Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 16:50, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 16:13:19 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 11:53, Recliner wrote:
On 6 May 2026 15:14:55 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 May 2026 13:51:59 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>That is what my * was going to say, but the missis interrupted with a cup
CanAt be too long before Trump decides to show that the UKAs so called >>>>>>>> independent Nuclear deterrent is just a sham by refusing to service theNow down to 50, after various test firings.
missiles which have to be returned to the US for that to be done. The UK
owns and services its own warheads but the 58 *missiles it purchased >>>>>>>
of tea.
Not all of those firings have been successful .
are part of a pool with the US so they are swapped on a service exchange
basis and if the US decides it wonAt do that then the UK has problem, >>>>>>>> unlike the dastardly French who sensibly have a truly independent system.
So whether our subs are based in Scotland or Devon it might not matter ,
Perhaps the politicians have started on a back up plan to see if French
missiles can be made to fit, its closer for our subs to go to Brest than
Kings Bay Georgia anyway.
The French M51 missiles have a larger diameter than the Trident II, and >>>>>>> also a significantly shorter range.
Such an option has been ruled out:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-rules-out-shift-to-french-nuclear-weapons/
Note that the new Dreadnought class subs have been designed around >>>>>>> the Trident missile.
So we are up shit creek without a paddle then.
I think we'd look again at an air-launched nuclear deterrent if the
missile subs become unusable or too expensive.
Launched from what?
Planes
What planes, we have nothing suitable?
We are talking years in the future, but wouldnAt Typhoons be able to carry >such missiles if theyAve not all been retired by then?
On 07/05/2026 12:09, ColinR wrote:
On 07/05/2026 07:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
SNP's stance was no nukes, period.
Their manifesto for the 2026 Scottish election includes:
QUOTE
We maintain our firm and unequivocal opposition to nuclear weapons -
both in principle and to their location in Scotland. This includes
opposition to the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system
and to the UK GovernmentrCOs commitment to increase the number of
nuclear warheads to the tune of -u15 billion.
UNQUOTE
and for non-military:
QUOTE
If re-elected, we will not give the green light to any new nuclear
power stations in Scotland.
UNQUOTE
I thought they only glowed green in cartoons.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 16:50, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 16:13:19 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 11:53, Recliner wrote:
On 6 May 2026 15:14:55 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 May 2026 13:51:59 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>That is what my * was going to say, but the missis interrupted with a cup
CanrCOt be too long before Trump decides to show that the UKrCOs so calledNow down to 50, after various test firings.
independent Nuclear deterrent is just a sham by refusing to service the
missiles which have to be returned to the US for that to be done. The UK
owns and services its own warheads but the 58 *missiles it purchased >>>>>>>
of tea.
Not all of those firings have been successful .
are part of a pool with the US so they are swapped on a service exchange
basis and if the US decides it wonrCOt do that then the UK has problem,
unlike the dastardly French who sensibly have a truly independent system.
So whether our subs are based in Scotland or Devon it might not matter ,
Perhaps the politicians have started on a back up plan to see if French
missiles can be made to fit, its closer for our subs to go to Brest than
Kings Bay Georgia anyway.
The French M51 missiles have a larger diameter than the Trident II, and >>>>>>> also a significantly shorter range.
Such an option has been ruled out:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-rules-out-shift-to-french-nuclear-weapons/
Note that the new Dreadnought class subs have been designed around >>>>>>> the Trident missile.
So we are up shit creek without a paddle then.
I think we'd look again at an air-launched nuclear deterrent if the
missile subs become unusable or too expensive.
Launched from what?
Planes
What planes, we have nothing suitable?
We are talking years in the future, but wouldnrCOt Typhoons be able to carry such missiles if theyrCOve not all been retired by then?
On Thu, 07 May 2026 17:06:20 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:B29s weren't built with nuclear weapons in mind, they had to be
On 07/05/2026 16:50, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 16:13:19 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 11:53, Recliner wrote:
On 6 May 2026 15:14:55 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 May 2026 13:51:59 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:That is what my * was going to say, but the missis interrupted with a cup
CanrCOt be too long before Trump decides to show that the UKrCOs so calledNow down to 50, after various test firings.
independent Nuclear deterrent is just a sham by refusing to service the
missiles which have to be returned to the US for that to be done. The UK
owns and services its own warheads but the 58 *missiles it purchased >>>>>>>>
of tea.
Not all of those firings have been successful .
are part of a pool with the US so they are swapped on a service exchange
basis and if the US decides it wonrCOt do that then the UK has problem,
unlike the dastardly French who sensibly have a truly independent system.
So whether our subs are based in Scotland or Devon it might not matter ,
Perhaps the politicians have started on a back up plan to see if French
missiles can be made to fit, its closer for our subs to go to Brest than
Kings Bay Georgia anyway.
The French M51 missiles have a larger diameter than the Trident II, and
also a significantly shorter range.
Such an option has been ruled out:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-rules-out-shift-to-french-nuclear-weapons/
Note that the new Dreadnought class subs have been designed around >>>>>>>> the Trident missile.
So we are up shit creek without a paddle then.
I think we'd look again at an air-launched nuclear deterrent if the >>>>>> missile subs become unusable or too expensive.
Launched from what?
Planes
What planes, we have nothing suitable?
modified just as e.g. Lancasters had to be modified for Operation
Chastise.
We are talking years in the future, but wouldnrCOt Typhoons be able to carry >> such missiles if theyrCOve not all been retired by then?More likely another smaller fast aircraft which can carry a missile internally thus assisting/enabling speed and a small radar profile.
Typhoon weaponry is carried externally.
On 07/05/2026 18:27, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:39:51 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2026 19:00:30 +0100You seem to be confusing NATO with Trump.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 6 May 2026 08:18:08 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Who says NATO wants a gap in the fence ?Have you not heard of NATO or seen the occasional Deutsche Marine
Who says Scotland would automatically remain part of NATO?
You can't fill a gap with hot air and bluster.
You are deluded if you think the rest of Europe would allow a footholdAnd what? Do they have missiles and cannons or would they just fling some >>>>> haddock at the russian navy? Ask Ukraine how well being unthreatening works toAsk Putin which Christmas his war will be over by.
keep Putin off your back.
Ukraine is the largest country in europe after russia and the Russians have >>> already grabbed the equivalent land area of the whole of scotland. If you >>> think if Putin felt like it he couldn't flatten the central belt of an
independent Scotland in a few days then you're deluded.
to be established.
Nor will Trump stand idly by while Putin ruins his golf courses.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2Every little helps.Ireland essentially has no armed forces and has always relied on the UK tohttps://www.military.ie/en/
protect their cowardly backsides not that they'd ever admit it.
Looks like that background videos shows their entire armed forces. Not sure >>> how that disproves my point.
Like many smaller states, Ireland contributes to international
cooperation which some wish to ignore. They also provide some back up
to UK resources in the seas around the British Isles just as they did
during WW2 with e.g. the Donegal Corridor and currently with air-sea
rescue.
The odd boat and APC here and there? BFD.
On 07/05/2026 18:46, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2026 17:06:20 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:B29s weren't built with nuclear weapons in mind, they had to be
On 07/05/2026 16:50, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 16:13:19 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 11:53, Recliner wrote:
On 6 May 2026 15:14:55 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 May 2026 13:51:59 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:That is what my * was going to say, but the missis interrupted with a cup
CanAt be too long before Trump decides to show that the UKAs so called
independent Nuclear deterrent is just a sham by refusing to service the
missiles which have to be returned to the US for that to be done. The UK
owns and services its own warheads but the 58 *missiles it purchased
Now down to 50, after various test firings.
of tea.
Not all of those firings have been successful .
are part of a pool with the US so they are swapped on a service exchange
basis and if the US decides it wonAt do that then the UK has problem,
unlike the dastardly French who sensibly have a truly independent system.
So whether our subs are based in Scotland or Devon it might not matter ,
Perhaps the politicians have started on a back up plan to see if French
missiles can be made to fit, its closer for our subs to go to Brest than
Kings Bay Georgia anyway.
The French M51 missiles have a larger diameter than the Trident II, and
also a significantly shorter range.
Such an option has been ruled out:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-rules-out-shift-to-french-nuclear-weapons/
Note that the new Dreadnought class subs have been designed around >>>>>>>>> the Trident missile.
So we are up shit creek without a paddle then.
I think we'd look again at an air-launched nuclear deterrent if the >>>>>>> missile subs become unusable or too expensive.
Launched from what?
Planes
What planes, we have nothing suitable?
modified just as e.g. Lancasters had to be modified for Operation
Chastise.
We are talking years in the future, but wouldnAt Typhoons be able to carry >>> such missiles if theyAve not all been retired by then?More likely another smaller fast aircraft which can carry a missile
internally thus assisting/enabling speed and a small radar profile.
Typhoon weaponry is carried externally.
All the Buccaneers were retired a long time back.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Would we want our own deterent though? The start up costs would be >astronomical
and you can guarantee the pink hair and nose ring brigade would be >protesting
outside of any company that helped create it.
Depends if you think we need something to call Russias Bluff with ,
the UK has been among the better contributors to Nato but Trump does have a
point that NATO countries have largely been covered by the USA for their
ultimate defence which if you donrCOt like Ireland freeloading off the UK as >you insinuated in your post the other day is just a larger version of that.
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:39:51 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
You can't fill a gap with hot air and bluster.You seem to be confusing NATO with Trump.
Ukraine is the largest country in europe after russia and the Russians have >>already grabbed the equivalent land area of the whole of scotland. If you >>think if Putin felt like it he couldn't flatten the central belt of an >>independent Scotland in a few days then you're deluded.You are deluded if you think the rest of Europe would allow a foothold
to be established.
The odd boat and APC here and there? BFD.Every little helps.
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:41:37 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Oh right. So its the hide behind the sofa while the grown ups sort out the >>problems approach. Got it.No, not letting things get that far.
I see Godwin has been woken up already. Didn't take long.No, warning from history.
Yeah, good luck with that. Oh, also - Glonass.Just as jammable as the US system. Not the same as degrading the
signal at the satellite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNSS_jamming
On Thu, 07 May 2026 18:22:42 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:41:37 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
Oh right. So its the hide behind the sofa while the grown ups sort out the >>> problems approach. Got it.No, not letting things get that far.
How, visit Putin for tea? That worked well for Macron and his country has a bit more punch behind it than Ireland.
I see Godwin has been woken up already. Didn't take long.No, warning from history.
When Reform invade Poland and start to murder minorities do let us know. In the meantime perhaps keep your student protestor level analogies in their box.
Yeah, good luck with that. Oh, also - Glonass.Just as jammable as the US system. Not the same as degrading the
signal at the satellite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNSS_jamming
The more signals there are, the harder it is to jam them all.
On Thu, 07 May 2026 18:27:34 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Thu, 7 May 2026 08:39:51 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
You can't fill a gap with hot air and bluster.You seem to be confusing NATO with Trump.
NATO without the USA is a paper tiger. And I'm not even sure they've got enough paper.
Ukraine is the largest country in europe after russia and the Russians have >>> already grabbed the equivalent land area of the whole of scotland. If you >>> think if Putin felt like it he couldn't flatten the central belt of anYou are deluded if you think the rest of Europe would allow a foothold
independent Scotland in a few days then you're deluded.
to be established.
You are deluded if the rest of europe, particularly the Baltics would be
able to do anything about it with US support if the Russian forces were at full force.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:21:26 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:09:18 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.No packs of capitalist running dogs[TM] seem to have been observed
fleeing south. There are other factors to be considered such as e.g.
Very few are left there now anyway.
the higher cost of housing in England,
Hmm , wonder why that might be.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.
No packs of capitalist running dogs[TM] seem to have been observed
fleeing south. There are other factors to be considered such as e.g.
Very few are left there now anyway.
Do you have evidence for that?
the higher cost of housing in England,
Hmm , wonder why that might be.
Depends very much on which part of England and which part of Scotland.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is currently more than a decade old, and with "full force" for the last 3 years it has barely been able to occupy
20% of Ukraine. In order to manage that, 50% of their national economy
is devoted to the war (40% directly, 10% paying interest on the debts they've taken on to finance it,) they have decimated their national
wealth fund, and lost a third of a million people.
(Even before the war, Russia was a basketcase; outside the Potemkin
cities of St Pete and Moscow, major Russian oblast capitals make Galati
look like Dubai
On 30/04/2026 20:07, Roland Perry wrote:
The moon might be made of green cheese.
Nah, Wenslydale
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/04/2026 20:07, Roland Perry wrote:
The moon might be made of green cheese.
Nah, Wenslydale
Nope - see all those craters? Gruy|?re, Emmental or Jarlsberg are much more likely.
On 08/05/2026 12:18, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
You are deluded if the rest of europe, particularly the Baltics would be
able to do anything about it with US support if the Russian forces were at >> full force.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is currently more than a decade old, and >with "full force" for the last 3 years it has barely been able to occupy
20% of Ukraine. In order to manage that, 50% of their national economy
(Even before the war, Russia was a basketcase; outside the Potemkin
it is convenient for Xi. A full-blown invasion of China's second (to
ASEAN) largest overseas market is unlikely to meet the "convenient for
Xi" criteria.
On 08/05/2026 11:00 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.
No packs of capitalist running dogs[TM] seem to have been observed
fleeing south. There are other factors to be considered such as e.g.
Very few are left there now anyway.
Do you have evidence for that?
the higher cost of housing in England,
Hmm , wonder why that might be.
Depends very much on which part of England and which part of Scotland.
Indeed it does. We have a three-bed semi with garage in a village only >thirty miles or so from the centre of London, yet a similar house in a >desirable part of Glasgow could easily sell for more.
On Fri, 08 May 2026 11:17:46 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/05/2026 11:00 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.
No packs of capitalist running dogs[TM] seem to have been observed
fleeing south. There are other factors to be considered such as e.g.
Very few are left there now anyway.
Do you have evidence for that?
the higher cost of housing in England,
Hmm , wonder why that might be.
Depends very much on which part of England and which part of Scotland.
Indeed it does. We have a three-bed semi with garage in a village only
thirty miles or so from the centre of London, yet a similar house in a
desirable part of Glasgow could easily sell for more.
Comparing a house in a village with one in the centre of a major city is
a definate case of apples and oranges. A 3 bed house in central london
would be way north of 7 figures.
On Tue, 5 May 2026 21:33:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <b68kvkdn2fdus1uf9b3cl9mvvh57ork21d@4ax.com>, at 18:19:20 on >>Tue, 5 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:Those parking restrictions being what exactly ?
There are two or three on-street HCS in Ely, and a taxi-driver friend >>>>tells me the District Council (who also issue the licences of course) >>>>police/ticket any over-ranking.That could be local licensing rules rather than more general traffic
law.
The nearest that e.g. TfL gets is -
"All taxi ranks have an allocated space for a certain number of taxis. >>>Once this space is filled taxi drivers must not cause an obstruction
by waiting on the highway to access the rank."
Which is exactly what the parking restrictions at the rear of the rank >>could indicate.
There is no "over-ranking" in any validly available signed restrictions
on parking and no mandatory sign which would "indicate" it.
On 09/05/2026 11:18 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2026 11:17:46 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/05/2026 11:00 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Very few are left there now anyway.Which drives high earners out of Scotland.
No packs of capitalist running dogs[TM] seem to have been observed >>>>>> fleeing south. There are other factors to be considered such as e.g. >>>>>
Do you have evidence for that?
the higher cost of housing in England,
Hmm , wonder why that might be.
Depends very much on which part of England and which part of Scotland.
Indeed it does. We have a three-bed semi with garage in a village only
thirty miles or so from the centre of London, yet a similar house in a
desirable part of Glasgow could easily sell for more.
Comparing a house in a village with one in the centre of a major city is
a definate case of apples and oranges. A 3 bed house in central london
would be way north of 7 figures.
It's a good job then, that I was not comparing - and didn't even mention
- houses in Central London or Central Glasgow, isn't it?
I was comparing a property outside Greater London (and about thirty
miles from Charing Cross) with a house in "a desirable part of Glasgow" >(where semi-detached prices of over -u500,000 are commonplace, though >nowhere near the top prices near the city centre).
On Sat, 09 May 2026 12:37:08 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 09/05/2026 11:18 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2026 11:17:46 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/05/2026 11:00 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:Indeed it does. We have a three-bed semi with garage in a village only >>>> thirty miles or so from the centre of London, yet a similar house in a >>>> desirable part of Glasgow could easily sell for more.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Very few are left there now anyway.Which drives high earners out of Scotland.
No packs of capitalist running dogs[TM] seem to have been observed >>>>>>> fleeing south. There are other factors to be considered such as e.g. >>>>>>
Do you have evidence for that?
the higher cost of housing in England,
Hmm , wonder why that might be.
Depends very much on which part of England and which part of Scotland. >>>>
Comparing a house in a village with one in the centre of a major city is >>> a definate case of apples and oranges. A 3 bed house in central london
would be way north of 7 figures.
It's a good job then, that I was not comparing - and didn't even
mention - houses in Central London or Central Glasgow, isn't it?
I was comparing a property outside Greater London (and about thirty
miles from Charing Cross) with a house in "a desirable part of
Glasgow" (where semi-detached prices of over -u500,000 are commonplace,
though nowhere near the top prices near the city centre).
A comparison of house prices in one country in a large city with house
prices in another country in a village is not a useful comparison.
On 09/05/2026 03:58 PM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
A comparison of house prices in one country in a large city with house
prices in another country in a village is not a useful comparison.
Not even to someone considering buying a house?
I was merely pointing out that it really as simple as:
North = Cheap / South = Expensive
BTW: it's only a point of view that the Home Counties and Glasgow are
not in the same country. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the way
in which they are definitely part of the same country.
On 09/05/2026 03:58 PM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2026 12:37:08 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 09/05/2026 11:18 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 08 May 2026 11:17:46 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/05/2026 11:00 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Which drives high earners out of Scotland.
No packs of capitalist running dogs[TM] seem to have been observed >>>>>>>> fleeing south. There are other factors to be considered such as >>>>>>>> e.g.
Very few are left there now anyway.
Do you have evidence for that?
the higher cost of housing in England,
Hmm , wonder why that might be.
Depends very much on which part of England and which part of
Scotland.
Indeed it does. We have a three-bed semi with garage in a village only >>>>> thirty miles or so from the centre of London, yet a similar house in a >>>>> desirable part of Glasgow could easily sell for more.
Comparing a house in a village with one in the centre of a major
city is
a definate case of apples and oranges. A 3 bed house in central london >>>> would be way north of 7 figures.
It's a good job then, that I was not comparing - and didn't even
mention - houses in Central London or Central Glasgow, isn't it?
I was comparing a property outside Greater London (and about thirty
miles from Charing Cross) with a house in "a desirable part of
Glasgow" (where semi-detached prices of over -u500,000 are commonplace,
though nowhere near the top prices near the city centre).
A comparison of house prices in one country in a large city with house
prices in another country in a village is not a useful comparison.
Not even to someone considering buying a house?
I was merely pointing out that it really as simple as:
North = Cheap / South = Expensive
BTW: it's only a point of view that the Home Counties and Glasgow are
not in the same country. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the way
in which they are definitely part of the same country.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 09/05/2026 03:58 PM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
A comparison of house prices in one country in a large city with house
prices in another country in a village is not a useful comparison.
Not even to someone considering buying a house?
As a comparison to compare house prices no.
I was merely pointing out that it really as simple as:
North = Cheap / South = Expensive
Edinburgh isn't cheap.
BTW: it's only a point of view that the Home Counties and Glasgow are
not in the same country. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the
way in which they are definitely part of the same country.
Fair point, nation then.
In message <ilumvk9j7ri4tclmeu5fe2u783g7o5t7dl@4ax.com>, at 18:36:11 on
Wed, 6 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
On Tue, 5 May 2026 21:33:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <b68kvkdn2fdus1uf9b3cl9mvvh57ork21d@4ax.com>, at 18:19:20 on >>>Tue, 5 May 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:Those parking restrictions being what exactly ?
There are two or three on-street HCS in Ely, and a taxi-driver friend >>>>>tells me the District Council (who also issue the licences of course) >>>>>police/ticket any over-ranking.That could be local licensing rules rather than more general traffic >>>>law.
The nearest that e.g. TfL gets is -
"All taxi ranks have an allocated space for a certain number of taxis. >>>>Once this space is filled taxi drivers must not cause an obstruction
by waiting on the highway to access the rank."
Which is exactly what the parking restrictions at the rear of the rank >>>could indicate.
I already told you. LaLaLa you can't hear me!
There is no "over-ranking" in any validly available signed restrictions
on parking and no mandatory sign which would "indicate" it.
Poor old dead horse, flogged again!
On 06/05/2026 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2026 03:05 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 06/05/2026 14:01, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2026 01:20 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 06/05/2026 11:45, JNugent wrote:
On 05/05/2026 07:54 PM, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 15:00:51 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>> wrote:It is pretty much guaranteed that an independent Scotland would wish >>>>>> to continue to use (and partly finance) certain services of the
On Sun, 3 May 2026 09:42:31 -0000 (UTC)Have you not heard of NATO or seen the occasional Deutsche Marine >>>>>>> vessel sailing up the Clyde or the Thames ? Scotland already has >>>>>>> fishery protection vessels which are larger than a destroyer. Defence >>>>>>> matters are reserved to Westminster so the SG government has no
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. ItrCOs got a bit >>>>>>>>> of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other >>>>>>>>> countries
The legal system is the least of the problems. At Brexit we just >>>>>>>> carried over
EU law. Far more of an issue is social, defence**, currency,
economics, public
services such as electricity, transport, broadcasting, north sea oil >>>>>>>> & gas
and probablhy a dozen other things I haven't thought of.
Yes, scotland could unpick itself but it would be a bloody mess, >>>>>>>> take years
and fuck the uk even more than it is.
** The pathetic SNP won't bother with a military and Putin or
whichever
psychopath succeeds him will take that as an open door to plant his >>>>>>>> navy
around the scottish coast. What will Holyrood do, paint their faces >>>>>>>> blue
and wave the Saltire?
authority to set up a naval force. Which other states heve become >>>>>>> independent from the UK and failed to have defence arrangements ? >>>>>>
government of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Who can forget the election where the SNP said they would continue to >>>>>> use sterling as their currency after independence? And defence would >>>>>> be a really difficult one to sort out without a mutual defence
agreement. There is no way that Westminster would/could just hand over >>>>>> the Trident base (and certain other naval assets) for a start and this >>>>>> would have to be part of the basis for negotiations.
There is a plan to transfer the Trident subs to Devonport in the event >>>>> of the SNP succeeding. Its not ideal, obviously, but is feasible.
Not necessary by any means. Guantanamo Bay is an obvious precedent, as >>>> was Malta before Mintoff decided that the island was a super-power in
its own right.
A better example would be Cyprus.
I liked the Guananamo one better, since it showed that even a decidedly
hostile "host" can't do much about it.
The assumption was that the SNP would try to implement their no-nukes
policy. That would preclude an English and Welsh sovereign submarine
base at Faslane.
There'd be a lot of "if"s to get past before the SNP managed to put that
into operation.
Agreed but the navy likes to be prepared.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2026 03:05 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 06/05/2026 14:01, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2026 01:20 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 06/05/2026 11:45, JNugent wrote:
On 05/05/2026 07:54 PM, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 15:00:51 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>> wrote:It is pretty much guaranteed that an independent Scotland would wish >>>>>>> to continue to use (and partly finance) certain services of the
On Sun, 3 May 2026 09:42:31 -0000 (UTC)Have you not heard of NATO or seen the occasional Deutsche Marine >>>>>>>> vessel sailing up the Clyde or the Thames ? Scotland already has >>>>>>>> fishery protection vessels which are larger than a destroyer. Defence >>>>>>>> matters are reserved to Westminster so the SG government has no >>>>>>>> authority to set up a naval force. Which other states heve become >>>>>>>> independent from the UK and failed to have defence arrangements ? >>>>>>>
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. ItrCOs got a bit
of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other >>>>>>>>>> countries
The legal system is the least of the problems. At Brexit we just >>>>>>>>> carried over
EU law. Far more of an issue is social, defence**, currency, >>>>>>>>> economics, public
services such as electricity, transport, broadcasting, north sea oil >>>>>>>>> & gas
and probablhy a dozen other things I haven't thought of.
Yes, scotland could unpick itself but it would be a bloody mess, >>>>>>>>> take years
and fuck the uk even more than it is.
** The pathetic SNP won't bother with a military and Putin or >>>>>>>>> whichever
psychopath succeeds him will take that as an open door to plant his >>>>>>>>> navy
around the scottish coast. What will Holyrood do, paint their faces >>>>>>>>> blue
and wave the Saltire?
government of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Who can forget the election where the SNP said they would continue to >>>>>>> use sterling as their currency after independence? And defence would >>>>>>> be a really difficult one to sort out without a mutual defence
agreement. There is no way that Westminster would/could just hand over >>>>>>> the Trident base (and certain other naval assets) for a start and this >>>>>>> would have to be part of the basis for negotiations.
There is a plan to transfer the Trident subs to Devonport in the event >>>>>> of the SNP succeeding. Its not ideal, obviously, but is feasible.
Not necessary by any means. Guantanamo Bay is an obvious precedent, as >>>>> was Malta before Mintoff decided that the island was a super-power in >>>>> its own right.
A better example would be Cyprus.
I liked the Guananamo one better, since it showed that even a decidedly
hostile "host" can't do much about it.
ThererCOs also Diego Garcia.
The assumption was that the SNP would try to implement their no-nukes
policy. That would preclude an English and Welsh sovereign submarine
base at Faslane.
There'd be a lot of "if"s to get past before the SNP managed to put that >>> into operation.
Agreed but the navy likes to be prepared.
It would partly depend on whether the SNP might be able to hold its nose
and set the rent at just below the price of moving to Devonport.
On 14/05/2026 21:44, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2026 03:05 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 06/05/2026 14:01, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2026 01:20 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 06/05/2026 11:45, JNugent wrote:Not necessary by any means. Guantanamo Bay is an obvious precedent, as >>>>>> was Malta before Mintoff decided that the island was a super-power in >>>>>> its own right.
On 05/05/2026 07:54 PM, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 15:00:51 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>>> wrote:It is pretty much guaranteed that an independent Scotland would wish >>>>>>>> to continue to use (and partly finance) certain services of the >>>>>>>> government of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
On Sun, 3 May 2026 09:42:31 -0000 (UTC)Have you not heard of NATO or seen the occasional Deutsche Marine >>>>>>>>> vessel sailing up the Clyde or the Thames ? Scotland already has >>>>>>>>> fishery protection vessels which are larger than a destroyer. Defence >>>>>>>>> matters are reserved to Westminster so the SG government has no >>>>>>>>> authority to set up a naval force. Which other states heve become >>>>>>>>> independent from the UK and failed to have defence arrangements ? >>>>>>>>
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. ItrCOs got a bit
of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other >>>>>>>>>>> countries
The legal system is the least of the problems. At Brexit we just >>>>>>>>>> carried over
EU law. Far more of an issue is social, defence**, currency, >>>>>>>>>> economics, public
services such as electricity, transport, broadcasting, north sea oil >>>>>>>>>> & gas
and probablhy a dozen other things I haven't thought of.
Yes, scotland could unpick itself but it would be a bloody mess, >>>>>>>>>> take years
and fuck the uk even more than it is.
** The pathetic SNP won't bother with a military and Putin or >>>>>>>>>> whichever
psychopath succeeds him will take that as an open door to plant his >>>>>>>>>> navy
around the scottish coast. What will Holyrood do, paint their faces >>>>>>>>>> blue
and wave the Saltire?
Who can forget the election where the SNP said they would continue to >>>>>>>> use sterling as their currency after independence? And defence would >>>>>>>> be a really difficult one to sort out without a mutual defence >>>>>>>> agreement. There is no way that Westminster would/could just hand over >>>>>>>> the Trident base (and certain other naval assets) for a start and this >>>>>>>> would have to be part of the basis for negotiations.
There is a plan to transfer the Trident subs to Devonport in the event >>>>>>> of the SNP succeeding. Its not ideal, obviously, but is feasible. >>>>>>
A better example would be Cyprus.
I liked the Guananamo one better, since it showed that even a decidedly >>>> hostile "host" can't do much about it.
ThererCOs also Diego Garcia.
The assumption was that the SNP would try to implement their no-nukes >>>>> policy. That would preclude an English and Welsh sovereign submarine >>>>> base at Faslane.
There'd be a lot of "if"s to get past before the SNP managed to put that >>>> into operation.
Agreed but the navy likes to be prepared.
It would partly depend on whether the SNP might be able to hold its nose
and set the rent at just below the price of moving to Devonport.
Which they wouldn't know.
On Wed, 6 May 2026 21:43:15 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 19:54, Charles Ellson wrote:You missed out the standard warning words "cheese" and "surrender".
On Wed, 6 May 2026 15:04:52 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 14:51, Marland wrote:The French still manage with Imperial plumbing fittings and livres so
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 11:45, JNugent wrote:
On 05/05/2026 07:54 PM, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 15:00:51 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>> wrote:It is pretty much guaranteed that an independent Scotland would wish to >>>>>>> continue to use (and partly finance) certain services of the government >>>>>>> of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
On Sun, 3 May 2026 09:42:31 -0000 (UTC)Have you not heard of NATO or seen the occasional Deutsche Marine >>>>>>>> vessel sailing up the Clyde or the Thames ? Scotland already has >>>>>>>> fishery protection vessels which are larger than a destroyer. Defence >>>>>>>> matters are reserved to Westminster so the SG government has no >>>>>>>> authority to set up a naval force. Which other states heve become >>>>>>>> independent from the UK and failed to have defence arrangements ? >>>>>>>
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. It-As got a bit >>>>>>>>>> of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other >>>>>>>>>> countries
The legal system is the least of the problems. At Brexit we just >>>>>>>>> carried over
EU law. Far more of an issue is social, defence**, currency, >>>>>>>>> economics, public
services such as electricity, transport, broadcasting, north sea oil >>>>>>>>> & gas
and probablhy a dozen other things I haven't thought of.
Yes, scotland could unpick itself but it would be a bloody mess, take >>>>>>>>> years
and fuck the uk even more than it is.
** The pathetic SNP won't bother with a military and Putin or whichever
psychopath succeeds him will take that as an open door to plant his navy
around the scottish coast. What will Holyrood do, paint their faces blue
and wave the Saltire?
Who can forget the election where the SNP said they would continue to >>>>>>> use sterling as their currency after independence? And defence would be >>>>>>> a really difficult one to sort out without a mutual defence agreement. >>>>>>> There is no way that Westminster would/could just hand over the Trident >>>>>>> base (and certain other naval assets) for a start and this would have to
be part of the basis for negotiations.
There is a plan to transfer the Trident subs to Devonport in the event >>>>>> of the SNP succeeding. Its not ideal, obviously, but is feasible.
Can-At be too long before Trump decides to show that the UK-As so called >>>>> independent Nuclear deterrent is just a sham by refusing to service the >>>>> missiles which have to be returned to the US for that to be done. The UK >>>>> owns and services its own warheads but the 58 *missiles it purchased >>>>> are part of a pool with the US so they are swapped on a service exchange >>>>> basis and if the US decides it won-At do that then the UK has problem, >>>>> unlike the dastardly French who sensibly have a truly independent system.
So whether our subs are based in Scotland or Devon it might not matter , >>>>> Perhaps the politicians have started on a back up plan to see if French >>>>> missiles can be made to fit, its closer for our subs to go to Brest than >>>>> Kings Bay Georgia anyway.
What's the betting that Trident is built to imperial measurements like >>>> god intended and the dastardly French use the evil metric system out of >>>> spite?
I'm sure they can cope with missiles built in US inches.
Sarcasm is wasted on some people :-)
;-)
As for the Yanks, I am surprised they haven't got their own definition
of the inch which results in their tubs bashing the pier at Pompey if
they ever drop in.
On 07/05/2026 17:58, Certes wrote:
On 07/05/2026 12:09, ColinR wrote:
On 07/05/2026 07:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
SNP's stance was no nukes, period.
Their manifesto for the 2026 Scottish election includes:
QUOTE
We maintain our firm and unequivocal opposition to nuclear weapons -
both in principle and to their location in Scotland. This includes
opposition to the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system
and to the UK GovernmentrCOs commitment to increase the number of
nuclear warheads to the tune of -u15 billion.
UNQUOTE
and for non-military:
QUOTE
If re-elected, we will not give the green light to any new nuclear
power stations in Scotland.
UNQUOTE
I thought they only glowed green in cartoons.
I can confirm they do glow green.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 17:58, Certes wrote:
On 07/05/2026 12:09, ColinR wrote:
On 07/05/2026 07:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
SNP's stance was no nukes, period.
Their manifesto for the 2026 Scottish election includes:
QUOTE
We maintain our firm and unequivocal opposition to nuclear weapons -
both in principle and to their location in Scotland. This includes
opposition to the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system
and to the UK GovernmentrCOs commitment to increase the number of
nuclear warheads to the tune of -u15 billion.
UNQUOTE
and for non-military:
QUOTE
If re-elected, we will not give the green light to any new nuclear
power stations in Scotland.
UNQUOTE
I thought they only glowed green in cartoons.
I can confirm they do glow green.
I thought Mr CherenkovrCOs phenomenon was blue?
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 21:44, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2026 03:05 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 06/05/2026 14:01, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2026 01:20 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 06/05/2026 11:45, JNugent wrote:Not necessary by any means. Guantanamo Bay is an obvious precedent, as >>>>>>> was Malta before Mintoff decided that the island was a super-power in >>>>>>> its own right.
On 05/05/2026 07:54 PM, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 15:00:51 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>>>> wrote:It is pretty much guaranteed that an independent Scotland would wish >>>>>>>>> to continue to use (and partly finance) certain services of the >>>>>>>>> government of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
On Sun, 3 May 2026 09:42:31 -0000 (UTC)Have you not heard of NATO or seen the occasional Deutsche Marine >>>>>>>>>> vessel sailing up the Clyde or the Thames ? Scotland already has >>>>>>>>>> fishery protection vessels which are larger than a destroyer. Defence
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. ItrCOs got a bit
of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other >>>>>>>>>>>> countries
The legal system is the least of the problems. At Brexit we just >>>>>>>>>>> carried over
EU law. Far more of an issue is social, defence**, currency, >>>>>>>>>>> economics, public
services such as electricity, transport, broadcasting, north sea oil
& gas
and probablhy a dozen other things I haven't thought of. >>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, scotland could unpick itself but it would be a bloody mess, >>>>>>>>>>> take years
and fuck the uk even more than it is.
** The pathetic SNP won't bother with a military and Putin or >>>>>>>>>>> whichever
psychopath succeeds him will take that as an open door to plant his >>>>>>>>>>> navy
around the scottish coast. What will Holyrood do, paint their faces >>>>>>>>>>> blue
and wave the Saltire?
matters are reserved to Westminster so the SG government has no >>>>>>>>>> authority to set up a naval force. Which other states heve become >>>>>>>>>> independent from the UK and failed to have defence arrangements ? >>>>>>>>>
Who can forget the election where the SNP said they would continue to >>>>>>>>> use sterling as their currency after independence? And defence would >>>>>>>>> be a really difficult one to sort out without a mutual defence >>>>>>>>> agreement. There is no way that Westminster would/could just hand over
the Trident base (and certain other naval assets) for a start and this
would have to be part of the basis for negotiations.
There is a plan to transfer the Trident subs to Devonport in the event >>>>>>>> of the SNP succeeding. Its not ideal, obviously, but is feasible. >>>>>>>
A better example would be Cyprus.
I liked the Guananamo one better, since it showed that even a decidedly >>>>> hostile "host" can't do much about it.
ThererCOs also Diego Garcia.
The assumption was that the SNP would try to implement their no-nukes >>>>>> policy. That would preclude an English and Welsh sovereign submarine >>>>>> base at Faslane.
There'd be a lot of "if"s to get past before the SNP managed to put that >>>>> into operation.
Agreed but the navy likes to be prepared.
It would partly depend on whether the SNP might be able to hold its nose >>> and set the rent at just below the price of moving to Devonport.
Which they wouldn't know.
IrCOm sure some people could make good guesses.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 17:58, Certes wrote:
On 07/05/2026 12:09, ColinR wrote:
On 07/05/2026 07:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
SNP's stance was no nukes, period.
Their manifesto for the 2026 Scottish election includes:
QUOTE
We maintain our firm and unequivocal opposition to nuclear weapons -
both in principle and to their location in Scotland. This includes
opposition to the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system
and to the UK GovernmentrCOs commitment to increase the number of
nuclear warheads to the tune of -u15 billion.
UNQUOTE
and for non-military:
QUOTE
If re-elected, we will not give the green light to any new nuclear
power stations in Scotland.
UNQUOTE
I thought they only glowed green in cartoons.
I can confirm they do glow green.
I thought Mr CherenkovrCOs phenomenon was blue?
On Wed, 6 May 2026 21:43:15 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 19:54, Charles Ellson wrote:You missed out the standard warning words "cheese" and "surrender".
On Wed, 6 May 2026 15:04:52 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 14:51, Marland wrote:The French still manage with Imperial plumbing fittings and livres so
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 11:45, JNugent wrote:
On 05/05/2026 07:54 PM, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 15:00:51 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>> wrote:It is pretty much guaranteed that an independent Scotland would wish to >>>>>>> continue to use (and partly finance) certain services of the government >>>>>>> of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
On Sun, 3 May 2026 09:42:31 -0000 (UTC)Have you not heard of NATO or seen the occasional Deutsche Marine >>>>>>>> vessel sailing up the Clyde or the Thames ? Scotland already has >>>>>>>> fishery protection vessels which are larger than a destroyer. Defence >>>>>>>> matters are reserved to Westminster so the SG government has no >>>>>>>> authority to set up a naval force. Which other states heve become >>>>>>>> independent from the UK and failed to have defence arrangements ? >>>>>>>
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. ItrCOs got a bit
of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other >>>>>>>>>> countries
The legal system is the least of the problems. At Brexit we just >>>>>>>>> carried over
EU law. Far more of an issue is social, defence**, currency, >>>>>>>>> economics, public
services such as electricity, transport, broadcasting, north sea oil >>>>>>>>> & gas
and probablhy a dozen other things I haven't thought of.
Yes, scotland could unpick itself but it would be a bloody mess, take >>>>>>>>> years
and fuck the uk even more than it is.
** The pathetic SNP won't bother with a military and Putin or whichever
psychopath succeeds him will take that as an open door to plant his navy
around the scottish coast. What will Holyrood do, paint their faces blue
and wave the Saltire?
Who can forget the election where the SNP said they would continue to >>>>>>> use sterling as their currency after independence? And defence would be >>>>>>> a really difficult one to sort out without a mutual defence agreement. >>>>>>> There is no way that Westminster would/could just hand over the Trident >>>>>>> base (and certain other naval assets) for a start and this would have to
be part of the basis for negotiations.
There is a plan to transfer the Trident subs to Devonport in the event >>>>>> of the SNP succeeding. Its not ideal, obviously, but is feasible.
CanrCOt be too long before Trump decides to show that the UKrCOs so called
independent Nuclear deterrent is just a sham by refusing to service the >>>>> missiles which have to be returned to the US for that to be done. The UK >>>>> owns and services its own warheads but the 58 *missiles it purchased >>>>> are part of a pool with the US so they are swapped on a service exchange >>>>> basis and if the US decides it wonrCOt do that then the UK has problem, >>>>> unlike the dastardly French who sensibly have a truly independent system.
So whether our subs are based in Scotland or Devon it might not matter , >>>>> Perhaps the politicians have started on a back up plan to see if French >>>>> missiles can be made to fit, its closer for our subs to go to Brest than >>>>> Kings Bay Georgia anyway.
What's the betting that Trident is built to imperial measurements like >>>> god intended and the dastardly French use the evil metric system out of >>>> spite?
I'm sure they can cope with missiles built in US inches.
Sarcasm is wasted on some people :-)
;-)
As for the Yanks, I am surprised they haven't got their own definition
of the inch which results in their tubs bashing the pier at Pompey if
they ever drop in.
On 15/05/2026 15:52, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 17:58, Certes wrote:
On 07/05/2026 12:09, ColinR wrote:
On 07/05/2026 07:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
SNP's stance was no nukes, period.
Their manifesto for the 2026 Scottish election includes:
QUOTE
We maintain our firm and unequivocal opposition to nuclear weapons - >>>>> both in principle and to their location in Scotland. This includes
opposition to the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system
and to the UK GovernmentrCOs commitment to increase the number of
nuclear warheads to the tune of -u15 billion.
UNQUOTE
and for non-military:
QUOTE
If re-elected, we will not give the green light to any new nuclear
power stations in Scotland.
UNQUOTE
I thought they only glowed green in cartoons.
I can confirm they do glow green.
I thought Mr CherenkovrCOs phenomenon was blue?
I've peered into two reactors and they both glowed green: the former ICL >reactor at Sunningdale and the one at Wool in Dorset. Whether that is a >function of the type of reactor, I don't know.
On 15/05/2026 15:47, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 21:44, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 16:12, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2026 03:05 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 06/05/2026 14:01, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2026 01:20 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 06/05/2026 11:45, JNugent wrote:Not necessary by any means. Guantanamo Bay is an obvious precedent, as >>>>>>>> was Malta before Mintoff decided that the island was a super-power in >>>>>>>> its own right.
On 05/05/2026 07:54 PM, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 15:00:51 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:It is pretty much guaranteed that an independent Scotland would wish >>>>>>>>>> to continue to use (and partly finance) certain services of the >>>>>>>>>> government of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
On Sun, 3 May 2026 09:42:31 -0000 (UTC)Have you not heard of NATO or seen the occasional Deutsche Marine >>>>>>>>>>> vessel sailing up the Clyde or the Thames ? Scotland already has >>>>>>>>>>> fishery protection vessels which are larger than a destroyer. Defence
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. ItrCOs got a bit
of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other >>>>>>>>>>>>> countries
The legal system is the least of the problems. At Brexit we just >>>>>>>>>>>> carried over
EU law. Far more of an issue is social, defence**, currency, >>>>>>>>>>>> economics, public
services such as electricity, transport, broadcasting, north sea oil
& gas
and probablhy a dozen other things I haven't thought of. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, scotland could unpick itself but it would be a bloody mess, >>>>>>>>>>>> take years
and fuck the uk even more than it is.
** The pathetic SNP won't bother with a military and Putin or >>>>>>>>>>>> whichever
psychopath succeeds him will take that as an open door to plant his
navy
around the scottish coast. What will Holyrood do, paint their faces
blue
and wave the Saltire?
matters are reserved to Westminster so the SG government has no >>>>>>>>>>> authority to set up a naval force. Which other states heve become >>>>>>>>>>> independent from the UK and failed to have defence arrangements ? >>>>>>>>>>
Who can forget the election where the SNP said they would continue to
use sterling as their currency after independence? And defence would >>>>>>>>>> be a really difficult one to sort out without a mutual defence >>>>>>>>>> agreement. There is no way that Westminster would/could just hand over
the Trident base (and certain other naval assets) for a start and this
would have to be part of the basis for negotiations.
There is a plan to transfer the Trident subs to Devonport in the event
of the SNP succeeding. Its not ideal, obviously, but is feasible. >>>>>>>>
A better example would be Cyprus.
I liked the Guananamo one better, since it showed that even a decidedly >>>>>> hostile "host" can't do much about it.
ThererCOs also Diego Garcia.
The assumption was that the SNP would try to implement their no-nukes >>>>>>> policy. That would preclude an English and Welsh sovereign submarine >>>>>>> base at Faslane.
There'd be a lot of "if"s to get past before the SNP managed to put that >>>>>> into operation.
Agreed but the navy likes to be prepared.
It would partly depend on whether the SNP might be able to hold its nose >>>> and set the rent at just below the price of moving to Devonport.
Which they wouldn't know.
IrCOm sure some people could make good guesses.
Once the move has been made, the ongoing costs of using Devonport would
be less than using Faslane. The hunter-killers are already based in Devonport so it is only the missile handling facilities that need to be moved/replaced.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
As for the Yanks, I am surprised they haven't got their own definition
of the inch which results in their tubs bashing the pier at Pompey if
they ever drop in.
They do have their own definitions of pints, gallons and fluid ounces, and increasingly they like tons to be 2,000 lb rather than the genuine 2,240
lb. There are probably others.
On 15/05/2026 15:52, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 17:58, Certes wrote:
On 07/05/2026 12:09, ColinR wrote:
On 07/05/2026 07:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
SNP's stance was no nukes, period.
Their manifesto for the 2026 Scottish election includes:
QUOTE
We maintain our firm and unequivocal opposition to nuclear weapons - >>>>> both in principle and to their location in Scotland. This includes
opposition to the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system
and to the UK GovernmentrCOs commitment to increase the number of
nuclear warheads to the tune of -u15 billion.
UNQUOTE
and for non-military:
QUOTE
If re-elected, we will not give the green light to any new nuclear
power stations in Scotland.
UNQUOTE
I thought they only glowed green in cartoons.
I can confirm they do glow green.
I thought Mr CherenkovrCOs phenomenon was blue?
I've peered into two reactors and they both glowed green: the former ICL reactor at Sunningdale and the one at Wool in Dorset. Whether that is a function of the type of reactor, I don't know.
On 15/05/2026 03:47 PM, Sam Wilson wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
As for the Yanks, I am surprised they haven't got their own definition
of the inch which results in their tubs bashing the pier at Pompey if
they ever drop in.
They do have their own definitions of pints, gallons and fluid ounces, and >> increasingly they like tons to be 2,000 lb rather than the genuine 2,240
lb. There are probably others.
I'm pretty sure that fluid ounces are the same as between Imperial and
USA measures.
On Fri, 15 May 2026 16:51:54 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 15/05/2026 15:52, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 17:58, Certes wrote:
On 07/05/2026 12:09, ColinR wrote:
On 07/05/2026 07:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
SNP's stance was no nukes, period.
Their manifesto for the 2026 Scottish election includes:
QUOTE
We maintain our firm and unequivocal opposition to nuclear weapons - >>>>>> both in principle and to their location in Scotland. This includes >>>>>> opposition to the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system >>>>>> and to the UK GovernmentrCOs commitment to increase the number of
nuclear warheads to the tune of -u15 billion.
UNQUOTE
and for non-military:
QUOTE
If re-elected, we will not give the green light to any new nuclear >>>>>> power stations in Scotland.
UNQUOTE
I thought they only glowed green in cartoons.
I can confirm they do glow green.
I thought Mr CherenkovrCOs phenomenon was blue?
I've peered into two reactors and they both glowed green: the former
ICL reactor at Sunningdale and the one at Wool in Dorset. Whether that
is a function of the type of reactor, I don't know.
Perhaps it depends on the type/speed of the particles?
On 07/05/2026 04:31, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2026 21:43:15 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 19:54, Charles Ellson wrote:You missed out the standard warning words "cheese" and "surrender".
On Wed, 6 May 2026 15:04:52 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 14:51, Marland wrote:The French still manage with Imperial plumbing fittings and livres so
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 11:45, JNugent wrote:CanAt be too long before Trump decides to show that the UKAs so called >>>>>> independent Nuclear deterrent is just a sham by refusing to service the >>>>>> missiles which have to be returned to the US for that to be done. The UK >>>>>> owns and services its own warheads but the 58 *missiles it purchased >>>>>> are part of a pool with the US so they are swapped on a service exchange >>>>>> basis and if the US decides it wonAt do that then the UK has problem, >>>>>> unlike the dastardly French who sensibly have a truly independent system.
On 05/05/2026 07:54 PM, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2026 15:00:51 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe >>>>>>>>> wrote:It is pretty much guaranteed that an independent Scotland would wish to
On Sun, 3 May 2026 09:42:31 -0000 (UTC)Have you not heard of NATO or seen the occasional Deutsche Marine >>>>>>>>> vessel sailing up the Clyde or the Thames ? Scotland already has >>>>>>>>> fishery protection vessels which are larger than a destroyer. Defence >>>>>>>>> matters are reserved to Westminster so the SG government has no >>>>>>>>> authority to set up a naval force. Which other states heve become >>>>>>>>> independent from the UK and failed to have defence arrangements ? >>>>>>>>
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Scotland could ultimately unpick itself from the UK. ItAs got a bit >>>>>>>>>>> of a
head start in as much as it has a separate legal system. Other >>>>>>>>>>> countries
The legal system is the least of the problems. At Brexit we just >>>>>>>>>> carried over
EU law. Far more of an issue is social, defence**, currency, >>>>>>>>>> economics, public
services such as electricity, transport, broadcasting, north sea oil >>>>>>>>>> & gas
and probablhy a dozen other things I haven't thought of.
Yes, scotland could unpick itself but it would be a bloody mess, take
years
and fuck the uk even more than it is.
** The pathetic SNP won't bother with a military and Putin or whichever
psychopath succeeds him will take that as an open door to plant his navy
around the scottish coast. What will Holyrood do, paint their faces blue
and wave the Saltire?
continue to use (and partly finance) certain services of the government
of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Who can forget the election where the SNP said they would continue to >>>>>>>> use sterling as their currency after independence? And defence would be
a really difficult one to sort out without a mutual defence agreement. >>>>>>>> There is no way that Westminster would/could just hand over the Trident
base (and certain other naval assets) for a start and this would have to
be part of the basis for negotiations.
There is a plan to transfer the Trident subs to Devonport in the event >>>>>>> of the SNP succeeding. Its not ideal, obviously, but is feasible. >>>>>>
So whether our subs are based in Scotland or Devon it might not matter , >>>>>> Perhaps the politicians have started on a back up plan to see if French >>>>>> missiles can be made to fit, its closer for our subs to go to Brest than >>>>>> Kings Bay Georgia anyway.
What's the betting that Trident is built to imperial measurements like >>>>> god intended and the dastardly French use the evil metric system out of >>>>> spite?
I'm sure they can cope with missiles built in US inches.
Sarcasm is wasted on some people :-)
;-)
As for the Yanks, I am surprised they haven't got their own definition
of the inch which results in their tubs bashing the pier at Pompey if
they ever drop in.
They did have.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=US_survey_inches>
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> posted:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/05/2026 17:58, Certes wrote:
On 07/05/2026 12:09, ColinR wrote:
On 07/05/2026 07:16, Graeme Wall wrote:
SNP's stance was no nukes, period.
Their manifesto for the 2026 Scottish election includes:
QUOTE
We maintain our firm and unequivocal opposition to nuclear weapons - >>>>> both in principle and to their location in Scotland. This includes
opposition to the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system >>>>> and to the UK GovernmentrCOs commitment to increase the number of
nuclear warheads to the tune of -u15 billion.
UNQUOTE
and for non-military:
QUOTE
If re-elected, we will not give the green light to any new nuclear
power stations in Scotland.
UNQUOTE
I thought they only glowed green in cartoons.
I can confirm they do glow green.
I thought Mr CherenkovrCOs phenomenon was blue?
Hexavalent uranium, anyone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence#Abiotic
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:06:20 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
8 files (13,162K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,525 |
