Britain Will Lose Nuclear Capability For 20 Years If Scotland Votes For Independence -- The Telegraph
Britain would lose its nuclear deterrent for two decades if Scotland votes for independence because it would no longer have the capability to house Trident submarines.
Scottish independence will force the remainder of the UK to abandon nuclear weapons for at least two decades, according to report by MPs published today.
The Commons Scottish Affairs select committee said it would be possible to move Trident submarines and their missiles from their base on the Clyde within two weeks of separation.
However, the construction of replacement facilities south of the Border could take up to 20 years, they said, effectively forcing the UK Government into “unilateral nuclear disarmament”.
Read more ....
My Comment: Will this force Britain to give up the Trident submarine .... probably not. They will quickly find some alternative that will be both expensive and hazardous .... but they will find a way. As to the idea of Scottish independence .... like Quebec independence in Canada (where I live) .... it is not going to happen.
3 comments:
2+2 does not equal 5. Before you make inappropriate comparisons I suggest that you familiarize yourself with actual historical facts. See the post on my blog Independence: Scotland is VERY different from Quebec http://follonblogs.blogspot.com/2011/12/independence-scotland-is-very-different.html.
Thank you Mr. Fallon for your comment and link. But when I made my comment I was looking at the present situation ... NOT the historical one. Quebec has always had a strong separatist movement that goes back 200+ years (since the conquest), but it is now dying because of demographics and being economically dependent on Canada. While I am not aware of the demographics of Scotland .... I do know that they are heavily dependent economically on England. And while history and culture is always a seductive force for those who favor independence .... the dollar or pound is even more important for most.
In addition .... being one who grew up in the former Soviet Union .... I know what it is like when countries become independent. I lived through that experience, and as I always tell those who favor breaking up an economic union that many have become dependent on .... it is not going to be the economic paradise that you may think it may bring. on the contrary .... be prepared for 10 to 20 years of severe hardship.
I appreciate that you were 'looking at the present situation...NOT the historical one'. However, it is my view that the 'present situation' cannot be viewed without considering 'the historical one' - that is how the past affects the present.
'However it was becoming irrelevant to blame Scottish management for failure, as the direction of industrial effort was slipping away from Scotland altogether into large combines with headquarters south of the Border...Of a total investment of £84 million in new firms between 1945 and 1970, £66 million came from overseas, mainly the United States and £17 million from England...It has been argued that the effect of increased government activity in the economic field as well as in everything that goes by the name of social welfare has sapped self-reliance...But it has to be remembered that the heavy industry of the central belt was a development only of the last three-quarters of the nineteenth century, and may have been only a phase like the linen, tobacco and cotton phases before it.'
SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, pp. 222-223, ISBN 0 7153 6904 0, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 74-15792.
Since the early 1970's a very large proportion of manufacturing and other industries in Scotland have declined or disappeared - such as shipbuilding, oil rig construction, steelmaking, fishing and coal-mining. Only some of the jobs lost as a result have been offset by jobs created in the service sector.
You write: 'I do know that they are heavily dependent economically on England.', which should lead to the question - Why is that?
When oil was discovered in the North Sea the reaction of the British Government was to create a North Sea Economic Zone where the revenues from the Scottish Sector were allocated directly to the UK Treasury and the costs to the Scottish economy. Just before the first election to the devolved Scottish Parliament in 1999 Scottish Waters were reduced by 6000 square miles - they were transferred to English Waters. This meant that any fishing catch from those waters which had been previously landed at a Scottish port had to be landed at an English port thereby removing that part of economic activity from the Scottish economy.
The following is a link to an article on newsnetscotland.com titled New figures reveal Scotland wealthier than the rest of the UK since 1980 - http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/5863-new-figures-reveal-scotland-wealthier-than-rest-of-uk-since-1980.
I have been an active member of the SNP for 38 years and have never thought that Scotland regaining its independence would be an 'economic paradise' - it would mean accepting responsibility for our own decisions and not being able to blame someone else.
Post a Comment