Originally Posted by
HAS59
Video Mixdown,
I guess the Scottish Independence Party (for that is what they are) think that because income tax raised in Scotland was used (in part) to buy these defence assets, that have some ownership of them.
As many have pointed out, there is a manning issue. There are, I suspect too few people trained in the broad range of skills required who would wish to locate in Alba.
This could be rectified in time, but it would entail a 'Free Scotland' to either set up training schools or pay for the tuition at English, or other units.
Their 'wish list' of assets to which they feel 'entitled to' are beyond what they have costed in terms of setting up and running.
Like most of their manifesto ... it is deeply flawed.
As always, there are many more questions than answers before we can have a clear picture. Many of these questions are contained in this parliamentary paper. One thing is for sure, however, if a newly independent England wishes to maintain an independent submarine based nuclear deterrent, there will be a massive cost of replacing or renewing the Clyde facilities (Faslane & Coulport) in say Portsmouth or Devonport. As with all splits, there will be NEGOTIATIONS on an equitable split of joint assets, but at the moment I'd say Scotland has something of an advantage. As I posited in a previous post above, where would independent England locate its QRA? QRA from Leeming to the northern North Sea wouldn't be very 'Q'.
https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../152/15208.htm