[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

About 350 miles from Glasgow seems like a safe enough distance considering most of the South of England would be ashes.

And that about effing sums it up. I should not have to say more. 😥

That has to be the ultimate isolationist view. At least you won't have to pretend to care about London's urban poor. Who has the Che Guevara t-shirt today btw?

athgray - Member
"About 350 miles from Glasgow seems like a safe enough distance considering most of the South of England would be ashes."
And that about effing sums it up. I should not have to say more.

That has to be the ultimate isolationist view.

Not at all. We don't want the bloody dangerous things up here because of that risk.

If you want them, then you accept the risk surely.

Or do you only want them if you can put them somewhere where disposable people take the consequences - the old "no matter if they fall" policy?

fasternotfatter - Member

Having nuclear weapons allows us to stand up to countries like China and Russia knowing that they can't use theirs against us.

fasternotfatter - Member

Ben Russia and China have poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us and our troops have real combat experience.

So they "couldn't nuke us" but we need nuclear weapons to stop them using theirs against us ?

In other words you believe we need nuclear weapons to stop them doing something which you claim they couldn't do even if they wanted to.

Have you fully thought this through ?

Read my previous post. If International governments start launching nuclear weapons at each other you are as well putting your 30 mile tape measure in the bin for all the good it will do. I have family in the SE and unlike you I care what goes on there.
The talk that nuclear weapons are on the Clyde as Glasgow's population is somehow 'disposable' is nothing less than unhelpful and a bit stupid.
If the unlikely event of nuclear armageddon is being considered, it makes talk of currency union, oil reserves and energy policy ring a bit hollow, but it does not fail to show apparent socialists in the true "we will be alright Jack" light that they are!

Athgray What is it that you thinks the various organisations that make up Better together are doing for poor and vulnerable people in London or anywhere else?

Doesn't appear you care too much about the future of the World

Amazing how you get to that from the fact I want to get rid of nuclear weapons.

😆

this debate is comedy gold

At least ernie meant it

Aye a hypothetical debate about nuke locations does indeed

show apparent socialists in the true "we will be alright Jack" light that they are!

All the quote shows is you hate socialist so much you will clutch at straws to insult them.

But much better than 20-30 miles from Glasgow.

But the SNP have repeatedly stated that Faslane will [b]still[/b] be a major naval base, and has no problem with it continuing is its role as a major conventional armaments depot

[i]'Jobs at Faslane would be protected in an independent Scotland, but as a major conventional base rather than a home to the UK's nuclear weapons.'[/i] Bill Kidd, SNP MSP

So, given its vital role as an NATO depot, it remains a prime target anyway - nothing to do with the nuclear weapons, which are deployed deep in the oceans thousands of miles away.

So they "couldn't nuke us" but we need nuclear weapons to stop them using theirs against us

I thought his point was perfectly clear 'they couldn't nuke us' because we have a second strike capability that would guarantee their own destruction.

The talk that nuclear weapons are on the Clyde as Glasgow's population is somehow 'disposable' is nothing less than unhelpful and a bit stupid.

Indeed - Faslane has been the predominant UK submarine base since WW2 - those criticising the government for homing nuclear weapons there out of some 'disposable' concept seem to forget that we homed both the Atomic Weapons research base and Greenham Common 40 odd miles from London...

We certainly appear to have entered some kind of mirror world where wanting rid of nukes makes one an enemy of mankind, and the UK could beat Russia or China in a war.

gordimhor. I have never claimed better together speak for me. Unlike some I need no campaign group to represent me. I also reckon UK governments don't do enough to help the UK's poorest, but I reckon Scotland can do it's bit. At heart it depends on whether you wish to create a fairer Scotland or a fairer UK. I just think one is more difficult, and one is the easy path. You decide which is which. I just take issue with nationalists that claim they are the ones in support of a fairer society. I will take the difficult path thank you very much.

Athgray What policies would you adopt to help the poorest then?

I thought his point was perfectly clear 'they couldn't nuke us' because we have a second strike capability

I didn't see any mention of "second strike".

But I did see a mention of "poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us".

So if they can't nuke us why do we need a second strike capability ?

I knew you would come back JY. You always pretend to be a neutral referee, but pounce on something I say after a poster says it would be better if the SE was turned to ash. I think you need to have a word with yourself.

Ernie, perhaps it would have been better if he had typed:

[i]poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us [because we also have nuclear weapons] and our troops have real combat experience.
[/i]

Though the meaning was obvious to anyone not trying to be a dick, although I disagree on his point regards combat experience, we'd be swamped with prisoners or run out of ammunition long before we managed to make a dent on their military

I think it's you that's trying to be a dick mate.

[i]poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us [because we have nuclear weapons] and our troops have real combat experience.[/i]

The reason given for their inability to "nuke us" was poor outdated equipment. Realizing what a ridiculous argument he has presented for us retaining nuclear weapons, if they couldn't use theirs against us anyway, you simply changed the reason to "because we have nuclear weapons".

That's not the reason he gave as you well know.

The reason given for their inability to "nuke us" was poor outdated equipment

poor outdated equipment couldn't nuke us...
poor outdated equipment, couldn't nuke us...

Go on, see if you can find the vital comma - its the difference between helping your Uncle, Jack, off a horse....

athgray - Member
...At heart it depends on whether you wish to create a fairer Scotland or a fairer UK...

We don't have the power to make a fairer UK without exterminating the denizens of the House of Lords, so we'll settle for a fairer Scotland.

I will take the difficult path thank you very much.

Gordimhor, I am not sure of the best response, however increasing the top rate of income tax seems resonable for starters. Some may disagree. A jobseekers system that truly helps people back into work, rather than the tick box system it seems to be just now. (I have first hand experience of this). Perhaps get rid of nuclear weapons from the UK. I don't know the in's and out's. That is what I pay politicians for.

gordimhor. I have never claimed better together speak for me. Unlike some I need no campaign group to represent me. I also reckon UK governments don't do enough to help the UK's poorest, but I reckon Scotland can do it's bit. At heart it depends on whether you wish to create a fairer Scotland or a fairer UK. I just think one is more difficult, and one is the easy path. You decide which is which. I just take issue with nationalists that claim they are the ones in support of a fairer society. I will take the difficult path thank you very much.

Good post.

Although it may have been relative to those around it. It's seems honest at least, which counts for a lot in this debate so full of folk painting pictures as biased as possible to suit their viewpoint.

Yet apart from the fluff, who is defining what fairer is or how it is going to achieved? No one. There is the odd reference to individual policies (v sectively done) and a vague notion that such policies are exclusive to one party. Again just fluff. Somehow as if by magic the DO is going to magic away problems faced by many developed economises ignoring basic truisms that have existed though history in the process. Kindagarten aspirations rather than grown up thinking. A debate of this importance should be respected by a qaility debate of core issues instead of deceit and lies. An independence bonus anyone......?

teamhurtmore - Member
...Somehow as if by magic the DO is going to magic away problems faced by many developed economises ignoring basic truisms that have existed though history in the process...

Ah, if only he could.

We don't expect an easy ride with what is promising to be a hostile neighbour to our south (judging by Better Together pronouncements). In the long run we will sort out our problems. A far smaller price than gaining our independence the other way.

We are capable of running our own country.

34 days to go

Yet apart from the fluff, who is defining what fairer is or how it is going to achieved? No one.

By it's very definition, a government chosen by the people is fairer than one that is not. A government in Scotland, chosen by the people of Scotland, is fairer than a partly-unelected government that only has minimal support in Scotland.

Fix that, make the government represent the people, and then you can start fixing everything else.

It's not about specific policies - I'm a Green, some SNP policies I like and some I dislike - it's about having the freedom to elect a government that can implement those policies.

At present, if the UK government acts in a way that's detrimental to Scotland, there's not much the Scottish voter can do about it. After independence, if we don't like what the government is doing, we can just elect a new one.

That's fair, and it's remarkably easy to achieve, the people of a Scotland just have to vote for independence.

I'm English and in Glasgow at the moment with work. I had a long chat with the guys here and, possibly influenced by what is seen as a highly successful Commonwealth Games, they are swinging towards a yes vote.

They feel the biggest things holding back 'Yes' support are:
1) Alex Salmon - he seems to be a despised figurehead
2) Not much else really; they're a bit uncomfortable with the uncertainty over many of the things discussed on here, ad nauseum

The attraction and excitement of going it alone and being self-determining is out-weighing the fear of the unknown.

They told me that excitement is building amongst their friends in the city towards a possible 'Yes'

(A small straw poll of young professional male Glaswegians, who previously leant towards 'no')

who is defining what fairer is or how it is going to achieved

Obviously the former is inherently "fairer" and democratic.

A debate of this importance should be respected by a qaility debate of core issues instead of deceit and lies

Just to leap in on nukes. If you want to have a nuclear deterrent, sub based ICBM born nukes are the best cheapest and safest thing available.
- They can't be pre-emptively attacked like a land based ICBM, so wiping a sub equipped nation off the earth doesn't stop a response.
- The fact that they are safe from pre-emptive strike means you don't have to decide to "respond" until you're sure an attack is happening, making accidental armageddon far less likely.
- ICBMs can't be shot down, unlike cruise missiles or bombers (aiplanes, not the MTB fork), so are again a real deterrent.

As for moving them from Scotland, the base was never a nuclear target in itself as the deterrent subs are mostly at sea, and if any part of the British isles is attacked then the fallout won't respect the border in either direction - an attack on any part would be an attack on all. So Scotland would enjoy all the protection of the deterrent without 'contributing'; smart or cynical? They do however lose some highly skilled jobs and industry.

And as for 'nuclear waste' released from the base, the nuclear industry is so tied up in green inspired regs intended to render it unworkable that the water from the bucket used to mop the sub's floor would be considered 'nuclear waste'.

There may or may not be reasons to vote yes, Trident isn't one of them.

[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2009/04/28/nuke_waste_spill_rob_edwards_strikes_again/ ]Nuclear incidents at Farslane[/url]

the nuclear industry is so tied up in green inspired regs intended to render it unworkable

Apart from that an excellent post

Trident relocation costs inbound

I'll triple those estimated costs

Ben, strip away the fluff and you see that since the war, Scotland gets the party it voted for more often than not - indeed around 2/3 of the time. So the democratic position. Is equivalent to England's.

The fluff seems little note that on occassions we get Tories and some of us don't like that. But that is not a coherent argument that stacks up.

So Ben, the first para in you point above does not stand up to scutiny. Granted the period that grates north oft he border most is the Thatcher period where Scotland did not get the party it voted for. Still gave them a hate figure to blame for the inevitable decline in certain secondary and primary industries exacerbated by the impact of NS Oil on the exchange rate. Both of which have been taken into account now, surely....??????

Bizarrely, Scotland gets the party it voted for more often than England, but that is a separate story.

Though the meaning was obvious to anyone not trying to be a dick, although I disagree on his point regards combat experience, we'd be swamped with prisoners or run out of ammunition long before we managed to make a dent on their military

Unfortunately, without US intervention, the Russkis or Chinese would walk all over our military.

I genuinely believe that we have the finest military in the world, but our forces are far better suited to a guerilla style conflict as opposed to a 'land war' purely due to numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

And a fun, but interesting article: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/we-asked-a-military-expert-how-to-invade-and-conquer-russia

I was amazed yesterday, looking at the coverage the BOE's pronouncement that it had contingency plans for independence. Amazed, that people would have any doubt that this had not been in place for some time.

The MoD have done similar planning, and have looked at alternative sites. I don't have the figures to hand, but the number of skilled jobs centred around the bases (that are not RN) are likely to be pretty small. For me though, it is about whether you want to have nuclear weapons at all. Basing that decision on whether it is going to safeguard some jobs is wrong IMO, as the issue is far broader. The rUK wants to remain a UN Security Council permanent member, which it believes it needs nuclear weapons to do so. That's fine. I don't believe Scotland would have any pretensions to that, but it would likely want to have the protection of NATO.

Yes only th egreens think that nuclear waste is dangerous...Pfft

At present, if the UK government acts in a way that's detrimental to Scotland, there's not much the Scottish voter can do about it. After independence, if we don't like what the government is doing, we can just elect a new one.

Even if the legendary negotiating skills of AS do create a currency union, that's an economic straitjacket for Scotland which would remove many policy levers from the Holyrood Government. Don't like what it is doing? Tough - the terms of the currency union would prevail no matter the party in government.

The EU opt outs which UK has are unlikely to continue for Scotland so the EU would have more impact than at present.

That's why this is a crap proposal. It isn't independence. Its a difference shape of interdependencies which may or may not work but certainly don't count as a repatriation of all sovereignty to Holyrood.

So the democratic position. Is equivalent to England's.....

Bizarrely, Scotland gets the party it voted for more often than England, but that is a separate story

very helpful and clear

THANKS

A/ a currency union would place no more restraints on the Scottish Government than it currently has.

B/ no nation is fully independent as long as it has treaties and agreements with other nations... and creditors.

It isn't independence. Its a difference shape of interdependencies which may or may not work but certainly don't count as a repatriation of all sovereignty to Holyrood

As for the EU who knows what iS will get tbh they may get better - it is unlikely but we do not know- as the EU may bend over backwards to not lose a country, we just do not know.

I would imagine that the same as the UK or the same as the other EU countries are both about the same odds were I a betting man.

@Athgray I looked at the various parties websites Labour says they plan to restore the 50p tax rate, but that dosnt itself help poor or vulnerable people, Labour also said they plan to stick to Osbournes spending plan. Couldnt find any thing about raising taxes on the Conservative party site. Then again IDS is driving a campaign of welfare cuts which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable. Libs said they believe in progressive taxation but I didnt see any detail or policy that said they would increase the top rate of tax.Ukip well firefox didnt find their site but the BBC said "Ukip is currently rethinking tax policy"
You may have heard of thecommonweal,[url= http://reidfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Common-Weal.pdf ]allofusfirst[/url]
The real debate about independence is to try to change a broken political system for one which the ordinary person feels involves them and belongs to them rather than the current one which appears separated from swathes of ordinary people and is perceived as belonging to an elite. Struggling to get by on £120,000 per year anyone?An increase to £20,000 would be a substantial pay rise for me.
edit

A/ a currency union would place no more restraints on the Scottish Government than it currently has.

B/ no nation is fully independent as long as it has treaties and agreements with other nations... and creditors.

As I've said before, I'm not opposed to independence in principle. I'm just opposed to the current vision of it.

As my post is too old to edit I assume the "facts" come from here

http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/debunk/vote1

to get the same count [ the one you think is both equal and worse ] for england as scotland you have to
1. Count an equal vote [ but more lab MPs as a loss] - 1950. I doubt the exact vote was identical to the last vote so I further assume that percentages are given to " massage" the figure but labour actually got most votes [ Assumption if it was the reverse the website would have mentioned it] but i am not certain to be clear.
2. Count the coalition as a loss for both - even though the combined vote is a majority of votes cast in england never mind seats when in Scotland it is neither. I woudl call that spin and bluster and you a lot worse if As did it.
3. Count % of votes cast rather than MP's in the country. See point above
4. Assume that a 0.2 % difference [ but more MP's] in England is the same as 30 % less in Scotland with fewer MP's. See point above.

Can i thanks you once more for your fluff free post free of spin and deceit

This "debate" would work better if you just put the facts up and let folks decide what they mean IMHO.

Correct. Which is why claims along the lines of "if they're mistakes, at least they're our mistakes" or "if we don't like the government, we can change it" are optimistic about the amount of control which can be exercised.

While we are doing nukes...

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/288174-relocating-trident-not-impossible-says-rusi-military-think-tank/

Moving the UK's nuclear deterrent out of an independent Scotland is not impossible and would probably cost far less than the tens of billions of pounds previously predicted, experts have suggested.

Relocating Trident in the event of Scottish independence would be feasible, although it could take more than a decade and spark significant local opposition, a new paper from the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) military think tank has found.

But the paper, published on Friday suggests that recreating the nuclear facilities outside Scotland would add between £2.5bn and £3.5bn to the cost of the UK maintaining a nuclear-armed fleet, plus the cost of acquiring and clearing land — but would be far less than a previously predicted £20bn to £25bn.

There may or may not be reasons to vote yes, Trident isn't one of them.

You missed out the two big reasons - we'd save a huge amount of money, and it's morally repugnant to possess WMDs.

That's why this is a crap proposal. It isn't independence. Its a difference shape of interdependencies which may or may not work but certainly don't count as a repatriation of all sovereignty to Holyrood.

You don't quite understand how independence works. Sure, we'd be tied into a currency union, EU treaties, NATO treaties, WTO treaties, whatever, same as every other country.

But if we didn't like it, we could elect a government that would pull us out of those treaties. We could decide for ourselves whether we wanted to be in those clubs or not.

Without independence, we're just hanging on the UK's coattails.

By it's very definition, a government chosen by the people is fairer than one that is not. A government in Scotland, chosen by the people of Scotland, is fairer than a partly-unelected government that only has minimal support in Scotland.

[quote=konabunny ] The decisions we make are better decisions just because they're ours.Not [i]better[/i], just more representative of what the people want.

It's childishly nationalistic

By it's very definition, a government chosen by the people is fairer than one that is not. A government in Scotland, chosen by the people of Scotland, is fairer than a partly-unelected government that only has minimal support in Scotland.