Osbourne says no to currency union.

You don’t understand that bases can quickly become targets, not deterrents. Still, if you find yourself faced with relocating these weapons to say, Portsmouth, you might find out.

Portsmouth is a navy town, they’d love more government jobs!

Erm, no Ben….you really don’t get it.

trident isn’t designed to kill millions of innocent people then? So when the subs go to sea, what are they targeting?

Ah the 1707 act of union. Here is the National Library of Scotlands documentation on the Act of Union.
Multiple protests

Ah the 1707 act of union. Here is the National Library of Scotlands documentation on the Act of Union.
Multiple protests

Hmm, you appear to have demonstrated that even when you have your own independent parliament, you don’t always get what you want… you may even have proved that your own home grown politicians turn out to be just as corrupt as the Westminster ones 😳

Erm, no Ben….you really don’t get it.

Okay, explain it to me – are you saying that nuclear weapons don’t kill people?

nuclear weapons have killed a lot less people in the past sixty years than conventional weapons

are they immoral too?

Edit With Westminster still controlling the vast majority of taxation in Scotland and still controlling economic policy Scotland is still governed by Westminster

So how does ‘independence’ but being in a currency union with a much bigger economy help with that? 😕

They can but the votes in England decide what govt they got and [ almost always] what govt everyone gets hence the debate

No, the votes in the UK as a whole decide what government they get – because we are one country. I won’t ever get the government I want either.

Why do they need devolved power if they are so brilliantly represented in the UK?
They get “more” power as they have so little.

They used to have so little until they got their own Parliament – now they get their own government AND they get to vote for the UK’s government.

So Cameron explaining that there’s no going back after a Yes vote. Why not? If we’re all better together now, why wouldn’t they want us back in 2 or 5 or 10 years time?

You don’t understand that bases can quickly become targets, not deterrents.

Once it all kicked off the base is not really the target the subs are.

Of course Faslane and Coulport would be a target.

However, in the event of independance, even with no nuclear bases, as a member of Nato, Glasgow would be target anyway, as well as Edinburgh, the whole of the Central Belt and Aberdeen.

Wouldn’t make much difference.

Hmm, you appear to have pointed out that even when you have your own independent parliament, you don’t always get what you want…

This does not come as news to me.
Of course if it had been a democratically elected parliament in touch with its electorate who knows what might have happened 🙂

no, it didn’t. that global empire wasn’t maintained by force of personality (and, in any case, the level of British armament was of no real significance to the rise of fascism and Stalinism, and the beginning of WW2

Utter bollocks.

“Ten year rule” abandoned in q1 1932.

Defence expenditure:

1930: 118m
1931: 117m
1932: 113m
1933: 111m
1934: 116m
1935: 122m
1936: 146m
1937: 195m
1938: 206m
1939: 266m

Defence expenditure went down 7m between 1930 and 1933 (about 5%?), and then went up 88m (70%?) above the 1930 start point during peace time (that’s excluding 1939 obviously). Hardly the UK having disarmed in the 1930s – in fact quite the opposite.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_1939UKmn_14mc1n_30#ukgs302

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. If the other side have them to not be equivalently armed would be very dangerous. It’s very naive to suggest we don’t have nuclear weapons as we don’t wish to kill civilians but out potential enemies have them to kill us.

We have plenty of nuclear power stations in the UK, the dangers of those are more significant as unlike a submarine they can’t move off out to sea. The UK is more at the risk of a nuclear accident than is Scotland. If there is any hint of a conflict these submarines will be at sea, they are in Scotland at that’s the easiest deep water access to the seas of the North.

I’m not sure the people of Scotland are that interested in the finer points of nuclear warfare strategy for them to change their vote one way or the other. I think they’re more bothered about jobs, a free health service, a functioning welfare state and a broad based economy which benefits the majority rather than a tiny few in one particular region.

because we are one country.

except we’re not. We’re another country, united by the Act of Union.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. If the other side have them to not be equivalently armed would be very dangerous. It’s very naive to suggest we don’t have nuclear weapons as we don’t wish to kill civilians but out potential enemies have them to kill us.

yep, look at all the times Norway’s been invaded.
Still, if you want them, you can have them. That Portsmounth is a nice big naval base, should do fine.

Morally that is indefensible – you can try to dress it up however you like, but they are weapons of mass destruction designed to kill men, women and children. There is no possible moral justification for possessing them

Dan Carlin posed an interesting question at the start of one of his podcasts on war and he was discussing atomic weapons. Essentially the question was this: If you had the choice between a long and protracted war with 60 million casualties, or ending it instantly at the outset with a nuclear bomb, killing 3 million people, what would you do?

Probably less of a debate now with mutually assured destruction, but it still makes for a moral quandry.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. If the other side have them to not be equivalently armed would be very dangerous

What “other side”? Who is Scotland at war with? And why would Scotland be at war with anyone anyway? This is just more jingoistic “Britannia Rules the Waves” rubbish, which belongs in the 19th Century.

If you had the choice between a long and protracted war with 60 million casualties, or ending it instantly at the outset with a nuclear bomb, killing 3 million people, what would you do?

Well, yes. When there was only one nuclear weapon in the world, that was a sensible discussion to be having. Now there are thousands of them, so any war that goes nuclear will kill more people than every war before it put together.

yep, look at all the times Norway’s been invaded

More recently than us.

Does anyone have a tally for who has been invaded more?

Times Norway has been invaded since nuclear weapons were invented: 0

There you go 😉

(Okay, technically they were under Nazi control already when the bomb was invented)

they are in Scotland at that’s the easiest deep water access to the seas of the North.

Its the only deep water spot in the UK that a sub can come and go to/from their base without being spotted. Therefore our enemies would never know how many subs we have at sea at any time. Its not there by accident and there’s nowhere in England that is close to replicating the Faslane situation.

Rockape63 – Member

Anyway Ben, I keep hearing this term ‘fairer society’. Can you explain what that means, as I’m just not getting it?

Let me help

Fair, adjective
a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.
b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.
7. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds.
8. Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.

Fairer = more fair.

Now there are thousands of them, so any war that goes nuclear will kill more people than every war before it put together.

I think you’ve finally got it Ben!

Fairer = more fair.

Very good, but I didn’t ask what ‘fair, meant, I asked what a Fairer society meant?

What “other side”? Who is Scotland at war with?

No one at the moment.

However, an iScotland will be in NATO, so if the rUK are attacked you be obliged to declare war and assist us.

I am assuming that iScotland intends to join NATO?

1930: 118m
1931: 117m
1932: 113m
1933: 111m
1934: 116m
1935: 122m
1936: 146m
1937: 195m
1938: 206m
1939: 266m

Defence expenditure went down 7m between 1930 and 1933 (about 5%?), and then went up 88m (70%?) above the 1930 start point during peace time (that’s excluding 1939 obviously). Hardly the UK having disarmed in the 1930s – in fact quite the opposite.

Some figures in isolation? Pretty meaningless.

They do show a very low amount in 1933, which doesn’t change a lot until 1937.

It needs to be considered when compared to what Germany was spending at the time and on what.

The vast majority of that UK spend would be for running and maintaining the RN to support the Empire. Not responding to the threat from Europe.

If the UK had been spending a similar amount in 1933 to what they did in 1937, their Armed Forces would of been in a proper condition to respond to Sudeten Crisis in 1938.

No, the votes in the UK as a whole decide what government they get – because we are one country. I won’t ever get the government I want either.

That is sophist at best.
The numbers dont lie ; Scotland has the govt that England voted for.
You can spin it how you like but it wont make my point untrue.

Fact remains England picks Scotlands govt almost every time, and will do in the Union, hence the calls for independence get louder as Tory MP’s get fewer.

And why would Scotland be at war with anyone anyway?

Maybe over economic interests at sea? Y’know, seeing as iScotland’s gonna need all of that oil and gas…

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars

And why would Scotland be at war with anyone anyway?

Same reason the UK does. Or are you not going to give a shit about humanitarian disasters, genocide and so on?

Let me help

By quoting dictionary definitions we all know? Surely you mean ‘let me be an arse cos I can’t actually help?’

Therefore our enemies would never know how many subs we have at sea at any time.

Anyone who drives past Loch Long with a pair of binoculars can tell you exactly how many subs are at sea – they don’t dive when they’re at Faslane you know!

I think you’ve finally got it Ben!

I’m still trying to get it. So nuclear weapons are designed to kill millions of civilians, correct? So how am I wrong to say it’s morally unjustifiable to possess them?

I’m struggling to think of any moral justification for killing, or even threatening to kill civilians.

Same reason the UK does. Or are you not going to give a shit about humanitarian disasters, genocide and so on?

Care a lot about those. The wars we’ve been involved in recently have little to do with humanitarian disasters or genocide. We cause the disasters, we don’t fix the disasters.

The vast majority of that UK spend would be for running and maintaining the RN to support the Empire. Not responding to the threat from Europe.

So you’re retreating from the statement that

The UK disarmed in the 1930’s

And now you’re just saying the UK didn’t spend enough on armaments such that Hitler wouldn’t have annexed the Sudetenland? under what circumstances would the UK have landed an expeditionary force on landlocked Central European territory to free a few Bohemians on 1938?

gobuchul do you lie awake at night worrying about nuclear war? I did when I was young, and aliens invading, earthquakes, volcanos etc. Thankfully I grew out of it and am now more bothered about things that actually happen and which are preventable/avoidable. I suspect the majority of people in Scotland are the same.

All Westminster politicians are the same, because the Westminster system produces that. A more proportional, fairer electoral system would produce politicians who are very different – as they are in Scotland.

remind me, which members of the Yes campaign are Westminister politians/ former Westminister politicians?

anyway assuming AS gets his way and iS is in the EU meet the people making the real decisions

and is it me or does a lot of the Yes campiagn sound like ABE (anyone but England)

The wars we’ve been involved in recently have little to do with humanitarian disasters or genocide

But as the yessers keep saying, we need to take the long view. The last couple have been highly questionable, but not all of them.

So nuclear weapons are designed to kill millions of civilians, correct? So how am I wrong to say it’s morally unjustifiable to possess them?

Look, I’m a pacifist, but it’s very obvious. They are a deterrent – on both sides. Just like conventional arms.

So how am I wrong to say it’s morally unjustifiable to possess them?

Morals don’t come into play when you have people trying to kill each other. It’s no good being morally justified if you are dead. Having a deterrent keeps you alive.

The numbers dont lie ; Scotland has the govt that England voted for.
You can spin it how you like but it wont make my point untrue.

Fact remains England picks Scotlands govt almost every time,

Of the last 20 general elections, the majority in Scotland voted for the same party that won in Westminster 13 times. So 65% of the time Scotland got the government it voted for.

They are a deterrent – on both sides.

What exactly do they deter?

Anyone who drives past Loch Long with a pair of binoculars can tell you exactly how many subs are at sea – they don’t dive when they’re at Faslane you know!

You think our nuclear subs need to surface to re arm/resupply at Faslane?

They may as well move to Portsmouth then! 🙂

and is it me or does a lot of the Yes campiagn sound like ABE (anyone but England)

Sadly it does. A lot of people voting yes because they think they hate the English. Two friends were having a debate on Facebook last night. The yes supporter is on the verge of a breakdown in my opinion. The no supporter was calm and rational. The yes guy told his no friend

“You’re a disgrace to Scotland mate. Don’t dare darken my door again”

But as the yessers keep saying, we need to take the long view. The last couple have been highly questionable, but not all of them.

Long view we’ll be a part of NATO, but as an independent country able to decide for ourselves whether we want to get involved in things. Long view also, we (as in the UK) aren’t going to be able to do anything militarily about Russia or China anyway.

They are a deterrent – on both sides. Just like conventional arms.

Say my neighbour is a psycho (he’s not, he’s a retired politics lecturer, but just say). He threatens to punch me. A gun is like me saying I’ll punch him back. A nuclear weapon is like me saying I’ll kill his wife and kids.

Conventional arms are designed to fight armies. They’re pretty rubbish at other stuff – they’re even rubbish at fighting terrorists. Nuclear weapons are even worse, they’re no good for fighting terrorists, they’re no good for fighting armies, their only purpose is to threaten to kill millions of women and children.

So, for that reason, they’re morally very different and totally wrong.

You think our nuclear subs need to surface to re arm/resupply at Faslane?

Yes, where do you think they do it?

Morals don’t come into play when you have people trying to kill each other. It’s no good being morally justified if you are dead. Having a deterrent keeps you alive.

But you wouldn’t be alive. Nuclear weapons just mean if you’re dead so is everyone else.