, Europe, US, basically NATO. You think they'd allow a hostile presence to establish a staging point in the north west corner of Europe? 

 

Zero chance

 

As long as Scotland is part of NATO and meets the entry requirement its protected.

 

If it isn't then why should other nations pay to protect it?  You can't have it both ways.

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.




×
×
  • Create New...