The writer of this article is enthusiastic for mischief. The SNP are not into such childish pranks. Trident is a weapon of mass destruction! And.....

Can we be told of the poor unfortunate Scottish locations that were denied the chance to be the base for Trident?

Let's see if there is an uproar in England it it is located there, and then we'll see if we are as equal as Tony Blair says.

"An independent-minded administration in Holyrood could easily force a referendum on keeping Trident in Scotland." Surely this should read "... force a referendum on NOT keeping Trident in Scotland".

"The SNP has already given notice of its enthusiasm for mischief in obstructing the smooth process of replacing Trident:" How long was it debated in Westminster - 8 minutes was it?? That's not a "smooth process" that's deception.

Good riddance. For 45 years the people of Scotland have been against it.

There are nucler weapons at US airbases around Oxford.

Even in an independent Scotland - who is to say the Scottish Government would not 'rent out' the facilities to their next door neighbours - wouldnt put is past the SNP or ANY politician for that matter

#4 And the English have accepted them unreservedly?
They have the been the object of near constant protest.

Many English people are totally against nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, maybe in not quite as high proportions as in Scotland.

Bruce Kent of CND has personally backed the SNP.

A number of parties in Scotland are against nuclear weapons. However, only the SNP are likely to be in a position to do something about it.

"However, even if the slide towards independence is slowed...."

"Slide"?

I think you'll find it's a march.

Go, SNP! Advance Alba!

I wonder if AM2 and his cohorts, will start banging thier union drum in this thread?

With so many people opposed to nuclear weapons south of the border. I wonder how many Southron Nimby (not in my back yard ) will be alarmed enough, to object to a relocation of Son of Trident.

If Scotland refuses to house the Nukes, would Englands refusal too, mean the removal of these weapons from the UK arsenal?

The UK have to buy these super costly weapons, without the right to use them in the defence of the UK without US approval. They are far from an independent deterrent.

These are not weapons to fight terrorists, these are weapons to intimidate countries. Battlegroup diplomacy(requires Aircraft Carriers). Bullying on the high seas.

Get these weapons out of Scotland.

Vote SNP on 3rd of may.

It is time.

Check his out. Based on this impartial reporting (a breath of fresh air) I think I'll ditch the biased Hootsmon for The Times....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article165...

This should not come as a surprise as it is only a few months since Adam Ingram said on TV that if Scotland showed signs of moving towards independence "WE would start pulling out OUR forces." Politics ensured that the maintenance of Vanguard submarines moved from Scotland to Davenport but we still have the decommissioned nuclear subs rusting in Rosyth. Will these also be taken somewhere south of the border if we move towards independence ?

#11. You're right. I think it's time to give the Sunday Times a chance, it seems to be willing to go where the Scottish Sundays refuse.

learning to cut'n paste ala AM2

future enemies will probably deliver their nuclear payload in a 40" container sailing up the thames

we have seen some of this before, the rosyth / devonport tussle which devonport won even though apart from anything else it was the worst choice tacticaly and made no economic sense. rosyth had just finished a brand new dry dock and the dock at devonport was already crowded and cracked. more tory voters in plymouth than scotland tipped the balance in favour of devonport

nuclear submarines currently tied up at rosyth and devonport are they going to move the ones in rosyth? are they going to tell the population of plymouth and devenport about the crack in the basin at devonport that may lead to contamination of the water supply?

where are they going to put the waste?

want some shiny new subs and more waste dumped and rotting in unsafe conditions cos no one wants to do anything about it? don't vote snp

If you read between the lines in this article and many others being written over the past couple of weeks, we find, that despite the pro Labour lies and obvious deceits on the surface, there is a underlying assumption that Scotland will not only have an SNP Government in May 2007 but it will lead to an independent Scotland.

Having observed the Scottish political scene for almost 40 years and been active in it for 25 of those years I can say with some certainty that not even 1974 can compare with the current 'inevitability' of independence.

It would appear that the slogan, It's Time, is absolutely right for this election. How ironic it will be that 300 years and 2 days after the signing of the Union of 1707 comes the first major step towards its dissolution.

Just read the Times article.

What the hell are you playing at, Scotsman, SoS Evening News??

You are going to lose SO many readers because of the stance you're taking. We won't buy your publications, just come online and slag you off for being so biassed in your reporting and following an agenda the Scottish people are rejecting in their thousands. You can't go on burying your head in the sand. The people of Scotland are far more capable of running things for ourselves than YOU give us credit for!!

AWE they protesters oot ae wurk "jings,crivens,help mah boab" whit we gonna bit-- aboot noo?

#4. Royster: AND so!!!

Do they want rid of them. Are the majourty off the people that live there against them?

Think Royster, THE MAJOURITY OF SCOTS AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHOCIEN TO LIVE IN SCOTLAND DON'T LIKE NUCLEAR AND HATE THE WMD'S BEING SCOTLAND.

10. Whoever AM2 is, he/she rarely goes past page one!

#10 Remember that the MoD plans are NOT because we don't want them. We haven't wanted them for 45 years and that made no difference. The MoD plans are because the must retain control of them, and so must remove them from the threat of Scottish Independence. If the English public object the MoD will just ignore them "in the 'national' interest".

My point was that English objections will show that they were quite happy to house them in the far off place called Scotland, but don't want them near themselves. Virtually NIL protests from England about the nukes being housed in Scotland.

#11 But the postings won't be as much fun.

Every country wants to go nuclear be it power or weapons. and Scotland dont?
What do we do if a bomb is headed our way? GIT OOT THE CLAYMORES? and one more thing YOU HAVE JIST POOT 300 PROTESTERS OOT AE WURK.

#22. Frodo the Scot: All 300+ have over jobs as Students (they'll find work after graduating), MSP's, MP & MP's from other countries.

It would keep the prison numbers down.

No more chaining to the gates

#22 You obviously do not know we cannot use Trident without US permission and assistance.

#24 five
You obviously do not know but that constraint was applicable to the Polaris system only,it would be nice if unusual if you got your facts right for once.
Brain in gear before keyboard in action.

As the overwhelming majkority of MPs voted against a replacement of Trident then if England wants them they can have them and the sooner the better

8. Slide? March?
I see it more as a sort a cheery polka to Independence mesel

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3396.htm
"...U.S. military base at Keflavik was not a significant factor in the overall Icelandic economy. Although the departure of U.S. forces in 2006 and the consequent elimination of several hundred jobs were serious concerns for the local Keflavik area, Iceland’s strong economic growth and low unemployment at the time enabled most former base employees to find new jobs quickly "

AND THE SKY DID NOT FALL IN!!

Icelandic General Election campaign update.
Current administration (1995-present) is an Independence Party/Progressive Party Coalition. Previously 1991-1995 IP/SDA Coalition

Capacent Gallup Poll in March 2007:
Independence Party (Cons) 36.7% (static)
Left/Green Movement 24% (up from 9% in 2003)
Socal Democratic Alliance 19.9% (down from 31%)
Progressive Party 8.3% (down)
Liberal Party 5.3% (don't have previous figures)
Icelandic Movement 5.2% (a newly formed addtional green party, so a pretty good first showing if translated to votes)

Some of this looks like the political fallout from the controversial Karahnjukar dam / ALCOA aluminium smelter.

Poll produced for Morgunbladid but found in print version of The Reykjavik Grapevine, 2007, Issue 4

http://www.grapevine.is/
http://icelandreview.com/

This has now been denied by the MOD and is being dismissed as Labour spin.

The majority people of Scotland do not want WMD on our soil.

Independance is not the issue here. That is for another day and will be decided by the people of Scotland.

The issues are a lack of ideas by a lap dog administration who are standing by and not representing the views of the majority of the people of Scotland.

I am sure that Faslane etc have more stategic defence uses that merely baby sitting out grand childrens destruction.

Or do the current administration have not alternative ideas. Did they not run option appraisals of what they could do with the site. Are there not tax advantages in decontaminating such sites (150% I believe).

Could this not pave the way for regeneration?

Could this not bring more value added jobs.

Could the money saved in maintaining trident not be used elsewhere?

Is the Liberal/Labour government failing Scotland?

Is the Liberal/Labour government competent?

Should we be giving such people power?

SUP ? SCOTLAND CANT BE TRUSTED ANYMORE?

So their taken back their trident facility
and weapons. THEIR FEART O SCOTS INDY PENDANCE. Kin we make thum FEART O ASYLUM SEEKERS?

Why don't they try London, Liverpool or Bristol?

After all, these are near major cities, like Faslane is with Glasgow, and we all know the benefits radioactive leaks can have on the family.