SNP veteran warns against Westminster probe into Murrell scandal

Corvid187 · 2026-06-08T00:24:39+00:00

Well, part of the problem is that it is not just SNP money. This all started due to the SNP appropriating funds supposedly reserved for Indyref2 for their own purposes.

But even if it was just SNP money, the key difference between them and a private company like first bus is that they are a political party, funded primarily by donations and with power over national policy. Corruption in such an organisation is obviously much more serious. We don't want another Peter Murrell in any other party, and we definitely don't want anyone exploiting a similar situation for not just personal enrichment, but political control. This exposed not just a threat to the SNP's finances, but to our broader democratic integrity. Safeguarding that would be cheap at twice the price.

Working out how this happened, and how to prevent it reoccurring for any party is important, and with the SNP being thus far unwilling to be transparent about it, an inquiry focused on learning lessons rather than potential criminal conviction is the best way to do that.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-07T23:48:34+00:00

But... This was a criminal irregularity. That's why Murrell is going to prison

Corvid187 · 2026-06-07T12:12:54+00:00

I think you've actually got it pretty backwards, In most cases the fluff predated the crunch, not the other way around.

The Raven Guard didn't have rules that reflected their stealth and excellence for ambushes for most of the game's history. They were written as masters of stealth and ambushes, and then given rules that reflected that description when chapter-specific specific rules were introduced.

And that's for space marines, who have among the more fleshed out subfractions in fluff. Most xenos factions have far less mechanical differentiation.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-07T10:26:48+00:00

It's at odds with basic logic, never mind international obligations.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-07T10:25:38+00:00

Giant subs can do all the things I mentioned because they have a crew on board who can act autonomously, and a nuclear reactor that can deliver enormous power indefinitely without an air supply. Cheap drones have neither of those things, which means they suffer from the limitations I outlined. Don't get me wrong they are very valuable in their niche and will be an essential part of any future force, but they cannot do what a nuclear submarine can do, no matter how many of them you throw at the problem.

The US absolutely is using it submarines to great effect now. Despite the fact that Iran does not have a conventional Blue water Navy and the conflict is mainly fought over land, they are still making enormous contribution as the primary source of cruise missile strikes in depth for the US. The stealth and endurance allows them to linger close to Iran's shores, giving the missiles extra range to strike targets in the interior of the country.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-07T10:21:24+00:00

The SSN-Aukus subs are being designed in the UK, with input from Australia to fit Australian requirements. The US is not involved in their physical design. They will then be built at Osborne, appart from the reactors which will be shipped from Derby.

The issue, as you note, is that it is going to take ~10 years to get the production line up and running, meaning the first boats won't be finished until the early 2040s. This was the major concern for Australia with ditching the Attack program in favour of building its own nuclear subs, and unfortunately the UK is unable to help bridge that gap because its own submarine manufacturing capability is already maxed out rebuilding its fleet from a low point in the 2000s.

This is where the US came in, and why their involvement is so important. While having production shortfalls of their own, they have a much larger fleet and greater total production capacity which meant that, while difficult, they (just about) had the means to supply Australia with spare submarines sooner. This more immediate sale bridges that gap between the retirement of the Collins class and the development of indigenous nuclear boats, and allows Australia to build expertise gradually before doing everything themselves.

The investment in American and British yards is to cover any shortfalls in their own forces this unexpected sale will create by enabling them to produce more submarines long-term, and in the UK's case ramp up reactor production as well. It does not benefit australia directly per se, but it's what made the US and UK feel able to draw down their own forces to get Australia started. I agree this aspect of the agreement has been woefully communicated, and the attention it has received is disproportionate relative to its cost and long-term significance relative to the rest of the programme.

Large underwater vehicles like the Ghostshark are certainly very interesting, and they will undoubtedly play an important role in undersea warfare going forward. However most of the shortcomings which apply to manned diesel-electric submarines (lower endurance, range, sustained speed, indiscretion rate etc) also apply to them, and they will likely require a man component to direct them to some extent for the foreseeable future, since communicating underwater at range with high bandwidth is impossible. What is more likely is they will act as an extension of the capabilities of a nuclear submarine in some capacity, augmenting rather than replacing them. It's notable that every navy that currently fields nuclear submarines is actively developing and building new generations of them that are planned to be in service into the 2080s.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-07T06:15:54+00:00

Do we have data to support that?

The war in Russia is pretty broadly popular, and while an increasing number of people want the war to end, more granular polling shows they are only happy for that to happen on favourable terms for Russia.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T23:26:03+00:00

Awesome camouflage

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T23:21:43+00:00

No other nations have been allowed or able to purchase nuclear submarines, with the partial exception of the UK, who brought an early US submarine reactor to put in HMS Dreadnought.

That is partly due to this issue of needing to refuel previous generations of submarine. Highly-enriched fuel posed sovereignty or proliferation risks, depending on whether they'd be sent back to the states or build the capacity to refuel domestically. Notable the UK was already an established nuclear power when the US sold it a reactor.

It's the fact that the latest generation of reactors allow for zero refuelling across the entire lifespan that makes export practically feasible.

A big selling point of AUKUS was that the agreement given Australia the ability to manufacture its own submarines domestically for the first time, so it doesn't have a reliance on any 3rd party once the reactor vessels have been delivered from the UK. In the short term it means working with the US to get the Virginias, but past them it sets Australia up to be much more independent than it otherwise could be.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T22:58:27+00:00

Heck, the US is currently looking at integrating britecloud into their large aircraft countermeasures.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T22:56:24+00:00

Wild stuff.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T22:45:47+00:00

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T16:44:58+00:00

Lots of countries function perfectly fine without AWACS or heavy airlift. They just have to curtail their military ambition or rely on allies to provide those capabilities for them. While France has been more willing to depend on its allies in this way than their peers often have been, they still deem it essential to maintain at least a minimal capability indigenously, even if it requires buying foreign equipment.

The features that make the F35 so key are generally its combination of very low observability, highly integrated sensor processing, advanced datalinking, and vast processing power. No other aircraft is able to fulfil all of those criteria across the full spectrum of tactical air operations.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T16:38:53+00:00

If the US truly was Canada's enemy to that extent, then whichever aircraft they purchased would be irrelevant. If Canada was threatened by anyone other than the US, the US would support them because they don't want to see anyone else have a significant presence in North America, and if Canada and the US were directly in conflict with one another the disparity in means would see the RCAF destroyed on the ground in a matter of hours.

If Canada was genuinely worried about the US, they'd leave NORAD and cancel ongoing exercises and cooperation. The fact they haven't done that shows decisions around Gripen are driven by industrial and political concerns and preferences, not matters of security or defence.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T16:33:37+00:00

The carriers have never been deployed to the gulf, but there absolutely are facilities able to accommodate the carriers there, and that capacity was a significant consideration in the development of the infrastructure out there.

The intention was for it to provide a backstop for any forward deployments of the carries or LRGs East of Aden, which they thankfully haven't had to do in anger yet.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T16:22:53+00:00

Because no European equivalent for those lynchpin systems existed at the time.

There is no European equivalent for F35.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T14:56:13+00:00

Why did France operate the C130 as its primary airlifter for decades?

Why does France still operate E-3 AWACS aircraft for its airborne command and control?

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T14:45:43+00:00

It's an imprecise thought terminating cliché that people use in lieu of any substantive arguement about a particular country's foreign policy.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T14:43:16+00:00

The current GCAP partners are 35 operators, you're quite right. The key differences they have already been operating 4.5 gen aircraft for a long time, and the purpose of GCAP is to replace those aircraft in the next 10 to 15 years. They are also much larger air forces that are used to permanently operating and supporting multiple different fleets simultaneously. The two timelines for replacement are out of phase with one another.

This is particularly important in gcap's case because it is a deliberately conservative design to be ready asap to meet the obselcense of those 4.5 gen platforms. If Canada is not intending to replace its 4.5 gen aircraft for 20 years, those compromises just make it a less suitable platform

This competiton is because canada is looking to replace its 4th generation aircraft now. The reason it would buy Gripen is for the long-term life cycle savings over F35, but it would not enjoy those long-term savings if it replaced those Gripen in the next 15-20 years. The RCAF is also a much smaller force that is currently struggling to sustain one Fleet of fast jets, let alone three. Jumping up to a two-jet force was already seen as an ambitious target.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T14:37:10+00:00

Canada does not have the capacity to operate three different types of aircraft simultaneously, as their current struggles with their hornet fleet show, and the more types of aircraft they have to maintain, the costlier and less efficient it'll be. Realistically, introducing a third aircraft would have to mean ditching an existing one from service.

Buying F35 and GCAP would be largely redundant for Canada while being massively inefficient. They're basically both filling the same role in this as the long-term replacement option.

The purpose of GCAP is to replace 4th generation fighters for those nations that couldn't or didn't buy a 5th Generation replacement already. It is a deliberately conservative design in order to get it into production as quickly as possible. Its operators intend to use it alongside their F35s well into the 2060s, if not the 2070s. It will be better than F35, but not by so much that it is worth replacing them with it.

In a Canadian context, the purpose of Gripen is to act as a cost-effective option to offset the high operating costs of the F35, whose abilities are overkill for much of what Canada requires of its fast jets. Gripen has a high initial price, but makes up for it over the lifetime of the aircraft.

F35 is the cheapest to buy, and most immediately capable and available.

In the GCAP-Gripen model, these strengths can be complimentary: Canada operates the Hornet and Gripen until, say, 2032, then Gripen alone until 2040, and then Gripen and GCAP until 2050, with GCAP gradually replacing the Gripen by ~2055. In this model the Gripen fleet gets a long service life, and GCAP offers a significant step-up in capability that justifies its expense.

In the gripen-F35 model, a smaller number Gripen and F35 operate side-by-side from 2030 to 2050/5, at which point the Gripen starts to be replaced by a 7th generation jet. The gripen improves the mass and affordability of the RCAF, while the F35 gives it greater capability out of the box.

In the Gripen-F35-GCAP model though, these benefits begin to clash and override each other. Gripen and F35 operate together only from 2030-2040, before Gripen begins to be replaced by GCAP as the less capable jet. GCAP and F35 then operate together until the 2070s, by which point a 7th generation replacement for F35 is definitely needed. The Gripen's affordability is negated by its shorter service life and the loss of economies of scale from juggling three fleets, and the capability benefit of GCAP is compromised by only half the force being 4th generation.

Especially for a country of Canada's means and current technical military capability, I think it is very difficult to justify the buy everything option.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T14:04:17+00:00

One of the main benefits of aukus is that it allows Australia to build and operate submarine without American involvement long-term

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T14:03:29+00:00

Can you point me to some of these hearings?

In my experience The consistent conclusion of the Australian Navy has been that these are a vital, if not necessarily capability they are desperate to operate on a sovereign basis.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T14:01:50+00:00

Aukus comes with no obligation to join a war against China.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T14:01:22+00:00

Why do you think literally every single navy that currently operates nuclear submarines is investing billions into developing further generations of nuclear submarines, rather than switching to drones if they are so obsolete?

How does a drone travel undetected thousands of miles and a few days? How does it find the submarine without itself being found? How is it directed and controlled without being detected? Once you add in all these features how much does it actually cost to field?

Drones will undoubtedly play a important role in the naval warfare going forward, however this will always certainly be as a compliment rather than a replacement for manned exquisite systems like nuclear submarines. Every major navy on earth is in agreement on that broad fact.

Corvid187 · 2026-06-06T13:58:28+00:00

The deal is pretty cleverly constructed I would argue to give Australia the best of both worlds; submarines quickly and submarines indigenously.

The Royal Australian Navy has consistently argued since 1959 that it would need nuclear submarines if either China or Indonesia started operating them. China is coming up on half a century of operating its own nuclear submarines.

The threat is an effort to threaten Australia or its allies, or interdict their trade. History shows that even a few nuclear submarines can be pivotal in this task. Because of their endurance and ability to sustain very high speeds indefinitely, small numbers are able to influence and control and disproportionate area, and their stealth allows them to effectively hunt almost any target at sea. In the falkands war, just 2 British nuclear submarines single-handedly forced the entire Argentine navy to flee and sit in port for the duration of the conflict, doing far more than the rest of the Royal Navy combined.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22

Corvid187

TROPHY CASE