Faslane Investment

[pointedstarman]

So the Government has announced £500m investment in Faslane securing 6000+ jobs.

As far as I can tell they've got no undertaking from the SNP that they won't try to effectively shut the place down if (or when given they seem intent on hold referendums until they get the answer they want) Scotland goes independent.

Surely the money would be more safely invested in one of the more 'stable' bases to help make them capable in the future of taking the Trident replacement?

[NicD]

My personal feeling, let big talking Scotland invest in Scotland, but cooler heads prevail.

[Scuffers]

I find it more amusing that the SNP don't want the investment/work/jobs...

Wonder how they would sell that on the doorsteps of their electorate?

[voyds9]

Damned if they do damned if they don't

If we invest, SNP say no future for trident, trying to buy votes

or

if we don't invest in Scotland they're just a forgotten part of the UK, England again favoured over Scotland

[eccles]

Scuffers said:

I find it more amusing that the SNP don't want the investment/work/jobs...

Wonder how they would sell that on the doorsteps of their electorate?

That would be the electorate that voted overwhelingly for the SNP who've not been exactly shy about their wish to shut down Faslane.

[Scuffers]

eccles said:

Scuffers said:

I find it more amusing that the SNP don't want the investment/work/jobs...

Wonder how they would sell that on the doorsteps of their electorate?

That would be the electorate that voted overwhelingly for the SNP who've not been exactly shy about their wish to shut down Faslane.

and the same electorate that voted NO to independance?

all too easy to play that game, I am sure all the people who directly/indirectly benefit from Faslane all did not vote SNP?

[pointedstarman]

I would have thought publicly asking for a written and binding undertaking regarding the future of the base prior to investing would make them squirm. If they refuse they are responsible to the possible loss of Scottish jobs. Accept and at least we have some level of security should they win an independence vote?

As it stands I just get the feeling we're ping £500m away on a vanity project.

[Scuffers]

pointedstarman said:

As it stands I just get the feeling we're ping £500m away on a vanity project.

Just for clarity...

are you saying you don;t support the use of Faslane for the UK sub fleet or are you being specifically anti-trident?

The reason I am asking is that the plan is to make Faslane able to support the other non-ballistic missile subs that are currently homes elsewhere.

[pointedstarman]

Scuffers said:

pointedstarman said:

As it stands I just get the feeling we're ping £500m away on a vanity project.

Just for clarity...

are you saying you don;t support the use of Faslane for the UK sub fleet or are you being specifically anti-trident?

The reason I am asking is that the plan is to make Faslane able to support the other non-ballistic missile subs that are currently homes elsewhere.

I'm anti investing money in a facility with what is, at best, a shaky political future. I've no problem with a next gen nuclear deterrent in principle; whether a direct Trident replacement is the best solution could be a topic for another thread.

[davepoth]

pointedstarman said:

I'm anti investing money in a facility with what is, at best, a shaky political future. I've no problem with a next gen nuclear deterrent in principle; whether a direct Trident replacement is the best solution could be a topic for another thread.

I would be very surpised if our nuclear deterrent moved from Faslane - the base could remain sovereign UK territory quite easily, in the same way that We have bits of Cyprus, or the US has Guantanamo, or even how Russia had a bit of the Crimea (until it decided it wanted all of it), it's quite a well worn path in international diplomacy.

[///ajd]

pointedstarman said:

I would have thought publicly asking for a written and binding undertaking regarding the future of the base prior to investing would make them squirm. If they refuse they are responsible to the possible loss of Scottish jobs. Accept and at least we have some level of security should they win an independence vote?

As it stands I just get the feeling we're ping £500m away on a vanity project.

They should certainly be making it clear that any future separation will have to fund the repeat costs of this investment elsewhere in the UK. One of the costs of separation that the white paper failed to address.

[Scuffers]

///ajd said:

They should certainly be making it clear that any future separation will have to fund the repeat costs of this investment elsewhere in the UK. One of the costs of separation that the white paper failed to address.

paid for by what? more magic beans?

Scotland cannot afford to fart without handouts from the UK

[pointedstarman]

davepoth said:

pointedstarman said:

I'm anti investing money in a facility with what is, at best, a shaky political future. I've no problem with a next gen nuclear deterrent in principle; whether a direct Trident replacement is the best solution could be a topic for another thread.

I would be very surpised if our nuclear deterrent moved from Faslane - the base could remain sovereign UK territory quite easily, in the same way that We have bits of Cyprus, or the US has Guantanamo, or even how Russia had a bit of the Crimea (until it decided it wanted all of it), it's quite a well worn path in international diplomacy.

Whilst in many ways I agree I think it'd be sensible to get some sort of agreement in place before bunging half a billion at the place.

[SPS]

pointedstarman said:

So the Government has announced £500m investment in Faslane securing 6000+ jobs.

As far as I can tell they've got no undertaking from the SNP that they won't try to effectively shut the place down if (or when given they seem intent on hold referendums until they get the answer they want) Scotland goes independent.

Surely the money would be more safely invested in one of the more 'stable' bases to help make them capable in the future of taking the Trident replacement?

The SNP would not dare to actually close the base and risk the alienation of up to 30,000 voters (employees and close family etc) in a localized group of constituencies.
As usual a load of bluster and no substance. Lets see how well they do when they get "independence" and the North Sea oil becomes far more expensive to extract!
I know the UK government is really incompetent on many levels but half a billion on a maybe! As I'm typing it I realize that it is probably a distinct possibility that it will be yet another screw up.
Never mind Scotland could always lease the base to the Russians - after all it would save on all that aviation fuel as we would not have to send up our two fighters to intercept the Bears etc ;-)

[Gogoplata]

Ooh those nasty Tories investing Scotland, how terrible!

[Scuffers]

Gogoplata said:

Ooh those nasty Tories investing Scotland, how terrible!

quite, bit like that nasty man Jim Ratcliffe employing all those Scots at Grangemouth

[Willy Nilly]

It is a political move, nothing more. The SNP obviously wants out of the UK and out of nuclear, but they lost the referendum. However they are in power in Scotland, so how to they tell their voters that the nasty bad Tory English skumbags are pumping a load of money into the Scottish economy without looking like idiots?

[London424]

pointedstarman said:

davepoth said:

pointedstarman said:

I'm anti investing money in a facility with what is, at best, a shaky political future. I've no problem with a next gen nuclear deterrent in principle; whether a direct Trident replacement is the best solution could be a topic for another thread.

I would be very surpised if our nuclear deterrent moved from Faslane - the base could remain sovereign UK territory quite easily, in the same way that We have bits of Cyprus, or the US has Guantanamo, or even how Russia had a bit of the Crimea (until it decided it wanted all of it), it's quite a well worn path in international diplomacy.

Whilst in many ways I agree I think it'd be sensible to get some sort of agreement in place before bunging half a billion at the place.

The SNP can't get another referendum vote unless the UK govt says so. This investment suggests to me that for at least while the Conservatives are in power there won't be another vote.

[r11co]

London424 said:

The SNP can't get another referendum vote unless the UK govt says so.

I suspect there is more to it than that. Nicola Sturgeon is a signatory to the Edinburgh Agreement....!

[hidetheelephants]

Willy Nilly said:

It is a political move, nothing more. The SNP obviously wants out of the UK and out of nuclear, but they lost the referendum. However they are in power in Scotland, so how to they tell their voters that the nasty bad Tory English skumbags are pumping a load of money into the Scottish economy without looking like idiots?

Mainly by putting their own spin on it and implying the money is solely for Trident rather than for all aspects of the base; it's going to need updating to accommodate all the Astutes and the booties need the straw and sawdust in their hovels cleaned at least once a week.