ChatterBank0 min ago
Should Trident Be Scrapped
Answers
maggiebee. \\Definitely YES. Very expensive and Scotland is fed up of being the dumping ground of the UK.// I take it you want job loses and a loss to the local economy the. https://ukde
14:39 Sun 24th Nov 2019
jimf: "It is ridiculously expensive, and the idea that the Russians (or whoever) would nuke Scotland / rUK if Trident were abandoned is about as loony as it gets. " - no one is saying anyone would nuke anyone if we did not have it but as ZM and others sensibly point out, having it means not only a deterrent against nukes but otherwise superior conventional forces. The west won the cold war in part by having the capability to destroy the USSR despite their overwhelming superiority in conventional forces. The world is now largely stable compared to pre nuke times because of nukes. Yes some nations manage without them but they would be defenceless against a rogue Russia for example, at least they know one trident sub can flatten all their major cities, having that capability more or less means you'll never have to use it. Unilateralists would have the world return to a pre 1940 state.
//Same old, same old Naomi, you really need to look at the figures.//
I've looked at the figures, Maggie. Here's some for you (from the General Revenue & Expenditure for Scotland - GERS - figures):
The UK's annual deficit (the difference between what it takes in tax and excise revenue and what it spends) was £23.6bn in the last financial year. Scotland (with about 8% of the UK's population) was responsible for £12.6bn (54%) of it. To fuel Scotland's insatiable appetite for English cash some £1,800 per person is spent on public services in Scotland than in England. This amounts to around £10bn per annum meaning that some £26million pounds per day is shovelled up the M6.
I appreciate that this is a very rough and ready measure to prove a point and there are reasons why Scotland may need to spend more per head than England (low density of population, greater areas over which to provide services. etc.). But the inescapable fact is that the Scots enjoy more of the UK's revenue per head than the English.
\\Definitely YES. Very expensive and Scotland is fed up of being the dumping ground of the UK.//
London and the South East is the only area in the UK that runs a fiscal surplus so it is true that the same argument could be used to show that residents of, say, Plymouth enjoy similar largesse. However I don't recall the Good Burghers of Plymouth bemoaning the fact that they are home to Her Majesty's Naval Base Devonport ("Guzz" as it's known to RN personnel). The base is the largest naval base in Western Europe and is home to the UK's only nuclear repair and refuelling facility. Far from considering that Devon has become a "dumping ground" I imagine the city's residents are rather pleased that the Navy provides work for some 2,500 people, supports 400 local firms and generates 10% of Plymouth's income. So perhaps the provision of around 9,000 jobs (with the promise of more to come as more work is transferred to the Clydeside facility) is a small price to pay.
I've looked at the figures, Maggie. Here's some for you (from the General Revenue & Expenditure for Scotland - GERS - figures):
The UK's annual deficit (the difference between what it takes in tax and excise revenue and what it spends) was £23.6bn in the last financial year. Scotland (with about 8% of the UK's population) was responsible for £12.6bn (54%) of it. To fuel Scotland's insatiable appetite for English cash some £1,800 per person is spent on public services in Scotland than in England. This amounts to around £10bn per annum meaning that some £26million pounds per day is shovelled up the M6.
I appreciate that this is a very rough and ready measure to prove a point and there are reasons why Scotland may need to spend more per head than England (low density of population, greater areas over which to provide services. etc.). But the inescapable fact is that the Scots enjoy more of the UK's revenue per head than the English.
\\Definitely YES. Very expensive and Scotland is fed up of being the dumping ground of the UK.//
London and the South East is the only area in the UK that runs a fiscal surplus so it is true that the same argument could be used to show that residents of, say, Plymouth enjoy similar largesse. However I don't recall the Good Burghers of Plymouth bemoaning the fact that they are home to Her Majesty's Naval Base Devonport ("Guzz" as it's known to RN personnel). The base is the largest naval base in Western Europe and is home to the UK's only nuclear repair and refuelling facility. Far from considering that Devon has become a "dumping ground" I imagine the city's residents are rather pleased that the Navy provides work for some 2,500 people, supports 400 local firms and generates 10% of Plymouth's income. So perhaps the provision of around 9,000 jobs (with the promise of more to come as more work is transferred to the Clydeside facility) is a small price to pay.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.