If you angle the runways away from each other when the wind is in the opposite direction they will be angles towards each other. Aircraft carriers steam into wind whichever way it blows.

Don’t follow you.

Using the example above; if the wind is from top to bottom of the page, then use the uppermost runways for takeoffs, and lower runways for landings.

Reverse the wind, then use bottom runways for takeoffs and top runways for landings.

[Obviously landing/taking off into the wind.]

Or do you mean cross winds leading to too great a potential for flight path crossing?

You appear to be working from the position that somehow all people who live in Scotland are against maintaining a nuclear deterrent.

All Scots? Your attempting to put words in my mouth. Not once have I said all, or indicated all.

Nevertheless you are represented!

Ugh, don’t get me started on the abject failure that is representative “democracy”.

It works both ways, Scottish MP’s have been used to impose legislation on English voters that doesn’t affect them.

Indeed it does. Its not a good system.

But for Scotland to act as if this isn’t going to be hugely problematic for the rUK and still expect them to accept everything else on the SNP’s shopping list of demands is unfair and unrealistic.

Indeed. But, from what I’ve seen of the SNP’s policies, some of them are highly idealistic, others are outright naive.

So what? You are also currently British, you are represented in our national parliament meaning nuclear weapons are not being imposed on Scotland. It was a national decision.

And herein you miss the entire point about the English dictating to the Scots…

[simply by dint of there being more English MPs than Scottish, or Welsh, or NI… put together.]

If the Scottish people as a whole didn’t want it and their representatives reflected this, yet the “national” decision was to put it there; then that decision was taken through use of a non-Scottish (to be absolutely correct about it) majority in Westminster.

Have you missed the entire reason for them wanting devolution? You don’t actually think its because they just don’t like the English?!?

What do you mean “their back yard”? It is OUR back yard. Unless there is a yes vote in the Scottish referendum we are still one nation.

The nuclear weapons won’t be removed if there is no yes vote in the referendum.

How are the English dictating to the Scots?

Do the Scottish want the nuclear weapons? If not, how was it democratically decided to place them in Scotland?

Yes the SNP are dictating the matter as independence could very well mean total nuclear disarmament for the UK as a whole. These are not facilities that can be easily picked up and dropped elsewhere. This is a national decision as far as I am concerned.

If the Scottish vote for Independence, they then are their own nation, who can make their own decision. At that point, there is no UK.

One of which (and one I would entirely agree with), would be to remove a foreign power’s nuclear stockpile from their territory.

If the English (and technically, I suppose Welsh and Northern Irish*) want to keep the nukes, then they are free to do so, just do so on their own territory.

*Whether you consider NI wholly part of the UK is relevant to this discussion, but would open up a boat full of worm cans. The point being, there is simply no way the NI politicians would accept the movement of Trident to NI.

A decision to retain or remove our nuclear capability should be made by all of us via our elected parliament in Westminster or a national referendum.

Since when are the SNP going to insist on the dismantling of Trident and the Vanguard subs that carry it? Thats news to me.

If and when the SNP have the mandate to insist they are removed from Scotland, why don’t the Royal Navy relocate the lot to Portsmouth? [would be useful considering the recent BAe jobs lost.]

Oh… it wouldn’t be because the locals might not like nukes on their doorstep would it?

[note: I am not Scottish.]

– A vertical tail is more likely to produce reflect returns to an opposing aircraft in steady level flight.
– Outwardly canted tail is more likely to produce reflect returns to a ground radar (from the nearside tail).
– Inwardly canted tails will direct the signal upward to space, with the fuselage partially blocking the far-side tail, thus attenuating the signal reflected toward ground/”useful” air.
– If the vertical tail and elevator are at perfect right angles to each other, then reflected waves will do a “double bounce” through 180 and back to the emitting aircraft.

– Outwardly canted tails offer significantly more lateral authority at high AoA.
– A single tail will tend to be larger than the individual areas of 2 tails, thus two canted tails will generate less of a return at any given azimuthal angle.
– The interaction of the vertical fins/canted tail, whatever you want to call it with the vortices shed off the LERX can induce structural fatigue.