Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The position of the Falklands depends on who you ask, but it is ours.


The U.S. And UK get on well, but the U.S. Doesn't own us. The same way that Russia doesn't own Ukraine.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
You're just avoiding having to admit you were wrong about the PM needing the US president's permission to use our nukes.

If Britain's independent nuclear deterrent is independent, my name's Margret Thatcher.

I'd love to know how the US president would stop one of our subs from launching.

Considering they get the warheads from the US in the first place...

We keep a stock of them at Faslane and armed Trident subs are on permanent patrol world wide, iiirc. Ketara?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


You know as well as I do that British Prime minsters couldn't send a rowing boat overseas without America's say so. We've been the junior partner a long time.

So to clarify, you are asserting that the British Prime Minister cannot give orders of a hostile/warlike nature to a British nuclear submarine Captain without permission from the US President? Yes or no will suffice.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Considering they get the warheads from the US in the first place...

So you are saying that supplying a weapon to a country/person means that they are incapable of using those weapons without you?


This has to be trolling. No way are you being serious.

 Albatross wrote:

We keep a stock of them at Faslane and armed Trident subs are on permanent patrol world wide, iiirc. Ketara?

Aye. It wouldn't be much of a deterrent if it wasn't ready for use at a moments notice. There's always a submerged sub with nuclear warheads somewhere, waiting for the signal.

...from the US president.

 Albatross wrote:
...from the US president.

Don't you mean Plulax?

The idea that Trident is even slightly effective as a deterrent is pure, Unicorns-farting-rainbows-level fantasy.

Even if we were in a state of heightened tensions with Russia, we physically don't have enough qualified crew to man more than a couple of the subs at once, and even all four Vanguard subs(or their proposed, ridiculously-expensive replacements) simply aren't capable of launching enough warheads to wipe out the Russians' ability to respond; not in a first strike scenario, and not in a retaliatory strike scenario. The only chance Trident has of having any impact whatsoever in a nuclear exchange is as part of a coordinated NATO attack with America's nukes, and their nukes outnumber ours to such a hilarious degree that our contribution to such an effort would be akin to a child adding the "firepower" of their stick & rubber-band catapult to a battalion of rifle infantry, ie it could equally well be achieved without our involvement.

This is the problem with Trident; its only viable target is civilians, and that makes it pointless. If we were ever to use Trident to first-strike a city full of people, whatever smouldering pile of rubble survived the retaliation would be a pariah state for generations, so we can't use it for a first strike and everybody we might possibly use it against knows that perfectly well. In any scenario where Trident was launched as a retaliatory attack, it would be equally as pointless - it would only take a handful of modern nuclear weapons to bathe this entire island in death, so if anyone was ever insane enough to actually launch them at us firing Trident back would be a vacant act of spite; some politician somewhere slaughtered a bunch of our civilians, so bugger it, lets slaughter a bunch of theirs back even if it makes no difference.

It's expensive, it's pointless without NATO, NATO would work just as well without it, it's unusable for a first-strike and it's pointless as retaliation. Even if you completely ignore the massive ethical problems with nuclear weaponry, Trident is a pointless joke; a penis extender for politicians so they can sit on the Security Council pretending we're still an empire while doing what America tells us to.

And even if you set all that aside; if the UK government insists on replacing Trident, they can replace it somewhere else, because housing nuclear weapons a few minutes drive outside Scotland's most populous city-centre is intolerably irresponsible, especially considering their atrocious safety record.

 Yodhrin wrote:
The idea that Trident is even slightly effective as a deterrent is pure, Unicorns-farting-rainbows-level fantasy.

Even if we were in a state of heightened tensions with Russia, we physically don't have enough qualified crew to man more than a couple of the subs at once, and even all four Vanguard subs(or their proposed, ridiculously-expensive replacements) simply aren't capable of launching enough warheads to wipe out the Russians' ability to respond; not in a first strike scenario, and not in a retaliatory strike scenario. The only chance Trident has of having any impact whatsoever in a nuclear exchange is as part of a coordinated NATO attack with America's nukes, and their nukes outnumber ours to such a hilarious degree that our contribution to such an effort would be akin to a child adding the "firepower" of their stick & rubber-band catapult to a battalion of rifle infantry, ie it could equally well be achieved without our involvement.

This is the problem with Trident; its only viable target is civilians, and that makes it pointless. If we were ever to use Trident to first-strike a city full of people, whatever smouldering pile of rubble survived the retaliation would be a pariah state for generations, so we can't use it for a first strike and everybody we might possibly use it against knows that perfectly well. In any scenario where Trident was launched as a retaliatory attack, it would be equally as pointless - it would only take a handful of modern nuclear weapons to bathe this entire island in death, so if anyone was ever insane enough to actually launch them at us firing Trident back would be a vacant act of spite; some politician somewhere slaughtered a bunch of our civilians, so bugger it, lets slaughter a bunch of theirs back even if it makes no difference.

It's expensive, it's pointless without NATO, NATO would work just as well without it, it's unusable for a first-strike and it's pointless as retaliation. Even if you completely ignore the massive ethical problems with nuclear weaponry, Trident is a pointless joke; a penis extender for politicians so they can sit on the Security Council pretending we're still an empire while doing what America tells us to.

And even if you set all that aside; if the UK government insists on replacing Trident, they can replace it somewhere else, because housing nuclear weapons a few minutes drive outside Scotland's most populous city-centre is intolerably irresponsible, especially considering their atrocious safety record.

This is exactly what I wanted to say to Ketara and Albatross. Have an exalt.

Isn't Trident's yearly cost like 1% of the welfare budget?

 Medium of Death wrote:
Isn't Trident's yearly cost like 1% of the welfare budget?

I think it is, but it's not a good argument. It's similar to the argument people use to justify the Royal Family when they say they only cost 65 pence a week or something.

I want my 65 pence back!!

 Yodhrin wrote:
The idea that Trident is even slightly effective as a deterrent is pure, Unicorns-farting-rainbows-level fantasy.

Even if we were in a state of heightened tensions with Russia, we physically don't have enough qualified crew to man more than a couple of the subs at once,

Source. Because quite frankly, the Royal Navy has a wonderful ability to draft in the crew it needs from other ships/the RNR as necessary. We have plenty of spare submarine crew tied up in manning 'Astute' Class submarines that could easily be shunted sideways at a moment's notice, so I highly, highly doubt the veracity of this statement.

and even all four Vanguard subs(or their proposed, ridiculously-expensive replacements) simply aren't capable of launching enough warheads to wipe out the Russians' ability to respond;

That's kind of not the point of nuclear deterrence. It only takes a few warheads whacking Britain, and we're out for the count.

not in a first strike scenario,

Why would we want to be the first to use nukes?

and not in a retaliatory strike scenario.

Also kind of not the point of a nuclear deterrent. If Britain is being wiped out by nukes/already has been, we're not going to be targeting nuclear launch sites. There wouldn't be much point.

The only chance Trident has of having any impact whatsoever in a nuclear exchange is as part of a coordinated NATO attack with America's nukes,

I guarantee you that our nuclear warheads will have impact. They don't hit a city and just knock down a few street lights, or maybe light up a car or two.

But you appear to be conflating the 'impact' of a nuclear strike/nuclear deterrence with either completely obliterating a country or their launch sites.

and their nukes outnumber ours to such a hilarious degree that our contribution to such an effort would be akin to a child adding the "firepower" of their stick & rubber-band catapult to a battalion of rifle infantry, ie it could equally well be achieved without our involvement.

Ah. The real argument emerges. 'Other people can take of that end of things for us, therefore why should we bother?'

I could write an essay here, but I doubt I'd change your mindset with that as your reasoning.

This is the problem with Trident; its only viable target is civilians, so that makes it pointless.

Welcome to warfare in the twenty first century? Any war that isn't horrifically unbalanced usually involves civilians in some way. Mainly because it takes three civilians to maintain a soldier in the field, and by striking civilians, you also strike the support behind the military. You'll note that not many ball bearings came out of Hamburg once we were done with it. The lines between 'civilian worker' and 'military fighter' have been blurred for a long time now in the theory of warfare.

Having said that, attacking civilians is not guaranteed to be effective, due to the fact that it's actually quite hard to kill lots of them in any vaguely equivalent war. Nuclear warfare however, is one of the few things that can be guaranteed to wipe out a city/manufacturing district. So if anything, nuclear war is one of the few scenarios in which attacking civilians is meaningful.

If we were ever to use Trident to first-strike a city full of people, whatever smouldering pile of rubble survived the retaliation would be a pariah state for generations, so we can't use it for a first strike and everybody we might possibly use it against knows that perfectly well.

I really think you're missing the concept of nuclear deterrence here....

In any scenario where Trident was launched as a retaliatory attack, it would be equally as pointless - it would only take a handful of modern nuclear weapons to bathe this entire island in death, so if anyone was ever insane enough to actually launch them at us firing Trident back would be a vacant act of spite; some politician somewhere slaughtered a bunch of our civilians, so bugger it, lets slaughter a bunch of theirs back even if it makes no difference.

That's better, but you're still missing the key point here.

Namely; nobody launches their nukes at us in any capacity, because we have the ability to throw them back.

We don't keep nukes for first strike, or for retaliation. We keep them around as a deterrent. And judging by the fact that nobody has used nukes since WW2, it seems to be working. You could ascribe that to other factors, and probably construct some very clever arguments to insist that (and might even be right!), but what it ultimately comes down to is this; Are you prepared to risk the existence of your nation upon you being wrong?

Ketara, you're overlooking the fact that:

Argentina attacked the Falklands despite the UK's possession of nuclear weapons.

North Vietnam humiliated a global superpower with nuclear weapons.

The Soviet Union were humiliated in Afghanistan, despite having nuclear weapons

Bin Laden crashed jumbo jets into the twin towers. Nuclear weapons didn't stop that, nor will they stop ISIL.

I could go on.

There are some scenarios where nuclear weapons are about as useful as a Nick Clegg promise.

Defenders of trident say that it's an uncertain world, we don't know what's going to happen.

The first 15 years of the 21st century have just confirmed that nuclear weapons, IMO, are one of the most useless things mankind has ever invented. Their use guarantees his doom and provides him with a false blanket of security.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara, you're overlooking the fact that:

Argentina attacked the Falklands despite the UK's possession of nuclear weapons.

North Vietnam humiliated a global superpower with nuclear weapons.

The Soviet Union were humiliated in Afghanistan, despite having nuclear weapons

Bin Laden crashed jumbo jets into the twin towers. Nuclear weapons didn't stop that, nor will they stop ISIL.

I could go on.

There are some scenarios where nuclear weapons are about as useful as a Nick Clegg promise.

Defenders of trident say that it's an uncertain world, we don't know what's going to happen.

The first 15 years of the 21st century have just confirmed that nuclear weapons, IMO, are one of the most useless things mankind has ever invented. Their use guarantees his doom and provides him with a false blanket of security.

That's not what they are for, without them the US would have attacked Russia or vice versa. It keeps big countries from attacking each other.

We never attacked Argentina and they never attacked Britain because politically it would have been bad. Bombing Argentina's main land airfields would have saved lives. Argentina didn't think we'd do anything to stop them, they certainly weren't worried about being nuked.

Nukes stop superpowers attacking each other. If you kill us we'll kill you. It's not nice but it needs to be a threat. If Russia thought they could attack the west with impunity it would've done it.

I'd bet that if Ukraine still had kept its weapons they'd still have Crimea at the moment.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara, you're overlooking the fact that:

Argentina attacked the Falklands despite the UK's possession of nuclear weapons.

North Vietnam humiliated a global superpower with nuclear weapons.

The Soviet Union were humiliated in Afghanistan, despite having nuclear weapons

Bin Laden crashed jumbo jets into the twin towers. Nuclear weapons didn't stop that, nor will they stop ISIL.

I could go on.

There are some scenarios where nuclear weapons are about as useful as a Nick Clegg promise.

Defenders of trident say that it's an uncertain world, we don't know what's going to happen.

The first 15 years of the 21st century have just confirmed that nuclear weapons, IMO, are one of the most useless things mankind has ever invented. Their use guarantees his doom and provides him with a false blanket of security.

You are missing out the 'nuclear' part of 'nuclear deterrence', and assuming it means 'deterring all warfare'.

They are not there to deter conventional wars. They are there to deter wars between nuclear capable powers, or, in a last resort pinch, the use of nuclear weapons in a war between nuclear powers. And to reiterate, we haven't had one of those in a while. I would say that India and Pakistan are good examples of countries that despise each other, but seem to be kept from each others throats by their nuclear arsenals.

My interest was peaked in the Falkland war by our discussions.

Worryingly we nearly did nuke Argentina back then.

"Excuse me. I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady. That Thatcher, what an impossible woman!" the president said as he arrived, more than 45 minutes late, on May 7 1982. "With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind." He reminded Mr Magoudi that on May 4 an Exocet missile had struck HMS Sheffield. "To make matters worse, it was fired from a Super-Etendard jet," he said. "All the matériel was French!"

In words that the psychoanalyst has sworn to the publisher, Meren Sell, are genuine, the president continued: "She's livid. She blames me personally for this new Trafalgar ... I was obliged to give in. She's got them now, the codes."

Hopefully it was a bluff, probably saved lives but still... glad that never got tested.

Trident is going nowhere, even if the SNP get all seats in Scotland, Labour wont allow trident to be scrapped, so the SNP either put there money where their mouth is and not form a coalition and we get ANOTHER election straight away, or they back down.

Debating the reasoning behind nuclear weapons aside, i still think this election is going to throw up a few surprises.

My money is on either a Tory\LibDem\Ukip coalition OR a lab\SNP one, however i think the latter will collapse quickly and we will get another election by october-dec time.

The polls up here (I am in Gordon, Salmond's seat) are showing an almost 35% swing from labour to SNP when looked at previous votes in the last elections, and TBH i cannot see it. I think the SNP will win a lot more seats, but i dont expect them to 'rule' scotland.

The independance ref ended up with some 400, 000 more people saying No, and thats a LOT, and after it all, only 2 regions actually voted Yes after that too. There is a lot of resentment up here at the SNP for creating a hatred filled attitude towards England, creating a Them and Us situation, when in reality the SNP can do no better job than anyone else in power.

When the SNP manifesto stated they would spend an extra £180m on public spending i laughed, how borrowing almost a fifth of the national debt again, and throwing it at the NHS and Benefits will help end austerity i have no idea.

using that 3180 to start major infrastructure projects, house building, road improvement maybem but giving someone a free £2000 PA of borrowed money just entrenches the debt and deficit of paying it back even further meaning the debt filled hole carries on to the next generation.

Its economic madness, and is just being done to pull out the old line of "The nasty party want to take your sweeties away, Here have some free sweeties from us, were nice to you, vote for us!"

Its spiteful, hate filled politics and its the sole reason i despise the SNP.

Asa result of the marginal seat i am torn between vtoing Tory, to help toward a Tory majority, OR Lib Dem, as this seat has always been a safe LD seat, but with the step down of Sir Malcolm Bruce and Salmond being such a touchstone for the Nats up here, voting Lib Dem may help to keep Salmond out of national politics.

We shall see. The only thing i do agree with a few SNP voters on here is, i am already sick of the campaign and just want to vote.

 Rick_1138 wrote:
Trident is going nowhere, even if the SNP get all seats in Scotland, Labour wont allow trident to be scrapped, so the SNP either put there money where their mouth is and not form a coalition and we get ANOTHER election straight away, or they back down.

Debating the reasoning behind nuclear weapons aside, i still think this election is going to throw up a few surprises.

My money is on either a Tory\LibDem\Ukip coalition OR a lab\SNP one, however i think the latter will collapse quickly and we will get another election by october-dec time.

The polls up here (I am in Gordon, Salmond's seat) are showing an almost 35% swing from labour to SNP when looked at previous votes in the last elections, and TBH i cannot see it. I think the SNP will win a lot more seats, but i dont expect them to 'rule' scotland.

The independance ref ended up with some 400, 000 more people saying No, and thats a LOT, and after it all, only 2 regions actually voted Yes after that too. There is a lot of resentment up here at the SNP for creating a hatred filled attitude towards England, creating a Them and Us situation, when in reality the SNP can do no better job than anyone else in power.

When the SNP manifesto stated they would spend an extra £180m on public spending i laughed, how borrowing almost a fifth of the national debt again, and throwing it at the NHS and Benefits will help end austerity i have no idea.

using that 3180 to start major infrastructure projects, house building, road improvement maybem but giving someone a free £2000 PA of borrowed money just entrenches the debt and deficit of paying it back even further meaning the debt filled hole carries on to the next generation.

Its economic madness, and is just being done to pull out the old line of "The nasty party want to take your sweeties away, Here have some free sweeties from us, were nice to you, vote for us!"

Its spiteful, hate filled politics and its the sole reason i despise the SNP.

Asa result of the marginal seat i am torn between vtoing Tory, to help toward a Tory majority, OR Lib Dem, as this seat has always been a safe LD seat, but with the step down of Sir Malcolm Bruce and Salmond being such a touchstone for the Nats up here, voting Lib Dem may help to keep Salmond out of national politics.

We shall see. The only thing i do agree with a few SNP voters on here is, i am already sick of the campaign and just want to vote.

Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum unless the UK is pulled out of the EU in a vote, which would be a reasonable stance in my view.

Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP and the SNP have ruled out a coalition with Labour. There may be a confidence and supply deal, though, which is different.

£180 million is peanuts in the grand scheme of UK finances. I wouldn't have a problem with any party saying they would spend that.

There may be resentment where you live at the SNP, but where I live (further south) there's resentment that citizens of the 7th richest country in the world have to go begging for food at foodbanks.

As for the Us and them mentality, it's the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, and Tory politicians screeching about the dangers of the SNP to the UK.

Scotland is a part of the UK. The 18th of September confirmed that. By telling Scottish voters that their vote doesn't count if they vote SNP, or saying that SNP MPs should not be allowed to sit in Parliament (which some barmy commentators have hinted at) will destroy this Union quicker than Alex Salmond ever could.

Part of being in a democracy means you accept things you don't like. If that means the SNP pulling the strings at Westminster, tough.

I accepted the 18th September result. I'm not planning on marching on London to start a revolution, but now I'm being told my vote doesn't count on May 7th...

I hope to god it's not an SNP-Labour coalition. Christ, that'd be awful. 2 of the most socialist parties in control of the UK is a recipe for disaster.
I'd rather be shot than let Chuka Umunna and Ed Balls run the money side of the UK govt. SNP are horrendous too. If the SNP had gotten their way last year and made Scotland independent, that country would've been crippled from day one because they promised that the oil industry would keep Scotland going. When in fact, their oil revenue figures were inflated by 90% to make it look good. The SNP even admitted doing it after The Telegraph's economists had a look at their stuff!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara, you're overlooking the fact that:

Argentina attacked the Falklands despite the UK's possession of nuclear weapons.

North Vietnam humiliated a global superpower with nuclear weapons.

The Soviet Union were humiliated in Afghanistan, despite having nuclear weapons

Bin Laden crashed jumbo jets into the twin towers. Nuclear weapons didn't stop that, nor will they stop ISIL.

I could go on.

There are some scenarios where nuclear weapons are about as useful as a Nick Clegg promise.

Defenders of trident say that it's an uncertain world, we don't know what's going to happen.

The first 15 years of the 21st century have just confirmed that nuclear weapons, IMO, are one of the most useless things mankind has ever invented. Their use guarantees his doom and provides him with a false blanket of security.

The more countries that choose to get rid of them, the more useful they become for the countries that choose to keep them. If America/Europe/The "West" in general decommissioned its nuclear arsenals, don't you think the arsenals of Russia, China, Iran (?), North Korea etc would become more strategically "useful"? You can afford to be more aggressive when your opponent has chosen to disarm himself.

It'd be like throwing your gun away, right before a Mexican Standoff.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum

Pull the other one.

I have no idea why Scotland would want in the EU by itself if the UK leaves Europe it would make no sense. It also would be worse for the rest of the UK because the SNP have threatened not to patrol the borders previously and would likely do so again at cost to England.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara, you're overlooking the fact that:

Argentina attacked the Falklands despite the UK's possession of nuclear weapons.

North Vietnam humiliated a global superpower with nuclear weapons.

The Soviet Union were humiliated in Afghanistan, despite having nuclear weapons

Bin Laden crashed jumbo jets into the twin towers. Nuclear weapons didn't stop that, nor will they stop ISIL.

I could go on.

There are some scenarios where nuclear weapons are about as useful as a Nick Clegg promise.

Defenders of trident say that it's an uncertain world, we don't know what's going to happen.

The first 15 years of the 21st century have just confirmed that nuclear weapons, IMO, are one of the most useless things mankind has ever invented. Their use guarantees his doom and provides him with a false blanket of security.

The more countries that choose to get rid of them, the more useful they become for the countries that choose to keep them. If America/Europe/The "West" in general decommissioned its nuclear arsenals, don't you think the arsenals of Russia, China, Iran (?), North Korea etc would become more strategically "useful"? You can afford to be more aggressive when your opponent has chosen to disarm himself.

It'd be like throwing your gun away, right before a Mexican Standoff.

Like I said. nuclear arsenals did the Soviet Union no good in Afghanistan and did not stop North Vietnam from enjoying a house party at the US embassy in Saigon!

Ketara made the point that nuclear weapons deter other nuclear armed powers

BUT

If nuclear weapons can't be used against another nuclear armed country (because you would both wipe each other out)

and they don't stop conventional wars like Vietnam, Falklands etc etc

Then they aren't really any good IMO.

Anyway, enough nuclear talk. Let's get back to laughing at Nick Clegg.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum

Pull the other one.

I have no idea why Scotland would want in the EU by itself if the UK leaves Europe it would make no sense. It also would be worse for the rest of the UK because the SNP have threatened not to patrol the borders previously and would likely do so again at cost to England.

Why would they patrol the borders?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I hope to god it's not an SNP-Labour coalition. Christ, that'd be awful. 2 of the most socialist parties in control of the UK is a recipe for disaster.
I'd rather be shot than let Chuka Umunna and Ed Balls run the money side of the UK govt. SNP are horrendous too. If the SNP had gotten their way last year and made Scotland independent, that country would've been crippled from day one because they promised that the oil industry would keep Scotland going. When in fact, their oil revenue figures were inflated by 90% to make it look good. The SNP even admitted doing it after The Telegraph's economists had a look at their stuff!

Scottish hordes are marching on England - burning villages, cutting down morris dancing poles, and outlawing the game of cricket

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Rick_1138 wrote:
Trident is going nowhere, even if the SNP get all seats in Scotland, Labour wont allow trident to be scrapped, so the SNP either put there money where their mouth is and not form a coalition and we get ANOTHER election straight away, or they back down.

Debating the reasoning behind nuclear weapons aside, i still think this election is going to throw up a few surprises.

My money is on either a Tory\LibDem\Ukip coalition OR a lab\SNP one, however i think the latter will collapse quickly and we will get another election by october-dec time.

The polls up here (I am in Gordon, Salmond's seat) are showing an almost 35% swing from labour to SNP when looked at previous votes in the last elections, and TBH i cannot see it. I think the SNP will win a lot more seats, but i dont expect them to 'rule' scotland.

The independance ref ended up with some 400, 000 more people saying No, and thats a LOT, and after it all, only 2 regions actually voted Yes after that too. There is a lot of resentment up here at the SNP for creating a hatred filled attitude towards England, creating a Them and Us situation, when in reality the SNP can do no better job than anyone else in power.

When the SNP manifesto stated they would spend an extra £180m on public spending i laughed, how borrowing almost a fifth of the national debt again, and throwing it at the NHS and Benefits will help end austerity i have no idea.

using that 3180 to start major infrastructure projects, house building, road improvement maybem but giving someone a free £2000 PA of borrowed money just entrenches the debt and deficit of paying it back even further meaning the debt filled hole carries on to the next generation.

Its economic madness, and is just being done to pull out the old line of "The nasty party want to take your sweeties away, Here have some free sweeties from us, were nice to you, vote for us!"

Its spiteful, hate filled politics and its the sole reason i despise the SNP.

Asa result of the marginal seat i am torn between vtoing Tory, to help toward a Tory majority, OR Lib Dem, as this seat has always been a safe LD seat, but with the step down of Sir Malcolm Bruce and Salmond being such a touchstone for the Nats up here, voting Lib Dem may help to keep Salmond out of national politics.

We shall see. The only thing i do agree with a few SNP voters on here is, i am already sick of the campaign and just want to vote.

Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum unless the UK is pulled out of the EU in a vote, which would be a reasonable stance in my view.

Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP and the SNP have ruled out a coalition with Labour. There may be a confidence and supply deal, though, which is different.

£180 million is peanuts in the grand scheme of UK finances. I wouldn't have a problem with any party saying they would spend that.

There may be resentment where you live at the SNP, but where I live (further south) there's resentment that citizens of the 7th richest country in the world have to go begging for food at foodbanks.

As for the Us and them mentality, it's the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, and Tory politicians screeching about the dangers of the SNP to the UK.

Scotland is a part of the UK. The 18th of September confirmed that. By telling Scottish voters that their vote doesn't count if they vote SNP, or saying that SNP MPs should not be allowed to sit in Parliament (which some barmy commentators have hinted at) will destroy this Union quicker than Alex Salmond ever could.

Part of being in a democracy means you accept things you don't like. If that means the SNP pulling the strings at Westminster, tough.

I accepted the 18th September result. I'm not planning on marching on London to start a revolution, but now I'm being told my vote doesn't count on May 7th...

The IMF has pointed out that SNP would have a £9 billion fiscal gap by the end of the decade based on their manifesto.

The population of Scotland is 5 million, subtract from that Children, the unemployed, retired pensioners and apparently "1,040,000 with a long-term activity-limiting health problem or disability" How many working people does that leave? The burden falls on them. If I it were me I'd me more worried about the odd £180 million being spent here and there.

There's not very many Scottish folk, things have the capacity to go wrong very quickly, and no barriers to leaving for greener pastures. The more I think about it the more risky going SNP seems. Small rewards, but risk of complete ruin. Or stick with the status quo and things could get better, or worse but no more bad than the rest of the UK

Like I said, it's a Mexican Standoff. Unilateral Disarmament is suicidal, because the balance of power instantly swings in favour of the party that doesn't disarm. Don't you think Putin would use nuclear weapons, or be much more aggressive in threatening to use them, if there was absolutely 0 chance of a nuclear retaliation?

If you can talk every nuclear power in the world to disarm at the same time, great. But that will never happen.

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Rick_1138 wrote:
Trident is going nowhere, even if the SNP get all seats in Scotland, Labour wont allow trident to be scrapped, so the SNP either put there money where their mouth is and not form a coalition and we get ANOTHER election straight away, or they back down.

Debating the reasoning behind nuclear weapons aside, i still think this election is going to throw up a few surprises.

My money is on either a Tory\LibDem\Ukip coalition OR a lab\SNP one, however i think the latter will collapse quickly and we will get another election by october-dec time.

The polls up here (I am in Gordon, Salmond's seat) are showing an almost 35% swing from labour to SNP when looked at previous votes in the last elections, and TBH i cannot see it. I think the SNP will win a lot more seats, but i dont expect them to 'rule' scotland.

The independance ref ended up with some 400, 000 more people saying No, and thats a LOT, and after it all, only 2 regions actually voted Yes after that too. There is a lot of resentment up here at the SNP for creating a hatred filled attitude towards England, creating a Them and Us situation, when in reality the SNP can do no better job than anyone else in power.

When the SNP manifesto stated they would spend an extra £180m on public spending i laughed, how borrowing almost a fifth of the national debt again, and throwing it at the NHS and Benefits will help end austerity i have no idea.

using that 3180 to start major infrastructure projects, house building, road improvement maybem but giving someone a free £2000 PA of borrowed money just entrenches the debt and deficit of paying it back even further meaning the debt filled hole carries on to the next generation.

Its economic madness, and is just being done to pull out the old line of "The nasty party want to take your sweeties away, Here have some free sweeties from us, were nice to you, vote for us!"

Its spiteful, hate filled politics and its the sole reason i despise the SNP.

Asa result of the marginal seat i am torn between vtoing Tory, to help toward a Tory majority, OR Lib Dem, as this seat has always been a safe LD seat, but with the step down of Sir Malcolm Bruce and Salmond being such a touchstone for the Nats up here, voting Lib Dem may help to keep Salmond out of national politics.

We shall see. The only thing i do agree with a few SNP voters on here is, i am already sick of the campaign and just want to vote.

Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum unless the UK is pulled out of the EU in a vote, which would be a reasonable stance in my view.

Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP and the SNP have ruled out a coalition with Labour. There may be a confidence and supply deal, though, which is different.

£180 million is peanuts in the grand scheme of UK finances. I wouldn't have a problem with any party saying they would spend that.

There may be resentment where you live at the SNP, but where I live (further south) there's resentment that citizens of the 7th richest country in the world have to go begging for food at foodbanks.

As for the Us and them mentality, it's the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, and Tory politicians screeching about the dangers of the SNP to the UK.

Scotland is a part of the UK. The 18th of September confirmed that. By telling Scottish voters that their vote doesn't count if they vote SNP, or saying that SNP MPs should not be allowed to sit in Parliament (which some barmy commentators have hinted at) will destroy this Union quicker than Alex Salmond ever could.

Part of being in a democracy means you accept things you don't like. If that means the SNP pulling the strings at Westminster, tough.

I accepted the 18th September result. I'm not planning on marching on London to start a revolution, but now I'm being told my vote doesn't count on May 7th...

The IMF has pointed out that SNP would have a £9 billion fiscal gap by the end of the decade based on their manifesto.

The population of Scotland is 5 million, subtract from that Children, the unemployed, retired pensioners and apparently "1,040,000 with a long-term activity-limiting health problem or disability" How many working people does that leave? The burden falls on them. If I it were me I'd me more worried about the odd £180 million being spent here and there.

There's not very many Scottish folk, things have the capacity to go wrong very quickly, and no barriers to leaving for greener pastures. The more I think about it the more risky going SNP seems. Small rewards, but risk of complete ruin. Or stick with the status quo and things could get better, or worse but no more bad than the rest of the UK

The IMF hasn't had a lot of good things to say about the UK economy, either.

I don't speak for everybody, but it's never been about economics for me. Self-determination is what I'm interested in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Like I said, it's a Mexican Standoff. Unilateral Disarmament is suicidal, because the balance of power instantly swings in favour of the party that doesn't disarm. Don't you think Putin would use nuclear weapons, or be much more aggressive in threatening to use them, if there was absolutely 0 chance of a nuclear retaliation?

If you can talk every nuclear power in the world to disarm at the same time, great. But that will never happen.

We'll agree to disagree.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum

Pull the other one.

I have no idea why Scotland would want in the EU by itself if the UK leaves Europe it would make no sense. It also would be worse for the rest of the UK because the SNP have threatened not to patrol the borders previously and would likely do so again at cost to England.

Why would they patrol the borders?

If Scotland joined the EU after the UK leaves?

Freedom of movement to Scotland from EU.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum

Pull the other one.

I have no idea why Scotland would want in the EU by itself if the UK leaves Europe it would make no sense. It also would be worse for the rest of the UK because the SNP have threatened not to patrol the borders previously and would likely do so again at cost to England.

Why would they patrol the borders?

If Scotland joined the EU after the UK leaves?

Freedom of movement to Scotland from EU.

It would be a Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland situation.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


We'll agree to disagree.

I agree...that you don't understand the concept of a nuclear deterrence.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum

Pull the other one.

I have no idea why Scotland would want in the EU by itself if the UK leaves Europe it would make no sense. It also would be worse for the rest of the UK because the SNP have threatened not to patrol the borders previously and would likely do so again at cost to England.

Why would they patrol the borders?

If Scotland joined the EU after the UK leaves?

Freedom of movement to Scotland from EU.

It would be a Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland situation.

I don't think it would. I'd imagine there would be a lot more incentive for people to try to get to England and the SNP would use that as leverage, as they have implied they'd do that in the past.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


We'll agree to disagree.

I agree...that you don't understand the concept of a nuclear deterrence.

Ok, let's do a match up against the other nuclear powers.

Britain Vs. the USA. In the unlikely scenario that Britain goes to war with its close ally and global super power, the result is? Britain wiped out by the USA

Britain Vs. Russia. Result: Britain wiped out by Russia's superior nuclear arsenal. Putin in bunker walks away unscathed.

Britain Vs. France. Again, another close ally, and fallout would probably contaminate the UK. Result: Britain and France cripple each other. Europe contaminated with fallout.

Britain Vs. Pakistan: why this would ever happen, God only knows. Result: who knows!!

Britain Vs. Israel: Result: the end times would have to be on us for this to happen

Britain Vs. India: see Pakistan and Israel

Britain Vs. North Korea. As of yet, don't have range. More likely to menace South Korea.

If there's any other power I've missed, feel free to include it.

My conclusion: I doubt if we'd go to nuclear war with France, Israel, India, Pakistan etc. etc. and the USA and Russia would wipe us out.

In other words, our deterrent is bloody useless!!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Ketara made the point that nuclear weapons deter other nuclear armed powers

BUT

If nuclear weapons can't be used against another nuclear armed country (because you would both wipe each other out)

and they don't stop conventional wars like Vietnam, Falklands etc etc

Then they aren't really any good IMO.

You keep nuclear weapons around as a deterrent to stop other people using them on you, in a nutshell. Not for any functional 'good' so to speak. The only problems that arise are when someone who does not like you has them, and you do not. That puts you in a very nasty, precarious position, where they can obliterate you at will, and you can do nothing back.

As I said earlier, you can question whether nuclear deterrence will hold forever, whether or not we should rely on somebody else to provide for our defence, and so forth. But what it ultimately comes down to, is whether or not you're potentially prepared to risk the entire existence of this country on a 'need but don't have' basis, as opposed to a 'have but don't need' one, when the latter is a reasonably small chunk of the defence budget.

YMMV. I personally think the cost is worth the security. It doesn't remove the need for conventional forces, but it substantially lowers the risk of our nation going up in nuclear smoke. And that's an expense I'm willing to pay for!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


In other words, our deterrent is bloody useless!!

World affairs mutate regularly. And nuclear bombs are easy enough to come by, if you know how to solve a sixty year old physics equation and have any real industry behind you. You can say that we shelter under the American shield, but using that logic, we might as well scrap the entire Armed Forces, and declare that we don't need them anymore now that we have NATO. The truth is, you can't always rely on your objectives allying with those of an allies for the span of a decade, let alone a century. Nuclear independence gives us more actual independence.

Anyway, enough nuclear talk. Let's get back to laughing at Nick Clegg.

Did we ever stop?

I'm a stupid Yank, but I know a bit about Nuclear Deterrence issues.

Perhaps the Brits Nukes on their own are almost useless. Even within NATO, the contribution is small. However, it is still a contribution.

This contribution is a political weapon just as much as an actual weapon. There are two reasons:

1. NATO is a joint, cooperative arrangement. To be joint other participants besides just the US need to contribute stuff. Thanks for the Trident or two.

2. It gives you leverage and power on the world stage.

Regarding Point 2, let's look at two other countries as an example. Iraq and North Korea.

Iraq was one of the most hated and belligerent nations in the world. It was invaded and dismantled twice by a coalition of enemies.

North Korea is one of the most hated and belligerent nations in the world. It is just fine thanks to a pitiful little Nuke.

I think we can all see why you want a Nuke, even small and ineffective ones. Sure, the UK doesn't want to be belligerent and hated, but the world can change rapidly and suddenly you are on the "outs" of the world political system instead of on the "in".