Add Comment

Yes ! This is one of the reasons I voted SNP. Before any of the negative people get in on the act let's be clear - the majority of MP's and MSP's in Scotland voted against son of Trident. The Scottish Government has a clear mandate to act on this.

Great move by Alex and Co. Lrt's get rid of this menace once and for all.

Observer - spot on.

Never mind wrrying about 'alternative employment oportunities'. The people working on these evil weapons of mass destruction deserve being made redundant. There are plenty of other jobs for them none of which entail potentially destroying mankind. GET RID OF TRIDENT.

It is a travesty thet a supposedly "free" nation such as Scotland has had imposed, against its will for the last 40 years, wmd's sited on the EDGE of its biggest population centres! This tells us a lot about the people who have been governing us, and its not a pretty picture! NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH (but us Scots) WOULD ALLOW THIS!) It also tells us what other nations think about us Scots! ITS ABOUT TIME WE GREW SOME BACKBONE AND TOLD LONDON WHERE TO STICK ITS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! (Preferably the river thames)

I hope the SNP find a way round the political and constitutional barriers to the removal of these monstrous weapons from our land

This is our first proper government people! Well done to them. Hypocritically Labour will attack this move as 'picking fights' with westminster on an issue holyrood has no responsibility. It does- responsibility to the people- and powers over planning. I also fully expect the majourity of media organisations to attack Salmond for this- perhaps because they are all london controlled organisations. But we shall not be moved.

[quote]Dr Jeremy Stocker, a nuclear weapons expert, said: "I don't think anyone in London wants to think seriously about relocating Trident in southwest England.[/quote] What a ridiculous notion. That's what we [italic][bold]employ[/bold] [/italic] the bladdy Scots for. Isn't it?

This is very good news, great credit to the SNP for pursuing this. There is a clear mandate to rid our country of these things, the most expensive white elephant on the planet (with the possible exception of Posh Spice);-)

A major issue, do not know the answer but......alternative work for the highly skilled MOD and Naval technicians working on this kit at Faslane will need to be found because the skills will be lost. i.e. redundant or the technicians will vote with their feet and go elsewhere. In a similar vein, the policy not to have new nuclear power stations will reduce the high levels of skills within the country because nuclear technicians and associated skills will be lost too. The result of this would be a reduction in higher level skills, less chance of R&D opportunities, a reduction of investment in higher skilled training and manufacturing (of which there is not a lot around anyway). So, Andy, at a stroke we have reduced the nations skills capability......that is not good enough if the nation is to progress anywhere.

lobeydosser, Naval technicians with highly specific skills will follow Trident, it's that simple. As for nuclear power station workers, most jobs are broadly non-specific, e.g. Instrument technicians, Mechanical fitters, electricians, with obviously a degree of knowledge specific to the Nuclear industry. For example, I am an Instrument Engineer, almost exclusively in the Oil & Gas industry, but I have also worked on projects as widely diverse as the Chemical, Pulp & Paper, and Food industries, the basic skill set does not change. The real problem is the lack of manufacturing industries in Scotland, hence the location (Dubai) shown above. To counter balance the banishing of Trident from our country with the loss (or re-location)of some hundreds of Naval technician's jobs seems to me a tad unreasonable.

I have spoken with a great many senior military about Trident. Over half of those with whom I've spoken privately say that, 1) Trident is morally unusable, 2) It takes massive resources that they'd rather see deployed elsewhere, and 3) It undermines our moral authority. The ones in favour say, 1) You've always got to have an ultimate stick bigger than that of the 'fanatic' next door, 2) If the money wasn't spent on Trident 'it would only go on things like schools and hospitals' (I suspect that remark was to wind me up), and 3) It is the one thing that guarantees Britain's place on the UN Security Council and is therefore essential for national prestige and influence. It is No. 3 that I hear repeated most often. The majority of Scots believe that, on the contrary, it undermines our moral authority in the world and thereby denigrates our prestige and poisons our influence. I am astonished and delighted that the Scottish Government is taking this position. One can only hope that many otherwise decent Scottish Labour politicians might place their principles before the London party line and do the decent thing by giving it their backing. Nuclear weapons are, in my view, unconstitutional in Scotland, not just morally but also from an arcane legal-religious perspective. Whether we like it or not, the Commander in Chief of the British Armed Forces is 'Defender of the Faith' - witness the letters DG and FD on any British coin of the realm. This is cemented in place most recently by the 1953 Royal Titles Act. In Scotland, the 1921 Church of Scotland Act affirms the moral relationship between Church and Nation - again, whether we agree with such a technically theocratic settlement or not is by the way ... such is the settlement on which Great Britain is established going right back to the Acts of Union. In England, the Church of England as the Established Church has never come out formally against nuclear weapons. As such, the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces (the Queen) is not formally placed in any constitutional dilemma. In Scotland, however, the Established Church has, for many years now, condemned nuclear weapons as "unGodly". This places her Majesty in a position where her role in presiding over Trident on Scottish soil is in conflict with her Title (which, as far as I can see from the 1953 Act and the coins in all our pockets), is applied in Scotland even though her relationship with the C of S is slightly different from that which she has with the Established equivalent in England. This argument is a function of the lack of separation of Church and State under the British constitution. In my experience, it carries little real legal weight, but it has considerable moral weight with thoughtful people in the military - many of whom are religious. I throw that into the melting pot as a bit of a wildcard because while the Scottish Government may not have as much legal muscle as it might like when walking around the margins of an issue that has not been devolved, it does have massive moral authority, and that needs to be bolstered from all points of view to liberate Scottish soil from the festering evil of nuclear weapons. And remember, these things on the Clyde only set us up as sitting ducks for a terrorist attack. A successful 9/11 type attack on a fully armed Trident submarine docked at Faslane would probably not cause a nuclear explosion as such, but it would create a "dirty bomb" effect that could Chernobylise the idea of having any sort of Scottish Government across the Central Belt for many many years.

[quote]Dr Jeremy Stocker, a nuclear weapons expert, said: "I don't think anyone in London wants to think seriously about relocating Trident in southwest England. But because of devolution, it is a nagging worry at the back of their minds."[/quote] "They don't like it up 'em,Captain Mannering" Do they? Hee hee...

Hi Stuart, dont misunderstand me, on the balance of things I wish we never had them; under an Independent Scottish Government it will almost certainly be moved from Faslane to Portsmouth or Devonport. You are right, the Navy Technicians will go where Trident goes, but it is this loss of MOD civilian technician skills which is an important side issue. I know ex-Faslane Technicians in the Middle East too, these guys have very high level skills and it would be a shame to lose these skills overseas, or for them not to return and pass their knowledge on. Unfortunaely for the MOD these guys are unlikley to return as their rate of (tax-free) pay reflects their high level skills.

The SNP government has done brilliantly so far but this tops the lot! There's little doubt Salmond the magician will sort this one out too. Ethically, morally, financially and every way you can think of - these weapons are an abomination. Scots have paid through the nose for weapons we've never wanted, have never used, would never use and could now not even imagine a use for. Get them out of our country!

Alastair McIntosh, excellent post and an interesting read. This to me seems to one strand of many that will unravelled in the lead up to the next Scottish election. Some unionists mock the election result as a scraped win (which it was) but also as the best the SNP can hope to achieve as part of a perfect storm. I think the poor unfortunates are starting to realise that it was far from a perfect storm, just a minor squall. The hurricane is still brewing...

The Observer is carrying an interesting article about the Irish government's demand to have greater access to inspect nuclear power stations in the UK, if the UK goes ahead with an expansion of nuclear power:- http://www.guardian. co.uk/world/2008/feb /17/ireland.nuclearp ower - Dublin wants right to inspect UK nuclear power stations Henry McDonald The Observer, Sunday February 17 2008

[quote]In a similar vein, the policy not to have new nuclear power stations will reduce the high levels of skills within the country because nuclear technicians and associated skills will be lost too[/quote] Where exactly is the "skill" in weapons that will destroy the Planet? These weapons are a relic of the Cold War and the sooner we get rid of them the better.

I don't beleive that anyone agrees with Nuclear weapons in principle but there are a few facts here. 1. The majority of the country do not support unilateral disarmament. 2. NO missiles are being replced just the submarines.

[quote][bold]Malkster[/bold] wrote: I don\'t beleive that anyone agrees with Nuclear weapons in principle but there are a few facts here. 1. The majority of the country do not support unilateral disarmament. 2. NO missiles are being replced just the submarines.[/quote] Hi Malkster, [quote]NO missiles are being replaced just the submarines.[/quote] I think you're wrong about the new Trident missiles. I'm sure I read differently. I think you'll find that the reason the submarines are being replaced is because the present fleet cannot accommodate the new Trident missiles. The Americans told Westminster that the new Trident missiles would be the same size as the present Trident and would fit Westminster's submarines. Somewhere down the line the Americans decided to go for a larger missile which their submarines can accommodate and Westminster's can't. Hence the reason for having to replace the entire fleet.

In 1979, after the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant meltdown, Dr Roy spent the summer break from A.S.U. to see if it was feasible to backwards engineer so-called spent fuel (nuclear waste). He found photon transmutation would work and reduce plutonium 239, the aim of nuclear power plants, to zero radioactivity. Other isotopes also by the same method. It can be done with current technology cost effectively. Dr. Roy estimated costs at $80 million dollars for the pilot treatment plant at each nuclear reactor where the waste is stored in cooling ponds. Use the same steam powered electric generators to produce electricity from the heat. Then president Ronald Reagan signed the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which made burial of nuclear waste, federal policy. This put alternatives like photon transmutation (the Roy Process) in limbo. It is still available in the form of a Patent application, apparatus and theory.

[quote][bold]Malkster[/bold] wrote: I don't beleive that anyone agrees with Nuclear weapons in principle but there are a few facts here. 1. The majority of the country do not support unilateral disarmament. 2. NO missiles are being replced just the submarines.[/quote] The majority of Scottish MP's and the majority of MSP's have voted against plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system. So you have no authority to say that this move is not supported by the majority of people. And the Scottish Government do have the authority to look at means within it's disposal to block these weapons from Scottish soil.

Here is a link to an amazing book about the effects of the American nuclear weapons testing programme. http://tinyurl.com/3 59ama The readers' comments are interesting in themselves.

I'm opposed to trident but I can't help wondering if maybe Scotland should (on a short term basis) embrace this one. On the condition that Scotland gets to decide where to point them! My personal preferences are Milton Keynes, London, Brussels and strasbourg but I'm sure there a number of other "potential candidates" out there.

[quote]In 1979, after the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant meltdown, Dr Roy spent the summer break from A.S.U. to see if it was feasible to backwards engineer so-called spent fuel (nuclear waste). He found photon transmutation would work and reduce plutonium 239, the aim of nuclear power plants, to zero radioactivity. Other isotopes also by the same method. It can be done with current technology cost effectively. Dr. Roy estimated costs at $80 million dollars for the pilot treatment plant at each nuclear reactor where the waste is stored in cooling ponds. Use the same steam powered electric generators to produce electricity from the heat. Then president Ronald Reagan signed the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which made burial of nuclear waste, federal policy. This put alternatives like photon transmutation (the Roy Process) in limbo. It is still available in the form of a Patent application, apparatus and theory.[/quote]Can you tell us what this Dr. Roy's first name is? There is a Dr. Rustum Roy who has left the realms of sanity in a number of his publications recently, so if this is the same bloke, I wouldn't get too excited about any of this just yet.