There's always been a (minority) undercurrent of ill-feeling toward the base as the MOD haven't exactly handled the local community that well at times, plus there's a lot of people who don't like living with their arses sat on the majority of the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons. The base used to bring a lot of benefits to local businesses but recently more and more contracts are not put out to local tender and have been going to large companies based elsewhere. If it does happen I don't see a period of closure. It will take years to develop a deep-sea base somewhere on the west coast of England/Wales (or even Brittany has been mentioned). Most of the people there have civilian jobs with Babcocks (or other companies like that) with not that many naval positions - though there is a massive MOD police force on the sites. The biggest problem for that area has always been NIMBYism more than anything else. So many projects that would have improved the place have been rejected cos of an attitude of snobbery really.
What they are doing to Colquhoun Square and the front is really only window dressing though. Too many of the shops and businesses that employed multiple people have either gone or downscaled, replaced by charity shops and cafes. As for which way they'll vote, like I said I'm not up there anymore and don't go back to my family in Garelochhead as often as I'd like, but been surprised how many of the people I know (including some ex-naval, English people) are saying they will vote yes. My mum is still firmly in the No camp lol.
Coulport, along with Finnart Oil depot just up the shoreline, is a deep sea port and the infrastructure there is massive now compared to what it was 20/30 years ago. Plenty of uses for that I would imagine (though I'd love them to open that bit of the peninsula back up to the public instead).
As I said Helensburgh is doing better than most, Dumbarton is like Chernobyl on a bad day, Largs, Troon, Dunoon are practically ghost towns and the new Helensburgh set up should attract more people. That's not likely to get any better as the current situation remains, I think people just think a change would be for the best for all concerned.
May seem a daft question, but i take it that the goverments headquarters will be in Edinburgh? How does Glasgow feel, playing second fiddle to them, or has this not been a problem?
I started off firmly in the better together camp. After listening to all of the arguments and looking at the issues I still don't want to see an international border between Scotland and England. What I want is North-East & Cumbria Land having an international border with Scotland to the north and England to the south! Had enough of all the neglect this region gets.
In best SNP tradition another partial quote, let me continue it for you Spain, Norway & Denmark have a policy set by their current government of no nuclear weapons being stationed in their territory. Only the Philippines has an anti-nuclear clause in it's constitution, *****lia, Australia and New Zealand have laws which ban nuclear weapons in their territory, but Denmark for example only has a policy enacted by the current ruling party and only requests that visiting warships do not carry nuclear weapons - they have no law in place or legal enforcement. Salmond wants to write an anti-nuclear doctrine into a new constitution - that goes beyond any of the current NATO members countries.
I hope to goodness the Scots vote to go it alone, I am sick to death of listening to Salmond and Sturgeon bleating on about Scotland being one of the wealthiest countries in the world but accusing Westminster of being in a flap when their misleading claims are challenged. I strongly object to my taxes contributing to free prescription, long term care for the elderly and University tuition north of the border without enjoying the same 'perks' in England. My only reservation would be the balance of political power would favour the Conservative party until there is a boundary review, but with the Scots subsidised more than south of the border we would be better off if the went their own way. If Salmond got his own way we would control their currency and they would take their per capita slice of the national debt, talk about cake and eating it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...Itll-save-rest-fortune-says-SIMON-HEFFER.html
UK Government could choose to provide free prescriptions, free tuition, etc but choose to spend the money elsewhere. It was a policy in the Lib Dem's election manifesto but dropped during the coalition negotiations. And remember it's a 50:50 split on for/against - it's not as is the whole of Scotland is arguing for separation. Plenty of people in Scotland seeing past Salmond and Sturgeon's bleating and lies.
Yes our government could choose to provide those services for free but they would need to be paid for by higher taxation or cuts elsewhere, that was my point, why should we subsidise a Scottish Assemblies decision to provide a more favourable service than elsewhere in the UK. According to treasury figures people in England subsidise the Scots to the tune of £17.6 billion per year, no wonder they can afford it (at our expense).
Right now they are also OUR government and that funding comes from the Barnett formula - it's not specifically given to fund free prescription or tuition fees, that's how Holyrood chooses to spend it. But yes, I agree and independent Scotland would have a funding gap for public services.
My worry is that all that money saved from not propping Scotland will go straight to the south. The Tories dont care about the north east and a yes vote means that england will have 5 more years of ****servative rule After the next general eelection.
I do understand government funding, that wasn't my point. Scottish people receive £1300 per capita more than the rest of the UK (with the exception of Northern Ireland) each year, which allows for more favourable public services north of the border. A successful yes vote would save any subsidy that our taxes provide and the money saved will be spent where required in this country.
My worries exactly. I am sure that I read somewhere that in the event of a yes vote, separation would not take place until after the next General Election but it would see a tory government returned at subsequent elections unless the boundaries commission get their act together quickly
Yeah, I get that. As an Englishman living in Scotland but employed by an English employer and paying taxes through an English tax office I'd see none of my taxes being used to support services in the country where I live. Sure it's my choice to live in Scotland - but actually I'm just choosing to live in the UK and the collection and distribution of taxes (and the collection and distribution of oil revenue tax, whisky duty, etc, etc) is a fairly complicated subject and I don't agree with boiling it down to "us vs them".
I don't think it is complicated at all, it is fairly simple budgeting, albeit on a massive scale, if your revenue exceeds you expenditure happy days, if your expenditure exceeds your revenue you are in bother. The subsidies given to Scotland have to be accounted for at the expense of the rest of the UK. I don't think it is us v them, Scotland have a vote for independence, I hope they take it for the reasons I have stated, I object to the concessions offered to persuade them to vote no, but if they do I am also happy that they remain part of the UK.
Are there Nuclear weapons in Scotland right now? Yes Will they still be there in 10 years time? Who knows, so does it matter if Scotland is anti nuclear or not when you consider wer have the UK's nuclear force based in Scotland. What are the ramifications if you are right and Scotland is not allowed to join NATO? I can't see any unless you are suggesting someone is going to attack us.
Just out of curiosity, and because for every report that says one thing there is another that says the opposite, does the £1300 extra per head include the tax and duty income from Scottish industry such as whisky, manufacturing or oil & gas ? I only ask because much is made from how much money is given to Scotland through the Barnett formula but isn't that designed to take into account things like oil tax revenue flowing the other way ? (btw, I'm not a proponent of oil and gas tax revenues being used to prop up the Scottish economy - they are a limited and diminishing resource, but they have played a positive role over the last few decades).
