THE BEST SPEECH FROM TRIDENT DEBATE

WHERE'S JACKIE?

Jackie Baillie has gone against Labour's line on nuclear weapons on the basis that jobs in her constituency will be lost should the facilities at Faslane be closed down, or should they move to England or Wales.

Ms Baillie has put the number of jobs at risk variously at 13,000 and 11,000. The actual employers, the MoD put the number at 520. A small difference of no great import if you have a political agenda.

Ms Baillie has defied the party leadership over this and yet is standing for Labour at the election as a constituency member for Dumbarton,and a regional member for the West of Scotland. Of course as a constituency member it's not unreasonable for her to differ from the party line from time to time. Less so, perhaps, as a list member.

Co-incidentally, the number of job losses from the collapse of BHS is estimated to be around  11,000 across Ms Baillie's beloved united kingdom. And we all know that Labour espouses solidarity with the working classes all over England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. (Anyone know why not across the world?)

So will we see Jackie campaigning hard for the retention of British Home Stores across her united kingdom? Or are 11,000 workers (or 520 depending on your source) only worth her effort when they are tending the weapons of mass destruction that make Jackie Baillie's Britain great?

Aside from that, I think there are questions to answer. What do you think?

Philip Green, that great Monegasque tax payer, owned BHS until 1 year ago. 

I can safely say I've never bought anything (except breakfast) from them in my life, despite there being a huge store in Dundee. The reason? They are the kind of store your granddad might buy stuff from.

Given that he was a great entrepreneur with his finger on the pulse of retail in Britain, could he not see that the store was losing its place in the retail world? Why did he run the business into the ground?

He sold it to a group of financiers for £1 last year. They took money out of the business and failed to invest as they had promised.

Are they culpable? Did they never have any intention of making a go of the brand?

There is a massive black hole in the pensions fund. Should the tax payer         pick up this shortfall? Should the financiers? Given that Green owned the company so recently, should he be held partly responsible?

And, given that we have a Tory government, who will end up paying for this mess?

DON'T BOTHER FEEDING THE KIDS: SECURE YOUR PLACE ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL INSTEAD

After all, I dare say Osborne's kids aren't going to go without food, nor are Cameron nor Willie the prince's,  so why waste money on children's food when you could be ensuring perfect facilities for your weapons of mass destruction and securing your place at the top table so you can carry on the pretence that you matter. 

Mind you, I think that the notion that Scotland will be a part of the UK in 2067 is beyond farcical and if I'm right you'll have to find a new place to store your murderous junk, because it sure as hell won't be here.

I suspect in any case, that nuclear submarines may well be a thing of the past long before that. 

They will look back at the dockyard, and how they will laugh at you.

GIDDY AND THE BOMB

It looks like Mr Osborne has already decided that, no matter what conclusion parliament reaches next year about Trident, he's going to spend in excess of £100,000,000,000 on it anyway.

The only alternative to that assumption is that he's wasting £500,000,000 on upgrading Trident's facility at Faslane for nothing.

Some of the tweets I have read have suggested that 6,000 jobs will be created by this investment, but Mr Osborne himself said that there would be around 1,500 extra jobs over the renovation process.

Much was made during the referendum campaign of the number of jobs that were dependent upon the naval base at Faslane. Jackie Baillie went into overdrive and excelled herself with the lies, warning of 11,000 jobs being at risk in the event of Independence.

Figures released by the MOD under the FOI legislation, however, showed  that only 520 civilian jobs at Faslane and Coulport were directly dependent on Trident.

According to the MoD. “There are 520 civilian jobs at HM Naval Base Clyde, including Coulport and Faslane, which directly rely upon the Trident programme.

"Of them, 159 are employed by the MoD and 361 by the MoD’s contractors, Babcock Marine and Locheed Martin.

"Most of the workers – 310 - live in West Dunbartonshire or Argyll and Bute, with the rest living elsewhere in Scotland (103) or at unknown locations (107)."

So in fact, what we were really talking about appears to be 310 people living in the area and 103 living elsewhere in Scotland... that would be 413 (at the time of the figures being produced).

How many of the new jobs will be for residents of West Dunbartonshire or Argyll and Bute, or the rest of Scotland, and how many of them will be bussed in to camp on a Monday morning, and back out on a Friday afternoon?

**********

I am happy that Mr Osborne wants to spend that much money in Scotland. It is an enormous amount of extra spending in our country, given the ever shrinking size of the Scottish government's income. I wonder though if it wouldn't be better spent on areas which are in dire need of investment. 

Labour and Tory alike seem at present to be extremely concerned about the lack of money available for colleges of further eduction. It is, in fact, a concern that I share, although I'd point out that England is having exactly the same problem. A lack of finance means that many 6th form colleges are under severe financial pressure!

We must find money for people who wish to pursue education other than that provided by universities. We need plumbers, bricklayers, hairdressers, electricians, plasterers, roofers, etc, etc... This £500 million could make a huge difference to college budgets.

But wait, Mr Osborne says that without Trident we would be in grave danger. It is our insurance policy. (I hope if there is danger lurking, it is a little more effective than the other insurance policy we all thought we had... National Insurance, but that's by the way).

You see, I'm concerned, having friends in many countries over Europe, Asia, South and North America, that you can only be safe if your country has nuclear weapons. I mean what about my friend Elizabeth who lives in Montevideo, Uruguay, or Dirk in Cologne, Germany, Dani in Gothenburg, Hristina in Bulgaria, or Daniel in Québec?

I wish someone in the mainstream press, maybe even the BBC, would ask Mr Osborne what these people are supposed to do to be safe? Come to live in Scotland?  No, maybe not. He doesn't want swarms of immigrants, does he?

The answer is that they are covered, in the highly unlikely chance that they might be attacked, by the USA. 

Now, of course, we could be accused of niggardliness in wanting the protection of the USA's nuclear weapons, but not wanting to pay for them. And that would be a fair criticism. But does Iceland, or Denmark, Germany or Austria, Finland or Norway currently pay for their protection? After all they are all infinitely richer than we are. 

Spo the question is, why does broke Britain pay out this vast amount? 

OK, we know the answer, or at least part of the answer. It's so that the likes of Cameron and Osborne get to sit at the top table and look down smugly on other more successful countries, safe in the knowledge that, as long as they keep bowing low enough, they have a special relationship with the USA.

I've always wondered if it would be acceptable that those of us who feel we need protection would make a small contribution to the financing of these WMDs. After all America has more than they could ever possibly need. OK, the top seat would have to go, but that will only ever affect a handful of people.

In the meantime, the great threat to all of us appears to be from terrorists, who fly planes into buildings or blow up railways and métros.

How is a nuclear deterrent supposed to sort that problem?

Any ideas, George? 

Anyone?

ANYTHING TO SAY, JACKIE?

WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A SENSIBLE ARGUMENT, USE A NONSENSICAL ONE

From YES SCOTLAND

Say goodbye to your pandas

As one Westminster official helpfully pointed out: “No one has fully understood the ramifications for the pandas of any bid for Scottish independence.”

Mobile phone bills will skyrocket

In June last year, the Westminster Government claimed that people in Scotland would be forced to pay mobile phone roaming charges when travelling south of the border – just days after the European Commission announced its intention to abolish the charges from next year.

Scotland would be vulnerable to attacks from space

In comments to the media, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond predicted that Scotland would be financially responsible not only for the decommissioning of Faslane, but also for the cost of establishing a new base in England or Wales, at a cost of ‘tens of billions’. Mind you, on his next visit he also warned that independence would make Scotland vulnerable to attacks from space.

The Trident nuclear base at Faslane would be annexed

Faslane has been a popular topic for the scaremongers. Last year ‘Government sources’ told The Guardian they were examining plans to designate the military base on Gareloch as sovereign UK territory in the event of a Yes vote. The following day Downing Street flatly denied the plan as neither credible nor sensible.

Visiting Auntie Betty in Grimsby? Best pack your passport

Home Secretary Theresa May told the Scottish Conservative Party conference that an independent Scotland would result in a “literal and figurative barrier” with “passport checks to visit friends and relatives”. Really? Even though no such border arrangement exists anywhere else in Europe, and a common travel area is already in operation between the UK and Ireland?

It will be the end of the world as we know it

Labour peer Lord Robertson declared that an independent Scotland would be “cataclysmic” for the West, threaten global stability and be welcomed by “the forces of darkness”. No risk of exaggeration there then…

You'll never see Doctor Who again

Former Westminster Culture Secretary Maria Miller claimed that viewers in independent Scotland would not be able to watch Doctor Who. Never mind that you can currently watch Doctor Who in 75 countries around the world from Angola and Australia to Uruguay and Venezuela.

No you can't, yes you can

In March 2014 the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems joined forces to rule out a currency union. Only weeks later, a senior Westminster government minister, who reports suggest would play a central role in independence negotiations, gave the game away by admitting that a currency union would be agreed to ensure fiscal and economic stability on both sides of the border.

You'll need to drive on the other side of the road

Last September, Labour’s Westminster shadow health secretary Andy Burnham warned that he didn't want to have to drive on the right when he came to an independent Scotland. So ludicrous was this story that the Guardian newspaper decided to run it as an April Fool’s Day story this year. 

WELL, MS BAILLIE? DOES IT LOOK LIKE YOUR IDEA OF A PROSPEROUS TOWN?

DO YOU FANCY MOVING THERE?

I don't know (or much care) what makes Baillie tick. She can't seriously expect to go to the House of Lords herself. I mean they've let some nomarks in, but there is a limit. So that's not the motivation for all the lies. And surely someone from her party in Scotland shouldn't be the gung ho Brit Empire type of Tory caricatures. So I give up. I expect it must be a blind loyalty to Gordon or Tony or whatshisname.

Further, I don't know what she considers to be a prosperous looking town. But from what I can see Helensburgh certainly isn't that! Closed and boarded up shops, charity shops, businesses gone to the wall or gone elsewhere.

The fact that the hotel (The Imperial) has closed is not surprising. With great respect to the inhabitants, the rundown state of the place is hardly very inviting to holidaymakers. Las Vegas it is not... Even Benidorm it is not.

And who wants to take their kids on holiday to place where there are leaky old submarines belching radioactive material, some lunatic shot off a missile by mistake a few weeks ago, the ships have faults and they don't bother with Health and Safety checks (which should at least please Mr Coburn)?

The video is good. Baillie shakes her head when the man from the audience challenges her, quoting figures from the site manager about people who live on base 4 days a week, then go home to their houses in England for the weekend; don't spend their money in local businesses and don't buy houses in Scotland; in fact are of no economic value to the area whatsoever.

She does this head shaking and smiling as if the man who runs the place doesn't know what he's talking about. Lord help us. She thinks the man in charge of the site where the nukes are kept doesn't know what he's talking about. And she's happy with that!!

I just wonder if Ms Baillie has ever wondered if these jobs, which aren't Scottish jobs at all, are actually worth the money they cost us. Would we not be better setting up some industry there. The kind that isn't involved in mass slaughter?

If this is what New Labour, One Nation Labour or whatever they are this week, considers to be prosperity, and sound economic sense... then heaven knows what they think poverty looks like, and no wonder they drove the economy into the tank last time people were daft enough to let them get their silly hands on power..

OPEN LETTER FROM MR POLLOCK TO MS BAILLIE

I saw this piece on this excellent and very amusing blog (which you may have noticed, joined the blogroll some time ago). It's an excellent letter asking Ms Baillie to explain some of the comments that she has made on numerous occasions highlighting why she thinks that, in order to maintain the prosperity of the Helensburgh area, she is happy for taxpayers of the UK to spend £100 billion on a means of wiping out entire countries.  

You might have thought that, as a socialist, she would have found this idea distasteful, and that she might even have come up with another way of creating wealth in the area. Not so.

Those of us who know the works of Ms Baillie will also know that she is not what anyone in their right minds would describe as being a stickler for the truth, and it turns out that, in fact, the area is not prosperous at all. 

So might we suppose that Ms Baillie support for these WMDs is based on a personal affection for mass destruction, or is it that she has been ordered by London to make up any rubbish she wants, but at all costs to support these killing monsters and their radioactive leaks less than 25 miles from Glasgow?

Thanks to The Misssy M Misssives and Mr Pollock for letting Munguin reproduce this letter.

**********

Dear Ms Baillie,

Recently, I attended a meeting organised by the Helensburgh Advertiser in the Victoria Halls in Helensburgh. The meeting was interesting but it did not clarify an important issue, which is whether the Base at Faslane is a benefit to or a blight on Helensburgh.

Your assertion at the meeting that we only need to look around Helensburgh to see the beneficial impact that the Faslane Base has on this area surprised me. Central Helensburgh does not look prosperous to me. This is underlined by the large number of empty shops and by the charity shops in prime positions in the centre of the town. Charity shops have an important role but their number and location suggest that there is not much competition from conventional retailers for these shops. In addition to the numerous semi-derelict empty shops, there are major buildings, including former banks, a hotel and a filling station that appear to have been abandoned. If you doubt this, I’ll be happy to give you copies of the photographs I took recently in central Helensburgh. This situation is surprising in what should be a prosperous town, especially one that supposedly benefits from 11,000 people employed nearby. 

I noticed that Mr Young, in his letter published in the Advertiser (8/5/14), says that the number of "directly related defence jobs" is even higher (12,000), so the beneficial effects of the Base on commerce in Helensburgh should be even more obvious. It isn’t. At the meeting, you were very clear that 6,500 people are employed by the MOD and Babcocks at the Base and another 4,500 are employed in the supply chain supporting the workers at the Base. You were adamant that these numbers are "very real and not made up" and that you have consistently quoted these figures to justify your support for the Base. It is surprising that the potentially huge spending power of such a large and presumably well-paid workforce does not have an obvious beneficial effect on Helensburgh. Why is that? 

At the meeting in the Victoria Halls, a gentleman from the audience provided a possible answer to this question. He had learned that a large number of staff at Faslane live at the base from Monday to Thursday but return to their homes elsewhere in the UK at the weekends and they do not buy houses in the area or contribute much to the local economy. I was surprised when this information was revealed. I was even more surprised that you kept your head down and said nothing in response to this revelation. Your uncharacteristic silence was all the more significant, since, throughout the rest of the debate, you intervened vigorously, when you disagreed with anything. Do you dispute the information he provided or were you already aware that many of the staff at Faslane do not live here or contribute much to the local economy, because they live elsewhere in the UK for part of each week?

My second point concerns the calculation of the number of workers (4,500) in the supply chain that supports the 6,500 staff at the Base. I did not understand your explanation of how the number in the supply chain was calculated. I would be grateful if you could explain how the figure of 4,500 people in the supply chain was arrived at. As I recall, you said this figure was obtained "through use of an income multiplier, which is the amount you (ie we) spend in the local economy." 

 You were at pains to emphasise that these figures aren't made up, that they had been produced for Scottish Enterprise some time ago and that you have been quoting these figures consistently ever since. Frankly, your account of the calculation, though obviously well-rehearsed, did not make sense to me. I would be grateful if you would explain how the figure of 4,500 was calculated. It is incomprehensible how the cash we collectively spend in the shops can somehow be transmuted (by a magical "income multiplier") into the number of people employed in the supply chain for the Base. How is this possible? Moreover, how is this factor influenced by what we spend elsewhere - in Glasgow or Braehead for example? More importantly, how does the calculation take account of the transient nature of the staff, who work for the MOD and Babcocks at the Base but only live here part-time and leave for long weekends elsewhere?

It is no secret that the No Campaign, of which you are an active member, seeks to dissuade people from voting “yes” in the referendum, by trying to frighten the voters. This approach seeks to undermine the confidence of the voters by highlighting the alleged risks of voting “yes", whilst implying that there are absolutely no risks associated with voting “no.” Another undermining technique employed by the No Campaign is to disparage the idea that Scotland could be a successful independent nation that could, for example, defend itself. You used the latter technique at the meeting in the Victoria Halls when you sneeringly suggested that if the electorate voted 'yes' in September, the Scottish Navy would have only "seven frigates and half a submarine," the latter presumably being obtained as a farewell gift from the remaining UK. Very droll but not as absurd as the current parlous state of the RN. Are you aware that the RN now has many more commanding officers than active, major surface warships. When I last checked, there were 40 admirals and 260 captains but just 19 ships that are major surface combatants (13 frigates and 6 guided missile destroyers), not one of which is based in Scotland. This is disastrous for a nation with aspirations to be a major world power. 

Correction - for Westminster politicians with pretensions to pose on the world stage and, according to their favourite cliche, "punch above our weight." Even more absurd are the 2 aircraft carriers currently being built and for which the UK cannot afford to buy aircraft. It now turns out that there are questions about whether the flight deck of the single carrier that the Ministry of Defence can afford to retain, is strong enough for the aircraft to land on. I'll leave the submarines, including the abandoned hulks at Rosyth, for another day, when I hope you might clarify the logic, practicalities and morality of your position. This story requires a modern Gilbert and Sullivan duo to do justice to these issues and to the monumental incompetence and soaring self-regard of the Westminster politicians, including your labour colleagues at Westminster.

In conclusion, I wonder why you have apparently not noticed that the population in this area is falling and, according to the Sunday Times, house prices in Helensburgh are falling to a greater extent than anywhere else in the UK. (Google it if you haven’t seen this news.} Moreover, as the Advertiser recently reported, there are many unoccupied shops and a lot of charity shops in the centre of Helensburgh. Why is this? True to your Project Fear philosophy, you raised the spectre of falling house prices, depopulation and diminished prosperity which would inevitably occur in Helensburgh if the nuclear submarines were ever removed from Faslane. To emphasise your threat you pointed to Dunoon, where, when the US nuclear submarines were withdrawn, house prices, prosperity and the population all fell. You warned that a similar fate awaits Helensburgh. What you did not admit is that the dire (Dunoon-like) circumstances you predict already exist here in Helensburgh now, before any nuclear submarines have been withdrawn. Why is that? Is it possible that the falling house prices, the falling population and the numerous closed shops in central Helensburgh are related to the proximity of the Base and its nuclear weapons, from which many people would prefer to stay far away?

D. Pollock

FUR COATS...

...and no knickers

It doesn't have to be like this. It really doesn't. 

But does anyone think that people in London give a damn if Scots live in these multiply deprived areas, as long as people like Cameron can brag that Britain has the forth largest military spend in the world and is, therefore, a force to be reckoned with?

I know that instead of fighting pointless and sometimes illegal wars against countries in the Middle East, I'd rather we spend our vast income on giving Scots somewhere decent to live.

After the referendum and a positive outcome, there will be a period when the Scottish government negotiates with the UK government who gets what; who pays for what.

Then, five years after the last Scottish general election in 2011, there will be a Scottish general election. 

By 2016 the Scottish branch of London Labour will have had time to break free of the policies that are designed to impress the Ukip trending, Tory voting, southern part of England.

It's unlikely that a successful party like the SNP will disappear completely, although some may rejoin the parties from whence they came. But it seems likely that we'll have at least two parties whose policies are broadly progressive. 

With the Tories similarly detached from the greedy big business London City politics that they have followed since Mrs Thatcher's day we might even have a half decent right of centre party, possibly led by someone like Murdo, who was only stopped in his tracks last time round by Cameron's (strictly against the rules) interventions on behalf of his little helper, Ruth, only a few weeks into her political career.

We will have a lot of UK debt to pay off, but we will have vast resources: resources that  will make us one of the top ten rich countries of the world. 

We could rid ourselves of the fur coats, and buy up half of Marks & Spencer's  knicker department in the first year.

This article is worth a read.

SCOTLAND'S PURPLE TORIES

Mrs Lamont has reported that she's going to 'throw the book at the SNP' -- whatever book that is. 

Is that the:

NO free elderly care; 
NO free prescriptions;
NO free bus travel;
NO free education;
Huge hikes in council tax 'book'? 

Of course, she means the Tory General Election manifesto 'book'... Well, her Conservative allies in the Better Together campaign will be pleased.

Better Together? You bet your ass they are -- Lordships and expenses and all sorts of important goodies -- Westminster goodies, the best kind.

Mrs Lamont appears to want to turn Scotland into England. I'm not sure that she completely understand just how much opposition there is to her 'get tough on scroungers' policies. 

Because most people seem to think that free elderly care, prescriptions, bus fares and education are exactly what Scotland needs. I've not met one person who disagrees with them.

Nor have I ever met anyone who wants to pay more council  tax.

I know many Labour supporters; my gym is full of them. So far I haven't met one single one of them that rates her or any of her policies. In fact they tend to groan when I mention her, as if I've stabbed them in a vulnerable place.

Despite the lies that Labour has told about the number of jobs that attach to Faslane: Bailey had it at 11,000 and Davidson managed to invent 19,000, the truth is according to  the MoD's own figures that just over 500 jobs are involved, about a quarter of the number at Leuchars Air Force Base in Fife being closed by Labour's partners in the coalition against Scottish independence!

And how many jobs could be created with the investment of £10 billion that we will save when we no longer have to buy new WMDs to keep David Cameron sitting at the top table, and for no other real reason? The once vehemently anti nuclear brigade seem to realise that,as long as the nasty stuff is kept a long way from them, the important part of the Uk likes these mass murdering weapons.

I've not met anyone who thinks that the Honourable Mr Sarwar (his father is a Lords, so he is an honourable, regardless of whether he is an MP or not) is anything but an rather empty-headed mouthpiece for Ed and his men in London. A pretty boy, chosen for his looks rather than his intellect, who is likely to go off half cocked if he doesn't have London's script in front of him.

If the Labour Party in Scotland wants to win back the confidence of the Scottish people, then they are going to have to come up with some uniquely Scottish policies that will help Scotland and Scottish people and stop worrying themselves about the parts of Greater England where Hurricanes Hardly ever Happen.

WELL, WELL, WELL...

TRIDENT nuclear bombs are too risky to be based in the south of England, but it’s fine for Scotland, according to the UK government.

The Ministry of Defence says that the nuclear submarines currently housed on the Clyde could not be moved to the Devonport base in Plymouth because an accident there would endanger too many lives.

Responding to a Freedom of Information request from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the MoD said: “Neither the Devonport naval base nor the dockyard safety case permit the berthing of an armed submarine.”

At least 11,000 Plymouth citizens could be killed in a worst-accident scenario envisaged by the MoD, and that is deemed an unacceptable risk.

Why then does the MoD insist it’s fine to keep these killers anchored just 40 miles from Scotland’s biggest city and centre of population? Put starkly, Scots lives are worth less. Back in 2000 the MoD envisaged a hypothetical accident involving Trident in Faslane. It concluded “societal contamination” resulting from such a disaster was OK.

No wonder CND have thrown their weight behind an independent Scotland.

It’s the only way to get rid of these obscene weapons, whether we live in Devon or Dumbarton.

Review? What review? Oh, THAT review ?... snigger.

It appears that the Tories, in the form of Philip Hammond, have shown the Liberals once again how highly they value their input into government policy.

I'm talking here about the Trident replacement.

I'd always had the impression that Liberal Democrats were essentially against Trident, however, I found I was wrong when that party, in government,  suggested that instead of the Trident renewal, costing untold billions of dollars we don't have, we should have something a bit cheaper; a sort of Asda own brand version.

And why not, I say. Clearly I hope that Scotland will have no part in paying for this waste of money, but whatever Scotland does, I expect that the RUK will wish to continue to play a leading role in the world, and for that you need to have nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Sad old world, huh?

As even the outlandishly expensive weapons system that Britain houses in Scotland aren't any kind of a deterrent to any nation that might be likely to use nuclear weapons against us; as we can't use it without not just permission, but information, from the USA, and in reality we never will use it against any of the "enemies" the UK has or is likely to have, why not just have cardboard cutouts?

Anyway, in what appears to have been a sop to the Liberals it was agreed to have a review to look into the possibility of an alternative and cheaper system. 

Almost undoubtedly this was also a complete waste of the enormous amount that these reviews always cost, as rich and influential people get together and charge vast amounts for their services, and lunches... because clearly it is America which decides what we should have. 

In any case it appears that Mr Hammond already knows the outcome of this inquiry, which is not due to report until 2016.

According to the Guardian, Hammond, the posh man's Jim Murphy (in more ways than one), is due to announce the spending of £350 million we don't have on the next part of the renewal scheme that the review has yet to report on.

The Ministry of Defence has , they report, said the  contract would sustain 1,200 UK jobs, adding that the investment made "clear the government's firm commitment to maintaining continuous at-sea deterrence for future decades".

I'm not sure for how long that will sustain these jobs, or what kind of jobs they are, but the cost per job appears to be £300,000, so I hope it is for a very long time, or that they are very good jobs.

Apparently Hammond is visiting Faslane on the Clyde, where the UK stores its WMDs, well away from the South East of England. (I noticed in recent discussion about what the RUK would do with the nukes, when Scotland invites the RUK to remove them, the only English port suitable, Devonport, was rejected on the basis of the high density of population. Devonport itself has a population of around 27,000, but Plymouth has over 250,000!!!). 

Mr Hammond intends making announcements of expansions to the work of Faslane, in some sort of bribe to locals. He seems to be working in concert with Jackie Baillie....(who seems to have an issue with maths, having mixed up the ratio of the figures of 11,000 and 600 to the point that she managed to make it 1 : 1. Thank goodness she's not the spokesman for education, eh!

The MoD is one of the departments of government with no Liberal Democrat minister, their only representative there having been sacked in the recent reshuffle. So Hammond, it seems has carte blanche to operate as if the review has come down in favour of the good old untried and untested expensive option.

I suppose that, given that in 2016 the Liberal Democrats will almost certainly be out of government and/or reduced in number so substantially as to have no influence on policy, and that the two other right wing parties, the Tories and Labour, can't wait to get their hands on yet more WMDs the better to to show off at the UN Security Council, Hammond is on a safe bet.

Mr Hammond says that he is certain that Scots will decide to stay in the UK and offer the UK a place to store these dangerous weapons, within 50 miles of a city of over half a million in a metropolitan area of well over a million. Och well, only plebs, and Scottish plebs at that!

OUT-SOURCING... JEEEEZ

If there had been a time to announce that the Westminster government had decided to out-source the support staffing for looking after the nuclear fleet on the Clyde, I would have thought that it probably wasn't right now with the spectacle of out-sourced cocked-up security in London requiring an 18,500-man back up from the military being played out in front of us every day.

On the other hand when every headline in every paper is about the 'greatest show on Earth in the greatest city on Earth', and it is impossible to turn on the tv to a news channel without enduring more Coca Cola advertising, it's a good time to bury bad news.


Of course the government has worked out that it will cost less money for the private sector to look after the dependent nuclear deterrent in this dependent country, and of course it is good to see them saving money. However, there are some things that might just be a little bit too important to be bought at a knock down price by people who may or may not actually be able to fulfil their contract to the standard that we might require. (Well, the private sector has form!)

The MoD has signed a 15-year contract (!!!!!) for support staff to be provided by AWE, Babcock, and Lockheed Martin UK Strategic Systems who will also take over some Royal Navy and management functions, with staff being seconded to the companies.


Now on the basis that everything that the MoD touches ends up costing double, triple, tenfold and more what it should cost, and then being unfit for purpose, I'm a bit on the uneasy side.


Cutting corners to make more profit and give the directors bigger bonuses is maybe what Britain is all about, but these things are 50 miles away from Scotland's largest city.


I don't want weapons of mass destruction on my county's soil at any cost, but at least I felt a tiny bit safer about them when they were in the hands of the military. In the hands of money grubbing spivs, I'm scared.


Let's get out of this expensive union as quick as we can, and then we can dump these vile weapons, and avoid having to pay the £100 billion the replacements are going to cost (because the coalition only kicked the can down the road a little bit to appease the Liberals, and even at that that creep Hammond has agreed to spend a billion that we don't have on the preliminaries for the new weapons).