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 feckless 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.
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.
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 BS 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 – Member

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.

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

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.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo051031/text/51031w15.htm#51031w15.html_wqn6

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.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo051027/text/51027w14.htm#51027w14.html_wqn15

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.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27378/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf

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.