Talk:HMNB Clyde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Scotland
 HMNB Clyde is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Scotland Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Don't they also have weapons storage facilities at Glen Douglas, off the road that leads by Glen Fruin to Loch Lomond? ...dave souza, talk 11:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You can very clearly see the big lumps in the hillside as you travel along the road through the glen. I once went that way as a shortcut(!) back to Glasgow when the traffic on Loch Lomondside was at a standstill - very, very glad I did, it was stinking hot, clamy weather, and a light sea breeze was just what I needed.--Mais oui! 15:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] RNAD Coulport - history

A pdf source has been given for Coulport being constructed between '63 and '68, but there was a lot of construction work there in the '80s which included a new road there bypassing Garelochhead. Probably to do with adaptations for Trident. ...dave souza, talk 21:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faslane 365 arrests

I've just edited the following statement in the article:

As of 20 November 2006, there have been 301 arrests, mostly for breach of the peace, but only one charge.

I've referenced www.faslane365.org for the facts that there have been 301 arrests and only one charge, but have left the {{fact}} tag in place as we still need a source for the fact that these arrests have mostly been for breach of the peace. As there are no charges being levelled against the protestors I doubt there will be a source available in the public domain to confirm why they were arrested, but I will write to Strathclyde Police to see if they are able to confirm what charge people are being arrested under. As far as I know the one charge so far was for a guy who parked a minibus across the north gate, got arrested and released without charge, and then drove his minibus back to blockade the north gate again: he was charged so they could get an order against him, preventing him from going within a certain distance of Faslane. However, I'll leave this information out until I have a decent source for it. --Jim (Talk) 12:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Faslane 365 website is not independent and requires corroboration. The website is not adequately independent to be reliable.
The protests now have their own article, which is the place for the level of granularity you wish to insert. Given the projected length of the effort including every arrest in this article will create a disproportionate bias. Feel free to include a list in the protests article, which should be complimentary to this one, not a duplicate of a section. The Summary Style guidance provides some information on this.
ALR 13:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi ALR: I wasn't aware that the protests had their own article until now, so I will add the information there in the future. It will be difficult to substantiate the number of arrests from a source other than faslane365.org, simply because the Police are not charging anyone: all information about the arrests is therefore destroyed, by law. I will look around for more source on this and contact the guys at Faslane365 to see if they are able to offer any information: every blockade has a legal observer who writes down who is arrested, so I guess this would be a good start if we could get hold of a copy of the information.
I disagree with your deletion of the fact that the protesters are getting arrested for breach of the peace since even though it hasn't been substantiated yet it is a useful "flag" to have so that if someone does know where to substantiate it they can add the source. I don't want to get into an edit war over this (I guess you could say I'm practising non-violent Wikipedia editing :) ) so I'll add the info to the article on the protests, for now, along with a {{fact}} tag. If and when the fact is cited I'll add it back here, as I think it's a very relevant fact.

--Jim (Talk) 14:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If the reasons for arrest can be substantiated then thats fine, but it needs to be published and handwritten recording by an involved individual doesn't constitute publication. Other than that it is speculation. I'm sure you'll say that the observer isn't involved, but he who pays the piper....
You yourself added a dead link for an article on the topic the other day, although I note that someone redirected that to the camp article subsequently.
ALR 17:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a very tricky area, that's for sure. I take your point regarding the interests of the legal observers, but how far can we actually extend this: who is paying (literally, rather than metaphorically as is the case with the legal observers) the police?
Strathclyde Police have been pretty good so far at Faslane365, so I'll see if they'll be able to release a list of who has been arrested; but legally I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to keep records if they don't prosecture. I'll have a bit of a think about this and see if there's a way round it: maybe if we collated all the news reports relating to arrests at Faslane we could say something along the lines of "at least xxx people have been arrested". --Jim (Talk) 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right, that would be a breach of the Data Protection Act so I'm pretty sure the force wouldn't do it. And they could reasonably be accused of something or other since releasing arrest details of someone who has not been charged could reasonably prejudice an individuals privacy in some way.
I don't see an issue with an aggregated figure, as long as that can be substantiated. I just think the creeping death of listing every issue for the next 11 months will end up swamping the reader in extraneous detail, particularly where the base is a lot more than just the home to the deterrent force.
ALR 20:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to Faslane

This issue is currently split between this page and the Faslane Peace Camp page. Could we keep a short section in here and create a new page on opposition to Faslane, taking some of the stuff (eg F365) out of the peace camp page?Ms medusa 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd need to have a very clear idea of what you're trying to do with a new article, is it opposition to Faslane, opposition to the retention of the independent deterrent, opposition to the UKUS relationship with respect to the deterrent. I don't have any real issue with the suggestion though.ALR 08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
On reflection the issue is dealt with in this article, although it could probably do with restructuring. I think the migration to the peace camp article is a result of my objection to turning this into a blow by blow account of Faslane 365.ALR 09:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Faslane 365 does have a close relationship with Faslane Peace Camp, with a lot of the administration and legal support (not to mention accomodation for protestors) being done at the camp. So having F365 as a subsection of the peace camp article wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, with a summary appearing on this page. But with reference to ALR's comments regarding having a new article called "Opposition to Faslane", I do think this title is a little ambiguous. How about an article entitled "The peace movement at HMNB Clyde"? I mention HMNB Clyde and not Faslane because protests occur across the water at Coulport as well, which is part of the HMNB Clyde base. This article could then contain all the information about the Peace Camp, as well as information about Faslane 365 and al the other work the peace movement has done over the years at the base: e.g., the Big Blockades, the Trident Ploughshares summer camps, the various marches to the base, Nuke Watch which tracks the movement of weapons from Aldermaston to the submarines, etc. I think it is necessary to have this information somewhere in Wikipedia, but I agree with ALR that having all of it in the HMNB Clyde article would not work. Any ideas, anyone? --Jim (Talk) 10:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree very much with the direction of this thread; it would make a lot more sense for these topics to be grouped under a separate page. The title would be difficult though. "HMNB Clyde" should be in it, because as Jim says, this relates to both Faslane and Coulport. How about Anti-Nuclear Demonstrators at HMNB Clyde? This seems a little more unambiguous than "peace movement." Those who believe that Mutually Assured Destruction was what kept the world safe during the Cold War might argue that the peace movement was on the other side of the wire (not saying I agree with it - but it is an argument)! On the other hand the Faslane Peace Camp is clearly called that - if they identify themselves as that should not everyone else? Though would anybody from the peace movement object to being called AND - it seems to my mind purely descriptive rather than subjective? What do other people think? DistractionActivity 22:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I take your point about "peace movement" not being the best title, but I'm not sure "Anti-Nuclear Demonstrators" is totally right either. Firstly, to "demonstrate" seems to me to relate to holding up placards, marching, etc., and a lot more than that goes on at Faslane: perhaps "protesters" is a better term? Secondly, "Anti-Nuclear" is a bit ambiguous. A number of the people who are against nuclear weapons are also against nuclear power, but the two are very seperate: and this should be made very clear since Faslane holds non-nuclear armed, but nuclear-powered, subs as well as the Vanguards: and a number of people get confused, and think the protests at Faslane are about nuclear power rather than nuclear weapons. How about Protests against nuclear weapons at HMNB Clyde? --Jim (Talk) 21:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Two very good points. I think your suggestion is spot on, but I'd rather Protest against nuclear weapons at HMNB Clyde. Making "protests" plural suggests a number of separate events, whereas "protest" suggests it is more or less constant; which it is if you take the physical existence of Faslane Peace Camp as being a form of protest. Splitting hairs a bit though. Either way your suggestion is an improvement. DistractionActivity 11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think protest (singular) gives the impression that there has been one organised protest over the last 25 years, when in fact there has been a number of different protests - admittedly, the peace camp has been a permanent fixture, but lots of different people have done lots of different things, and for lots of different reasons - it's only what they're protesting against that gives them commonality. Moreover, the peace camp is organised on an autonomous basis, as are many of the organised actions such as Faslane 365, so the emphasis is on indivudal actions rather than the collective action of a group. So I'd rather go for protests (plural). Any thoughts? --Jim (Talk) 13:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
See where you are are coming from. But I continue to think Protest against nuclear weapons at HMNB Clyde sounds better - I guess it is subjective. I say whoever creates the page gets to decide on whether to add the 's' or not. It probably won't be me; I'm not that dedicated (or experienced enough) a wikipedian to start a whole, new fresh page. It sounds ok either way. DistractionActivity 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMNB Clyde

Little bit of trivia for everyone....

Try searching for HMNB Clyde on google earth. Mysteriously, much of the base is blured out - with the exception of the car park.

Vladker 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, funny that :). I remember reading a news story a few years back about how the US Government had demanded certain areas of the country be blurred out (I've not checked Google Earth for this, but you could), and I guess the UK Govt has done the same. I'm not quite sure what benefit this would have for them at Faslane, when their security setup has problems stopping middle-aged women getting onto the subs (see Trident Ploughshares), not to mention any possible terrorist! --Jim (Talk) 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Its a little petty. Afterall, its not as if the resolution on google earth is good enough to provide information on access points, doors etc. The first image on the article would probably be more use for planing a base infiltration !!! Whats more, it couldnt even be used to monitor sub movements in any way - some of the images on google earth can be 5+ years old ! It also seems a little inconsistent, considering both HMNB Devonport and Portsmouth can both be seen in high res (in Portsmouth you can see two carriers). A few years ago I attended the annual 'Navy Days' open day in HMNB Devonport where members of the public happily wandered past what im pretty sure was the HMS Vanguard moored up. Vladker 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL - yes, it is indeed a little petty. It's almost as if the government enjoys enforcing their power for the sheer sake of it :). To be honest though, the information about how to get in to the base (and the submarines) is pretty much public domain, as long as you've got a pair of bolt-cutters handy... good point re: Devonport and Portsmouth - I'm pretty sure Portsmouth is also involved in Trident. Have you checked out Coulport on Google Earth? It's where they fit the new nukes - on Loch Long just to the West of the Gare loch (the other side of the Peninsula). --Jim (Talk) 00:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Odd – just the sub quays blurred out, rest of the base looks ok till you get to the low resolution to the west of the loch so that Garelochhead and Finnart look rubbish, white fluffy clouds over Coulport and many other places as well. C'mon Google, we want higher rez! .. dave souza, talk 00:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Now use a little bit of common sense and look at the coverage. The base is not blurred out, there are a number of overheads involved, those to the East being in high res and those to the west of the join being low res, all the way across the unpopulated area. This really is black helicopter level stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALR (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
A LOT of stuff in Google Earth and similiar programs are blurred or otherwise not covered, it's really not due to any great conspiracy, but probably just due to a lack of coverage. Even bog standard residential areas on some of these programs aren't always covered. Douglasnicol 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "conspiracy" either, just the MoD (or whoever) telling Google they don't want their bases on Google Earth: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/20/wgoogle20.xml --Jim (Talk) 09:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Slow news day....ALR 10:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's my point. Imagining that, at least for fixed installations in the UK, there is any official effort to reduce the quality of overheads shown on Google Earth is verging on the conspiracy nutter level. Firms like InfoTerra sell their overhead commercially to a very high quality level.ALR 10:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.ogleearth.com/2007/01/basra_new_daily.html --Jim (Talk) 14:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the most important point from there is Not that any of the above will make much difference. The internet and old media are both already busily repeating without verifying that Google "blotted out" bases in the UK as well. ALR 14:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

<it's an alien artefact!> As the link I gave above shows and as ogleearth mentions, the tiles to the west of the base are lower rez, and that applies to a large area of Argyll that has nothing to do with the base, but includes Garelochhead and Coulport. The oddity in the linked image is that higher rez tiles show a blurred area: this seems to be an artefact from Google smoothing the transition so there's not a sharp line as the resolution changes, or to deal with the boundary not coinciding with a tile edge. For some reason the blurry artefact goes bright white rather than the grey that might be expected: this shows at a pier crossing the transition if you track north. The effect makes it look as though someone has painted white over the waterfront, but the same effect occurs all along the resolution boundary. Moving further north past the oil tanks on the other side of the old main road from the base, the blurryness goes further east – so it's almost as though the base has been kept sharp, then they've stopped bothering when it's just hillside. So it's all just down to where the boundary happens to fall, and the way the transition's been handled. Or it's a conspiracy to hide details of half of the Highlands! .. dave souza, talk 17:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)