The Dirty Independence Question

[JamesMurphysLover]

Actually, I don't agree that all politicians want to do what they think is best for the country. Gideon doesn't give a shit about anyone else, he just wants to cut inheritance taxes before his parents cop it so he can get more moolah. He wants to sell off the country's assets not because he thinks it's best served by being corporate, but because those services can net a hefty chunk of profit for his mates.

I don't know whether Cameron does actually mean well and just has no grasp on reality or sense, or is another self-absorbed c**t out to leech from society for his own benefit. Both seem fairly plausible.

For someone so set on cutting inherticance tax (which shouldn't exist at all IMO), he's not done a bad job with the entire economy (if that's a 'side issue' in your eyes).

This is a ludicrous argument

I guess Margaret Thatcher wanted to do what she thought was good. I'm pretty sure Mahatma Ghandi did too.

I would suggest one achieved more good than the other.

So just because 2 lots of politicians want to do good does not mean the outcome will be the same.

the outcome will depend on what they believe to be good & how good they are at acheiving that

Other than that pretty spurious point you are not saying anything you have not said before.

We disagree on this.

I have given my reasons. you have given yours.

We still disagree.

You repeating the same argument ad nauseum will not alter this.

You're ignoring perception of their outcomes based on the same good will. I for one, thought Mrs Thatcher did a lot more practical good than harm (as a young, Scottish, working class person - possibly rarer than our national animal ). Obviously, you'll disagree with that, but that doesn't mean your point is completely valid.

EDIT: Your post above just addressed this issue, so ignore this then^)

I probably won't be on these boards for a while (due to impending exams and I may have been beaten to death by eFestivalers) but I'll endeavour to reply at some point.

Edited April 29, 2014 by JamesMurphysLover

[LJS]

Any sane person would conclude that nuclear weapons are a bloody stupid idea. It wasn't called the M.A.D. doctrine for nuthin.

Who are iScotland's likely attackers ? Can't think of anyone.

Okay, as part of NATO then. Russia ? Former NATO chief Lord Robertson recently said that Russia should be a NATO member. China ? The West owes them so much money they would take ownership rather than destroy the real estate.

Its pretty obvious that nuclear weapons should be illegal.

agreed

I have been to Faslane, as part of an anti trident protest & have never wavered in my belief than Nuclear weapons are immoral & evil.

I do however taken the pragmatic view that although iScotland should not compromise on the principle of removing trident, I personally would be happy to see negotiations on the time scale.

Even if you do believe in Nukes there is no necessity for the UK to have any unless we fear that in the event of a nuclear strike from North Korea our american friends will not retaliate on out behalf.

I found this ... its from the guardian last year - no idea if it is true or not but I found it rather chilling reading

The MoD has revealed that the safety arrangements for Devonport do not permit the presence of submarines carrying Trident nuclear warheads. The MoD's safety experts are not considering changing that.

The problem is that the dockyard is in a densely populated area and, if there were an accident, thousands of people would be at risk. The worst accident scenario envisaged by the MoD would kill up to 11,000 people in Plymouth and would not meet the official criteria for what is acceptable, according to a new report.

The Scottish government, run by the Scottish National party, has said it would eject nuclear weapons from the Faslane submarine base on the Clyde as soon as possible after Scotland became independent. A referendum on independence is due to be held in the autumn of 2014.

Experts and politicians have repeatedly suggested that the Vanguard-class submarines that carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles could be relocated to Devonport. In evidence to a House of Lords committee in December the former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West, said "they could go there".

But a response under freedom of information law from the MoD indicates that will not be possible. The "safety case" it has drawn up for regulators to demonstrate Devonport can be operated without undue risk rules out nuclear-armed submarines.

"Neither the Devonport naval base nor the Devonport dockyard, which is owned and operated by Babcock, safety case permit the berthing of an armed Vanguard class submarine," the MoD said.

It also disclosed that its internal safety watchdog, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator, "has not provided any advice on the feasibility of docking of an armed Vanguard class submarine in Devonport dockyard".

The MoD was responding to questions from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (SCND), which wants to get rid of Trident altogether.

"This shows that it is wrong to suggest that Trident can just move to Devonport if it is thrown out of Scotland," said the campaign's co-ordinator, John Ainslie.

A new report by SCND applies the MoD's criteria for accidents at Faslane to Devonport. It concludes that Devonport would never be an officially acceptable location for Trident submarines because of the much greater population that would be put at risk.

There are about 166,000 people living within five kilometres of the Devonport base, compared with about 5,200 within that distance of Faslane. In assessing the dangers of a major accident at Faslane's shiplift in 2000, the MoD concluded that the "societal contamination" that could result meant that "the risks are close to the tolerability criterion level".

If a similar accident happened at Devonport, the MoD's tolerability criteria would be massively exceeded, the SCND report says. If there was a light wind blowing from the south-west, it estimates that 800 people would be killed by leaking plutonium.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/04/mod-nuclear-submarines-scotland-plymouth

The bit in bold (i did that) requires no comment from me.

[LJS]

For someone so set on cutting inherticance tax (which shouldn't exist at all IMO), he's not done a bad job with the entire economy (if that's a 'side issue' in your eyes).

You're ignoring perception of their outcomes based on the same good will. I for one, thought Mrs Thatcher did a lot more practical good than harm (as a young, Scottish, working class person - possibly rarer than our national animal ). Obviously, you'll disagree with that, but that doesn't mean your point is completely valid.

EDIT: Your post above just addressed this issue, so ignore this then^)

I probably won't be on these boards for a while (due to impending exams and I may have been beaten to death by eFestivalers) but I'll endeavour to reply at some point.

I won't beat you to death! I'll leave you barely breathing & suffering ( joke joke joke)

You sound as if you may be a Scottish Conservative.

If you are and you have a vote in the European elections please get out & vote Conservative.

As the Conservatives and Ukip appear to be battling it out for the 6th Scottish seat. The Conservatives are still ahead but for the first (& I suspect last) time in my life, I am urging all Scottish Tories to get out & vote.

p.s. good luck in your exams

Edited April 29, 2014 by LJS

[Buff124]

Anyway i'll stop before it turns into the "dirty philosophy question"

By the way ... I'n no expert in philosophy...

Here's the basics

[LJS]

Great news ... I have the answer to the trident problem

Gibraltar's strategic position provides an important facility for the Royal Navy and Britain's allies. British and US nuclear submarines frequently visit the Z berths at Gibraltar.^[97] A Z berth provides the facility for nuclear submarines to visit for operational or recreational purposes and for non-nuclear repairs.

[LJS]

I love the philospher's song

love this too

[Buff124]

and the second lesson !

EDIT: Beat me to it

Edited April 29, 2014 by Buff124

[LJS]

and the second lesson !

EDIT: Beat me to it

at least you are being philosophical about it

[russycarps]

Hang on, I thought you said Scots were left leaning? Here we've got one singing the praises of Margaret fucking Thatcher!

[Buff124]

Some interesting stuff coming out in the wake of the CBI registering as a No campaign organisation. The State broadcaster's been a member since 1980 ? Miner's strike, privatisation, etc ?

John Ferguson ‏@johnferguson88 2h

@BBCJamesCook £500,000 of license fee payer's cash has gone to the CBI and the BBC thought they would just keep everything quiet.

gurggles ‏@gurggles1234 2h

@BBCJamesCook you thought you were a reporter,turns out your a propagandist.

Don Forth ‏@Orwelland30 2h

@BBCJamesCook @METAKNlGHT So a public service body has spent over £500,000 on an organisation dedicated to destroying the public sector?

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/461208150742683649

[LJS]

Hang on, I thought you said Scots were left leaning? Here we've got one singing the praises of Margaret fucking Thatcher!

he's the only one .... honest

the other 4,999,999 are all card carrying marxist leninists

Ah, how i remember my mother singing me to sleep with the red flag

[LJS]

Some interesting stuff coming out in the wake of the CBI registering as a No campaign organisation. The State broadcaster's been a member since 1980 ? Miner's strike, privatisation, etc ?

John Ferguson ‏@johnferguson88 2h

@BBCJamesCook £500,000 of license fee payer's cash has gone to the CBI and the BBC thought they would just keep everything quiet.

gurggles ‏@gurggles1234 2h

@BBCJamesCook you thought you were a reporter,turns out your a propagandist.

Don Forth ‏@Orwelland30 2h

@BBCJamesCook @METAKNlGHT So a public service body has spent over £500,000 on an organisation dedicated to destroying the public sector?

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/461208150742683649

it's not just on Twitter

its on ... the BBC

The BBC is considering a call from the National Union of Journalists to resign immediately from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI).

It's not the biggest deal in the world by a long way but it does fit in with my comment about the "Establishment" being fundamentally conservative.

[LJS]

I'd be surprised if this news report from the Daily Telegraph doesn't feature shortly.

Scottish independence will trigger mass exodus of financial services

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10797073/Scottish-independence-will-trigger-mass-exodus-of-financial-services.html

So, I thought I would look into it.

Leaving aside the sloppy journalism - "Drawing parallels with Ireland, which voted to leave the UK in the 1920s" yeah that's exactly how Irish independence came about

The article is based on a speech to be given tomorrow by Douglas McWilliams, the founder of The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR).

Now the first thing that worried me about him was that he sounded rather like neil...

Many Scots seem to think they are not voting for independence from the rest of the UK but for independence from the laws of economics which they seem to think have been imposed on them by the English.

Now Mr McWilliams has a bit of a track record of predicting Scotland will be some sort of basket case even without independence.

I also found some other crap predictions but I think you could probably find crap predictions from any economist so, in the interests of fairness, I will not cause him any further suffering.

The litmus test for me to judge an economist's views is what they thought of Thatcher (remember I am no expert on economics)

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/centrepiece/v04i2/mcwilliams.pdf

Now, i couldn't bring myself to read every word of this, but it seems his only criticism of the blessed Margaret is she did not go far enough.

That alone is enough for me to consign Mr McWilliam 's contribution to the "too extreme to be taken seriously " pile

... next

Edited April 29, 2014 by LJS

[kaosmark2]

For someone so set on cutting inherticance tax (which shouldn't exist at all IMO), he's not done a bad job with the entire economy (if that's a 'side issue' in your eyes).

You're ignoring perception of their outcomes based on the same good will. I for one, thought Mrs Thatcher did a lot more practical good than harm (as a young, Scottish, working class person - possibly rarer than our national animal ). Obviously, you'll disagree with that, but that doesn't mean your point is completely valid.

EDIT: Your post above just addressed this issue, so ignore this then^)

I probably won't be on these boards for a while (due to impending exams and I may have been beaten to death by eFestivalers) but I'll endeavour to reply at some point.

Inheritance is the main reason for wealthy dynasties and power remaining in the hands of the same rich families.

And I reckon he's done a shite job with the entire economy. Youth unemployment is massive, and UNDERemployment is at a record high. The strength of the economy shouldn't be judged on how much the bankers are taking home, but how much the poorest person is.

[LJS]

Inheritance is the main reason for wealthy dynasties and power remaining in the hands of the same rich families.

And I reckon he's done a shite job with the entire economy. Youth unemployment is massive, and UNDERemployment is at a record high. The strength of the economy shouldn't be judged on how much the bankers are taking home, but how much the poorest person is.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[wee_insomniac]

If Scotland does vote for independence and Europe says they need to re-apply for EU membership because they are now a different country, will the rest of the UK also have to reapply as it would also technically be a different country?

[LJS]

If Scotland does vote for independence and Europe says they need to re-apply for EU membership because they are now a different country, will the rest of the UK also have to reapply as it would also technically be a different country?

I believe not. rUK will be regarded as the "continuing state" - i think that is the term.

If the Tories win again they will of course be having an in-oot referendum so there is the very real prospect of Scotland heading in as rUK heads out

Who knows?

Edited April 30, 2014 by LJS

[wee_insomniac]

Saw this on Facebook today... http://harddawn.com/why-america-must-say-no-to-scotlands-independence-from-great-britain/ Sounds a bit crazy to me...

[eFestivals]

So just because 2 lots of politicians want to do good does not mean the outcome will be the same.

True.

And just as true is that because a different line is marked, that politicians will act differently.

You might as well stick a pin in the donkey as vote for independence.

the outcome will depend on what they believe to be good & how good they are at acheiving that

Absolutely right. I posted long ago (long before you joined in) and I think in this thread that the success of iScotland will depend on the quality and competence of its politicians.

Unfortunately for iScotland, the guy who has been pretty clever over the past 25-ish years in portraying himself as different has shown in more recent years that he's the same crock of shit as the rest of them.

If you want to pretend differently, it's your party. I won't cry for you.

[eFestivals]

Any sane person would conclude that nuclear weapons are a bloody stupid idea. It wasn't called the M.A.D. doctrine for nuthin.

I couldn't disagree.

Who are iScotland's likely attackers ? Can't think of anyone.

nor can I, but I'm guessing that the people within Scotland can, otherwise I can't see why lovely Alex will have staked so much on convincing the people of Scotland that they'll be defended from attack.

You know, the attack that you can't see happening, but the attack that requires the spending of billions of pounds of Scottish taxpayers money in defence from attack, instead of addressing the poverty that some claim is Scotland's biggest issue and which some claim will be the highest priority in your new nation - but which isn't.

Its pretty obvious that nuclear weapons should be illegal.

and yet iScotland is demanding that they are primed and ready to protect iScotland from attack.

[eFestivals]

The problem for the voter is who to believe. Now I have stated again & again that I am not an expert on economics, geology, International petro-politics, jam making etc etc. Sometimes I get ridiculed a bit for this ( although I note that those who ridicule me have not shared where their areas of expertise lie)

In my own case I'm a jack of all trades and a master of none.

What I mean is that I take a very strong interest in current affairs, so that I'm fully aware of the facts for the sorts of things which have caught you out, where you've formed opinions on the basis of falsehoods.

So when Alex said "there's this much oil" I know that it's made up; when you say Ireland had CU with the UK, I know it's wrong; when a nationalist party does the standard nationalist thing, I see it for what it is; when Alex says "we'll be in the EU before iDay", I know that national referendums in EU member states just don't happen within iScotland's timeframe. Etc, etc, etc.

I'm sure you'll call that arrogance tho. That's the way this referendum works, the facts are not good enough for Scotland.

What I have great experience in is judging when to trust & when not to trust politicians and more importantly the "evidence" produced to support their positions.

Of couyrse you do, as does evberyone in Scotland. And that's because you have a particularly sophisticated electorate up there, eh?

You know, so sophisticated that they demand no nukes while demanding protection fr4om nukes, that sort of thing. It takes a special sort of sophistication to be that contrary.

So although I may not be an expert: I am experienced.

and so were the voters who voted Nazi in Germany.

And because I know there can be no truth in humour in this debate, please take severe offence at that.

If there is one thing that experience has taught me it is that you can safely disregard the more extreme claims on either side of the argument. To me that is just common sense.

so you accept that iScotland will spend at least some time outside of the EU?

No? Why not? Don't the inventions of Alex class as extreme?

It's also common sense to be wary of pronouncements from people or organisations with a clear vested interest in the result.

yourself, then?

Well firstly, this is not a decision which should be made because of the difference it will make in a year or two or even 5 years or 10 years. As Neil has pointed out iScotland is for life not just for Xmas. (which incidentally makes all the argy bargy about a couple of pence off corporation tax, or is Alex Salmond great or rubbish - no more than a distraction to the real question)

Not really.

It shows that iScotland's only real plan for financial success is to try to shaft other countries to steal their tax base.

A whole range of responses to iScotland's plans flow from that, and not one jot of them is anything about subjugating the Scots, or hatred of Scots, or tory-ism, or will even come just from the remaining UK.

All of the world will have a reaction to that, and not one jot of it will be about how wonderful Scotland is.

And its not a revolution we are having, so it would be unrealistic to expect massive change overnight.

and yet you'll have it all the same.

Trying to pretend that nothing changes is part of Alex's plan to win. Like so much else, you'll only find you've been had after the votes have been counted and your decision is irreversible.

The other main reason is kind of common sense, I think. Neil likes to pretend that I claim there has been some massive anti-Scottish conspiracy by variously, the Tories, Westminster & the English in general.

you can't help but take it all personally, can you? Chippy, much?

I've said that the whole of the yes campaign is based within the idea of a massive anti-Scottish conspiracy by the english.

It might help you recognise that truth if you actually listened to the campaign you're supporting.

I have refuted this before. Its not that there is a conspiracy against Scotland, its just that we are not the first priority of a London government - & neither should we be - a London government should make decision based on the best interests of the entire population of the UK. (how well it actually does that & whether it favours London & the South East is a different debate).

And it does, within what it believes to be achieving that.

If it was all about London, London would be spending its money on just itself - the thing that Scotland has already demanded, and got!!!!

That nasty greedy London, eh? So nasty it's being out-done for greed by Scotland.

Is that another indisputable fact that you just can't accept? Here's betting it is.

It just seems common sense that a government based in Edinburgh whose priority is to make decisions which are in the interests of the 5 million people in Scotland will result in better government & ultimately a better future.

And you know what, in 20 years or more, we might even see a little bit of jam.

would that be the same common sense of yours that thought Ireland had had a CU with the UK?

Common sense can only be derived from knowledge, not from guess work or from prejudice.

Edited April 30, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

There are about 166,000 people living within five kilometres of the Devonport base, compared with about 5,200 within that distance of Faslane. In assessing the dangers of a major accident at Faslane's shiplift in 2000, the MoD concluded that the "societal contamination" that could result meant that "the risks are close to the tolerability criterion level".

If a similar accident happened at Devonport, the MoD's tolerability criteria would be massively exceeded, the SCND report says. If there was a light wind blowing from the south-west, it estimates that 800 people would be killed by leaking plutonium.

The bit in bold (i did that) requires no comment from me.

So, now you can revise your view that the nukes are at Faslane because of English hatred of the Scots, that their lives are worth less.

But will you?

[eFestivals]

That alone is enough for me to consign Mr McWilliam 's contribution to the "too extreme to be taken seriously " pile

... next

Really?

The only true economic reality can be the one that is spoken by a yes-supporting Scotsman?

Absolutely astounding.

[eFestivals]

I believe not. rUK will be regarded as the "continuing state" - i think that is the term.

yep. It's a very well established principle of international law.

If the Tories win again they will of course be having an in-oot referendum so there is the very real prospect of Scotland heading in as rUK heads out

No there isn't, but don't let that stop you from making it up, eh?

[LJS]

and yet iScotland is demanding that they are primed and ready to protect iScotland from attack.

This is a total distortion of the Yes position.

Presumably your logic ( i use the term loosely) goes like this - Scotland wants to join Nato: Nato has nuclear weapons as an integral part of its strategic defence policy. Therefore iScotland is demanding to be protected by nuclear weapons.

Now if iScotland was proposing to join Nato instead of the NANNTO ( The North Atlantic non Nuclear Treaty Organisation) That argument would make some sense. But the flaw in your argument is that there is no NANNTO. Scotland can choose between being in NATO or going it alone.

Sometimes in life you have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

The sad thing is that you know that, Neil. Yet despite your repeated protests of neutrality, you are deliberately twisting facts to your own ends.

Are you really suggesting that every single member of NATO is in it because they love a bit of NUKE.

Funny they aren't all clamouring to have Nuclear weapons, isn't it?