[Closed] Why wont he debate the potential end of the Union?

Apart from the obviously falsifiable first sentance, good points. But why do they point to indepedence as opposed to devolution/status quo. It's blindingly obvious that the book of dreams is essentially arguing for devolution not independence which is why AS keeps getting tied up in knots of his own making. He can't fool the canny population because they can see it too.

We want economic independence except in the fields of monetary and fiscal policy...
We will have no nuclear weapons apart from the ones we all pretend are not there....
Etc..

Blair Jenkins yesterday

“That is because everybody agrees that after a Yes vote a currency union makes absolute sense both for Scotland and the rest of the UK.”

So what has the last 20 years or so taught us about the fundamental requirements of currency unions? What does this mean for independent monetary and fiscal policies?

That's the beauty of the yes campaign...,out of their own mouths they highlight why their whole notion is flawed. They continue to argue for devolved power within the UK. Funny that, so does better together?!?!

No need for CMD to play the trump yet, let Jenkins and co do the work for you.

THM, tbh your ability to state that black is white amazes even me sometimes. We can't achieve national nuclear disarmament without independence; so there is no possible link between devolution or the status quo, and the goal of full disarmament. (unless you believe that Westminster will agree to relocate Trident and to remove all of the tax burden from Scotland, while we remain in the Union?)

Yes other nations will be able to pass through our waters and ports by observing the niceties, but this is a trivial thing compared to the achievement of getting permanently based weapons of mass destruction out of our country, off our conscience and our wallets. The national disgrace of claiming savage austerity cuts are required while spending billions on nuclear white elephants is a Westminster folly we can't escape from with devolution let alone the status quo.

TBF I doubt that you can believe what you are saying.

And economic independence with some external influence on fiscal and monetary policy is not at all the same as "economic independence except in the fields of monetary and fiscal policy." It is a strange Salmond-esque habit you have, to take an element of truth and run with it til it is nonsense. Perhaps this is why you dislike the man so much?

I'm literally drinking tea and eating biscuits

I'm literally drinking Lemsip

I apologise to gordimhor for misinterpreting his post on the Tories. It was a bit early in the morning. Still confused regarding "the poorest 20% of the UK having less than 1% of the wealth, the union is not working time for something new".

As we disappear off with 'our' oil wealth I would like to offer the poorest people of Newcastle, Liverpool or London more than a wave goodbye, a few crocodile tears and a good luck message.

I agree with many here that the Tories are not the best people to help the UK's poorest, but if as some claim Scotland should keep its oil wealth rather than try to help others, I see it little better than running away. Again a case of "I am alright Jack".

On another note received a publication through the door from Yes!
Front page says 'win an ipad'. Had to take part in a simple survey. Yes, No or Maybe then submit details.
Which ever answer you gave meant receiving load of info from Yes Scotland. I reckon the only way to have a chance of winning is to say Yes. Did not take part in the end as I would have to answer honestly, and the official Yes Scotland people are the last people I want to give personal info to as a No voter. Good luck on the contest though.

Can't wait for the results to back up Yes campaign.

100% of ipad winners reckon independence would be braw!

Clearly my colour blindness makes it difficult NW but salmond doesn't exactly help.

Page x111 of the book of dreams: " we can remove trident from Scotland for good." Forget black or white, that is a bold and definitive statement ie black[b] and [/b]white.. And the reality? Scotland will follow the don't ask, don't tell strategy. Not quite so black and white is it? Trident may or may not be in our waters, we just know in future. How many shades of grey are there? Forget 50....

Same page: " a guarantee that taxes...will be set in line with the interests of the Scottish people." The reality, corporation tax will be capped by rUK corp tax, and fiscal policy will be co-ordinated (at the very least with) with rUK fiscal policy. Again not black and white is it.

Ditto interest rates with a currency union and BOE as lender of last resort.

Re the "[b]some [/b]economic influence", one would have to be totally blind, not colour blind, of what has been going on over the last decade not to realise that this is one of the great euphemisms of the whole debate.

I'm literally drinking Lemsip

😆

It's ok, I've got the hint.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.wimp

teamhurtmore - Member

Same page: " a guarantee that taxes...will be set in line with the interests of the Scottish people." The reality, corporation tax will be capped by rUK corp tax

So you keep saying. Proof?

I hate doing this, but:

"remove: verb: take (something) away or off from the position occupied."

That is exactly what the white paper proposes, no ifs no buts, no shades of grey. Trident will be removed from Scotland. I have the strangest feeling we've done this particular conversation before.

On the subject of shades of grey, do you or do you not believe that removing trident is a policy that could be pursued with devolution, as you claimed?

Well if you want it believe that trident will be removed from Scotland, then so be it. I fear you will be not only disappointed but ultimately duped.

Pretending that "don't ask, don't tell" is synonymous with "no Trident" is little more that simple deceit. But we have come to expect that now.

Tax proof? Page 120 of the book of dreams. A "competitive" tax policy to compete with rUK, especially London and a timetable to bring corp,tax up to 3 percentage points below rUK corp tax. Pretty black and white again. Unless companies are actually attracted by paying more tax!?!?!

On the subject of shades of grey, do you or do you not believe that removing trident is a policy that could be pursued with devolution, as you claimed?

Fair cop! And sloppy writing on my part. What I meant but didn't say was that much of the book of dreams sets out essentially what is happening with devolution already especially re Econ independence etc. I agree trident is different. In the case, it is merely deceit. I should have been clearer, I agree.

a guarantee that taxes...will be set in line with the interests of the Scottish people

And that would be UP, UP an awful LOT if all the promises on the wish list are to be fulfilled.

But he can't do that because taxes will be below the rUK as promised. La-la land economics.

How many cakes can you have and eat at the same time before you are sick of such tripe.

The white paper's use of "remove" fits the oxford english dictionary definition. It just doesn't fit your personal one. This is deceit? Come on. You're not arguing with scottish independence, you're arguing with the english language!

Trident will not- cannot, by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and by NATO treaty binding on the RUK (and on Scotland assuming we join) be based in Scotland.

Re corporation tax:

"Tax proof? Page 120 of the book of dreams. A "competitive" tax policy to compete with rUK, especially London and a timetable to bring corp,tax up to 3 percentage points below rUK corp tax. Pretty black and white again. "

I am confuse. Here is the actual quote: "[i]This Government[/i] plans to set out a timescale for reducing corporation tax by up to three percentage points below the prevailing UK rate."

This is merely an SNP government policy, so in no way a restriction on Scottish tax independence. Care to have another go?

Read the para above- it's an odd "competitive tax" policy that sets tax rates above the perceived competition.

BTW, old Bob Buchan must be a slight embarrassment!!! 😉

Anyway folk for dinner, the rest can wait.

Will Trident be in Scottish waters? Simple point.

teamhurtmore - Member

Will Trident be in Scottish waters? Simple point.

Possibly (operational decisions will be the business of the rUK)

More simple points for you- does the White Paper ever say otherwise? No. Does it ever imply otherwise? No. If we wanted to commit to nuclear weapon free waters, would we not say so? You'd think, since that's quite the big deal. Will Trident be removed, as stated? Yes. Does "remove" mean what the dictionary says? Yes.

Re tax... I am now confused. You started out saying that Scotland won't have fiscal and monetary independence. You then tried to use an SNP policy statement to prove this, for some reason. Now you've referred to another SNP policy statement, which still doesn't prove it.

I could be wrong, but you seem to be saying "Scotland will still be part of the world and therefore will have to take into account what competitors do". To which I remark, dur. That's no less the case than it is today.If this is your scary lack of independence, it is no more scary than it is today. Being threatened with the status quo is not new but it is weird.

Considering that the SNP policy which you quoted is to reduce corporation tax, I have no idea where you're going with the repeated comments on setting rates above the rUK.

I find the thread discussion between thm and Northwind interesting and informative. Northwind, we may vote differently this year. Hope you don't mind me saying, I find you to be one of the more salient posters for the Yes camp. I read thm posts with a feeling of "what he said" or thm+1. Both research well and debate better and with greater grace than myself and others. Keep it up you two.

*feels put out that my largely worthless usually childish input is not appreciated by athgray.

**although I do agree with him on 'some' parts of his post

Will Trident be removed, as stated? Yes. Does "remove" mean what the dictionary says? Yes.

[i]
The Scottish Government is committed to securing the complete withdrawal of Trident from an independent Scotland as quickly as can be both safely and responsibly achieved.[/i]

In other words, don't hold your breath!

Don't worry piemonster. I do feel like I let the debate down sometimes. I can't change though. I keep getting drawn to the topic. Have sometimes felt like a voice of 1, which I suppose causes me to get defensive then lash out.

FWIW, I thought this was probably the sensible and sensitive point raised in this thread

athgray
If the vote in Scotland is No I understand there will be a large portion of the populace not happy with this. We need to progress to ensure people do not feel further disenfranchised. I also hope that if the vote is Yes then the voice of those that to some degree feel a connection with the UK will not be lost amongst an air of triumphalism.

The Scottish Government is committed to securing the complete withdrawal of Trident from an independent Scotland as quickly as can be both safely and responsibly achieved.

I do believe our current deputy prime minister committed to not charging tuition fees, that one worked out well...

Trident is an topic I must say the SNP have left little ambiguity over. I don't think an independent Scotland will have Trident, however I don't think Trident is the issue to the majority of Scotland that the Yes camp would like to believe.

Polls show most Scots would like Trident removed. I would be interested to know how such questions are worded. Trident is a topic that allows nationalists to talk "holyer that thou" and promotes the rhetoric of subjugation and war mongering to be ramped up to 11. Not sure how that plays out with normal voters though.

Found one

The poll then asked the question commissioned by Scottish CND: "[b]The UK Government plans to replace the existing Trident nuclear weapons with a new system, at a cost of £65 billion. Do you support or oppose the UK Government buying a new nuclear weapon system to replace Trident?[/b]"

While the results did show a clear correlation between support for independence and opposition to Trident, this was not as marked as might have been expected. The overall figures showed 14% in favour of replacement, 60% opposed, with 25% undecided.

Stripping the latter out gave an overall figure of 19% for replacement and 80% against.

Among those planning to vote Yes, opposition to Trident ran at 87% to 13%, with an identical figure for those still undecided on independence. Among No voters opposition to Trident was also strong, at 75% to 25%.

Undoubtedly a bit of a leading question (but then it [i]was[/i] commissioned by CND). Nonetheless, I'd have thought that the result was pretty clear even after adjusting for that. Note that even the NO voters support removal.

Oh dear. It's not group hugs is it scotroutes? It's only half 8 and I haven't had a drink yet.
Fair enough, but do you reckon Trident features high on most Scots priorities? I am not sure.

* dinkles out *

Not sure how that plays out with normal voters though.

I would guess most couldn't give a toss.

What are "normal" voters?

Ones that vote No obviously. 🙂

Gotcha!

Just watched the last hour or so of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee on the Referendum on separation for Scotland.What I saw was mainly concerned with getting legal clarification on various points such as the routes by which Scotland could join the EU, schengen v common travel areas, border security and what legislation (rUK) would be required after a yes vote.Unfortunately its not currently on the iplayer and does feature a lot of Ian Davidson.
I know saturday nights chez gordimhor are one big adrenaline rush.
Happy to be voting abnormal

I like these threads, especially with THM, he makes me think. <self indulgent> I'm a reluctant Yes voter, my heart says it's better to make Britain better and to work to stop the slide, but my head says that we can't wag the dog. If independence is the answer then I don't like the question. But this sort of thread makes me think about it.

FWIW my expectation is that either way, the whole insane western feudal-capitalism racket falls within a few generations anyway so it'll all be much of a muchness 😉 But that's no excuse not to try and make things better.

And you know what? If nothing else, the Yes campaign wants to make things better. Westminster and the No campaign wants us to believe that the best we can possibly hope for is the status quo. Not even that! I'm fed up of TINA, she's a horrible bitch and it's all bollocks anyway, inside we all know that, we're selling our kids to service numbers on a computer which have somehow become more important than the real world.

the whole insane western feudal-capitalism racket falls within a few generations anyway

I'd bet good money that folk have been saying this since the days of John Company. I might even make a quid.

FWIW my expectation is that either way, the whole insane western feudal-capitalism racket falls within a few generations anyway so it'll all be much of a muchness

Haven't we been hearing that since, oh, about 1917?

(edit: similar thought, different date - pipped at the post by the pie monster!)

And that's not long ago at all. But what we have today isn't the same as the 1800s. Or rather, it is the earlier generation of the evolved beast.

Wasn't it the earlier generation of the evolved beast that led to the Union in the first place 😉

The earlier beast was no less bonkers though.

It's the rate of consumption of the current version that excels for bonkerness. Soil degradation alone might be enough in time.

Anyway.......as you was.

The reality, corporation tax will be capped by rUK corp tax, and fiscal policy will be co-ordinated (at the very least with) with rUK fiscal policy.

Morning!!

More simple points for you- does the White Paper ever say otherwise? No. Does it ever imply otherwise? No.

Yes it's actually black and white although inconveniently one does have to read the whole report not just the intro. Deceitfully, the introduction talks about removing Trident (assuming that is all most people will bother to read.) Equally inconveniently for the yes camp however, a small minority might actually read the report where it says

‘While they are both strong advocates for nuclear disarmament, both Norway and Denmark allow NATO vessels to visit their ports without confirming or denying whether they carry nuclear weapons. “We intend that Scotland will adopt a similar approach as Denmark and Norway in this respect.

Ie, don't ask, don't tell. And will there be trident in the waters near Fastlane etc. Of course, but Salmomd in on-going la- la fashion will deceive people into believning otherwise. Those who are too lazy to read or ask questions will be duped.

So does the book of dreams say otherwise - intro no, main body yes. Does it imply otherwise - no, it's black and white. No need to imply anything.

You'd think, since that's quite the big deal. Will Trident be removed, as stated?

You would think that, true. But trident will not be removed! merely hidden. So " remove" and "deceit" used as in the OED definitions.

Competitive tax means keeping tax below the rate "set" by the rUK ie, Scotland will be a price taker with corp tax capped by rUK (to start with 3% points below). God forbid, the spending plans might actually have to be paid for? More la-la land rhetoric divorced from reality.

I enjoy the debate too (thanks for it), love Scotland, would vote for devo-max as hate over-centralised government, despise Salmond with a passion. Equally simple.

Competitive tax means keeping tax below the rate "set" by the rUK ie, Scotland will be a price taker with corp tax capped by rUK (to start with 3% points below). God forbid, the spending plans might actually have to be paid for? More la-la land rhetoric divorced from reality.

This is where I got a bit annoyed with AS with the White Paper. Mixing party policy with everything else related to the referendum. A yes vote won't tie us to anything that's been said, future governments in Scotland can do what ever they want with any of our taxes, up or down. Seems silly to suggest that our corporation tax will for ever be pegged to rUK.

Ie, don't ask, don't tell.

Pegged "below" rather than just "to" - so not independent on two counts ie, determined "by" others and "below" others.

Perhaps ASK should be honest and simply say - we want to be defence free riders. We won't pay for it, we won't have our own, but we will use others peoples in return for turning a blind eye to the fact that they are hidden in our waters and using our ports.

Operating costs of trident are circa 2.4 billion per year. Replacement cost will be between 15-20 billion (fullfact.org). Even divided on a per capita basis thats a lot of essential local and national services.
Then again maybe its worth paying out just to have our very own wmd.

teamhurtmore - Member

Yes it's actually black and white although inconveniently one does have to read the whole report not just the intro.

I've checked the whole report and, well, there's a reason you haven't provided a quote to back up your claim, isn't there? It's simply not true. The claim is the same throughout, it will be removed. At no point does it ever say that Scottish ports or waters will be closed to all foreign nuclear weapons.

Here, have a challenge. Provide evidence for your claim or withdraw it. I mean other than word games where you pretend "remove" doesn't mean what it means.

teamhurtmore - Member

Perhaps ASK should be honest and simply say - we want to be defence free riders. We won't pay for it, we won't have our own, but we will use others peoples in return for turning a blind eye to the fact that they are hidden in our waters and using our ports.

Not worthy of you tbh.

thats a lot of essential local and national services

Not really, as the commitment to NATO membership would mean that Scotland would have to continue spending at least 2% of GDP on defence.

Most of that money would have to flow abroad too - as there would not be a big enough industry for an organic defence sector to develop - SNP have very much played the shipbuilding line, but only a small proportion of modern warship spending is in the build, the expensive stuff is the systems and technology on board, which would have to be bought in - and the white paper has committed them to a replacement maritime patrol aircraft to replace Nimrod, clearly that will have to be off the shelf as well since there's never going to be space for a Scottish military aircraft industry

ninfan - Member

Not really, as the commitment to NATO membership would mean that Scotland would have to continue spending at least 2% of GDP on defence

Does it? That is 20% less than we spend currently incidentally, but I just had a quick gander and most NATO countries don't do this. Iceland spends 0.1% of GDP!

Of the 28 member states, how many spend more than 2%? I make it 5, could be out by one or two but not 23. And looking at the shortfalls, many of those members clearly haven't spent that much at any time since joining.