The current government in the UK was more aligned to the worldviews of Trump's administration. They'll throw shade at the current US administration whenever and wherever they can in an attempt to bolster their own standing which has taken strain. The British public follow US politics very closely.
This is absolute nonsense. First, it was Trump who originally negotiated the Afghanistan withdrawal, and the UK was not in favour then and they are not now. Second, the UK Conservative Party has very little shared ideology with the Trumpian worldview—with the exception of a resistance to identity politics, most Tories have far more in common with centrist Dems than with Republicans of any stripe, still less Trump-style republicanism. Third, although it's often been said, Johnson is not a British Trump—he's an altogether different character and his politics are far to the left of Trump's.
The US and Nazi China have already been in world war 3 since the Korean war. It remains to be seen how much longer we can last in it but it's not looking very good.
Did you bother to read the article, or did you simply decide to take the headline here on HN personally and then respond snidely? Did that somehow improve matters? Did it help re-inflate the stature of your great land?
"Wallace started by saying: “It is obvious that Britain is not a superpower,” before appearing to switch focus to the US." ... "a superpower that is also not prepared to stick at something isn’t probably a superpower either. It is certainly not a global force, it’s just a big power”.
Well, compared to 95% of countries the UK is. You've got the US as top dog, an unproven China, and Russia able to act with impunity in their back yard but nowhere else. Then you've got the UK and France, able to project solid power anywhere that isn't landlocked, and quite a few that are.
Yes, neither is Canada. In our case we're still inexorably bound to the US's interests and there's not much to do, really. It's not a measuring contest here. It's dealing with the new realities. The UK is not as nearly bound to the USA. If they wish to retain autonomy, security, and also influence in the 21st century despite their small stature, they may need a new strategy if the sun is setting on their closest ally's empire. Especially if said ally is prone to fits like recently happened regarding their dependability. (I still can't fathom why the the UK would choose to leave the EU at this delicate point where mid-sized democratic powers need every friend they can get.)
Any independence deal is likely to include an agreement to lease Faslane to the UK, at least for a while. The SNP won't like it, but there needs to be a pragmatic solution. If that doesn't work out, there are alternatives, but it would be hugely expensive.
Yes, but I can't see any chance that it would be allowed to remain for more than 5 years, 10 years as at absolute maximum.
Apparently bases elsewhere in rUK wouldn't be a great idea due to them being too easy to track submarines entering/leaving. Backup locations being considered for the Trident boats apparently include the US or even France.
if the UK wished to retain the bases it would make retaining the land a condition for granting independence, similar to Cyprus
this isn't like Article 50 where after 2 years you're out: the nationalists only method to get what they want is by agreeing to Westminster's requiements, in full
The UK is much less than a super power, but it is more capable of projecting power globally than most middle-ranking countries, largely because of the Royal Navy.
> Those close to the defence secretary acknowledged that his remarks could be read as being aimed at the US. An insider argued that the British minister was emphasising the importance of political will as well as sheer military power.
It now doesn't matter as much how much of GDP you spend on military but also political power as well.
Ministers can redefine the word superpower, and you can downvote me, but with it being defined as, "A superpower is a state with a dominant position characterized by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale."[1] the US still is in that set of countries with extensive influence.