Why wont he debate the potential end of the Union?

The SNP policy and debate on NATO is all in the public domain THM.

The point of a disarmed Scotland is to not waste money on nuclear weapons, and not to be owners of immoral weapons. Either is compelling frankly. (it’s telling that nobody in the No campaign has brought any good reasons to keep it, other than baseless scare stories. They’ve tried to argue against SNP policy but they’ve never argued for their policy)

Don’t ask, don’t tell is an established and accepted methods for NATO members to operate a national non-nuclear policy within the Organisation. So it is the logical option, if you want both (Spain operates a strict non-nuclear policy but it’s a reach to presume that’s an option, given the time lapse.)

Not complicated, this.

The point of a disarmed Scotland is to not waste money on nuclear weapons, and not to be owners of immoral weapons.

Who’s suggested either of those things? The debate is over the Royal Navy, which would not be funded by Scotland, using the existing facilities – the promise by Salmond is that they won’t be allowed to use them, however the promise in the white paper does not specifically prohibit it!

ninfan – Member

Neither of them would prevent the Royal Navy using Scottish Ports

Erm yes, and neither would SNP policy. “Using” is still not “basing”

ninfan – Member

But there is no intention of removing Submarine support hardware,

What exactly is the commitment to remove Coulport’s nuclear handling capacity then? When I refer to “the submarines” it’s obviously in the context of nuclear weapons; that’s all we’ve talked about, absurd to bring in conventionally armed vessels as that’s not a point of contention.

But just for clarity:
“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.”

You both seem to be trying to claim that refers to Trident; I think I will just disregard arguments that depend on making things up. There is no conflict between this statement, and removing Trident infrastructure. But Faslane without that nuclear handling capacity is simply not a suitable Trident base.

Ninfan – as I understand it, the issue with Faslane isn’t so much about having somewhere to dock, it’s more about removal and storage of the weapons/warheads. Assuming that “remove” means getting rid if those facilities then I can’t see any particular advantage in Faslane over, say, Plymouth. i.e. the Trident subs don’t sit at Faslane all weaponised.

But most of the infrastructure there is used for both ‘conventional’ nuclear and ‘ballistic’ nuclear subs, so if you remove it then you can no longer use it for the ‘conventional’ subs

Scotlands current claim is that you can keep one, but get rid of the other!

Plus a great deal of it is owned by NATO (ie. funded by NATO joint funds rather than UK govt) so if you remove it then you are removing a joint NATO facility rather than one dedicated to UK Trident.

Northwind – Member
The SNP policy and debate on NATO is all in the public domain THM.

Exactly and thank goodness for that even if you do have to read so many pages of the book of dream to find it. It goes like this:

Step 1: Oppose nuclear weapons in Scotland
Step 2: Oppose membership of NATO
Step 3: Change you mind – fair enough, read JM Keynes
Step 4: Suggest (not our decisions utlimately) membership of NATO on condition of no nukes
Step 5: repeat Step 3
Step 6: Propose adoption of Danish (and others) policy of don’t ask, don’t tell and accept that nukes will be in Scotland (passing through or otherwise) but agree not to know about it
Step 7: Quietly commit thru book of dreams (but hide away in page 246) to maintain capacity etc making specific reference to specific characteristics of Faslane (no coincidence there)
Step 8: Cross your fingers, hold your breath and hope no one notices. Maintain lie of a Scotland free from Trident
Step 9: Exhale loudly when alliance of CND, Labour, Tories etc point out that your trousers are down around your ankles
Step 10: Point out that there is nothing new there. Repeat.

Not compiicated this.

Indeed not especially when repetition of approach (NATO, defence, EU, currencies. LoLR, etc) makes it very obvious what you are doing. Plus AS is getting lots of practice.

The point of a disarmed Scotland is to not waste money on nuclear weapons, and not to be owners of immoral weapons. Either is compelling frankly

Quite possibly, but not the same as guaranteeing no nukes in Scoltand

Don’t ask, don’t tell is an established and accepted methods for NATO members to operate a national non-nuclear policy within the Organisation. So it is the logical option,

Very possibly, but not the same thing as guaranteeing no nukes in Scotland (see nice Danish example, but speak quietly in case anyone hears)

Not complicated, this.

+1 (as long as you read the small print)

teamhurtmore – Member

Quite possibly, but not the same as guaranteeing no nukes in Scoltand

Oh for goodness’ sake. That is the entire point. You are stating Scottish Government policy in a nutshell, while claiming to contradict it. They have not guaranteed no nukes in Scotland; they have in fact specifically said that is not the goal. So why pretend otherwise?

All you have left is misrepresentation.

Sorry I misread, the into pro which said, “we can remove Trident from Scotland for good.” BoD, XII

Colour blind and thick, sorry!!! Misread page 237 too

The current Scottish Government has identified five defence priorities for an independent Scotland:…(priority 2)…securing the speediest safe withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Scotland

Funny they didn’t add the word “partial” as it would have sparred my blushes. Ho hum.

They have not guaranteed no nukes in Scotland

So they’re not going to have ‘removed’ Trident then, are they!

Do you want me to post the definition of “removed” again? Because I totally will.

Touching back to an earlier point, re independent deterrant. You and I know that was always a lie, but it’s a nicely out of sight lie that’s more or less forgotten. We have missiles and boats based in the UK and call them ours and that’s enough to impress people. But you really can’t do that when they’re even based in a foreign country, it stretches disbelief too far. But, I agree it is the weakest point I made in that post.

NB- yes there is one occasion in the white paper where it says “for good” which is misleading, as it will be able to return, albeit on a totally different basis. On every other occasion it simply says “remove” and the detail of the policy agrees with that wording. So looking at the whole document and the wider discussion, that seems to be an error in the document. It is 600 pages long after all 😉

Just had a lovely butternut squash and chickpea curry. Poppadoms where a bit greasy, but pleasingly so.

Carry on.

Northwind – Member
NB- yes there is one occasion in the white paper where it says “for good” which is misleading

Just a pity that it was in the only bit most people read (the intro/summary).Genuine mistake I am sure 😉

Next thing we know he will be making claims about being “better off” but stopping the analysis in 2007. Oh, wait a minute…….

Deceitful, surely not? As straight and honest as the day is long. Just slightly embarrassing for the alma mater and the department. It got better fortunately…..!!!!!

You get a medal for fighting a lost cause though NW. I give you that!! He makes it hard for you. You deserve better.

Hey, the introduction has less detail than the detailed discussion! What are they trying to pull with a stunt like that? All the detail should be in the intro! 😆

Buthang on, it’s not the only time it is referred to in the introduction. The first time it is mentioned has the clear wording, in fact, as does every other! So it’s demonstrably not a case of trying to hide the devil in the detail after the bit where you’ve stopped reading. How inconvenient. It is an embarassing slip but silly to claim it’s more, the context shows otherwise.

Oh,what’s that? Apparently the financial analysis stops in 2007? Simple response, not true at all, there is analysis past 2007 all the way through the document.

Keep up – the analysis of being better off. Only if you stop the data in 2007 (the magic trick) and conveniently exclude 2008-2012 and simply dismiss that as an aberration.

Alex Salmond has been accused of using “conjuring tricks” in a bid to “fool” Scots into voting for independence by omitting the “hard facts” about leaving the UK. Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael challenged the First Minister after the white paper on independence used figures from 1977 to 2007 to show people would be better off if Scotland was no longer part of the Union. Labour leader Johann Lamont pressed Mr Salmond on the same issue at First Minister’s Questions in Holyrood, claiming more recent statistics covering the period 1982 to 2012 showed people would be almost £2,500 worse off under independence.She accused the SNP of having “tried to airbrush the banking crisis out of their figures” in an attempt to make their case.A spokesman for the First Minister said that the economic crash of 2007 was “a very unusual event” which would have “warped the figures”.

the Courier 11/1/14

Of course rainy days are an exception. It’s always sunny in la-la land.

All the detail in the introduction? Clearly not, but that is not an excuse for lying. Easy to miss though, hey? He even caught you out!!!!

In this panto sketch though he wasn’t wearing a French costume and saying, “I will say this only once…”!

(P.S. Before embarrassing yourself further my friend, please point out where in the intro it uses words different from the ones I quoted. Which exact bit did I mis-type? Or was it iPad autospell?!?)

No THM, that doesn’t stand up. If it were consistently misleading in the introduction, you would have a point. But the only way it can work as you claim- hiding a falsehood in the introduction- is if you start reading the white paper after page 10, read page 14, then stop reading.

Let’s do the occam’s razor thing. Clearly under either version of events, there is a mistake. In my version, the mistake is the one use of “for good”, which is careless. In your version, the one use of “for good” is intentional and deceitful, meaning that the other two occasions in the introduction where it’s not used are mistakes.

So what is more likely? Clearly 2 connected mistakes are less likely than 1. But when you’re making the decision and the effort to mislead on a specific point, how likely is it that you fail to do it 2 times out of three, and one of these occasions is the most important one?

Forget about the game for a minute; apply a little logic. Or at the very least, accept that it is not proof of deceit; you might think it suggests it, but there are other explanations.

Financial analysis- you have a Courier article carrying a No campaign attack. Meanwhile, I have a White Paper full of analysis after 2007. Look it up. It’s interesting!

I can only assume that the article refers to this paragraph, it is the only one that seems to fit: “As an illustration, had growth in Scotland matched these other independent nations between 1977 and 2007, GDP per head would now be 3.8 per cent higher, equivalent to an additional £900 per head”

It’s a minor point in the White Paper, so strange to make such a big noise about it. After all, it is not the only analysis of whether or not we would be better off, and other analysis continues past 2007, which makes Carmichael’s claim misleading. One strand of several stops in 2007, but others continue.

And yes, you know well what happens when a period of analysis starts or ends in a peak or trough. You can start a long term analysis in a recession and give the impression of rampant success, when actually you’ve just got a reversion to the mean, for example. And likewise, by ending a trend in the recession, you give a false impression of negativity. Conveniently for Carmichael that’s what any later cut-off will do. To a layman it seems more honest but to anyone who wrestles numbers, they know it’s not so simple.

But frankly, I want to see Carmichael’s figures. Until we can compare the two, it’s a moot point tbh. You’re merely choosing to take the accusation as gospel but I’ve not seen their working, have you?

Seems pretty obvious thm Alistair Carmichael will not agree with figures provided by the SNP.
To get back to the op’s point Why wont Cameron debate with Salmond ,especially if Salmond is the clown you portray him as?
In fact why did Alastair Darling refuse to debate with his Yes Scotland counterpart Dennis Canavan ?
Why wont Alistair Darling debate with Blair Jenkins ?
Is “Project Fear” feart?

No sorry that explanation is a crock. Not only is it in the BoD but also in plenty of SNP statements over time. The beauty of google. To try and pretend that the SNP has not (until now, of course) had a policy to rid Scotland of nukes is spin if you are being polite (it is Sunday after all) and BS if you are being honest (it is Sunday after all!) and don’t forget the CLARIFICATION of the principles of the policy laid out in the main section. Clear as the sea in the Moray Firth.

On the rest of it…plenty of source. From your main paper to start with

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-airbrushed-recession-out-of-white-paper-1-3262602

Given the man’s “got form” in this area, I know where my sympathies lie here. And let’s just airbrush the banking crisis even though FS will still represent a major %age of a post Indepndence Scottish economy. There’s enough wool in my eyes from reading the BoD, I don’t need any more pulling over them.

On the OP bit gordi, my reasons haven’t changed from earlier other than adding a fourth later.. Why bother, when the SNP are making a great job of highlighting why Scotland is better together. No need to duplicate the effort, time and money. Still it must be hard when they only wanted devo-max from the outset, eh? If they had wanted full Independence they would have done their homework properly given the time they have had to do it.

P.s. I agree with opposing stretching data. How ironic that you have a Scottish labour MP complaining about including those terrible thatcher years!!!

Perhaps I should let CMD know he has accidentally appointed a Scottish lab mp as Scottish secretary. Understandable really I mean those libdems are a pretty unreliable bunch.Look at their ‘leader”for example .

Back at THM- from your own link!

“The Scottish Government later produced figures showing the 30-year average GDP growth rate for Scotland up to 2012 within the UK is 2.3 per cent, compared to 2.5 per cent for comparable European countries.”

So which is correct? Where are your numbers to support your allegation?

teamhurtmore – Member

No sorry that explanation <re nuclear disarmament> is a crock. Not only is it in the BoD but also in plenty of SNP statements over time.

Absolutely irrelevant. We’re talking here about your allegation of dishonesty in the White Paper. Not about historic SNP statements, now superceded. Just changing the subject again!

I could. Do you think we should also tell him that a labour MP is heading the better together campaign as well. Or would the double shock be too much for such a tender toff!?!

The LibDems really have got their knickers in a twist at the moment for sure. Opps, perhaps I should have put that differently?!?

Well yes it would come as a major shock to CMD as he thinks he is leading the no campaign

Not shifting anything

The first reference in the intro talks about removing trident, (ok we have agreed to disagree on that won) but that is followed up with “for good” which is either (1) accurate – my view or (2) merely misleading – yours. But for clarity, hidden away 240 pr so pages later of the reality including the clarification that I have posed earlier.(see below)

Forget bloody razors and apply logic as you say. Why are they doing this? Simply a back door way of keeping the NATO negotiations on track/not closing the door while maintaining a (deceitful) pretence otherwise to the Scottish public. You have still to answer whether the on-going presence of nukes in Scottish waters (don’t ask, don’t tell) is synonymous with removing trident (for good or otherwise). That is gold medal winning mental gymnastics IMO.

What is the point of quoting an alternative point about Europe growth? And you accuse me of shifting the goal posts!!!

For clarity, as above

Page x the first occassion “we will remove trident from Scotland’s soil”
Page xii, the second in “gains from independence” – “we can remove trident from Scotland for good”
Page 206 “our defence plans focus on a strong conventional defence footprint in and around Scotland and the removal of nuclear weapons.“
Page 237 “securing the speediest withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Scotland.”
Page 257 ” negotiations on the maintainence of shared capabilities would not include nuclear weapons.[b]”

Seems pretty categorical to me – no nukes, no negations to include nukes.

And the truth – we will adopt don’t ask, don’t tell and accept the presence of nukes. Nuclear weapons will continue to be in Scottish waters and ports as a deliberate policy choice. And that is not hiding the truth from voters (my version of deceit)? White lies must mean something very different in Scotland.

Good night.

Yawn. Most people really dont care what ‘remove’ actually means. If we’re not paying for it and they’re not stationed permanently at Faslane, that is good enough.

You have still to answer whether the on-going presence of nukes in Scottish waters (don’t ask, don’t tell) is synonymous with removing trident (for good or otherwise).

If no one really knows they’re there, they might as well not be. Who the **** knows whats in Scottish waters at anyone time. It’s as good as in mine, and I’ll bet and most other peoples opinions.

teamhurtmore – Member

Forget bloody razors and apply logic as you say. Why are they doing this? Simply a back door way of keeping the NATO negotiations on track/not closing the door while maintaining a (deceitful) pretence otherwise to the Scottish public.

Nope. It is simply the only reliable and established way to achieve 2 desirable things- removing Trident and pursuing our national disarmament goals, while joining NATO. There’s nothing deceitful about that.

If you want to keep something a secret, you don’t talk about it on Newsnight and publish it in your headline-grabbing White Paper! Putting statements about defence in the chapter marked “Defence” is not very hidey, any more than only including a summary in the summary is. In related news, my socks are in the sock drawer, you’ll never find them!

teamhurtmore – Member

You have still to answer whether the on-going presence of nukes in Scottish waters (don’t ask, don’t tell) is synonymous with removing trident (for good or otherwise). That is gold medal winning mental gymnastics IMO.

Oh you are having a laugh. I have answered that many times in that thread. Yes, removing trident is completely compatible with don’t-ask-don’t-tell, for the… I don’t know how many times. Either you’re ignoring my posts or you’re intentionally misrepresenting but neither is cool.

The block of text you provided quotes the public Scottish Government policy. It’s so top secret, you’ve copied and pasted it! There is nothing there that conflicts with “don’t ask don’t tell”, with the sole exception of that one use of “for good”, which is 2 words from a 170000 word document, and which is contradicted at great length before and after

If the Scottish Government was promising a nuclear-free Scotland, they would just do so, it’s a snappy headline. Instead they have gone to great length to explain that this is not the goal. And your response is to be outraged that they’re going to deliver what they say, not what they expressly didn’t. It is odd. And an impossible position to support with evidence.

Which I assume is why you shifted, and stopped talking about the white paper, and started obfuscating and talking about historical SNP policy which is completely irrelevant. You can’t deny the change of topic, it’s just up the page.

teamhurtmore – Member

What is the point of quoting an alternative point about Europe growth? And you accuse me of shifting the goal posts!!!

What “alternative point” is this? At a loss- you raised the 1977-2007 dataset, I’m talking about it, even using a quote from your own link. I’ve not shifted the goalposts, just kicked your own ball back at you.

Ok simple challenge for any parents out there happy with the policy. When you say good night to the child that you love tonight, look them in the eye and promise them,

“when daddy votes for jndependence later this year, It will guarantee that you, my loved ones, will grow up in a country where there will be no nuclear weapons on our soil. That is my promise to you.”

Kiss them good night, and then look at yourself in the mirror. Tell me what you see and how you feel.

Whatnobeer, thanks for the refreshing honesty. Much better than others’ pretence and deceit.

when daddy votes for jndependence later this year, It will guarantee that you, my loved ones, will grow up in a country where there will be no nuclear weapons on our soil. That is my promise toyou.”

I will be voting yes and have no problem looking myself or anyone else in the eye.

In general or in relation to nukes, gordi?

Both thm

Ok simple challenge for any parents out there happy with the policy. When you say good night to the child that you love tonight, look them in the eye and promise them,
“when daddy votes for jndependence later this year, It will guarantee that you, my loved ones, will grow up in a country where there will be no nuclear weapons on our soil. That is my promise to you.”
Kiss them good night, and then look at yourself in the mirror. Tell me what you see and how you feel.

Wow. Things got weird. We’re almost down to this:

Indeed Konabunny I am not sure what thm is getting at here.

It’s v simple really, if you can look you children in the eye and tell them honestly that there will be no nukes in Scotland, then the debate is over. Gordi, can, so fair enough. Members of Scotland’s CND clearly cannot.

Personal choice, no value judgements, debate over.

Perhaps we can tell our children that Israel doesn’t have nukes either since the policy is the same.

From CND Scotland website

Details2014 will present a once-in-a-century opportunity for nuclear disarmament. Scotland has been the unwilling host to Polaris and Trident for 50 years. The three UK parties are planning to base new nuclear weapons at Faslane for the next half century. A Yes vote in September will enable us to scrap Trident and create a nuclear free Scotland.

They don’t seem to share your opinion thm

Oops,

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/alex-salmonds-big-problem-scots-dont-believe-they-would-be-richer-under-independenc

I wonder what the next diversionary stunt will be now?

Given the thread’s title it’s funny how AS rejects the idea of a debate with his obvious peer, darling. Perhaps he will pick up the gauntlets thrown down by Alexander and Balls. He must be getting really impatient for an opportunity to explain why anyone favouring BT is talking nonsense!!!

“Purely a debate between the Scots”….

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-foreign-office-devo-units-drive-to-kill-off-independence.23269484

A FOREIGN Office department ostensibly set up to promote the Scottish Government’s interests is being used against it in the independence referendum, diplomatic cables have revealed.

The Devolution Unit, created by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in 2012 to deliver abroad the “utmost co-operation”, now appears to be at the heart of Westminster’s anti-independence drive, amassing hostile reactions from overseas.

It is understood the FCO has contacted the governments of China, Russia, the US, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the 28 EU nations about the Scottish referendum in a global search for allies who might oppose independence.

One recent cable showed UK embassies being ordered to forward a Westminster paper critical of independence “to their host governments and other local contacts” and then feed their comments back to the Devolution Unit “ASAP”.