Where does the Scottish Everendum stand?

The UK government says all Royal Navy submarines will be based at Faslane by 2017 - supporting 8,000 jobs - and there are are no plans to move the nuclear deterrent. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has said any alternative solution would come at huge cost and take decades.

Problems with Devonport:

Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth - the biggest private-sector employer in Devon and Cornwall - is the main nuclear repair and refuelling facility for the Royal Navy.

It is also home to the Trafalgar-class submarines, which will be moved to Faslane by 2017.

The port’s size - the largest naval base in Western Europe covers more than 650 acres and has 15 dry docks, 25 tidal berths and five basins - and familiarity with submarines has led some to believe Devonport might be the best option for an alternative location for Trident.

However, the Royal United Services Institute’s Malcolm Chalmers says even though - time and expense allowing - Devonport might work as an alternative to Faslane, it couldn’t recreate Coulport.

Coulport possesses a huge floating dock where warheads are placed inside the missiles, 3km from the small village of Garelochhead on one side and the small village of Ardentinny on the other, Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee heard in 2012. Any new warhead storage facility would need similar distances from population centres for loading and offloading warheads from missiles.

Problems with Milford haven:

In 2012 Wales’s Labour First Minister Carwyn Jones said the UK’s nuclear-armed submarines and jobs associated with it would be “more than welcome” in Wales if they left Scotland. The remark that was met with an angry response from Plaid Cymru politicians and activists who cited safety risks.

When the original shortlist was drawn up for basing Trident’s predecessor Polaris in the 1960s, Milford Haven in Pembrokeshire was one of the candidates.

The Welsh site is an attractive option because it is a natural deep-water port. But In the 1960s Esso had just established an oil refinery in the town and the MoD decided the two were incompatible on safety grounds, according to William Walker, one of the authors of Uncharted Waters: The UK Nuclear Weapons and the Scottish Question.

“The dangers of handling and storing high explosives near major oil facilities ruled it out. Imagine a big submarine colliding with a tanker. It’s common sense - even if there is a low probability, the consequences could be horrific,” he says.

Nowadays the town’s economic and industrial output makes that line of thinking even more tricky. The haven is home to two liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities and handles 30% of the UK’s gas supply. It also hosts two oil refineries and will soon have a new power station.

Dr Nick Ritchie, a lecturer in international security at the University of York, says it’s inconceivable that the MoD would allow LNG plants and oil refineries to stay open if Trident was relocated to Milford Haven.

And he says closing the refineries and petrochemical plants would have “a pretty significant economic impact”.

Problems with Barrow in Furness, France and the USA are also considered. All involve major disruption and expense.

And the article concludes with an analysis of the possibility of it staying in Scotland:

The Scottish government says it is committed to removing Trident if it becomes independent and maintains it would not negotiate with the UK in exchange for concessions on other issues such as national debt and currency union (the UK government has ruled out the latter anyway).

But Ron Smith says there would be considerable pressure within an independent Scotland to do a deal and create a type of Sevastopol military enclave as Ukraine did, before Russia took over the Crimea.

The UK would be under pressure to do a deal too because even if it was feasible to replace the Clyde naval bases - “and it’s not clear that it is” - it would be incredibly expensive and time consuming, he says.

But Ritchie thinks the scenario is unlikely. “The SNP has staked its political credibility on getting rid of Trident - it’s unlikely to concede. The MoD would also find it very uncomfortable to have the UK’s nuclear deterrent in another country, even if it was a sovereign UK territory,” he says.

Earlier this year, First Minister Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, ruled out the prospect of a “Cyprus-style” leaseback scheme. Chalmers says this is a distraction. “A sovereign base area would be UK territory, but a foreign base is different. The SNP has already conceded four years of basing to 2020, so there is no point of principle in extending this for some more years,” he says.

Alex Salmond is announcing that he is standing for a Westminster seat.

To what purpose?

I’m confused, Pjen. I was sure the vote had already been held, and the No side won. Did the media get that wrong somehow?

To be the King over the water (again), and get on BBC shows. The man has an ego that needs stroked. Nicola Sturgeon will be pleased.

He would say that, wouldn’t he? But Devon and Cornwall would be very glad of those 8000 jobs. Fowey, for instance, is just along the coast from Devonport and has a depth of 6-7 metres before any dredging.

The big subs need at least double that.

The EU would, in that scenario, in all likelihood, say “Settle your status in regards to the UK and then we can talk about you joining.”. The EU’s not going to allow Scotland, NI, and Wales as member states in the EU while they’re still part of the UK.

To continue to argue for independence as he is entitled to do. I suspect that he will take over as leader of the party in Westminster allowing the current leader to return to Holyrood as deputy first minister.

He will quite possibly be a major player in forming a government in Westminster after the May election.

Since the referendum there has been a sea change in public opinion in Scotland. Many people voted NO on the understanding that major powers would shift north. The Smith Commission was a mouse whimpering compared with what was expected. Opinion polls show support for considerably more devolution than has been allowed so far. This feeling is unlikely to abate and should there be a further referedum, people will be less likely to believe tall tales of Home Rule.

The SNP are highly likely to be returned to power in 2016 on a manifesto of a further referendum if the sovereign people of Scotland desire one. It will be difficult to refuse if there is a substantial public opinion that the devolution offered was insufficient and the people had elected a government on a manifesto with such a referendum promised.

It is called democracy.

As the article points out, Fowey could replace Coulport for storage of warheads, but Devonport is the only place for the repair and maintenance done at Faslane. Fowey is too far from Devonport to meet the criteria for storage and Devonport is too built up for a storage facility.

Stranger things happen in politics. If the UK affronts the EU by withdrawing but during the process areas of the UK decide that they would be better off as independent entities in the EU than part of the UK outside the EU the situation might change.

A decision to leave the EU would certainly stimulate any campaign for independence for Scotland.

In his own words:

“My preferred option would be to see Labour win but fall around 20 to 25 seats short of a working majority,” he said. “I would want the SNP to be able to force Labour to agree not to renew Trident in Scotland, devolve the setting of the minimum wage to Holyrood and agree to give Scotland some responsibility for its own immigration policy.”

He added that he knew “how to make the pips squeak” if a minority Conservative government was formed, vowing to demand concessions for SNP policies.

Why?

Also, a manifesto with such a promise is a perfect example of an election pledge that they cannot possibly guarantee. It is basically lying.

Personally, what I find weird is that there are people out there that seem to think major constitutional change happens overnight with next to no planning. Cool your boots, Rome wasn’t built in a day etc etc.

Although Westminster has reserved the right to call a future referendum, it has said that such a decision must reflect the will of the Scottish people. If opinion polls and a government elected on a manifesto with a referendum desired is elected (it need only say that the new government will ask Westminster for a further referendum, not say that it has the power to call one) then such a referendum will happen- going against the obvious views of the Scottish people would be unthinkable and probably lead to considerable dissension.

No one thinks that Independence is easy. We just think that it is democratically necessary for such a decision to be made by the sovereign people.

Nope, they’re all tiny economies with tiny populations and some of them are not in a currency union at all (the Isle of Man has a separate currency that’s pegged to the Pound Sterling), nothing at all similar to the likes of Scotland with a large economy and a large population relative to the UK, especially given Salmond’s demands for seats on the MPC.

As I said, I’d rather my tax double to pay for Trident’s repositioning than allow Scotland to share a currency with the UK.

The polls show that, do they?

Which would be determined how, by another referendum?

So is accepting the results of free and fair elections.

Let’s just say I disagree and frankly you’ve got as much to back your argument up as I have.

And, weirdly, no one claimed it either. The point was that you seem to think devolved power - and hence major constitutional change - can happen in a matter of weeks. But let’s face it, no matter how long it takes you’ll complain. It’s just a reason for you to moan and it is getting quite tiresome.

@ElvisL1ves:
The polls do seem to say that, though characterizing it as a “sea change” seems a little hyperbolic. This link is a blog but it links to polls referenced:

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/11/panelbase-labour-independence

However, Pjen’s focus on how Scotland would not tolerate leaving the EU if the UK decided to seems also a little overly hopeful.

I’m guessing you don’t pay much tax then, as double not very much can still be not very much.
However if you actually work then you’d rather pay 40% VAT, 40% basic rate and 80% higher rate tax?
As well as double NI.
Colour me sceptical but I don’t believe you.
If only we could call that bluff……