Forum menu
I am with you on that one Ben....no "Glaswegian handshakes" either thank you!
Excuse the "pub talk" argument but as Germany and Japan where the agressors and on the losing side they where not allowed a material military which persists to this day, so no SC presence. India and Brazil are major countries but not with a global influence (interestingly 75 years ago India wasn't even that big 300m, now grown to 1bn via unparalleled population growth)
I am guessing the SNP feel they have to support a Scotlish military for historic reasons and to protect employment but really you only need a local defense force (armed police ?) and coastal/fisheries/oil rig protection.
Thats a good excuse for me to show my favourite newspaper headline ever.
Anti-terrorism Glasgow style:
[url= https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3154/2660904934_18ae18fae1_z.jp g" target="_blank">
The quote from the man concerned was "This is Glasgow - try that kind of **** here and we'll set aboot ye!"
😀
@ben thanks for posting, I remember it at the time.
@pie, is this really news ? Of course that was an option. If there had been a fund Scotland may/may not have got a portion of it and in the mean time we would have all been paying higher taxes, Scotland included. The piece suggests Scotland would have been as rich as Switzerland but surely the comparison is 10% or Norway's fund that being the relative size of the Scotlish population vs the UK overall. Also the piece says only UK and Iraq dont have some form of fund, I am not aware of the US or Russia having a sovereign oil fund for example
I'm not aware of Norway suffering from a large scale decline in heavy industry either, which is a further reason not to do comparisons.
I posted it to prompt discussion on the matter, rather than express a personal opinion. Occasionally, in amongst the cyclical squabbling somebody does make a decent point. Occasionally might be to strong a word.
There are already questions about the SC permanent membership - it was based on the five "Great Powers" after WWII, and later those were the five nuclear states blah blah waffle waffle
= "I won't answer the question because I realize I was talking nonsense when I said "We spend a colossal amount of money on nuclear weapons so we can be on the Security Council".
I thought I did answer the question. Germany and Japan among others have been questioning why some countries are permanent members and others aren't, and the answer has usually been that it's the nuclear states who get permanent membership.
Of course the US may well want to keep the rUK as a permanent member to back them up.
The issue isn't whether the UK being a permanent member of the UN Security Council is fair or not, right or wrong, morally justified or not. The issue is that the UK [u]is[/u] a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
And UN Security Council resolutions, unlike UN General Assembly resolutions, are generally binding.
So any country that sits on UN Security Council has a very significant say on UN matters relating to international disputes, internal disputes, sanctions, military action, etc.
A member of the UN Security Council can block or instigate UN policy which can have massive consequences for countries, regimes/governments, people, it can even create new countries.
So as a permanent member of the UN Security Council the UK is a big player on the world stage. Whether this is fair, and in my opinion btw it clearly isn't, is completely irrelevant. As is the reason "why" the UK is permanent member of the UN Security Council.
You can't simply dismiss the truth because it doesn't suit your agenda.
I thought I did answer the question. Germany and Japan among others have been questioning why some countries are permanent members and others aren't, and the answer has usually been that it's the nuclear states who get permanent membership.
You don't half talk some toss, Ben.
The UK was a Permanent Member of the Security Council before it was a nuclear power. There is no requirement for UNSC members to be nuclear powers. The UK would not cease to be a UNSC if it disposed of its nuclear weapons. Nukes were neither the reason the UK became a UNSC member nor a requirement for staying a UNSC member. So tell us again how
We spend a colossal amount of money on nuclear weapons so we can be on the Security Council
😀
You can't simply dismiss the truth because it doesn't suit your agenda.
TBF, that is largely par for the course for yS (and at least Ben does it with humour).
Konabunny - I know, did you miss the bit up there where I said:
There are already questions about the SC permanent membership - it was based on the five "Great Powers" after WWII, and later those were the five nuclear states.
So our SC membership was based on being on the winning side of WWII. Later our status as a "Great Power" was reinforced by our nuclear weapons - the V-bombers, the Blue Streak attempt at our own ICBMs, and then Polaris and Trident bought from the US.
Without the nuclear weapons, what make the UK more deserving of a SC place than several other countries? (Not that nukes make us "deserving" but at least they're a reason people need to be especially nice to us.)
Why are you talking about whether the UK "deserves" to be a Security Council member ?
You claimed that the UK is not a big player on the world stage. It clearly is. Whether it "deserves" to be is completely irrelevant to that fact.
It is part of the yes campaign's strategy to play down the UK's position in world affairs, as a loyal yesser you pushed that line on here. Unfortunately for you you've got yourself in a pickle because it's simply bollox. Do yourself a favour and give up.
Konabunny - I know, did you miss the bit up there where I said:
I didn't miss it but I did wonder how you managed to reconcile it with the rest of what you were saying. I've decided it's because you are a time lord, and in your travels maybe you experienced the 1950s before the 1940s, so it seems to you that the UK got its permanent membership of the UNSC as a result of having nuclear weapons. Perhaps you observed an alternate version of this multiverse where UNSC membership and nuclear armament go together such that the UK became a member of the UNSC in the 1950s, and Israel and India are now (inter alia) also members.
But unfortunately in the point and time in space that the rest of us inhabit, you're talking Ross McToss.
that is largely par for the course for yS
Its par for the course for both sides in this debate though surprisingly you can only see one side even when you are doing it.
I dont think Ben is quite doing what you are all claiming though it would help if he accepted that the UK does have and will have a greater voice internationally then iS will- it does punch above its weigth for the reasons ernie says and it is not fair but it is true. The upside for iS is they wont need to be the US attack poodle in foreign adventures so it is not necessarily all bad 😉
KB an rather unfair ,pointless [ and not as funny as usual] attack seeing he clearly states the reason for membership is victory after WW2.
konabunny - Memberit seems to you that the UK got its permanent membership of the UNSC as a result of having nuclear weapons.
That really isn't what he said 😕 I've no idea whether the UK's retained it's permanent membership on the basis of nuclear weapons- it's often alleged but who really knows? But Ben's post is pretty clear. 1) Become permanent member on grounds of being a post-ww2 great power and winner, 2) Retain status as great power largely due to nuclear weapons, despite otherwise declining military status and importance.
If nuclear weapons really aren't contributing to our permanent membership, that sounds like one less reason to keep the bloomin things to me, so either outcome works frankly 😉
Junkyard - lazarusit would help if he accepted that the UK does have and will have a greater voice internationally then iS will
Does that really have to be said? Nobody expects iScotland to have as loud an international voice surely.
what make the UK more deserving of a SC place than several other countries?
One of the worlds oldest stable democracies
Second biggest international aid budget in the world (dwarfs our annual spend on nuclear weapons)
top five military spending
second biggest financial centre in the world (obviously important regards sanctions etc)
top five arms exporter (again, vitally important regards sanctions etc)
British jurisprudence exported worldwide through legacy of commonwealth/empire
impact of English language as worldwide Lingua Franca
You could probably put Germany up there with the top table on some of those measures too - but to be fair I reckon they sort of blew their chances of that for a long time to come...
Does that really have to be said?
Well Ben clearly feels that it is important to play down the role of the UK on the world stage, so presumably it's an important matter to him otherwise he wouldn't be falsely claiming that the UK isn't a "big player".
Remember he said : [i]"so the rUK can pretend it's still a big player on the world stage"[/i]and [i]"We aren't a big player at the moment, really"[/i]
If the issue was of no importance he wouldn't still be arguing it. Although like you I agree that he should do himself a favour and drop it.
.
ernie_lynch - MemberWell Ben clearly feels that it is important to play down the role of the UK on the world stage, so presumably it's an important matter to him otherwise he wouldn't be falsely claiming that the UK isn't a "big player".
But you can't think from what Ben's said that he believes iScotland will be as big a "player" as the rUK, surely? Pretty incredible.
I think he's going about it wrong- clearly the UK is a big player militarily. The question is, why on earth do we want to be? Spending billions on nuclear weapons we by definition must never use so we can keep fighting the cold war, maintaining oversized armed forces so we can get in morally dubious wars round the world, deciding we need new aircraft carriers we can't put planes on, why are these positives? I reckon iScotland will be delighted not to be a "big player" in games like this. We can play our small part and be thankful.
Oh incidentally NINfan we're not the world's 5th biggest military spender any more apparently, France is. Not sure when that happened but it only makes sense, question remains why did we spend so much when we weren't the world's 5th biggest GDP.
Question remains why did we spend so much when we weren't the world's 5th biggest GDP.
To stop Germany getting invaded (or to stop them invading anyone else again, dependent on your point of view)
I think we've hovered around 6th Biggest GDP in absolute terms for some time, and its within a very small percentage between us and France - and our military spend as %GDP had nearly halved since the end of the Cold War.
And two of the ones above us are Japan and Germany - as mentioned there's, erm, 'significant historical reasons' why they're not on the Security Council 😉 - I also understand there's questions about the calculation of the Saudi Arabian military spend, which seems to include stuff we don't.
maintaining oversized armed forces
Our armed forces are tiny - even as a %age of population, as we opted for a small high tech professional army rather than a large conscript army like much of the continent (Germany only ended conscription a couple of years ago for example) - one of the reasons we could do this was the Nuclear deterrent, and knock on effect of this was and is a high tech military-industrial sector, selling both domestically and internationally, which employs lots and lots of well paid civilians... I thought 'you lot' were all into your Keynsian stimulus 🙂
Don't know it you saw that we recently signed a deal for something like 7 billion quid for Cryptographic gear to Israel - now, thats big money, lots of UK jobs involved there I would have thought.
I saw the Sunday Times rich list which of course featured Sir Brian Souter and Ann Gloag the owners of Stagecoach. They are I understand supporters of the SNP. I would guess an independent Scotland would suit them very nicely as it's highly likely there will be a (big?) cut in corporation tax in order to retain / attract businesses to Scotland especially those for whom most of their clients are outside Scotland and thus the logic for moving is strong. So lots more Scottish Pounds into their pockets.
I wonder what the Scot's view is of their own billionaire family and how that fits with their idea of a fairer society ?
I'd say that Souter's got remarkably bad value for money considering his fundamentalist Christian views on one hand, and Salmond's successful achievement of gay marriage equality on the other.
I'd also say that a cut in Scottish corporation tax isn't going to mean that Souter brought any more of his US earnings into Scotland to be taxed.
Well what is a Scottish anti-gay bigot supposed to do ? All the major political parties supported same sex marriage, and in the case of Scotland a year after England and Wales.
ninfan - MemberOur armed forces are tiny - even as a %age of population, as we opted for a small high tech professional army rather than a large conscript army like much of the continent
Quite right, mistake on my part- armed forces capability, rather than size, is what I should have said, size as you say is pretty meaningless.
For the rest; yes, our higher technology armed forces have paid peacetime dividends, but that owes little to nuclear weapons, it's conventional weaponry and systems we're exporting.
And besides, put that into perspective- the uk defence industry is valued at £35bn, defence spending is £58bn. And Germany and France have significantly higher defence exports than us. There doesn't seem to be a great correlation between defence spending and defence exports in general. You mention exporting strong crypto to Israel- that doesn't have much to do with how many submarines we have.
And of course, whatever else we might spend the money on could/would also create jobs, defence is no special case. There's a question here which I can't answer which is basically about stimulus value- does a £ spent on defence produce more economic benefits than a £ spent on building a new hospital, or a new road... Or, keep it in the family- how about a £ spent on conventional arms not nuclear. What are the opportunity costs?
It is part of the yes campaign's strategy to play down the UK's position in world affairs, as a loyal yesser you pushed that line on here. Unfortunately for you you've got yourself in a pickle because it's simply bollox. Do yourself a favour and give up.
I'm not a loyal anything, I'm certainly not getting the Yes campaign memos 😉
So why, exactly, are we spending £100bn on Trident? It's never going to be used. Why does anyone spend money on things that aren't used? For prestige. The UK likes being a nuclear power - I'm not sure what the rationales are, probably a combination of Cold War hangovers, pressure from the USA, retention of fancy manufacturing jobs in submarines, things like that.
Of course the rUK will be more important on the world stage than an independent Scotland. With 10x the population, how could it be different? That's fine - we don't want to be a big player.
With regards to the corporation tax - yes, that's one reason I doubt I'd vote for the SNP in an independent Scotland. Once we have independence, we can vote for whoever we like - I'm probably more of a Green or SSP person really.
So why, exactly, are we spending £100bn on Trident? It's never going to be used. Why does anyone spend money on things that aren't used?
The basic "utility" of a (nuclear) deterrent stems precisely from it never being used. That's the whole point.
OK but in this case, we're never going to get any use out of not using it. Trident was introduced after the end of the cold war- it's spent it's entire life being a white elephant.
Even when the cold war was still on, the effective deterrant came from the USA- but at least then there was someone to point the missiles at. As long as you were pro insane nuclear armageddon anyway.
The basic "utility" of a (nuclear) deterrent stems precisely from it never being used. That's the whole point.
That worked* when it was us against the USSR - one enemy, you can assume that the other guy isn't stupid or crazy enough to destroy the world.
The Cold War is over. Islamists are exactly that crazy, the threat of nuclear retaliation won't stop them - and who would we retaliate against anyway? Other conflicts will never reach the stage where destroying the country is a realistic option. If, say, we decide to go to war with Russia, at what point do we launch the nukes? When Russia invades the Ukraine? When Russia buzzes our airspace? What can Russia do that makes destroying the UK a good option?
For a deterrent to work, the other side has to think you will use it. A deterrent that's so massively overkill that it'd never be used is no deterrent at all.
*for a given value of "worked" - we came very, very close to nuclear war several times.
Possibly, but fortunately that cannot be proved.
Actually ben, you are describing the Russian view on deterrent (massive superiority) rather than the western (equivalence)
(BTW, I am not a fan of nuclear weapons)
I should clarify - I meant destroying [u]our[/u] country. Because that's what would happen if we tried using nukes against Russia.
Really the only countries we could use nukes against and survive* are countries who don't have nukes. And for them nukes are a massive overreaction.
*assuming none of the countries who do have nukes have an itchy trigger finger.
Once you are at the point of actual use, then you are ****ed anyway. See my first point.
The only way nukes work as a deterrent in the modern world is if you assume your opponents are stupid or easily scared. That's not likely.
If nukes were so important, why don't most countries have them? They're not especially hard for an advanced country to build.
[quote=bencooper ]The only way nukes work as a deterrent in the modern world is if you assume your opponents are stupid or easily scared. That's not likely.
If nukes were so important, why don't most countries have them? They're not especially hard for an advanced country to build.
Indeed - if they are so good at keeping the peace, why aren't they mandatory?
The irony of a social-democratic Germany not being trusted with nukes because of a war that ended 70 years ago, whereas a UKIP-leaning UK is trusted with them.
Is that a joke? (Edit for x post - referring to Scots post)
If you have nukes someone else cannot nuke you. If you don't have nukes someone can nuke you. Is that not simple to understand? We lived under threat of nuclear war with the USSR for a long time. There are an increasing number of countries that have nukes or are trying to get them. Until we can all agree to get rid of nukes together it is simply not safe to do so. I personally would not want to be relying on the US or France to provide our nuclear deterrent.
A UKIP leaning UK? Next you will be saying there is an independence leaning Scotland. 😉
Of course the rUK will be more important on the world stage than an independent Scotland. With 10x the population, how could it be different? That's fine - we don't want to be a big player.
It's not really that simple. Thailand has a larger population than you UK but can't be described as even equaling the UK on the world stage. The UK is an incredibly wealthy country, its importance on the world stage is derived from that.
fasternotfatter - MemberIf you have nukes someone else cannot nuke you. If you don't have nukes someone can nuke you. Is that not simple to understand?
It's easy to [i]understand[/i], it's just wrong.
The UK likes being a nuclear power - I'm not sure what the rationales are
Someone on the previous page was suggesting that it was so the UK can be on the Security Council.
It's not really that simple
I assumed I wouldn't have to add the caveats that we'd be starting with a Scotland and the rUK being similar in terms of economy, GDP per head, etc. yes, if the rUK's economy crashes to the size of Thailand's, then of course it's not going to be that simple.
Someone on the previous page was suggesting that it was so the UK can be on the Security Council.
What kind of delusional lunatic would come out with that rubbish?
GDP per head
It's not really that simple. China has a far lower GDP per capita than the UK but at least equals the UK on the world stage.
It's down to size of the economy.
What you should have said is [i]"Of course the rUK will be more important on the world stage than an independent Scotland. With Scotland's insignificant economy how could it be different? That's fine - we don't want to be a big player. "[/i]