I don't think Trident or a replacement would be affordable.
England if it were separate I guess would have to develop an aircraft based delivery system. It could spell the death knell of our not so independant nuclear deterrent.
2007-01-19 08:22:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Roaming free 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
The people who are saying that they will stay in Scotland are lying. They could not be "rented out".
Under the Non Nuclear-Proliferation Treaty only the big 5 (UK, USA, Russia, China and France) may posess Nuclear weopons. If Scotland does become independant, then they will have to be moved as the capital of the UK is London and the weopons must stay in the country of the registered capital city.
A simmilar thing happend when the Soviet Union collapsed as the capital of the USSR was Moscow, therefore the country that Moscow was in, Russia, only was allowed Nuclear weopons so the ones in Ukraine and Belarus had to be moved.
If Scotland does become independant they would have to be moved to a military base in England or Wales, probably not N. Ireland, as that is also considered a part of Ireland (kind-of) and would not be allowed Nuclear weopons. Once independance had been announced, the Commons would've had them moved out of Scotland at least a few months before it officially became independant.
2007-01-19 11:01:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by howsU2day 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
If Scotland becomes independent I believe they will allow the base to remain as is. Faslane derives a great deal of income from having the RN there and it would be a hardship on the people to close the base down.
Besides, having the RN on your side could be a good thing.
2007-01-19 06:59:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by MechBob 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
i individually think of you have jumped past to your self in this one. Are you extreme by using what you're suggesting? you're talking right here as though independence will draw a line around the north and the south. This nuclear deterrent is a shield for all the individuals. evaluate too that the present residing house of the Trident Submarines, employs many hundred of Scottish human beings, might you be in charge for them dropping their jobs.? . i'm particular if push got here to shove an option dock ought to truly be usual interior the south. I trust what ROBERT C has suggested, truthfully it makes lots greater experience.
2016-10-31 13:21:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Thats a tricky question ...but - will England have the money to keep the Trident programme going when Scotland take's the Oil with it..and the tobacco revenue will be non existant.. Anyway - it would probably be Devonport..or somewhere near the Tee-side yards..
2007-01-19 07:03:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
In the event that you would like to visit places like Kremlin, Red Square and St Basil's Cathedral than you will need to visit Moscow, the capital of the Russian Federation and among the country's most widely used places for international guests and you can be one of them if you appear with hotelbye . In Moscow you will even see the planet famous theatre, the Bolshoi Theatre, the jewel in the crown of Moscow's wealthy cultural life. Moscow has ton to offer and without a doubt you will relish a holyday here.
2016-12-15 23:24:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Canvey Island Creek
2007-01-19 06:57:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No need to worry. Scotland has been DEPENDENT on England for many years and this is unlikely to change any time soon.
We need that 40% subsidy.
I am a Scot by the way. And I'd like to thank our nearest neighbours for all that lovely subsidy money. We'd be in a sorry state without it.
2007-01-19 06:57:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Not Ecky Boy 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Vancouver
2007-01-19 06:57:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Kurt 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
At the bottom of the Atlantic
2007-01-19 06:57:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by edge 3
·
0⤊
0⤋