• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Scotland Debate

Old Skier said:
Guffed his way through 130 pages but hey oh it's good fun. Next time he crosses the Tamar he needs to look right to see how losing Faslane will effect RUK.
Click to expand...

You are very welcome to Trident and the £billions it costs. Don't forget the extra costs without iScotland's financial contribution.
I will feel much safer without it.
The jobs lost pale into insignificance when you consider the costs of the nukes.
 
Doon frae Troon said:
You are very welcome to Trident and the £billions it costs. Don't forget the extra costs without iScotland's financial contribution.
I will feel much safer without it.
The jobs lost pale into insignificance when you consider the costs of the nukes.
Click to expand...


Do you want to tell the people whose jobs you have just got rid off ?
 
Old Skier said:
Guffed his way through 130 pages but hey oh it's good fun. Next time he crosses the Tamar he needs to look right to see how losing Faslane will effect RUK.
Click to expand...

OK,Tamar/Devonport I now get, but the rest is lost on me?Why would we lose Faslane?We'd need somewhere to park our boats,wouldn't we?We'll have some boats I reckon.No nuclear subs,though.Do you mean the nuclear subs could go to Devonport?Possibly.But Faslane isn't the big deal here, is it?Coulport is the problem for you guys.Any idea where you might put that?

That's the £1 question.
 
Adi2Dassler said:
Coulport is the problem for you guys.Any idea where you might put that?

That's the £1 question.
Click to expand...
Those facilities are already in use dealing with one of the big black sharks already. And as I said its on the right as you cross the bridge.
I agree on the nuke subs, complete waste of money and space. Anyone who has a nuke and isn't willing to use it as a first response is wasting their time however it would increase the jobs market in the SW which would be welcome.
 
Last edited:
Old Skier said:
Those facilities are already in use dealing with one of the big black sharks already. And as I said its on the right as you cross the bridge.
I agree on the nuke subs, complete waste of money and space. Anyone who has a nuke and isn't willing to use it as a first response is wasting their time however it would increase the jobs market in the SW which would be welcome.
Click to expand...

Based on this reply I'll work on the basis you have no idea what coulport is.
 
Coulport is currently the place in the UK to store the warheads for Trident Missile System and docking

At the moment it is the only place to do so but it's not 100% certain they can't be housed anywhere else - areas have been looked into
 
Old Skier said:
Most miss out China Fleet becuase of St Mellion but its well worth a play once passed the 1st. Also has good golfers accomm on site.
Click to expand...

And for those with a serious slice - like my f-ex-law - St M (Nicklaus) can be unplayable! Never stopped the sod from carving 3 woods to the Green and single-putting though, the bandit! CF was on the radar, but a bit of a trek from Snozzle. I'd have been a wreck too. He drove an Alfa in typical Alfa style!

Back OT.. It is indeed the Nuclear Warheads that are/would be the issue for any move. However, given that much of the missile servicing/maintenance is carried out in US anyway, a simple extension of that arrangement would seem reasonably practical all round!
 
Foxholer said:
And for those with a serious slice - like my f-ex-law - St M (Nicklaus) can be unplayable! Never stopped the sod from carving 3 woods to the Green and single-putting though, the bandit! CF was on the radar, but a bit of a trek from Snozzle. I'd have been a wreck too. He drove an Alfa in typical Alfa style!

Back OT.. It is indeed the Nuclear Warheads that are/would be the issue for any move. However, given that much of the missile servicing/maintenance is carried out in US anyway, a simple extension of that arrangement would seem reasonably practical all round!
Click to expand...

Haven't they already got a nuclear bunker down Westminster way? :)
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Coulport is currently the place in the UK to store the warheads for Trident Missile System and docking

At the moment it is the only place to do so but it's not 100% certain they can't be housed anywhere else - areas have been looked into
Click to expand...

It's 100% they can't be housed anywhere else in the UK just now, and storing them elsewhere contravenes loads of international laws, so France and America are out as options...unless you can provide a link proving otherwise?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/676/67607.htm
 
Foxholer said:
However, given that much of the missile servicing/maintenance is carried out in US anyway, a simple extension of that arrangement would seem reasonably practical all round!
Click to expand...

There is a very simple reason why this is the case, the missiles aren't ours. The warheads are but not the missiles themselves.
 
Foxholer said:
And for those with a serious slice - like my f-ex-law - St M (Nicklaus) can be unplayable! Never stopped the sod from carving 3 woods to the Green and single-putting though, the bandit! CF was on the radar, but a bit of a trek from Snozzle. I'd have been a wreck too. He drove an Alfa in typical Alfa style!

Back OT.. It is indeed the Nuclear Warheads that are/would be the issue for any move. However, given that much of the missile servicing/maintenance is carried out in US anyway, a simple extension of that arrangement would seem reasonably practical all round!
Click to expand...

missiles and warheads, two separate things.

I thought there was military folk on here who knew what they were talking about,clearly not!
 
Liverpoolphil said:
I believe Foxholer isn't military

I could be wrong
Click to expand...
No. You are correct.
Adi2Dassler said:
missiles and warheads, two separate things.

I thought there was military folk on here who knew what they were talking about,clearly not!
Click to expand...

See above.

I used to think you knew what you were talking about too, but that has changed somewhat during this thread!

I do know the difference between Warheads and Missile, which is precisely why I used the separate terms. I've only a vague idea where the warheads are 'serviced'. It's the storage of them that's likely to be the most contentious.

Are you military btw?
stevie_r said:
There is a very simple reason why this is the case, the missiles aren't ours. The warheads are but not the missiles themselves.
Click to expand...

I did/do know that too! But possibly worth pointing it out.

Having the warheads 'not ours' would be 'progress' - though not sufficient - from some folks pov too.
 
Last edited:
So when you said...

Foxholer said:
It is indeed the Nuclear Warheads that are/would be the issue for any move. However, given that much of the missile servicing/maintenance is carried out in US anyway, a simple extension of that arrangement would seem reasonably practical all round!
Click to expand...

...you were not suggesting that the US could look after the warheads for us? If so, what did you mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
House Price Outlook
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
KenL
KenL
C
IS bombing
Replies
19
Views
4K
pbrown7582
pbrown7582
D
Alternatives to the Haka
Replies
1
Views
2K
dewsweeper
D
Tommo21
This will cost us...again.
Replies
9
Views
2K
bigslice
bigslice
DCB
Golf On Trial
Replies
18
Views
2K
Fyldewhite
Fyldewhite
Top