Scottish independence

What we can say, though, is that proximity to a large centre of population is clearly not a consideration that rules out a possible base for Trident so, if the UK does find itself relocating Trident, proximity to large centres of population won't rule out any site that they might be considering.

Will they move Trident? Well, obviously, a lot of things would have to happen before that even becomes an issue, but let's suppose that Scotland is going to become independent. Even if not reliant on the Greens at that stage, the SNP itself is not keen on nuclear armament; their 2014 proposals included removal of Trident, so I'd guess that would be their opening position even if the Greens weren't pressing for it.

But these things can be fudged; moving Trident would be project that would take years, and I doubt that the SNP would demand instant removal. So negotiations could go anywhere from a commitment in principle to eventual removal with no specified timeframe, to a detailed treaty provision specifying a removal process and timeframe, and arrangements for what would happen until them. And it would all be in the mix as part of larger negotiations. This isn't a simple binary.

But we are focussing on the question of whether the Scots would want them removed. There's also the issue of whether the UK would. Would they want their entire nuclear capacity to be permanently located in foreign territory (or, even if the Scots were willing, in an enclave within foreign territory)? No other nuclear power seems to think that wise; would the UK? What would their attitude be if the Scots demanded joint control, or a veto over use, or an agreed policy on use, as a quid pro quo for hosting the facility? Simple self-respect would prevent the Scots from licensing the UK to locate its nuclear offensive capacity in Scotland and deploy it from there as it wished, without any regard to the implications for Scotland, so there will certainly be some ask about this. Even if Faslane is physically the optimal location, if it comes with baggage of this kind the UK might feel that it's not the overall optimal location.

I think they're way ahead of you, Aegir. From the white paper, Scots citizens would be free (so far as the Scots government was concerned) to continue serving in the UK forces or, after independence, to enlist in them. And, conversely, non-Scots would be welcome to serve/enlist in the Scots forces. And, nuclear weapons aside, allied forces (including UK) would be welcome to be based in Scotland, or to come to Scotland for training or other operations.

The latest Tory move isn't going down well in Scotland:

Meanwhile, Keir Starmer has announced Gordon Brown will lead a commision to settle the issue of the Union.

If he won't supply a high speed rail line from Manchester to Leeds, then I don't think so. If only because the people of Yorkshire would string him up like Mussolini.

Interestingly, the same money would buy you enough brand new jet aircraft to put over one third of the population of the 6 Counties in the air at the same time.

Well obviously I was just highlighting the ridiculousness of the suggested budget.

I think by the time any bridge or tunnel would be built, the fuelling technology for both planes and ferries will be much more advanced. Either way, a physical connection between the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland is never actually going to happen. Not in the 21st century anyway.

The next ice age is surely within the next 10,000 years we’ll be able to walk to Britain then probably. If you can wait a bit longer continental drift will bring us all closer in the next 100 million years or so.

A tunnel from the Shetland to the closest point on the Scottish mainland would be more than three times longer than the longest passenger tunnel ever built anywhere, and it would make landfall at John O'Groats, which is ten hours by rail, or six hours by car, from Edinburgh. Nobody would use it. Even if it were technically feasible to build and operate such a tunnel it would cost much, much less just to pay every man, woman and child in Shetland £10 million pounds each to induce them to remain in Scotland, and that's a project that could be delivered much more quickly.

But I don't know why you are speculating about the Scots building a tunnel to Shetland. Opinions about an independent Scotland vary, but nobody imagines that it is going to be led by a man who has missed his true vocation as the back end of a pantomime horse and who is afflicted with a slightly odd obsession with impossible bridges and tunnels. I think he must have had a traumatic experience in childhood on a waterway somewhere.

In2014, the people in Scotland were told that the oil is gone. Now we are told that the Cambo oil field will be the saviour of the UK in the next decades

The Shetland Islands are not leaving Scotland, that is just the unionist bogeyman. Interestingly unionists abhor the break up of the UK but egg on the break up of Scotland... go figure

Meanwhile a new poll was published yesterday which marked a welcome change from the recent ones

Scotland has a relatively high proportion of over 65s, higher than either part of Ireland. The demographics don't suit them, although they have had some population growth in recent years this may not continue as EU immigration has been greatly cut.

Thought this was an interesting point in light of Johnson's falling approval ratings.

On the one hand, Johnson being in office seems problematic for independence supporters given he repeatedly rules out another referendum, yet the hostility he generates in office is great for recruiting frustrated, undecided voters; conversely, Starmer in office might go for another referendum (if he has to do a deal with Sturgeon), but would having what looks on the face of it a more vanilla, moderate PM temper the demands for dramatic change?