Osbourne says no to currency union.

Well what is a Scottish anti-gay bigot supposed to do ? All the major political parties supported same sex marriage, and in the case of Scotland a year after England and Wales.

ninfan – Member

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

Quite right, mistake on my part- armed forces capability, rather than size, is what I should have said, size as you say is pretty meaningless.

For the rest; yes, our higher technology armed forces have paid peacetime dividends, but that owes little to nuclear weapons, it’s conventional weaponry and systems we’re exporting.

And besides, put that into perspective- the uk defence industry is valued at £35bn, defence spending is £58bn. And Germany and France have significantly higher defence exports than us. There doesn’t seem to be a great correlation between defence spending and defence exports in general. You mention exporting strong crypto to Israel- that doesn’t have much to do with how many submarines we have.

And of course, whatever else we might spend the money on could/would also create jobs, defence is no special case. There’s a question here which I can’t answer which is basically about stimulus value- does a £ spent on defence produce more economic benefits than a £ spent on building a new hospital, or a new road… Or, keep it in the family- how about a £ spent on conventional arms not nuclear. What are the opportunity costs?

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.

I’m not a loyal anything, I’m certainly not getting the Yes campaign memos 😉

So why, exactly, are we spending £100bn on Trident? It’s never going to be used. Why does anyone spend money on things that aren’t used? For prestige. The UK likes being a nuclear power – I’m not sure what the rationales are, probably a combination of Cold War hangovers, pressure from the USA, retention of fancy manufacturing jobs in submarines, things like that.

Of course the rUK will be more important on the world stage than an independent Scotland. With 10x the population, how could it be different? That’s fine – we don’t want to be a big player.

With regards to the corporation tax – yes, that’s one reason I doubt I’d vote for the SNP in an independent Scotland. Once we have independence, we can vote for whoever we like – I’m probably more of a Green or SSP person really.

So why, exactly, are we spending £100bn on Trident? It’s never going to be used. Why does anyone spend money on things that aren’t used?

The basic “utility” of a (nuclear) deterrent stems precisely from it never being used. That’s the whole point.

OK but in this case, we’re never going to get any use out of not using it. Trident was introduced after the end of the cold war- it’s spent it’s entire life being a white elephant.

Even when the cold war was still on, the effective deterrant came from the USA- but at least then there was someone to point the missiles at. As long as you were pro insane nuclear armageddon anyway.

The basic “utility” of a (nuclear) deterrent stems precisely from it never being used. That’s the whole point.

That worked* when it was us against the USSR – one enemy, you can assume that the other guy isn’t stupid or crazy enough to destroy the world.

The Cold War is over. Islamists are exactly that crazy, the threat of nuclear retaliation won’t stop them – and who would we retaliate against anyway? Other conflicts will never reach the stage where destroying the country is a realistic option. If, say, we decide to go to war with Russia, at what point do we launch the nukes? When Russia invades the Ukraine? When Russia buzzes our airspace? What can Russia do that makes destroying the UK a good option?

For a deterrent to work, the other side has to think you will use it. A deterrent that’s so massively overkill that it’d never be used is no deterrent at all.

*for a given value of “worked” – we came very, very close to nuclear war several times.

Possibly, but fortunately that cannot be proved.

Actually ben, you are describing the Russian view on deterrent (massive superiority) rather than the western (equivalence)

(BTW, I am not a fan of nuclear weapons)

I should clarify – I meant destroying our country. Because that’s what would happen if we tried using nukes against Russia.

Really the only countries we could use nukes against and survive* are countries who don’t have nukes. And for them nukes are a massive overreaction.

*assuming none of the countries who do have nukes have an itchy trigger finger.

Once you are at the point of actual use, then you are ****ed anyway. See my first point.

The only way nukes work as a deterrent in the modern world is if you assume your opponents are stupid or easily scared. That’s not likely.

If nukes were so important, why don’t most countries have them? They’re not especially hard for an advanced country to build.

Indeed – if they are so good at keeping the peace, why aren’t they mandatory?

The irony of a social-democratic Germany not being trusted with nukes because of a war that ended 70 years ago, whereas a UKIP-leaning UK is trusted with them.

Is that a joke? (Edit for x post – referring to Scots post)

If you have nukes someone else cannot nuke you. If you don’t have nukes someone can nuke you. Is that not simple to understand? We lived under threat of nuclear war with the USSR for a long time. There are an increasing number of countries that have nukes or are trying to get them. Until we can all agree to get rid of nukes together it is simply not safe to do so. I personally would not want to be relying on the US or France to provide our nuclear deterrent.

A UKIP leaning UK? Next you will be saying there is an independence leaning Scotland. 😉

Of course the rUK will be more important on the world stage than an independent Scotland. With 10x the population, how could it be different? That’s fine – we don’t want to be a big player.

It’s not really that simple. Thailand has a larger population than you UK but can’t be described as even equaling the UK on the world stage. The UK is an incredibly wealthy country, its importance on the world stage is derived from that.

fasternotfatter – Member

If you have nukes someone else cannot nuke you. If you don’t have nukes someone can nuke you. Is that not simple to understand?

It’s easy to understand, it’s just wrong.

The UK likes being a nuclear power – I’m not sure what the rationales are

Someone on the previous page was suggesting that it was so the UK can be on the Security Council.

It’s not really that simple

I assumed I wouldn’t have to add the caveats that we’d be starting with a Scotland and the rUK being similar in terms of economy, GDP per head, etc. yes, if the rUK’s economy crashes to the size of Thailand’s, then of course it’s not going to be that simple.

Someone on the previous page was suggesting that it was so the UK can be on the Security Council.

What kind of delusional lunatic would come out with that rubbish?

GDP per head

It’s not really that simple. China has a far lower GDP per capita than the UK but at least equals the UK on the world stage.

It’s down to size of the economy.

What you should have said is “Of course the rUK will be more important on the world stage than an independent Scotland. With Scotland’s insignificant economy how could it be different? That’s fine – we don’t want to be a big player. “

Yup, that sounds reasonable. Still a good economy per capita, that’s all that matters.

Still a good economy per capita, that’s all that matters.

And how would you guarantee that ? You have already dismissed a central pillar of the SNP’s economic strategy :

With regards to the corporation tax – yes, that’s one reason I doubt I’d vote for the SNP in an independent Scotland.

So what is your alternative economic strategy ?

Making stuff, exporting stuff – the old-fashioned things that people used to do to make money before they tried making money from money.

We’ve got the oil. We’ve got the whisky and haggis. We’ve got the renewables. We’ve got high-tech manufacturing, software development, R&D and cutting-edge esoteric bicycle manufacturing. We’ll be alright.

I don’t doubt that you have haggis but what do you mean you’ve got renewables ? For the whole of the UK renewables account for less than 5% of total energy use, which is less than half the EU average. And your North Sea oil rivals, Norway, over 40% of their energy comes from renewables.

I would concentrate on the haggis.

EDIT : My apologies, I’ve just checked and you are apparently on par with Norway. So it’s haggis and renewables then 🙂

Is anybody on here going to put their hand up and admit to being one? Personally this is one point where I agree with ben et al – we would be better off not wasting all that money on the Trident replacement.

Exactly what was the point of the argument about nukes? Yes it is one advantage of independence, no we don’t need them to keep our place on the head table of the UNSC. Are we finished?

I’d say not given what’s gone before.

Your off subject anyway. Freedom for The County of York! We’ll be happy to take the UKs place on the security council. There’s no place on it these days for them that can’t get stuck in to a bit of bother.

Question about this renewables business. How are we going to export this to anyone but the rUK.

And if we can export this to anyone but the rUK, what’s to stop the rUK buying energy from say France? I’m aware of two inter connectors to the continent, neither particularly big in the grand scheme of things. 1GW and 2GW is it?

So why, exactly, are we spending £100bn on Trident?

it’s the going rate for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Question about this renewables business. How are we going to export this to anyone but the rUK.

At the moment there are no big interconnectors. However that’s just because it’s not been a priority to build any – it’ll take investment, but with so many fossil fuel plants closing so it’d be a good investment.

Well that’s the obvious part answered. What about the rest of the question.

Okay, other part – of course the rUK can buy electricity from anyone it likes. But with fossil fuel plants closing and not many new nuclear plants coming along, will there be a lot of spare electricity in Europe to buy?

So it’s just the rUK as an export market which I did actually mention.

There’s been talk of more than this.

Does anyone have a decent analysis of planned future energy production across Western Europe and anything on international integration of electrical networks?

The UK has a legally binding EU obligation to have 15% of its energy requirements come from renewables by 2020. Last year, including Scottish renewables, the UK’s renewables totaled less than 5%.

So obviously if Scotland becomes independence from the rest of the UK any further investment in renewables will have to redirected from Scotland to the rest of the UK, and away from non-renewable, so that these legally binding targets can be met. I doubt that will do much good for the Scottish renewable industry.

BTW you do realise that saying we have oil, haggis, renewables, etc, doesn’t amount to having an economic strategy, don’t you ? I did ask what would be your preferred economic strategy since you reject a central pillar of the SNP’s economic strategy ?

The reality is that should Scotland become independence from the rest of the UK one of the likely consequences of that is that there will be a corporation tax war competition between the two, especially if there is a Tory government in Westminster.

This will undeniably lead to cuts in government expenditure and of course social provisions, public sector employment, etc. And all the promises of increased social provisions being made by the SNP will become a distant memory.

The SNP is embroiled in a racism row after one of its student leaders publicly called David Cameron an “English t***”.

Roisin McLaren, president of Edinburgh University’s SNP branch, said that she had ignored the Prime Minister’s pleas to save the Union because it was “an English t*** telling us all what to do.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10823301/SNP-student-leader-in-racism-row-for-calling-David-Cameron-an-English-t.html

It’s strange, I didn’t see this Wings ❓

Miss McLaren, who has campaigned alongside Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond, yesterday said that her comments were “open to misinterpretation” and apologised for any offence caused.

😆

Arguing that Mr Cameron is a “toff Tory politician, who nobody here likes or voted for”, the 19-year-old dismissed his plea by concluding: “F*** off! If he If he’s had any sense, he would have kept his gob shut.”

Aside from the 17% who did in the 2010 general election.

Yeh, but he is a ****. That bit is fine.

Well if it’s alright for Clarkson to call people scottish idiots (he only ever apologised for “one eyed”)…

Any invocation of Clarkson is whataboutery.

BTW you do realise that saying we have oil, haggis, renewables, etc, doesn’t amount to having an economic strategy, don’t you ? I did ask what would be your preferred economic strategy since you reject a central pillar of the SNP’s economic strategy ?

Luckily I’m not a politician, so I don’t need to come up with my own economic strategies. Voting for independence isn’t voting for the SNP, so as long as other Scottish parties have their own economic strategies that’s fine with me. I’d probably agree with most of what the Greens or SSP suggest.

The reality is that should Scotland become independence from the rest of the UK one of the likely consequences of that is that there will be a corporation tax war competition between the two, especially if there is a Tory government in Westminster.

That’s what was said before devolution. Didn’t happen. Because the tax rate is only a part of what makes a company invest* in a country – there’s a bunch of other factors. In fact there was a study which showed that the tax rate of one country had minimal effect on the tax rate of neighbouring countries.

*I hate that terminology. It’s really the country investing in the company, with grants and the like.

aracer – Member

Any invocation of Clarkson is whataboutery.

Or jokery