This will be a vote to renew our so called nuclear deterrent(?) and keep it on Scottish soil. It will cost about £31 billion and is reckoned to be financed further up to £200 billion in a UK where austerity measures prevail and we're starting to print more money! It's reckoned of all Scottish MPs, only one will vote for Trident renewal and guess which political party he represents? Yep, you've got it - he just had to be a Tory spouting the usual political ideology re the traditional use of a nuclear deterrent in a changing world where any suicide bomber(s) wouldn't give a f### re trident or any other nuclear deterrent!! It looks like the toerags will have their way and vote this monstrosity in while it's clear that the majority of the Scottish population is vehemently opposed to it. Maybe we should have another Scottish referendum to decide if this nuclear obscenity should be allowed on Scottish soil eh - let the indigenous people vote on it being in Faslane!! Then the UK govt can lug it down to England - the farther south, the better!!
Trident renewal - parliamentary vote today!
18-07-2016, 11:51
This illustrates how the people in power actually feel about Scotland. Greenham Common and Upper Heyford used to house nuclear weapons but don't any longer. Thousands protested and eventually they were removed.
Its a different story if trident is parked near some major population centre in England.
Its a different story if trident is parked near some major population centre in England.
19-07-2016, 07:34
To be fair both Greenham Common and Upper Heyford were closed after the Cold War ended in the mid 1990s when the US scaled back their military presence in Western Europe. I really don't think it had anything to do with the women protestors in the early 1980s.
As regards Trident I am on the fence with this one. I like the nuclear deterrent we have, I like it that we have a submarine fleet but I do think most western countries spend way too much on defence when the threat we now really have is not from other super powers or even western style democracies but from countries that militarily cannot touch us!! I think a strong military is necessary as we never know what may happen in the future but it needs to be proportionate and accountable with regards to expenditure (except in times of war when they should get what they need to perform their duties).
As regards Trident I am on the fence with this one. I like the nuclear deterrent we have, I like it that we have a submarine fleet but I do think most western countries spend way too much on defence when the threat we now really have is not from other super powers or even western style democracies but from countries that militarily cannot touch us!! I think a strong military is necessary as we never know what may happen in the future but it needs to be proportionate and accountable with regards to expenditure (except in times of war when they should get what they need to perform their duties).
19-07-2016, 10:31
With Putin in charge of Russia and Trump a strong possibility in the USA then IMO Trident is a must.
It also creates work for the people, some reports suggested that up 15k jobs could be lost if we didn't go ahead with it. Jobs = Wages, Wages= spending, People spending money = a stronger economy.
It also creates work for the people, some reports suggested that up 15k jobs could be lost if we didn't go ahead with it. Jobs = Wages, Wages= spending, People spending money = a stronger economy.
19-07-2016, 19:04
I'm not on the fence on this one. I'm all for a nuclear deterrent. It seems to have worked for the past 70 years and I liked Theresa May's positive YES to using the deterrent if need be. I would only ask, do we need 4 submarines? Would 3 not work just as well, possibly even 2?
As for terrorists, perhaps we should be asking two questions - how many people have been killed by nuclear weapons and how many people have been killed by conventional weapons? Surely it would make much more sense to try to remove conventional weapons from the world first.
As for terrorists, perhaps we should be asking two questions - how many people have been killed by nuclear weapons and how many people have been killed by conventional weapons? Surely it would make much more sense to try to remove conventional weapons from the world first.
Cabbage is still good for you
I'd suggest to any pro nuclear member: go away and study the whole black history of nuclear research and development and, if you can afford it, visit Hiroshima or Nagasaki and study the consequences of imposing atomic/nuclear destruction on any civilian population. I think many folk who glibly pass this off as some kinda blase thumbs up for a WMD (remember the use of that acronym by British politicians often enough! 
) Also it's a deterrent. Is it? That really is a matter of opinion!! Lastly the jobs argument is no justification of brokering the creation of a more powerful WMD!!! It's like retaining a factory that manufactures lotsa weapons and tools for torture purposes because we're employing lotsa workers - crass reasoning to suit an immoral purpose!!! Also what threat to Scotland?????? Scotland is not a war-mongering country and I 'd like to see this WMD's removal to south of the border asap. If the masses in England wanna have it (unlike the majority of Scottish opinion!), let them re-locate it in the English heartlands and they can be the identifiable strategic target if they wanna follow that immoral route of national defence!!
) Also it's a deterrent. Is it? That really is a matter of opinion!! Lastly the jobs argument is no justification of brokering the creation of a more powerful WMD!!! It's like retaining a factory that manufactures lotsa weapons and tools for torture purposes because we're employing lotsa workers - crass reasoning to suit an immoral purpose!!! Also what threat to Scotland?????? Scotland is not a war-mongering country and I 'd like to see this WMD's removal to south of the border asap. If the masses in England wanna have it (unlike the majority of Scottish opinion!), let them re-locate it in the English heartlands and they can be the identifiable strategic target if they wanna follow that immoral route of national defence!!
19-07-2016, 22:04
We should have a referendum for Trident. Then we can put the figures of how much is spent daily on this project onto the side of a bus and see if the great british public would rather the money be spent on the NHS.
19-07-2016, 22:21
(This post was last modified: 19-07-2016, 22:23 by ritchiebaby.
Edit Reason: Bus edit
)
Snooty, we've had quite enough referenda, thank you very much! Anyway we had one last year - it was called the General Election. Love them or loathe them, the Tories were voted in for 5 years. That's democracy. And remember the figures on the side of the bus are bound to be wrong.
0762, Defence is a UK responsibility and the UK House of Commons voted to replace the Trident submarines. That's also democracy, although I'm certain many English MPs were voting to make sure they stay in Scotland.
0762, Defence is a UK responsibility and the UK House of Commons voted to replace the Trident submarines. That's also democracy, although I'm certain many English MPs were voting to make sure they stay in Scotland.
Cabbage is still good for you
Aye! Let the Scottish people decide if they want it and also if they want it to remain on Scottish soil! Then the English electorate can do likewise. Did you know that the British govt/MOD originally proposed to carry out their first test of 'the bomb' at a site near Wick in the north of Scotland That was before they eventually moved it to Australia and misinformed/used their own military personnel as guinea pigs! The rest is history and a black one at that!
That was before they eventually moved it to Australia and misinformed/used their own military personnel as guinea pigs! The rest is history and a black one at that!
20-07-2016, 09:06
Even the military top brass don't want it though. It's a waste of money which would be better spent on fighting the modern enemy.
Nuclear weapons are never going to be used. They're not a deterrent.
Nuclear weapons are never going to be used. They're not a deterrent.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »