Why wont he debate the potential end of the Union?

* 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.

That’s not true, and the quote that you provide doesn’t substantiate your claim.

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.

I would of thought most people who don’t want trident haven’t really thought about it, but will be quite happy with it not being stationed in Faselane or being paid for with our tax money.

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.

Exactly, my friend, not “close” merely “spot on.”

Let’s see what our good friends in Denmark think – the guys AS is copying.

Ole Kværnø is director of strategy at the Royal Danish Defence College. He told BBC Scotland: “Our vision is by no means to defend ourselves. We, as a state, are no longer able to defend ourselves in military terms.”He says there is no direct threat to Denmark and they can also rely on their partners in Nato.Mr Kværnø went on: “So our investment is not in our direct and own defence but rather in keeping our preferred partners happy so that they will come to our rescue at the end of the day”.

Pragmatism or free-riding, or both?

But what of another area of contention – nuclear weapons? Ole Kværnø says it is “the elephant in the room, we just don’t discuss it at the moment.” The Danish government oppose nuclear weapons but do not question whether their Nato allies sail nuclear armed submarines in their waters.Mr Kværnø says that ignoring the issue is a matter of military practicality.

At least he is honest about it!

The first paragraph is talking about general defence, not nuclear, and the second is the exact stated position of the Scottish Government. So, er, what on earth is your point?

The reality is, very few nations can defend themselves from foreign aggression from a superpower, ’twas ever thus, that’s why you have things like NATO, and the UN, and diplomacy. It’s impossible for a small country to be impervious to attack, and insane to try. That’s not a criticism of the Danes- they correctly identify that they are currently at no risk, and any risk they do face in future will be too big to face alone.

Let’s break out of the selective quoting shall we? He goes on to say:

“Danes have fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Søren Espersen is foreign affairs spokesman for the Danish People’s Party.

His party helped support the last Danish government which sent forces into both conflicts.

He told the BBC: “I think we feel that we have to do our bit.

“I can’t really see why it should always be British and American soldiers that should die whereas other nations would sit on their hands like indeed many of the European countries do. Members of the EU who don’t lift a finger – I think that is a disgrace.”

Freeloading?

The proof? Nuclear weapons will continue to exist in Scottish waters, therefore they have not been removed. QED.

They are simply hidden from view plus you will have no say on their activities. You cannot dress that up any other way. It’s a lie to say that Scotland will be free from nuclear weapons. It might make you warm and fuzzy to pretend that they are not there but that is not the same thing. The Danes, who your policy is based on, allow the US to use Greenland and have access to their waters – just keep quiet about it. In return, they keep their partners happy and their people safe (so far).

One mans selective quoting is another mans quoting what is relevant 😉

(And to be strict here 😉 you alleged quote with the ” is not a quote, it’s a BBC statement (is that why there was no second ” to mark the point?!?) and the rest was from the other source you noted :wink:)

Boring!!!

Is it just me that is sick of the independence experts constantly blathering on about the various what if scenarios? Scotland just isn’t important to people in England we have better things to think about and the no vote is going to win anyway. Save yourselves some time and effort don’t think about it again until 18/11/2014.

Yes, we know it doesn’t meet your imaginary personal definition of “remove”, invented purely for the purposes of complaining about Alex Salmond. I think we can live with that tbh.

Oh why not, here we go again:

verb
verb: remove; 3rd person present: removes; past tense: removed; past participle: removed; gerund or present participle: removing

1.
take (something) away or off from the position occupied.
“Customs officials removed documents from the premises”
synonyms: detach, unfasten, separate; More
pull out, take out, disconnect
“switch off the power and remove the plug”
take off, undo, unfasten
“he took the box and removed the lid”
take out, produce, bring out, get out, draw out, withdraw, extract, pull out, fish out
“he pulled out his wallet and removed a twenty dollar bill”
take away, carry away, move, shift, convey, transport;
confiscate, take possession of;
informalcart off
“police searched his flat, removing fifteen bags of clothing”
clean off, wash off, wipe off, rinse off, scrub off, sponge out
“in the bathroom, Sheila soon removed the mud”
delete, erase, rub out, cross out, strike out, ink out, score out, block out, blue-pencil, cut out, eliminate, efface, obliterate
“Gabriel carefully removed the last two words”
uproot, take out, pull out, eradicate, destroy
“weeds have to be removed and a good general weedkiller applied”
cut off, chop off, lop off, hack off, amputate, excise
“sometimes it may be necessary to remove branches of the tree”
antonyms: attach, put on, insert, replace, put back, add
take off (clothing).
“he sat down and quickly removed his shoes and socks”
synonyms: take off, pull off, peel off, shrug off, discard, divest oneself of

Now, back on track, what I asked you to do was support this claim:

teamhurtmore – Member

“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.)”

Which I think you have to concede- since you’ve failed to provide the evidence to support it- was not true. You’re very quick to quote (and misquote) when you think it helps you so I think we can feel free to draw conclusions from the absence.

Actually, that is incorrect. The decision and the way it is argued has direct implications on the rUK. Hence the need for the BOE to proactively calm market concerns last week.

You are starting to do a galloway/Farrage here?

Will nuclear weapons be taken away or off Scottish territory? Two straight answers (1) no, (2) we don’t know, since we have given up the right or “need” to know.

There is only one answer that doesn’t fit in Scotland or in Denmark’s case ie, Yes. Ergo, AS is clear in the main body of the book of dreams but deceitful in the intro.

Beyond that, let’s agree to disagree for other’s sake!!!

What happens on the 18th of November? 🙂

The simple straight answer- yes, Trident will be taken away. It can pass through in future; it will no longer be based here (legally cannot be under 2 treaties binding on the rUK) as a result of having been removed.

And that is what the White Paper says. No deceit except in your head. No way to pretend otherwise without verbal gymnastics. The White Paper is consistent throughout, which is why you continue to fail to prove otherwise.

We know you! You like facts, quotes and misquotes. When you don’t provide them, it’s because you can’t, and you want to bluster something without worrying about whether it’s actually true.

Ok, “pass through” (cough). AS would be proud of that!

Do you have fun debates with the boss, Bob?

Northwind

If SNP/Scottish Parliament have committed to ‘remove’ (your word) Trident, or in the white papers words ‘securing the complete withdrawal of’

But also, in your own words, At no point does it ever say that Scottish ports or waters will be closed to all foreign nuclear weapons.

What exactly is stopping Royal Navy Submarines from continuing to use the existing facilities, i.e. instead of being ‘based’ there they are just ‘visiting’?

Its merely a game of semantics isn’t it?

And thats before we consider that the commitment is only an ‘aim and intention’ with no guaranteed timescale – Hell, Trident will clearly be ‘removed’ when it goes out of service at the end of its lifetime.

How does it apply to other NATO nations? Are US owned but NATO shared use nuclear depth charges and torpedos allowed to be kept in the ammunition stores for restocking NATO ships that are ‘just passing through’?

Now, back to your point on GDP spend – the Scottish independence white paper commits the independent Scotland to 2.5 billion defence spend – which is entirely in accordance with the existing planned UK defence spend for 2015 of 2.2% UK GDP

Ninfan, the Scottish CND does not share NW’s confidence. Likes the Danes they are pragmatic in their reading of the situation!!! But unlike the Danes, they are not happy about it.

Sorry, this “tickly cough” will not go away when I read things like

We will retain the capacity for shared arrangements with the rest of the UK and other allies, recognising Faslane’s excellent deep water facilities and its geographical position.

BoD p246

I wonder what all that (cough, again) means????? That really is the last point on defence. Apologies.

THM – I think that one was written in by the new Scottish chief of defence staff

ninfan – Member

What exactly is stopping Royal Navy Submarines from continuing to use the existing facilities, i.e. instead of being ‘based’ there they are just ‘visiting’?

Article 1 and 2 of the NPT, which the UK are a signatory to, and which both the rUK and Scotland would be bound to obey as NATO members?

Or, the fact that once Coulport and the dedicated hardware to service and support the submarines is decommissioned, it’ll simply be impractical? Might as well try to base them in Anstruther.

Or, how about, the UK government is for reasons unknown obsessed with the “independent deterrent”, which is fundamentally incompatible with dependence on another country. The only argument for retaining Trident is ideological, and this defeats the ideology.

Or pure pragmatism- the only redeeming feature of spending a ton of money on a nuclear white elephant is that you get a (smaller) economic benefit from the support industy. It makes no sense for the rUK to forfeit that.

(Frankly, I could go with the last- personally I’d be comfortable with us withdrawing from Trident but it remaining based in Scotland so we can reap the economic benefits without the financial and moral costs. I’m sure we’d only charge a small rental fee on top. But that’s not on the cards, from either side)

ninfan – Member

Now, back to your point on GDP spend

Er, you are mistaken, that was your point. You might want to argue with THM for a while- he thinks Scotland will be a defence “free rider” (I think he means freeloader) whereas the reality as you say is that Scotland intends to largely continue defence spending on more useful assets than Trident, which will give her a more useful defence force than she could have while wasting money on nuclear weapons.

What do you think AS and the people of Scotland mean when they say they want rid of Trident? I think most people would expect remove to mean not stationed permanently at Faslane.

The corporation tax point is a red herring imo, current policy is for it to be less than rUK but that’s something that can and will be changed as policy and economics dictate. An iScotland won’t be bound to that figure forever….

There is a lot of effort by the Project Fear to pin future policies on an independent Scotland.

They don’t seem to realise that what Scots want is self-determination, and that includes the chance to select our own government. The first election after independence could well give a Labour or Liberal government, unlikely to be the Conservatives, and not necessarily SNP.

The SNP does not own our votes.

Whatever government we vote in will be making our policies which could well be different from SNP.

Focusing on Salmond is a diversionary tactic used by Project Fear. We see him as a man who may deliver us what we want, the chance to control our own affairs, not as the long term life president of Scotland.

How many of the “proud Scots who are proud to be British” are able to vote in this referendum? (Just trying to get an idea of those whose opinion may count)

Good points folks, I am getting drawn into the conversation they want to have 🙁

(Bllx, drawn in) NW, please can you explain (in light of your first point above) why AS has committed to follow a don’t ask, don’t tell strategy, why the policy towards NATO has changed and what, if any, is the link between the two.

Article 1 and 2 of the NPT, which the UK are a signatory to, and which both the rUK and Scotland would be bound to obey as NATO members?

Neither of them would prevent the Royal Navy using Scottish Ports, any more than it would prevent US or any other NATO nation ship armed with US owned nuclear weapons (as per the established NATO weapon sharing agreement that has been in place for decades) visiting or using the ports, as you’ve already accepted will be permitted under the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.

Or, the fact that once Coulport and the dedicated hardware to service and support the submarines is decommissioned, it’ll simply be impractical? Might as well try to base them in Anstruther.

But there is no intention of removing Submarine support hardware, since not all submarines are Trident carrying Vanguard – there’s the Trafalgar and Astute class subs that the SNP are happy to remain berthed there, along with long established US use of the facilities – and as already discussed, the official position os that We will retain the capacity for shared arrangements with the rest of the UK and other allies, recognising Faslane’s excellent deep water facilities and its geographical position.

Or, how about, the UK government is for reasons unknown obsessed with the “independent deterrent”, which is fundamentally incompatible with dependence on another country. The only argument for retaining Trident is ideological, and this defeats the ideology.

Really, its fundamentally incompatible with dependence on another country is it? Despite the fact that the missiles are US produced and maintained and we obtain them from a shared ownership pool of missiles, just as we did with Polaris, so we’ve been ‘dependent on another country’ in a way that you claim is incompatible for the operation of our independent deterrent for, ooh, about forty years now!

Or pure pragmatism- the only redeeming feature of spending a ton of money on a nuclear white elephant is that you get a (smaller) economic benefit from the support industy. It makes no sense for the rUK to forfeit that.

As already discussed, its already agreed that the infrastructure to resupply and provision submarines and military vessels is going to remain in place, none of the points you’ve made in any way prevent the facilities being used for Vanguard subs, so I’ll ask you again – What exactly is stopping Royal Navy Submarines from continuing to use the existing facilities, i.e. instead of being ‘based’ there they are just ‘visiting’?