Independence - how would you vote?

[Ad Lib]

There is not another base in the UK currently capable of storing and maintaining the fleet of Trident submarines and warheads on a like for like basis to Faslane. That is a fact.

Yes, which is why they need time to build a new one...

[Enigma]

Yes, which is why they need time to build a new one...

I know.

[Ad Lib]

I know.

And why they need to keep Faslane until they've built it.

[doulikefish]

Reporting scotchland getting the message out "all is well"

[Enigma]

And why they need to keep Faslane until they've built it.

Keep access to it. I don't see why Faslane should remain under UK sovereignty, after all we will be allies.

[Ad Lib]

Keep access to it. I don't see why Faslane should remain under UK sovereignty, after all we will be allies.

Because operational control is most conveniently served by deferring sovereignty rather than relying on a lease-back, which wouldn't provide the UK the same guarantees of access necessary to effect a smooth transition.

ETA: this isn't unique. Military bases all over the world retain special sovereign status to ensure control for particular purposes (e.g. UK in Cyprus).

[sons superhero]

Are you really splitting hairs over a sentence that didn't even mention the word "Trident" (observe the word Trident was used in the previous sentence and as a catch-all for the subs with weapons)? I also stipulated "a base" where they could be stored AND maintained safely. You have provided evidence that the subs can be stored in one place and the missiles in another. That is not evidence that there would be a base that could do both. If there were a base that could do both, Faslane could be shut in a matter of months. There's a reason they've been looking at building new ports for it in the event keeping them there is no longer politically tenable. Because they need Faslane to simultaneously to be able to keep our nuclear deterrent commissioned, stored and maintained securely at the same port at the current capacity of submarines and missiles.

Again your wrong because neither Faslane or Coulport maintain the weapons now or ever. What I am saying to you is store the weapons were they are maintained, would that be so different from the current situation. So what you said was wrong there are bases suitable to complete the same roles as Faslane and Coulport.

Just to make sure you have it, the weapons and subs have and are to date stored and maintained between five seperate establishments.

[Ad Lib]

Again your wrong because neither Faslane or Coulport maintain the weapons now or ever. What I am saying to you is store the weapons were they are maintained, would that be so different from the current situation. So what you said was wrong there are bases suitable to complete the same roles as Faslane and Coulport.

Just to make sure you have it, the weapons and subs have and are to date stored and maintained between five seperate establishments.

FFS I was talking about the maintenance of the subs, Rainman. There is not another port that can do what Faslane does. There is not a port that can store and maintain the subs, store the weapons, and serve the operational functions of Faslane simultaneously.

ETA: and *of course* storing the weapons where you maintain them would be different from the status quo. You need to store them where they can readily be armed to a submarine! That's how you actually fucking use them!

ETA again: and of course weapons can be maintained at landlocked ports. That's sort of the point. When you're talking about the capacity of a port, you should probably understand "maintenance" to refer to the subs which, you know, would be a logistical nightmare to maintain in-land. By virtue of their inability to levitate.

[Swampy]

FFS I was talking about the maintenance of the subs, Rainman.

Literally rolling on the floor in disbelief at your audacity right now

[sons superhero]

FFS I was talking about the maintenance of the subs, Rainman. There is not another port that can do what Faslane does. There is not a port that can store and maintain the subs, store the weapons, and serve the operational functions of Faslane simultaneously.

Yes there is its called Devonport were two of the trident subs used as their home port up to recently and they are refitted. Again as you like to be factual Faslane does not and never will store trident missles Coulport does and their not the same place either.

[Baxter Parp]

There is not another base in the UK capable of storing and maintaining the fleet of Trident submarines and warheads on a like for like basis to Faslane. That is a fact.

That is a fact, but Aldermaston must be able to store the warheads, since they make them there. Presumably they can transport them to any dock they care to berth the subs at. Bob's yer uncle.

[Baxter Parp]

Are you really splitting hairs over a sentence

Imagine.

[Ad Lib]

That is a fact, but Aldermaston must be able to store the warheads, since they make them there. Presumably they can transport them to any dock they care to berth the subs at. Bob's yer uncle.

Well sure, if you want to have to have armed convoys travelling frequent and long journeys on public highways every time you want to arm a submarine with a missile. Back in the real world the effectiveness of a second strike deterrent rests on the ability to arm a submarine relatively quickly.

[Ad Lib]

Yes there is its called Devonport were two of the trident subs used as their home port up to recently and they are refitted. Again as you like to be factual Faslane does not and never will store trident missles Coulport does and their not the same place either.

They're right beside each other. They're the same port. If you want me to refer to Faslane-Coulport like Leeds-Fucking-Bradford I will, Rainman.

ETA: besides which, Devonport isn't currently suitable as a like-for-like replacement of Faslane-Coulport for safety reasons. This is well rehearsed.

[sons superhero]

FFS I was talking about the maintenance of the subs, Rainman. There is not another port that can do what Faslane does. There is not a port that can store and maintain the subs, store the weapons, and serve the operational functions of Faslane simultaneously.

ETA: and *of course* storing the weapons where you maintain them would be different from the status quo. You need to store them where they can readily be armed to a submarine! That's how you actually fucking use them!

ETA again: and of course weapons can be maintained at landlocked ports. That's sort of the point. When you're talking about the capacity of a port, you should probably understand "maintenance" to refer to the subs which, you know, would be a logistical nightmare to maintain in-land. By virtue of their inability to levitate.

Are you feeling ok you seem to be a bit confused. Again listen carefully. Faslane does not store weapons. They can't be simply loaded on to a sub and sent off at a moments notice. Thats why

there is one on patrol at all times. Yet again both weapons and subs are maintained in five different locations it already is a logistical nightmare.

[sons superhero]

Well sure, if you want to have to have armed convoys travelling frequent and long journeys on public highways every time you want to arm a submarine with a missile. Back in the real world the effectiveness of a second strike deterrent rests on the ability to arm a submarine relatively quickly.

It is happening now how do you think they maintain the weapons at Burghfield and Aldermaston now, teleport them.

[Baxter Parp]

Well sure, if you want to have to have armed convoys travelling frequent and long journeys on public highways every time you want to arm a submarine with a missile. Back in the real world the effectiveness of a second strike deterrent rests on the ability to arm a submarine relatively quickly.

Actually, it depends on a sub being at sea already. That's why there is always at least one at sea.

[Ad Lib]

Are you feeling ok you seem to be a bit confused. Again listen carefully. Faslane does not store weapons. They can't be simply loaded on to a sub and sent off at a moments notice. Thats why

there is one on patrol at all times. Yet again both weapons and subs are maintained in five different locations it already is a logistical nightmare.

Weapons are stored at Coulport. Literally less than 15 minutes away by car. Name me another port on the UK mainland capable of storing and maintaining our Vanguard submarines, with storage of nuclear weapons a quick jog away.

[Ad Lib]

Actually, it depends on a sub being at sea already. That's why there is always at least one at sea.

Yes, and it's easier to keep one armed and at sea at all times when you've got a weapons base minutes away from a sub base on the same stretch of water.

[Baxter Parp]

Yes, and it's easier to keep one armed and at sea at all times when you've got a weapons base minutes away from a sub base on the same stretch of water.

Shouldn't matter, the subs are out for months on end, it's not like you don't get plenty of notice.