I see. How about alternative imported delivery systems like land based ICBMs or strategic bombers?

On a separate topic, what is happening with the British Army. I heard from a RN officer that Army is the service that receives most of the funding, how come it could only form a single combat mechanized division?

(on the topic of Army http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sh...noon-3jlbwgq3t )

Land based ICBM's are a no-no due to the UK's (i.e. England's) population density and general geologic unsuitability for missile silos. Emplacing such installations were studied for the Blue Streak MRBM system and rejected for the reason's I've written. Mobile systems as used in Russia are possible but I would think that they'd also be viewed unfavourably by the UK public - see the NIMBY effect. Ironically Scotland would be the best place to deploy such systems but the infrastructure in the Scottish highlands is execrable and it's highly doubtfull it would be able to cope with equipment that sort of size. It's also politically impossible due to devolution and the SNP administration at Holyrood. The SNP being anti-nuclear-weapons-based-in-Scotland. See the running sore of Faslane Naval Base and the attendant storage facilities at Coulport.

As for long range strategic bombers, again a no-no. Too easily shot down by modern air defence systems, something which also affects cruise missiles.

You would also have to factor in inter-service rivalry. Since the Royal Navy provides the deterrent force it wouldn't be happy at losing both the prestige and funding that goes with it to either the RAF or the Army.

As for your second question there has been a lot of press here at how the MOD is incredibly inefficient at managing defence contracts and the spending that goes with them. They are notorious amongst those in-the-know for continually changing specifications after any equipment requirement is issued, wasting both time and money. On the whole it comes across as amaturish and poorly co-ordinated leading to cost overruns and bad equipment choices. You also have to factor in the effects of over a decade of armed intervention in the middle east and it's effects on recruitment and retention (the armed forces as a whole are suffering from manpower shortages) as well as poor decisions by the political leadership of the UK.

Moving back to the UK's industrial strategy, Theresa May has promised to take action for British industry: LINK.

BBC Scotland economics editor Douglas Fraser's analysis: Picking winners or backing losers?

As I alluded to earlier, any plan such as this could come unstuck due to the devolution settlements for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales:

We'll see what comes of it.

Mike.:hmmm:

Saw this live on tv a couple of hours ago so best I don't fully disclose my viewpoint in public but post in memory of all those who lost their lives during the 'troubles'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38715524

^Sinn Féin is a bitter pill I don't like but as long as the peace remains like everyone else I will for now put up with the bitter taste.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38711200

This happen on the former PM David Cameron's watch why don't you ask him?

Brexit: Supreme Court says Parliament must give Article 50 go-ahead:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38720320

I did like this from Reddit:

Like most things there's a grain of truth, but we will have to wait and see.

As for migration, an article from the Independant: Two countries have already told the UK they must relax immigration rules if they want free trade:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...=facebook-post

In short, Australia and India, though for different purposes. I believe New Zealand has indicated something similar.

Mike.:hmmm:

The main point for me is that whatever system the UK uses, they will have the control they never had prior to leaving the EU.

This brought about a wry smile I must admit: "Britain’s £4bn curry industry, which campaigned for the UK to leave the EU, has already said it felt “betrayed” by Ms May’s post-Brexit immigration crackdown."

I heard that the UK joined the EU (after decades of being blocked by France) for reasons of immigration from the former colonies, which was "going out of hand" (?) in the 1960ies to 80ties, offering the UK a backdoor for having an accepted law to turn them away.
During being in the EU, the UK had also special treaties deviating from other EU countries, guaranteeing border control. Now what will exactly change? :hmmm:

It ain't no Brexit till the prime minister sings.

The devolved parliaments don't get a say in an action that the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be undertaking.

Not sure I follow that logic... :hmmm:

Brian Taylor's article on the matter - Brexit and parliamentary power:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-38733195

From a political rather than legal/constitutional stand point it prevents the SNP, Scottish Greens, Scottish Lib Dems and (probably) Scottish Labour blocking Brexit via a vote at Holyrood. At the moment the only Scottish party that consents to Brexit for certainty are the Scottish Tories. The same applies to Cardiff (Plaid Cymru) and Stormont (Sinn Fein, the SDLP and probably the UUP).

Having written that, the only truly Scottish political parties are the SNP and the Greens. The other three are no more than branches affiliated to the main UK parties, not independant entities in their own right.

Mike.

We may have had border control in as much as we could control immigration from outside EU, hence the Calais camps, but absolutely no control over immigration from within the EU.

Wasn't there a law already that anyone who wants to stay in the UK has to earn 35,000 £ a year flat, and can be instantly be sent back if not?

Also at least while entering Great Britain you have to show passport and all, being asked what you intend to do etc., it is not like on the continent where you e.g. drive from France into Germany without even noticing.

The minimum earning level is something that is enforced for non-EU migration, but doesn't seem to apply to people coming from within the EU.

As for the SNP and it's shenanigans, I wrote this in the Brexit thread:

Mike.

Thanks for the explanation, I just realize what i do not understand.. :hmmm:

1. so immigrants coming from other places than the EU to the UK, can be denied access already.
2. People from the EU cannot be turned away?
3. People coming directly from Syriah can be denied, but if said Syrians come via e.g. France or Germany (or the EU) they are allowed to enter and cannot be turned away? I somehow doubt that, but..
4. Is there a difference if said Syrians come to Scotland/Ireland/Wales instead of England?

What is then the difference between old border control and new border control? Does the right to deny access then additionally apply to native EU citizens?

Only actual EU residents can freely come and go. Those from outside EU, syrians etc as you suggest coming through from other EU countries cannot freely enter the uk as they are stopped at the channel.
We dont know what form any new border control will take regarding EU citizens, but we assume it will be more strict than the open border we have now, the end result will be a negotiation.
Everyone accepts that we need some immigration and that can be good, we need people with skills we dont need unskilled immigration who are exploited and take very low paid work only to become a burden to society requiring housing and benefits, because for a multitude of reasons social care, housing, schooling, gp's and the list goes on are all under huge pressure already.
As for your final point, no, its the same as we are united kingdom.
As an aside, wales voted to leave as well, not just england