Forum menu
all of the money they would have got would go to the poor people instead because they would suddenly learn how to be successful
Yes, because poor people are poor because they just haven't learned how to be successful. They're probably too stupid, lazy or ****less to get rich - it's all their own fault really.
So fasternotfatter, you believe the rich need to be even richer, that failure should be rewarded with huge bonuses, and that the situation which existed 50 years ago when income inequality was considerable lower than it is today was unacceptable, care to explain why ?
On a more serious note ernie.
[i]As a society we have turned logic, commonsense, and economic justice, upside down, as we reward staggering levels of failure and incompetence with multimillion pound bonuses, golden handshakes and golden hellos, and we happily allow the super rich to fill their pockets and boots, while everyone else has to tighten their belts.[/i]
Were you writing about Alec Salmond because didn't he praise Fred Goodwin when RBS took over ABN? A deal that broke RBS and seriously dented the UK economy.
On a more serious note ernie.
It wasn't really was it......it was just more silly point scoring.
FNF - excuse me if I am not following your train of thought correctly. But, and it's a big but, the man you want to entrust with your future well-being was a massive supporter of the hubris that's was the RBS bid for ABN. He was even giving personal support for his Celtic Lion embarking on one of the most ill-judged acquisitions in banking history.
It was my job at the time to advise and comment on these deals. And it was breathtakingly obvious that it was not only a very bad deal but also massively mispriced. And yet, your man was personally recommending it ie, going out of his way to ensure that his PERSONAL support was behind mad Fred.
Trying to spin that into a yS argument will be some feat. I am looking forward to it....
...then again if an economist like AS cannot tell the different between a bank's asset and it's liabilities then I guess understanding valuation and M&A really is too much to expect!
And the very wealthy are also much better off than they where 50, 100, 200 years ago with regards to housing, education, and health care
@ernie - just a couple of points
The wealthy are much worse off in terms of housing, 50 or 100 years ago a wealthy person would own a whole house in London not a flat or a country estate rather than a large house. Education was arguably superior with small class sizes at school and university plus this provided a huge relative advantage as most of the poor left school at 14. Health care they where also better off relatively but of course medicine for all as moved on. Today the NHS keeps you alive after a heart attach or cancer whether you are in the 99 or the 1%
You are guilty of a generalisation that the 1% want to see the dismantling of the welfare state, you cannot make that generalisation. There are many supporters and donars in the 1% and the fact is the 1% are paying 25% of the bills for those things and in many cases not using the services (eg education and benefits)
@ernie - most of the people at the top of the 1% don't get a "bonus" as they don't work in a normal job. If you do get a Yes vote you'll be able to run your own tax policy, if you put top rates of tax up you'll find your top people moving over the border. If you don't like bonuses you'll be able to outlaw them.
Labour are conflicted in the campaign as a Yes vote in Scotland would be bad for the Labour party in the UK. It's no surprise to see Labour campaigners switching sides.
@bencooper - on the nuclear issue I think we (the UK) should use an independent Scotland as an excuse to cancel our nuclear submarine programme. If we don't cancel it we should move it elsewhere. I wouldn't for 1 second want to give any concessions to an independent Scotland in return for keeping the base at Faslaine. I would much rather see the money spent elsewhere in the military
THM - Salmond actually wrote to Fred Goodwin offering his praise for the ABN deal, can he really be trusted to run a country with his obviously flawed judgement?
That is my question. IMO, obviously not. This is just one of many examples of why he is not fit for purpose. But I thought you were a supporter of his? I must be mistaken. The RBS example is just another example of his opportunism. This is compounded by his failure to grasp basic concepts relating to how you govern a country. I have said many times before, Scotland and rUK both deserve a LOT better.
The wealthy are much worse off in terms of housing....
Bollox are they. The 1% can afford housing way beyond the wildest dreams of ordinary people. I only scan read after that, it's obvious that you're not going to be serious.
Although I did notice this :
.... a Yes vote in Scotland would be bad for the Labour party in the UK.
That's nonsense too. The evidence shows that a Yes vote would have no significant effect on the Labour Party in the rest of the UK.
Goodwin was known as Fred the Shred, a bean counter who cut costs and fired people. He bought things, fired people and the market went up so he declared himself a genius. AS to be fair did what any SNP politician would have done and joined in the praise for the hometown boy with no regard for the reality. The two biggest disasters in the financial crises where both Scottish lead, RBS and Bank of Scotland. If only we could give them back. The point here is that with a tiny domestic market they had no choice to expand aggressively via acquisitions and into high risk business areas (as in fact did the Icelandic Banks and Northern Rock)
THM I couldn't agree more with your last line, Scotland and the rUK deserve a lot better than the drivel that has been spouted by both the yes and no campaigns. The yes campaign should be doing a lot better as they have been working towards this point for a long time.
Well I agree with all of that too....
...an oversupply of [s]BS[/s] information and a deficit of knowledge typifies most of the debate to date. But the serious knowledge tends to be dismissed with the three Bs more often than not.
@bencooper - on the nuclear issue I think we (the UK) should use an independent Scotland as an excuse to cancel our nuclear submarine programme. If we don't cancel it we should move it elsewhere. I wouldn't for 1 second want to give any concessions to an independent Scotland in return for keeping the base at Faslaine. I would much rather see the money spent elsewhere in the military
I completely agree, apart from the last bit - far better to spend the £100bn on stuff that helps people, not more willy-waving toys so the rUK can pretend it's still a big player on the world stage.
But yes, faced with having to build a complete new nuclear submarine base, I'd hope the rUK would give up on the whole obscene idea of a nuclear deterrent.
so the rUK can pretend it's still a big player on the world stage.
So you think that without Scotland the rest of the UK will cease to be a big player on the world stage ? What's that based on ? Anything ?
I thought an independent Scotland planned to increase military spending per capita? I also thought Scottish shipyards are still hoping to receive orders to build rUK war ships. We are told that we build the best war ships after all. How good are we!
How big is the UK's military compared to, say, the US? China? Russia? We'll have a grand total of one aircraft carrier, which won't have any aircraft for another decade or so.
We aren't a big player at the moment, really.
The nuclear deterrent thing is especially daft - Blue Streak in the '50s was the last gasp attempt for the UK to have an independent nuclear deterrent. What we have now is a system leased at huge cost from the USA, which they do basically to keep us onside with whatever they want to do.
It's a bit like how I get my four-year-old to come shopping by promising to let her push the trolley.
We aren't a big player at the moment, really.
No, really.... 😉
Why do you think iScotland would be increasing military spending?
The scottish shipbuilding thing... As I understand it, the rUK won't have the military shipbuilding capability to build the T26, due to the closure of Portsmouth. (the yard was already ill fitted for the builds which is why BAE are closing it. It could probably be upgraded but steps are already underway to dispose of the yard entirely)
So they'll either have to spend a packet on upgrading or building capacity, (and build some very complicated, expensive ships in an untested yard with a new workforce), buy T26s from BAE Systems which means clydebuilt, or buy another design entirely- and currently they claim T26 is the right ship for the job.
There's definitely a dilemma here for the rUK, they do have options though
What we have now is a system leased at huge cost from the USA,
No we don't!
We aren't a big player at the moment, really.
The UK is very much a big player on the world stage, and you are in denial if you claim otherwise. The UK is one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council and it is a G7 member. No country which has the 6th largest economy in the world can be described as anything other than a big player on the world stage.
And your analogy with a four year old pushing a trolley is childish btw, as is your pretence that the UK is only a minor player on the world stage.
SNP say they will spend £2.5bn on defence, which they claim is £500m more than is spent on defence in Scotland at the moment. Perhaps rUK ships will be built in Scotland, however hoping for a reduction in rUK defence spending will adversely impact Scottish ship building.
athgray - MemberSNP say they will spend £2.5bn on defence, which they claim is £500m more than is spent on defence in Scotland at the moment.
You claimed there would be an increase in spending per capita. In fact what you're describing is a reduction of spending per capita. The benefit comes from stopping subsidising the rest of the UK as we do now.
No we don't!
Where do the Trident missiles come from? And where do they do to be serviced? The UK makes the subs and the warheads, but the all-important delivery system is leased.
The UK is one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council and it is a G7 member
The security council membership is based on the nuclear weapons, and the G7 is an economic group not a military one.
That's the real reason why we have to spend £100bn on nuclear weapons - so we can sit at the big table. It's like those African dictators who spent all their GDP on buying an air traffic control system or something.
So Ben, does sitting at the big table (your point) mean the same as being a big player?
Not really.
We spend a colossal amount of money on nuclear weapons so we can be on the Security Council. We build extremely expensive aircraft carriers we don't have aircraft for, because the perfectly good aircraft carriers and aircraft we had weren't shiny enough. We refit Nimrod aircraft at eye-watering cost (each one cost as much as a space shuttle) then scrap them before they ever get used.
The UK's military spending is a long list of show-off projects commissioned by people who still think the UK has an empire.
Not really answering the question but never mind, i think we know the answer
Anyway, an independent Scotland would have it's own Eurovision entry 😀
(Or is that a good argument for the No campaign?)
but the all-important delivery system is leased.
Again, no it isn't!
Ben, we could demand the same rights afforded to the UK currently. (i.e automatic entry to the final). 🙂
The Trident system is made up of 58 leased Trident II D-5 missiles, four native Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines and 160 operational thermonuclear weapon warheads, together with command-and-control and other supporting infrastructure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Trident_programme
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm
Ben, we could demand the same rights afforded to the UK currently. (i.e automatic entry to the final).
It's a bit Father Ted isn't it?
We don't even need nuclear weapons any more. Well apart from a resurgent Russia annexing countries in Europe and flying nuclear bombers towards the UK. Then there are the Iranians enriching uranium, oh and the Syrians were at it as well until the Israelis dealt with them. Lets not forget North Korea, and then there is China and the problems in the South China sea. But apart from that the world is a very peaceful place and we can bin our nukes.
**** off!
FNF - in what way would having nukes help in those situations?
"An odd game - the only winning move is not to play"
I did not know that Father Jack's favourite word would be Castlemaine'd out.
On a lighthearted note, does this not show you what we can achieve together? Where were Ireland tonight? Maybe everyone in Dublin watched the semi final show.
Ben in the same way that they helped in the cold war they provide a deterrent. We can stand up to other nuclear powers without the threat of annihilation. If the UK has no nukes then the majority of Europe is left relying on France and the US for a nuclear deterrent. I hate all weapons, wars, violence etc but I would not want us to be the first to lay down all of our arms, there is just too much conflict in the world. I appreciate that it might seem unfair that Scotland has to host the nukes for the UK.
@faster whatever happens in Ukraine there will not be a shooting war with Russia, and I mean whatever happens they could roll the tanks into Kiev tomorrow and there would plenty of stern words from Europe and the US and zero action.
Nuclear weapons are not required. What in my view we require is a properly equipped and properly sized (ie larger) military for use in the types of actions we have seen in the last 10-20 years.
We are on the security council due to our influence and historical ties with nations around the world.
@ben - very topical on the eurovison, perhaps of you gain independence we could gift you our entry as a sort of farewell present, we wouldn't even ask for anything in return !
@Northwind if you become independent we can finally answer the who subsidises who question. As you know I see it very much the other way.
Again Ben - they're not leased, we have ownership from a shared pool
Wiki is wrong, your other source is a written memorandum from Greenpeace
The agreement was called a 'sales agreement' for a reason
[i]John Reid: A shared pool of US/UK missiles is maintained and stored in the United States. Under the Polaris sales agreement (amended for Trident) the United Kingdom contributes to the cost of processing the missiles. This includes a small element in respect of storage costs, which is not separately identified. The costs of the weapons handling and storage facilities of the Royal Navy armament depot, Coulport attributable to Trident are some £2 million per year.
[/i]
[i]John Reid: As stated in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, the UK purchased 58 Trident II (D5) missiles. Missiles are either deployed onboard UK submarines or held ashore at the Royal Naval Armament Depot Coulport, on a temporary basis, or in the United States at the Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic, as part of a shared pool of US/UK missiles. [/i]
[i]
2-5. In the 1998 Strategic Defence
Review we announced that we had by
then purchased 58 Trident D5 missiles.
Subsequently, we decided not to take up
an option to purchase an additional seven
missiles. As a result of a number of test firings,
our current holding has reduced to 50. We
believe that no further procurement of
Trident D5 missiles will be necessary through
its planned in-service life.[/i]
Ben in the same way that they helped in the cold war they provide a deterrent. We can stand up to other nuclear powers without the threat of annihilation.
So how would that work? Say it's the Russians. What would they have to do for us to launch our nuclear weapons? Bearing in mind that as soon as we do, they launch theirs and they have a lot more than we do, so the UK would be obliterated.
What possible thing could the Russians do that would make obliteration a better option?
There's no rational scenario where the UK would launch it's weapons - we know we'd never use the nukes, the Russians know we'd never use the nukes, so a threat that you would never use is no threat at all.
Defence spending is hard to split. Do we in Scotland pay for jets based in England to be turned around at Carlisle? I think not. Nationalist would have you think so.
I am no expert in defence, but I cannot help but feel that if Scotland and rUK were seperate there would be a ridiculous amount of double spending.
ninfan - interesting stuff. Though I'd argue that a "purchase from a shared pool" where the missiles have to regularly go back to the States, and can only be tested under US supervision, sounds a lot like a lease. So it's mostly semantics - the core point remains, it's not an independent nuclear deterrent.
Good to see they're not currently targeted though.
jambalaya - Member@Northwind if you become independent we can finally answer the who subsidises who question. As you know I see it very much the other way.
There's no question, on military spending. And in fact, it's getting noticably worse as the scottish services have faced the brunt of cuts over the last decade
it's not an independent nuclear deterrent.
So you're saying that having a reliance for supply on, or external oversight on your use of something by another country means, you're not truly independent?
[b][i]interesting [/i][/b]
Now, about the Bank of England and the Pound... 😉
Ninfan your first link refers to a Polaris sales agreement amended for Trident
This document from the Defence Select Committee refers to leased Trident missiles.
[url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm ]Select Committee[/url]
The relevant part refers to the D5 missile.
Incidentally your point about the SNP govt being responsible for the Edinburgh trams mess is incorrect as they tabled a bill to stop it but as a then minority administration were outvoted by the combined opposition
This document from the Defence Select Committee refers to leased Trident missiles.
Select Committee
"Select Committee on Defence [b]Written Evidence[/b]"
"Annex B"
If you go to the head of the pages you'll see that its actually an annex to the memorandum presented to the committee by Greenpeace, not a government or parliamentary committee statement - if you read the Greenpeace memorandum you'll see they refer to Annex B at point 12.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we01.htm
Attention to detail 8)
incidentally your point about the SNP govt being responsible for the Edinburgh trams mess is incorrect
Read what I actually wrote again - note the bit I've underlined, I didn't mention the SNP:
[i]And who oversaw this whole debacle? The [u]Scottish government[/u]
can't wait to see what comes to light in the future over the who was 'looking after their mates' regards the Tram scheme, or the Holyrood building...[/i]
Ok Ninfan I take your point about the select committee report, however you can't really claim that you weren't referring to the SNP govt in 2007 unless there's another Scottish govt I haven't been told about. The previous administrations were Liblab coalitions a bit like bettertogether but without tories, I don't believe you meant them and construction didn't start till 2007 .
ninfan - MemberSo you're saying that having a reliance for supply on, or external oversight on your use of something by another country means, you're not truly independent?
interesting
[img] http://www.blackfive.net/.a/6a00d8341bfadb53ef0120a69cdb0b970c-800wi [/img]
And guess what, we were able to vote them out.And who oversaw this whole debacle? The Scottish government
So you're saying that having a reliance for supply on, or external oversight on your use of something by another country means, you're not truly independent?interesting
Now, about the Bank of England and the Pound...
This is argument #37: "Independence isn't really independent"
Independence isn't a binary thing, it's a sliding scale, and all countries have treaties, obligations, agreements and cooperation with each other. That's perfectly normal. For Scotland, more control of our own affairs is better than less - sure, that won't mean complete control of absolutely everything, but the UK doesn't have that either.
more control of our own affairs is better than less - sure, that won't mean complete control of absolutely everything
ahem... "So it's mostly semantics - the core point remains, it's not an independent country" 😀
Only if you accept that the UK isn't an independent country either 😉
How could I deny it?
There's even a political party campaigning for it to [u]become[/u] one 😆
We spend a colossal amount of money on nuclear weapons so we can be on the Security Council.
Eh? Would the UK be removed from the Security Council if it didn't have nuclear weapons?
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.
Why should the rUK with no nukes stay a permanent member over Germany, Japan, India or Brazil, for example?
On a more general point, there's this obsession with the UK "punching above our weight". Maybe - and I say this as a proud Glaswegian - we should stop punching people so much? 😀
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.