The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The cost of everything

Posted on February 06, 2016 by

From an excellent letter in today’s Herald by Chris McLaughlin of Giffnock:


The only fault in Chris’ logic is that he’s a bit too generous to Labour.

If the new Trident is to last for its official projected service lifetime of 32 years, and Scotland pays an 8.4% population share of the cost (assuming it doesn’t go up again, as it almost certainly will), then that actually comes to just over £438m a year.

Labour’s income-tax proposal, on the other hand, has a starting figure for projected revenue of £480m, but Labour have already said they plan to spend £75m on rebates for low-paid workers and pensioners, plus there’ll be significant administrative costs on top of that. So the real receipts will be more in the region of £390m a year at best – nowhere near enough to plug the £500m gap.

Faced with the choice between scrapping Trident to combat cuts, or increasing taxes on teachers and nurses and part-time workers on £11,000 a year (and still being £50m short), Labour have chosen to snatch the cost of its beloved weapons of mass global destruction – whose only true purpose, according to Tony Blair, is to inflate politicians’ egos – straight out of the pockets of the poor and struggling.


It’s an interesting call.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 06 02 16 12:43

    The cost of everything | Speymouth

69 to “The cost of everything”

  1. Croompenstein says:

    But Russia and North Korea would invade Scotland if we didn’t have the nukes… 😀

  2. bobajock says:

    In the UK it appears fortune favours the stupid. In Scotland it appears fortune runs screaming from the stupid.

    Poor Kezia, a numpty being controlled by intellectual nematodes in London.

  3. Bob Mack says:

    “And the value of nothing” ,I think finishes the quote.

    Random figures, political gestures, empty promises. Labour is becoming synonymous with them all.

    Ultimately in society, it’s true assets are the people ,nothing else. It is we who devise,create and construct everything of worth. When I look at the UK now,I see the exact opposite. We are ruled by those who have no regard for the people,and who use and abuse purely for party,personal,or alterior gain. The people have become the vehicle to achieve those ends.

    The wealthy are prioritised and feted as being creators ,whilst the less fortunate are given the unenviable position as the providers of that wealth.The whole thing is based on money,class and privelege.

    I realy do pity anybody who cannot see that.

  4. lewis wilde says:

    Why isn’t this Scottish Labour Tax hike not known as the Trident Tax?

  5. Socrates MacSporran says:

    For me, the interesting part of the Tony BLiar quote used above is: “giving it up would be too big a downgrading of our status as a nation”.

    There you have it, the UKOK mind set in 15 words; it is more-important that the Westminster Elite continue to sit at what they see as world diplomacy’s top table, by having their own nuclear weapons, than to use the money this costs to better the lot of their citizens.

  6. heedtracker says:

    We are up against it, UKOK nuke strike wise. Toryboy defence minister Micheal Fallon from Perth, told vote NO or else Kirsty Wark that you cant “un-invent” nuclear weapons, on Newsnight England, over and over. And that’s in weeks of very heavy pro Trident propaganda blasting out of the BBC. Nuke happy Labour dude on the show says its v v bad to be in NATO but shelter under US nuke umbrella, #SNPbad.

  7. steveasaneilean says:

    As I have oft said, there is not logic to having these weapons.

    Either we will use them at some stage in which case we will all be annihilated, or we will never use them, in which case why bother having them?

    The SNP should really be going for (Not) Labour’s throat over this one. The primary one sums speak for themselves.

  8. Swami Backverandah says:

    Yes, well said.
    Trident Tax.
    Tax the less well-off, the lower paid workers, tax them more to pay for a missile system that they don’t want.

    Excellent policy Labour. Keep it up. That’ll get you into Government.

  9. mealer says:

    Ruth “bring on the Ruskies” Davidson just can’t wait to get herself astride a new,improved Trident.

  10. Cadogan Enright says:

    Did anyone watch the assine World War III BBC Daily Heilesque UKOK mad-Britary programe last week where we were credibly supposed to believe a story that the Russians were likely to nuke 2 NATO ships pretty much because it was Tuesday and time to occupy a NATO country or two.

    So our heroic numties in Londan have to get into a nuclear exchange – but we don’t have to fire first as we can wait for tthe Russians to obliterate London as we have our smashing ‘second strike weapon’ and we can then hit their military targets (being Birts of course we would not harm any Russian civilians – yea right my Dad worked for bomber Harris – we know all about that)

    No suggestion that Russia is not actually the agressor in real life and that it has watched NATO a run illegal wars and violent regime change in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, the Balkans and the Ukraine over the last few years.

    No acknowledgement that understakings not to militarise Eastern Europe were ignored by NATO.

    No acknowledgement that Russia’s own desire to join NATO iin the 90’s was spurned as it would have left the Military-Industrial Complex without a credible enemy (not smart enough to invent China as an enemy – and anyway that boarder would have been too far away and it would have meant supporting Russia’s Southern and Eastern boarders as the new NATO a boundary and it would never have worked as a ‘frightener’ as it is too far away for the average West European)

    So now the BBC are ramping us up for Nucelar War with our good old independent deterrent that is apparently no deterrent according to this moronic programme – presumably as a way of getting the gullible masses in England to support this useless investment in Trident.

  11. Bob Mack says:

    The United Kingdom needs a deterrent. .Sounds very defensive does it not. We would appear to be under imminent threat because we are such a peaceful nation and therefore seen as weak.

    The reality is quite different. How many conflicts has this country been involved in over the past thirty years? There has never been a decade of peace.We have sent troops all over the globe to impose our will on some nation ,faction,or leader somewhere. We are aggressors.

    The Trident programme is our insurance policy that we can get away with that
    aggression. That, and the provision of shelter under the skirt of America. It is nothing to do with people attacking us out of the blue. A bully nation,and Trident is our license to bully.

  12. Kenny says:

    It would have been incredible to people over 100 years ago fighting for workers’ rights to imagine, a century on, Labour campaigning with the Tories (neo-liberals headed by aristocrats) to keep nuclear weapons — at a base right next to Glasgow.

  13. Effijy says:

    Yes Mr Blair, Westminster Elite politicians do much prefer to have Weapons of Mass Destruction “Status” rather than abolish Food Banks, the Bedroom Tax, ATOS attacks on the disabled, and properly fund the English NHS and its Junior Doctors.

    Their ideas of Duty of Care are our worst nightmare.

    I think England could find some moral conscious if they next voted for anything that wasn’t Tory, Labour, Liberal, or UKIP.
    Can you imagine ordinary people in power with the ability to
    use common sense for the betterment of the common people?

  14. HandandShrimp says:

    Labour’s penny proposal is a half baked puff piece for the election. It is not a practical suggestion. Taxing the lower paid and then giving them a rebate may sound reasonable but the lower paid have to pay an additional tax all year that they may well struggle to afford and then be faced with a means tested application to their local council at the end of the tax year to get it back….nothing could go wrong there then?

    It was political posturing by a party that knows they aren’t going to win and therefore would never have to implement it.

  15. Donnie MacBrayne says:

    Cast aside the economic reasons not for retaining trident, what are the moral reasons for retaining this monstrosity?

    The reason we have it is that blair and brown bottled it and they got to used to the red carpet treatment it provides at the UN Security Council.

    A red carpet treatment they still enjoy today.

    Strange how Germany pouches above its weight in the world, could this be because they actually make goods people want and they don’t throw all ther country’s wealth into one city that produces SFA except financial services?

  16. Macart says:

    A nuclear albatross around Labour’s neck.

  17. r esquierdo says:

    Labour are opening their waste expulsion pipe valve and the shite continues to blast out like the elephant who drank the prune juice

  18. Ananurhing says:

    Slab’s lists showing they know the cost of everything,
    and the value of troughing.

  19. galamcennalath says:

    “too big a downgrading of our status”

    I think that general statement of the need to protect prestige, maintain ‘face’ internationally, could be applied to more than just Trident.

    I have always believed that opposition to Scottish self determination is to many in the London Bubble a similar “status” issue. Their mindset of a Greater England strutting the world stage, hawkishly brandishing WMDs, and sitting at the top UN table, is under threat.

    As for Labour, HQ are firmly entrenched in ‘the Bubble’. The Scottish branch don’t know where they stand on anything.

  20. dakk says:

    But all those nice well spoken men and women who look after us are warning us that we’ll have Russian jackboots marching down our high streets,and make us speak Russian if we don’t buy this weopon.

    Yeh,I’m shakin’ in ma boots.Enough already.

    We’ll be Red or Dead if we don’t write a blank cheque for Trident, that beautiful speaker Mr.Fallon told me on the telly.

    What are we waitin’ on.

    Hurry up.Putin Boots is comin’ for us !

  21. Hugh Kirk says:

    As Tony says;“giving it up would be too big a downgrading of our status as a nation” but having a proportion of citizens depending on food banks isnt. I suppose it depends on what values matter and on which side your on.

  22. Effijy says:

    No one seems to have noted the fact that the former head of the
    British Army has confirmed that the UK Government cannot fire
    these nuclear weapons, that we pay so much for, without a US launch code and their permission.

    Let’s say nation X has a nuclear weapon and takes up arms against the English. They launch a missile which would likely be at Scotland’s nuclear bases. One missile can wipe out the whole central belt Clyde to the Forth.

    England is far enough away, especially London, not to be too disturbed, but they give the US a call to enquire if they could
    launch a missile from a Sub.

    Meanwhile, the US are on the phone to nation X to agree that they will not give England the launch code, if they agree not to target the US mainland.

    US assures England that the “hit” was just a mistake and the situation was just a mix up so No you cannot retaliate.

    England needs to put something over Scotland’s wounds and offers
    a near Federal State, Home Rule, another fraction of a percent of the Tax and Oil revenue they generate, and a whole truck load of Mirrors and Beads for the remaining radioactive residents.

    Now for the happy ending, Westminster gives a generous number of Jobs to Inverness as it will build and host the next generation
    Trident 2.
    By closing NHS Scotland the whole project can be funded locally.

    Lady Dipity of Dug takes up her seat in the House of Lords for
    spearheading project Snear.

  23. Chic McGregor says:

    You rarely hear the nuclear blackmail possibility mentioned if the UK were ever to become a target of a foreign nuclear power.

    There have been many cases of nuclear blackmail used in the past, some confirmed and some alleged. Won’t list them here but one of the alleged ones concerned Thatcher and the Falklands.

    It is alleged that she threatened, to France, that she would use nuclear weapons on Argentina if the French did not disable the launch codes for the French made missiles the Argies had.
    That this is alleged to have worked is interesting in itself since in Game Theory as applied to nuclear conflict by the Hudson Institute et al this would probably only work if the Government threatened thus believed the threatener was deranged enough to carry out their threat. i.e. if true Mitterrand must have thought Thatcher was possibly mad enough to have done it.

    So to my point. Consider for a moment, the impossibly mad scenario, if North Korea ever actually did want to invade the UK. They could pull a Thatcher (as alleged) themselves. i.e. threaten, to the USA, that they would nuke Faslane if the USA did not disable Trident’s launch codes. And if the Americans thought the current NK leadership was mad enough to carry out the threat then they probably would comply.

    In otherwords, if for whatever strange reason any of the World’s nuclear powers decided to invade the UK (and not as part of a Global attack on the West) then the UK could easily find Trident disabled anyway – for their own good.

    The UK could probably only ever use Trident as part of a Global nuclear conflict which would of course be MAD.

    Nuclear blackmail is the biggest potential cause of nuclear war.

    Consider, if the Thatcher claim is true, what an invidious position that places the French in, in regard to their arms sales. If the UK fell out with any country which had French code launched missiles, the same strategy could be repeated. But, how long could that go on before the French called the UK’s bluff? And what if the UK leader was mad enough to go through with it?

    It also brings up the rather curious consequence that a nuclear power is advantaged in such a strategy if their leader appears mad and the inherent danger in the difficulty of finding someone who appears mad but isn’t.

  24. DerekM says:

    @ Cadogan Enright

    Yea did you notice every time they showed Putin it was with some creepy hammer house of horror music,it was straight out the Joseph Goebbels school of propaganda.

    And the guys they got to bad mouth him are all Russian crooks in exile here in the UK or London to be more specific,but its okay as they have lots of stolen Russian gold.

    Britnats bombs before bairns and the UN well you can fuck off as well who do you think you are telling us Brits what to do and that goes for you as well Europe ,if you dont let us rule we will throw all our toys out the pram because we have nuke bombs and we will use them if the Americans let us.

  25. Davy says:

    This R T&T (Red Tory & Trident) tax, over on labour hame Duncky hothersall claims that the rebate will be paid in advance for people under £20,000 but how can that be ?

    How can you claim a rebate when you don’t know what your total earnings until the end of the financal year, surely you have to pay the tax first before you can claim a rebate.

    I have asked the question of hothersall but no answer yet, what am I missing ? is it a weekly or monthly rebate and if so how much is that going to cost to adminster.

    Perhaps another labour influenced “independent think tank” could provide the answer ?

  26. Robert Peffers says:

    The Better Together Song:-

  27. Tam Jardine says:

    Scottish labour desperately need to find policies that them out as different from the SNP because faced with a straight choice people will vote SNP till the cows come home. The people see the SNP as significantly more competent and squarely behind Scotland.

    Hence they come up with these half baked policies. APD is a prime example- they want to be different so oppose the SNP cut on the grounds that they can then make all kinds of promises.

    What I have never heard a single slab representative pressed on are the economic benefits of cutting APD (and therefore the consequences of keeping it the same) or the impact on ordinary folk wanting the simple pleasure of a foreign holiday amid the daily grind of life.

    I think they have become completely superfluous in Scottish politics- the choice is SNP, tory, hard left or green. They are disappearing seat by seat

  28. JLT says:

    As I said in the previous post (Clown Shows), the problem for Scottish Labour is that they are intricately bound to the main Labour Party.

    I have no doubt that there will be Scottish Labour MSP’s who want absolutely nothing to do with Trident, but the only way they can truly denounce it, is if they clamour for absolute separation from the main party itself …and that just ain’t going to happen.

    So, when Labour MP’s vote for Trident …it’s not only a complete slap in the face for Kezia and Co., but also a slap down in being told that ‘these are the policies that you adhere to’.

    Scottish Labour will continue to face more embarrassments like this until either Scotland becomes independent, or they do finally become an independent party. That’s the reality.

  29. ahundredthidiot says:

    Trident. Not unlike Scotland’s independence.

    Both, either, would lead to the weakening of the status of the UK. Seat at security counsel and all that.

    Stiff upper lip on food banks, NHS, manufacturing industry, etc, etc, and stand tall that man!…….as the ship goes down.

  30. Doug McG says:

    Has SLAB infighting over the lists begun yet? Their 4000? new members must be itching to make changes but have not been allowed to , this time.

  31. Graeme Borthwick says:

    Lady Moan; Lady Ruthie; Lady Dug………….sounds good.

  32. Clootie says:

    It is the mind numbing stupidity of Scottish Labour politicians that drives me nuts.

    They can see the blatant waste of money by Westminster on ego projects such a Trident and Aircraft carriers along with London centric spend such as cross rail,HS2 and many more within the M25 boundary. The blatant disregard for heavy industry such as steel production by the same Parliament who rushed to cover the bankers losses is clear to see.

    …and this is Kezia’s party piece. When it is crystal clearIt that the austerity cuts are taking money from the poor to support all of the above vanity projects…. Kezia wants to blame the SNP for not supporting her idea to tax everyone in Scotland in order that the farce continues unchanged.

    One day we will have a parliament in Scotland in which the elected members actually believe in the welfare of the citizens of that nation before the interests of a selected few of another nation. That day is delayed as long as we have unionist lap dogs such as Kezia, Jackie Baillie, etc undermining progress.

  33. jim watson says:

    At a GE hustings the Labour Provost of Inverclyde shouted out that Trident “is needed to kill the Russians”…

    Who said the cold war was deid…

  34. Molly says:

    Kenny it’s incredible that the GMB ‘ fighting for workers rights’ are for maintaining Trident . Of course theres rights and there’s rights but if we’re extinguished to smithereens we can say ‘ abut the GMB fought for our rights ‘

    I always feel so secure as the convoy goes past knowing Sir Paul Kenny and the GMB have got my back

  35. Michael Granados says:

    I heard somewhere that the cost of Trident is not in fact split out by a population of the UK but is paid for entirely out of the Scottish budget since Trident is in Scotland. Can you confirm this?

  36. yesindyref2 says:

    Don’t normally watch the pre-match waffle for the rugby and no wonder. Holy sh^t. Scotland – Greig Laidlaw being interviewed by McKenzie (?) and every single thing about it from the clips and her questions was negative negative negative, with poor Greig having to answer this run-down we’ve rarely, we’ve never, it’s trouble.


    Feekkkkkkk offffff

  37. galamcennalath says:

    @Michael Granados

    Given the massive figures assessed for the amount of money Scotland has sent south over the decades, you could say we paid for it!

    Our money has to have gone somewhere, people say high speed rail, links across London etc etc.. Perhaps saying we paid for Trident is one way of accounting for our lost fortune.

  38. Onwards says:

    Labours position is even more remarkable because Corby has said he would never use these weapons.
    So it’s not even a deterrent factor any more with them.

    All the stuff about Russia invading is guff. At the point Russia ever attacked a western European country we would be in a third world war scenario. Crimea was unfortunate but it was already mostly Russian and they seem to support reunification.

  39. yesindyref2 says:

    I’m sorry for that outburst. It was very unfocussed,

    What I meant to say was.

    Feekkkkkkk offffff BBC, just feekkkkkkk offffff

    Tell me those questions weren’t chosen deliberately by the editorial staff to put Scotland down and I’ll be very very very very very very rude to you.

  40. Grouse Beater says:

    Britain as a world force is a delusion. We lost that at least three decades ago. The USA remains the world’s most weapon-powerful nation, though its influence is waning.

    Weekend reading – two for the price of one:

  41. Jack Murphy says:

    Effijy said at 1:03pm:-:

    “No one seems to have noted the fact that the former head of the
    British Army has confirmed that the UK Government cannot fire
    these nuclear weapons, that we pay so much for, without a US launch code and their permission.”
    Here he is on the Telly SAYING IT:-

  42. Chic McGregor says:

    @yesindyref2 OT2 an old photoshop.

  43. Jack Murphy says:

    Sorry about the Trident Telly Link—–it seems to be broke. 🙁

  44. yesindyref2 says:

    @Chic McGregor
    Thanks. I was raging, now I’m laughing till the tears run down.

    Yes, it’s what it’s like. These people have no positivity, none at all. None. No.

    TV’s muted till the match, then I can sit there laughing at them and flicking finger signs.

  45. Jack Murphy says:

    Effijy said at 1:03pm:-:

    “No one seems to have noted the fact that the former head of the
    British Army has confirmed that the UK Government cannot fire
    these nuclear weapons, that we pay so much for, without a US launch code and their permission.”
    Here he is on the Telly SAYING IT–the link is working.

  46. Clydebuilt says:

    Gotta be …...”The Red Tories Trident Tax”

  47. Chitterinlicht says:

    Dear labour you can tax me more to save vital services when you vote to stop wasting money on vanity big cock projects that do nothing but impoverish the nation.

    As far as i can see this is the easist way to balance the budget brought about by tory cuts that labour voted for.

    Time to man (or non man) up.

  48. crazycat says:

    @ Davy at 1.07

    Advance rebates might “work” like tax credits:

    Estimate annual income
    Receive rebate
    Only need to notify major changes in income during the tax year
    Report actual income at end of year
    Have any excess clawed back in next tax year

    When I briefly claimed working tax credits years ago, this system led to completely unintelligible “calculations”, months when I was paid nothing due to previous supposed over-payment, and years after I stopped claiming before I found out how to stop them wasting money sending me information packs telling me I was entitled to £0.00 – a farce.

    I suspect the cost of all this exceeded the amount of any over-payment by a considerable sum.

  49. galamcennalath says:

    OT, Scotland Bill. Amazing the Unionist spin of events…
    … obviously aimed at an English right wing audience.

    [I paraphrase] Those greedy Nationalists are after England’s money, again.

  50. Graeme McCormick says:

    On Thursday evening the Trident debate on Newsnight was revealing insofar as Lord West on behalf of the British Establishment said the Treasury would not agree to funds saved from not renewing Trident being used for conventional defence. Simply the UK establishment isn’t interested in the country’s defence or its service personnel.

  51. Xaracen says:

    “I heard somewhere that the cost of Trident is not in fact split out by a population of the UK but is paid for entirely out of the Scottish budget since Trident is in Scotland. Can you confirm this?”

    This was a conclusion by Neil Aslen, author of The Great Deception, a forensic economic analysis of the GERS 2005, came to:

    The GERS report gives the figure of £2,431 Millions or 9%, which also charges the entire cost of the Trident system to
    Scotland, when it fact it is a UK wide commitment. In actual fact the correct figure is £954 Millions or 3.5% giving a
    variance of £1,477 Millions.”

    Whether this was actually the case I am unable to say as I have never seen it confirmed or supported elsewhere.

  52. Sassenach says:

    @Ananurhing at 12-49

    Classic, “Know the cost of everything and the value of troughing”

    Sums up Labour politics to a tee! Does anyone else feel we have two great advantages, on that list, James Kelly and Jackie Baillie. Gifts from the Gods, I reckon!!

  53. msean says:

    I think those that want it most (Trident) and pay the biggest percentage should get all those Trident jobs along with the base for the thing itself. Funnily enough,no one seems to be in a desperate hurry to base it there. Wonder why that is?

  54. Craig P says:

    Trident is certainly not paid out of the Scottish budget, if by that you mean that the pocket money sent to Holyrood in the block grant. As defence is devolved, it comes out a UK budget, towards which of course Scotland pays a contribution.

    There is an argument that, like the BBC, the amount of defence spend in Scotland is less than is actually charged towards Scotland, but that is explained by the fact that Trident apart, most defence spending goes on protecting the important part of the UK, the Home Counties, plus paying to bomb whatever foreign country we are attacking at this point in time.

  55. Phil Robertson says:

    Can someone explain how a £167B over 32 years equates to a £438M pa cost for Scotland?

    On those figures the UK cost looks to be £500M pa. It’s Swinney arithmetic at its best!

  56. Croompenstein says:

    Can someone explain to me why I live in a country that cannot make decisions or set policy for the benefit of that country and its citizens.

    Can someone explain to me why I live in a country where the major decisions affecting us is made by people who live in another country.

    Can someone explain to me why my family have to live so close to one of the biggest collection of nuclear weapons in the world when my govt and people do not want it.

    Can someone explain to me… please explain Phil!!

  57. Thepnr says:

    @Phil Robertson

    Very simple arithmetic Phil.

    167,000 million x 0.083 (percentage of UK population living in Scotland) / 32 years equals 433 million/annum.

    Rest of UKOK share = £4785 million/annum based on having 91.7% of the UK population.

    Got it now?

  58. Bob Mack says:

    @Phil Robertson,

    You are wrong I am afraid. The cost is just over £5 billion a year to the whole of the UK. Scotland payments are 8.2% of that £5 billion,which equates to around 430 million.

    Swinnerton not so bad at maths after all. You—– not so good

  59. Sandy says:

    I ask this again, why does Britain (England) have a nuclear deterrent & the rest have nuclear weapons.

  60. Thepnr says:


    Try reading this for an expalnation, bit long winded but relevant to your question.

    As opposed to the extreme mutually assured destruction form of deterrence, the concept of minimum deterrence in which a state possesses no more nuclear weapons than is necessary to deter an adversary from attacking is presently the most common form of deterrence practiced by nuclear weapon states, such as China, India, Pakistan, Britain, and France.

  61. Sandy says:

    Excuse my apparent ignorance but does that mean USA & Russia have nuclear weapons? & North Korea.

  62. yesindyref2 says:

    Don’t really know what standard definitions might be, but there needs to be a method of delivery, to be sure that has to be “stand-off”, i.e. not have to risk being shot down in a plane carrying a device, so therefore missile these days.

    Short range rockets are usually tactical (battlefield) and subsonic, it’s multi-stage Inter-Continental long-range supersonic that gives the real ability to nearly make sure (currently) of getting through to a distant target.

    Ironically North Korea reported 20 mins ago has successfully launched a rocket into space, and after its 4th nuclear test in January can I think be deemed to have “joined the club”.

    UK, France, India and Pakistan have limited numbers of nukes, the UK can “only” fire 64 or even down to 48 warheads. Vanguard has 16 missile tubes, Successor will have 12 as the UK is scaling down its numbers in accord with the NNPT reduction agreements. Don’t know how many China has, but basically only Russia and the USA can go in for MAD and totally destroy the planet. Apparently.

  63. yesindyref2 says:

    I skipped the odd couple of details in that, Trident weighs 55 tons and is tall, so it’s not a case of a couple of guys firing off a missile and pushing the next into the tube, the tubes are vertical and preloaded before launching the boat, hence the floating dock and marrying warhead to missile. I expect there’s more, that was off the top of my head.

    Oh SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles) are launched by compressed air from the tubes (at a depth of 60 feet I think), the first stage rockets don’t light up until they reach the surface.

  64. yesindyref2 says:

    As far as cost of Successor and Trident is concerned it is not of course linear, as the costs rise probably £2 billion a year for a good few years to build Successor, so £7 billion for the UK, £600 million a year for Scotland.

    Re launch codes, the UK never went the launch code route for missile launch, it uses keys.

  65. Sledger says:

    The calculations from Labour are nonsense. They claim they will pay £100 to everyone earning under £20k pa which they estimate to be 810k people. So that’s -£81m not -£75m.

    You should probably consider the cost of administering such a scheme. Think about the cost of administering driving licences, passports, etc. Would it be too much to calculate the administrative cost for each £100 payment to be £20? I suspect that’s light, but at £20 it’s another £16m.

    So that’s £97m down before you start.

    If you look at the credit side, the claims of £480m a year are fantasy.
    If the entire income tax receipts for Scotland were all based on 20% tax then an additional 1% would raise £598m (before any £100 payments).

    But of course most income tax is collected at higher rates of 40%, 45% and the 60% marginal rate). So when you factor this into the equation you are looking are closer to £250m to £300m in receipts (before £100 payments).

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top