Quote Originally Posted by Manxman View Post
Has anyone considered the implication of all the jobs that will be lost by removing these boats
Having been stationed at faslane whilst in the RN I know firsthand just how much depends on its continued use
The infrustructor for suppling this base stretches down to glasgow and beyond
Helensburgh relies on it being there and has anyone consulted the workforce with regards to their future
Will it have any effect on Coulport there are at least 4 married quarter estates that may be left empty because I cant see the government leaving any thing else at this base
I bet that the workforce in portsmouth plymouth etc are rubbing their hands with glee with all the work that may be coming their way also the suppliers
Right now, nobody is seriously considering the submarines will be removed, however much we would wish that to be the case. That is an outcome which will need a vote for independence first.....after which the Clyde Naval Base would have a future in the non-nuclear Scottish Defence force.

The UK is a country which has seen a six fold increase in foodbanks since 2010, as well as the deaths and suicides of people left penniless due to spurious sanctioning of the disabled, by a corporation to meet their profit targets, and equally spurious sanctioning by the DWP to cut the levels of benefits paid out and the numbers of people on the employment register, not to mention one which has seen the numbers and incomes of the wealthy continue to rise at the same time as our incompetent and ideologically fixated Governments, whatever their colour, have been reducing the lives of even many of those in work back to the very Victorian age and ethos Mrs Thatcher used to talk about with approval, though to be fair to Mrs Thatcher, she did at least draw the line at playing about with the NHS to achieve that. How then can the UK Government, in all conscience, be advocating not just the future renewal, at enormous taxpayer cost post 2016, but paying out millions annually now, before any final decision as to whether, or with what, they will be replaced, to design the new submarines, to purchase new reactors for them, to ready the base to receive them and to contract for long lead-time items in preparation for the first submarine entering service in the late 2020s?

Regarding the benefits to Helensburgh......the view of a Helensburgh resident or two (all linked articles were written during the referendum campaign, and while those making the points may not have been NO voters, closed shops, a preponderance of charity shops and the fall in house prices etc are ascertainable facts which are chiels that winna ding)
http://misssymartin.blogspot.co.uk/2...e-baillie.html , http://sputniknews.com/world/20140825/192337478.html ,

In his memoirs, Tony Blair gave the truth of the matter of Trident and its continuation......he said "the expense is huge, and the utility in a post-cold war world is less in terms of deterrence, and non-existent in terms of military use" and he also said........and this is where imo, the real benefit of Trident comes, not to our safety, but as the UK's sticky-on hairy chest........so "In the final analysis, I thought giving it up too big a downgrading of our status as a nation, and in an uncertain world, too big a risk for our defence."

I'm sure you will forgive me if I think the world is uncertain because, out there in it, are nine states with nuclear weapons and 180+ without them, and the paranoia, arrogance and UN veto of five of the nine states with them are why the world is uncertain.....because those states consider only the cost and benefit to their own country of any action and do not consider the international law they were instrumental in compiling, or the wider picture of the effects of their decisions on the rest of the world......the growth in terrorism being an example. I would be more sanguine if I was not aware that the USA have already used nuclear weapons, not for any good reason, against a country ready and willing to surrender, but to send a message to Russia. The USA started and exacerbated the arms race, and took steps to ensure that the big stick numbers were limited to their advantage.

I'd be interested if you, or anyone, could give me some idea of just what circumstances would ever warrant the use of Trident against either one of the 180+ countries without nuclear weapons.......or the other eight which have them........many of which will undoubtedly have much bigger and better ones than we do...and also what use they are in the "War on Terrorism" or "The War on Drugs" or the There may have been some small benefit in having it parked near the most densely populated part of Scotland if, because of its presence, it actually stopped wars......but all it does do is permit the Governments of those countries with nuclear weapons to pretty much ride roughshod over the Governments and populations of countries without any to abstract resources and make money......the playground bullies of the nuclear age.