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?

interesting

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.
Select Committee
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 Written Evidence“
“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:

And who oversaw this whole debacle? The Scottish government
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…

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 – Member

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

And who oversaw this whole debacle? The Scottish government

And guess what, we were able to vote them out.

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 become 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:

The quote from the man concerned was “This is Glasgow – try that kind of **** here and we’ll set aboot ye!”

😀

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/the-secret-oil-report-we-find-the-crucial-report-advising-westminster-not-t.24189400

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/alex-salmond-anger-at-north-sea-oil-fund-secret-1-3406784

@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.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/latest-poll-yes-34-no-54-undecided-12.1399808292

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/05/progressive-big-swing-to-yes-but-yes-still-far-behind/

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 is 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 – Member

it 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 – lazarus

it 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 : “so the rUK can pretend it’s still a big player on the world stage”and “We aren’t a big player at the moment, really”

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 – Member

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”.

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.