[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

False premise and the BoD - surely not?

Athgray My conscience would be clear if we did not have our own wmd. Some thing like Spain, Norway Iceland, Greece,Denmark,Canada and in fact 25 of the 28 members of NATO.

Athgray My conscience would be clear if we did not have our own wmd. Some thing like Spain, Norway Iceland, Greece,Denmark,Canada and in fact 25 of the 28 members of NATO.

How do you feel about nuclear weapons being deployed in Scotland ? Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey, all NATO members, without nuclear weapons, all have nuclear weapons deployed in their countries. Despite being classified as non-nuclear weapons states, ie, they have no control over the nuclear weapons in their country.

Would an "independent" Scotland be in the same position ? If not why not ?

Gordimhor, nuclear deterant has been, and still is a cornerstone of NATO ethos. If you want in, you agree to the protection, perceived or real that they bring. You just want someone to do the dirty work for you. I have already said it is not high on my priority list one way or the other, however those vehemently opposed should surely not wish entry into NATO.

A free Yorkshire would be in NATO as long as we don't have to buy the drinks.

Just thought you needed to know.

According to the SNP the position would be no nukes in Scotland Scotlands Future says there would be the "speediest safe removal" and Yes Scotland website says

We know already that the current Scottish Government's priorities for defence would include removal of Trident nuclear submarines from the Faslane naval base within the first five year term of an independent Scottish Parliament.

Whilst it would be far from ideal Icould accept that Scotland might host Trident for a specified time, with the aim of becoming a wmd free zone.

Presumably this is based on hope rather any realistic assessment of an independent Scotland's leverage on such matters.

.

I dont subscribe to the M.A D. doctrine

Well an independent Scotland which is a NATO member will, so you're going to be disappointed.

Nuclear Sharing goes to the very heart of NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence and the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction.

Presumably this is based on hope rather any realistic assessment of an independent Scotland's leverage on such matters

Are you saying that an independent Scotland wouldn't have a choice on whether we hosted WMDs?

I am already disappointed Ernie 🙂 thanks to many of the various policies of the various uk governments of the last 52 years. Including their policy on nuclear weapons.
edit

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/9126-osborne-currency-threat-is-subterfuge-or-confused-economics-says-academic

(Lights blue touch paper and runs away...)

Are you saying that an independent Scotland wouldn't have a choice on whether we hosted WMDs?

I'm saying that an independent Scotland wouldn't be as independent as some would like to suggest. NATO membership does not mean that a member state can do what it likes with regards to defence, this comment by gordimhor recognizes that :

[i]Whilst it would be far from ideal Icould accept that Scotland might host Trident for a specified time, with the aim of becoming a wmd free zone.[/i]

Otherwise there would not be any need to compromise. The question is how much compromise an independent Scotland would have to make. I suspect that most independence supporters in their enthusiasm overestimate Scotland's leverage and underestimate Scotland's need to comprise.

It is very unlikely that things will end up anywhere approaching the best hoped for scenario. imo

ernie_lynch - Member

Nuclear Sharing goes to the very heart of NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence

Does it really? The nuclear weapons that are still shared are no more than vestigal- outdated gravity tactical weapons with limited capacity to deliver them and no real idea where we'd put them if we could. The really important word there is tactical, nuclear deterrence is dependent on strategic weapons, tactical weapons are for use against conventional armies.

Germany's removed all but a handful (*) and it's been suggested the last will go next year, but even if they don't they'll have no capacity to deliver them soon as the Typhoons that replace the old Tornados can't deploy them.

Turkey can't fly them at all apparently. So if that's the case the only way they could be used would be to either manually toss them out of a cargo plane, drive them onto a battlefield in a truck, or bury them somewhere then detonate them when Vladimir Putin rides past on a bear.

US EUCOM dismisses the shared arsenal as having "no military value" and says that withdrawing all of the remaining shared weapons would have "no military downside"

So if this stuff goes to the very heart of the NATO policy of nuclear deterrance, that probably tells us a lot about the policy.

(* oh and by the way- you said earlier "despite being classified as non-nuclear weapons states, ie, they have no control over the nuclear weapons in their country."- you can see the reality of this, Germany says "let's get rid of 4/5th of these", and rid they are, without the slightest dispute from NATO, the US, or other allies.)

you said earlier "despite being classified as non-nuclear weapons states, ie, they have no control over the nuclear weapons in their country."- you can see the reality of this, Germany says "let's get rid of 4/5th of these", and rid they are, without the slightest dispute from NATO, the US, or other allies.

That doesn't provide proof of control over the nuclear weapons in their country. And the "without the slightest dispute from NATO, the US, or other allies" pretty much says it all. I'm sure that an independent Scotland will be able to do as it pleases with regards to defence, as long as there isn't the slightest dispute with the US and other allies. My only comment was with regards to comprise.

ernie_lynch - Member

That doesn't provide proof of control over the nuclear weapons in their country.

That's a fair point- just because the US did exactly what Germany asked, doesn't meant they're compelled to. Though it does show that there's no overaching objection to unilateral disarmament, and that nobody's very concerned about diminishing nuclear sharing- unsurprising really. No nation has been asked to be part of nuclear sharing since the 60s I think, and some have largely withdrawn since. No nation has ever been compelled to host nuclear weapons as a condition of NATO membership and several have unilaterally declared themselves nuclear free. So it sets the stage pretty clearly i reckon.

(It seems interesting to me that the new Secretary General is a former Norwegian prime minister, and so led a nuclear-free NATO member and now leads NATO)

Further to that, as you probably know the UK government has committed to retaining and relocating Trident, so there goes any other grounds for dispute, or reason for sharing- not to mention any NATO grounds for concern over the strength and continuation of the deterrant.

So the only question left is probably timescale. Frankly the official single-term timescale just doesn't seem feasible, relocating Trident safely is going to be a big engineering project, though it's hard to know whether that's just, er "optimistic" or whether it's designed as a bargaining position.

As for compromise, you need to consider what Scotland brings to the alliance. The quick answer to that is, imo, "More than Albania". Scotland'll have bigger and more modern conventional armed forces, and a far more important strategic location. And the same number of nuclear weapons 😉 Reality is we'll be a stronger contributor than other recent members who've been welcomed, so will we have to compromise in some way that they didn't?

So you end up at the basic question- what will happen when Scotland asks to join. Is it really in NATO's interest to say anything but come on in, grab a beer.

[half time talk]

The survey for the Scottish Chambers of Commerce (SCC) found more than half of respondents rated the level of debate so far as "poor" or "dismal".

Both sides of the independence debate need to "step up their game" in the final months of the referendum campaign,

As for compromise, you need to consider what Scotland brings to the alliance. The quick answer to that is, imo, "More than Albania".

(Lights blue touch paper and runs away...)

😀

It's in The Herald too, it'll be interesting to see how widely it gets reported.

The survey for the Scottish Chambers of Commerce (SCC) found more than half of respondents rated the level of debate so far as "poor" or "dismal".

I'm surprised it's that low tbh.

piemonster - Member
It's in The Herald too, it'll be interesting to see how widely it gets reported.

Is it not the same piece of news as this from March?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/23/currency-union-independent-scotland-backing

I'm saying that an independent Scotland wouldn't be as independent as some would like to suggest.

+1 in many respects but people will swallow the deceit that says it will. Ernie, there is an emotional attachment here....I have asked before if yS supporters on this page would (hypothetically) be able to look their children in the eye and promise them that the policies outlined by AS would mean that there would be no nukes in Scotland. This was in specific reference to don't ask, don't tell. Since the answer was an unequivocal yes, you have all that you need to know.

People will be claiming more control over monetary and fiscal affairs next.

Having just read the last page of posts, I vote this subject the most tedious of any on STW in the past year.

And that is really saying something! 🙁

konabunny - Member

What does Scotland get out of NATO membership?

Good luck with having that question answered. I have repeatedly asked why an independent Scotland would need to be a member of NATO (specially in light of the obvious nuclear weapons issue/dilemma being discussed) and all the saltire-waving mel gibson wannabes who have been so vociferous in their cry for freedoom over almost four thousand posts and more than a hundred pages have maintained a deathly silence.

Except for one who said Scotland didn't need to be a member of NATO, before making some smartarse comment about watching paint dry, and then finally stating that NATO membership would cause Scotland no problems with regards to nuclear weapons, thereby completely avoiding explaining the benefits that NATO membership would bring an independent Scotland.

I can only assume that the possibility of Scottish troops gallivanting across the globe fighting wars and restoring Scotland's "national pride" is too appealing to ignore.

🙂

Tightywighty it's a second report from the same economist for the neutral website Scotlandseptember18.com

saltire-waving mel gibson wannabees.

You just let the mask slip Ernie.

I'm with you Konabunny

Okay, well let's just not anyone see us agreeing on anything in public, yeah? 😉

ernie_lynch - Member

What does Scotland get out of NATO membership?

Good luck with having that question answered. I have repeatedly asked why an independent Scotland would need to be a member of NATO

Yup, and by all means carry on as if it was brilliant point, rather than a question that was daft enough that most people ignored it. Maybe the others realised that even if they answer the question you'd not be happy, more fool me eh.

What does Scotland as a nation get out of NATO membership? Simple enough answer, same as everyone else. Mutual protection, and the greater stability in your area that is created by that shared protection. Closer political and military ties with other members, influence over the organisation's policy and action. Why is the UK in NATO?

Also, politically it's useful to show continuity and stability post independence, we don't want to be perceived as some unpredictable new state and we want to stay on the best terms with neighbours, these are things that tie us together.

So the real question - [i]Should[/i] Scotland join NATO? NATO is a difficult organisation tbh- some laudable goals, some very dodgy politics, some pretty unpalatable cold-war leftovers. I'm a bit on the fence personally- there's good reasons for Scotland to join, and good reasons not to, I don't think either is really overwhelming. In the short term there's some factors that make it more desirable for a new nation to be in the club, for all parties, so taking into account that withdrawing is easy, I tend to come down on the side that we should join.

Will your "nation" be "sober" enough to vote or was wee eck misrepresenting the truth yet again?

Is Scotland's need for mutual protection as pronounced as Albania's (three neighboring states recently at war or insurgency), Turkey (war or insurgency in all of its Asian neighbours and Armenia and Azerbaijan and Georgia) or the USA (war or insurgency wherever it chooses to occupy)? Does Scotland want closer military ties with those countries? Is having more influence (lol) over NATO policy a better deal than not having to get sucked into its military adventures?

What's the point in Scotland being independent without serious changes?

What's the point in Scotland being independent without serious changes?

Very good question. Preceded by what's the point when you will end up with less power/freedom than you started with?

What they want is basically what they have now but a government of their choice.
Why does the change have to be "serious" ? What exactly does this mean? Can it not just be fairer

Is no nukes not serious?
Is being very pro EU not serious?

What would be acceptable to show "seriousness"?
Why is it essential?

THM I dont think you can technically have less power/freedom when the starting point/base line is being governed by a party you didn't vote for. Could you explain please?

IF AS was to do this you would call him a liar. If i was to say you wit was a lie you would cry troll.

konabunny - Member

Is having more influence (lol) over NATO policy a better deal than not having to get sucked into its military adventures?

Look at the reality of how members "have to get sucked into military adventures"- only 8 members mobilised in Libya for instance.

OK that's cleared that up. The only person prepared to answer the question, after dismissing it as a daft question, admits that he can't think of any overwhelming reasons why an independent Scotland should be a NATO member. Which makes the apparent determination to join NATO, with its associated unresolved nuclear weapons issue, sound even more confused.

And the nuclear weapon issue is the big carrot which Yes Scotland is using to entice lefties who believe in peace and social justice, I certainly feel its seductive powers, so it's not as if it's a trivial matter.

It seems that NATO membership is just another one of those rather important issues which the Yes camp have given little or no thought to, and which presumably they feel they needn't explain, as somehow, with a bit of luck, it'll all come out in the wash.

A "daft" question indeed 🙂

Do you think you should only do something when there are "overwhelming reasons" to do so? It'd be nice if everything was black and white but you'll be waiting a long time, doing nothing at all, for that.

Oh, and

"A "daft" question indeed "

Konabunny's question, which we're talking about now, is a good one. Yours was daft.

On the subject of coming out in the wash. Nice bit of "debate" in FT surrounding the Kevin Toolis article today. Pretty dirty linen there!!!

Type that in an Aussie accent did you Northwind?
THM, It is wee eck who has been misrepresented. We have huge problems with associated health problems and the culture of macho heavy drinking that I see 13/14yo kids buying into. He said he couldn't promote whisky if people looked at us (the country that people associate with it) as a nation of drunks. I have to say you are slipping,he agreed a currency union may not happen yesterday,isn't that a far better target for a broadside from HMS Hurtmore?

Konabunny's question, which we're talking about now, is a good one. Yours was daft.

🙁

duckman - Member
THM... I have to say you are slipping,he agreed a currency union may not happen yesterday,isn't that a far better target for a broadside from HMS Hurtmore?

No that's been obvious from the start.

Maybe the Scotsman is less accurate than you ducks, but I read their version of what the DO said differently!

"My argument is that if you are promoting it as authentic and of great worth, you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks."

I guess he was talking hypothetically! 😉 hard to tell with that guy

I saw it in the Times,which is not renowned for a best case scenario in relation to him. I have checked and he did say that,but I assume the point he was trying to make was the same. Now that I am 45 and my eldest is 14 I think minimum unit price is a brilliant idea.

I get the point - I was teasing with the first reference!!

THM, you're even abbreviating your secret codewords for people now? Worried that your posts had become too comprehensible? 😀

Sorry people get upset by the full version! Glad to see a lot of terminology has now become more widespread on here. DO, while apt, may take some time. Maybe a few months after a yes vote?

Can you explain how they will have less representation than currently given they do not vote for the current govt that represents them?

http://www.channel4.com/news/scotland-independence-85-per-cent-no-vote-poll-exclusive yougov poll

Slightly OT http://www.channel4.com/news/the-other-separatists-trying-to-carve-out-a-new-europe

teamhurtmore - Member

"My argument is that if you are promoting it as authentic and of great worth, you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks."

Put it in its context...

"I promote whisky. I do it on the argument that it’s a quality drink, has a worldwide cachet and that its recent great success in markets like China is about social emulation and authenticity, not cheapness. My argument is that if you are promoting it as authentic and of great worth, you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks."

He does promote it as authentic and of great worth, ergo, he does not think Scotland is a nation of drunks.

Can't help but think he's (AS) has been caught out here. Not necessarily by any genuine fault other than saying things to the wrong people that can be portrayed in a negative light. With such scrutiny as there is at present not easy, but he must know that even the slightest wrong word will be used against him.

Half agree but at the same time, when you've got people with an agenda they'll find something they can misrepresent, unless you take a vow of silence in which case it'll be "Salmond refuses to condemn..." "Salmond silent on key issue" 😉

I think this one's quite interesting in what it says about the national debate tbh. You have outright misrepresentation to create a story without any factual basis. You've got serious people queuing up to be offended. And you've got a national press willing to print it on the front page. Meanwhile, the conservative health spokesman is ignoring a debate on public health, which is his actual job, in order to have a hysterical swipe at Salmond

It's that old Singletrack thing, if you're resorting to making shit up in order to attack your opponent, what does that say about your argument?

You've got serious people queuing up to be offended

Bloody STW big hitters again eh!

In general I agree. Just seems like a couple of easy (cheap) goals for headlines that he really should not have given.

It's quite easy to discuss Putin without giving a soundbite perfect for a sensationalist headline. Even without Ukraine you could be flamed due to gay rights issues among others.

FFS, get some context. AS made a slip and I was having a laugh. Just because one poll goes badly don't lose the SOH. That is what is required if you are a YS supporter after all.

But great revisionism NW, he would be proud!

Does anyone know why the picture is being used in the following article.

Seems a bit random.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/while-were-investigating/

Trying to distract from more important news such as the latest moodys comments?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0cb2cf2-d151-11e3-81e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30JQpMdLl

Yeh, I read that earlier today at work.

Although it's behind a paywall now unfortunately.

Another name to add to the discredited bully list!

Moody’s added that a currency union with the rest of the UK would not be good for the Britain’s rating and that the adoption of its own currency would be the best outcome.

“A potential currency union with the remainder of the UK would be credit negative if it were to materialise. However, cross-party opposition to such an outcome makes this unlikely,” said Moody’s.

Not sure about this photo.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10802400/Scottish-yes-vote-could-improve-UK-credit-says-Moodys.html

Although it's behind a paywall now unfortunately.

I've just figured out how to circumvent the paywall. The FT has always allowed free access through google news, so stop loading the page just before the paywall appears, and the headline will have loaded, copy the headline and paste it for a search under google news, that will take you to the article without the paywall.

Interesting article btw.

teamhurtmore - Member

But great revisionism NW

No revisionism whatsoever, direct quotes in context. Salmond simply didn't say what people are claiming, he's been intentionally quoted out of context in order to deceive. Which, hey, actually is revisionism.

Ironic that you say "get some context" in response to a post doing exactly that though 😉

Do you think you should only do something when there are "overwhelming reasons" to do so?

Put it this way: there has been lots of talk about how Scotland must be a fairer, more egalitarian society. There has been very little discussion of the difficult and complex changes that would be required to achieve a significant restructuring of Scottish society, education, business or military policy.

[url= http://thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/first-minister-fears-scotland-being-seen-as-nation-of-drunks-1.345958 ]decent journalism not dead in Dundee[/url] At least The Courier seems to have managed to come up with a fairly level headed factual interpretation of Mr Salmonds comments on Scotlands relationship with alcohol.

Put it this way: there has been lots of talk about how Scotland must be a fairer, more egalitarian society. There has been very little discussion of the difficult and complex changes that would be required to achieve a significant restructuring of Scottish society, education, business or military policy.

Why would Scottish society have to be restructured? And our education system is already separate. I'm not playing down the work that'll be needed to separate Scotland from the rUK, but I don't think it's beyond us.

In many ways, it could also be a good thing - instead of kludging more onto what we have, we can build anew.

Meanwhile, the No side now has it's own grassroots campaign - No Borders, which has been getting a surprising amount of press. Surprising for an organisation no-one had heard about last week.

Still, someone must have heard of them - they've already raised £140,000, and aim to raise £500,000. Which is interesting because they're only allowed to spend £150,000 under election rules.

What's also interesting is that this "grassroots" campaign was started by a millionaire Tory, who also wrote the [url= http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/files/BankruptBritain10.pdf ]blueprint for austerity[/url].

bencooper - Member

Why would Scottish society have to be restructured?

We don't have to change a thing, but the drawback of that is that we'll end up not changing a thing 😆

True 😉

It'll be interesting to see how we cope without adult supervision...

[quote=Northwind ]We don't have to change a thing, but the drawback of that is that we'll end up not changing a thing

Ah, but it would be a government you voted for doing exactly the same thing.

Education has had plenty of change recently, ta very much. We are currently trying to get another day in the week so we can find time to bring the new highers in. Oh, and an organ sale or two to pay for the books. Mind you,there is a silver lining;if Eck gets his minimum unit pricing in,Scottish liver will be a premium product.

It'll be interesting to see how we cope without adult supervision...

It's ok, I'm here to keep an eye on you to make sure you don't do anything silly. Such as not perpetuate a society that allows the rich to get richer and the poor to get left behind. Or heaven forbid, elect a government the Scottish electorate voted for.

Finish line fever induces sloppy choice of words - Putin, Murdoch, Nation of Drunks - for man who delights in scrutinising and twisting (assets) words for his own convenience, this all seems a little slack. The euphoria of the polls must be getting to him. Hopefully the last poll will restore an element of "sobriety" to proceedings.

Why would Scottish society have to be restructured?

I'm not playing down the work that'll be needed to separate Scotland from the rUK, but I don't think it's beyond us.

Isn't now the time for radical ideas about demilitarisation, renationalisation or stripping down the state, slashing state expenditure or providing minimum citizens incomes, environmental sustainability? What's the point of recreating the UK state on a smaller scale? At present, the changes brought about by Scottish independence are lining up to be[i] less[/i] transformative than New Labour's election in 1997!

but it would be a government you voted for doing exactly the same thing.

Pro the EU
Anti Nukes

for man who delights in scrutinising and twisting (assets) words for his own convenience, this all seems a little slack

Thanks god you dont do this and are so ready to explain your outbursts/hyperbole when questioned on them 😀

Not exactly , it would clearly be different from rUK

Pro the EU
Anti Nukes

The list seems endless. It must have taken you ages to compose ?

An independent Scotland will be in the EU while the rest of the UK won't be. Maybe.

An independent Scotland will hopefully not have any nuclear weapons while the rest of the UK will.

That's the conclusion we come to after over a hundred pages of debate on the subject. And some people say that they case for independence hasn't been made !

I very much doubt listing more will change your mind so i saved myself some time and even more effort.

Point remains it wont be exactly the same as arcaer claims and that was the specfic point i addressed

To be fair ernie, an independent Scotland also won't have the pound.

But since we are

"saltire-waving mel gibson wannabes"

According to you, maybe more complex reasons would confuse us?

Eg, deciding whether a currency is an asset, a liability or neither? 😉

Thankfully Alex is sure and he has said that we don't need to worry,as our lack of debt will be an [b]asset[/b] and rUK paying for the share of debt we left behind will be a [b]liability[/b]. And he has said that [b]neither[/b] Mrs Duckman nor I will ever struggle to find the money for blue facepaint ...

QED. Brilliant!

(Although tbf, smiley or no smiley, that did have to be a joke!}

I thought I'd check back in after another 1,000 posts on here and do my bit to get it to 4,000.

Re: Assets, instead of thinking of things which somehow Scotland owns and has "paid for" perhaps think of Scotland as leasing everything, when you stop making the lease payments (ie tax to HMRC) the asset goes back to it's owner (the UK). On a related point the UK debt is actually what has paid for a lot of things, so if Scotland doesn't take debt it won't get any assets.

To be fair ernie, an independent Scotland also won't have the pound.

Which pound? The Egyptian Pound, The Lebanese Pound, The Syrian Pound how about the Sudanese Pound....

Good chance there will be a Scottish Pound to add to that list as well..

I thought I'd check back in after another 1,000 posts on here and do my bit to get it to 4,000.

Re: Assets, instead of thinking of things which somehow Scotland owns and has "paid for" perhaps think of Scotland as leasing everything, when you stop making the lease payments (ie tax to HMRC) the asset goes back to it's owner (the UK). On a related point the UK debt is actually what has paid for a lot of things, so if Scotland doesn't take debt it won't get any assets.

Thats a great idea.... Likewise the money gained from Scottish Oil revenues shouldn't be looked at as a UK resource... The money from them should be treated as a loan which should be repaid if independence is gained..

err yes THM, That was a joke, we don't buy blue facepaint, we just make it ourselves.

4000 had to be done!