/ The Bridge

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
earlsdonwhu 10 Feb 2020

Boris couldn't get his Thames Bridge project sorted or his Thames Estuary airport idea accepted. We still haven't worked out what we're doing with HS2/3 and yet a bridge from N Ireland to Scotland is being mooted!

I'm sure it will be great having trucks thundering through Kintyre.

1
tjdodd 10 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Great programme and Saga a fantastic character.  Much missed.

Le Sapeur 10 Feb 2020
In reply to tjdodd:

An even better novel by Iain Banks.

Tom V 10 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

Yes but does he chew tobacco and wear leather trousers?

RomTheBear 10 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> Boris couldn't get his Thames Bridge project sorted or his Thames Estuary airport idea accepted. We still haven't worked out what we're doing with HS2/3 and yet a bridge from N Ireland to Scotland is being mooted!

Well you know the tories have suddenly found a magic money tree...

> I'm sure it will be great having trucks thundering through Kintyre.

Just thinking about it makes me laugh. Have these idiot even ever set foot there ?

2
henwardian 10 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Amazing amount of cynicism for a country that already has a tunnel that is considerably longer than this new bridge might be.

Obviously there would be a lot more to consider about the Mull of Kintyre location than just the bridge - you would probably want to put another couple of smaller bridges in on the way to reduce the distance to Glasgow and certainly upgrade the road to get there to a dual carriageway. The other location looks a lot more sensible from down in Galloway - a lot less additional road to be laid to get there.

It wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my infrastructure list for the UK but that isn't to say that it it's not worth spending a few quid getting a proper estimate of the potential costs and benefits.

Dare to dream naysayers of UKC!

15
subtle 10 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> I'm sure it will be great having trucks thundering through Kintyre.

It will go from Portpatrick to Larne, longer bridge but less infrastructure upgrade required

neilh 10 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

In 1857 Brunel designed a 1000 bed hospital  in 4 days. It was then built , shipped and rebuilt in the Crimea 2 months later  

 Of course it can be done  

Whether it’s a good economic idea is another thing  

wintertree 10 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> An even better novel by Iain Banks.

It went on a bit.

In reply to subtle:

Why not a tunnel? Would that be a lot more expensive to dig? Can imagine it would be less effected by poor weather in building and usage.

RomTheBear 10 Feb 2020
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Why not a tunnel? Would that be a lot more expensive to dig? Can imagine it would be less effected by poor weather in building and usage.

I’ve got an idea, why don’t we instead put lorries and cars on a boat and sail through ?

MonkeyPuzzle 10 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

My favourite bit is the estimated 1.5m tons of disposed military ordnance lurking in the depths. There are no maps showing exactly where any of it was dumped.

As a project manager working in construction, I’d *love* to see the first draft risk register.

WaterMonkey 10 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Don't worry, if Boris says it's happening it sure as shit wont happen.

1
In reply to RomTheBear:

That would never work.

Tringa 10 Feb 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Agree, the Beaufort Dyke seems to be full of all sorts of potentially unpleasant stuff and as we know from HS2, or just about every other major project, any estimate of the cost will increase dramatically.

I think there are many other things that need to solved before we think about an NI/Scotland bridge.

Dave

RomTheBear 10 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> In 1857 Brunel designed a 1000 bed hospital  in 4 days. It was then built , shipped and rebuilt in the Crimea 2 months later  

>  Of course it can be done  

> Whether it’s a good economic idea is another thing  

That’s alright, we’ll get the English taxpayer to pay for it, then we declare independence and keep the damn thing. :-p

Post edited at 16:16
L mondite 10 Feb 2020
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Why not a tunnel? Would that be a lot more expensive to dig? Can imagine it would be less effected by poor weather in building and usage.


Getting under Beaufort's dyke is apparently one of the main challenges.  Not only is it a rather big and deep ditch but it has about a million tons of munitions in it including chemical weapons. Also a bit of a challenge for the bridge.

subtle 10 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> That’s alright, we’ll get the English taxpayer to pay for it, then we declare independence and keep the damn thing. :-p

By the time the bridge would be built it could be linking a unified Ireland and an independent Scotland - both in the EU - with a hard border required between Scotland and England once more

1
daWalt 10 Feb 2020
In reply to henwardian:

> that isn't to say that it it's not worth spending a few quid getting a proper estimate of the potential costs and benefits.

Give it a go yourself. Take a squiz at curent levels of traffic and shipping, googl the outturn cost of a few major projects. 

I doubt youll need to factor in discounted to present value maintenance costs and such to see which way the wind is blowing... 

HansStuttgart 10 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

This Mr Johnson is pretty good at getting everybody in the country to talk about topics he wants them to talk about, isn't he?

1
pasbury 10 Feb 2020
In reply to HansStuttgart:

He doesn’t talk about much really, almost an absent leader. So when some morsel of policy arrives like a fresh steamy turd on our doorsteps we feel compelled to pull it apart.

This is a double vanity project, if it was even vaguely feasible and was embarked upon then it would be a classic vanity project. Like HS2. But this is vanity at one remove, it will never happen, just the idea of it is vanity.

1
DaveHK 10 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> It went on a bit.

There's an abridged version.

DaveHK 10 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Scotland and Ireland linked by road? Bring on the Celtic union! It's almost like that's what Boris wants.

1
pasbury 10 Feb 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

And bankrupt both countries while he's doing it.

This is a stupid idea. 

1
Le Sapeur 10 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> It went on a bit.

Really? I could have continued reading it if it were twice the length. My favourite Banks novel, just a shade better that Walking on glass.

GrahamD 10 Feb 2020
In reply to pasbury:

Since when was a vaguely modern train infrastructure been a vanity ? Most modern countries manage to build one.

pasbury 10 Feb 2020
In reply to henwardian:

I believe the correct term for this kind of activity is spaffing against a wall.

1
wintertree 10 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> Really? I could have continued reading it if it were twice the length. My favourite Banks novel, just a shade better that Walking on glass.

We have opposing tastes.  Glass was one of my least favourite of Banks’ novels.  Crow Road and Espedair Street too my list.

My first post was also alluding to the scale of the bridge in the novel however...

pec 10 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I’ve got an idea, why don’t we instead put lorries and cars on a boat and sail through ?


You talk about "we", as if in some sense you are part of that. Whereas in reality you buggered off in a huff the moment you didn't get your own way to Cypress. Your Mediterranean island paradise from where you continue to lecture us from your pulpit of superior wisdom about how cr*p we are as if somehow it made any difference to you.

21
Dr.S at work 10 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

You bugger, I completely failed to get that. Either you are too subtle Or I’m too thick.

wintertree 10 Feb 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Subtle is my middle name.  

subtle 10 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Subtle is my middle name.  

No, I'm Spartacus (too soon?)

Coel Hellier 10 Feb 2020
In reply to pasbury:

> This is a stupid idea. 

When May needed the DUP onside it cost the treasury a few billion. 

Boris manages to signal that he cares about NI and that he cares about Scotland, all at no cost (or, rather, the cost of a civil servant drafting an outline plan on two sides of A4, after which the idea can be dropped).

RomTheBear 10 Feb 2020
In reply to pec:

> You talk about "we", as if in some sense you are part of that. Whereas in reality you buggered off in a huff the moment you didn't get your own way to Cypress. Your Mediterranean island paradise from where you continue to lecture us from your pulpit of superior wisdom about how cr*p we are as if somehow it made any difference to you.

You have serious issues. I suggest you speak to your healthcare professional.

And no, we are not crap, despite your rather dedicated efforts.

Post edited at 23:18
4
Agar Jelly 10 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Like with Trump's wall, a despot needs a vanity projet, what a thundering mega-prat, I hate him 🤯

Gordon Stainforth 10 Feb 2020
In reply to pec:

Please, please stop spouting on about a country you can't even spell. Kindergarden level really. You probably think you live in Ingland.

1
FactorXXX 10 Feb 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Please, please stop spouting on about a country you can't even spell. Kindergarden level really. You probably think you live in Ingland.

Kindergarden!
Oh dear...

pasbury 10 Feb 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> Since when was a vaguely modern train infrastructure been a vanity ? Most modern countries manage to build one.

One big stupid project does not make a modern train infrastructure. Note please that the first bit is to be London to Birmingham, if it ever get’s built at all the second phase of connecting northern cities seems to be at risk. If you can’t think of a better way to spend 100 billion to modernise our rail network then you aren’t thinking at all.

1
wintertree 10 Feb 2020
In reply to Agar Jelly:

> Like with Trump's wall, a despot needs a vanity projet, what a thundering mega-prat, I hate him 🤯

When you look at how filthy polluting both air travel and ferry travel is, and how hard they are to decarbonise, a railway or roadway link makes sense as both can be or become fully electric.

Unless it’s a bridge built from a metric f—kton of concrete or a tunnel lined with thick concrete.  I know bugger all about the subsea geology there so have no idea how much tunnel lining would be needed, but a tunnel seems like it could be done lower carbon with the all-electric tunnel boring kit The Boring Company are developing.

Bridges are more beautiful though.

A proper mega-project would be damming the route of the bridge and damming from Pembroke to Roslarre and draining/reclaiming the Irish Sea.

pec 10 Feb 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Please, please stop spouting on about a country you can't even spell.

Apologies for the spelling error but in what possible sense am I "spouting on" about it? The country in question is largely irrelevant to my point. If you can't see that then your literacy problems are worse than my spelling.

10
RomTheBear 10 Feb 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Kindergarden!

> Oh dear...

It’s also a correct spelling though

pec 10 Feb 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Kindergarden!

> Oh dear...

Hoist with his own petard, marvellous

8
FactorXXX 10 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It’s also a correct spelling though

It's Kindergarten...

1
RomTheBear 10 Feb 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> It's Kindergarten...

Or the anglicised version, Kindergarden. Should also be perfectly correct.

Post edited at 23:32
1
JimR 10 Feb 2020
In reply to subtle:

Nuts, he’d be better giving the money to the nhs. He does seem fixated on buses and bridges. Pity he doesn’t fall off one and under the other

Gordon Stainforth 10 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes, it's sad that the German word has been spelt like that in England for a long time. So I apologise for that. But really, does anyone spell Cyprus, Cypress? It just looks so wrong (like the name of a tree). A bit like hearing about the island of Creet.

1
FactorXXX 10 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Or the anglicised version, Kindergarden. Also perfectly correct.

Only if you're a bit of a philistine.

2
RomTheBear 10 Feb 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Yes, it's sad that the German word has been spelt like that in England for a long time. So I apologise for that. But really, does anyone spell Cyprus, Cypress? It just looks so wrong (like the name of a tree). A bit like hearing about the island of Creet.

Well, yes, I don’t really mind that much though.

It was more the fact that he apparently hates me with his guts just because of where I live that was quite worrying. He’s got issues best left to a professional.

1
pec 10 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You have serious issues. I suggest you speak to your healthcare professional.

On the contrary, you came to the UK from some sh*thole (according to your own reports), used what the UK had to offer to greatly better yourself but spent most of your time on here slagging us off. You took what you could get and f*cked off as soon as it didn't suit you.

Have you ever stopped to consider why so many of your postings end up in bitter arguments with other posters as you metaphorically jab your finger in their faces telling them why you're always absolutely right about everything?

I'd suggest it's you that has serious issues.

> And no, we are not crap, despite your rather dedicated efforts.

Who are "we"? You can hardly claim to be one of "us" whatever it may say on a bit of paper.                     

8
Gordon Stainforth 10 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

But it's a bit odd, though, isn't it, getting the name of a well-known Mediterranean country wrong? His topic was Cyprus, yet he couldn't spell it. It's not as if it's an obscure, out-of-the-way place, is it?

Anyhow, I'm signing off now because I have no interest at this time of night in discussing various species of Mediterranean tree.

Post edited at 23:43
pec 10 Feb 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

>  But really, does anyone spell Cyprus, Cypress?

Gordon, it was a spelling mistake FFS, get over it.

Try focussing on the issue.

9
RomTheBear 10 Feb 2020
In reply to pec:

> On the contrary, you came to the UK from some sh*thole (according to your own reports), used what the UK had to offer to greatly better yourself but spent most of your time on here slagging us off. You took what you could get and f*cked off as soon as it didn't suit you.

I didn’t take anything from anybody. And I certainly won’t take your insults.

1
pec 10 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It was more the fact that he apparently hates me with his guts just because of where I live that was quite worrying. He’s got issues best left to a professional.

No Rom, I hate the way that in all the years of posting on here you never have a good word to say about the country you chose to come to to make your life better. Not one ounce of acknowledgement for what this country offered you, just an endless diatribe of criticism of everything we do.

If you think where you chose to live once you decided Britain wasn't for you is the issue you are staggeringly wide of the mark.

8
wintertree 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> But really, does anyone spell Cyprus, Cypress?

Yes.  People who never wasted part of their brain learning that there are different spellings for words that sound the same.  This is a facet of dyslexia, which falls within a protected characteristic in the Equalities Act 2010.  This should mean that laying in to people for dyslexia is as unacceptable as laying in to them on grounds of race, sexuality or physical disability.  Despite this, people are routinely mocked on UKC by a great many posters for something that may well be a very real struggle for them.  Spell checkers are no help here, and telling a dyslexic to work harder at improving it is similar to telling a blind person to look harder.  It doesn’t work like that.

The way I see it, written language came after spoken a language as a way of recording and storing what was heard.  Spelling has changed immeasurably over the centuries.  I read and thoroughly enjoyed Feersum Endjinn where 1/4th of the book is spelt entirely phonetically.  Interestingly some dyslexics like me have less problems reading that sort of text than others.

You got Pec’s point, you understood it, you picked on their spelling and you misrepresented their point - they didn’t “spout off” anything about Cyprus.  You can do better than that.

Edit: I’m not saying Pec is dyslexia but I am and I am very unhappy at the idea of anyone else who is receiving grief over it.  I’m also not venturing an opinion on their contribution to the thread but if you wanted to comment on it there are better ways than picking on spelling and misrepresenting things.  

Post edited at 00:11
2
RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to pec:

> No Rom, I hate the way that in all the years of posting on here you never have a good word to say about the country you chose to come to to make your life better. Not one ounce of acknowledgement for what this country offered you, just an endless diatribe of criticism of everything we do.

Or rather you are just a total racist nutter with extreme jingoistic tendencies.

Plus you are so completely wrong about me, it’s laughable. If anything I’m known amongst my friends to be the guy who can’t stop blabbing about how great Scotland is...

I think I’ll leave you in your little bubble made of envy and hatred, because you are really, really, boring.

Post edited at 00:27
5
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> That’s alright, we’ll get the English taxpayer to pay for it, then we declare independence and keep the damn thing. :-p

Yeah, the Tories will spend a ton of the budget in London, they'll put the bridge in the south of Scotland so it benefits the north of England more than Scotland then they'll declare the cost 'for the benefit of Scotland' and lump an extra £20billion (probably way more by the time they are done) onto the GERS numbers and use it to claim Scotland is skint, has a massive deficit and is subsidised by England for the next 100 years.

Boris can f*ck off with his bridge, his HS2, his Trident and his 34 Admirals and get his sticky spendthrift fingers off Scotland's credit card.  Scotland's share of HS2 will be £10billion, far more than any transport scheme actually in Scotland. 

If we decide we want a bridge we will wait until after independence and the Scottish Government will commission it, as much of the work as possible will be done in Scotland and we will probably use the northerly option and join it up with a ferry port at Rosyth so Independent Scotland and reunited Ireland can trade within the EU single market without going through Brexit England.

Post edited at 02:38
7
summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Yeah, the Tories will spend a ton of the budget in London, they'll put the bridge in the south of Scotland so it benefits the north of England more than Scotland 

To be fair if the bridge ended on Arthur's Seat you'd still say it was for the English! 

The only benefit of the bridge is to keep NI tied to the UK. It's political, not practical. We all know it won't really happen. 

2
MG 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I clearly remember you arguing for a bridge previously. 

RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> To be fair if the bridge ended on Arthur's Seat you'd still say it was for the English! 

> The only benefit of the bridge is to keep NI tied to the UK.

I’d say the only reason he’s peddling this is because whilst we are talking about this ridiculous idea which we all know will never happen, we are not talking about the car crash that will be his brexit negotiation, or his massive pension tax raid.

According to figures from the telegraph, following the changes on pension tax relief, a 30 year old, saving a £1000 a month, assuming 5% investment growth, would lose circa £300,000 on their final pension pot.


As usual it’s the youth who’s going to pay for his brexit nonsense.

Post edited at 07:16
Blunderbuss 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

How would a bridge to southern Scotland benefit the north of England? 

Have you looked a map of the UK recently  

4
MG 11 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

Prediction 1: any pension relief changes will benefit lower earners.

Prediction 2: any changes will be less radical than suggested currently. 

Andy Clarke 11 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> > But really, does anyone spell Cyprus, Cypress?

> Yes.  People who never wasted part of their brain learning that there are different spellings for words that sound the same.  This is a facet of dyslexia, which falls within a protected characteristic in the Equalities Act 2010.  This should mean that laying in to people for dyslexia is as unacceptable as laying in to them on grounds of race, sexuality or physical disability.  Despite this, people are routinely mocked on UKC by a great many posters for something that may well be a very real struggle for them.

English orthography is more woefully inelegant and illogical than any other language I know. I spent thirty years teaching it. Ghoti = fish. 

Le Sapeur 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>

> If we decide we want a bridge we will wait until after independence and the Scottish Government will commission it,

I love your anti English rants. 

As for the 'we'. Who are 'we'? The 44 and a bit %, or the 55 and a bit %

2
RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

> Prediction 1: any pension relief changes will benefit lower earners.

Maybe yes, maybe not, but it wasn’t the point.

> Prediction 2: any changes will be less radical than suggested currently. 

Same as above.

Post edited at 08:37
rogerwebb 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The bridge, or at least a feasibility study, had the support of the Scottish Government at least until 2018. A particular supporter was Mike Russell MSP who apparently suggested that HIE contribute to the cost of the study. Both the Northern Irish and Irish governments were in support. Mr Coveney being very supportive.

If it is possible and affordable how could it be a bad thing? (an environmental impact study might answer that question). 

MonkeyPuzzle 11 Feb 2020
In reply to pec:

> Who are "we"? You can hardly claim to be one of "us" whatever it may say on a bit of paper.                     

BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK!

pec 11 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

Thanks, an interesting post.

I've never had a diagnosis or even been tested for dyslexia but for some reason spelling has always been a weakness for me. I've worked very hard at it over the years and usually proof read everything, sometimes multiple times, but occasionally (now there's a word I always have to check!) things slip through, even though when it's pointed out it's blindingly obvious and I think how the hell did that get past me.

I have sometimes wondered if I do have some mild dyslexia type condition?

If I'd spelled Cyprus in some obviously incorrect way I'd have noticed but Cypress being an actual word just slipped by me this time even though I'm perfctly well aware it's a tree. But as you say, the spelling is irrelevant to my point, Gordon's inability to just point out my mistake and move on to deal with the actual substance of my post says something about him.

3
subtle 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If we decide we want a bridge we will wait until after independence and the Scottish Government will commission it, as much of the work as possible will be done in Scotland and we will probably use the northerly option and join it up with a ferry port at Rosyth so Independent Scotland and reunited Ireland can trade within the EU single market without going through Brexit England.

Christ, its no like they can keep the ferry link from Rosyth running just now is it - would an independent Scotland make it more financially viable to run this ferry again?

Ridge 11 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Maybe yes, maybe not, but it wasn’t the point.

I appreciate that, but outside a small bubble of high earners the vast majority of the country's youth isn't in the 40 or 45% tax bracket and able to put £1k a month into a pension.

pec 11 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Or rather you are just a total racist nutter with extreme jingoistic tendencies.

What's racism got to do with it? I've no idea what race you are.

Its not jingoistic to be annoyed by someone constantly denigrating your country, especially when they've benefitted from it so much but chose to abandon it once they couldn't get their own way. I'm certainly not the first person on UKC to raise that about you.

> Plus you are so completely wrong about me, it’s laughable. If anything I’m known amongst my friends to be the guy who can’t stop blabbing about how great Scotland is...

I'm well aware that a person's online persona can be very different from the reality which is why, despite what you said above, I don't hate you, I just hate your attitude to Britain and the way you metaphorically jab your finger in our faces when you're telling us. Again, I'm not the first to point that out.

Perhaps if you blabbed about how great Britain is on here once in a while we'd have a different opinion of you.

> I think I’ll leave you in your little bubble made of envy and hatred, because you are really, really, boring.

If anyone wants to see who's living in a bubble they only need to click on your profile and look back through your posting history. Something very obvious leaps out, just look at the topic icons.

Anyway, I'm not going to get dragged any further into a debating death spiral like so many of your online debates do, with you and some poor unwitting poster getting into a last man standing fight to the death. Feel free to have the last word, you invariably do.

9
Le Sapeur 11 Feb 2020
In reply to subtle:

Presumably once we are free of the Tory bastards Scotland will run like a Swiss watch. There will be pastures of plenty and liquid gold will flow from our taps.

1
In reply to Le Sapeur:

"...and liquid gold will flow from our taps."

Irn Bru?

MG 11 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

So what was your point about vaguely possible pension reforms that come up in advance of every budget?

subtle 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> Presumably once we are free of the Tory bastards Scotland will run like a Swiss watch. There will be pastures of plenty and liquid gold will flow from our taps.

Uisge Beatha?

Campbeltown loch is already full of it

RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

> So what was your point about vaguely possible pension reforms that come up in advance of every budget?

It was pretty clear in my post I hoped, sorry if it wasn’t. 
My point was that the bridge story is just there to distract us away from the difficult choices the government is having to do, on brexit, pensions, and others.

Successfully it seems.

Post edited at 10:37
RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to pec:

> What's racism got to do with it? I've no idea what race you are.

And yet you seem to hold me to a higher standard than anybody else. You are not asking anybody else not even yourself to thank Great Britannia for their good fortunes every day.

> Its not jingoistic to be annoyed by someone constantly denigrating your country, especially when they've benefitted from it so much but chose to abandon it once they couldn't get their own way.

Just because I don’t like Boris Johnson or Brexit doesn’t mean “I denigrate your country” you massive twit.

As for “benefitting from it so much” my tax bills and the number of jobs I’ve helped create over the years suggest it’s been a two way street.

Guess what, not unlike most immigrants to this  country I’ve put it in far, far more than I’ve taken out, and still do. 
It’s unfortunate that we have to cope with a minority of utter bigots like you who keep pissing on us at every occasion they get.

> Perhaps if you blabbed about how great Britain is on here once in a while we'd have a different opinion of you.

You really are totally nuts. It’s sad, despite your patriotism you spend your time wrecking your own country.

Post edited at 10:47
6
Trevers 11 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

This is Johnson to a tee. He sees himself as some sort of modern day Caesar. He wants everything named for himself - Boris Buses, Boris Bridges, a Boris Airport. Presumably he also wants statues erected in his honour, adoring crowds of worshipers and his pick of the young women.

We need to make sure his name is instead forever associated with the thing he wants us all to forget about: Brexit.

RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You would help yourself by not overstating your case. That’s just my opinion.

3
SDM 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> When May needed the DUP onside it cost the treasury a few billion. 

> Boris manages to signal that he cares about NI and that he cares about Scotland, all at no cost (or, rather, the cost of a civil servant drafting an outline plan on two sides of A4, after which the idea can be dropped).

Johnson doesn't need Scotland or Northern Ireland onside. He has no seats to defend in Northern Ireland and very few in Scotland. I suppose the only reason he may want to keep them onside would be to try and quieten the calls for another Scottish referendum by claiming to support an idea that the SNP have supported previously (I'm not sure whether they still do?).

I expect the whole thing will just be an expensive waste of time and money, before being scrapped without the ground ever being in danger of being broken. Sound familiar?

While people are talking about some pie in the sky infrastructure project, nobody is talking about the B word and nobody is scrutinising the government regarding a complete lack of progress on the defining political issue of this generation.

RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to SDM:

> While people are talking about some pie in the sky infrastructure project, nobody is talking about the B word and nobody is scrutinising the government regarding a complete lack of progress on the defining political issue of this generation

Exactly right. A bit too transparent though.

Toerag 11 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Enough of this frivolity, just how would we build a bridge in 100+m of tidal water subject to bad weather?  A quick look at the charts shows the dyke being spannable with one of the longest suspension bridge spans in the world with its towers built in 120m of water.  How does one build reinforced concrete legs underwater without getting corrosion problems in the steel?

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

> I clearly remember you arguing for a bridge previously. 

I will still argue for a bridge or tunnel to Ireland as something which an independent Scotland should seriously consider building in partnership with Ireland and the EU.  That is a very different thing to having it built 'on our behalf' by the Tories in Westminster and then handed the bill for whatever inappropriate sh*t they cook up with their advisers in London.

The benefit of a bridge/tunnel on the northerly route is to tie independent Scotland and reunited Ireland together within the EU single market and make us less dependent on England.   A side effect of the northern bridge would be to make some areas of Scotland far less remote from Glasgow. The exact opposite of what Boris wants to achieve with his bridge on the southern route.

4
neilh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Toerag:

How does it compare with say the ones in Denmark and the ones in Japan linking islands? Japan has to contend with earthquakes, Denmark- weather.

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to subtle:

> Christ, its no like they can keep the ferry link from Rosyth running just now is it - would an independent Scotland make it more financially viable to run this ferry again?

With Scotland in the EU and England out the economics would be completely different.  Rosyth to Rotterdam would be an intra-EU connection with no customs checks.   Scotland would stop using ports in Northern England to trade with the EU.

Also, with a bridge to Ireland the Irish get access to a port on the east coast of Scotland with far shorter journey times to Rotterdam.

1
JimR 11 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

everyone seems to have forgotten his famous garden bridge , sponsored by Johnson cos his family friend Joanna Lumley thought it was a great idea    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Bridge

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/13/garden-bridge-charity-spent-535m-with-no-construction-tfl-finds

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> I love your anti English rants. 

> As for the 'we'. Who are 'we'? The 44 and a bit %, or the 55 and a bit %

Last opinion poll is 52% for independence and Boris Johnson is increasing that every day.

Tories haven't won a national election in Scotland since the second world war  SNP won the GE in Scotland in December by a bigger margin than Boris won in the UK.  A couple of months before that they won the EU parliament elections.  They won the last Holyrood election and the one before that.

1
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> The only benefit of the bridge is to keep NI tied to the UK. It's political, not practical. We all know it won't really happen. 

That's a really interesting comment.

'We all know it won't really happen'.   And your are right, nobody really believes £20bn will be found to join Scotland and Ireland.

But everybody is sure £100 billion will be found for HS2 or £20 billion for Crossrail.   The UK is conditioned to think that it is ridiculous to put extremely expensive infrastructure anywhere outside of London.  

This is one of the reasons Scotland needs to leave.  It needs to get its self confidence back and end the pernicious influence of BBC Scotland and the other unionist media with their steady drip of stories about how crap we are.

Today the Tories and their pals in the media are crowing about how the new Queensferry crossing bridge was shut last night due to ice build up as if that was a failure of the SNP and evidence for Scotland not being able to do anything right.   In a normal country the Queensferry crossing would be seen as a great success and nobody would play politics about shutting a bridge during the kind of sh*tty weather we had yesterday.

5
Coel Hellier 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  And your are right, nobody really believes £20bn will be found to join Scotland and Ireland.

I guess that if people actually believed the £20bn price tag (including roads to Glasgow etc), then they might believe that it would be found.  

But NI isn't really a massive population centre to be a priority to join to.

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> As a project manager working in construction, I’d *love* to see the first draft risk register.

As someone living in Scotland I'd love to tell the English to clean up their nerve gas and nuclear waste, and the bombs as well while they are at it.  F*cking unbelievable they think its OK to just dump that sh*t right next to us.

11
FactorXXX 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> As someone living in Scotland I'd love to tell the English to clean up their nerve gas and nuclear waste, and the bombs as well while they are at it.  F*cking unbelievable they think its OK to just dump that sh*t right next to us.

The vast majority is from the second world war and was therefore used to defend Scotland as much as the rest of the UK.
Is your petty/bitter nationalism so great that it makes you twist everything into a 'English Vs Scots' thing?

2
subtle 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Rosyth to Rotterdam would be an intra-EU connection with no customs checks.   Scotland would stop using ports in Northern England to trade with the EU.

What was it before - when it wasn't financially viable? Why did freight continue to use Northern English ferries as opposed to Rosyth?

Anyway, as for the bridge, lets get it looked at, select preferred route and build it - along with all the infrastructure to serve it.

I'm sure there are decent engineers from within London that could design the bridge, an international design competition though may help your fears of Englishness, like what happened with Scottish Parliament building

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I guess that if people actually believed the £20bn price tag (including roads to Glasgow etc), then they might believe that it would be found.  

You know, Scotland is actually being told to fork out £9.6 billion towards the cost of HS2.  If we spent our money on infrastructure that was actually in Scotland gradually building out from Glasgow with road improvements and bridges initially to bring areas of Argyll and Cowall closer by road and eventually to connect to Ireland might not be unreasonable.   It could be spread out over a long period of time.

> But NI isn't really a massive population centre to be a priority to join to.

The goal needs to be an Edinburgh/Glasgow/Belfast/Dublin transport corridor so the economies of Scotland and Ireland can integrate more closely and link to the EU via a ferry connection from the Forth to Rotterdam.   It isn't about what is there now, it is about enabling things to improve in the future.

The other justification for the Northern route might be more economic development and an increase in population in Argyll as new bridges greatly reduced the driving distance to Glasgow.

1
RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> The vast majority is from the second world war and was therefore used to defend Scotland as much as the rest of the UK.

> Is your petty/bitter nationalism so great that it makes you twist everything into a 'English Vs Scots' thing?

When you read his comments you understand why I am not very optimistic of the Scottish independence issue ever being settled peacefully.

chris_r 11 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> a 30 year old, saving a £1000 a month,

A 30-year-old, saving £1k a month into a pension? That's 40% of the UK median salary for a full time employee. The average 30-year-old doesn't own their own home yet so is probably saving for a house deposit, not retirement.

In reply to neilh:

> How does it compare with say the ones in Denmark and the ones in Japan linking islands? Japan has to contend with earthquakes, Denmark- weather.

This would seem the most relevant comparison:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikan_Tunnel

distance, depth and harsh winter weather of the crossing would be comparable. Japan chose tunnel rather than bridge. I don’t know if there is something about the geology of the Scotland- NI channel that would make tunnelling difficult; but if not, under rather than over looks more realistic. Hence why this announcement seems to be more in the “look- a squirrel!” category rather than a serious proposal 

Coel Hellier 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> You know, Scotland is actually being told to fork out £9.6 billion towards the cost of HS2. 

How is that figure arrived at?  Is it just taking the overall bill to the taxpayer and dividing it into a notional contribution from Scotland?  If so, that's not all that sensible a calculation.

> If we spent our money on infrastructure that was actually in Scotland ...

I presume you're aware that UK public spending per head is higher in Scotland than in England, and that also the SE of England is a massive net contributor of tax money?  

> The goal needs to be an Edinburgh/Glasgow/Belfast/Dublin transport corridor so the economies of Scotland and Ireland can integrate more closely and link to the EU via a ferry connection from the Forth to Rotterdam. 

But is your complaint that the UK taxpayer doesn't fairly fund infrastructure in Scotland?  Fairly obviously that's not a priority for the rUK taxpayer. 

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Is your petty/bitter nationalism so great that it makes you twist everything into a 'English Vs Scots' thing?

I don't see them dumping nerve gas and nuclear waste in the Thames.  But the Clyde estuary is no problem.  An SNP MP asked questions about this in the commons last week and they don't even feel the need to monitor it to see if the crap is leaking.  Just dump it in Scotland and forget about it.

2
RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to chris_r:

> A 30-year-old, saving £1k a month into a pension? That's 40% of the UK median salary for a full time employee. The average 30-year-old doesn't own their own home yet so is probably saving for a house deposit, not retirement.

I 100% agree, but the reality is that to have a half decent pension £1000 a month is roughly how much you should save every month from your 30s, and that’s with very optimistic assumption on the performance of the funds.
 

Which only serves to highlight that, if you are in your 30s, I would start planning on the basis that you will probably work until you die.

2
summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If we spent our money on infrastructure that was actually in Scotland gradually building out from Glasgow 

How much was spent on the m74 over 20 years ago, when many far busier roads like the a1 were left as sub standard dual carriageway? Others like the a66 still are. 

L mondite 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I don't see them dumping nerve gas and nuclear waste in the Thames.  But the Clyde estuary is no problem. 

As fun as it is to blame the nasty English for everything that either the UK government or private firms did perhaps you could do a bit more research.

Plenty of waste dumped in the North Sea. Mostly, for the UK, its nuclear but other countries dumped their chemical and conventional munitions there.

wercat 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Toerag:

build at the deepwater site at Kishorn like the Ninian Central then float out and sink.   They could re use the massive drydock for the base sections and then float it out to the deep wet site

Get out your copybook and pencil and watch the following film.  Make careful notes in your copybook as you may have to answer questions later.

https://movingimage.nls.uk/film/5973

quite nostalgic and nice scenic shots.

Post edited at 13:12
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> How is that figure arrived at?  Is it just taking the overall bill to the taxpayer and dividing it into a notional contribution from Scotland?  If so, that's not all that sensible a calculation.

It's the fraction of the 100 billion cost assessed to be 'for the benefit of Scotland' and dumped into the GERS statistics.  Basically, they declared it to be a nationally beneficial project and handed us a tenth of the bill.    The whole point of GERS accounting is to book cost on Scotland and revenue in England so it looks like we are skint.   It's not even a secret, just look at the name.  In Scotland if something gets called GERS it is pretty obvious that it was invented by Rangers supporting unionists and that all the bosses right up to the top of the decision making hierarchy think it is amusing to call stuff after Rangers.   I don't think they'd get away with that name now but it is a hangover from when Labour was in power and the civil service was stuffed with unionists and they didn't see any need to pretend.

> I presume you're aware that UK public spending per head is higher in Scotland than in England, and that also the SE of England is a massive net contributor of tax money?  

Only because they bill Scotland for a ton of stuff that actually benefits England and takes place in England.    SE England is only a massive contributor of tax money because everything of value has been centralised there by Westminster.   The UK takes all the civil servants in London and says a tenth of them are working 'for the benefit of Scotland'.  Then it sticks 1/10 of the salary bill and all the other costs - offices, accountants, lawyers, travel etc on the GERS numbers as a cost to Scotland.  But the tax paid by those civil servants and all their suppliers in London gets booked as coming from London so it looks like London is subsidising the rest of the country.

Tens of billions of London infrastructure gets billed like it benefited the whole country rather than just London.   It doesn't.  In fact London having better infrastructure than Edinburgh makes Edinburgh less competitive for attracting private sector investment and is actually detrimental to Scotland.

Scotland is always going to look like it is subsidised by England under GERS because the statistics are designed to do that.  Just like the numbers that showed the US colonies and India were subsidised by the Empire.  Funnily enough when they got independence the numbers looked completely different.

> But is your complaint that the UK taxpayer doesn't fairly fund infrastructure in Scotland?  Fairly obviously that's not a priority for the rUK taxpayer. 

My complaint is they won't go away and let us run our own affairs.   The accounts will become clear after independence and we will be able to make rational spending decisions with our own money and implement economic policies designed to take private sector business back to Scotland.

2
summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to mondite:

> As fun as it is to blame the nasty English for everything that either the UK government or private firms did perhaps you could do a bit more research.

> Plenty of waste dumped in the North Sea. Mostly, for the UK, its nuclear but other countries dumped their chemical and conventional munitions there.

Loads of stuff under farmers fields and old military bases all over England too. They've just got instructions to never dig! 

La benya 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You're hilarious. Do you spout this kind of anti English crap in real life?  Still, at least you beat us in the rugby... Oh no wait. 

6
neilh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I have seen enough Scots trundling up and down the Glasgow Euston Line to understand that they too will beneift from the HS2 link both from a business and pleasure perspective.It will be a lot quicker for them for a start.

Stop whinging.

5
Coel Hellier 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> My complaint is they won't go away and let us run our own affairs. 

Well, there was a referendum on that, not that long ago.

> ... we will be able to make rational spending decisions with our own money and implement economic policies designed to take private sector business back to Scotland.

Yes, but that will involve having a healthy political centre-right.   Policies such as no tuition fees, free personal care, etc, will have to be funded by equal attention to revenue raising and ensuring that businesses are attracted and successful.

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> I have seen enough Scots trundling up and down the Glasgow Euston Line to understand that they too will beneift from the HS2 link both from a business and pleasure perspective.It will be a lot quicker for them for a start.

And why do so many Scots have to spend their life on the train to London in order to pursue their career?

Because all the f*cking power and money is in London.  Independence will sort that.  We won't need HS2 because we won't be travelling to London to ask permission from the English to do stuff.  We will be doing it ourselves in Scotland.

HS2 is an enabler for London centralisation and directly against the interest of Scotland (and most of England for that matter).   We need infrastructure which attracts business to move to Scotland not infrastructure which makes London even more attractive.

3
MG 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Sure.  In the late 1940s the decision to dump munitions in the Irish was made to snub Scotland.  Nothing to do with it being a quick way to dispose of dangerous material by an exhausted, bankrupt nation that at the time was united and not engaged in petty low level racism between its constituent parts.

2
neilh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It will knock close on an hour off the current travelling time.

You know who Jim O'Neill is, well he already reckons there is a move to Birmingham from London going on as a result of the proposals.So you will be even closer to the new centre..

On the other hand you can build a great big wall across the border which is what you would prefer.

1
summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> And why do so many Scots have to spend their life on the train to London in order to pursue their career?

Even if Scotland is independent, London will still be a major city in the West. Nothing will change, the two Scottish cities won't suddenly become more important, Edinburgh might a little over time, but it will still only be a capital city of a relatively small population. Like the Leeds of Yorkshire. London will for the time being remain the capital city of a top ten global economy. There are cities we haven't even heard of in china with more people than all of Scotland. 

MG 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> My complaint is they won't go away and let us run our own affairs.   The accounts will become clear after independence 

Like with the Edinburgh tram system...

1
RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

What I don’t understand is why on earth it’s so expensive.

As an example, LGV est in France cost 4bn, for a high speed line that is 252 mi, twice that of HS2 phase one, which is planned to cost several multiples of that.

Seems to me there must be a lot of milking the cow going on at different levels.

Post edited at 14:06
Archy Styrigg 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

Is Holyrood due for demolition this year? 😁🙃😃

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/cheaper-to-tear-down-scottish-parliament-by-2020-1-3265721

£414 million to build, over 10 to 40 times the original estimated cost!!!!

RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> Is Holyrood due for demolition this year? 😁🙃😃

> £414 million to build, over 10 to 40 times the original estimated cost!!!!

for comparison, refurb of Westminster is estimated to cost 3 to 5bn....

Post edited at 14:36
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Here is an interesting picture comparing tunnel infrastructure in Scotland vs Norway.  Guess which country has the 'union dividend'.

https://twitter.com/scot_tunnels/status/1222957469812633602/photo/1

galpinos 11 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> but a tunnel seems like it could be done lower carbon with the all-electric tunnel boring kit The Boring Company are developing.

They are currently very slow at boring compared to the CrossRail boring machines so a bit of work to go!

IPPurewater 11 Feb 2020
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> This Mr Johnson is pretty good at getting everybody in the country to talk about topics he wants them to talk about, isn't he?


Indeed. Where is the Russia dossier ?

wintertree 11 Feb 2020
In reply to galpinos:

> They are currently very slow at boring compared to the CrossRail boring machines so a bit of work to go!

Isn’t crossrail mainly through clay compared to rock under Las Vegas?  I could be wrong...

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> £414 million to build, over 10 to 40 times the original estimated cost!!!!

What's your point?  The Scottish Parliament was commissioned by the UK government's Scottish Office and Labour Party politicians are primarily responsible.  If anything it shows that a new bridge in Scotland should not be commissioned by Westminster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_Building

The SNP has an excellent track record on infrastructure projects.  Sure, there are overruns and delays but nothing on the scale of the stuff that comes out of London with Crossrail, HS2 etc.  

Post edited at 15:19
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

> Like with the Edinburgh tram system...

Which is doing OK.   

1
Coel Hellier 11 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> As an example, LGV est in France cost 4bn,

France has a much lower population density than the relevant parts of England.  The cost is in dealing with all the stuff currently in the way.  Across virgin farm land or forest would be vastly cheaper. 

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> London will for the time being remain the capital city of a top ten global economy. There are cities we haven't even heard of in china with more people than all of Scotland. 

Yes,  London will still be the capital city of a top ten economy.  So is Berlin. You don't need to go to Berlin to raise money for a business in Scotland or to deal with regulators for a business in Scotland.  You need to go to London.  After independence you won't.   

Just like companies in Ireland can raise money in Dublin and deal with regulators in Dublin companies in Scotland will raise money in Scotland and deal with regulators in Scotland and the government paid for by Scottish taxes will hire lawyers/acccountants/consultants in Scotland rather than in London.

jkarran 11 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

He's like an naughty schoolboy who's been caught in the act, the question is what act?

Russia report: Eaten by the dog miss!

Austerity: Found it again!

Brexit: Gove's a liar liar pants on fire, he did the border mess!

Windrush: You can't touch me, my electorate's bigger than your electorate!

HS2: Look, cheaper than the bridge, look at the bridge!

Retrospective sentencing: Russia's worse, look at the... er... the, erm... SQUIRREL!

It's almost certainly technically possible to bridge the islands one way or another, the question is is it economically (no chance) or politically worthwhile given the increasingly significant probability it'll be linking two foreign nations with which we have hard borders by the time it's complete (sorry, I mean abandoned).

jk

Post edited at 15:19
In reply to RomTheBear:

100% agree, how on earth can it be costing so much? It's hardly sending humans to start a colony on Mars!

The channel tunnel cost £9b which allowing for inflation is around £20b today.

jkarran 11 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> A proper mega-project would be damming the route of the bridge and damming from Pembroke to Roslarre and draining/reclaiming the Irish Sea.

Or fractionally less ecologically ruinous: tapping it for moon power.

jk

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

> Sure.  In the late 1940s the decision to dump munitions in the Irish was made to snub Scotland.  

Dumping nerve gas and nuclear waste in the Clyde estuary shows complete contempt for Scotland.  They couldn't even be arsed taking it out into the middle of the Atlantic or North Sea.

3
neilh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

 Berlin in turn  goes to London. Its not a global financial centre. 

1
jkarran 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> 100% agree, how on earth can it be costing so much? It's hardly sending humans to start a colony on Mars! The channel tunnel cost £9b which allowing for inflation is around £20b today.

It didn't go through Nimbyshire though did it.

jk

RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> France has a much lower population density than the relevant parts of England.  The cost is in dealing with all the stuff currently in the way.  Across virgin farm land or forest would be vastly cheaper. 

Good point there are less towns in the way but really, 4 times the cost for half the length ? Appreciate costs don’t scale linearly but still... seems like a lot.

I smell of whiff of nimbyism... a strong intuition at this point given that getting clear and transparent cost breakdown seems completely impossible.

Post edited at 15:22
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Here's some suggestions of how small tunnels could be used in Scotland and make the northern bridge route more feasible.

https://twitter.com/Stoviesplz/status/1215034965890600968

Tricky Dicky 11 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Interesting article here about all the munitions dumped where they want to build a bridge

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14820042-200-the-ww2-bombs-dumped-off-western-scotland-washing-up-on-beaches/

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

>  Berlin in turn  goes to London. Its not a global financial centre, like Frankfurt.

FTFY

MG 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Dumping nerve gas and nuclear waste in the Clyde estuary shows complete contempt for Scotland. 

No, it shows a reckless disregard for the consequences of getting rid of dangerous chemicals.  It says nothing about views of Scotland. 

I have just purchased a house in Scotland. Pretty much every post of yours reminds why I have such distaste for the independence movement  - it is the exact analogue of Boris but with populist-nationalism rather right-wing populism.

Post edited at 16:04
1
rogerwebb 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Dumping nerve gas and nuclear waste in the Clyde estuary shows complete contempt for Scotland.  They couldn't even be arsed taking it out into the middle of the Atlantic or North Sea.

How would you describe the dumping of similar materials and ammunition in the Hurd deep and Whitesand Bay? (and various other sites around the UK). Contempt for England?

Is this really an issue to do with nationality or is it more a poorly considered but understandable set of decisions with unforseen consequences? 

Post edited at 16:10
summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> FTFY

As much as Frankfurt can dream. It isn't London. 

1
summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Scottish taxes will hire lawyers/acccountants/consultants in Scotland rather than in London.

Who will then consult with the big 4, because they have the global experience and expertise. 

In reply to jkarran:

Even allowing for that, I still struggle with the £100b + figure.

Although the US did reportedly spend £12.5b a year just on air conditioning for tents in Iraq and Afghanistan wars so maybe it's a realistic figure lol

Post edited at 16:18
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

> No, it shows a reckless disregard for the consequences of getting rid of dangerous chemicals.  It says nothing about views of Scotland. 

If you have a meeting room full of people who live in London and you ask them where they should chuck the nerve gas and nuclear waste the answer is a lot more likely to be the Clyde than the Thames.

If Scotland was independent there would be no radium pollution in the Forth, no nuclear submarines rotting in a dock in Rosyth and no nerve gas and nuclear waste chucked into the Clyde because civil servants and politicians who live in Scotland wouldn't take the chance of getting poisoned themselves.  Those are the actions of people who live far enough away not to care.

10
summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And you'd be paying an annual fee for the UK to defend you, just like the isle of man does. 

1
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Who will then consult with the big 4, because they have the global experience and expertise. 

If they want the work from the Scottish Government they'll expand their offices in Scotland.  Sure, some really specialised things will need to use experts outside of Scotland, but not necessarily in London.

L mondite 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If you have a meeting room full of people who live in London and you ask them where they should chuck the nerve gas and nuclear waste the answer is a lot more likely to be the Clyde than the Thames.

Actually the answer now would be neither.

Back in the late 40s through to 60-90s it was wherever was handiest.

Hence why waste from Chatham dockyards was dropped in the channel  and thats if they could be arsed to make an effort. When they couldnt be arsed it was just dumped on land. There are several sites in the medway area which are sealed off due to having various unpleasant materials dumped there.

1
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> And you'd be paying an annual fee for the UK to defend you, just like the isle of man does. 

We already pay 1/10 of the UK defence budget, when we split up we will be claiming 1/10 of the UK military hardware or we'll be deducting money off any debt the UK tries to pass on to us.

Far less than 1/10 of the UK defence budget is spent on defending Scotland.  We'd take our money and spend it on forces which are useful to a small, non aggressive country in a relatively safe part of the world which wishes to integrate into NATO and EU defence supply chain.

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to neilh:

> On the other hand you can build a great big wall across the border which is what you would prefer.

I would prefer England and Scotland to be countries within the EU single market with no border.

England have taken away that option.

1
RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> Is this really an issue to do with nationality or is it more a poorly considered but understandable set of decisions with unforseen consequences? 

I think it has more to do with lack of consequence for taking shitty decision than nationality.

Politicians aren’t as likely to take a decision that will poison the water they have to drink it every day. 

1
FactorXXX 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Far less than 1/10 of the UK defence budget is spent on defending Scotland.  We'd take our money and spend it on forces which are useful to a small, non aggressive country in a relatively safe part of the world which wishes to integrate into NATO and EU defence supply chain.

If NATO would allow a country to join that has no intention of either owning or hosting nuclear weapons.
If the EU would allow Scotland to become a member without passing various criteria regarding currency, etc.
You seem to assume that Scotland could become independent and then just automatically join NATO and the EU at its behest.

RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> You seem to assume that Scotland could become independent and then just automatically join NATO and the EU at its behest.

NATO is dead anyway, anybody can see that. Trump doesn’t care and Turkey actually kills our allies. That’s how dead it is.

Joining the EU isn’t really a problem nor an absolute necessity.
Joining the single market would be more than sufficient in the short to medium term.

It isn’t the relationship with the EU or the rest of the world that would be much a problem in an independent Scotland.
Rather, I suspect the main issue would be the relationship with England.

Post edited at 16:55
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> If NATO would allow a country to join that has no intention of either owning or hosting nuclear weapons.

Most of the countries in NATO do not own nuclear weapons or provide bases for nuclear submarines.

> If the EU would allow Scotland to become a member without passing various criteria regarding currency, etc.

Not this sh*t again.   Of course Scotland would get back into the EU, the only people who say it wouldn't are the English who just voted to leave the EU.  Nobody cares about England's opinion any more.

> You seem to assume that Scotland could become independent and then just automatically join NATO and the EU at its behest.

Yes.  Scotland has been in both organisations for decades.  Both organisations welcome new members. 

Let's not go through the normal conflation of criteria to join the Euro with criteria to join the EU or pretend that there can't be transitional arrangements under an accession deal which give access to key EU services long before full membership is granted.

2
L mondite 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> England have taken away that option.

England did not. A majority of people in the UK did (leaving aside those who didnt vote etc). If everyone in the rest of the UK had voted remain then we would be remaining.

1
Oceanrower 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Scotland has been in both organisations for decades.

https://www.eata.ee/en/nato-2/nato-member-states/

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en

Can't see Scotland on either of these.  Are you sure you're spelling it right?

1
MG 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Can't see Scotland on either of these.  Are you sure you're spelling it right?

I think in Tom's world UK=Scotland when he sees this as a good thing but UK=England when he doesn't.  

summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If they want the work from the Scottish Government they'll expand their offices in Scotland.  Sure, some really specialised things will need to use experts outside of Scotland, but not necessarily in London.

They already have offices in all the Scottish cities any way. 

summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Far less than 1/10 of the UK defence budget is spent on defending Scotland.  We'd take our money and spend it on forces which are useful to a small, non aggressive country in a relatively safe part of the world which wishes to integrate into NATO and EU defence supply chain.

You realise that you can't just wear a kilt, bare your ar$e and cry "freedom" when Putin is sending his exploratory planes over?

Unless you have a credible defence force, spend 2% and agree to protect everyone else then NATO isn't going to welcome you.  

RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

> I think in Tom's world UK=Scotland when he sees this as a good thing but UK=England when he doesn't.  

An irreconcilable problem which won’t be fixed until Scotland is made accountable for its own decision. 
Which is what he is asking for.

3
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> You realise that you can't just wear a kilt, bare your ar$e and cry "freedom" when Putin is sending his exploratory planes over?

Why would Putin attack us with planes when he has already bought our Prime Minister and half the cabinet.   Putin is a spy and he's conducting a completely different type of war.  One of his main goals was splitting the UK off from the EU.  

> Unless you have a credible defence force, spend 2% and agree to protect everyone else then NATO isn't going to welcome you.  

How many NATO countries actually hit the 2% target?

3
MG 11 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> An irreconcilable problem which won’t be fixed until Scotland is made accountable for its own decision. 

> Which is what he is asking for.

I think independence to sort out Tom's cognitive dissonance is a bit drastic 

1
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> They already have offices in all the Scottish cities any way. 

Which is my point.  After independence if the government wants to hire one of the big 4 accountants the work will go to an office in Scotland rather than one in London and the people doing it will spend their money and pay their taxes in Scotland.

summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Which is my point.  After independence if the government wants to hire one of the big 4 accountants the work will go to an office in Scotland rather than one in London and the people doing it will spend their money and pay their taxes in Scotland.

Any evidence this isn't already happening? 

summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> How many NATO countries actually hit the 2% target?

Just like the last thing the eu needs or wants is another country that isn't a net contributor, NATO won't want another country that isn't pulling its weight either. 

Post edited at 17:38
1
wercat 11 Feb 2020
In reply to IPPurewater:

> Indeed. Where is the Russia dossier ?


if there was anything to concern us we'd have heard about it by now.  It's just none of our business ...

RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

> I think independence to sort out Tom's cognitive dissonance is a bit drastic 

Well latest polls suggest support for indyref at 51% and in my experience he is fairly representative.

You can bury your head in the sand or listen and find a compromise. Unfortunately I don’t think this will happen.

Post edited at 17:40
2
RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> NATO won't want another country that isn't pulling its weight either. 

FYI, NATO is dead. Time to wake up world has changed.

2
Timmd 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

> I think independence to sort out Tom's cognitive dissonance is a bit drastic 

I'd have an EU passport again, if Scotland went solo and rejoined the EU. I wonder how one goes about programming a social media bot to influence people? ;-)

Following the first referendum when staying within the UK was portrayed as the only sure way to stay in the EU, I'd probably be wanting another vote too if I lived in Scotland, given them voting to Remain, and voting to stay in the UK given the mood music at the time regarding EU membership etc.

Post edited at 17:46
MG 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Timmd:

I've nothing against another vote, and see there is now an arguable case for independence.  Populist nationalism and blaming the English for everything is it, however.  If fact, that is just brexitist populism with another mask on - smashing up alliances won't lead to prosperity and "freedom".

Pefa 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

> Sure.  In the late 1940s the decision to dump munitions in the Irish was made to snub Scotland.  Nothing to do with it being a quick way to dispose of dangerous material by an exhausted, bankrupt nation that at the time was united and not engaged in petty low level racism between its constituent parts.

The same bankrupted country could just as easily have dumped the chemical weapons  in the Thames estuary or English Channel but instead chose Scottish waters to dump it.

The same country could have put nuclear weapons 30 miles from London but chose Glasgow instead, there is a pattern here. 

3
Oceanrower 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

> The same bankrupted country could just as easily have dumped the chemical weapons  in the Thames estuary or English Channel

Err, I think you'll find it did. You might want to look at a chart of the Isle of Wight...

MG 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

> The same bankrupted country could just as easily have dumped the chemical weapons  in the Thames estuary or English Channel but instead chose Scottish waters to dump it.

As above, that happened too.

> The same country could have put nuclear weapons 30 miles from London but chose Glasgow instead, there is a pattern here. 

Harder, given the need to avoid them being bombed, deep water etc etc.

summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to RomTheBear:

> FYI, NATO is dead. Time to wake up world has changed.

Now.. Maybe..  give it 5 years and Trump has gone, who knows. 

Pefa 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Err, I think you'll find it did. You might want to look at a chart of the Isle of Wight...

I'm more than happy to look for the 1 million tons of weapon munitions and 14,000 tons of chemical weapons dropped 6 miles off the English coast like the ones dropped in the Scottish coast 6 miles from Stranraer.

Please show me where they are thanks. 

3
L mondite 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

> The same bankrupted country could just as easily have dumped the chemical weapons  in the Thames estuary or English Channel but instead chose Scottish waters to dump it.

Waste was dumped in the English channel.

> The same country could have put nuclear weapons 30 miles from London but chose Glasgow instead, there is a pattern here. 

They didnt choose Glasgow though. They chose a site near Glasgow since it was one of a few suitable for nuclear submarines which needed to be able to sneak out under water.

Aldermaston is 46 miles from London but could have been located in Glasgow.

Greenham Common is 55 miles away. Again other locations further away were an option.

Lakenheath and its fellow bases are 80 miles away.

A cursory look shows that if the idea was to keep nukes away from London they did a bad job of it.

Pefa 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

What is NATO for anyway? Other than imperialism and being above all law. 

3
RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Now.. Maybe..  give it 5 years and Trump has gone, who knows. 

Was already dying before Trump. This started under Obama. I wouldn’t expect a democrat win to change the underlying shifting of the geopolitical tectonic plates. Only something totally radical will.

Post edited at 18:12
Oceanrower 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

That, my dear Pefa, is called "trying to change the subject".

You've tried to claim that all the nasty stuff is in Scotland and, when called out on it and having been proved wrong, want to distract attention away.

wintertree 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Err, I think you'll find it did. You might want to look at a chart of the Isle of Wight...

There’s a particularly nasty boat laden with high explosives sunk in the Thames estuary that’s never been cleared up...

Pefa 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> That, my dear Pefa, is called "trying to change the subject".

> You've tried to claim that all the nasty stuff is in Scotland and, when called out on it and having been proved wrong, want to distract attention away.

Sorry I must have missed the bit where you showed me the 1 million tons of munitions and 14,000 tons of chemical weapons dropped 6 miles off an English coast.please forgive me and show me where that happened. 

Where is the only operational nuclear weapons base in the UK? I think its 30 miles from Glasgow. 

2
Oceanrower 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

You'd be wrong then. Have a little shuftie at RAF Lakenheath which, if Google can be relied on, is a mere 80 miles from London and a bloody long way from Scotland.

RomTheBear 11 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

> I've nothing against another vote, and see there is now an arguable case for independence.  Populist nationalism and blaming the English for everything is it, however. 

 

Blaming the English for everything is stupid.

However as long as Scotland is in the U.K., Westminster is the supreme authority, and therefore it should be accountable.

.

Pefa 11 Feb 2020
In reply to mondite:

Granted there were nukes at Greenham not far from London so that wrecks my little theory of only Scotland being used for nuclear weapons but my point still stands about us being a huge chemical weapons and munitions dump.

You could also add the quarantined Scottish Island now known as Anthrax island on to that list to show how much London thinks about Northerners. 

L mondite 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

> Where is the only operational nuclear weapons base in the UK? I think its 30 miles from Glasgow. 

Nice criteria there to try and exclude all the inconvenient counter evidence.

During the cold war there were multiple nuclear weapons bases located close to London. 

Brize Norton was a nuclear equipped base for a while and then for most of the cold war there were several bases not far from London including Greenham common.

Plus there is Aldermaston a mere 46 miles from London.

Pefa 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> You'd be wrong then. Have a little shuftie at RAF Lakenheath which, if Google can be relied on, is a mere 80 miles from London and a bloody long way from Scotland.

I relying on Wikipedia which says-

Since 1998, when the UK decommissioned its tactical WE.177 bombs, the Trident has been the only operational nuclear weapons system in British service. The delivery system consists of four Vanguard-class submarines based at HMNB Clyde in Scotland. Each submarine is armed with up to sixteen Trident II missiles, each carrying warheads in up to eight Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). With at least one submarine always on patrol, the Vanguards perform a strategic deterrence role and also have a sub-strategic capability.

Pefa 11 Feb 2020
In reply to mondite:

See above I now see I was wrong on that point but tell me where is the only operational nuclear weapons base we have left in the UK?

It's 30 miles from Glasgow and 450 miles from London or Essex. 

Post edited at 19:08
2
Oceanrower 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

There is, of course, the AWE at Aldermasterton. Even nearer at only 42 miles from London.

Pefa 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

That's a good counter point, have a like. 

Le Sapeur 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

> See above I now see I was wrong on that point but tell me where is the only operational nuclear weapons base we have left in the UK?

You are conveniently focusing on nuclear weapons and ignoring nuclear power stations which I would say in the last 70 years have been a bigger threat. Two operating in Scotland I believe, and five in England.  Dungeness isn't too far away from London. 

Le Sapeur 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

> That's a good counter point, have a like. 

L Mondite got there first. I'll give him/her a like to even the score.

Stichtplate 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

> Granted there were nukes at Greenham not far from London so that wrecks my little theory of only Scotland being used for nuclear weapons but my point still stands about us being a huge chemical weapons and munitions dump.

80% of the UK's nuclear waste is held on a dangerously decrepit site in England.

> You could also add the quarantined Scottish Island now known as Anthrax island on to that list to show how much London thinks about Northerners. 

It's not been quarantined for the last 30 years.

Enty 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> And you'd be paying an annual fee for the UK to defend you, just like the isle of man does. 


From who?

E

wintertree 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> 80% of the UK's nuclear waste is held on a dangerously decrepit site in England.

Quite.  Wind is blowing from Seascale over the hills right to me tonight...

The argument that business is too London centric - think of all the commuters, central heating and particulate emissions concentrated in London not Edinburgh.  Far more English people are having their lives shortened by the infrastructure supporting income generation in London which goes into the tax coffers for the benefit of all, including in Scotland.
 

summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Enty:

> From who?

> E

Terrorists? Might be worth monitoring who is sailing around the oil rigs or fishing in the waters? Or see who is trying to smuggle drugs or people in? 

Archy Styrigg 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

This lot would be complaining about Porton Down if it were somewhere in Scotland.

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Any evidence this isn't already happening? 

You seriously think that civil servants based in London are buying consulting/accountancy services from accountants in Scotland?

Look at Boris's climate conference in Glasgow.  The first thing the London based people in charge think of is getting the guys who did the London Olympics to organise it.  Not whoever did the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow.

It's not even malice, they honestly think London is best at everything.

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> This lot would be complaining about Porton Down if it were somewhere in Scotland.

I'd be very surprised if that happened.  There's lots of well paid science jobs in Porton Down.  We just get the waste and to provide little islands when they want to test anthrax.

5
L mondite 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> This lot would be complaining about Porton Down if it were somewhere in Scotland.


Not just Porton Down although that does win the prize for the most nasty stuff. All the Cat 4 biosafety labs are located in Southern England including several in and around London. 

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> The argument that business is too London centric - think of all the commuters, central heating and particulate emissions concentrated in London not Edinburgh.  Far more English people are having their lives shortened by the infrastructure supporting income generation in London which goes into the tax coffers for the benefit of all, including in Scotland.

What about people who want to live in Scotland and make a decent living?

Scotland hasn't been benefiting from being in the UK.  It has been losing out badly through inappropriate economic and immigration policies, lack of support for our industries, depopulation and theft of our natural resources.

6
summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> You seriously think that civil servants based in London are buying consulting/accountancy services from accountants in Scotland?

I'd expect London staff to use London offices. Holyrood and other Scotland staff to use Scottish. Unless expertise dictates otherwise, say oil industry in Aberdeen etc.

Logical? 

> Look at Boris's climate conference in Glasgow.  The first thing the London based people in charge think of is getting the guys who did the London Olympics to organise it.  Not whoever did the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow.

Weak distraction technique because you can't prove that Scottish offices aren't already being used? 

1
summo 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> our natural resources.

Ours? Edinburgh belongs to Northumbria at the point in time I wish to freeze history. You're English my friend. The oil belongs to old Celtic highland tribes and descendents of Norwegian Viking tribes.

Unless you are freezing history at a different time? 

5
Timmd 11 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> You seriously think that civil servants based in London are buying consulting/accountancy services from accountants in Scotland?

> Look at Boris's climate conference in Glasgow.  The first thing the London based people in charge think of is getting the guys who did the London Olympics to organise it.  Not whoever did the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow.

> It's not even malice, they honestly think London is best at everything.

I'm thinking that it's possibly because of the way networking happens, there will people be in mind or people they know who'll be able to recommend somebody?  It's probably just an easier path to follow than looking somewhere new, but I agree it's Londoncentric. A retired business person I know of got more of their work via networking during the earlier days, before going international. 

Post edited at 23:06
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> I'd expect London staff to use London offices. Holyrood and other Scotland staff to use Scottish. Unless expertise dictates otherwise, say oil industry in Aberdeen etc.

Right.  So the UK government departments in London providing services which they decide are 'for the benefit of Scotland' according to GERS accounting are using suppliers in London.   

The UK raises about £60Bn in tax from Scotland, if you accept the way it accounts for oil revenue.  About half £30Bn gets sent back to the Scottish Government as a 'grant'.  The other £30Bn plus allegedly another £10Bn of 'English money' gets spent 'on Scotland's behalf' much of it in England.

So the 'deficit' question comes down to whether:

a. the spending booked as 'on Scotland's behalf' is actually for stuff that Scotland wants rather than for stuff like HS2 and Trident which we would drop if we had a choice.

b. whether Scotland would be better off having the Scottish Government provide those services we actually want in Scotland where the tax on the salaries of the civil servants and the economic benefit of their spending would go into the Scottish economy.  If the Scottish Government spends money in Scotland it gets a fair chunk of it back as tax.  Or, if we decide to outsource the service, it doesn't need to be outsourced to England, maybe we could find a cheaper supplier.

c. whether the Scottish economy would grow if decisions were made in Edinburgh rather than London and we could apply a different immigration policy and tax/trade policies designed to protect Scottish industries and bring new business to Scotland.

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> 80% of the UK's nuclear waste is held on a dangerously decrepit site in England.

About as far north in England as you can get without being in Scotland.  Scotland and Ireland will be more f*cked than London if Sellafield goes wrong.

> It's not been quarantined for the last 30 years.

Well that's great.   No problem at all with dumping anthrax in Scotland if it only takes 40 years to be safe again.

6
tom_in_edinburgh 12 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Terrorists? Might be worth monitoring who is sailing around the oil rigs or fishing in the waters? Or see who is trying to smuggle drugs or people in? 

If you find a boat doing that today it would belong to the Scottish Government.  So no change,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Fisheries_Protection_Agency

Stichtplate 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> About as far north in England as you can get without being in Scotland.

Sellafield is about the same distance from Scotland as Edinburgh is from England. Does that mean you're practically in England Tom?

>  Scotland and Ireland will be more f*cked than London if Sellafield goes wrong.

Not according to stuff like facts.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D8yFQC6IuDk/XUIkX2XeWRI/AAAAAAACHWo/0e0xW8QUMRc2dYSuwTFii0NpRqWXcBLeQCLcBGAs/s1600/sellafield%2Bnuclear%2Baccident%2Bcontamination%2Bzones%2BMarushka%2BFrance.jpg

> Well that's great.   No problem at all with dumping anthrax in Scotland if it only takes 40 years to be safe again.

It was never dumped there and it was never considered to be 'no problem at all'. It was an uninhabited island, requisitioned from the owner and since returned. A few Scottish sheep were disadvantaged. Meanwhile at about the same time, the MOD requisitioned a whole village evicted 160 residents and never gave it back, despite promising otherwise. Can you guess where that village was? (give you a clue; wasn't Scotland).

The location of the anthrax testing was down to wartime expediency, not a plot to victimise the Scots.

Stichtplate 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The UK raises about £60Bn in tax from Scotland, if you accept the way it accounts for oil revenue.  About half £30Bn gets sent back to the Scottish Government as a 'grant'.  The other £30Bn plus allegedly another £10Bn of 'English money' gets spent 'on Scotland's behalf' much of it in England.

When you say 'much of it in England' the actual figure you're looking for is around 12%, meaning Scotland is still quids in and the rest of your post is irrelevant.

3
tom_in_edinburgh 12 Feb 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> The location of the anthrax testing was down to wartime expediency, not a plot to victimise the Scots.

Just like the nerve gas/radioactive waste/munitions in the Clyde estuary.  The radium dumped in the Forth and only now being cleaned up.   The decades old nuclear subs with their reactors still fueled tied up in a dock in Rosyth and of course the occasional accidental release of radioactivity from the sub base.

The MOD piss all over Scotland and they find money to buy new nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers but not to clean up their mess.   If you did the maths as a resident of Scotland the chances of getting killed by a nuclear accident at an MOD facility or poisoned by some crap leaking from one of their dumps are probably a fair bit higher than those of getting nuked by the Russians.

Can you imagine if a civilian agency suggested dumping nuclear waste into the Clyde Estuary and not documenting where it was or monitoring it.   And then said - oh yeah we'll chuck in a few tonnes of nerve gas too and just to make it interesting a few thousand tonnes of unstable explosives.  Because it is a really good idea to mix explosives with nuclear waste and nerve gas.  And if that's not enough we will sail nuclear submarines over the top of it all.

7
summo 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If you find a boat doing that today it would belong to the Scottish Government.  So no change,

You means it's a devolved power, something you already control and can't blame the English for? No need for independence then.

Ridge 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I give in Tom, you're completely correct. There's no decades old nuclear subs with their reactors still fuelled tied up in Devonport, no nuclear waste being shipped from Scotland to England for storage, no nuclear weapons being assembled at Aldermaston, no chemical weapons and explosives dumped off the coasts of Cornwall, in the Solway Firth (it does have an English side you know) and in the North Sea, no contaminated munitions dumps in Gosport, Cumbria, Wiltshire and Shropshire, no bombing ranges near Lincolnshire, no tanks driving all over Salisbury Plain, no artillery ranges near Warcop or Otterburn, no chemical weapons being disposed of at Porton Down.

Enty 12 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

This bridge between Scotland and Ireland, if it finally got built and was ready in say 15 years. It would be like France financing a bridge between Italy and Greece ;-)

E

summo 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Something more factual. 

https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/the-great-war-clean-up/3009456.article

If you think it's bad in scotland, try a ww1 battlefield. Notice in the article it was a treaty formed in London that banned the dumping at sea. 

summo 12 Feb 2020
In reply to Enty:

> It would be like France financing a bridge between Italy and Greece ;-)

https://greece-italy.eu/discover-project/multimodal-sustainable-transport-system/

Truth is often stranger than fiction. No bridges though! 

wercat 12 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

surely the oil belongs to the people who worked to build and operate the rigs.  That definitely includes a lot from NE England including myself!

Working up there was a wonderful education for understanding broad accents, West coast, Glasgow, Brummie/Black country, Cockney etc etc etc.  

I hope the canny scots will pay me a pension for the years I spent up there

tom_in_edinburgh 12 Feb 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> I give in Tom, you're completely correct. There's no decades old nuclear subs with their reactors still fuelled tied up in Devonport, no nuclear waste being shipped from Scotland to England ....

I'm sorry but the fact that Westminster and the London establishment also treats many regions of England like sh*t is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Scotland should put up with it.

It's like saying you can't complain about getting punched in the mouth because the guy punched five other people and they didn't mind.

1
tom_in_edinburgh 12 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> You means it's a devolved power, something you already control and can't blame the English for? No need for independence then.

I think you will find I can blame the English for pretty much anything.

3
MG 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Maybe. But it shows your anti-English paranoia above to be bollocks. 

MonkeyPuzzle 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> As someone living in Scotland I'd love to tell the English to clean up their nerve gas and nuclear waste, and the bombs as well while they are at it.  F*cking unbelievable they think its OK to just dump that sh*t right next to us.

*Our* nerve gas and nuclear waste. "British Armed Forces", remember? Protecting British citizens yes? Even you?

3
tom_in_edinburgh 12 Feb 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> *Our* nerve gas and nuclear waste. "British Armed Forces", remember? Protecting British citizens yes? Even you?

FFS.   When it gets to the point people are defending dumping thousands of tonnes of explosives next to nerve gas and nuclear waste in the Clyde estuary things have got way beyond a joke.

A gram or two of Novichok pretty much shut down an English town and these cretins dumped tonnes of nerve gas mixed in with nuclear waste and high explosives.

They should be in jail.  You don't have to be a genius to figure out that high explosives don't belong near nerve gas and nuclear waste.   You also don't need to be a genius to realise that you don't want people that allow it governing your country.

5
MG 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> FFS.   When it gets to the point people are defending dumping thousands of tonnes of explosives 

Quite so. No one has, however, so all good. 

Ridge 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I think you will find I can blame the English for pretty much anything.

Surely not...

L mondite 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> FFS.   When it gets to the point people are defending dumping thousands of tonnes of explosives next to nerve gas and nuclear waste in the Clyde estuary things have got way beyond a joke.

No one is defending it as such. Just pointing out your attacks on the English are rather misdirected in this case.

Although I would point out the intention was the munitions and chemical agents was they werent being dumped in the estuary but instead into the deep dyke further out. That said it seems to be the case that those doing the dumping sometimes did dump closer inland against orders.

For the chemical weapons the ones dumped in the dyke were those supposed to break down in seawater although this didnt turn out to be the case with mustard gas. The really vicious stuff (mostly captured from the Germans) was dumped further out in the atlantic.

1
Ridge 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's like saying you can't complain about getting punched in the mouth because the guy punched five other people and they didn't mind.

Whereas your stance is to blame the five other people who've been punched in the mouth for punching you, based purely on your prejudice against them.

1
MonkeyPuzzle 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> They should be in jail.  You don't have to be a genius to figure out that high explosives don't belong near nerve gas and nuclear waste.   You also don't need to be a genius to realise that you don't want people that allow it governing your country.

I'll make sure to vote out the government of *checks notes* 1973 at the earliest opportunity.

La benya 12 Feb 2020
In reply to the Scottish nutter:

If I didn't dislike Scottish people and think they had a chip on their shoulder over historical wrongs that no one in the current living generations had a control over, before... I sure as hell do now.

You are literally a bad parody

8
MG 12 Feb 2020
In reply to La benya:

> If I didn't dislike Scottish people and think they had a chip on their shoulder over historical wrongs that no one in the current living generations had a control over, before... I sure as hell do now.

You might want to avoid the generalisations or you sound as bad as Tom.  As a whole,  Scots live up to their positive reputation - educated, open, measured and competent - in my experience.

> You are literally a bad parody

Unfortunately I think he isn't

1
summo 12 Feb 2020
In reply to La benya:

> If I didn't dislike Scottish people and think they had a chip on their shoulder over historical wrongs that no one in the current living generations had a control over, before... I sure as hell do now.

> You are literally a bad parody

But that's the thing most Scots aren't like TiE at all. Yeah ask them a leading question about if they think Scotland should be independent, they go; och aye, why the f*** not, we can give it a go, can't be any worse etc.. But most aren't excited about it at all.  

You can have a protest about indef2 in the central belt, housing the vast majority of Scotland's population within an hour's drive and you'll get a very small proportion of Scotland's population. 

The same with religious and cultural clashes of rangers and Celtic..  there are a very small number (a few pub fulls) who take it very seriously, but most don't give a $hit. 

99% of Scots are happy just to crack on with life. Just like everyone else.

2
La benya 12 Feb 2020
In reply to MG:

That was my point... He's giving Scots a bad name. 

1
La benya 12 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

Exactly. Anyone reading this might think he was the voice of everyone north of the border. He isn’t. He’s loud and obnoxious and xenophobic. It’s laughable. 
 

He’s the Nigel Farage of Scotland. 

3
wintertree 12 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Meanwhile, the Queensferry Bridge turns out to be a death trap in mildly cold and stormy weather, collecting ice on the cables then shedding it onto vehicles below.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51456296

No doubt a fault of the Westminster government and not Holyrood...

Dr.S at work 12 Feb 2020
In reply to La benya:

come now, thats a little harsh!

1
In reply to La benya:

He’s the Nigel Farage of Scotland. 

Haha perfect!! Wee Gobby Fergus Farage aka Tom In Edinburgh

1
earlsdonwhu 12 Feb 2020
In reply to Trevers:

If a Boris statue is erected , I will delight at every pigeon that  craps on it.

tom_in_edinburgh 12 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> No doubt a fault of the Westminster government and not Holyrood...

Ice build up is a general problem with that kind of bridge in certain conditions.  There were a bunch of bridges in England shut too, and the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.    Compared with the old Forth Road Bridge which was regularly shut for high winds the new one is great.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/bridge-brilliance-falling-ice-10-08-2016/

RomTheBear 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Yeah except the slip road totally sucks. People don’t know how to use it.

wintertree 12 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>   There were a bunch of bridges in England shut too, and the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.

Generally they get shut *before* they start shelling traffic with potentially lethal lumps of ice...  Seems to me a major embarrassment to have got that wrong if as you say ice build up on cable stayed bridges is well known or “a general problem”...

tom_in_edinburgh 12 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> 99% of Scots are happy just to crack on with life. Just like everyone else.

This is why support for independence is at 52% in the latest opinion polls, the SNP have won every national election for at least 10 years and AUOB marches can put 200,000 people on the streets of Edinburgh.

The way the UK government are throwing £5 million at unionist advertising and have the unionist media churning out SNP bad stories on overdrive suggests they are scared.

tom_in_edinburgh 12 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Generally they get shut *before* they start shelling traffic with potentially lethal lumps of ice...  Seems to me a major embarrassment to have got that wrong if as you say ice build up on cable stayed bridges is well known or “a general problem”...

Not really, it is a relatively new bridge and they are installing sensors.  Like it says in the article it is hard to test this stuff because the conditions hardly ever happen.

It's quite funny that the leader of the Tories in Scotland is stirring this sh*t today about how incompetent the SNP are for building this bridge when the day the bridge opened he was bragging about being the convener of the parliamentary committee which selected the design.

summo 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Ice build up is a general problem with that kind of bridge in certain conditions.  There were a bunch of bridges in England shut too, and the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.    

The Oresund bridge closed for 2 hrs due to technical problems, cameras i believe, as they don't run trains and cars unless they can observe them. Nothing to do with the weather or its design. 

summo 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> This is why support for independence is at 52%

One poll out of how many, over the last how ever long? I presume you'll just ignore all those where support was under 50%?

> , the SNP have won every national election for at least 10 

That's a vote for a party, not a referendum. 

2
Le Sapeur 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The reality is this. Boris Johnson won't allow a referendum. Unless he does something catastrophically wrong he will be prime minister for the next 10 years. It will take at least 1 year of a new government to decide on a 2nd referendum. 1-2 years to implement, and if Brexit is anything to go by 2-3 years to actually happen. That's about 15 years away and only if the latest polls are wrong. The latest polls show a lead for no. 

In 15 years you may have changed your mind, reached a certain age and become a Tory.  

3
JimR 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

I predict he won’t last this term out as pm, he will be so awful that the tories will dump him

RomTheBear 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> The reality is this. Boris Johnson won't allow a referendum. Unless he does something catastrophically wrong he will be prime minister for the next 10 years. It will take at least 1 year of a new government to decide on a 2nd referendum. 1-2 years to implement, and if Brexit is anything to go by 2-3 years to actually happen. That's about 15 years away and only if the latest polls are wrong. The latest polls show a lead for no. 

^ this

jkarran 13 Feb 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> You seem to assume that Scotland could become independent and then just automatically join NATO and the EU at its behest.

Realistically Scotland is of more interest to NATO with its controlling position in the North Atlantic and the North Sea than NATO is to Scotland since an invasion of or attack on Scotland, NATO member or not, would be viewed as an intolerable threat to bordering England and other North Sea members.

I see no reason why Scotland couldn't join NATO anyway and Brexit has knocked down most of the hurdles to EU membership for a secessionist Scotland.

jk

jkarran 13 Feb 2020
In reply to JimR:

> I predict he won’t last this term out as pm, he will be so awful that the tories will dump him

Without some sort of black swan event Johnson, he'll get at least 7 years. The glaring failure of brexit by 2024 to deliver anything but widespread pain will be someone else's fault, easily dismissed as such with the press so complicit.

jk

SDM 13 Feb 2020
In reply to JimR:

I agree with jkarran. I cannot see any chain of events that would lead to Johnson not completing at least one term.

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> The reality is this. Boris Johnson won't allow a referendum.

The reality is that if there isn't a referendum and the SNP win the 2021 Holyrood Election convincingly there's going to be a confrontation.

The reality is that no-deal Brexit is going to be such a disaster when the transition period ends that support for Indy will be way over 50% next year.   If the Dems win in the US the whole Trump centric strategy of the Tories is going to look really stupid.

Post edited at 11:20
JimR 13 Feb 2020
In reply to jkarran:

I'd be so bold as to stake £5 on it with you ;-) I reckon his judgement is so bad that there will be a scandal which will force his resignation.

Coel Hellier 13 Feb 2020
In reply to JimR:

> I predict he won’t last this term out as pm, he will be so awful that the tories will dump him

With Labour about to indulge itself in a civil war over "trans rights", Boris is probably set fair for the next election already.

Coel Hellier 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  If the Dems win in the US the whole Trump centric strategy of the Tories is going to look really stupid.

Boris and the Tories are not "Trump centric" (you're aware of the recent Hauwei decision?), and would deal fine with a Democratic president.   

Indeed, given that US politics is further right than UK politics, a Democratic president would be pretty much in line with the Tories.

1
JimR 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Just to be clear I'm not saying the Tories will lose the next election, with the way that Labour is carrying on (anyone see McLuskey on Peston last night?) they'll win. I am saying that the tories will replace Johnson as his personal credibility will become so damaged.

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Boris and the Tories are not "Trump centric" (you're aware of the recent Hauwei decision?), and would deal fine with a Democratic president.   

Boris and Trump are funded by the same Republican donors.    The Democrats are not going to be friendly towards him,  more likely they'll get really stuck in to the prosecutions that Trump has being blocking and some of the leads will implicate the whole Brexiteer gang. 

The Democrats will probably go back to Obama's policy of prioritising a comprehensive trade deal with the EU and the UK will be left hanging. 

Pefa 13 Feb 2020
Archy Styrigg 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

Nice picture.
Amuses me that they've published it in the Arts section

Eric9Points 13 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Re the Queensferry crossing, the newest of the Forth bridges.

The problem of ice shedding started with a lack of oversight from the Scottish (SNP) government. After problems became apparent the Government promised to have sensors installed by last year.

We're still waiting.

This is one of Scotland's most important roads and it seems incredible that a design prone to ice accretion was given the go ahead in the first place. Installing sensors will not solve the problem, obviously, but will only reduce the risk to motorists. Who knows how much the sensors will cost and whether removal of ice when the bridge is closed will be quick or even practical.

1
Coel Hellier 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Boris and Trump are funded by the same Republican donors.    The Democrats are not going to be friendly towards him,  more likely they'll get really stuck in to the prosecutions that Trump has being blocking and some of the leads will implicate the whole Brexiteer gang. 

It's ok to heartily dislike Brexit, but, sorry, this is conspiracy-theory lunacy. 

2
Pefa 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

From the map its much worse than it says on Wikipedia as it was 1 million tons of munitions, 250,000 tons of nerve gas, 120,000 tons of chemical weapons, 4 tons of nuclear waste that were dropped in the sea 6 miles off the Scottish coast. And since then 5000 phosphorus flares have washed up on shore.

A quote from the comments section-

And we wonder why we are top of the poll for just about every Western disease: cancer; heart disease; neurological illnesses. I was laughed at by Unionists (and others) when I mentioned these facts about weapons dumping some time ago, and how that might well affect our health. 

Post edited at 13:14
1
Ian W 13 Feb 2020
In reply to JimR:

> I'd be so bold as to stake £5 on it with you ;-) I reckon his judgement is so bad that there will be a scandal which will force his resignation.

Which would have to be a pretty spectacular one; there have been a continual stream of, er, "misjudgements" by Boris that he has survived without a scratch. I wonder if there are any takers for your £5?

Pefa 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

Not on the map but in the comments section two sailors state how tons of everything from paint to weapons was always routinely dumped off the Isle of May prior to entering Rosyth by returning Royal Navy ships for years !! And off the Ayrshire coast. 

Post edited at 13:21
1
tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> The Oresund bridge closed for 2 hrs due to technical problems, cameras i believe, as they don't run trains and cars unless they can observe them. Nothing to do with the weather or its design. 

I've no idea about how long it was shut last week but according to the BBC it has been shut 'numerous times' by ice buildup.   The Professor of Civil Engineering from Aarhus University that specialises in ice on bridges is a lot more moderate in his comments than the Tory politicians that know f*ck all about the subject.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51473419

Lemony 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

> Not on the map but in the comments section two sailors state how everything from paint to weapons was dumped off the Isle of May by returning Royal Navy ships for years !! 

That isn't in any way limited to scotland though, is it? The area around ports of all sorts has historically been a massive dump.

In fact the main takeaway from that map for me is that we're a lot better at dealing with waste than we were 50-75 years ago.

jkarran 13 Feb 2020
In reply to JimR:

> I'd be so bold as to stake £5 on it with you ;-) I reckon his judgement is so bad that there will be a scandal which will force his resignation.

I'll take that, with luck it'll still buy one of us a half when we come to redeem it

Everyone knows his judgement and character is terrible from the security services down to his various betrayed families. Like Trump, he's teflon, his party won't touch him with that majority. The press won't and the brexit electorate (all any government will need with a little careful gerrymandering) won't because they're all complicit in the mess he makes. To depose him we all need to own our mistakes from the humble voter facing the consequences of their actions to the press barons who urged us on and the donors who bought this government, powerful people who need to maintain the lie Johnson is bound to in order to secure their return. No chance.

jk

Pefa 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Lemony:

> > Not on the map but in the comments section two sailors state how everything from paint to weapons was dumped off the Isle of May by returning Royal Navy ships for years !! 

> That isn't in any way limited to scotland though, is it? The area around ports of all sorts has historically been a massive dump.

I don't know tbh. 

> In fact the main takeaway from that map for me is that we're a lot better at dealing with waste than we were 50-75 years ago.

It would be interesting to see a similar map of England to see how they compare or if indeed there is much comparison at all. 

1
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Looks like Sajid Javid's decided it's a "Bridge Too Far"- amongst other things

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> This is one of Scotland's most important roads and it seems incredible that a design prone to ice accretion was given the go ahead in the first place.

Because ice accretion in very specific sets and relatively rare set of circumstances is way down the list of priorities when you are choosing a bridge design.    It isn't something that happens every time it snows e.g.  there was no problem in the 'Beast from the East' storm,   The got a good bridge for reasonable price and one that addresses the problems with high winds that frequently closed the original bridge.

If you want a river crossing that will work in all possible weathers then you need a tunnel and they didn't want to spend that kind of money.

1
Archy Styrigg 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Pefa:

> It would be interesting to see a similar map of England to see how they compare or if indeed there is much comparison at all. 

Here's one of UK nuclear sites: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2012%2F3%2F7%2F1331128393036%2FNuclear-sites-in-the-UK-a-001.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

'We' appear to have 5 times as many as 'You'.

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Lemony:

> In fact the main takeaway from that map for me is that we're a lot better at dealing with waste than we were 50-75 years ago.

The SNP asked questions in parliament about the Beaufort’s Dyke dump last week.  They don't know where half the stuff is and they don't monitor it.   You'd think that 14,500 tonnes of phosgene gas and a couple of tonnes of radioactive waste plus massive quantities of high explosives would be worth keeping an eye on.   Unless you were scared that if you found out they were leaking you'd need to do something incredibly expensive to sort the problem and quite likely get sued.

A civilian agency that was trying to get a licence to put a nuclear repository in geologically stable rock under a mountain would get all kinds of questions and if they went on to say 'Oh yeah, we'll fill it up with nerve gas and unstable explosives as well, and then we'll not bother watching it' I very much doubt it would get approved.

The MOD needs to start facing up to its environmental responsibilities.  Even if that means not buying new weapons for a while or firing a bunch of overpriced suits in Whitehall.   We are in greater risk from some of these things than we are from Russia.

2
Ridge 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> 'We' appear to have 5 times as many as 'You'.

According to the public register of licensed nuclear sites:

http://www.onr.org.uk/regulated-sites.htm

2 in Wales

6 in Scotland

28 in England

Also worth noting that all spent fuel from Welsh and Scottish reactors will be transported to England for storage, as will submarine reactors and warheads for decommissioning.

L mondite 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> A civilian agency that was trying to get a licence to put a nuclear repository in geologically stable rock under a mountain would get all kinds of questions and if they went on to say 'Oh yeah, we'll fill it up with nerve gas and unstable explosives as well, and then we'll not bother watching it' I very much doubt it would get approved.

Now yes thankfully. 50 years ago maybe not or, more accurately, they would have been told to dump it in the sea assuming the "nuclear repository" was low grade waste and the nerve agents were on the less vicious end of the spectrum. Even then they went for dumping the really vicious nerve agents way, way out to sea.

> We are in greater risk from some of these things than we are from Russia.

Dont suppose you have some evidence for this threat? How, exactly, is it manifesting itself?

summo 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I've no idea about how long it was shut last week but according to the BBC it has been shut 'numerous times' by ice buildup.  

"In Denmark, the Oresund Bridge has had to close numerous times under similar circumstances"

It doesn't actually say when, how long for or how many times.. I've never heard of it shutting due to ice, it can be -15 and 1/2metre of snow coming down and the adjacent airport closes, but the bridge remains open. 

However let's say you are right and pretend the bridge is always closing, why did Scotland's designers not do something to mitigate it? 

1
tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020

> Dont suppose you have some evidence for this threat? How, exactly, is it manifesting itself?

The exact same way Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl manifested themselves before the day it all went wrong.

Lemony 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> A civilian agency that was trying to get a licence to put a nuclear repository in geologically stable rock under a mountain would get all kinds of questions and if they went on to say 'Oh yeah, we'll fill it up with nerve gas and unstable explosives as well, and then we'll not bother watching it' I very much doubt it would get approved.

Because...

>  ...we're a lot better at dealing with waste than we were 50-75 years ago.

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> However let's say you are right and pretend the bridge is always closing, why did Scotland's designers not do something to mitigate it? 

Because, as the Uni Prof from Denmark says it is a low probability event.  It is not something that happens every time it snows, we've had worse snow without the ice problem.

The other factor this week is the second carriageway on the old bridge is getting resurfaced.  Usually they could have opened that to cars/lorries as a workaround.   It's actually a pretty robust system.

2
La benya 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Everyone agrees with you... Dumping stuff in a big hole in the sea and running away is bad. It's your assertion that it's because London hates the Scottish which people are arguing against. Get over yourself. 

2
summo 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

So you are saying they were happy to build something inferior with known defects, will this be the first of many under an snp led independent Scotland? 

subtle 13 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> So you are saying they were happy to build something inferior with known defects, will this be the first of many under an snp led independent Scotland? 

Not SNP led but...........https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38921614

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> So you are saying they were happy to build something inferior with known defects, will this be the first of many under an snp led independent Scotland? 

Don't be a dick.   It is totally rational to spend £1.3 billion on a bridge which might need to shut in extreme weather rather than twice as much for a tunnel which wouldn't.  It is a completely standard way to build a bridge used in many places in the world.

If you get all your information about Scotland from the press you'd think all these projects were  disasters.  If you actually live in Scotland you drive across that bridge and you think this is really cool and far better than the old one used to be.  Same with driving to Glasgow and it is motorway all the way instead of a chunk of the old A8 in the middle.  Or you visit someone in the new QE hospital in Glasgow and compare it to the old Southern General and Victoria Infirmary and think it is f*cking brilliant where the press paints it as some kind of death trap.   That's why the SNP keep winning elections.

Post edited at 16:05
1
tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to La benya:

>  It's your assertion that it's because London hates the Scottish which people are arguing against. Get over yourself. 

I don't think London hates the Scottish people.   I think London isn't interested in Scotland and the people who live there behave quite rationally based on a world view which revolves around London.

I think the Tories are starting to hate the SNP, you can see it in their language in the commons e.g. referring to the SNP MPs as 'those people' and the intensity of the lying about Scotland which is going on.   They don't like having their failures in England compared to relative success in Scotland and they don't like the Scottish Government standing up to them and questioning the limits of their authority.  

1
jkarran 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> They don't know where half the stuff is and they don't monitor it.   You'd think that 14,500 tonnes of phosgene gas and a couple of tonnes of radioactive waste plus massive quantities of high explosives would be worth keeping an eye on.   Unless you were scared that if you found out they were leaking you'd need to do something incredibly expensive to sort the problem and quite likely get sued.

Phosgene decomposes to basically harmless byproducts in water, the best thing that could happen to it is staying right where it is, leave it to rot. It's not a problem money can fix, quite a bit of the stuff was dumped at serious risk to those involved because it was dangerously unstable even back then. 70 years in the sea will have calmed some of it down but mostly it'll just be buried in contaminated sludge which would be better left disturbed by digging for the bombs or the inevitable releases as they're disturbed.

> The MOD needs to start facing up to its environmental responsibilities.  Even if that means not buying new weapons for a while or firing a bunch of overpriced suits in Whitehall.   We are in greater risk from some of these things than we are from Russia.

Realistically there is nothing can be done about it other than leave it alone, deal with what little washes up as and when it does.

It's not just a Scotland/Irish Sea thing, there are untouchable WWII era disasters waiting to happen in the Thames and elsewhere too.

jk

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Derek Mackay has written a letter of complaint to ebay because the Wii Gameboy he received was not what he was expecting.

1
Ridge 13 Feb 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Now yes thankfully. 50 years ago maybe not or, more accurately, they would have been told to dump it in the sea assuming the "nuclear repository" was low grade waste and the nerve agents were on the less vicious end of the spectrum. Even then they went for dumping the really vicious nerve agents way, way out to sea.

Looking deeper (sorry) it appears the nuclear waste is 2t of lab equipment, luminous dials etc encased in concrete in steel drums.

Only recorded chemical agent is phosgene (water soluble) no mention of nerve agents (which the UK hadn't developed in WW2).

Plus a massive amount of explosives/incendiaries..

As everyone agrees, not good for the environment and you'd rightly be prosecuted if you did it today. At the time chucking it into the nearest convenient deep water trench was seen as acceptable.

> Dont suppose you have some evidence for this threat? How, exactly, is it manifesting itself?

It isn't as such. Recent surveys show no trace of chemicals agents, radiation above whats accumulated pretty everywhere else in the Irish sea or explosive residues in the area. It's a shit state of affairs, but attempting to clean it up would be unfeasible, as well as being massively more dangerous than leaving it alone.

It's just one more bit of man made pollution in the seas that been accumulating over the lsst couple of hundred years, not some genocidal plot by the evil English.

Edit: jkarran beat me to it 😁

Post edited at 16:22
summo 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If they knew there was an icing risk why wasn't it observed before vehicles were damaged. The reality is they either didn't know or ignored it. 

alastairmac 13 Feb 2020
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

The whole bridge thing is utter nonsense. A distraction technique from a stagnant economy and the fumbling anxiety of facing the practical consequences of Brexit. Putting aside the structural issues, there is no viable commercial case for such a bridge and the small matter of Irish reunification looms on the horizon. Ireland might want a say in all of this. We'll see many more of these hyperbolic promises and gestures aimed at Scotland particularly from this government, as it tries to hold together a broken union and ignore the fact they are now governing Scotland without the consent of Scottish voters.

summo 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The snp win because there is no competent opposition. 

summo 13 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> ignore the fact they are now governing Scotland without the consent of Scottish voters.

Can you link the indef2 results? 

2
RomTheBear 13 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Can you link the indef2 results? 

The Scottish Parliament did not give consent to the Withdrawal Agreement. Same for Stormont.

The long-held politician convention that the central government doesn’t legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the devolved administration has been obliterated to pieces.

wercat 13 Feb 2020
In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

perhaps he didn't want to be the Airborne Carpet?

wercat 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Ridge:

quite a lot of luminous dials and meters at Drigg too - WW2 military radio and electronic stuff plus Larkspur stuff used into the 80s that had to be seen at night and subsequently got rid of

but compared to the fate of the girls whp painted those dials and licked their brushes and were forgotten ...

I bet that there have been clock and watch makers in Scotland who have used radioactive paint in the past

Post edited at 16:59
rogerwebb 13 Feb 2020
In reply to alastairmac:

> The whole bridge thing is utter nonsense. A distraction technique from a stagnant economy and the fumbling anxiety of facing the practical consequences of Brexit. Putting aside the structural issues, there is no viable commercial case for such a bridge and the small matter of Irish reunification looms on the horizon. Ireland might want a say in all of this. We'll see many more of these hyperbolic promises and gestures aimed at Scotland particularly from this government, as it tries to hold together a broken union and ignore the fact they are now governing Scotland without the consent of Scottish voters.


If its a distraction technique which it may well be, Boris is not alone, from wikepedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_British_Isles_fixed_sea_link_connections;

The project was first endorsed in late February 2018 by Scottish Brexit Minister Michael Russell MSP, who when addressing the Republic of Ireland's Seanad joint committee on European Union affairs stated that "I think it’s a great idea, it would open up my constituency and that’s a good headline to see. There is a lot of talking to be done about that but I think it is important that talking starts. I know recent coverage indicates that it should happen".[36] In February 2018, The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Simon Coveney, publicly called for a feasibility study into the bridge during an address at Chatham House following a meeting with Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, suggesting it was a means of nurturing the relations between the United Kingdom and Ireland, despite the challenges presented.[37]

By March 2018 the idea appeared to have the full support of the Scottish government, with a spokesman telling the BBC that it intended to "initiate discussions" on the bridge with both parties in Belfast, and the government of Ireland.[38] and that Transport Scotland officials would be conducting talks with their counterparts in Northern Ireland.[39] Mike Russell MSP said he had been in touch with Professor Alan Dunlop to discuss the bridge, claiming that "A bridge, together with better road links to the central belt, would open up Argyll in a dramatic new way" and that he was "keen to see public bodies investigate the feasibility of such a link". He went on to claim that Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Transport Scotland were willing to contribute funds towards a feasibility study.[40]

By April 2018 the Mayor of Mid and East Antrim had extended an invitation, on behalf of the council, to the relevant bodies in the government to further explore Larne as the possible end site for the bridge. The Mayor cited the short distance to Belfast, as well as the county's extensive film, tourism and leisure industries as reasons for consideration.[41] On 25 April 2018 Ards and North Down Borough Council voted to write to the Scottish government, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the Department for Infrastructure requesting the east coast of the Borough also be considered as a possible end site for the bridge. The councils official opposition had objected to the request, claiming that the council should instead support the claim of neighboring county Mid and East Antrim, as they believe the infrastructure already exists in Larne, while Donaghadee would be unprepared for the impact of such a bridge.[42] The Belfast Telegraph suggested that this was reminiscent of ancient rivalries between the local ports.[43] A spokesman for the Scottish government suggested that speculation on possible impacts on specific sites was premature as the project, including the design for the crossing, was still in its early stages.[44] A spokesman for the Scottish government had previously stated that “Given the scale of any such fixed link, it is important that all options are fully considered”.[45] In July, Arlene Foster, leader of the DUP, conceded that there appeared to be a growing support for the bridge.[46]

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> If they knew there was an icing risk why wasn't it observed before vehicles were damaged. The reality is they either didn't know or ignored it. 

AFAIK they are in the process of buying ice sensors but they are not yet fitted.  'Observing' ice which might potentially fall on something 2.7km long and 207m high in bad weather isn't that easy.

There are professional engineers managing the bridge, the politicians should STFU and let them do their job.

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> The snp win because there is no competent opposition. 

And they'll win indyref2 because the Westminster government is even less competent than the Scottish Tories.

rogerwebb 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> There are professional engineers managing the bridge, the politicians should  let them do their job.

Yes.

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> It isn't as such. Recent surveys show no trace of chemicals agents, radiation above whats accumulated pretty everywhere else in the Irish sea or explosive residues in the area.

Parliamentary question:

Deidre Brock Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Devolved Government Relations), Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Environment and Rural Affairs), Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Wales)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what monitoring the Government undertakes of the munitions in Beaufort Dyke.

Tobias Ellwood The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence

The Government does not undertake any monitoring of the munitions in Beaufort Dyke.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2019-04-30.249327.h

Here's another one:

Stuart Andrew Assistant Whip, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence

The last at-sea disposal of explosives on the UK continental shelf took place in 1976. The last disposals of chemical weapons off the continental shelf took place in 1957 while disposals of munitions off the continental shelf ended in 1992. Information relating to events prior to 1989 has been destroyed or transferred to the National Archives in accordance with the Public Records Act. No information relating to later events is known to be held in Ministry of Defence archives. No central record exists of such information and to search for any previously unidentified information would incur a disproportionate cost.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2019-06-13.264427.h&s=beaufort+speaker%3A25336#g264427.q0

Post edited at 17:17
L mondite 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> Only recorded chemical agent is phosgene (water soluble) no mention of nerve agents (which the UK hadn't developed in WW2).

There were some nerve agents (mostly seized from Germany but apparently some experimental stuff as well). However that all got dumped far further out (as in 1000 miles or so) when they sailed ships out and just scuttled them.

Apparently even the lax approach to dumping stuff had some limits.

Ridge 13 Feb 2020
Le Sapeur 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The reality is that if there isn't a referendum and the SNP win the 2021 Holyrood Election convincingly there's going to be a confrontation.

And confrontation worked so well in Northern Ireland. Didn't do too well in Catalonia either. 

Apart from yourself and a few other extremists NOBODY wants a confrontation. 

So its' not really a reality.

2
L mondite 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> So its' not really a reality.

I dunno. They do have that munitions dump in the estuary. Should be thanking the MOD for the forethought in placing it there for them.

Eric9Points 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Because ice accretion in very specific sets and relatively rare set of circumstances is way down the list of priorities when you are choosing a bridge design.    It isn't something that happens every time it snows e.g.  there was no problem in the 'Beast from the East' storm,  

I once designed a range of microwave antennas to run up the East coast of Greenland. They were mounted on steel structures on top on mountains. 

I also designed large structures designed for British weather and once designed an antenna to shed snow from the radome.

I know about ice accretion.

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> Apart from yourself and a few other extremists NOBODY wants a confrontation. 

I don't want a confrontation.  I want Boris to sign the s30 order for indyref2 and stop creating a situation where confrontation is inevitable.  Removing all legal paths to independence for a country which wants it is stupid.

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Feb 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I know about ice accretion.

I imagine that guys who design bridges for a living do as well.   

wintertree 13 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I imagine that guys who design bridges for a living do as well.   

If everyone involved is so well informed on ice accretion, why on earth did the Scottish Government - in the guise of whatever agency it is - not close the bridge to traffic *before* giant lumps of ice started smashing cars up and risking life and limb?  

Naechi 14 Feb 2020
tom_in_edinburgh 14 Feb 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> If everyone involved is so well informed on ice accretion, why on earth did the Scottish Government - in the guise of whatever agency it is - not close the bridge to traffic *before* giant lumps of ice started smashing cars up and risking life and limb?  

The picture I saw on the BBC website was of a cracked windscreen.   They are buying sensors to check for ice but they're not installed yet.  I imagine visually inspecting every part of a 2.7km long 300 m high bridge where ice could potentially form and fall onto the roadway is not easy in bad weather.

Since the new bridge was built there have been 34 occasions where it stayed open but the old bridge would have been closed to this one instance where the old bridge was open when the new one was closed. 

Down in England an HGV flipped over on a bridge in Bristol but you don't get days of 'why didn't the stupid Tories fit wind shields like the SNP put on that bridge in Scotland'.

2
FactorXXX 14 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Down in England an HGV flipped over on a bridge in Bristol but you don't get days of 'why didn't the stupid Tories fit wind shields like the SNP put on that bridge in Scotland'.

That was the old bridge, the new one rarely closes due to it's aerodynamic design.  Much the same scenerio as with the bridges across the Forth. 

1
summo 14 Feb 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> That was the old bridge, the new one rarely closes due to it's aerodynamic design.  Much the same scenerio as with the bridges across the Forth. 

Yeah. In her working days my mother worked for Maunsells(One of the builders of it), she did mainly do work related to stuff in the north east, tees viaduct etc. So yes, the crash barriers at the side are specifically designed to protect traffic from wind, whilst not significantly increasing the load on the bridge. Cabling, nothing to do with icing, they are kind of hollow, sealed on the outside and have air constantly pushed through them which is dehumidified by special plants built into the bridge towers. 

Edit. But back to original point. They likely copied the wind shields. 

Post edited at 08:09
L mondite 14 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Edit. But back to original point. They likely copied the wind shields. 

Getting back to the original post.

How tricky will be protecting the proposed bridge from ice/wind etc. Especially if it is high enough not to interfere with shipping.

summo 14 Feb 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Getting back to the original post.

> How tricky will be protecting the proposed bridge from ice/wind etc. Especially if it is high enough not to interfere with shipping.

It's nothing new, most winter mountaineers understand rime, you can't realistically stop it entirely. But you can consider how you'll monitor it, design so sections that are most liable aren't over traffic? It's probably a science in itself, related to surface shape, aspect, humidity levels, wind speed, materials used and so on. 

It's more the fact TiE is parading the notion that if everything in Scotland was snp led, designed and built by Scots (and his essential immigrants workers) then everything north of the border will better than anywhere else. 

1
tom_in_edinburgh 14 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> It's more the fact TiE is parading the notion that if everything in Scotland was snp led, designed and built by Scots (and his essential immigrants workers) then everything north of the border will better than anywhere else. 

No, I'm saying that the level of 'SNP bad' stories in the media just now is as much unionist political advertising as their recent £5 million of paid adverts  (which they will no doubt bill as 'for the benefit of Scotland').   

Nothing is perfect but relative to comparable projects the bridge, the Edinburgh trams, the QE hospital in Glasgow and so on are all perfectly competent and reasonable and they are being portrayed as complete disasters for political ends.   

The propaganda works in England because the audience for these stories doesn't see the reality on the ground, it doesn't work in Scotland because people actually use these things.

L mondite 14 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> It's nothing new, most winter mountaineers understand rime, you can't realistically stop it entirely. But you can consider how you'll monitor it, design so sections that are most liable aren't over traffic? It's probably a science in itself, related to surface shape, aspect, humidity levels, wind speed, materials used and so on. 

Yup but as lightweight types like me know there comes weather conditions where I glance out the window and decide to sit by the fire with a beer instead. So the question with the this NI bridge is how many times a year will the weather conditions be such that it will be beyond the design parameters and how much it will cost to try and minimise those cases.

Lets face it trying to argue rationally with TiE is a waste of time. Anything done less than 200% beyond perfection by central government is a evil plot by the English against Scotland (and even then I am sure he will find some plot to blame). Whereas anything done under the SNP banner will be marked as perfectly competent and reasonable and any negatives clearly the evil English making things up.

1
summo 14 Feb 2020
In reply to mondite:

It won't be built.. it just political posturing.

Can't be hard to look at say volume of traffic and freight using ferries, cost of bridge, maintenance, extra roads etc and decide if it's viable. Plus the cost of crossing in itself. For example whilst you can buy frequent user passes, a one off single car journey is around £45 over the Oresund bridge. 

tom_in_edinburgh 14 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> Can't be hard to look at say volume of traffic and freight using ferries, cost of bridge, maintenance, extra roads etc and decide if it's viable.

If you make a decision on viability based around what is happening currently you are basically assuming that the project won't significantly improve anything.  Obviously you don't need a huge bridge to deal with the level of traffic currently coped with by a ferry.

The difficult question is how the economy of Scotland and Ireland would develop if there was a fast and convenient connection between them.

tom_in_edinburgh 14 Feb 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Lets face it trying to argue rationally with TiE is a waste of time. Anything done less than 200% beyond perfection by central government is a evil plot by the English against Scotland (and even then I am sure he will find some plot to blame). 

Dumping thousands of tonnes of nerve gas, bombs and nuclear waste and then not monitoring it isn't even close to '200% beyond perfection'.

summo 14 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The difficult question is how the economy of Scotland and Ireland would develop if there was a fast and convenient connection between them.

NI is only so big, there isn't an endless land Scotland can trade with. 

Oresund links sweden and Norway by road and rail to mainland Europe where there was previously only ferries. It also ties together to large population immediately either side of the bridge and a large Nordic hub airport. 

tom_in_edinburgh 14 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> NI is only so big, there isn't an endless land Scotland can trade with. 

The sensible case for the bridge is to join independent Scotland with reunited Ireland within the EU single market and includes ferries on the east coast of Scotland linking to Rotterdam and the mainland EU.    With England out the EU and subject to border controls there could be a compelling economic argument for the bridge.   The road upgrades to support getting to the bridge from the major cities would also benefit the economies of the regions near it.

1
Ian W 14 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And from the other side; Normandy has been investing significantly in its ports to be able to serve the Rep of Ireland directly post brexit. So there's a choice of ways of getting stuff to / from Scotland / Ireland.

Ridge 14 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The sensible case for the bridge is to join independent Scotland with reunited Ireland within the EU single market and includes ferries on the east coast of Scotland linking to Rotterdam and the mainland EU.    

Not sure there's a remotely sensible case for the bridge given the technical issues.

Expansion of east and west coast ports with better road connectivity would probably be a better option. (Assuming there's no deal made where sealed containers can be run more cheaply across England en route between France and Ireland).

tom_in_edinburgh 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> Not sure there's a remotely sensible case for the bridge given the technical issues.

The technical issues are for the southern route which Boris is on about.  I've been arguing for the northern route.

tom_in_edinburgh 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Ian W:

Seems like Boris hasn't been remotely ambitious enough.  How about a 127 mile dam between Scotland and Norway?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/12/giant-dams-could-protect-millions-from-rising-north-sea

Le Sapeur 14 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The sensible case for the bridge is to join independent Scotland with reunited Ireland

Can you explain why you want Scotland to be independent yet Ireland to unite? You see benefits in NI splitting from a trading partner of 65,000,000 people to join one of less than 6,000,000? You also see benefits in Scotland leaving the partnership with 65,000,000 to join a reunited Ireland with 9,000,000? That defies logic.

1
summo 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Ridge:

There should be no planning for hauling goods by road. Rail and all electric. No charging issues with electric trucks in 2040.. 2050 etc... only the last whatever miles from rail terminals by road. 

You should be able to stick an artic container on a carriage in Inverness, Liverpool etc and take it off in Athens or where ever. The problem is just a lack of short sightedness, to many differing guages (solvable) and to many unions protecting the thousands upon thousands of particle emitting trucks/drivers trudging backwards and forwards right across Europe every day. 

Apart from the particles, the carbon, the roads would be safer with less overly tired drivers on them, chasing impossible deadlines from bosses who never leave their office. 

Ian W 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> Can you explain why you want Scotland to be independent yet Ireland to unite? You see benefits in NI splitting from a trading partner of 65,000,000 people to join one of less than 6,000,000? You also see benefits in Scotland leaving the partnership with 65,000,000 to join a reunited Ireland with 9,000,000? That defies logic.

But NI would be leaving a trading block of 65,000,000 to (re)join one of 450,000,000 if it reunited with the republic.

Ian W 14 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Seems like Boris hasn't been remotely ambitious enough.  How about a 127 mile dam between Scotland and Norway?

OMG!! 

Although i thought the idea was to separate us from those dodgy foreigners, and that cant be helped if you are not going to allow the north sea to get deeper....

Archy Styrigg 14 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

> You should be able to stick an artic container on a carriage in Inverness, Liverpool etc and take it off in Athens or where ever.

Roll on HS4, 5, 6 etc.
I'd be planning them now.

summo 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

> Roll on HS4, 5, 6 etc.

> I'd be planning them now.

Or just plan for the future now and do it right. Rather than one expensive sticky plaster after another. 

Archy Styrigg 14 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

OK, I'll re-phrase it - High Speed Rail UK, Phases 4, 5, 6 ...

Timmd 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> Can you explain why you want Scotland to be independent yet Ireland to unite? You see benefits in NI splitting from a trading partner of 65,000,000 people to join one of less than 6,000,000? You also see benefits in Scotland leaving the partnership with 65,000,000 to join a reunited Ireland with 9,000,000? That defies logic.

I think he means with a united Ireland and EU member Scotland trading between one another and with the EU - with the EU being much larger than 65.000.000 people, leaving England to do it's own thing while no longer being part of the EU essentially.

With him being a Scot who voted Remain in a country which overall voted Remain as well, it's hard not to have some sympathies for where he's coming from, wanting to remain a part of the EU...

Post edited at 18:23
Le Sapeur 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Ian W:

> But NI would be leaving a trading block of 65,000,000 to (re)join one of 450,000,000 if it reunited with the republic.

I thought someone would reply with this. On the cost of living index Ireland is 10 points (9% i think) higher than the UK. NI would become part of a higher cost of living country and by leaving the UK would drop a full 12 points (10 ish%) of purchasing power. 

The EU has a population of 450,000,000 versus the world's  7,000,000,000.

1
toad 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Archy Styrigg:

No freight on hs2

rogerwebb 14 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The sensible case for the bridge is to join independent Scotland with reunited Ireland within the EU single market and includes ferries on the east coast of Scotland linking to Rotterdam and the mainland EU.    With England out the EU and subject to border controls there could be a compelling economic argument for the bridge.   The road upgrades to support getting to the bridge from the major cities would also benefit the economies of the regions near it.

Why does it matter what nationality the beneficiaries of this bridge are or will be? People are people. If the bridge is a good thing if Scotland is independent and Ireland unified what benefits would people lose if that wasn't the case?

I don't understand your objection to the Southern route if practicable. The people living in South West Scotland could do with the trade. 

Post edited at 18:46
Ridge 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> The EU has a population of 450,000,000 versus the world's  7,000,000,000.

Erm, trading with the EU doesn't stop you trading with the rest of the world, in fact it makes striking trade deals easier.

Ian W 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> I thought someone would reply with this. On the cost of living index Ireland is 10 points (9% i think) higher than the UK. NI would become part of a higher cost of living country and by leaving the UK would drop a full 12 points (10 ish%) of purchasing power. 

> The EU has a population of 450,000,000 versus the world's  7,000,000,000.


Not all of whom cooperate on trade with each other. The EU is the largest trade bloc in the world by value and purchasing power, and has the added advantage of being rather close and easily accessible compared to many other parts of the world, trade with whom is facilitated by membership of this bloc, not hindered. UK GDP output is predicted to fall by between 5 and 8% overall, with outlying areas hardest hit, including / especially NI, and given the expected spike in inflation due to currency movement / increases in import and transport costs, the difference in the cost of living index wil fall.

I'll leave the last word however to Pinky. Remember when he announced his wonderful withdrawal agreement, and was happy to proclaim that the customs border in the Irish Sea meant that NI was getting a better deal than the rest of the UK because it would be more closely aligned with the EU?

Le Sapeur 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Ridge:

Erm, no. The 7 billion (possibly more than that, it was just a guess) (although it may be 8 billion by the time this thread is finished) includes the EU.

Le Sapeur 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Ian W:

I agree. I voted remain. I was comparing NI and Scotland leaving the UK.

Ian W 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> I agree. I voted remain. I was comparing NI and Scotland leaving the UK.


Not sure what you are getting at then.....one of the main drivers for leaving the UK is to rejoin the EU, not ot go it alone in full Brexit style.....

1
JimR 14 Feb 2020

I wonder how many of thos pontificating about the bridge have actually travelled to Belfast on the ferry? If they had, they would realise that it’s not the stretch of water that’s the biggest issue on the journey... it’s the friggin roads to get to carn Ryan. Eldest daughter was working in NI for several years so I’ve travelled there many times and the ferry was a nice bit of rest and recuperation.the fast cat from Troon is even better when it’s running.. doesn’t like bad weather 

Ridge 14 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> Erm, no. The 7 billion (possibly more than that, it was just a guess) (although it may be 8 billion by the time this thread is finished) includes the EU.

That not how I read:

> The EU has a population of 450,000,000 versus the world's  7,000,000,000.

Which doesn't detract from my point that you're much better off in the trade bloc of 450,000,000 than on your own.

tom_in_edinburgh 14 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> Why does it matter what nationality the beneficiaries of this bridge are or will be? People are people. If the bridge is a good thing if Scotland is independent and Ireland unified what benefits would people lose if that wasn't the case?

There would be more trade across the bridge if Ireland was united and Scotland was in the EU because it would all be inside the single market with no artificial barriers.  Even more if Scotland joined the Euro.

The bridge in the current situation would presumably need to have a border check at one end because NI is 'sort of' in the EU and Scotland - thanks to the Brexiteers - is not.

> I don't understand your objection to the Southern route if practicable. The people living in South West Scotland could do with the trade. 

Primarily the technical problems but also I think the 'stepping stone' bridges/tunnels to get across to the final one that goes over to Ireland are useful in their own right and the northerly route does a better job of linking the main cities in Scotland with Ireland.

tom_in_edinburgh 15 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> I thought someone would reply with this. On the cost of living index Ireland is 10 points (9% i think) higher than the UK. NI would become part of a higher cost of living country and by leaving the UK would drop a full 12 points (10 ish%) of purchasing power. 

Or to put it another way the GDP per capita of Ireland at $72K is now about twice that of Northern Ireland $29K.   Before Ireland became independent NI was the most prosperous part of the country.

In other words being governed from London has been an unmitigated disaster in economic terms for Northern Ireland - just as it has for Scotland.   

> The EU has a population of 450,000,000 versus the world's  7,000,000,000.

Sure, but those 450,000,000 are far richer than most of the 7 billion and far closer and our economy has been adapting to trade with them for the last 50 years.

2
HansStuttgart 15 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Or to put it another way the GDP per capita of Ireland at $72K is now about twice that of Northern Ireland $29K.   Before Ireland became independent NI was the most prosperous part of the country.

> In other words being governed from London has been an unmitigated disaster in economic terms for Northern Ireland - just as it has for Scotland.   

A couple of decades of civil war is not solely because they were being governed by London....

> Sure, but those 450,000,000 are far richer than most of the 7 billion and far closer and our economy has been adapting to trade with them for the last 50 years.

Amazing sentence! This works just the same in the comparison UK vs EU. Trade with the rest of the UK is much more important than trade with the EU (60% vs 18% for exports https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/Exports/ESSPublication) because the Scottisch economy has been adapting to trade with them for the last couple of centuries.

rogerwebb 15 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> There would be more trade across the bridge if Ireland was united and Scotland was in the EU because it would all be inside the single market with no artificial barriers.  Even more if Scotland joined the Euro.

Even if those assumptions are correct is that a reason not to build? If this bridge would be good for trade it will be good for trade whatever the political arrangements at either end. 

> The bridge in the current situation would presumably need to have a border check at one end because NI is 'sort of' in the EU and Scotland - thanks to the Brexiteers - is not.

Again those checks, and we have yet to see what they will be, will exist whether the bridge is there or not. 

> Primarily the technical problems but also I think the 'stepping stone' bridges/tunnels to get across to the final one that goes over to Ireland are useful in their own right and the northerly route does a better job of linking the main cities in Scotland with Ireland.

Whether those technical difficulties are insurmountable is a question for bridge engineers. If they are well that is that but perhaps they are not. I am certainly not qualified to make that judgement. Neither are many on this forum. 

The stepping stone bridge argument is interesting, where are they to be? 

I am unconvinced by your argument that the northern route better links Scotland's main cities. The population west and south west of Glasgow might well benefit considerably from the southern route. From the point of view of the Irish, north and south the southern route would improve communications with northern England as well as Scotland. This would I would imagine be good for the people of the British Isles whatever their nationality. 

BnB 15 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Or to put it another way the GDP per capita of Ireland at $72K is now about twice that of Northern Ireland $29K.   Before Ireland became independent NI was the most prosperous part of the country.

> In other words being governed from London has been an unmitigated disaster in economic terms for Northern Ireland - just as it has for Scotland.   

> Sure, but those 450,000,000 are far richer than most of the 7 billion and far closer and our economy has been adapting to trade with them for the last 50 years.

The key to Ireland’s economic success is an Anglophone low corporation tax regime which facilitates international tax avoidance on an industrial scale. That doesn’t sound like SNP “Scandinavian” economics. In fact it sounds a lot more like a potential destination for Brexit Britain.

Post edited at 09:40
HansStuttgart 15 Feb 2020
In reply to BnB:

> The key to Ireland’s economic success is an Anglophone low corporation tax regime which facilitates international tax avoidance on an industrial scale. That doesn’t sound like SNP “Scandinavian” economics. In fact it sounds a lot more like a potential destination for Brexit Britain.


Why destination? The UK is already top of the list: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/wealth-management/121515/top-10-european-tax-havens.asp. And that is without counting Britisch overseas territories such as the Virgin Islands.

BnB 15 Feb 2020
In reply to HansStuttgart:

That’s for personal, not corporate taxation, which is the source of Ireland’s success.

tom_in_edinburgh 15 Feb 2020
In reply to BnB:

> The key to Ireland’s economic success is an Anglophone low corporation tax regime which facilitates international tax avoidance on an industrial scale. That doesn’t sound like SNP “Scandinavian” economics. In fact it sounds a lot more like a potential destination for Brexit Britain.

What Scotland does after independence isn't up to the SNP.  The SNP is about getting independence, once we have it, it is bound to fracture and the political debate will be about economics again.

One of the biggest opportunities of independence is we will have a proper set of accounts which we take responsibility for and have the ability to not just dick about with +/- 1% on established taxes but redefine the tax system.   There's huge opportunity to get more economic value from the land by taxing the large sporting estates out of existence and encouraging people to move to the Highlands with better transport and communications infrastructure and the ability to buy larger houses with a bit of land round them.

I hope that a modern pro-business, pro-technology party emerges in independent Scotland without the baggage of unionism and landowner self interest that plague the Tories and we get creative, just like Ireland has done, about competing for business with larger economies.   Small countries, like small companies need to be aggressive and watch their top line and they can get away with a lot more than large countries because of their relatively small size.  

Scotland can be pro-business and provide good social services as well.   We need to look at Ireland, Netherlands, Germany etc as models and add in some of our own creativity.  

2
tom_in_edinburgh 15 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> The stepping stone bridge argument is interesting, where are they to be? 

I don't know.  There are so many options you'd need to spend serious time working through them to figure out what the best one is.

The principle though is simple.   There are many places in Scotland where roads are going all the way round the top of sea lochs or through a pass to get round a mountain where in countries like Norway they'd stick in a tunnel and greatly reduce the distance and hence accessibility.   It's actually shocking how few tunnels Scotland has compared to other mountainous countries e.g. this comparison with Norway. 

https://twitter.com/scot_tunnels/status/1222957469812633602/photo/1

I would like to explore gradually putting in tunnels e.g. from Glasgow to Dunoon to start bringing more places within commuting distance of Glasgow and doing it in a way which extends towards Ireland with a view to eventually going the whole way and joining it up.

tom_in_edinburgh 15 Feb 2020
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> A couple of decades of civil war is not solely because they were being governed by London....

Almost all the bad decisions which led up to the troubles were made in London.   Northern Ireland is like so many other national borders put in stupid places by the British Empire which have resulted in ethnic conflict. 

> Amazing sentence! This works just the same in the comparison UK vs EU. Trade with the rest of the UK is much more important than trade with the EU (60% vs 18% for exports

The EU takes about 1% of GDP and gives us fantastic benefits of a vast single market, freedom of moevement and the best set of trade agreements in the world for very little loss of sovereignty. 

Westminster takes all our of tax revenue, gives us half of it back as a 'grant' and completely controls the main economic levers in ways which are unfavourable to Scotland.  Countries can leave the EU when they choose and have a veto in many areas.  England is now telling us we can't leave the UK and can force its will through the FPTP Westminster parliament whenever it wants.   The UK is a sh*tty deal for Scotland compared with the EU.

Post edited at 11:47
5
rogerwebb 15 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I don't know.  There are so many options you'd need to spend serious time working through them to figure out what the best one is.

> The principle though is simple.   There are many places in Scotland where roads are going all the way round the top of sea lochs or through a pass to get round a mountain where in countries like Norway they'd stick in a tunnel and greatly reduce the distance and hence accessibility.   It's actually shocking how few tunnels Scotland has compared to other mountainous countries e.g. this comparison with Norway. 

I know, I frequently consider this as I head to Skye for work. The Swiss comparison is striking too. I don't think there is, or has historically been the political will in Edinburgh or London for investment in the Highlands. Part of the problem common to both capitals is the idea within them that the problems of the rest of the country are best helped by improving communications to the capital. Improving the A96 for instance would arguably help the Highland economy more than the A9. The dualling of the A9 also seems to stop at Inverness whereas improving Inverness to Wick and Thurso and Inverness to Fort William would I think have a greater impact for the Highlands than the current A9 work. Or at least starting on Wick to Inverness rather than Perth to Inverness. 

> I would like to explore gradually putting in tunnels e.g. from Glasgow to Dunoon to start bringing more places within commuting distance of Glasgow and doing it in a way which extends towards Ireland with a view to eventually going the whole way and joining it up.

That kind of work doesn't preclude the Portpatrick route. 

Infrastructure investment across the UK would I think be a good idea. Although we get used to changes so quickly we probably underestimate the improvements that have been made. 

tom_in_edinburgh 15 Feb 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

> That kind of work doesn't preclude the Portpatrick route. 

No, it doesn't preclude it, but if you've got a set of tunnels which greatly reduce the driving distance from Glasgow to Dunoon and Tarbert then it moves the balance of cost/benefit in favour of the northern route with the smaller gap to Ireland and no problems with the Beaufort Dike and munitions.

> Infrastructure investment across the UK would I think be a good idea. Although we get used to changes so quickly we probably underestimate the improvements that have been made. 

I think there's been plenty of infrastructure put into London and not enough anywhere else.  The Highlands in particular.  Getting the decision making out of London is key to this and the fact that Boris can suddenly start waving £20 billion about on a whim because he's PM and has a bee in his bonnet about a bridge when there's no way the Scottish Government would get that kind of money for carefully considered proposals developed in Scotland is insane.

L mondite 15 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Almost all the bad decisions which led up to the troubles were made in London.   Northern Ireland is like so many other national borders put in stupid places by the British Empire which have resulted in ethnic conflict.

Its interesting looking at the difference between the Ulster plantation and the others.  Why despite the many settlements over the years did NI remain part of the UK whilst the others vanished.

It was James 1st and 6th who set up the Ulster plantation on a far larger scale than anything previous and also utilised mostly Scottish settlers. With several other mass immigrations over time from Scotland. The advantage of the Scottish settlers was, unlike the English, they tended not to go native although obviously this stopped being an advantage around 1900 where they interfered on several occasions with attempts to grant Home rule to Ireland resulting in the war of independence.

The border is a result of those demographics. The British, and Irish, government simply acknowledged this fact.

1
summo 15 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Have you considered that maybe the population of Dunoon don't want a tunnel that brings half of Glasgow into it on a sunny weekend, turning it into the new Largs? 

Le Sapeur 15 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  There are many places in Scotland where roads are going all the way round the top of sea lochs or through a pass to get round a mountain where in countries like Norway they'd stick in a tunnel and greatly reduce the distance and hence accessibility. 

I though Norway charged tolls on their new roads and tunnels? With your Norway suggestion that would surely penalise anyone who lives along that route. Locals would then be paying a toll to commute and it would deter visitors.

drunken monkey 15 Feb 2020
In reply to summo:

A bridge linking Scotland and NI would be terrific for mutants of the orange marching variety coming across to share their "Kulchur"

Cant wait. Said no-one ever.

Post edited at 16:23
tom_in_edinburgh 15 Feb 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> I though Norway charged tolls on their new roads and tunnels? With your Norway suggestion that would surely penalise anyone who lives along that route. Locals would then be paying a toll to commute and it would deter visitors.

Putting in a new tunnel is not penalising anyone unless for some reason we decide to tear up the old roads.  If someone wants to drive an extra X miles to go all the way round a loch or mountain instead of paying a toll to go straight through on a tunnel it's up to them.

Also, we don't need to go from just one tunnel in the whole of Scotland to gazillions of toll tunnels like in Norway.  There's plenty of compromise in between points which may or may not involve tolls.

Le Sapeur 15 Feb 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Fair points. I'm coming round to the tunnel idea.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.