Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/02/2023 06:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ts2b57$ke9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:33:43 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>> 2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>>> On 9 Feb 2023 at 8:33:11 AM EET, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <trqoes$32dj1$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:31:40 on Mon, 6 Feb
>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why are you continuing to flog this dead horse argument? I know how to
>>>>>>> use the phones, but I can't access a facility that simply doesn't
>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yes, for the umpteenth time, "Swipe up" does *NOTHING* on my
>>>>>>> phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you configure it to do something useful then?
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no user-configurable option to achieve that. Odd you should
>>>>> still be under the misapprehension there might be.
>>>>
>>>> This, at least, might well be true, given how ancient Roland's phones
>>>> are.
>>>
>>> Pinned down a week ago (but I'm still catching up on some old threads)
>>> as dating to May 2021.
>>>
>>>> Android didn't really get system-wide gesture support until Android 9
>>>> (wherein
>>>> it was half-baked and awful), and didn't get *good* system-wide gesture
>>>> support until Android 10, at which point they'd ditched what they did
>>>> in v9
>>>> and essentially just copied what Samsung had been doing for a few years.
>>>> Since then, it's been pretty much unchanged. (Samsung were the first
>>>> to drop
>>>> the dedicated apps/home/back buttons to move to "all screen" phones, and
>>>> introduced gesture support at around the same time as part of the
>>>> 'replacement' of physical buttons.)
>>>
>>> My wife's new Moto phone (the previous approx two year old one expired
>>> with a duff battery, but also broken screen), and which only arrived
>>> since this subthread thread began, has dropped those three buttons and
>>> she *hates* it. Of course, it has the swipe-up.
>>>
>>>> Given that the Android 6 generation (Samsung Galaxy S7 being an
>>>> example) were
>>>> the last to have physical buttons, and the all-glass generation
>>>> (Galaxy S8 on)
>>>> launched with Android 7, it's quite likely even Roland's Samsung is
>>>> too old to
>>>> have gesture support.
>>>
>>> The Samsung is my work phone, so not my problem. It dates to November
>>> 2021. However I literally only have two third party apps (and only use
>>> three or four bundled ones like Phone), so searching for them isn't an
>>> issue.
>>>
>>>> However, search for an app very much is a facility that does exist,
>>>> even in
>>>> Android 6, as I've demonstrated elsewhere. Roland just needs to find the
>>>> manual for his phone to learn how to use it.
>>>
>>> The facility you mentioned iirc is a work-around, where you re-run a
>>> query to the cloud-based app-store and it says "In the list of choices
>>> I'm offering you now, I have a note here which says you should have
>>> <<this one>> already installed. Of course, the app may have been
>>> uninstalled locally. Anyway, it then takes you to the page in the app
>>> store, where there's an "Open" button.
>>>
>>> What's more of a puzzle is why the manual which came with the phone
>>> would have hints-and-tips (or even anything at all) in it, regarding use
>>> of the app-store. Or even gestures. Part of the problem being these are
>>> a feature of Android, and morph all the time, so printing something to
>>> ship with the phone is a hostage to fortune.
>>>
>>> Even something as simple as the app-store changes. I've just noticed
>>> that it no longer has (nor can I find by poking around) a collection of
>>> "My Apps", which I think used to be sorted roughly in reverse
>>> chronological order of first installation, and one way to remind oneself
>>> of a recently forgotten name; also to assist restoring those apps which
>>> "new phone swap" software inevitably loses track of several.
>>
>> Simple answer, get yourself an iPhone, it just works.
>
> My Android phone mostly just works, as do those of most of the other
> posters here; there’s something about Roland’s that’s different.

Exactly!

My inexpensive Android phone 'just works'. It never goes wrong, has a long
battery life, 128GB of storage, a wonderful big, bright, sharp OLED screen,
and I have no trouble using my many apps, including telephone banking and
paying for things. It has both facial recognition and an in-screen
fingerprint scanner, which is really convenient. It even has stereo
speakers.

But, being a relatively cheap phone, a couple of the cameras aren't great,
just as I expected (I'm often carrying one or more 'proper' cameras, that
produce much better images than any phone cameras). If I shot more pictures
on the phone, I'd have bought a more expensive model with better cameras.

The Android version has been updated twice, which was a completely painless
process, and I think it'll get one more update, plus continuing security
patches. So it should have a 4-5 year uncompromised life, and longer if I
don't mind running a slightly out-of-date OS. It doesn't have 5G, but
that's not currently a problem.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:47:20 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Precisely that. It's sitting on loads of assets which have been paid for
>> by the UK, and ought to "buy" off r-UK in the event of a divorce.
>
>Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in

By the time it matters the scottish part of the north sea will be dry of any
economically extractable oil. There might be some gas left but not the amount
the SNP proudly proclaimed would be scotlands nest egg back in the day.

>Scottish territorial waters, the military installations on the Clyde… We’d

Given the current situation in europe when even finland wants to join NATO
you'd have to have a pretty irresponsible halfwit first minister to kick the
british forces out of scotland. But then the SNP have shown that halfwittism
is one of their specialities.

On 20 Feb 2023 at 9:31:03 AM EET, "Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 20/02/2023 06:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ts2b57$ke9h$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:33:43 on Thu, 9 Feb
>> 2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>> On 9 Feb 2023 at 8:33:11 AM EET, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <trqoes$32dj1$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:31:40 on Mon, 6 Feb
>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are you continuing to flog this dead horse argument? I know how to
>>>>>> use the phones, but I can't access a facility that simply doesn't
>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yes, for the umpteenth time, "Swipe up" does *NOTHING* on my
>>>>>> phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you configure it to do something useful then?
>>>>
>>>> There's no user-configurable option to achieve that. Odd you should
>>>> still be under the misapprehension there might be.
>>>
>>> This, at least, might well be true, given how ancient Roland's phones
>>> are.
>>
>> Pinned down a week ago (but I'm still catching up on some old threads)
>> as dating to May 2021.
>>
>>> Android didn't really get system-wide gesture support until Android 9
>>> (wherein
>>> it was half-baked and awful), and didn't get *good* system-wide gesture
>>> support until Android 10, at which point they'd ditched what they did
>>> in v9
>>> and essentially just copied what Samsung had been doing for a few years.
>>> Since then, it's been pretty much unchanged. (Samsung were the first
>>> to drop
>>> the dedicated apps/home/back buttons to move to "all screen" phones, and
>>> introduced gesture support at around the same time as part of the
>>> 'replacement' of physical buttons.)
>>
>> My wife's new Moto phone (the previous approx two year old one expired
>> with a duff battery, but also broken screen), and which only arrived
>> since this subthread thread began, has dropped those three buttons and
>> she *hates* it. Of course, it has the swipe-up.
>>
>>> Given that the Android 6 generation (Samsung Galaxy S7 being an
>>> example) were
>>> the last to have physical buttons, and the all-glass generation
>>> (Galaxy S8 on)
>>> launched with Android 7, it's quite likely even Roland's Samsung is
>>> too old to
>>> have gesture support.
>>
>> The Samsung is my work phone, so not my problem. It dates to November
>> 2021. However I literally only have two third party apps (and only use
>> three or four bundled ones like Phone), so searching for them isn't an
>> issue.
>>
>>> However, search for an app very much is a facility that does exist,
>>> even in
>>> Android 6, as I've demonstrated elsewhere. Roland just needs to find the
>>> manual for his phone to learn how to use it.
>>
>> The facility you mentioned iirc is a work-around, where you re-run a
>> query to the cloud-based app-store and it says "In the list of choices
>> I'm offering you now, I have a note here which says you should have
>> <<this one>> already installed. Of course, the app may have been
>> uninstalled locally. Anyway, it then takes you to the page in the app
>> store, where there's an "Open" button.
>>
>> What's more of a puzzle is why the manual which came with the phone
>> would have hints-and-tips (or even anything at all) in it, regarding use
>> of the app-store. Or even gestures. Part of the problem being these are
>> a feature of Android, and morph all the time, so printing something to
>> ship with the phone is a hostage to fortune.
>>
>> Even something as simple as the app-store changes. I've just noticed
>> that it no longer has (nor can I find by poking around) a collection of
>> "My Apps", which I think used to be sorted roughly in reverse
>> chronological order of first installation, and one way to remind oneself
>> of a recently forgotten name; also to assist restoring those apps which
>> "new phone swap" software inevitably loses track of several.
>
> Simple answer, get yourself an iPhone, it just works.

I've already gone to the trouble of posting a video of how Roland's phone with
Android 6 would "just work" as well, he just refuses to actually learn how to
use it. I'm not sure even Apple have cracked the problem of making something
'just work' when the user wilfully refuses to actually try.

It should also be noted that Apple stuff also ceases to 'just work' after a
while of ignoring (or no longer available) software updates - I have an old
iPad that is testament to that, being good for not much more than a
paperweight these days. The question of how Roland has managed to get someone
to sell him in 2021 a supposedly new device with an operating system that was
discontinued in 2016 is very much at the heart of this mystery...

To be quite honest I'm starting to reach the conclusion that the man is
congenital liar as well as a fantasist, because we are frankly all out of
other rational explanations now. And I don't give a rat's arse if that's
considered an 'ad hominem attack'.

On 20/02/2023 11:47, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
> Scottish territorial waters, the military installations on the Clyde… We’d
> like the bit of the North Sea that England stole back though, and proper
> accounting of all the Scottish resources that have benefited rUK.

And the English resources that have benefitted Scotland?

The North Sea was initially gas fields that were off Yorkshire and East
Anglia, I don't remember Scotland worrying about all the benefits going
only to those areas?

The military installations around the Clyde provide employment for many
people in that area.

On 20/02/2023 12:55, Clank wrote:
> It should also be noted that Apple stuff also ceases to 'just work' after a
> while of ignoring (or no longer available) software updates - I have an old
> iPad that is testament to that, being good for not much more than a
> paperweight these days.

Takes a while though, my iPad 1 has jut gone for recycling, it finally
wouldn't talk to my desktop for updating. Given it's 12 years old,
that's not bad for modern tech.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 20/02/2023 12:09, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:47:20 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Precisely that. It's sitting on loads of assets which have been paid for
>>> by the UK, and ought to "buy" off r-UK in the event of a divorce.
>>
>> Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
>
> By the time it matters the scottish part of the north sea will be dry of any
> economically extractable oil. There might be some gas left but not the amount
> the SNP proudly proclaimed would be scotlands nest egg back in the day.
>

But there is plenty of both oil and gas to the north and west of
Shetland. Ah, but if Scotland is allowed to secede then Shetland will do
the same and the Scots will still be without a nest egg!!

--
Colin

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:47:20 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tsb4fq$1qnf9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:06 on Sun, 12 Feb
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ts5lqd$12o25$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:05 on Fri, 10 Feb
>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ts2stm$mb67$3@dont-email.me>, at 13:36:54 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>>>> 2023, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 09/02/2023 12:00, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> [1] Yes, it’s taken a while and it’s not finished yet. I
>>>>>>>> don’t see any
>>>>>>>> reason for it to come to that extreme. Maybe Czechia and
>>>>>>>> Slovakia would be
>>>>>>>> a better example but I don’t know what the relationship is
>>>>>>>> currently like.
>>>>>>>> I probably wouldn’t want to use Yugoslavia as a model.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was a report on recently on the anniversary of the Czechia /
>>>>>>> Slovakia split and it was said to have been very amicable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the danger if there is partition of Scotland is from the
>>>>>>> Scottish side. I can't see any official restrictions from England
>>>>>>> though I think that with all the bitterness there has been from the
>>>>>>> SNP, people might avoid Scottish products in the shops like some avoid
>>>>>>> anything from Southern Ireland.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hopefully the SNP might collapse or at least they might move back from
>>>>>>> wanting partition. Sturgeon does seem to be Dead (Wo)Man Walking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do hope that if they do go ahead then they should pay the full cost.
>>>>>>> It is going to be expensive to split many functions that have been
>>>>>>> combined and shared for years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just like the UK is having to recreate many functions that we once
>>>>>> shared with the EU. The medicines approvals agency was the first to get
>>>>>> some exposure, but probably only because the EU one used to be located
>>>>>> in the UK and had to relocate to the mainland. Taking its revenue stream
>>>>>> with them of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the whole cost of that should be paid by Scotland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The British public is paying for Brexit.
>>>>>
>>>>> You’re agreeing the Scotland should pay the upfront costs, or that
>>>>> it would end up facing the same kind of consequential costs that the
>>>>> UK is currently shouldering?
>>>>
>>>> Both. The former is like the UK's Divorce Payment (much swept under the
>>>> carpet, but round £35bn is latest estimate - quick, someone paint
>>>> *that* on the side of a bus); the latter the consequence of having to
>>>> build some new (to Scotland) government departments and agencies from
>>>> scratch.
>>>
>>> But the Divorce Settlement with the EU is to cover ongoing payments the UK
>>> had already committed to. It’s not clear that Scotland would be liable to
>>> any such, given how it’s usually pictured as a drain on the UK economy.
>>
>> Precisely that. It's sitting on loads of assets which have been paid for
>> by the UK, and ought to "buy" off r-UK in the event of a divorce.
>
>Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
>Scottish territorial waters,
>
They can't have back what was never theirs; not that that stopped
Westminster (Labour or Tory) seizing stuff (e.g. the TSB) in the past.

>the military installations on the Clyde… We’d
>like the bit of the North Sea that England stole back though, and proper
>accounting of all the Scottish resources that have benefited rUK.
>
>Do you really want to go down that road?
>
>Sam

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:47:20 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tsb4fq$1qnf9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:06 on Sun, 12 Feb
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ts5lqd$12o25$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:05 on Fri, 10 Feb
>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ts2stm$mb67$3@dont-email.me>, at 13:36:54 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>>>>> 2023, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 09/02/2023 12:00, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [1] Yes, it’s taken a while and it’s not finished yet. I
>>>>>>>>> don’t see any
>>>>>>>>> reason for it to come to that extreme. Maybe Czechia and
>>>>>>>>> Slovakia would be
>>>>>>>>> a better example but I don’t know what the relationship is
>>>>>>>>> currently like.
>>>>>>>>> I probably wouldn’t want to use Yugoslavia as a model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was a report on recently on the anniversary of the Czechia /
>>>>>>>> Slovakia split and it was said to have been very amicable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the danger if there is partition of Scotland is from the
>>>>>>>> Scottish side. I can't see any official restrictions from England
>>>>>>>> though I think that with all the bitterness there has been from the
>>>>>>>> SNP, people might avoid Scottish products in the shops like some avoid
>>>>>>>> anything from Southern Ireland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully the SNP might collapse or at least they might move back from
>>>>>>>> wanting partition. Sturgeon does seem to be Dead (Wo)Man Walking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do hope that if they do go ahead then they should pay the full cost.
>>>>>>>> It is going to be expensive to split many functions that have been
>>>>>>>> combined and shared for years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just like the UK is having to recreate many functions that we once
>>>>>>> shared with the EU. The medicines approvals agency was the first to get
>>>>>>> some exposure, but probably only because the EU one used to be located
>>>>>>> in the UK and had to relocate to the mainland. Taking its revenue stream
>>>>>>> with them of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the whole cost of that should be paid by Scotland.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The British public is paying for Brexit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You’re agreeing the Scotland should pay the upfront costs, or that
>>>>>> it would end up facing the same kind of consequential costs that the
>>>>>> UK is currently shouldering?
>>>>>
>>>>> Both. The former is like the UK's Divorce Payment (much swept under the
>>>>> carpet, but round £35bn is latest estimate - quick, someone paint
>>>>> *that* on the side of a bus); the latter the consequence of having to
>>>>> build some new (to Scotland) government departments and agencies from
>>>>> scratch.
>>>>
>>>> But the Divorce Settlement with the EU is to cover ongoing payments the UK
>>>> had already committed to. It’s not clear that Scotland would be liable to
>>>> any such, given how it’s usually pictured as a drain on the UK economy.
>>>
>>> Precisely that. It's sitting on loads of assets which have been paid for
>>> by the UK, and ought to "buy" off r-UK in the event of a divorce.
>>
>> Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
>> Scottish territorial waters,
>>
> They can't have back what was never theirs; not that that stopped
> Westminster (Labour or Tory) seizing stuff (e.g. the TSB) in the past.

The oil and gas platforms and pipelines are all privately owned. They were
not funded by the UK state. And, as they approach the end of their lives,
they are entitled to a refund of previously paid taxes to help cover the
substantial dismantlement costs. So, they'll be paying negative taxes in
their final years.

As for new fields, most would be in deep, stormy waters, and therefore very
expensive to develop. That's affordable to oil companies if oil prices are
high and on an upwards trend, taxes are low and stable, and lower cost
options aren't available elsewhere. None of those favourable circumstances
are currently the case, so major new oil/gas field developments in UK
waters are unlikely.

On 20/02/2023 15:33, ColinR wrote:
> But there is plenty of both oil and gas to the north and west of
> Shetland. Ah, but if Scotland is allowed to secede then Shetland will do
> the same and the Scots will still be without a nest egg!!

If Shetland and Orkney both went independent that would take away a lot
of what they think in Edinburgh are Scottish waters.

But no chance of the SNP giving anything.

When Forbes gets the job, everyone will have to speak Gaelic. :-)

On 21/02/2023 02:36, Recliner wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:47:20 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tsb4fq$1qnf9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:06 on Sun, 12 Feb
>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ts5lqd$12o25$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:05 on Fri, 10 Feb
>>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ts2stm$mb67$3@dont-email.me>, at 13:36:54 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2023, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/02/2023 12:00, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [1] Yes, it’s taken a while and it’s not finished yet. I
>>>>>>>>>> don’t see any
>>>>>>>>>> reason for it to come to that extreme. Maybe Czechia and
>>>>>>>>>> Slovakia would be
>>>>>>>>>> a better example but I don’t know what the relationship is
>>>>>>>>>> currently like.
>>>>>>>>>> I probably wouldn’t want to use Yugoslavia as a model.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There was a report on recently on the anniversary of the Czechia /
>>>>>>>>> Slovakia split and it was said to have been very amicable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think the danger if there is partition of Scotland is from the
>>>>>>>>> Scottish side. I can't see any official restrictions from England
>>>>>>>>> though I think that with all the bitterness there has been from the
>>>>>>>>> SNP, people might avoid Scottish products in the shops like some avoid
>>>>>>>>> anything from Southern Ireland.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hopefully the SNP might collapse or at least they might move back from
>>>>>>>>> wanting partition. Sturgeon does seem to be Dead (Wo)Man Walking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do hope that if they do go ahead then they should pay the full cost.
>>>>>>>>> It is going to be expensive to split many functions that have been
>>>>>>>>> combined and shared for years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just like the UK is having to recreate many functions that we once
>>>>>>>> shared with the EU. The medicines approvals agency was the first to get
>>>>>>>> some exposure, but probably only because the EU one used to be located
>>>>>>>> in the UK and had to relocate to the mainland. Taking its revenue stream
>>>>>>>> with them of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So the whole cost of that should be paid by Scotland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The British public is paying for Brexit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You’re agreeing the Scotland should pay the upfront costs, or that
>>>>>>> it would end up facing the same kind of consequential costs that the
>>>>>>> UK is currently shouldering?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both. The former is like the UK's Divorce Payment (much swept under the
>>>>>> carpet, but round £35bn is latest estimate - quick, someone paint
>>>>>> *that* on the side of a bus); the latter the consequence of having to
>>>>>> build some new (to Scotland) government departments and agencies from
>>>>>> scratch.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the Divorce Settlement with the EU is to cover ongoing payments the UK
>>>>> had already committed to. It’s not clear that Scotland would be liable to
>>>>> any such, given how it’s usually pictured as a drain on the UK economy.
>>>>
>>>> Precisely that. It's sitting on loads of assets which have been paid for
>>>> by the UK, and ought to "buy" off r-UK in the event of a divorce.
>>>
>>> Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
>>> Scottish territorial waters,
>>>
>> They can't have back what was never theirs; not that that stopped
>> Westminster (Labour or Tory) seizing stuff (e.g. the TSB) in the past.
>
> The oil and gas platforms and pipelines are all privately owned. They were
> not funded by the UK state. And, as they approach the end of their lives,
> they are entitled to a refund of previously paid taxes to help cover the
> substantial dismantlement costs. So, they'll be paying negative taxes in
> their final years.
>
> As for new fields, most would be in deep, stormy waters, and therefore very
> expensive to develop. That's affordable to oil companies if oil prices are
> high and on an upwards trend, taxes are low and stable, and lower cost
> options aren't available elsewhere. None of those favourable circumstances
> are currently the case, so major new oil/gas field developments in UK
> waters are unlikely.

Not quite true. The Norwegian firm Equinor are only awaiting the UK
government's approval to open up the Rosebank oil and gas field. In
addition there is another west of Shetland field (Cambo) which was "on
ice" but is being looked again.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/08/cambo-oilfield-development-could-be-back-on-after-takeover

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/cambo-oil-field-ahead-meets-125909192.html

https://www.equinor.com/energy/rosebank

--
Colin

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/02/2023 02:36, Recliner wrote:
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:47:20 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tsb4fq$1qnf9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:35:06 on Sun, 12 Feb
>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ts5lqd$12o25$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:05 on Fri, 10 Feb
>>>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <ts2stm$mb67$3@dont-email.me>, at 13:36:54 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2023, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/02/2023 12:00, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] Yes, it’s taken a while and it’s not finished yet. I
>>>>>>>>>>> don’t see any
>>>>>>>>>>> reason for it to come to that extreme. Maybe Czechia and
>>>>>>>>>>> Slovakia would be
>>>>>>>>>>> a better example but I don’t know what the relationship is
>>>>>>>>>>> currently like.
>>>>>>>>>>> I probably wouldn’t want to use Yugoslavia as a model.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There was a report on recently on the anniversary of the Czechia /
>>>>>>>>>> Slovakia split and it was said to have been very amicable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think the danger if there is partition of Scotland is from the
>>>>>>>>>> Scottish side. I can't see any official restrictions from England
>>>>>>>>>> though I think that with all the bitterness there has been from the
>>>>>>>>>> SNP, people might avoid Scottish products in the shops like some avoid
>>>>>>>>>> anything from Southern Ireland.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully the SNP might collapse or at least they might move back from
>>>>>>>>>> wanting partition. Sturgeon does seem to be Dead (Wo)Man Walking.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do hope that if they do go ahead then they should pay the full cost.
>>>>>>>>>> It is going to be expensive to split many functions that have been
>>>>>>>>>> combined and shared for years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just like the UK is having to recreate many functions that we once
>>>>>>>>> shared with the EU. The medicines approvals agency was the first to get
>>>>>>>>> some exposure, but probably only because the EU one used to be located
>>>>>>>>> in the UK and had to relocate to the mainland. Taking its revenue stream
>>>>>>>>> with them of course.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So the whole cost of that should be paid by Scotland.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The British public is paying for Brexit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You’re agreeing the Scotland should pay the upfront costs, or that
>>>>>>>> it would end up facing the same kind of consequential costs that the
>>>>>>>> UK is currently shouldering?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both. The former is like the UK's Divorce Payment (much swept under the
>>>>>>> carpet, but round £35bn is latest estimate - quick, someone paint
>>>>>>> *that* on the side of a bus); the latter the consequence of having to
>>>>>>> build some new (to Scotland) government departments and agencies from
>>>>>>> scratch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the Divorce Settlement with the EU is to cover ongoing payments the UK
>>>>>> had already committed to. It’s not clear that Scotland would be liable to
>>>>>> any such, given how it’s usually pictured as a drain on the UK economy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Precisely that. It's sitting on loads of assets which have been paid for
>>>>> by the UK, and ought to "buy" off r-UK in the event of a divorce.
>>>>
>>>> Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
>>>> Scottish territorial waters,
>>>>
>>> They can't have back what was never theirs; not that that stopped
>>> Westminster (Labour or Tory) seizing stuff (e.g. the TSB) in the past.
>>
>> The oil and gas platforms and pipelines are all privately owned. They were
>> not funded by the UK state. And, as they approach the end of their lives,
>> they are entitled to a refund of previously paid taxes to help cover the
>> substantial dismantlement costs. So, they'll be paying negative taxes in
>> their final years.
>>
>> As for new fields, most would be in deep, stormy waters, and therefore very
>> expensive to develop. That's affordable to oil companies if oil prices are
>> high and on an upwards trend, taxes are low and stable, and lower cost
>> options aren't available elsewhere. None of those favourable circumstances
>> are currently the case, so major new oil/gas field developments in UK
>> waters are unlikely.
>
> Not quite true. The Norwegian firm Equinor are only awaiting the UK
> government's approval to open up the Rosebank oil and gas field. In
> addition there is another west of Shetland field (Cambo) which was "on
> ice" but is being looked again.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/08/cambo-oilfield-development-could-be-back-on-after-takeover
>
> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/cambo-oil-field-ahead-meets-125909192.html
>
> https://www.equinor.com/energy/rosebank

None of those reports suggest that it will actually go ahead. Look at the
oil price trend:
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil

And the UK windfall tax and higher CT certainly don't help.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:47:20 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Precisely that. It's sitting on loads of assets which have been paid for
>>> by the UK, and ought to "buy" off r-UK in the event of a divorce.
>>
>> Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
>
> By the time it matters the scottish part of the north sea will be dry of any
> economically extractable oil. There might be some gas left but not the amount
> the SNP proudly proclaimed would be scotlands nest egg back in the day.

Then rUK can pay for the removal of all the junk it’s left behind - seems
only fair if they paid to put them there in the first place.

>> Scottish territorial waters, the military installations on the Clyde… We’d
>
> Given the current situation in europe when even finland wants to join NATO
> you'd have to have a pretty irresponsible halfwit first minister to kick the
> british forces out of scotland. But then the SNP have shown that halfwittism
> is one of their specialities.

It’s a complicated situation, given the inequitable nature of the
distribution of major military sites around the UK.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 20/02/2023 11:47, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
>> Scottish territorial waters, the military installations on the Clyde… We’d
>> like the bit of the North Sea that England stole back though, and proper
>> accounting of all the Scottish resources that have benefited rUK.
>
>
> And the English resources that have benefitted Scotland?

Plenty, of course - this conversation started with a comment from you about
making Scotland pay for all the costs of independence. Disentangling the
costs and benefits would be a hugely complicated and disputable process.

> The North Sea was initially gas fields that were off Yorkshire and East
> Anglia, I don't remember Scotland worrying about all the benefits going
> only to those areas?

Did the benefits go only to Yorkshire and East Anglia? I thought they’d
have gone directly to London for disbursement as the then government
thought fit. The same applies to resources in Scottish waters.

> The military installations around the Clyde provide employment for many
> people in that area.

Of course they do. So did mines and coal fired power stations and steel
works and motor vehicle factories. That doesn’t mean they’ll be there
forever.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:00:38 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:47:20 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Precisely that. It's sitting on loads of assets which have been paid for
>>>> by the UK, and ought to "buy" off r-UK in the event of a divorce.
>>>
>>> Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
>>
>> By the time it matters the scottish part of the north sea will be dry of any
>
>> economically extractable oil. There might be some gas left but not the
>amount
>> the SNP proudly proclaimed would be scotlands nest egg back in the day.
>
>Then rUK can pay for the removal of all the junk it’s left behind - seems
>only fair if they paid to put them there in the first place.

I don't think you understand how it works. The oil companies pay for licenses
to drill and fork out for all the infrastructure themselves then sell the
oil/gas. Then they pay the government a nice fat wodge of tax including whatever
windfall tax the government of the time needs to make up treasury shortfall due
to its useless economic policies. The oil companies are also responsible for
tidying up their mess.

>> Given the current situation in europe when even finland wants to join NATO
>> you'd have to have a pretty irresponsible halfwit first minister to kick the
>> british forces out of scotland. But then the SNP have shown that halfwittism
>> is one of their specialities.
>
>It’s a complicated situation, given the inequitable nature of the
>distribution of major military sites around the UK.

Inequitable trumps none at all.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:00:38 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:47:20 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Precisely that. It's sitting on loads of assets which have been paid for
>>>>> by the UK, and ought to "buy" off r-UK in the event of a divorce.
>>>>
>>>> Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
>>>
>>> By the time it matters the scottish part of the north sea will be dry of any
>>
>>> economically extractable oil. There might be some gas left but not the
>> amount
>>> the SNP proudly proclaimed would be scotlands nest egg back in the day.
>>
>> Then rUK can pay for the removal of all the junk it’s left behind - seems
>> only fair if they paid to put them there in the first place.
>
> I don't think you understand how it works. The oil companies pay for licenses
> to drill and fork out for all the infrastructure themselves then sell the
> oil/gas. Then they pay the government a nice fat wodge of tax including whatever
> windfall tax the government of the time needs to make up treasury shortfall due
> to its useless economic policies. The oil companies are also responsible for
> tidying up their mess.

See Recliner’s parallel posting about possible or likely tax refunds aka
subsidies for tidying up. That should come from the same government who
the taxes were paid to in the first place.

>>> Given the current situation in europe when even finland wants to join NATO
>>> you'd have to have a pretty irresponsible halfwit first minister to kick the
>>> british forces out of scotland. But then the SNP have shown that halfwittism
>>> is one of their specialities.
>>
>> It’s a complicated situation, given the inequitable nature of the
>> distribution of major military sites around the UK.
>
> Inequitable trumps none at all.

I was intending that as a simple statement of fact. Would uneven be
better? For example there is only one nuclear submarine base in the UK.
Even if an independent Scotland would be able to countenance a nuclear base
on its territory there would have to be a deal done or it would have to be
moved (and there’s nowhere else in rUK which would be very suitable).
That’s a major incentive for Unionists right there.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 22/02/2023 19:30, Sam Wilson wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:00:38 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:47:20 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Precisely that. It's sitting on loads of assets which have been paid for
>>>>>> by the UK, and ought to "buy" off r-UK in the event of a divorce.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
>>>>
>>>> By the time it matters the scottish part of the north sea will be dry of any
>>>
>>>> economically extractable oil. There might be some gas left but not the
>>> amount
>>>> the SNP proudly proclaimed would be scotlands nest egg back in the day.
>>>
>>> Then rUK can pay for the removal of all the junk it’s left behind - seems
>>> only fair if they paid to put them there in the first place.
>>
>> I don't think you understand how it works. The oil companies pay for licenses
>> to drill and fork out for all the infrastructure themselves then sell the
>> oil/gas. Then they pay the government a nice fat wodge of tax including whatever
>> windfall tax the government of the time needs to make up treasury shortfall due
>> to its useless economic policies. The oil companies are also responsible for
>> tidying up their mess.
>
> See Recliner’s parallel posting about possible or likely tax refunds aka
> subsidies for tidying up. That should come from the same government who
> the taxes were paid to in the first place.
>
>>>> Given the current situation in europe when even finland wants to join NATO
>>>> you'd have to have a pretty irresponsible halfwit first minister to kick the
>>>> british forces out of scotland. But then the SNP have shown that halfwittism
>>>> is one of their specialities.
>>>
>>> It’s a complicated situation, given the inequitable nature of the
>>> distribution of major military sites around the UK.
>>
>> Inequitable trumps none at all.
>
> I was intending that as a simple statement of fact. Would uneven be
> better? For example there is only one nuclear submarine base in the UK.

Actually two, the hunter-killers have a separate base to the missile boats.

> Even if an independent Scotland would be able to countenance a nuclear base
> on its territory there would have to be a deal done or it would have to be
> moved (and there’s nowhere else in rUK which would be very suitable).
> That’s a major incentive for Unionists right there.
>

Plans to move to Devonport have been in place for many years as a back up.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:30:14 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> It’s a complicated situation, given the inequitable nature of the
>>> distribution of major military sites around the UK.
>>
>> Inequitable trumps none at all.
>
>I was intending that as a simple statement of fact. Would uneven be
>better? For example there is only one nuclear submarine base in the UK.
>Even if an independent Scotland would be able to countenance a nuclear base
>on its territory there would have to be a deal done or it would have to be
>moved (and there’s nowhere else in rUK which would be very suitable).
>That’s a major incentive for Unionists right there.

Scotland would be far worse off with little to no military than england
would be in having to move a couple of its bases. Russian aircraft and ships
are always prodding our defenses. You think they won't sail right up to
within sight of the forth bridge or overfly the orkneys if Putin knows that
a Cessna with a pop gun is all the defense the SNP can muster?

And if you think I'm joking I suggest you check out the "military" of the
irish republic.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/02/2023 19:30, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:00:38 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:47:20 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Precisely that. It's sitting on loads of assets which have been paid for
>>>>>>> by the UK, and ought to "buy" off r-UK in the event of a divorce.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or rUK can just have them back and take them away - the oil and gas rigs in
>>>>>
>>>>> By the time it matters the scottish part of the north sea will be dry of any
>>>>
>>>>> economically extractable oil. There might be some gas left but not the
>>>> amount
>>>>> the SNP proudly proclaimed would be scotlands nest egg back in the day.
>>>>
>>>> Then rUK can pay for the removal of all the junk it’s left behind - seems
>>>> only fair if they paid to put them there in the first place.
>>>
>>> I don't think you understand how it works. The oil companies pay for licenses
>>> to drill and fork out for all the infrastructure themselves then sell the
>>> oil/gas. Then they pay the government a nice fat wodge of tax including whatever
>>> windfall tax the government of the time needs to make up treasury shortfall due
>>> to its useless economic policies. The oil companies are also responsible for
>>> tidying up their mess.
>>
>> See Recliner’s parallel posting about possible or likely tax refunds aka
>> subsidies for tidying up. That should come from the same government who
>> the taxes were paid to in the first place.
>>
>>>>> Given the current situation in europe when even finland wants to join NATO
>>>>> you'd have to have a pretty irresponsible halfwit first minister to kick the
>>>>> british forces out of scotland. But then the SNP have shown that halfwittism
>>>>> is one of their specialities.
>>>>
>>>> It’s a complicated situation, given the inequitable nature of the
>>>> distribution of major military sites around the UK.
>>>
>>> Inequitable trumps none at all.
>>
>> I was intending that as a simple statement of fact. Would uneven be
>> better? For example there is only one nuclear submarine base in the UK.
>
> Actually two, the hunter-killers have a separate base to the missile boats.

Are you thinking of Faslane and Coulport? IIUC the subs are all based at
Faslane but the missile handling is done at Coulport. It’s effectively one
single base on multiple sites. There’s also armaments storage at Glen
Douglas and (conventional) fuelling at Loch Striven. But I could well be
misinformed.

>> Even if an independent Scotland would be able to countenance a nuclear base
>> on its territory there would have to be a deal done or it would have to be
>> moved (and there’s nowhere else in rUK which would be very suitable).
>> That’s a major incentive for Unionists right there.
>>
>
> Plans to move to Devonport have been in place for many years as a back up.

And much public spluttering about the cost whenever the issue is raised,
not to mention the unsuitable and crowded waters around the mouth of the
Channel.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 19:30:14 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> It’s a complicated situation, given the inequitable nature of the
>>>> distribution of major military sites around the UK.
>>>
>>> Inequitable trumps none at all.
>>
>> I was intending that as a simple statement of fact. Would uneven be
>> better? For example there is only one nuclear submarine base in the UK.
>> Even if an independent Scotland would be able to countenance a nuclear base
>> on its territory there would have to be a deal done or it would have to be
>> moved (and there’s nowhere else in rUK which would be very suitable).
>> That’s a major incentive for Unionists right there.
>
> Scotland would be far worse off with little to no military than england
> would be in having to move a couple of its bases. Russian aircraft and ships
> are always prodding our defenses. You think they won't sail right up to
> within sight of the forth bridge or overfly the orkneys if Putin knows that
> a Cessna with a pop gun is all the defense the SNP can muster?

I would expect and independent Scotland to 1) be a friendly nation with the
UK, and allow overflights by and possibly basing of UK forces; and 2)
likely be a non-nuclear member of NATO;

> And if you think I'm joking I suggest you check out the "military" of the
> irish republic.

A neutral state with all the risks and benefits that brings. I don’t know
if Scotland would choose that.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 23/02/2023 11:44, Sam Wilson wrote:
> There’s also armaments storage at Glen
> Douglas and (conventional) fuelling at Loch Striven.

'Conventional' fuelling can (and is) done at any NATO POL depot.

On 23/02/2023 11:49, Sam Wilson wrote:
> I would expect and independent Scotland to 1) be a friendly nation with the
> UK, and allow overflights by and possibly basing of UK forces; and 2)
> likely be a non-nuclear member of NATO;

I think you will find that military aircraft have to get diplomatic
clearance to fly over Southern Ireland.

Some years they only had a limited SAR service so RAF or RN would be
often sent to assist. Even though they were assisting the local SAR
service, they still had to get diplomatic clearance to land as well as
standard ATC.

On 23/02/2023 09:42, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> Scotland would be far worse off with little to no military than england
> would be in having to move a couple of its bases. Russian aircraft and ships
> are always prodding our defenses. You think they won't sail right up to
> within sight of the forth bridge or overfly the orkneys if Putin knows that
> a Cessna with a pop gun is all the defense the SNP can muster?
>
> And if you think I'm joking I suggest you check out the "military" of the
> irish republic.

I think a big factor is that servicemen will not be as keen to serve in
Scottish local forces because they will know that they will not have the
latest equipment, there will not be intelligence from Four Eyes and they
will be confined to fishery protection work and ceremonial. Watching
the current series on the HMS Queen Elizabeth, a major attraction is the
foreign travel.

The only military action they are likely to be involved in is UN 'peace'
keeping.

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:14:44 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 23/02/2023 11:49, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> I would expect and independent Scotland to 1) be a friendly nation with the
>> UK, and allow overflights by and possibly basing of UK forces; and 2)
>> likely be a non-nuclear member of NATO;
>
>
>I think you will find that military aircraft have to get diplomatic
>clearance to fly over Southern Ireland.

But presumably not to fly over, say, Dundalk or Sligo?

>
>Some years they only had a limited SAR service so RAF or RN would be
>often sent to assist. Even though they were assisting the local SAR
>service, they still had to get diplomatic clearance to land as well as
>standard ATC.

You must have been reading the Mail again. In reality:

<https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/09/13/senator-takes-legal-case-against-state-over-raf-flights-in-irish-airspace/>

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:21:03 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 23/02/2023 09:42, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Scotland would be far worse off with little to no military than england
>> would be in having to move a couple of its bases. Russian aircraft and ships
>> are always prodding our defenses. You think they won't sail right up to
>> within sight of the forth bridge or overfly the orkneys if Putin knows that
>> a Cessna with a pop gun is all the defense the SNP can muster?
>>
>> And if you think I'm joking I suggest you check out the "military" of the
>> irish republic.
>
>
>I think a big factor is that servicemen will not be as keen to serve in
>Scottish local forces because they will know that they will not have the
>latest equipment, there will not be intelligence from Four Eyes

Which country have you removed from Five Eyes?

> and they
>will be confined to fishery protection work and ceremonial. Watching
>the current series on the HMS Queen Elizabeth, a major attraction is the
>foreign travel.

Yes

>
>The only military action they are likely to be involved in is UN 'peace'
>keeping.

Yes, in fairly nasty places.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 23/02/2023 11:44, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> There’s also armaments storage at Glen
>> Douglas and (conventional) fuelling at Loch Striven.
>
>
> 'Conventional' fuelling can (and is) done at any NATO POL depot.

Since we were talking about nuclear subs I wanted to make it clear which
kind of fuelling I was referring to, and there is a large RN fuelling
station a couple of lochs over from the other bases.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply