I daresay there might be even better things to spend a spare tens of billions of pounds on but if the Government wants to giftwrap an election slogan for the SNP, with an alliterative bow on top, then it's only fair that it should be scooped up gratefully and hammered home.
So it is very pleasing indeed to see Glasgow Central candidate Osama Saeed pick up this square ball and run with it.
The dumping of Trident is now a common sense decision given the vast sums involved and the only discernible benefit being an otherwise futile jobs creation scheme and a seat on the UN Security Council.
It's not a good enough value for money of course and the economic and environmental benefits of a high speed rail link speak for themselves.
It will be interesting watching Labour campaign on 1mile of GARL track while defending a 'UK' line that stops only as far north as Sheffield.
Salmond vs Trump
14 minutes ago
60 comments:
>> an otherwise futile jobs creation scheme
What would people, in and around Argyll and Bute or Dumbarton, who'd pointless be able to feed their families think?
The projected cost for Trident could, of course, be spent elsewhere, but honesty dictates that it's made apparent that this is the anticipated cost over several decades - compared to similar amounts which are spent by individuals arms of the domestic state each *year*.
>> and a seat on the UN Security Council.
This objection always has puzzled me. A seat on the UNSC does have its benefits, both politically/diplomatically and knock-on economically.
Alec If the same rational that is used to treat jobs dependent on Trident where to be used on other jobs we would be a communist state.
So protecting Jobs in Dumbarton is OK but not elsewhere?
The UK security council seat has done what exactly for Scotland? With most of our metrics south of the equator I would say not a jote.
It's all about political vanity of the UK / Westminster politicans.
>> Alec If the same rational that is used to treat jobs dependent on Trident where to be used on other jobs we would be a communist state.
No we wouldn't. Besides, I was responding firstly to Jeff's apparent assertion that employees at HMNB Clyde and local beneficiaries were being futile in putting clothes on their children's backs.
>> So protecting Jobs in Dumbarton is OK but not elsewhere?
Why don't you ask Tricia Marwick who wasn't displeased at the closure of the Killie JM plant?
Is protecting jobs in Dumbarton less important than elsewhere? Ah-ha! You didn't think of that!
Ah ha I did actually, no Alec my point is that defence jobs have been lost from all over Scotland for a generation when it has suited what ever Government is in at Westminister.
So for the UK government to then use these jobs in Dumbarton as a shield to try and justify trident is erroneous.
Again, so what, Tormod?
I am not referring to the rights or wrongs of Trident - as I am sure you know deep down - but to dismissing the inexplicable desire of HMNB Clyde and subsidiary employees to keep their jobs.
Marwick didn't have any compunction against helping stick it to Killie.
Furthermore, any monies saved by not renewing Trident would return to the UK coffers. As far as I can see, the link-up from Edinburgh to the high-speed link would have to be financed by Holyrood.
Bummer devolution when the sweeties run out, innit?
Trident Replacement will cost Billions but the running cost of the base is also many millions.
In such economically difficult times this is alot of money to spend per head of population for those affected in Dunbarton.
It has nothing to do with Jobs really. It is simply the London MP's like having Nukes and they need them somewhere far from London. The jobs argument has nothing todo with the decision.
Take RAF Forres / Lossiemouth. The removal of these basis will destropy the entire community of these towns. This will not stop the London Mp's closing the base and moving it south.
Nobody here wants to see Dambarton lose jobs but the risk and cost of trident to the population is too much.
Well the So and the What is that defense jobs like those at HMNB Rosyth were different how?
Why were the employees at Rosyth any differnet from those of Dumbarton?
What criteria are you using?
Hopefully I am not about to take Jeff's name in vain here and he will probably answer you later.
What did Jeff reference? It was the trident programme and jobs associated with it.
Thanks for pointing out the lack of borrowing powers and lack to fund infrastructure properly.
Which has meant Scotland has truly shocking transport problems.
Cheers for that.
I bet the railway would create more jobs that Trident.
In a sane world, they would build it from North to South. If it's started in London, you can bet your life there will be a change of heart once Birmingham has been reached, and we'll all have spent billions on a new commuter line for the South East of England.
Richard when I heard this yesterday I said to myself, there will be a snowball in hells chance of this planned HSR coming to Scotland.
Look at the timescales, how long did it take the French to build Stage 1 of theres 5 years?
The only way for this to happen, would be for an Independent Scottish government to finance and build the line
Why were the employees at Rosyth any differnet from those of Dumbarton?
TORMOD
What, are you saying you'd be accepting of *two* such RN bases in Scotland? You're all over the place.
Please stop pretending your interest is one of sympathetic humanism to those already on the unemployment heap when you're advocating a policy which would increase it in return for whichever short-term or narrower scheme the x billions could finance.
What criteria are you using?
Your and Jeff's own statements.
Now, once again, was SNP Fife justified in helping to sell Killie down the river?
Trident Replacement will cost Billions but the running cost of the base is also many millions.
2MAC
Including things like wages. Most of the base workers and local suppliers/caterers won't be top brass or highly paid, but modestly paid low-ranking bods.
Take RAF Forres / Lossiemouth. The removal of these basis will destropy the entire community of these towns. This will not stop the London Mp's closing the base and moving it south.
Are they planning to? And I don't think you mean only the few dozen London MPs.
In the event of an independent Scotland, such a move would be entirely reasonable and justified.
I bet the railway would create more jobs that Trident.
What d'you base that on? Honest question, like. I imagine it would require teams of navvies over a period of half a decade or so (albeit waiting until the end of this decade for start), followed by the staff (dozens, hundreds?) necessary in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Whereas, definite numbers can be pointed to viz. Trident at the dockyards in Cumbria and whatever HMNBs plus their satellite towns.
If it's started in London, you can bet your life there will be a change of heart once Birmingham has been reached, and we'll all have spent billions on a new commuter line for the South East of England.
The London/Birmingham link is between the two main population centres in the UK. Further north, there has been something of a commitment to pre-existing Intercities or motorways.
Try again Alec you must do better,
No I was not arguing that, it is very clear from my narrative in what I am saying.
I am using the example of what happened at Roysth that UK governments use defence job protection went it suits there politics.
Now you are the one who is saying about children and clothes etc. So who is trying to use the humanism angle?
Again this thread is about Trident / Trains / Defence jobs not about Killie v Leven so why try and divert?
What criteria are you asking me about?
Notwithstanding the arguments over employment and costs associated in maintaining a system of WMD's that is practically useless, it should be borne in mind that Scottish taxpayers will be funding this new high speed rail link to Birmingham with zero benefit to Scotland - if it ever happens! This is a spectacular own goal by the london based establishment only weeks ahead of the GE.
Try again Alec you must do better,
No I was not arguing that, it is very clear from my narrative in what I am saying.
If you're arguing about something other than the observation that people currently in employment at HMNB Clyde might not think their wage-packets are frivilous, then you're accusing me of summat I never said.
Why was as-yet unrealized employment at Leven more important than existing employment at Killie?
Jeff,
In an Independent Scotland there is still a requirement for a Naval/Coast Guard Base - HMNB Clyde is already there and functioning, the assets just wouldn't be Nuclear Submarines!
Furthermore, Scotland would still need Maritime Patrol Aircraft and a S&R Helo base, fixed wing aircraft to protect our Sovereign airspace, hence the need to keep the real estate of what's going to be affordable and of use post Independence.
I bet Defence Estates rapidly sell on what they can to asset strip our legal land holdings that should transfer to a Scottish MoD.
People and myself included would do well to step back and think of the reality of a situation, sometimes it is difficult to disconnect emotion from facts.
Scaremongering has no positive effect on this issue.
CD
Alec again nice try, no my first response to you was to respond to your statement that I was all over the place and had been arguing for the reopening of Rosyth.
Which clearly I hadn't
My arguement is very clear, why are politicans arguing that the jobs associated with Trident are any more special than other defence related jobs in the past / present / future?
Using Rosyth as an example again where the jobs there more or less important than Devonport?
I forgot to add and was it did politics or engineering that decided on Devonport?
I think we all know the answer to that one.
So when I hear unionist politicans using the jobs associated with trident as a shield I just hear hypocrisy in every word they speak.
Apologies for the bad grammer.
Tormod, give it a rest. As I've said before, you've gone out on a limb and are now trying to scrabble back, unnoticed as the branch sags.
The scale-down at Rosyth was a loss to the local economy, but I have from the beginning been discussing the Gare Loch. Why would I support their being economically disadvantaged simply because of what happened elsewhere?
That would be spiteful.
My arguement is very clear [...]
Boring! You can insist this exchange between the two of us is about whatever you want, but it doesn't make it so.
What's this about Devonport? Where did I defend MoD policy? I hope you're not trying to introduce new information and win through default.
Come on, Mr. Rimmer, those scutters need to get back to work!
In an Independent Scotland there is still a requirement for a Naval/Coast Guard Base - HMNB Clyde is already there and functioning, the assets just wouldn't be Nuclear Submarines!
Or a lot of infrastructure and ships and British capital. Or d'you take the Angus Robertson line that the British military would stay on un-changed in a foreign country which it has no strategic need for?
Alec it's an interesting technique you've got there.
As subtle as a brick through a glass window.
This is about Trident and the jobs associated with it I agree.
Again why do you think we should treat the jobs with trident any differently from other MOD / Military jobs?
No, Tormod. This is what I call unmitigated bullshit.
Go right to the begining, and you'll see my responding to Jeff's apparent suggesting that actual, real, verifiable employment in and around HMNB Clyde is a "futile jobs creation scheme".
Futile to whom?
Thank you for demonstrating, yet again, the difficulty by SNP-sympathizers in discussing grown-up issues like defence and employment.
Again why do you think we should treat the jobs with trident any differently from other MOD / Military jobs?
Now Tormod's suggesting that jobs in Scotland are no more important than across the UK!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V3SqxUomwk
No bullshit required Alec, just because I peel back the unionist onion and expose the layers.
It's not difficult.
Jeff was referring to Trident and the jobs associated with them.
So If a government is going to support jobs surely it would be better to use those funds to support infrastructure that would provide greater growth and economic activity?
Grown up such as having a strategic weapons platform that is 99% reliant on the US.
Ultimately, Trident based jobs are futile because Trident is futile. I remember a Conservative politician trying to convince me that our Forces needed Trident, but noy the pan-European Tornado jet programme. Since then, of course, Tornado aircraft have been deployed in Iraq twice, and Afghanistan, supporting ground forces and providing air cover. And Trident? How has that helped?
I have no proof about my suggestion that the railway would create more jobs, but there would be train crew jobs, station staff jobs, track maintenance, train fleet maintenance, catering jobs, signalling, power supply - just a few areas off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.
Lastly, I'd far rather have a good railway than atom bombs.
No bullshit required Alec, just because I peel back the unionist onion and expose the layers.
You just cannot help yourself, can you? The political field isn't divided into Them and Us, with Them being the ju-ju term of "Unionists".
Although, I admit I was like that once... then I reach puberty.
Now, why were the Killie workers less important than Leven workers?
~alec
Some of you are clearly on some form of narcotic if you think London gives a toss for Forces bases presently located in Jockland!
London MPs would gleefully have them moved if it saved thier srawny troughing snouts!
They did not give a monkeys when they destroyed the mining industry and thus the community's that made thier living from it!
They dont give a fig for those Scottish community's presently being destroyed by the scourge of Hard Drugs!
Oh and there is no RAF Forres, it is RAF Kinloss!
Richard, does the SNP still not wish to withdraw from or, at the very least, 'renegotiate' NATO-membership?
If so, appeals to supporting other NATO-led schemes should be doubted.
I have no proof about my suggestion that the railway would create more jobs, but there would be train crew jobs, station staff jobs, track maintenance, train fleet maintenance, catering jobs, signalling, power supply - just a few areas off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.
Yes, that's fair, but similar could apply to contractors, caterers and wattknot at HMNB Clyde.
Lastly, I'd far rather have a good railway than atom bombs.
It all boils down to how far the money for the three decade long lifespan of Trident II could stretch. If the public were asked if they'd rather x billions be spent on rail-services or the NHS (remember, billions is outwith the comprehension of many) than the military, I am sure the answer would be yes.
If they were asked if they'd rather a six month running fee for the NHS (off the top of my head) (which, pro rata, would be even less considering it was based on a three decade period) were redirected from a programme which *was* creating employment, with no guarantee of future funds, the answer might be different.
Some of you are clearly on some form of narcotic if you think London gives a toss for Forces bases presently located in Jockland!
London???
The British military is a collaborative effect, with personnel on bases in Scotland being recruited from across the UK; and recruits from Scotland being just as likely to be based elsewhere in the UK.
A more sensible suggestion would involve setting up a government department to count blades of grass and employ everyone invovled with Trident. We could even multiply their salaries several times and still have billions left over to put towards HSR.
If the UK takes the (preposterous) decision to build new nuclear weapons at this enormous cost then they must be justified on their own merit. The jobs argument is, as they well know, a falicy.
The reason this disfunctional argument is constantly promoted however is that there is actually no real moral, political, social or economic argument in favour of new WMDs.
Jeff - excellent post. Patriculaly enjoying your highlighting of the hypocrisy in Labour's position regarding GARL and HSR, which I hadn't put together yet. Keep up the good work!
I hope the SNP run and run and run with trident as an election issue as they are definitely on the sensible, ethical and (crucially) popular side of this argument. Their consistent and credible opposition to this project is also another clear argument in favour of their inclusion in the upcoming TV debates.
I also enjoyed reading Osama Saeed' blog and press release on this issue. He continues to go up and up in my estimations despite a seemingly intense vilification campaign against him. Although I think he's got a mountain to climb to win his seat, I think he would be an absolutely excellent representative for Glasgow Central, and a breath of fresh air for the city. 'Mon Osama!
He continues to go up and up in my estimations despite a seemingly intense vilification campaign against him.
Yes, all he's doing is placing himself in the public sphere as a PPC, and generous paid head of a quango despite no proven track record of delivery and has failed to deliver.
How dare anyone criticize him!
Although I think he's got a mountain to climb to win his seat,
And if that fails to happen, there'll be a perfect alibi.
Alec,
No, it's my line, not Angus', when I was last in Faslane workers from the former HMNB Rosyth were bused in daily because an agency office had been relocated. Kinda changes your arguement.
Once we're out of NATO at the SNPs request we can still interact as PFP, providing NATO wants to do business, and as there is a wealth of experience and skills which will migrate to a SDF, they would be remiss not to.
Furthermore, there would need to be a transitional period to enable the infrastructure changes and split of assets. 2,5 or 10 years, whatever We decide and is palatable.
With less than 990 positions related to Trident, I think those can easily be replaced by Scots members of the Armed Forces returning to Scotland and the local area.
What do you think?
CD
There has actually been quite a bit of work done on this by the STUC amongst others.
They reckon we could easily redeploy workers who lost their employment if Trident was cancelled, the savings made would more than cover the cost of that and we would have more money to spend on conventional military activity.
It's fairly obvious when you think about it. There is no need for anyone to become unemployed if Trident is cancelled - they can do something more productive instead. Skills are transferrable in most cases.
Crazy Daisy, I fail to see which argument of my has been undermined. It's Tormod, not me, who's been making an issue out of Faslane, Rosyth or this_and_that - right from the beginning, I've been discussing low- to medium-ranking workers who just so happen to be at HMNB Clyde and other beneficiaries in the locale.
Once we're out of NATO at the SNPs request we can still interact as PFP, providing NATO wants to do business, and as there is a wealth of experience and skills which will migrate to a SDF, they would be remiss not to.
Why? They would already have committed nations, who were prepared to submit to the requirements of a reciprocal agreement rather than expecting only to select the juiciest missions. Of course, Scots citizens would, I hope, be perfectly free to join the British military.
With less than 990 positions related to Trident, I think those can easily be replaced by Scots members of the Armed Forces returning to Scotland and the local area.
What do you think?
I think you're living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. For a start, if 990 positions (forgetting questions of the service economy around bases which otherwise would have housed Trident) are canceled, new positions would have to be *created* for returning returning Scots members of the Armed Forces. And, are you imagining requiring that they leave the military?
What would they be employed as? Security guards? The Atholl Highlanders... no, sorry, they are security guards.
Or are you imagining their joining a new shiny shortbread-tin military? How would that be funded, and how would it cope with personnel accustomed to war-zone service?
Here is Robertson's views (which are remarkably like yours in terms of wishful thinking):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6870376.ece
An independent Scotland cannot, should not expect the British military to continue to assist its domestic economy.
I would have thought this were obvious.
Observer, it's perfectly fair to discuss job creation (the non-futile sort), but I'd rather it not be done by any trade union system which Jim Devine takes his lead from.
The nub of this thread, however, is the puerile twaddle of "Train not Trident" slogans - from people who're still rooted in student politics, and unaware that there ain't no going back to 1968.
Discontinuing Trident will release only a limited finite quantity of revenue. Real, mature questions would be monitoring a bloated and unaccountable state sector; or incoherent benefits system; or a publicly-funded asylum process which strikes more as a means for seething colostomy bags of liberal guilt to be seen as compassionate internationalists rather than a sustainable system.
Nah, sod that, let's just shout a few slogans.
Now, are there any readers from Killie here??? How do they feel about Marwick helping to shaft their town?
Alec; The japenese knotweed of blogging.
'Anonymous' - skulking coward who doesn't have the commitment to owning any opinions.
Would you prefer I left and everyone could be in agreement?
I am not much into sloganeering myself Alec however unfortunately modern politics demands it. When you are faced with ''Rip off Glasgow'' and all the lies about GARL then you have to fight fire with fire.
I don't give two hoots about GARL I hate having to get a plane to London full stop. I would much rather take a fast train.
This is a goer in campaigning terms.
And the SNP's consistent and principled stand against Trident should also be sold on the doorsteps.
The only argument Labour seem able to come up with against it is job loss. That is not necessarily true.
I wouldn't write off the entire STUC because of Devine. There are some good guys in there, and on this occasion re: Trident they are on our side.
Don't understand the UNSC objection. I don't think there's any requirement for all permanent members to have nuclear weapons (only one had them at its formation), and wouldn't the UK be able to veto its own ejection?
I know these threads have a tendency to turn into Alec vs everyone, and I think it's good there's a ghost at the feast to upset the cosy consensus, but this:
Go right to the begining, and you'll see my responding to Jeff's apparent suggesting that actual, real, verifiable employment in and around HMNB Clyde is a "futile jobs creation scheme".
Futile to whom?
Thank you for demonstrating, yet again, the difficulty by SNP-sympathizers in discussing grown-up issues like defence and employment.
Did Jeff edit his original post since you made this point? What it says on my screen is "otherwise futile jobs creation scheme". He even says that jobs are "the only discernible benefit". Your interpretation of this (stop me if this is unfair) is that he's saying it's futile for these people to have jobs.
I don't think this can be a deliberately selective quote, since all one has to do is scroll up to see that Jeff is saying the opposite of what you accuse him of. So I wonder if you could clear up the discrepancy.
Why do so many people say that a HSR line between London and Manchester won't benefit Scotland? A London-Glasgow train would still be able to use the new fast track for a substantial fraction of the trip, knocking about an hour off the journey time.
Alec,
You misunderstand me. On the negotiated settlement from the UK a portion of assets would be returned to an Independent Scotland. i.e. River Class patrol ships.
These assets would naturally be based in Faslane. Have you any idea how few positions there are in Scotland for serving members of the RN surface fleet - for me lucky if there are 5 posts.
We cannot serve north of the border in our country because its all bloody submariners. So HMNB Clyde would continue. There would be some new posiitons but the admin side would remain, as would the ops room, you'd need less MoD plod.
NATO would utilise Scots Military Experience through PFP because it's NATO Policy.
Furthermore, we have fishing grounds, oil, gas and renewables that they NEED, so we can contribute or not, it depends what the Government of the day decides.
Low & medium rankers are bussed in from the Rosyth area to work in Faslane, hence my initial point.
Local suppliers, wrong - National and Multi-National Defence contractors supply the base.
The local populace they benefit from the house prices, but then Helensburgh has always been a satellite of Glasgow.
Dunoon seems to have faired well when the Holy Loch Yank base disappeared, so I don't agree with your position.
The money to afford this comes from GDP but as yet we don't exactly know what it is due to the obfuscating Treasury.
It is affordable and we cut our cloth to one that fits an Independent Scotland, even if we have non-Scots serving in our Forces, not everyone will wish to leave Scotland, but I bet more return than you anticipate.
I understand the job creation issue, which is why I believe we should be building the engineering technology required to capture wave energy, off/onshore wind turbines etc.
It's not about we can't because we haven't before, we can we will we must.
And I'm not living in Cloud Cuckoo, don't be so disrespectful stronz.
CD
"Anonymous said...
Why do so many people say that a HSR line between London and Manchester won't benefit Scotland? A London-Glasgow train would still be able to use the new fast track for a substantial fraction of the trip, knocking about an hour off the journey time."
I'm not sure where to begin here.
One reason is that a line to Manchester from London to Manchester would be wholly within England, so all the benfit of the jobs it created would in England also.
A complete new line could be built to the more generous standard European loading Gauge, and with a bit of thought would permit through running to the mainland of Europe.
Integrating old and new rail technologies on one line would be complicated and costly. A train capable of reaching Glasgow on the old line in the North would have to comply to two sets of standards, and might prove to be an obstruction to the new faster trains enjoyed in the South.
It's a half-assed solution to the problem, and would look like a studied insult to all of us who live North of Manchester. If this is a United Kingdom, let the UK Gov't demonstrate its commitment to the Union in a concrete fashion.
Always glad to be a service, Colin. There's been no editing that I've seen: my original interjection was a genuine doubt 'bout Jeff's comment. He hasn't responded, so I can't attribute owt to him.
Fortunately, Tormod has stepped into the breach and given me more than enough to get my teeth into.
And the SNP's consistent and principled stand against Trident should also be sold on the doorsteps.
It's not principled. That would require their having the responsibility to shoulder any -ve effects. This ain't a criticism, just an observation.
Nor is it consistent. That is a criticism.
Low & medium rankers are bussed in from the Rosyth area to work in Faslane, hence my initial point.
So you said. And I responded that it was not part of mine, to which you were responding. I can go only on what is written, and your remarks - taken on face value - suggested what I outlined above.
If this is not the case, by all means elaborate.
Given that the first caveat of the second sentence in my opening remark in this thread was "the projected cost for Trident could, of course, be spent elsewhere", anyone suggesting that I was offering uncritical support for its renewal was going to have an uphill struggle.
An independent Scotland would be welcome to renounce/renegotiate NATO membership, but she would have no entitlement to enjoy the material and economic benefits of the membership she wasn't prepared to commit to.
Likewise, she would have the fixtures and fittings of vacated military installations, but again no entitlement to named equipment. Anything which she did retain or subsequently purchase would have to be financed on her own (after she had accounted for her share of the UK national debt, amongst others).
Yes, [some of the] former satellite towns of US bases have bounced back, but they did so within the wider UK economy... which wouldn't necessarily be open to an independent Scotland.
Independence, who would have thought it require decision making?
@Richard Lucas:
I don't support HSR for the jobs it creates during the build phase (although they are of course a bonus), rather for the fact that it will create a much needed piece of infrastructure, the same reason that I in principle support Crossrail, GARL, and trams in Edinburgh (assuming that benefits out-way costs of course). HSR is to initially connect London and Birmingham because that is where extra rail capacity is most needed.
In terms of trains, this is addressed in the HS2 report, and yes, two fleets would be needed, one high-speed only and one with a narrower loading gauge for trains that would also be used on the 'classic' network, but that's no more of a problem than occurred with the trains for the chunnel. As capacity fills on existing lines, the HS network can be expanded to alleviate it.
Simon (previously anon) said...
I agree that construction jobs aren't the only consideration, but this thread is in part discussing job creation.
I take your channel tunnel analogy, but I remember that the need to build the Eurostars to run on UK 750v DC as well as 25kV AC,as well as under different signalling regimes was complicated and expensive, and the trains intended for the North of London services (snort!) never were made to be capable of operating as planned. The whole set up was seen to inadequate from the outset, and has now been replaced with saner provision.
You wouldn't build a high speed line just to get to Brum - "classic" lines such as the Chilterns route could be upgraded to meet the need. We are discussing a UK wide system here - I've not heard anyone deny that such a thing is desireable.
Also, credit where credit's due for one of Anonymous' finding a regular posting handle.
Alec
There is little economic benefit of being in NATO it's an American lap dog, they are the greatest financial and military contributers so usually get their way, having personally experienced it first hand. It was created post WW2 strengthened during the Cold War and now post war it's outlived it's usefullness. It is a gross waste of money, time, effort and lives.
I refute your suggestion that Scotland would not be entitled to any material gains previously belonging to the UK, thesame could be said of assets anywhere else.
Anyway, the trainline v trident, bin trident it serves no purpose in a world filled with asymetric warfare. The trainline should go all the way to Inverness why should we be treated like an after thought. Point of note all our roads north of the central belt are dual carriage way which doesn't enable freight to move around to Scotland and onwards to Europe.
Oil money squandered on the SE, criminal.
Independence does take thought but at least the SNP are doing something about it rather than settling for the status quo.
CD
Always glad to be a service, Colin. There's been no editing that I've seen: my original interjection was a genuine doubt 'bout Jeff's comment. He hasn't responded, so I can't attribute owt to him.
I'll leave it to Jeff to puzzle over how an unambiguous statement that job creation (and a seat on UNSC) are "the only discernible benefits" of renewal could be interpreted as meaning that jobs are not a benefit.
There is little economic benefit of being in NATO it's an American lap dog,
Are there supposedly intelligent creatures who still talk like this?
You remind me of this chap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dVz2pph4gs
Yankees Go Home!
Also, you definitely think there are other benefits or you wouldn't have said:
Once we're out of NATO at the SNPs request we can still interact as PFP, providing NATO wants to do business, and as there is a wealth of experience and skills which will migrate to a SDF, they would be remiss not to.
So, which is it?
Anyway, the trainline v trident, [...]
It's a puerile slogan fit for student politics, not grown-up governance.
[...]bin trident it serves no purpose
It serves some.
in a world filled with asymetric warfare.
All the more reason to commit to a military alliance. NATO maybe.
You seem to be loosing your grip. Here, let me give you a little push.
As I said, Colin, I have no beef with Jeff. Tormod occupied my attention.
Alec,
Nice try I won't bite mate, I have my opinions you have yours.
You clearly have Zero experience in military matters.
Enjoy your weekend with your friends.
CD
Tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers money for the odd thousand jobs, or two, isn't value for money.
It would be cheaper to pension off or pay them at full wage rate all the staff than wating billions on something that will never be used. They could pretend they have it.
If the economic benefit of spending £35 billion (& counting) on a way to travel that will be slower & much more expensive than planes "speaks for itself" it seems to have laryngytis.
Perhaps somebody might produce their cost benefit analysis. Probably from the same people who said the economic benefits of trams in Edinburgh were to obvious to bother checking.
Trident is a moral abomination. It's no more acceptable as a job creation scheme than a Nazi theme park where anti-semites can chase down free-range Jews.
The number of jobs dependent on the base at Faslane is wildly over-estimated (some fantasists claim as many as 10,000).
I provide the following nugget for your perusal:
Parliamentary Answer on 21 Feb 2005:
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate how many (a) direct and (b) indirect civilian jobs in (i) Scotland and (ii) the rest of the UK rely upon the Trident programme. [214416]
Mr. Hoon: The number of civilian jobs which directly rely upon the Trident programme is estimated to be 936 in Scotland, with an additional 6,640 in the rest of the United Kingdom. The number of civilian jobs which indirectly rely upon the Trident programme is estimated to be 300 in Scotland and 5,700 for the rest of the UK.
I recommend a thorough study of the following post on Calum Cashley's blog:
http://calumcashley.blogspot.com/2009/04/nuclear-option.html
Enlightening, isn't it?
Unfortunately, I, as a mere unpaid political enthusiast, cannot dedicate as much time to commenting as other people seem to be able to.
Fed up having to skip Alec's comments said...
It would be cheaper to pension off or pay them at full wage rate all the staff than wating billions on something that will never be used. They could pretend they have it.
Actually FuhtsAc,
the claim of possessing non-existent nuclear weapons is, in terms of the academic discipline and study of nuclear strategy, no different and just as effective as having them.
The deterrent effect is much the same.
Look it up on the internet mate.
By the way,
give me what it costs to buy Trident and I guarantee I will match any jobs created by it and more.
Does City Building have to bid to win contracts in Glasgow, bearing in mind Purcell ran the show?
Were costings even provided?
City Building have refused to explain how they won a refrigeration contract, and wish to avoid FOI as it would show the "unique" (their word) methodology....
Damn sure it is "unique!"!
Audit Glasgow CC and it would appear Haughey who received a rather large wedge from taxpayers when he swapped his factory location would have some "unique" explaining to do.
If, and I say IF to avoid contention, there are issues with this organisation failing to be transparent and provide details about its business practices, would that perhaps explain why Purcell is hiding out of public view, currently considering booking a trip on the next flight to the moon?
One way or another Purcell needs to explain this synergy between the company he set up and Glasgow City Council.
Sticking his head in the sand and going for the "stress" excuse will not suffice if the rumours turn out to be proven.
The Herald could nail this, they have the information to force an enquiry, but as Gordon Brown and Haughey are mates I can see this one being buried as well.
Post a Comment