Let's still nuke em

[Jeneral2885]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11970325/Labour-still-backs-Trident-shadow-defence-secretary-insists-despite-
Scottish-vote.html

You can read the article.

Oh wait you Corbyn loves don't read or dont trust the Telegraph.

[2naSalit]

1. Incomplete link...

try this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11970325/Labour-still-backs-Trident-shadow-defence-secretary-insists-despite-Scottish-vote.html

My comment:

Shadow Governments suck!

And, as for for US foreign policy...

[T_i_B]

2. You're not making sense, so I'll just respond in kind.

0.7% spunk trumpet ISIS bumgrapes Hamas wibble wibble Jeremy Corbyn yaa boo sucks.

[Ironing Man]

3. i'll use that...

spunk trumpet. thats not used enough. i shall steal it and use it three times by midday tommorow.

anyway, if knob features hadn't dribbled all over the topic, it might have made an amusing journey into the, errr.... friction on the issue within Labour and the wider labour movement.

so, the (UK) labour party leader thinks that UK nukes should be scrapped, but his partys policy is that they shouldn't. in Scotland the party policy is that they should be scrapped, but the the party leader thinks they shouldn't. meanwhile unite (scotland) (a union, for those whose eyes are glazing over..) has decided it wants the nukes scrapped, but those members of unite who work at the nukes base say otherwise. another UK union, the GMB, has slated Labour (Scotland) as having 'Alice in Wonderland politics'.

Labour (UK)'s shadow foreign and defence spokespeople have both said that tthe Labour (UK)'s leaders comments around nukes were 'unhelpful'. they think he's an idiot.

where is Spitting Image or Yes, Minister?

[T_i_B]

4. Be very careful where you use that!

To be honest, I can't really dispute the above, only to add that the SNP's anti-Trident policy appears to have been a major factor here.

Also worth noting that nuclear disarmament has been just about the most destructive issue for Labour since the 1950's. I would even argue that the splits and loss of credibility caused by the matter appears to have been a major factor behind Tony Blair going so far in the opposite direction and being extremely hawkish during his tenure as Labour leader.

[Ironing Man]

5. ...

i'd agree with all of that - its Labours version of Europe for the Tories...

the particular Scotish/SNP part is, imv, down to Labours failing to understand devolution in Scotland post 1998 - it became very clear very quickly that the Labour candidates within the Scottish parliament elections were very much the second XI, anyone with half-an-ounce of talent went to westminster instead of Edinburgh, and defence/foreign policy stopped being an issue that Scottish Labour even thought about. this cleared the decks for the SNP, who while i disagree with their veiws, did at least talk about defence/foreign policy. surrendering an entire policy area to your opponant is a very bad move, and Scottish Labour have found it very difficult - impossible - to re-enter the field, so they've parroted the SNP line in an attempt to detoxify themselves.

this in turn has lead to a greater problem - when Labour gains votes in Scotland by parroting the SNP line, it loses votes in England, and it needs votes in England...

i've no idea how they will square this circle, and i doubt that the current plan to seperate Scottish Labour from UK Labour will do it - if the Tories got lots of traction in England with their scare stories (probably accurate scare stories....) about the consequences of a Labour/SNP coalition despite the well known and long standing antipathy between the two, it won't be difficult to suggest the likely consequences of a coalition between Scottish Labour and England and Wales Labour.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. "In 2009 54% of Britons were in favour of nuclear disarmament, a year later ...

... 63% said they favoured getting rid of Trident to reduce the budget deficit: and this is without any major UK party championing its cause. "

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/trident-trans-issues-debate-gun-violence-germaine-greer

By Jan 2015, that was 25% of the UK, and 48% of Scotland: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13198976.Poll__25__of_Brits_and_48__of_Scots_think_UK_should_scrap_Trident/

It seems like an issue that people don't care about, and therefore would rather no spend money on, unless the nuclear weapons lobby gets enough publicity that people start saying "ooh, better have it, just in case ...".

[Denzil_DC]

7. There is no "plan to seperate Scottish Labour from UK Labour".

I give you all credit for making an honest effort to understand some of the dynamics at play in Scottish politics nowadays.

But such a separation as you mention can't be achieved as the structure of the party stands, and there's no evidence at all of any serious ambition by Shadow First Minister Kezia Dugdale or her shadow cabinet to do so, nor does Jeremy Corbyn show any sign of envisaging or sanctioning this - he's very much a unionist where Scotland's concerned, in contrast to his stance on Irish issues.

The tail of Scottish Labour will always be wagged by the dog of the UK Labour Party. Any politician who tries to tell you different is plain lying. All you're seeing right now is public scrutiny of tensions and conflicts that have been part of what Labour is for a long, long time, probably since its inception, just more glaringly obvious nowadays. It's always been a broad church. That's been a strength and a fatal weakness at different times.

Just look at the rapid pushback from Shadow Defence Secretary Maria Eagle on the Trident successor if you want proof of what I'm saying: https://www.politicshome.com/foreign-and-defence/articles/story/maria-eagle-slaps-down-scottish-labour-trident

Even the Scottish Labour vote by around 70 per cent to 30 against the Trident replacement at the weekend was presaged the previous day by a vote that included the stipulation that "renewing Trident would support the steel industry". That's just opportunist politicking, and meaningless in real terms.

Today the Scottish Parliament voted 96-17 to oppose the successor to Trident. These MSPs voted in support of the successor:

Conservative MSPs

Ruth Davidson (Glasgow)

Jackson Carlaw (West Scotland)

Alex Fergusson (Galloway and West Dumfries)

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife)

Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland)

John Lamont (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Annabel Goldie (West Scotland)

Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife)

John Scott (Ayr)

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands)

Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland)

Nanette Milne (North East Scotland)

Liberal Democrat MSPs

Jim Hume (South Scotland)

Liam McArthur (Orkney Islands)

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland)

Tavish Scott (Shetland Islands)

Labour MSPs

Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton)

Just one Labour MSP supported it publicly - Jackie Baillie, whose constituency includes the Faslane and Coulport bases (and where I happen to live), and who will make up any ridiculous porkies she feels she needs to about the number of jobs at stake (official figures released under FOI legislation put it at 500-600 direct jobs, Baillie's burbled on the record about anything between 9,000 jobs and 13,000 and counting, and never clarifies where she gets these figures or what they're actually measuring - Faslane services a whole lot more than Trident) in order to try to hang on to her seat at Holyrood, as that's the only argument she has - "Morality aside", she declared at a Hiroshima Day commemoration I attended one year, "it creates jobs." Oh, how we laughed.

Baillie's in the Scottish shadow cabinet. Even her party leader, Dugdale, a declared multilateralist, voted against the Trident replacement today. Scotland's lone MP, Ian Murray, although to the right of the party on a number of issues, is also solid on this, and there's been discussion of how his place in the UK shadow cabinet can stand if he were to defy the whip at Westminster on a Trident successor vote (the expectation is that he would tactically abstain).

The only way such a separation as you mentioned could be achieved is to abandon the formal and financial links between the UK Party and its Scottish subsidiary and set up a whole new party in Scotland, with lip service to fraternal co-operation on common priorities, as exists between other parties. Otherwise it's always going to result in the sort of ugly fudge we're seeing now on key issues, which actually just makes Labour look as chaotic and divided as it really is, and isn't going to win any votes of confidence from people who support one or the other view among the electorate either in Scotland or the rest of the UK.

As for Corbyn himself, I know the guy of old. He spoke eloquently at a fringe meeting at a Manchester CND Conference I attended back in the 1980s on the issue of nuclear disarmament, and I give him credit for consistency over the years. I know where he stands, and I also know he's never been a weathervane on this, always a signpost.

I can't say the same about the Scottish Labour Party (despite today's vote), nor the UK one.

I used to be a Labour activist, CLP delegate, the lot. I lived through the transition to Kinnock, whose scorched-earth disdainful policy towards those of us who campaigned on the ground (on the basis that we had nowhere else to go and weren't needed any more as there were other ways to reach the electorate) was completed by Blair, and whose legacy is at the root of the Labour Party's current unappealing schizophrenia on so many issues.

Once you abandon principles on such key issues as nuclear weaponry for electoral gain (bear in mind this whole issue is more pressing for people in Scotland as we actually host the missiles and submarines - they sail past my front window!), you open the door to a situation where what's next? Clause 4. Public ownership. You don't seek to persuade others to accept your currently unpopular moral stands, you make yourself a slave to focus groups, and the fickle and often distracted and contradictory mishmash of opinions that a random bunch of people will come out with when fed leading questions by a pollster with receptive ear.

Scottish Labour needs to forget trying to vie with the SNP for votes all the time and look for some bloody principles and stick to them consistently for a considerable period, and stop doing what US Republican campaign strategists are so fond of by focusing only on winning each day's news cycle (people may be distracted by everyday concerns at times, but they're generally not stupid, and they can grow to deeply resent those who make it blatantly obvious that they assume they are for political gain). Then it may regain some ground in Scotland.

Unfortunately for Scottish Labour, I don't think this is possible under the current - and only recently elected - Scottish leadership. And I see nobody in the wings who could do better for them.

Basically, if it's ever to hold power in the UK again, Labour needs to focus on the rest of the UK beyond Scotland. It can't be all things to all people. It should stop trying to be. There are votes out there to be had among people who have been so disillusioned that they've disenfranchised themselves. Chasing Tory voters or Lib Dem voters or UKIP voters is a fool's errand. They'll maybe become Labour voters if they can figure out what the hell the party stands for, and feel like they can trust that this isn't going to change tomorrow or next week or when the next media onslaught or opinion poll shifts the goalposts.

[Ironing Man]

8. ...

''and who will make up any ridiculous porkies she feels she needs to about the number of jobs at stake (official figures released under FOI legislation put it at 500-600 direct jobs, Baillie's burbled on the record about anything between 9,000 jobs and 13,000 and counting, and never clarifies where she gets these figures or what they're actually measuring - Faslane services a whole lot more than Trident''

the problem with using 'direct jobs', which we saw during indyref, was that its not unlike suggesting that if Heathrow lost its operating licence, the only people who would lose their jobs would be the air crews and the air traffic controllers. this is predicated on the somewhat couragous notion that some 73 million people would still visit Heathrow to park, eat, drink, have the luggage checked, buy tat and then go to another airport to actually fly.

the focus of HMNB Clyde is the bombers. the other things - all of the RN's conventionally armed subs, the RNAD at Coulport, the MCM squadron, the security, the 4,000 babcock workers - all are based at Faslane because thats where the the bombers are. if the bombers go to Haverford West, or Devonport, or Barrow-in-Furness, then all of those things will go with them.

the other subs are based with the bombers because we do not have enough subs to justify two operating bases and they assist with the security of the bombers, the MCM Sqn is based at Faslane because it is also responsible for the security of the bombers, the Royal Marines are at Faslane to protect the nukes, the RNAD is at Coulport to house the nukes and the conventional weapons - again, the RN's arsenal isn't big enough to justify more than one AD, so if the nukes go south, all the rest goes south as well.

if the bombers are required to go south, then the only thing left will be the Glasgow University RNU, and an HQ looking after reservist training for Scotland, NI and Northern England.

[Denzil_DC]

9. Let's look at just a few of those issues.

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2015, 10:50 AM - Edit history (2)

Milford Haven (what you refer to as Haverfordwest) has deepwater berthing, but is rather remote (good for isolation, but with poor road links), with extensive existing oil and gas installations and difficult topography (a problem also faced at Coulport, where the warheads have to be transported up and down a precipitously steep winding road to the explosives handling jetty, but where availability of 3,000 acres of what was once open moorland allowed the demarcation of a large buffer zone around the red area); accommodation for personnel would also be a significant problem; direct sea access would be to the south of the Irish Sea rather than to the Western Approaches, which is a strategic consideration; the MoD vetoed the idea of stationing Polaris there in the 1960s for "safety reasons" due to the newly built oil refinery; since then another refinery has been added and it's become home to two liquefied natural gas facilities and will soon host a new power station; the LNG facilities supply 30% of the UK's gas.

Barrow-in-Furness has a superficial appeal, but problems of tidality in the Walney Channel make its existing operations, which only require occasional access and egress, difficult (subs are very restricted in when they can gain access to and leave the existing facilities and have to make a break for it when the going's good, currently around once a month) and there's a shortage of land for expansion, especially to allow the safety clearance distances needed for any successor to Coulport; it's a long way to water deep enough for as sub to safely submerge, let alone reach operational sea areas.

Devonport has extensive dry dock and other facilities and with substantial investment would probably be able to duplicate what Faslane has to offer if the MoD were willing to write off the extensive recent investment as Faslane, but duplicating Coulport would pose major problems due to the proximity to a major population centre and again the issue of an adequate safety zone; again, it's a long way from the Atlantic patrolling areas, often through quite crowded sea lanes.

Any nuclear sub facility also needs the co-existence of Z-berths, and relocation of the fleet would need to expand that provision outside Scotland, where there are numerous deepwater lochs and other "suitable" locations; Z-berths are supposedly primarily to allow recreation and re-supplying of nuclear-powered subs, but subs have been known to use them in emergencies and when sufficient accommodation is unavailable at Faslane.

Contrary to your assertion, attack submarines don't just escort the boomers, they have other roles - some deploy Tomahawk cruise missiles, as used in attacks on Libya and elsewhere, and current doctrine sees them focusing more on integrated fleet defence operations and sonar surveillance. There would be strategic arguments for not putting all the UK's eggs in one basket by co-locating them along with the Trident successor.

The minesweepers (MCM Squadron) are widely deployed in the Gulf or wherever their services are required; their primary role is not, as you claim, to protect the "security of the bombers" - they could be stationed anywhere, but they have comparatively empty sea lanes up here in which to conduct their exercises (which they also often do outside my house!).

I don't underestimate the petulance a UK government might display by taking all its toys away if denied a base for the Trident successor, but finding a new home for that alone would be far from simple and would take a hell of a long time to get through design and planning, environmental impact assessment hearings etc., then the subsequent building, as the above explains, let alone relocating the facilities for the other submarines, the minesweeper squadron etc. etc., which could be dispersed, but have been concentrated where they are for a reason.

Faslane also regularly hosts ships and occasionally submarines from NATO and other forces, especially during annual exercises which focus on activities in the Atlantic. Its strategic location and necessity (whether one approves of it or not) would not change in that respect.

I doubt anyone would shed too many tears if we lost the Royal Marines. They're accommodated within the base, have access to NAAFI and other facilities that mean they don't support the local economy much anyway, and we generally only notice them when one of them runs amuck in a local bar and maims a resident or two or three.

Numerous voices among the armed forces have deplored the concentration on the "cuckoo in the nest" that is Trident, which has sucked up resources to the extent that we barely have a functioning surface fleet able to provide lower-level strategic responses (remember the scramble during the Falklands War?), and the debacles over the aircraft carriers and maritime surveillance capabilites have been widely reported. Staff recruitment and retention have also become serious problems. It's proving very hard to find people willing to serve on Trident, and what were once the elite among the submarine staff now see new raw recruits stationed on the subs, some of whom aren't psychologically suited to that role.

Like-for-like re-employment for those directly employed would be nigh impossible, but many within the navy retrain or develop their existing skills in civvy street or invest their payoffs in setting up new businesses unrelated to their MoD work on retirement anyway - I know some people locally who've done that.

As for the directly employed civilian workforce - the government's own figures put the numbers at 500-600 - given the employment issues we all face, the base unions risk taxing people's patience if they act as if they're entitled to incredibly expensive jobs for life (and longer!) when very few others have that luxury. We all have to adapt, and we've all contributed to keeping these folks employed over the years when many of us have been struggling along with little state support or concern when our circumstances change and we have to adapt. As a long-time local pointed out to me, when you sign up with the forces or military civil service, you'd be daft or very shortsighted not to realize that the future of your job hinges on purely political decisions. The unions have also been incredibly unresponsive over the years to any initiatives to explore alternative employment (I was involved with the Alternative Employment Study Group back in the 1980s, when we looked at all these issues)- it's been far easier to dig their heels in and try to hang on to the status quo, which has largely been a slow, losing battle anyway as contractorization has taken hold and conditions have deteriorated under cost-cutting. Being contractors, a fair proportion of the base workers don't have local roots, so the impact of any direct job losses would be spread around the country.

Nobody doubts that there would be an impact on indirect employment in the locality, but the most catastrophic predictions exaggerate its scale and assume that nothing would replace the current work on offer. Bear in mind the Faslane base has its own supply lines and extensive facilities on-site that restrict the amount of money pumped into the local economy.

There are also opportunity costs due to the location of the bases - the west of Scotland largely missed out on being able to service the oil industry because the navy didn't want the Clyde cluttered up with extra installations and traffic. On a more minor level, the area around Faslane and Coulport was excluded from the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park when it was set up - some tourists might get a kick from seeing subs and other military hardware and miles of razorwire and weldmesh and watchtowers and armed guards and nuclear warhead convoys etc., but most of those I've spoken to have been disturbed.

Have to stop there because I need to get back to work!

[Nihil]

10. Ignoring the troll who started this thread, the last few replies have been a fascinating discussion

On the whole I agree with Denzil with regard to the idea that stripping Trident from Faslane would not
be a death-knell to the facility en masse (barring a rogue minister grasping power for revenge) but *would*
be a benefit both to Scotland and the UK as a whole (with regard to getting the message that Trident is
neither vital nor desirable).

I believe that it would save a lot of currently wasted money (and yes, I say that as someone who has
numerous friends employed in the nameless sites in the Southern Counties who provide the nasty bits
that sit on the end of the fireworks). It would also turn more than a few heads in the *cough* "corridors
of power" who believe that a potential nuclear warhead is far more valuable than 10% of that money spent
on special forces (or even bog-standard squaddies for that matter) even though said "power-mongers" have
neither control nor knowledge of the real world capabilities of the supposed "nuclear option".

Thanks too to Ironing Man for providing coherent counter-arguments to many points - sufficient that I will
re-examine some of my more ingrained (and hence not necessarily currently valid) views on the subject.

Cheers to both of you!