Talk:HMNB Clyde

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title: RNAD Coulport - history

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Opposition to Faslane

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Slow news day....ALR 10:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: http://www.ogleearth.com/2007/01/basra_new_daily.html --Jim (Talk) 14:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  HMNB Clyde 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on HMNB Clyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060428001206/http://www.serco.com:80/media/pressreleases/2002/014_2002.asp to http://www.serco.com/media/pressreleases/2002/014_2002.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090313071329/http://www.maritimejournal.com:80/archive101/2008/January/tugs__and__towing_by_Jack_Gaston/serco_denholm_awarded_mod_contract to http://www.maritimejournal.com/archive101/2008/January/tugs__and__towing_by_Jack_Gaston/serco_denholm_awarded_mod_contract
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on HMNB Clyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FjX2RzeI?url=http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/391/ to http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/391/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313011413/http://www.serco.com/markets/defence/marineservices.asp to http://www.serco.com/markets/defence/marineservices.asp
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FjX3xqh3?url=http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/llc/2011/clyde3.htm to http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/llc/2011/clyde3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427092521/http://www.subasekb.navy.mil/TRIDENT%20REFIT%20FACILITY/MISSION.htm to http://www.subasekb.navy.mil/TRIDENT%20REFIT%20FACILITY/MISSION.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified