Faslane - Job security

[Banterous]

Sigh.

If the UK won't prenegotiate then Scotland can not make promise before the event. this is an unfortunate consequence of the anthropomorthic arrow of time.

This does not make the SNP plans 'a mess' - they can, to the best of their abilities try to establish the likely outcomes of a set of starting conditions. This kind of ciritical reasoning is fairly common place amongst homo sapiens, and indeed some other higher mammals.

Likewise, Cameron, Milliband et al, can not promis anything about the future of the Uk, they can only make a reasoned prediction based on a series of starting conditions, their intended stimulus into the system,a nd of course, thier own biases. are they all 'a mess' as well?

What kind of contingencies to NATO memberhsip are there? You are either in, or out. The actual differences in terms of national security are quite slight, a non aligned, non nuclear Scotland would still benefit from bilateral agreements with it's nearest neighbours, hell at the extreme end of that you have the republic of Ireland, who basically rely on the RAF and RN to defend their sea lanes and airspace - becuase for those organisations not to do so, would endanger the UK, so Ireland, defended by NATO even as it isn't a member.

NATO membership, in the end provides a qualitative boost in armed force readiness, through constantly excersising with other NATO members and developing joint practices. Some non NATO members still align themselves to NATO practices simply to maintain inter-operability.

There are clearly places in the white paper where the UK's position of no negotiation left the Yes campaign weaker. This is not actually one of those.

Excellent so you threw in a patronizing exclamation and then a load of words that don't enhance your earlier argument OR challenge that article.

Now you'll get accolades like "handed me my arse" etc but yet again, it doesn't answer my questions. NATO membership involves adhering to criteria and the Faslane question has not been answered either. Oh and just to patronize, your spelling's dreadful

Mind you having an argument over something that's never going to happen is a waste of time. What i wanted to do was to point out how idiotic the whole SNP argument for independence was

[Confidemus]

Excellent so you threw in a patronizing exclamation and then a load of words that don't enhance your earlier argument OR challenge that article.

Now you'll get accolades like "handed me my arse" etc but yet again, it doesn't answer my questions. NATO membership involves adhering to criteria and the Faslane question has not been answered either. Oh and just to patronize, your spelling's dreadful

^^^ doing himself no favours

[madwullie]

probably a list of No voting posters but that's the nats position. Ignore and don't engage because we're always right in spite of basic and fundamental issues that have never been fully addressed. please ignore me

Almost every single thread on this sub-forum has involved engagement - admittedly varying levels of understanding have been shown. People in general have engaged and discussed the issues, sometimes we've even had people who are clearly relatively expert in the fields they are discussing. For the most part, even post-referendum, there has been some excellent analysis of the result its ramifications, and objective study of the positions of all parties pre and post.

The only person that I can see that has failed to engage in any discussion has been you. Your posts have been characterised by insults, fingers in the ears la-la-la and utter bollocks about your position. You've quoted sources you clearly haven't read, you've made completely incorrect statements, and been pretty much an embarrassment to yourself and those on your side of the argument (whose posts you have parroted repeatedly without a single original thought in evidence).

When proven wrong and comprehensively speared by those you are trying to argue with (a la Renton atm), you employ the primary school tactic of pretending that it was something else entirely you were talking about, or you resort to personal insults, or you just repeat the point you'd made previously despite it having been dealt with (that is, when you don't just ignore the point that crushed your barely credible argument) Have to say though, your sycophancy has probably been the most stomach churning part of your posts, but with so much competition it's difficult to tell. This is all before we even get on to your abysmally weak grasp of the language.

You are an absolute joke of a poster.

[BigMartyn86]

Well when you consider the absolute shambles that the SNP's defence policy was, I don't think the prospects for these generic dockyard jobs looked too good either but that's no longer a worry

The white paper plans were more than adequate and realistic of what to expect from any independent country of similar size. There would've been more service personnel based in Scotland than there is just now. Having Faslane as a Tri-Service headquarter also makes perfect sense. It's well equipped to do so. It covers all the maritime capabilities well. Considering the large amount of marines based at Faslane then the SDF army/land forces would've taken over from them and not forgetting the nearby barracks and ranges just outside Faslane which (Garelochhead barracks, filmed Gary Tank Commander there) the army would be well equipped. Not to mention all the other existing bases in Scotland as well.

Independence would've be the large kick up the back side that Whitehall needed. Our forces are overstretched and undermanned. Go back and read the two links I've posted earlier on the thread for evidence. We have that little engineers in the RN that they are having to go begging cap in hand to the US coastguard to get some for our ships.

[renton]

Excellent so you threw in a patronizing exclamation and then a load of words that don't enhance your earlier argument OR challenge that article.

Now you'll get accolades like "handed me my arse" etc but yet again, it doesn't answer my questions. NATO membership involves adhering to criteria and the Faslane question has not been answered either. Oh and just to patronize, your spelling's dreadful

Mind you having an argument over something that's never going to happen is a waste of time. What i wanted to do was to point out how idiotic the whole SNP argument for independence was

Yeah the spelling is the upshot of typing quickly and hitting 'post' without reviewing. It's a bad habit. Still, mr sulky pants - to continue:

NATO membership criteria has always been far more flexible than what was written down, expediency is the absolute name of the game as anyone who's bothered thier arse to read anything about it would know. So let's examine these critera? A certain percentage of GDP spending on defence, basically no one does this. A deal on basing Trident, a deal was inevitable simply because it involved a sovereign state unwillingly basing another state's weapon system - said system of which by the way, involves a huge amount of (interested) 3rd party hardware and technology.

The nature of the deal is up for question, and was certainly 'a red line' as far as the SNP were concerned - the missiles were going. The time line on which they went were flexible, a reasonable position allowing the UK time to either build a base down south, or come to an agreement with the US regarding basing rights over there. Thus, deal done, that criteria is removed. By adhering to the criteria by which other non nuclear NATO members handle nukes in their ports, then that issue is vaulted as well.

Now, all that is implied or even outright said in the White paper. Now, as I alluded to earlier, what contingencies would you like? EU membership and NATO membership are not related and with NATO, you are eithe rin or out and as I already argued, based on what other nations do, that non memberhsip isn't even that huge a barrier to maintaining a decent level of security for our territory.

Now, to cover the charge of patronising. it all comes back to this: One side refuses to prenegotiate, the other therefore can only make reasoned assumptions on likely outcomes - on currency, for example I counted at least two other viable solutions. That's the be all and end all of it. The only people who get het up about that unfortunate fact of thermodynamics are folk who need spoonfed data and refuse to do their own research, or folk who are inherently hostile to the ideas put forward by that side, as to use it as a club to bludgeon folk with. Charitably, I put you in the latter category.

[Banterous]

Almost every single thread on this sub-forum has involved engagement - admittedly varying levels of understanding have been shown. People in general have engaged and discussed the issues, sometimes we've even had people who are clearly relatively expert in the fields they are discussing. For the most part, even post-referendum, there has been some excellent analysis of the result its ramifications, and objective study of the positions of all parties pre and post.

The only person that I can see that has failed to engage in any discussion has been you. Your posts have been characterised by insults, fingers in the ears la-la-la and utter bollocks about your position. You've quoted sources you clearly haven't read, you've made completely incorrect statements, and been pretty much an embarrassment to yourself and those on your side of the argument (whose posts you have parroted repeatedly without a single original thought in evidence).

When proven wrong and comprehensively speared by those you are trying to argue with (a la Renton atm), you employ the primary school tactic of pretending that it was something else entirely you were talking about, or you resort to personal insults, or you just repeat the point you'd made previously despite it having been dealt with (that is, when you don't just ignore the point that crushed your barely credible argument) Have to say though, your sycophancy has probably been the most stomach churning part of your posts, but with so much competition it's difficult to tell. This is all before we even get on to your abysmally weak grasp of the language.

You are an absolute joke of a poster.

Coming from the poster who threw up an example of Egypt to contradict my assertion that social networking has little or no effect on the outcome of a election or referendum I don't regard anything you say as worth reading. What you've done since that ludicrous defence of social media as a useful tool in the outcomes of political voting systems, you've hung around waiting to jump in when there are more posters who share your independence views. You're pathetic

[Banterous]

Yeah the spelling is the upshot of typing quickly and hitting 'post' without reviewing. It's a bad habit. Still, mr sulky pants - to continue:

NATO membership criteria has always been far more flexible than what was written down, expediency is the absolute name of the game as anyone who's bothered thier arse to read anything about it would know. So let's examine these critera? A certain percentage of GDP spending on defence, basically no one does this. A deal on basing Trident, a deal was inevitable simply because it involved a sovereign state unwillingly basing another state's weapon system - said system of which by the way, involves a huge amount of (interested) 3rd party hardware and technology.

The nature of the deal is up for question, and was certainly 'a red line' as far as the SNP were concerned - the missiles were going. The time line on which they went were flexible, a reasonable position allowing the UK time to either build a base down south, or come to an agreement with the US regarding basing rights over there. Thus, deal done, that criteria is removed. By adhering to the criteria by which other non nuclear NATO members handle nukes in their ports, then that issue is vaulted as well.

Now, all that is implied or even outright said in the White paper. Now, as I alluded to earlier, what contingencies would you like? EU membership and NATO membership are not related and with NATO, you are eithe rin or out and as I already argued, based on what other nations do, that non memberhsip isn't even that huge a barrier to maintaining a decent level of security for our territory.

Now, to cover the charge of patronising. it all comes back to this: One side refuses to prenegotiate, the other therefore can only make reasoned assumptions on likely outcomes - on currency, for example I counted at least two other viable solutions. That's the be all and end all of it. The only people who get het up about that unfortunate fact of thermodynamics are folk who need spoonfed data and refuse to do their own research, or folk who are inherently hostile to the ideas put forward by that side, as to use it as a club to bludgeon folk with. Charitably, I put you in the latter category.

tt;dr

[Banterous]

The white paper plans were more than adequate and realistic of what to expect from any independent country of similar size. There would've been more service personnel based in Scotland than there is just now. Having Faslane as a Tri-Service headquarter also makes perfect sense. It's well equipped to do so. It covers all the maritime capabilities well. Considering the large amount of marines based at Faslane then the SDF army/land forces would've taken over from them and not forgetting the nearby barracks and ranges just outside Faslane which (Garelochhead barracks, filmed Gary Tank Commander there) the army would be well equipped. Not to mention all the other existing bases in Scotland as well.

Independence would've be the large kick up the back side that Whitehall needed. Our forces are overstretched and undermanned. Go back and read the two links I've posted earlier on the thread for evidence. We have that little engineers in the RN that they are having to go begging cap in hand to the US coastguard to get some for our ships.

I don't agree on independence and I think the SNP are a very incompetent bunch but I'll have a look at those links because you clearly have some insider information that might be interesting. Cheers

[BigMartyn86]

It wouldn't have made sense for NATO to block our membership. In doing so they would've deprived themselves of the largest exercise area they've got. Joint Warrior which is held twice a year off the west of Scotland is the biggest exercise which NATO take part in.

[BigMartyn86]

I don't agree on independence and I think the SNP are a very incompetent bunch but I'll have a look at those links because you clearly have some insider information that might be interesting. Cheers

I don't like the SNP either but I do agree on Independence. Enjoy your day.

[Banterous]

I don't like the SNP either but I do agree on Independence. Enjoy your day.

You too m8.

Ah but that's the problem isn't it, they'd have been in charge. Also, that's why there's going to be a huge split.

[Anonapersona]

I don't agree on independence and I think the SNP are a very incompetent bunch but I'll have a look at those links because you clearly have some insider information that might be interesting. Cheers

So puting independence aside, what have the current SG done that makes them incompetent? I was under the impression that their policies were quite popular for the most part.

[renton]

tt;dr

Fucksakes

[Banterous]

So puting independence aside, what have the current SG done that makes them incompetent? I was under the impression that their policies were quite popular for the most part.

I think it's irrelevant to this thread. This is about Faslane and the defence policies. Although they're now an irrelevance too

[Banterous]

Fucksakes

I found Martyn's inputs of interest but your post yet again consisted of a load of tripe that backed your argument. People who know Faslane and have experiential knowledge and indeed secondary journalistic accounts that have been researched are worth reading. Your posts on betting on the polls were worth reading but your inputs to this thread are as interesting as "Wullie's"

[Confidemus]

Coming from the poster who threw up an example of Egypt to contradict my assertion that social networking has little or no effect on the outcome of a election or referendum I don't regard anything you say as worth reading. What you've done since that ludicrous defence of social media as a useful tool in the outcomes of political voting systems, you've hung around waiting to jump in when there are more posters who share your independence views. You're pathetic

[renton]

I found Martyn's inputs of interest but your post yet again consisted of a load of tripe that backed your argument. People who know Faslane and have experiential knowledge and indeed secondary journalistic accounts that have been researched are worth reading. Your posts on betting on the polls were worth reading but your inputs to this thread are as interesting as "Wullie's"

I don't care that you didn't read it, or that you don't think my contributions are worth much, that's fine.

... but you had the nerve to criticise my spelling, and then royally fucked up a 5 character acronym.

[madwullie]

Coming from the poster who threw up an example of Egypt to contradict my assertion that social networking has little or no effect on the outcome of a election or referendum I don't regard anything you say as worth reading. What you've done since that ludicrous defence of social media as a useful tool in the outcomes of political voting systems, you've hung around waiting to jump in when there are more posters who share your independence views. You're pathetic

lol

You made a complete fud of it, backtracked when called out about it and added caveats to the original statement after the fact when you realised how far off the mark you were.

And I didn't actually mention Egypt, it was another poster (who you rounded on in your own special way of calling thick when they javelined your argument.)

[madwullie]

Here it is here:

Facebook is entertainment and in some ways that's comedic but in the case of Yes it's tragedy mixed in. It is really sad that deluded people believe that social media has a serious place anywhere other than discussing sport, music and cooking

Tell that to the people of Egypt when they had their uprising.

Egypt = Scotland?

You really aren't too bright are you?

"deluded people believe that social media has a serious place anywhere other than discussing sport, music and cooking"

?

No-one said that Egypt=Scotland, they implied that facebook was a force in recent events in Egypt, something you claimed impossible in the above statement.

Do you see?

I can see that Egypt is a completely different culture and political system and the internet is one way of expressing viewpoints from fear of any repressive forces unless of course that media conspiracy got to you here? Tell all.....

I can easily patronize you too.

You see?

Me: "So when you said that social media doesn't have a serious place anywhere other than discussing sport, music and cooking, what you actually meant was that it does?"

You: "Not in a democratic society it doesn't. I should include caveats for people who aren't very bright. Point taken"

You complete tool.

[LinkinFighter]

Ban this horrendous troll.