[Closed] Why wont he debate the potential end of the Union?

* dinkles out *

Not sure how that plays out with normal voters though.

I would guess most couldn't give a toss.

What are "normal" voters?

Ones that vote No obviously. 🙂

Gotcha!

Just watched the last hour or so of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee on the Referendum on separation for Scotland.What I saw was mainly concerned with getting legal clarification on various points such as the routes by which Scotland could join the EU, schengen v common travel areas, border security and what legislation (rUK) would be required after a yes vote.Unfortunately its not currently on the iplayer and does feature a lot of Ian Davidson.
I know saturday nights chez gordimhor are one big adrenaline rush.
Happy to be voting abnormal

I like these threads, especially with THM, he makes me think. <self indulgent> I'm a reluctant Yes voter, my heart says it's better to make Britain better and to work to stop the slide, but my head says that we can't wag the dog. If independence is the answer then I don't like the question. But this sort of thread makes me think about it.

FWIW my expectation is that either way, the whole insane western feudal-capitalism racket falls within a few generations anyway so it'll all be much of a muchness 😉 But that's no excuse not to try and make things better.

And you know what? If nothing else, the Yes campaign wants to make things better. Westminster and the No campaign wants us to believe that the best we can possibly hope for is the status quo. Not even that! I'm fed up of TINA, she's a horrible bitch and it's all bollocks anyway, inside we all know that, we're selling our kids to service numbers on a computer which have somehow become more important than the real world.

the whole insane western feudal-capitalism racket falls within a few generations anyway

I'd bet good money that folk have been saying this since the days of John Company. I might even make a quid.

FWIW my expectation is that either way, the whole insane western feudal-capitalism racket falls within a few generations anyway so it'll all be much of a muchness

Haven't we been hearing that since, oh, about 1917?

(edit: similar thought, different date - pipped at the post by the pie monster!)

And that's not long ago at all. But what we have today isn't the same as the 1800s. Or rather, it is the earlier generation of the evolved beast.

Wasn't it the earlier generation of the evolved beast that led to the Union in the first place 😉

The earlier beast was no less bonkers though.

It's the rate of consumption of the current version that excels for bonkerness. Soil degradation alone might be enough in time.

Anyway.......as you was.

The reality, corporation tax will be capped by rUK corp tax, and fiscal policy will be co-ordinated (at the very least with) with rUK fiscal policy.

Morning!!

More simple points for you- does the White Paper ever say otherwise? No. Does it ever imply otherwise? No.

Yes it's actually black and white although inconveniently one does have to read the whole report not just the intro. Deceitfully, the introduction talks about removing Trident (assuming that is all most people will bother to read.) Equally inconveniently for the yes camp however, a small minority might actually read the report where it says

‘While they are both strong advocates for nuclear disarmament, both Norway and Denmark allow NATO vessels to visit their ports without confirming or denying whether they carry nuclear weapons. “We intend that Scotland will adopt a similar approach as Denmark and Norway in this respect.

Ie, don't ask, don't tell. And will there be trident in the waters near Fastlane etc. Of course, but Salmomd in on-going la- la fashion will deceive people into believning otherwise. Those who are too lazy to read or ask questions will be duped.

So does the book of dreams say otherwise - intro no, main body yes. Does it imply otherwise - no, it's black and white. No need to imply anything.

You'd think, since that's quite the big deal. Will Trident be removed, as stated?

You would think that, true. But trident will not be removed! merely hidden. So " remove" and "deceit" used as in the OED definitions.

Competitive tax means keeping tax below the rate "set" by the rUK ie, Scotland will be a price taker with corp tax capped by rUK (to start with 3% points below). God forbid, the spending plans might actually have to be paid for? More la-la land rhetoric divorced from reality.

I enjoy the debate too (thanks for it), love Scotland, would vote for devo-max as hate over-centralised government, despise Salmond with a passion. Equally simple.

Competitive tax means keeping tax below the rate "set" by the rUK ie, Scotland will be a price taker with corp tax capped by rUK (to start with 3% points below). God forbid, the spending plans might actually have to be paid for? More la-la land rhetoric divorced from reality.

This is where I got a bit annoyed with AS with the White Paper. Mixing party policy with everything else related to the referendum. A yes vote won't tie us to anything that's been said, future governments in Scotland can do what ever they want with any of our taxes, up or down. Seems silly to suggest that our corporation tax will for ever be pegged to rUK.

Ie, don't ask, don't tell.

Pegged "below" rather than just "to" - so not independent on two counts ie, determined "by" others and "below" others.

Perhaps ASK should be honest and simply say - we want to be defence free riders. We won't pay for it, we won't have our own, but we will use others peoples in return for turning a blind eye to the fact that they are hidden in our waters and using our ports.

Operating costs of trident are circa 2.4 billion per year. Replacement cost will be between 15-20 billion (fullfact.org). Even divided on a per capita basis thats a lot of essential local and national services.
Then again maybe its worth paying out just to have our very own wmd.

teamhurtmore - Member

Yes it's actually black and white although inconveniently one does have to read the whole report not just the intro.

I've checked the whole report and, well, there's a reason you haven't provided a quote to back up your claim, isn't there? It's simply not true. The claim is the same throughout, it will be removed. At no point does it ever say that Scottish ports or waters will be closed to all foreign nuclear weapons.

Here, have a challenge. Provide evidence for your claim or withdraw it. I mean other than word games where you pretend "remove" doesn't mean what it means.

teamhurtmore - Member

Perhaps ASK should be honest and simply say - we want to be defence free riders. We won't pay for it, we won't have our own, but we will use others peoples in return for turning a blind eye to the fact that they are hidden in our waters and using our ports.

Not worthy of you tbh.

thats a lot of essential local and national services

Not really, as the commitment to NATO membership would mean that Scotland would have to continue spending at least 2% of GDP on defence.

Most of that money would have to flow abroad too - as there would not be a big enough industry for an organic defence sector to develop - SNP have very much played the shipbuilding line, but only a small proportion of modern warship spending is in the build, the expensive stuff is the systems and technology on board, which would have to be bought in - and the white paper has committed them to a replacement maritime patrol aircraft to replace Nimrod, clearly that will have to be off the shelf as well since there's never going to be space for a Scottish military aircraft industry

ninfan - Member

Not really, as the commitment to NATO membership would mean that Scotland would have to continue spending at least 2% of GDP on defence

Does it? That is 20% less than we spend currently incidentally, but I just had a quick gander and most NATO countries don't do this. Iceland spends 0.1% of GDP!

Of the 28 member states, how many spend more than 2%? I make it 5, could be out by one or two but not 23. And looking at the shortfalls, many of those members clearly haven't spent that much at any time since joining.

Exactly, my friend, not "close" merely "spot on."

Let's see what our good friends in Denmark think - the guys AS is copying.

Ole Kværnø is director of strategy at the Royal Danish Defence College. He told BBC Scotland: "Our vision is by no means to defend ourselves. We, as a state, are no longer able to defend ourselves in military terms."He says there is no direct threat to Denmark and they can also rely on their partners in Nato.Mr Kværnø went on: "So our investment is not in our direct and own defence but rather in keeping our preferred partners happy so that they will come to our rescue at the end of the day".

Pragmatism or free-riding, or both?

But what of another area of contention - nuclear weapons? Ole Kværnø says it is [b]"the elephant in the room, we just don't discuss it at the moment."[/b] The Danish government oppose nuclear weapons but do not question whether their Nato allies sail nuclear armed submarines in their waters.Mr Kværnø says that ignoring the issue is a matter of military practicality.

At least he is honest about it!

The first paragraph is talking about general defence, not nuclear, and the second is the exact stated position of the Scottish Government. So, er, what on earth is your point?

The reality is, very few nations can defend themselves from foreign aggression from a superpower, 'twas ever thus, that's why you have things like NATO, and the UN, and diplomacy. It's impossible for a small country to be impervious to attack, and insane to try. That's not a criticism of the Danes- they correctly identify that they are currently at no risk, and any risk they do face in future will be too big to face alone.

Let's break out of the selective quoting shall we? He goes on to say:

"Danes have fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Søren Espersen is foreign affairs spokesman for the Danish People's Party.

His party helped support the last Danish government which sent forces into both conflicts.

He told the BBC: "I think we feel that we have to do our bit.

"I can't really see why it should always be British and American soldiers that should die whereas other nations would sit on their hands like indeed many of the European countries do. Members of the EU who don't lift a finger - I think that is a disgrace."

Freeloading?

The proof? Nuclear weapons will continue to exist in Scottish waters, therefore they have not been removed. QED.

They are simply hidden from view plus you will have no say on their activities. You cannot dress that up any other way. It's a lie to say that Scotland will be free from nuclear weapons. It might make you warm and fuzzy to pretend that they are not there but that is not the same thing. The Danes, who your policy is based on, allow the US to use Greenland and have access to their waters - just keep quiet about it. In return, they keep their partners happy and their people safe (so far).

One mans selective quoting is another mans quoting what is relevant 😉

(And to be strict here 😉 you alleged quote with the " is not a quote, it's a BBC statement (is that why there was no second " to mark the point?!?) and the rest was from the other source you noted :wink:)

Boring!!!

Is it just me that is sick of the independence experts constantly blathering on about the various what if scenarios? Scotland just isn't important to people in England we have better things to think about and the no vote is going to win anyway. Save yourselves some time and effort don't think about it again until 18/11/2014.

Yes, we know it doesn't meet your imaginary personal definition of "remove", invented purely for the purposes of complaining about Alex Salmond. I think we can live with that tbh.

Oh why not, here we go again:

verb
verb: remove; 3rd person present: removes; past tense: removed; past participle: removed; gerund or present participle: removing

[b] 1.
take (something) away or off from the position occupied.[/b]
"Customs officials removed documents from the premises"
synonyms: detach, unfasten, separate; More
pull out, take out, disconnect
"switch off the power and remove the plug"
take off, undo, unfasten
"he took the box and removed the lid"
take out, produce, bring out, get out, draw out, withdraw, extract, pull out, fish out
"he pulled out his wallet and removed a twenty dollar bill"
take away, carry away, move, shift, convey, transport;
confiscate, take possession of;
informalcart off
"police searched his flat, removing fifteen bags of clothing"
clean off, wash off, wipe off, rinse off, scrub off, sponge out
"in the bathroom, Sheila soon removed the mud"
delete, erase, rub out, cross out, strike out, ink out, score out, block out, blue-pencil, cut out, eliminate, efface, obliterate
"Gabriel carefully removed the last two words"
uproot, take out, pull out, eradicate, destroy
"weeds have to be removed and a good general weedkiller applied"
cut off, chop off, lop off, hack off, amputate, excise
"sometimes it may be necessary to remove branches of the tree"
antonyms: attach, put on, insert, replace, put back, add
take off (clothing).
"he sat down and quickly removed his shoes and socks"
synonyms: take off, pull off, peel off, shrug off, discard, divest oneself of

[img] [/img]

Now, back on track, what I asked you to do was support this claim:

teamhurtmore - Member

"Yes it's actually black and white although inconveniently one does have to read the whole report not just the intro. Deceitfully, the introduction talks about removing Trident (assuming that is all most people will bother to read.)"

Which I think you have to concede- since you've failed to provide the evidence to support it- was not true. You're very quick to quote (and misquote) when you think it helps you so I think we can feel free to draw conclusions from the absence.

Actually, that is incorrect. The decision and the way it is argued has direct implications on the rUK. Hence the need for the BOE to proactively calm market concerns last week.

You are starting to do a galloway/Farrage here?

Will nuclear weapons be [b]taken away or off[/b] Scottish territory? Two straight answers (1) no, (2) we don't know, since we have given up the right or "need" to know.

There is only one answer that doesn't fit in Scotland or in Denmark's case ie, Yes. Ergo, AS is clear in the main body of the book of dreams but deceitful in the intro.

Beyond that, let's agree to disagree for other's sake!!!

What happens on the 18th of November? 🙂

The simple straight answer- yes, Trident will be taken away. It can pass through in future; it will no longer be based here (legally cannot be under 2 treaties binding on the rUK) as a result of having been removed.

And that is what the White Paper says. No deceit except in your head. No way to pretend otherwise without verbal gymnastics. The White Paper is consistent throughout, which is why you continue to fail to prove otherwise.

We know you! You like facts, quotes and misquotes. When you don't provide them, it's because you can't, and you want to bluster something without worrying about whether it's actually true.

Ok, "pass through" (cough). AS would be proud of that!

Do you have fun debates with the boss, Bob?

Northwind

If SNP/Scottish Parliament have committed to 'remove' (your word) Trident, or in the white papers words 'securing the complete withdrawal of'

But also, in your own words, At no point does it ever say that Scottish ports or waters will be closed to all foreign nuclear weapons.

What [b]exactly[/b] is stopping Royal Navy Submarines from continuing to use the existing facilities, i.e. instead of being 'based' there they are just 'visiting'?

Its merely a game of semantics isn't it?

And thats before we consider that the commitment is only an 'aim and intention' with no guaranteed timescale - Hell, Trident will clearly be 'removed' when it goes out of service at the end of its lifetime.

How does it apply to other NATO nations? Are US owned but NATO shared use nuclear depth charges and torpedos allowed to be kept in the ammunition stores for restocking NATO ships that are 'just passing through'?

Now, back to your point on GDP spend - the Scottish independence white paper commits the independent Scotland to 2.5 billion defence spend - which is entirely in accordance with the existing planned UK defence spend for 2015 of 2.2% UK GDP

Ninfan, the Scottish CND does not share NW's confidence. Likes the Danes they are pragmatic in their reading of the situation!!! But unlike the Danes, they are not happy about it.

Sorry, this "tickly cough" will not go away when I read things like

We will retain the capacity for shared arrangements with the rest of the UK and other allies, recognising Faslane’s excellent deep water facilities and its geographical position.

I wonder what all that (cough, again) means????? That really is the last point on defence. Apologies.

THM - I think that one was written in by the new Scottish chief of defence staff

[img] [/img]

ninfan - Member

What exactly is stopping Royal Navy Submarines from continuing to use the existing facilities, i.e. instead of being 'based' there they are just 'visiting'?

Article 1 and 2 of the NPT, which the UK are a signatory to, and which both the rUK and Scotland would be bound to obey as NATO members?

Or, the fact that once Coulport and the dedicated hardware to service and support the submarines is decommissioned, it'll simply be impractical? Might as well try to base them in Anstruther.

Or, how about, the UK government is for reasons unknown obsessed with the "independent deterrent", which is fundamentally incompatible with dependence on another country. The only argument for retaining Trident is ideological, and this defeats the ideology.

Or pure pragmatism- the only redeeming feature of spending a ton of money on a nuclear white elephant is that you get a (smaller) economic benefit from the support industy. It makes no sense for the rUK to forfeit that.

(Frankly, I could go with the last- personally I'd be comfortable with us withdrawing from Trident but it remaining based in Scotland so we can reap the economic benefits without the financial and moral costs. I'm sure we'd only charge a small rental fee on top. But that's not on the cards, from either side)

ninfan - Member

Now, back to your point on GDP spend

Er, you are mistaken, that was [i]your[/i] point. You might want to argue with THM for a while- he thinks Scotland will be a defence "free rider" (I think he means freeloader) whereas the reality as you say is that Scotland intends to largely continue defence spending on more useful assets than Trident, which will give her a more useful defence force than she could have while wasting money on nuclear weapons.

What do you think AS and the people of Scotland mean when they say they want rid of Trident? I think most people would expect remove to mean not stationed permanently at Faslane.

The corporation tax point is a red herring imo, current policy is for it to be less than rUK but that's something that can and will be changed as policy and economics dictate. An iScotland won't be bound to that figure forever....

There is a lot of effort by the Project Fear to pin future policies on an independent Scotland.

They don't seem to realise that what Scots want is self-determination, and that includes the chance to select our own government. The first election after independence could well give a Labour or Liberal government, unlikely to be the Conservatives, and not necessarily SNP.

The SNP does not own our votes.

Whatever government we vote in will be making our policies which could well be different from SNP.

Focusing on Salmond is a diversionary tactic used by Project Fear. We see him as a man who may deliver us what we want, the chance to control our own affairs, not as the long term life president of Scotland.

How many of the "proud Scots who are proud to be British" are able to vote in this referendum? (Just trying to get an idea of those whose opinion may count)

Good points folks, I am getting drawn into the conversation they want to have 🙁

(Bllx, drawn in) NW, please can you explain (in light of your first point above) why AS has committed to follow a don't ask, don't tell strategy, why the policy towards NATO has changed and what, if any, is the link between the two.

Article 1 and 2 of the NPT, which the UK are a signatory to, and which both the rUK and Scotland would be bound to obey as NATO members?

Neither of them would prevent the Royal Navy using Scottish Ports, any more than it would prevent US or any other NATO nation ship armed with US owned nuclear weapons (as per the established NATO weapon sharing agreement that has been in place for decades) visiting or using the ports, as you've already accepted will be permitted under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

Or, the fact that once Coulport and the dedicated hardware to service and support the submarines is decommissioned, it'll simply be impractical? Might as well try to base them in Anstruther.

But there is no intention of removing Submarine support hardware, since not all submarines are Trident carrying Vanguard - there's the Trafalgar and Astute class subs that the SNP are happy to remain berthed there, along with long established US use of the facilities - and as already discussed, the official position os that [i]We will retain the capacity for shared arrangements with the rest of the UK and other allies, recognising Faslane’s excellent deep water facilities and its geographical position.[/i]

Or, how about, the UK government is for reasons unknown obsessed with the "independent deterrent", which is fundamentally incompatible with dependence on another country. The only argument for retaining Trident is ideological, and this defeats the ideology.

Really, its fundamentally incompatible with dependence on another country is it? Despite the fact that the missiles are US produced and maintained and we obtain them from a shared ownership pool of missiles, just as we did with Polaris, so we've been 'dependent on another country' in a way that you claim is incompatible for the operation of our independent deterrent for, ooh, about forty years now!

Or pure pragmatism- the only redeeming feature of spending a ton of money on a nuclear white elephant is that you get a (smaller) economic benefit from the support industy. It makes no sense for the rUK to forfeit that.

As already discussed, its already agreed that the infrastructure to resupply and provision submarines and military vessels is going to remain in place, none of the points you've made in any way prevent the facilities being used for Vanguard subs, so I'll ask you again - What [b]exactly[/b] is stopping Royal Navy Submarines from continuing to use the existing facilities, i.e. instead of being 'based' there they are just 'visiting'?

The SNP policy and debate on NATO is all in the public domain THM.

The point of a disarmed Scotland is to not waste money on nuclear weapons, and not to be owners of immoral weapons. Either is compelling frankly. (it's telling that nobody in the No campaign has brought any good reasons to keep it, other than baseless scare stories. They've tried to argue against SNP policy but they've never argued for their policy)

Don't ask, don't tell is an established and accepted methods for NATO members to operate a national non-nuclear policy within the Organisation. So it is the logical option, if you want both (Spain operates a strict non-nuclear policy but it's a reach to presume that's an option, given the time lapse.)

Not complicated, this.

The point of a disarmed Scotland is to not waste money on nuclear weapons, and not to be owners of immoral weapons.

Who's suggested either of those things? The debate is over the Royal Navy, which would not be funded by Scotland, using the existing facilities - the promise by Salmond is that they won't be allowed to use them, however the promise in the white paper does not specifically prohibit it!

ninfan - Member

Neither of them would prevent the Royal Navy using Scottish Ports

Erm yes, and neither would SNP policy. "Using" is still not "basing"

ninfan - Member

But there is no intention of removing Submarine support hardware,

What exactly is the commitment to remove Coulport's nuclear handling capacity then? When I refer to "the submarines" it's obviously in the context of nuclear weapons; that's all we've talked about, absurd to bring in conventionally armed vessels as that's not a point of contention.

But just for clarity:
"We will retain the capacity for shared arrangements with the rest of the UK and other allies, recognising Faslane’s excellent deep water facilities and its geographical position."

You both seem to be trying to claim that refers to Trident; I think I will just disregard arguments that depend on making things up. There is no conflict between this statement, and removing Trident infrastructure. But Faslane without that nuclear handling capacity is simply not a suitable Trident base.

Ninfan - as I understand it, the issue with Faslane isn't so much about having somewhere to dock, it's more about removal and storage of the weapons/warheads. Assuming that "remove" means getting rid if those facilities then I can't see any particular advantage in Faslane over, say, Plymouth. i.e. the Trident subs don't sit at Faslane all weaponised.

But most of the infrastructure there is used for both 'conventional' nuclear and 'ballistic' nuclear subs, so if you remove it then you can no longer use it for the 'conventional' subs

Scotlands current claim is that you can keep one, but get rid of the other!

Plus a great deal of it is owned by NATO (ie. funded by NATO joint funds rather than UK govt) so if you remove it then you are removing a joint NATO facility rather than one dedicated to UK Trident.

Northwind - Member
The SNP policy and debate on NATO is all in the public domain THM.

Exactly and thank goodness for that even if you do have to read so many pages of the book of dream to find it. It goes like this:

Step 1: Oppose nuclear weapons in Scotland
Step 2: Oppose membership of NATO
Step 3: Change you mind - fair enough, read JM Keynes
Step 4: Suggest (not our decisions utlimately) membership of NATO on condition of no nukes
Step 5: repeat Step 3
Step 6: Propose adoption of Danish (and others) policy of don't ask, don't tell and accept that nukes will be in Scotland (passing through or otherwise) but agree not to know about it
Step 7: Quietly commit thru book of dreams (but hide away in page 246) to maintain capacity etc making specific reference to specific characteristics of Faslane (no coincidence there)
Step 8: Cross your fingers, hold your breath and hope no one notices. Maintain lie of a Scotland free from Trident
Step 9: Exhale loudly when alliance of CND, Labour, Tories etc point out that your trousers are down around your ankles
Step 10: Point out that there is nothing new there. Repeat.

Not compiicated this.

Indeed not especially when repetition of approach (NATO, defence, EU, currencies. LoLR, etc) makes it very obvious what you are doing. Plus AS is getting lots of practice.

The point of a disarmed Scotland is to not waste money on nuclear weapons, and not to be owners of immoral weapons. Either is compelling frankly

Quite possibly, but not the same as guaranteeing no nukes in Scoltand

Don't ask, don't tell is an established and accepted methods for NATO members to operate a national non-nuclear policy within the Organisation. So it is the logical option,

Very possibly, but not the same thing as guaranteeing no nukes in Scotland (see nice Danish example, but speak quietly in case anyone hears)

Not complicated, this.

+1 (as long as you read the small print)

teamhurtmore - Member

Quite possibly, but not the same as guaranteeing no nukes in Scoltand

Oh for goodness' sake. That is the entire point. You are stating Scottish Government policy in a nutshell, while claiming to contradict it. They have not guaranteed no nukes in Scotland; they have in fact specifically said that is not the goal. So why pretend otherwise?

All you have left is misrepresentation.

Sorry I misread, the into pro which said, "we can remove Trident from Scotland for good." BoD, XII

Colour blind and thick, sorry!!! Misread page 237 too

The current Scottish Government has identified five defence priorities for an independent Scotland:...(priority 2)...securing the speediest safe withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Scotland

Funny they didn't add the word "partial" as it would have sparred my blushes. Ho hum.

They have not guaranteed no nukes in Scotland

So they're not going to have 'removed' Trident then, are they!

Do you want me to post the definition of "removed" again? Because I totally will.

Touching back to an earlier point, re independent deterrant. You and I know that was always a lie, but it's a nicely out of sight lie that's more or less forgotten. We have missiles and boats based in the UK and call them ours and that's enough to impress people. But you really can't do that when they're even based in a foreign country, it stretches disbelief too far. But, I agree it is the weakest point I made in that post.

NB- yes there is one occasion in the white paper where it says "for good" which is misleading, as it will be able to return, albeit on a totally different basis. On every other occasion it simply says "remove" and the detail of the policy agrees with that wording. So looking at the whole document and the wider discussion, that seems to be an error in the document. It is 600 pages long after all 😉

Just had a lovely butternut squash and chickpea curry. Poppadoms where a bit greasy, but pleasingly so.

Carry on.

Northwind - Member
NB- yes there is one occasion in the white paper where it says "for good" which is misleading

Just a pity that it was in the only bit most people read (the intro/summary).Genuine mistake I am sure 😉

Next thing we know he will be making claims about being "better off" but stopping the analysis in 2007. Oh, wait a minute.......

Deceitful, surely not? As straight and honest as the day is long. Just slightly embarrassing for the alma mater and the department. It got better fortunately.....!!!!!

You get a medal for fighting a lost cause though NW. I give you that!! He makes it hard for you. You deserve better.

Hey, the introduction has less detail than the detailed discussion! What are they trying to pull with a stunt like that? All the detail should be in the intro! 😆

Buthang on, it's not the only time it is referred to in the introduction. The first time it is mentioned has the clear wording, in fact, as does every other! So it's demonstrably not a case of trying to hide the devil in the detail after the bit where you've stopped reading. How inconvenient. It is an embarassing slip but silly to claim it's more, the context shows otherwise.

Oh,what's that? Apparently the financial analysis stops in 2007? Simple response, not true at all, there is analysis past 2007 all the way through the document.

Keep up - the analysis of being better off. Only if you stop the data in 2007 (the magic trick) and conveniently exclude 2008-2012 and simply dismiss that as an aberration.

Alex Salmond has been accused of using “conjuring tricks” in a bid to “fool” Scots into voting for independence by omitting the “hard facts” about leaving the UK. Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael challenged the First Minister after the white paper on independence used figures from 1977 to 2007 to show people would be better off if Scotland was no longer part of the Union. Labour leader Johann Lamont pressed Mr Salmond on the same issue at First Minister’s Questions in Holyrood, claiming more recent statistics covering the period 1982 to 2012 showed people would be almost £2,500 worse off under independence.She accused the SNP of having “tried to airbrush the banking crisis out of their figures” in an attempt to make their case.A spokesman for the First Minister said that the economic crash of 2007 was “a very unusual event” which would have “warped the figures”.

Of course rainy days are an exception. It's always sunny in la-la land.

All the detail in the introduction? Clearly not, but that is not an excuse for lying. Easy to miss though, hey? He even caught you out!!!!

In this panto sketch though he wasn't wearing a French costume and saying, "I will say this only once..."!

(P.S. Before embarrassing yourself further my friend, please point out where in the intro it uses words different from the ones I quoted. Which exact bit did I mis-type? Or was it iPad autospell?!?)

No THM, that doesn't stand up. If it were consistently misleading in the introduction, you would have a point. But the only way it can work as you claim- hiding a falsehood in the introduction- is if you start reading the white paper after page 10, read page 14, then stop reading.

Let's do the occam's razor thing. Clearly under either version of events, there is a mistake. In my version, the mistake is the one use of "for good", which is careless. In your version, the one use of "for good" is intentional and deceitful, meaning that the other two occasions in the introduction where it's not used are mistakes.

So what is more likely? Clearly 2 connected mistakes are less likely than 1. But when you're making the decision and the effort to mislead on a specific point, how likely is it that you fail to do it 2 times out of three, and one of these occasions is the most important one?

Forget about the game for a minute; apply a little logic. Or at the very least, accept that it is not proof of deceit; you might think it suggests it, but there are other explanations.

Financial analysis- you have a Courier article carrying a No campaign attack. Meanwhile, I have a White Paper full of analysis after 2007. Look it up. It's interesting!

I can only assume that the article refers to this paragraph, it is the only one that seems to fit: "As an illustration, had growth in Scotland matched these other independent nations between 1977 and 2007, GDP per head would now be 3.8 per cent higher, equivalent to an additional £900 per head"

It's a minor point in the White Paper, so strange to make such a big noise about it. After all, it is not the only analysis of whether or not we would be better off, and other analysis continues past 2007, which makes Carmichael's claim misleading. One strand of several stops in 2007, but others continue.

And yes, you know well what happens when a period of analysis starts or ends in a peak or trough. You can start a long term analysis in a recession and give the impression of rampant success, when actually you've just got a reversion to the mean, for example. And likewise, by ending a trend in the recession, you give a false impression of negativity. Conveniently for Carmichael that's what any later cut-off will do. To a layman it seems more honest but to anyone who wrestles numbers, they know it's not so simple.

But frankly, I want to see Carmichael's figures. Until we can compare the two, it's a moot point tbh. You're merely choosing to take the accusation as gospel but I've not seen their working, have you?

Seems pretty obvious thm Alistair Carmichael will not agree with figures provided by the SNP.
To get back to the op's point Why wont Cameron debate with Salmond ,especially if Salmond is the clown you portray him as?
In fact why did Alastair Darling refuse to debate with his Yes Scotland counterpart Dennis Canavan ?
Why wont Alistair Darling debate with Blair Jenkins ?
Is "Project Fear" feart?

No sorry that explanation is a crock. Not only is it in the BoD but also in plenty of SNP statements over time. The beauty of google. To try and pretend that the SNP has not (until now, of course) had a policy to rid Scotland of nukes is spin if you are being polite (it is Sunday after all) and BS if you are being honest (it is Sunday after all!) and don't forget the CLARIFICATION of the principles of the policy laid out in the main section. Clear as the sea in the Moray Firth.

On the rest of it...plenty of source. From your main paper to start with

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-airbrushed-recession-out-of-white-paper-1-3262602

Given the man's "got form" in this area, I know where my sympathies lie here. And let's just airbrush the banking crisis even though FS will still represent a major %age of a post Indepndence Scottish economy. There's enough wool in my eyes from reading the BoD, I don't need any more pulling over them.

On the OP bit gordi, my reasons haven't changed from earlier other than adding a fourth later.. Why bother, when the SNP are making a great job of highlighting why Scotland is better together. No need to duplicate the effort, time and money. Still it must be hard when they only wanted devo-max from the outset, eh? If they had wanted full Independence they would have done their homework properly given the time they have had to do it.

P.s. I agree with opposing stretching data. How ironic that you have a Scottish labour MP complaining about including those terrible thatcher years!!!

Perhaps I should let CMD know he has accidentally appointed a Scottish lab mp as Scottish secretary. Understandable really I mean those libdems are a pretty unreliable bunch.Look at their 'leader"for example .

Back at THM- from your own link!

"The Scottish Government later produced figures showing the 30-year average GDP growth rate for Scotland up to 2012 within the UK is 2.3 per cent, compared to 2.5 per cent for comparable European countries."

So which is correct? Where are your numbers to support your allegation?

teamhurtmore - Member

No sorry that explanation <re nuclear disarmament> is a crock. Not only is it in the BoD but also in plenty of SNP statements over time.

Absolutely irrelevant. We're talking here about your allegation of dishonesty in the White Paper. Not about historic SNP statements, now superceded. Just changing the subject again!

I could. Do you think we should also tell him that a labour MP is heading the better together campaign as well. Or would the double shock be too much for such a tender toff!?!

The LibDems really have got their knickers in a twist at the moment for sure. Opps, perhaps I should have put that differently?!?

Well yes it would come as a major shock to CMD as he thinks he is leading the no campaign

Not shifting anything

The first reference in the intro talks about removing trident, (ok we have agreed to disagree on that won) but that is followed up with "for good" which is either (1) accurate - my view or (2) merely misleading - yours. But for clarity, hidden away 240 pr so pages later of the reality including the clarification that I have posed earlier.(see below)

Forget bloody razors and apply logic as you say. Why are they doing this? Simply a back door way of keeping the NATO negotiations on track/not closing the door while maintaining a (deceitful) pretence otherwise to the Scottish public. You have still to answer whether the on-going presence of nukes in Scottish waters (don't ask, don't tell) is synonymous with removing trident (for good or otherwise). That is gold medal winning mental gymnastics IMO.

What is the point of quoting an alternative point about Europe growth? And you accuse me of shifting the goal posts!!!

For clarity, as above

Page x the first occassion "we will remove trident from Scotland's soil"
Page xii, the second in "gains from independence" - "we can remove trident from Scotland for good"
Page 206 "our defence plans focus on a strong conventional defence footprint in and around Scotland and [b]the removal of nuclear weapons.[/b]"
Page 237 "securing the speediest withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Scotland."
Page 257 " negotiations on the maintainence of shared capabilities would [b] [i]not include nuclear weapons.[[/i]b]"

Seems pretty categorical to me - no nukes, no negations to include nukes.

And the truth - we will adopt don't ask, don't tell and accept the presence of nukes. Nuclear weapons will continue to be in Scottish waters and ports as a deliberate policy choice. And that is not hiding the truth from voters (my version of deceit)? White lies must mean something very different in Scotland.

Good night.

Yawn. Most people really dont care what 'remove' actually means. If we're not paying for it and they're not stationed permanently at Faslane, that is good enough.

You have still to answer whether the on-going presence of nukes in Scottish waters (don't ask, don't tell) is synonymous with removing trident (for good or otherwise).

If no one really knows they're there, they might as well not be. Who the **** knows whats in Scottish waters at anyone time. It's as good as in mine, and I'll bet and most other peoples opinions.

teamhurtmore - Member

Forget bloody razors and apply logic as you say. Why are they doing this? Simply a back door way of keeping the NATO negotiations on track/not closing the door while maintaining a (deceitful) pretence otherwise to the Scottish public.

Nope. It is simply the only reliable and established way to achieve 2 desirable things- removing Trident and pursuing our national disarmament goals, while joining NATO. There's nothing deceitful about that.

If you want to keep something a secret, you don't talk about it on Newsnight and publish it in your headline-grabbing White Paper! Putting statements about defence in the chapter marked "Defence" is not very hidey, any more than only including a summary in the summary is. In related news, my socks are in the sock drawer, you'll never find them!

teamhurtmore - Member

You have still to answer whether the on-going presence of nukes in Scottish waters (don't ask, don't tell) is synonymous with removing trident (for good or otherwise). That is gold medal winning mental gymnastics IMO.

Oh you are having a laugh. I have answered that many times in that thread. Yes, removing trident is completely compatible with don't-ask-don't-tell, for the... I don't know how many times. Either you're ignoring my posts or you're intentionally misrepresenting but neither is cool.

The block of text you provided quotes the public Scottish Government policy. It's so top secret, you've copied and pasted it! There is nothing there that conflicts with "don't ask don't tell", with the sole exception of that one use of "for good", which is 2 words from a 170000 word document, and which is contradicted at great length before and after

If the Scottish Government was promising a nuclear-free Scotland, they would just do so, it's a snappy headline. Instead they have gone to great length to explain that this is not the goal. And your response is to be outraged that they're going to deliver what they say, not what they expressly didn't. It is odd. And an impossible position to support with evidence.

Which I assume is why you shifted, and stopped talking about the white paper, and started obfuscating and talking about historical SNP policy which is completely irrelevant. You can't deny the change of topic, it's just up the page.

teamhurtmore - Member

What is the point of quoting an alternative point about Europe growth? And you accuse me of shifting the goal posts!!!

What "alternative point" is this? At a loss- you raised the 1977-2007 dataset, I'm talking about it, even using a quote from your own link. I've not shifted the goalposts, just kicked your own ball back at you.

Ok simple challenge for any parents out there happy with the policy. When you say good night to the child that you love tonight, look them in the eye and promise them,

"when daddy votes for jndependence later this year, It will guarantee that you, my loved ones, will grow up in a country where[b] there will be no nuclear weapons on our soil.[/b] That is [b]my [/b]promise to [b]you[/b]."

Kiss them good night, and then look at yourself in the mirror. Tell me what you see and how you feel.

Whatnobeer, thanks for the refreshing honesty. Much better than others' pretence and deceit.

when daddy votes for jndependence later this year, It will guarantee that you, my loved ones, will grow up in a country where there will be no nuclear weapons on our soil. That is my promise toyou."

I will be voting yes and have no problem looking myself or anyone else in the eye.

 

In general or in relation to nukes, gordi?

Both thm

Ok simple challenge for any parents out there happy with the policy. When you say good night to the child that you love tonight, look them in the eye and promise them,
"when daddy votes for jndependence later this year, It will guarantee that you, my loved ones, will grow up in a country where there will be no nuclear weapons on our soil. That is my promise to you."
Kiss them good night, and then look at yourself in the mirror. Tell me what you see and how you feel.

Indeed Konabunny I am not sure what thm is getting at here.

It's v simple really, if you can look you children in the eye and tell them honestly that there will be no nukes in Scotland, then the debate is over. Gordi, can, so fair enough. Members of Scotland's CND clearly cannot.

Personal choice, no value judgements, debate over.

Perhaps we can tell our children that Israel doesn't have nukes either since the policy is the same.

From CND Scotland website

Details2014 will present a once-in-a-century opportunity for nuclear disarmament. Scotland has been the unwilling host to Polaris and Trident for 50 years. The three UK parties are planning to base new nuclear weapons at Faslane for the next half century. A Yes vote in September will enable us to scrap Trident and create a nuclear free Scotland.

Oops,

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/alex-salmonds-big-problem-scots-dont-believe-they-would-be-richer-under-independenc

I wonder what the next diversionary stunt will be now?

Given the thread's title it's funny how AS rejects the idea of a debate with his obvious peer, darling. Perhaps he will pick up the gauntlets thrown down by Alexander and Balls. He must be getting really impatient for an opportunity to explain why anyone favouring BT is talking nonsense!!!

"Purely a debate between the Scots"....

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-foreign-office-devo-units-drive-to-kill-off-independence.23269484

A FOREIGN Office department ostensibly set up to promote the Scottish Government's interests is being used against it in the independence referendum, diplomatic cables have revealed.

The Devolution Unit, created by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in 2012 to deliver abroad the "utmost co-operation", now appears to be at the heart of Westminster's anti-independence drive, amassing hostile reactions from overseas.

It is understood the FCO has contacted the governments of China, Russia, the US, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the 28 EU nations about the Scottish referendum in a global search for allies who might oppose independence.

One recent cable showed UK embassies being ordered to forward a Westminster paper critical of independence "to their host governments and other local contacts" and then feed their comments back to the Devolution Unit "ASAP".