You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Pimpmaster whilst I get your point there are two problems
1. newspapers are not impartial purveyors of facts but paddlers of agenda full half truths [ oh the irony] just like politicians.
2. Every single politician lies.
About 1,900,000 results (0.47 seconds) - AS
About 4,430,000 results (0.17 seconds)- cameron
About 2,130,000 results (0.38 seconds) - Blair
I would not read much into these "facts"
THM it is almost as if you are biased and dont like him
EDIT:
Oddly, some yS folk seem irrationally against foreign ownership so not sure how they square that circle.
What circle?
they do not like foreign ownership and much of their traditional industries [ oil, finance, salmon and whiskey] are foreign owned
What do they need to square here?
As uses GDP for the same reason you use GNI - they make your case look stronger.
an independent Scotland will have a requirement for 20-25 patrol vessels and a £2.5bn defense budget, enough to keep the Clyde yards busy for years.
Nonsense.
Where did you get that info from?
The Scottish Navy will be made up of existing RN vessels, it will not require 20 - 25 new build vessels. Besides, why would Scotland waste money building simple patrol vessels on the Clyde? ~Much cheaper to build them in the Far East.
The Clyde shipyards are only kept open by huge Uk subsidies. They are doomed in an independant Scotland.
Sorry iPad autocorrect while having lunch
It's should be foreign companies.
GNI for Scotland < GDP due to rel high levels of foreign ownership of key industries.
It's a technical point and would be missed where it not for the DO banging on about Scotland being one of the richest countries in the developed world. On GNI per cap basis, this is simply not true - now there's a shock.
To be fair unlike understanding the nature of a currency, GNI calc is notoriously tricky!!!
Google "Alex Salmond half truths".
Hahahahahahah. Is that where you get your information? I appear to have mistaken you for an educated person.
And as for the Scotsman article you pointed to, I know a few of the people who are in elevated positions in that newspaper. A couple I went to school with and I can count one as a former brother inlaw - to a man they all despise Scotland and always have done. It's almost as if they think of it as a third world country. They are against reasoned debate too.
And with that, wanmankylung argued himself into the hallowed ranks of "unhinged forum posters".
Do tell us, Enlightened One, of a better tool to find information than Google. It returns search results which provide facts and opinion biased towards either direction, and everything inbetween. It's the role of the individual to sort the wheat from the chaff. By discrediting the use of Google, you've just ended up in the chaff.
Or is Google part of Project Fear too?
Is that the best you can do - Googling for newspaper stories?
Pimpmaster whilst I get your point there are two problems1. newspapers are not impartial purveyors of facts but paddlers of agenda full half truths [ oh the irony] just like politicians.
2. Every single politician lies.
About 1,900,000 results (0.47 seconds) - AS
About 4,430,000 results (0.17 seconds)- cameron
About 2,130,000 results (0.38 seconds) - BlairI would not read much into these "facts"
THM it is almost as if you are biased and dont like him
😆
I know, but it's the best we have.
I hear that 97% of statistics are made up too.
😉
I appear to have mistaken you for an educated person.
There's your first mistake. 😉
The Clyde shipyards are only kept open by huge Uk subsidies. They are doomed in an independant Scotland.
Well, subsidies are a tool of economic policy and if an iS is to be more fair than UK, who is to say that subsidising uneconomic production rather than leaving employment to market forces won't be policy in iS.
About 53,100,000 in 0.43 seconds.
With that many results in such little time it must be true.
But then again I don't believe everything that google turns up.
A couple I went to school with and I can count one as a former brother inlaw - to a man they all despise Scotland and always have done.
Given their job they must hate getting out of bed in the morning...
No, they all love their job as they get to publish anti-scottish rubbish. It's really quite funny because they never put their name to an article but each has their very own distinctive writing style that I can recognise anywhere.
What is it that you find disturbing jambalaya? Are some licences purchased, while others paying the same fee are only leasing the licence?
@gordimohr, bribery
Those of us who don't have a vote but wish Scotland to remain in the UK are not anti Scottish at all. We want Scotland to remain in the Union was we believe we are better together. We believe Scots add something to our national mix and identity. If we where anti-Scottish we would want rid of "you". It is the Yes campaign and supporters who try and create a convoluted version of events which say the UK wants to keep Scotland only so Westminster can laud it over the Scots and steal all "your" natural resources.
well played pimpmaster good use of humour LIKES 😆
We want Scotland to remain in the Union was we believe we are better together.
Of course you believe you are better together. That's because YOU are better together. We subsidise the rUK to the tune of around £4Bn/yr, we have a load of oil and keep the balance of payments and sterling in a reasonably OK state etc etc etc.
YOU are better together, WE are better apart.
No, they all love their job as they get to publish anti-scottish rubbish. It's really quite funny because they never put their name to an article but each has their very own distinctive writing style that I can recognise anywhere.
Credit where it's due.
Attack The System from the inside! Project Fear WILL SUCCEED!
About 53,100,000 in 0.43 seconds.
With that many results in such little time it must be true.
But then again I don't believe everything that google turns up.
😆
I suppose if you don't know how Google works, then the fact that others do will lead you to simultaneous feelings of confusion and anger.
well played pimpmaster good use of humour LIKES
😆
Ithankque.
We subsidise the rUK to the tune of around £4Bn/yr
I know you frown upon the use of Google, but if you take some time to sit down and figure it out, it'll lead you to [url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888 ]this page[/url] from the Scottish Government website. Look at the summary and then tell me how public revenue of £53.1 billion vs public expenditure of £65.2 billion equates to Scotland subsidising the UK?
Or is standard grade maths a Project Fear conspiracy too?
I get that point WML, but am unconvinced at present that Scotland has a sufficiently diverse economy to continue to generate the same level of GDP, once the constructs of the UK are removed.
Where do you believe [i]new[/i] growth will come from?
Very quickly, as I need to do some work.
I'd like to thank you all for a good discussion over the past few hours, wanmankylung for making me smile and this comment from The Flying Ox for having me in tears over my keyboard.
I suppose if you don't know how Google works, then the fact that others do will lead you to simultaneous feelings of confusion and anger.
Now I [i]really[/i] need to do some work.
Look at the summary and then tell me how public revenue of £53.1 billion vs public expenditure of £65.2 billion equates to Scotland subsidising the UK?
[url= http://wingsoverscotland.com/weebluebook/ ]Wee Blue Book[/url] page 9 onwards 😉
Or, if you don't want to read that, at least go read up on why almost every country in the world spends more money than it takes. The difference is made up in borrowing.
In the case of Scotland, Scotland provides 9.9% of the revenue but receives 9.7% of the spending.
Where do you believe new growth will come from?
Where do I believe that new growth will come from? Arts, business, tourism, energy of whichever type you fancy, academia, engineering design. Probably not manufacturing as that ship has sailed.
Or, if you don't want to read that, at least go read up on why almost every country in the world spends more money than it takes. The difference is made up in borrowing.In the case of Scotland, Scotland provides 9.9% of the revenue but receives 9.7% of the spending.
You can make % say anything, and that helps because it obfuscates the actual numbers. Now I don't know what numbers you're using, but the ones available on the Scottish Government website suggest that Scotland provides 8.2% of the UK's total public revenue whilst receiving 9.3% of the UK's total public expenditure. Even if you were to alter the numbers to give Scotland a geographical share of NS oil revenues, the flow of money is into Scotland rather than out. Put simply, whilst Scotland contributes around £800 per head more in tax to the UK coffers, it receives around £1300 per head more in public spend. There is no possible construction of the word "subsidy" that results in these figures equating to Scotland subsidising the rest of the UK.
energy of whichever type you fancy
If only we could harness the power of 'hot air' the current production levels would see us into the next millennium.
I wonder why the book uses those figures Ben? Why not use the latest ones;
Revenue = 53.1bilion (9.1% of UK total 583billion)
Expenditure = 65.2billion (9.3% of UK total 701billion)
Deficit = 12.1billion
Population share of borrowing = 10billion (8.4% of 118.5)
Revenue and expenditure from GERS so feel free to knock a couple of billion off for the real revenue figures
Scotland provides 9.9% of the revenue but receives 9.7% of the spending
This was about page 3 of this thread wasn't it? - which is bigger 9.9% of the revenue or 9,7% of the spending?
Jambalaya obviously you would like Scots to remain in a union where in your description the Scots taxpayer rents the public institutions such as HMRC where as the taxpayers from England Wales and Northern Ireland own those same institutions by paying the very same taxes. The question is why on earth would any one in Scotland want to remain part of a union like that?
You don't - you own it
for as long as you remain part of the United Kingdom.
[i]*terms and conditions apply your home may be at risk if you do not keep up with payments.[/i]
Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?
Interestingly who would be the hub airline? Logan air? You could expand EDI or GLA but you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-27775468
EDI or GLA may attract new passengers from outwith Scotland, which in turn may attract new business from airlines. GLA is up for sale, on of the current shareholders are expected to take ownership. There are plans for expansion.
Rick Draper - Member
"Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?"
Interestingly who would be the hub airline? Logan air? You could expand EDI or GLA but you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
Oh, that's right, we're too dumb to be able to organise anything big like that to [i]meet our needs[/i] ie people who want to fly directly to Scotland.
[url= http://willhillbet.tumblr.com/post/94438394233/79-of-scots-backing-yes ]Meanwhile a poll by those who put their money where their mouth is[/url]
Everybody that bets always wins don't they 🙄
Meanwhile in the real world no poll worth mentioning has ever put the yes vote in a wining position.
Everybody that bets always wins don't they
Meanwhile in the real world no poll worth mentioning has ever put the yes vote in a wining position.
True, but as the last Scottish Elections prove. The electorate can swing quite quickly, and quite far. Although the polling for this often ends up somewhat misrepresented.
I don't buy into any expression of confidence in the result of this referendum. Nobody truly knows. I find some of the confidence expressed by both sides quite odd at times. Unless Amazon have been flogging Crystal Balls and I'm unawares.
we're too dumb to be able to organise anything big like that to meet our needs ie people who want to fly directly to Scotland.
Nothing to do with that- its to do with having a critical mass of people who want to travel that route big enough to make running flights there economically viable, and with enough flights to make the infrastructure of a transport hub pay for itself.
See Ciudad Real airport in Spain as a perfect example!
pie monster you are citing the only miodern example I can think of where they got it wrong
I doubt very much all the polls are incorrect and I would be surprised if the yes vote is more than 40%
I do agree the dont knows can still swing it though and turnout may also be a factor. I still think you need some faith to think yes will win currently though.
[quote=Junkyard ]pie monster you are citing the only miodern example I can think of where they got it wrong Is 1992 not modern enough?
Junkyard - lazarus
pie monster you are citing the only miodern example I can think of where they got it wrong
I know.
But it's a favoured line of Yes voters. And I've never had the chance to use it before. Usually some zealous yes voter gets in before me.
Edit: googles 1992
Edit edit: [url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor ]Not sure I'd have mentioned this[/url]
Why am I not shocked that the DO's Independence Bonus turns out to be completely bogus. More BS and lies.
I had expected this still to be a close vote but perhaps the reality really is sinking home. This whole notion has been built on sands of deceit that are now being washed away with the passing of every tide.
Well, after months of dithering and thinking. I made decision.
I read this, and it cut through to the real decision. Do I want to have more decisions made by more local people? Yes.
http://www.lesleyriddoch.com/2014/08/lets-concentrate-on-real-debate.html
Piemonster its good to know even tories are embarrassed to admit it in public
Is 1992 not modern enough?
I was not in the country back then so my knowledge is limited of what happened then
Reasonable point tbh. So that is 2 in 50 years and I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest Yes voters are not shy about saying it 😉
Well, after months of dithering and thinking. I made decision.
I read this, and it cut through to the real decision. Do I want to have more decisions made by more local people? Yes.
http://www.lesleyriddoch.com/2014/08/lets-concentrate-on-real-debate.html
br />
That's very good, thanks.
That's very good, thanks
Aye, interesting read.
Reminds me I must get around to reading Lesley Riddoch's Blossom - people keep saying it's very good.
The author really should take her own advice and concentrate on the real debate. What a lovely flowery article full on interesting yet unlinked points leading to the wrong conclusion.
Let's write several paras on Scottish education system and then make two spurious jumps to eg energy and the poltical process. The oldest trick in the book and equally transparent. Especially when you make it look relevant ie, why is is relevant, before completely ignoring the question.
Just wild assumption and fairy tales about how voting yes is going to transform society. Unsubstantiated croc.
As the comments in the FT today we respect to the equally spurious argument that a yes vote is the paths to full employment, this is nothing more that general aspirational stuff combined with deceit. As the NIESR note, Swinney's fluff on full employment is not fiscally neutral and is based on "a bizarre view that you can doe what you want on the fiscal side and not worry too much on the currency side."
I guess yS will be rolling out Hans Chrtisten Anderson for the final push...
Do I want to have more decisions made by more local people? Yes.
Why then vote for a system where the most important decisions will be made by a foreign country with no little if any respect to your needs? Bizarre.
THM, you don't get to decide what the real debate is. Each individual voter does.
That's the same trick Better Together keep trying - telling everyone that the currency is the big issue, even the only issue, because they can't think of any other arguments.
Its an interesting take on it and it is strange that economic matters has been the cornerstone of the debate.
We [ the west] are wealthy, wealthy enough to achieve and prioritise social goals over the eternal quest for more wealth whilst rewarding the winners and demonising the losers [ shirkers].
Nice food for thought IMHO about the different outlooks on what people/societies want to achieve.
It goes without saying I prefer the egalitarian method of the scandanvian approach
FWIW their child abuse figures are startling as well
The World Health Organization (2002) provides homicide incidence figures for children aged 0 to 4 in Sweden (1996), Canada (1997) and the United States (1998).1 These figures are:Sweden: 3; Canada: 24; United States: 723
(Canada's population is approximately 3 times larger than Sweden's. The U.S. population is approximately 20 times larger than Sweden's.)
You can make society better for all or you can care most about your pension pot.
EDIT: i wrote thatbefore reading THM post butthis sortof sums it up really
Why then vote for a system where the most important decisions will be made by a foreign country with no little if any respect to your needs? Bizarre.
Do you really think ordinary folk think this is the most important thing in their life or a country? I bet you think they do not because they are stupid and dont get it 🙄
Did you actually read the piece. It was written about your attitude and you still did not get it and then did it. Oh the ironing
ninfan - Member
"we're too dumb to be able to organise anything big like that to meet our needs ie people who want to fly directly to Scotland."
Nothing to do with that- its to do with having a critical mass of people who want to travel that route big enough to make running flights there economically viable...
You're implying we would be too dumb to do market research first to find that out.
35 days to go
You can make society better for all or you can care most about your pension pot.
Amen to that.
True Ben, but that doesn't excuse making spurious links to support an argument. I benefitted from the quality of Scottish education many moons ago and my son may do the same, so I agree with the basic points that she makes in that regard. It suits certain people. But that has got sweet FA to do with the points she is making. Perhaps I am being thick and you can demonstrate the link between taking broader highers and the rate of taxation?
Of course, the mess in Europe is being hidden by this, Iraq and Robin Willams, but the (incorrect) choice of currency is having a direct impact on the issues that you seem to hold dear - jobs, prosperity, inequality etc. The lessons of history are clear, you don't get the most important decision wrong. You can try to deflect attention away from this truism but as the DO has found out, it has a nasty habit of coming back to bite you on the backside.
Fifteen para and two point - five of which in education. Then a spurious link which ends by destroying itself
and reforms to schooling alone won’t change that.”
ExActyl, so why spend 1/3 of the article talking about the education system. Really let's get down to the real debate.
As I note above, today it (sorry still the surreal debate) is the fact that YES will give you Full Employment along with the iPad app that allows you to identify each if the little piggies in the sky.
Its an interesting take on it and it is strange that economic matters has been the cornerstone of the debate.
Plus ca change!
You appear to have forgotten the essential building blocks of successful politics:
[img] 
[/img]
THM - it's not the most important decision. Countries change currencies all the time. It's important, sure, but not as important as independence.
I get it - you think that a currency union wouldn't happen, and would be very bad if it did. Some Yes voters might agree with you, I lean that way sometimes*. But other things outweigh that - being able to get rid of the nuclear weapons, being responsible for our own decisions instead of being able to blame others, setting up an oil fund to save for our children instead of stealing from them by lumping them with mountains of debt. Currency matters, other things matter more.
*Because a CU requires sensible, reasonable negotiation from grown-ups. I don't think we can trust the current government to not be vindictive and spiteful, because they already are. They may well be willing to cut off their own nose to spite their face.
Ah, a decision to refuse a CU would be out of spite, rather than because it would be a bloody foolish to take on the financial risks of another country for a limited return!
The narrative of blame for failure post independence is already being laid...
[b]But other things outweigh that - being able to get rid of the nuclear weapons..., [/b]. True but not in the table, remember what don't ask, don't tell really means
...already in place, you are now proposing to give away the big ones, on the last point that will be a relief....being responsible for our own decisions instead of being able to blame others
stealing???? Jumping late on the oil find argument is not a vote for independence.setting up an oil fund to save for our children instead of stealing from them
the link? Are you saying that AS is going to decimate financial services and the provision of credit in Scotland. True he has made quite a good start.....but his plans require significant debt financing that will leave Scotland with high levels of debt.by lumping them with mountains of debt
So again, nothing more that vague aspirational wishlists. Perhaps we can add that AS will sort out he wheel debate nice and for all as well?
FWIW, I think Scoltand's best interests are served in the union, but if independence is genuinely desired then this is best achieved with an independent fully floating currency. The fudge of the CU achieve nothing other than a fudge. Actually that's not true, the CU and/or sterlingisation gives an iS less not more power. That is why it's a stupid idea.
Countries change currencies all the time.
In all my years in finance, I missed that one. pls tell me more....
Anyway must get on....
That's the same trick Better Together keep trying - telling everyone that the currency is the big issue, even the only issue, because they can't think of any other arguments.
@ben BT keep focusing on the currency as its a major weakness in the Yes campaign and AS keeps trying to dodge the question of "what if" so digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole. Currency is such a powerful argument as it resonates with the average voter, what money will you have in your pocket ?
@TMH it's OK for the lady to speak about the emotive aspects of her decision as a Yes vote is an emotional vote not a logical one
Also I too believe an independent Scotland will have higher levels of debt than the UK, firstly to pay for the infrastructure build out and secondly to pay for this fairer society we keep hearing about.
In all my years in finance, I missed that one. pls tell me more....
Ireland changed from it's own pound to Sterling, to a pound pegged to Sterling, to a pound not pegged to Sterling, to the Euro. Every other country in the Euro previously had it's own currency. Various former Eastern Bloc countries changed from the Ruble to their own currency or the Euro.
"Its an interesting take on it and it is strange that economic matters has been the cornerstone of the debate."
the purpose of the state is to serve the populace. it can only do that if it is able to collect enough tax. the amount it can collect in tax is massively affected by economic performance.
The economy is important. yessers active disengagement with the subject is an indication they're motivated predominantly by emotional issues ie Frrrrreeeeeee...
We build the society we want, and make the economy work for us - not the other way around. Sure, it matters, and it affects what we can do, but it's not the most important decision.
Perhaps I am being thick and you can demonstrate the link between taking broader highers and the rate of taxation?
Perhaps i am being thick but could you highlight the part in the article that makes such a direct claim? The broad claim is that scotland cares about different things - a number of examples were give. Rather ironic that you keep ignoring them and just return to economic issues- that was the point of the article called
[b]Let’s concentrate on real debate[/b]
Amusing though in a face palm way
being responsible for our own decisions instead of being able to blame others
...already in place
No amount of spin can portray scotland as having responsibility for all its decisons. Its just BS ,as you would say to AS, though i prefer factually inaccurate to describe it.
Scotland can fully do as she wishes and is not constrained by another govt that they did not vote for...good luck with that one as you rail against deceit.
Its just not true and this is why you call troll and just insult me
The economy is important.
I do not think anyone would disagree tbh but you may also want to prioritise a variety of other goals.
IMHO the constant striving for economic growth and yet more wealth is somewhat pointless. Personally I would rather have a fairer society and more free time than more money - i am in the minority there though.
IMHO those who focus on the economy/money/wealth* do so because wealth itself is a goal rather than wealth being a vehicle to achieve social justice or an other goal
Of course you need money to achieve this but other things matter as well as just making the most amount of money possible.
It shows how far we have all become mini Thatchers/capitalists/selfish where we think of money first and then everything else second.
For example ben may be marginally financially worse off but he could also live in a fairer society as the pay off. A price worth paying IMHO and a stark difference between Scotland and England
* a general comment rather than a comment on this thread or posters here.
For example ben may be marginally financially worse off but he could also live in a fairer society as the pay off. A price worth paying IMHO and a stark difference between Scotland and England
Exactly, and sometimes it's impossible to put a price on such things. For example, how much compensation is reasonable for the risk of dying in a nuclear fireball? Reducing that risk obviously has benefits, but how much in money terms?
You can't quantify it.
Ben, not exactly all the time is it. In fact is is very, very occasionally. Why? Because it's important, strategic and utlimately costly. [b]You do not do it on a whim and you get your facts right first[/b]. Unless you want to end up like the periphery of Europe. You only need to look at what is going on in Europe RIGHT NOW to see how the incorrect currency choose affects all aspects of lives.
Jamabalaya - respect her emotional/emotive issues and the specifics of Scottish education. But as put, they have bugger all to do with the vote. That article mixes them up despite trying to make obvious links where they do not exist. She indirectly admits that herself.
The fascile arguments about being "better off" without the evidence to support how this is going to happen do not help anyone. It's mere fantasy land. Take pensions - dismiss at your peril but it is irresponsible for politicians to do this especially with an ageing population. Industry bodies cry our for clarity but instead they get subterfuge. Shocking.
What's the big deal about pensions? The government has confirmed that people's state pensions will be unaffected (just as they are for ex-pats at the moment). For private pensions you have a contract with your pension provider - they will have to do some sorting out, maybe, but that's not beyond the acumen of such people.
A very interesting article in Bella Caledonia:
We build the society we want, and make the economy work for us - not the other way around.
no, wrong - the state can only spend what it takes in.
Well done for missing the second sentence in that paragraph where I say almost exactly that 😉
Let’s concentrate on real debate
Politic speak for "let's avoid the debate that embarrasses my point of view."
indeed but it works both ways
No /the UK said they would not pre negotiate so lots of the economic questions are basically we do not know and there is obvious uncertainty as there is with any change. No try to discuss this rather than argue that the current set up is democratic and represents the wishes of the scottish electorate.
Both sides are trying to do this- debate where they are strongest - is anyone surprised by this?
IMHO no set it up very well so ys could not answer questions and have beaten them well with this. Politics is a dirty game.
For example, how much compensation is reasonable for the risk of dying in a nuclear fireball?
You do realize that if Scotland goes independent, it's still ****ed if rUK starts a nuclear war, right?
You do realize that if Scotland goes independent, it's still **** if rUK starts a nuclear war, right?
Its alright, I don't think he's yet got his head round the concept that the whole point of a submarine based deterrent is that nuking Faslane would make little strategic sense, because the missiles are thousands of miles away under the ocean...
Its alright, I don't think he's yet got his head round the concept that the whole point of a submarine based deterrent is that nuking Faslane would make little strategic sense, because the missiles are thousands of miles away under the ocean
I do understand that concept, yes. So you think there weren't any Soviet missiles targeted at Faslane? 🙄
It's a strategic military asset, of course it would be on the first-strike list. As would Glasgow, probably, along with all major cities.
You do realize that if Scotland goes independent, it's still **** if rUK starts a nuclear war, right?
As is everyone else, if a nuclear war starts. However getting rid of them from Scotland is a step on the road to disarmament, and it also reduces the risk of nuclear accidents.
No /[s]the UK said[/s] Both parties agreed they would not pre negotiate so lots of the economic questions are basically we do not know and there is obvious uncertainty as there is with any change
That’s OK because the SNP will have done lots of research and taken all of the variables into account to arrive at their ‘Scotland will be £5billion better off’ claims.
Or maybe they just make it up as they go along;
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11026966/Eye-catching-Alex-Salmond-independence-claim-was-based-on-no-economic-modelling.html ]Milk and Honey?[/url]
...a step on the road to disarmament...
Right. As if we'll get to a stage where there's only one country left with nukes, and they're [i]not[/i] going to say "Right, folks. Listen up. We've got nukes. You don't. Each and every one of you is now our bitch. Try arguing and see what happens".
In fact, the more we travel down the path of nuclear disarmament the closer we get to a fully renewed Cold War:
"Right, you dismantle your nukes."
"No, you first. We insist."
That’s OK because the SNP will have done lots of research and taken all of the variables into account to arrive at their ‘Scotland will be £5billion better off’ claims.Or maybe they just make it up as they go along
Not at all. I believe Salmond has taken legal advice on the matter, so he knows exactly how it's going to pan out.
Right. As if we'll get to a stage where there's only one country left with nukes, and they're not going to say "Right, folks. Listen up. We've got nukes. You don't. Each and every one of you is now our bitch. Try arguing and see what happens".
The UK has less than 2% of the nuclear weapons in the world - removing that number won't make much difference to the world situation, but it'll make us safer - and there's the moral side of it too.
Independence won't make Scotland safer from nuclear war. There is a very low probability of nuclear war now, and being the neighbour of a party to global annihilation isn't any safer than being the party to it yourself.
In fact, the more we travel down the path of nuclear disarmament the closer we get to a fully renewed Cold War:
"Right, you dismantle your nukes."
"No, you first. We insist."
You're being facetious but the START treaties were highly successful in achieving the dismantlement of nuclear weapons. 80% of every weapon created was destroyed. There are still enough to obliterate the planet, obviously.
80% of every weapon created was [u]reportedly[/u] destroyed.
FTFY - [url= http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/27/russia-violated-91-start-till-end-us-report-says/ ]linky[/url]
Independence won't make Scotland safer from nuclear war.
Maybe, maybe not, it might get us taken off some target lists. What it will do is remove all the nuclear convoys from our roads, remove the risks of a nuclear accident, prevent the discharge of nuclear waste into the Clyde (the MoD have asked to increase the amounts they're allowed to discharge), and free us of the moral issue of possessing WMDs.
Oh, and it'll save us a ****load of money.
The Americans privately wish the UK would get rid of our nukes anyway - they're no help to US strategic plans and they mean we can't afford more useful conventional forces.