All Westminster politicians are the same, because the Westminster system produces that. A more proportional, fairer electoral system would produce politicians who are very different - as they are in Scotland.
remind me, which members of the Yes campaign are Westminister politians/ former Westminister politicians?
anyway assuming AS gets his way and iS is in the EU meet the people making the real decisions
[img] 
[/img]
and is it me or does a lot of the Yes campiagn sound like ABE (anyone but England)
The wars we've been involved in recently have little to do with humanitarian disasters or genocide
But as the yessers keep saying, we need to take the long view. The last couple have been highly questionable, but not all of them.
So nuclear weapons are designed to kill millions of civilians, correct? So how am I wrong to say it's morally unjustifiable to possess them?
Look, I'm a pacifist, but it's very obvious. They are a deterrent - on both sides. Just like conventional arms.
So how am I wrong to say it's morally unjustifiable to possess them?
Morals don't come into play when you have people trying to kill each other. It's no good being morally justified if you are dead. Having a deterrent keeps you alive.
The numbers dont lie ; Scotland has the govt that England voted for.
You can spin it how you like but it wont make my point untrue.Fact remains England picks Scotlands govt almost every time,
Of the last 20 general elections, the majority in Scotland voted for the same party that won in Westminster 13 times. So 65% of the time Scotland got the government it voted for.
They are a deterrent - on both sides.
What exactly do they deter?
[i]Anyone who drives past Loch Long with a pair of binoculars can tell you exactly how many subs are at sea - they don't dive when they're at Faslane you know![/i]
You think our nuclear subs need to surface to re arm/resupply at Faslane?
They may as well move to Portsmouth then! 🙂
and is it me or does a lot of the Yes campiagn sound like ABE (anyone but England)
Sadly it does. A lot of people voting yes because they think they hate the English. Two friends were having a debate on Facebook last night. The yes supporter is on the verge of a breakdown in my opinion. The no supporter was calm and rational. The yes guy told his no friend
"You're a disgrace to Scotland mate. Don't dare darken my door again"
But as the yessers keep saying, we need to take the long view. The last couple have been highly questionable, but not all of them.
Long view we'll be a part of NATO, but as an independent country able to decide for ourselves whether we want to get involved in things. Long view also, we (as in the UK) aren't going to be able to do anything militarily about Russia or China anyway.
They are a deterrent - on both sides. Just like conventional arms.
Say my neighbour is a psycho (he's not, he's a retired politics lecturer, but just say). He threatens to punch me. A gun is like me saying I'll punch him back. A nuclear weapon is like me saying I'll kill his wife and kids.
Conventional arms are designed to fight armies. They're pretty rubbish at other stuff - they're even rubbish at fighting terrorists. Nuclear weapons are even worse, they're no good for fighting terrorists, they're no good for fighting armies, their only purpose is to threaten to kill millions of women and children.
So, for that reason, they're morally very different and totally wrong.
You think our nuclear subs need to surface to re arm/resupply at Faslane?
Yes, where do you think they do it?
Morals don't come into play when you have people trying to kill each other. It's no good being morally justified if you are dead. Having a deterrent keeps you alive.
But you wouldn't be alive. Nuclear weapons just mean if you're dead so is everyone else.
Standard Life weigh in with a statement which essentially says a Yes vote means they're going to relocate large parts of the business to England:
[url= http://www.standardlife.com/utility/customer_statement-2.html ]Std Life market update[/url]
grum - Member
So how does 'independence' but being in a currency union with a much bigger economy help with that?
It doesn't obviously - in fact it coflicts, the elephant in the room that cannot be rejected. Mark Carney laid it our clear yesterday in a way that is a close as possible for a technocrat to say - please stop spouting bllx.
Then we have lawyers in the FT, nice and clearly refuting the it's our pound/BOE argument (no to both) and good old standard life clearing things up. But the sickly candy floss is more palatable than the facts.
For a supposedly centre left party, the SNP has some remarkably RW policies - further right than Westminster.
Two friends were having a debate on Facebook last night.
Everything on Facebook is nonsense.
That is sophist at best.
The numbers dont lie ; Scotland has the govt that England voted for.
You can spin it how you like but it wont make my point untrue.
Fact remains England picks Scotlands govt almost every time, and will do in the Union, hence the calls for independence get louder as Tory MP's get fewer.
It's really not.
The UK population (including Scotland) picks the UK government - the UK includes Scotland. That's not spinning anything it's just a fact. Talking about what would happen [i]if[/i] Scotland was a separate country isn't really the point because it currently isn't.
Never mind the fact that they also get their own Parliament.
The northern industrial heartlands often gets the government the rest of the country votes for - but no-one suggest they should go independent, because it would be daft.
SL's new Southern address was flagged here many pages ago, along with the typical yS rejections of the blatantly obvious.
For a supposedly centre left party, the SNP has some remarkably RW policies - further right than Westminster.
Like what?
Yes, the Standard Life story isn't a new story, it's an old story dragged up again because Better Together can't give up on Project Fear.
There's going to be a lot more of this in the next few days.
It is a new story today in the sense that the market update was issued today stating which parts of their business would relocate, not just that they're thinking about it. i.e. it isn't a threat - it is a statement.Yes, the Standard Life story isn't a new story, it's an old story dragged up again because Better Together can't give up on Project Fear.There's going to be a lot more of this in the next few days.
Like what?
Don't they plan to keep corporation tax permanently 3% under whatever the rUK's is? Doesn't sound a policy fit for the brave new socialist utopia some are expecting.
Anyway, sorry to keep going on about this, but I heard a Chap on TV saying it this morning.....'we can have a 'fairer society', and I just don't understand what they are expecting to be different/fairer?
I mean, it seems to me that the UK over the past 25 yrs at least, has made massive improvements in all the help we give the needy, disabled etc. To the point where a lot of people depended on it, which was never the plan.
Its all well and good employing the politics of envy and adopting a tax regime to increase the top tax against the wealthy, but those people will just go somewhere else, if they think they are being unfairly treated.
We all know, you can't please all the people, all the time, but think the UK has made a decent stab at it so far.
Yes, the Standard Life story isn't a new story, it's an old story dragged up again because Better Together can't give up on Project Fear.There's going to be a lot more of this in the next few days.
They're just copying the Yes brigade rehashing old oil field discoveries 'news'
I mean, it seems to me that the UK over the past 25 yrs at least, has made massive improvements in all the help we give the needy, disabled etc.
I take it you haven't been keeping up with current affairs since this government came into power then?
Sadly it does. A lot of people voting yes because they think they hate the English.
Hang on - according to most of the Yes voters on here that is utter nonsense and only peddled by nasty English No campaigners. But I believe you're Scottish - how can this be?
Everything on Facebook is nonsense.
This is the overriding thing I've learnt from this whole thing, people will believe and repost any old nonsense on Facebook even if the source is someone's imagination/ass. Even really rather intelligent people have been suckered into it which has surprised me.
bencooper - Member
Yes, the Standard Life story isn't a new story, it's an old story dragged up again because Better Together can't give up on Project Fear.
But happily rejected on here
There's going to be a lot more of this in the next few days.
True along with money transfers.
It's the real world now
What exactly do they deter?
@kona, a conventional war
I take it you haven't been keeping up with current affairs since this government came into power then?
@grum, if we don't fix the overspending we can't help anyone. Any social care programme has to make choices, we don't have an infinite budget. If the "poor"/NHS/... are suffering today it is the prior government who should take significant responsibility as they got things very badly wrong.
The last couple have been highly questionable, but not all of them.
Given we have not been invaded fro a millennia our armed forces have almost exclusively been used for aggression rather then defence.
I think that is KB point as well
Of the last 20 general elections, the majority in Scotland voted for the same party that won in Westminster 13 times. So 65% of the time Scotland got the government it voted for.
You mean sometimes scotland and england agree . I never said that I said England decide. and your point is slightly different to what I said
The UK population (including Scotland) picks the UK government - the UK includes Scotland. That's not spinning anything it's just a fact
My point was england decided you did not negate that fact you merely pointed out it is a UK wide vote when the UK votes.
I dont think that negates my point.
What we are asking is which country decides the outcome - or if you prefer how often does england get the govt they vote for - MPs not %- comapred to scotland
Genuine question - has there been any time where the majority of MP's in england has been different from the overall parliament?
It will be very few compared to scotland and I doubt scotland has decided more than once or twice ever and certainly not since the 60's.
The northern industrial heartlands often gets the government the rest of the country votes for - but no-one suggest they should go independent, because it would be daft.
Who says it is daft? Does it need explaining why a region is not a country?
FWIW i support federalism anyway and many countries dont think it is daft even if you do
Adding to grum's point KB, we have the idea of a banking sector without a lender of last resort with yS advocating work done by the libertarian Adam Smith Institute.
Ballsy free market stuff than not even Mrs T would have dared suggest despite carrying round hayek's road to serfdom in her handbag. The SNP out Maggie, Maggie the very person they demonise.
Genuine question - has there been any time where the majority of MP's in england has been different from the overall parliament?
@JY but with 90% of the population that's what you'd expect. We are all in the UK, the UK gets the government it voted for.
[i]You think our nuclear subs need to surface to re arm/resupply at Faslane?
Yes, where do you think they do it?[/i]
The older jetty is known as the Polaris Jetty, while the newer, covered Explosive Handling Jetty (EHJ) is used for handling Trident warheads.[1]
What exactly do they deter?
@kona, a conventional war
They didn't deter conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, they just displaced it to Latin America, Africa and Asia and encouraged the use of proxies. The idea of the Cold War as the long peace is a con.
Just to follow up on TMH's comment. Credit Suisse published some research today suggesting there would be a run on Scottish financial institutions as customers moved their money into UK banks due to uncertainties over whether their deposits would be protected. This would create a big stress as anyone with a mortgage on a Scottish property from a UK bank would be well advised to move it to a Scottish bank. This will happen at just the time that Scottish banks (whoever they may be) have less money and no central bank to support them.
@kona, I see that as preventing a conventional war at home and the separate issue of trying to protect/establish interests abroad.
[i]Who says it is daft? Does it need explaining why a region is not a country?
FWIW i support federalism anyway and many countries dont think it is daft even if you do[/i]
Careful, you'll have MT back shortly, spouting his Freedom for Yorkshire stuff.
I could suggest freedom for Surrey as my wealth would rocket, but its not realistic, we are part of England, part of GB....I don't hate everyone else because we pay MUCH more per capita than anyone else.
The older jetty is known as the Polaris Jetty, while the newer, covered Explosive Handling Jetty (EHJ) is used for handling Trident warheads
Aha, you're going for the smartarse answer - yes, technically the subs rearm at Coulport - which, along with Faslane, makes up HMNB Clyde.
our armed forces have almost exclusively been used for aggression rather then defence.
You seriously putting WWII in the illegitimate aggression category? Really? And the UN peacekeeping missions we've been on?
Does it need explaining why a region is not a country?
Yes.
But you wouldn't be alive. Nuclear weapons just mean if you're dead so is everyone else.
And that's exactly why they are a deterrent!
molgrips - MemberBy quoting dictionary definitions we all know? Surely you mean 'let me be an arse cos I can't actually help?'
No, by saying "you know what it means already so why are you asking". Usually I wouldn't dignify a post like his with a response but some people take silence as a confirmation that they're right.
[i]Aha, you're going for the smartarse answer [/i]
If you like.....now about the 'fairer society'?
[i]No, by saying "you know what it means already so why are you asking". Usually I wouldn't dignify a post like his with a response but some people take silence as a confirmation that they're right.[/i]
Me Northwind? 'dignify a post like mine'.....nice!
I even tried to add a bit of perspective to help him along, including MY thoughts about our already pretty fair society, to respond to... but still waiting to an answer!
Edit: just re read and don't think you meant me. 😳
No, by saying "you know what it means already so why are you asking".
What I'm asking is, SPECIFICALLY in actual practical terms, what does 'fairer society' mean?
Wealth redistribution?
Equality of opportunity?
How far do those things need to go?
Is the 'fairer society' just another glib SNP buzz word to trot out, which in reality is as meaningless as 'we're keeping the pound'
I think it really does boil down to, we don't like you, we don't like being told what to do, so we're off to boil our heads if necessary, just to spite you.
Fairer society- things like free higher education encouraging kids from poorer backgrounds to go to university. Things like not introducing housing benefit changes that actually cost the country money, purely to punish the poor. Things like not treating people like dirt for being disabled, or withdrawing legal aid for family disputes, welfare and employment issues.
oldbloke - MemberStandard Life weigh in with a statement which essentially says a Yes vote means they're going to relocate large parts of the business to England:
You should probably read it tbh, because it doesn't say that at all.
"Fairer Society", IMO what this means to the average man
High Income earners - I will pay more tax, possibly a lot more
Middle Income earners - good news, the less well off will be protected at no cost to me, someone else will pay. In fact as I am not rich I will probably get a tax break too.
Low Income earners - great news I will be better off via lower taxes
Unemployed - outstanding I will be given more money
I guaranty you the vast majority of people do not think a fairer society is one where equal opportunity is the primary policy tool
Northwind there is very little evidence that student fees discourage people form going to university, it has much more to do with social sterio-typing in their own communities, there is a lack of aspiration to do well at school/college as they don't see their peer group striving for that. Free University in Scotland isn't delivering a social revolution is it ? The reality is it just keeps more money in the pockets of the middle classes. Student fees are too high but grants and encouraging people to go to Uni are the way to go.
We need to address building of social housing and to ensure it's means tested and not for life. We also need to ensure we have more smaller properties so that we cut down on wasted space within the social housing stock.
Disability benefit has spiralled out of control, its become a catch-all benefit and claimed by those who are not really entitled. It is those people who are taking money away from the most needy.
An iS is actually going to have much mess money to try and address these issues than it does as part of the UK
our armed forces have [b]almost exclusively[/b] been used for aggression rather then defence.
You seriously putting WWII in the illegitimate aggression category? Really? And the UN peacekeeping missions we've been on?
I never used that phrase but we have , pretty much, exclusively waged war in other peoples countries.
Out of a millennia of war you pick that one and a few UN peace keeping missions [ which technically were not wars]. NB the bit I emboldened for you
What % of our wars were done because if we had not done them we would have been conquered/destroyed? What do you think in percentage terms?
Does it need explaining why a region is not a country?
Yes.
No it does not and I am not joining in when you do the molly thing.
I think it really does boil down to, we don't like you, we don't like being told what to do, so we're off to boil our heads if necessary, just to spite you.
Dave has asked you to smother them with love to get them to stay - is this the best you can do for the sake of the Union
Its not true to say that the only motivation is this or that it is the majority motivation. A minority , including the english on here to the scots, dont like the other but it is far from typical.