So much for 'increased spending' on Trident.

Seems we no longer have a functioning nuclear deterrent.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...urpose-say-mps

Re: So much for 'increased spending' on Trident.

It's not wanted in Scotland, They can move the bloody things down to the Thames, right outside Westminster.

Re: So much for 'increased spending' on Trident.

Some of uus don't want them either - scrap the bloody things altogether as they're a huge waste of money and space.

Re: So much for 'increased spending' on Trident.

I'm sure the good people of Scotland who profit from the work carried out there and the retailers who rely on their custom won't thank you if they did.

Re: So much for 'increased spending' on Trident.

Cant remember exact figure but think it was thought to be around 15K upfront jobs that would be lost if Trident left Scotland and another 15K of people who relied with their business that supported Trident.

Re: So much for 'increased spending' on Trident.

Assuming a mean wage of circa £30k, this means that there will be a black hole approaching £1 billion pa if Trident were scrapped and not replaced.

A quick google suggests that the cost of keeping/replacing would be in the region of £200 billion.

So, in theory, this would would be sufficient to maintain all of the 30k people you refer to for about 200 years. What a bargain

Re: So much for 'increased spending' on Trident.

No my post was just to point out that getting rid of Trident in Scotland would result in so many jobs being lost from that area.

Trident would then be moved to Portsmouth and In Scotland 30K jobs would be lost and accourding to you its better these people live on the DOLE and no prospects of their children getting a decent job.

Re: So much for 'increased spending' on Trident.

The trouble is, it's NOT a deterrent any more.
You look at the power-mad nutters who have their own 'nuclear deterrents'....do you REALLY think if one of the current bunch of nutters who've grabbed 'power' from their populations were to fire a nuke at us, that we'd have a hope in HELL of being able to survive such an attack?
We're a small ISLAND,with winds blowing right across us, from Land's End to Harwich within 14 hours...from Plymouth to Inverness in 16 hours...no,SOD the nuclear stuff. You HONESTLY think we & several other nations aren't hiding vast amounts of 'germ warfare' items? REALLY? We KNOW other,more volatile nations have such things 'under cover'-so why spend trillions on an outdated, outmoded form of self annihilation merely for show?!?
...and it IS self annihilation-because if we send off just ONE of those things on a deliberate act-we're gone. We'll be obliterated within mere moments of that one trident arriving at it's destination. Plus,the way things are in our 'Green & Pleasant' atm,it'll likely have to get there [wherever it's sent] on a flipping 'bus replacement service' ANYWAY!!! Nah...spend the money on dole if necessary-it'll STILL be cheaper than maintaining a weapon we can't use.

Re: So much for 'increased spending' on Trident.

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that £200 billion is a lot of money in terms of what one could use it for. I am sure that it could be spent on paying for a diversity of other industries to be developed which would provide a variety of long term jobs. Since we intend to leave the EU, the concept of re-building our manufacturing base and relying less on imports seems to be a sensible thing to do in any case.

Re: So much for 'increased spending' on Trident.

As I recall, there is a huge field of oil/natural gas just off the Hebrides which needs tapping into. Once Faslane is closed to the Royal Navy, it and the skills of the workforce there can be used to build and service exploration platforms.