[News] Scottish Labour vote to scrap Trident

[wellquickwoody]

Any reason for that? Or just you don't like change?



Well they would be entitled to their fair share of the North Sea oil, and with a population of only 5 million the money would go very far. They could use this money to increase education while developing social projects and their infrastructure to be a more independent nation without relying on the English economy for their economic prosperity. They already have free university level education for their students, and so in 20 - 30 years they could have a highly skilled workforce which can generate a large GDP per capita and use taxes to pay for all the services you'd expect in a fair society.

Not a fan of reality then?

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Have you actually seen the price of Brent Crude at the moment ? It's at about $49 a barrel, the SNP projections which were going to pay for all your wonderful projects and infrastructure were for above $ 100 a barrel, it's typical pie in the sky fairy stories.

I didn't base my post on what the SNP proposed. If what they proposed is similar to what I said then I guess that is just coincidence, or perhaps we actually see the potential the country could have. Even without oil as a revenue source Scotland would be able to improve their economy and society to levels beyond that of the UK. They wouldn't have to fork out for things such as Trident for a start, and they could become a world leader in renewable technologies (wind power) to provide the jobs lost by not renewing Trident. Once oil prices bounce back, it would just be another source of revenue for them.

Shared history , shared values and economic reasons. Change can be good if it leads to a better outcome. The SNP want to break away from a tried and tested union with Scotlands biggest trading partner (England) but want to stay in the European Union. Their little scotlander nationalism has a strong whiff of anti English sentiment behind it. If the SNP really wants total autonomy making it's own decisions they would be leaving the UK and the EU. An Independent Scotland would be an irrelevance both economically and politically. We are better off together.

This post makes you sound very, very bitter. The combination of a condescending tone and a belittling description towards Scotland makes me think you haven't really considered what is best for Scotland at all. If they became independent we'd still be their biggest trading partner. They're not suggesting we build a wall and close our borders, they just want to be able to decide their own laws, their own spending and their own budget. Canada isn't in union with the US and they still trade billions of dollars a year, why would this be any different? Scotland could still be in the EU too, leaving the UK doesn't rule them out of the EU.

Shared history and Shared values - So you admit the main reasons are because you are scared of change? Lots of countries share values, we don't all automatically share the shame government. History is history, why does that even come into it?

Finally, you say they'd be an irrelevance, but an irrelevance to whom? They have the same population and Norway and Finland. Are these countries irrelevant or are they in fact world leaders according to the HDI?

Not a fan of reality then?

I'm all ears...

 

[DataPoint]

Take a room of 1,000 people representing the populations of Scotland and China! ....996 would be Chinese - just 4 - huddled together in the corner, would be Scottish. With the European Union it would be 990 to 10.

Two centuries ago Scotland represented about 20% of the UK population - now it's only 8%.

Regrettably, this indicates just how insignificant Scotland has become in the 21st century - no longer one of the world's great players.

I think in their hearts they know it - and it hurts - even with their belligerence! England is heading in the same direction, but with 10 times the population and economy - is still hanging on to Premier League status. Psychologically, they have become more and more resentful of the English - and with the nationalist movement - some show a frightening level of down right hatred.

This explains why, even with greater and greater devolution they would rather be governed by Brussels than London. Or would they? This is their dilemma - which is the least damaging to their pride as much of the practical considerations?

This Scottish anti Trident position is as much to do with a craving for importance than reason. A world leader in morality if not power?

It's sad, and logically incompetent, as a reckless Scotland without the ultimate deterrent, would be a simple conquest for any occupying invader if they so wished some time in the future. Imagine the enemy flag flying over Edinburgh castle!

I can't emphasise enough how Thames Television's "The World at War" should be compulsory viewing for anyone wanting to come to a valid judgement on the outcomes of conflict. Every school should have the Box Set.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

...

This Scottish anti Trident position is as much to do with a craving for importance than reason.

...

Surely you've got that the wrong way around...

 

[alfredmizen]

I didn't base my post on what the SNP proposed. If what they proposed is similar to what I said then I guess that is just coincidence, or perhaps we actually see the potential the country could have. Even without oil as a revenue source Scotland would be able to improve their economy and society to levels beyond that of the UK. They wouldn't have to fork out for things such as Trident for a start, and they could become a world leader in renewable technologies (wind power) to provide the jobs lost by not renewing Trident. Once oil prices bounce back, it would just be another source of revenue for them.



This post makes you sound very, very bitter. The combination of a condescending tone and a belittling description towards Scotland makes me think you haven't really considered what is best for Scotland at all. If they became independent we'd still be their biggest trading partner. They're not suggesting we build a wall and close our borders, they just want to be able to decide their own laws, their own spending and their own budget. Canada isn't in union with the US and they still trade billions of dollars a year, why would this be any different? Scotland could still be in the EU too, leaving the UK doesn't rule them out of the EU.

Shared history and Shared values - So you admit the main reasons are because you are scared of change? Lots of countries share values, we don't all automatically share the shame government. History is history, why does that even come into it?

Finally, you say they'd be an irrelevance, but an irrelevance to whom? They have the same population and Norway and Finland. Are these countries irrelevant or are they in fact world leaders according to the HDI?



I'm all ears...

you're living in a dream world mate, they havent got a pot to piss in without brent at a decent level.

 

[beorhthelm]

...Scotland could still be in the EU too, leaving the UK doesn't rule them out of the EU.

one could talk around the economics of independence all day, it would be speculative and the SNP themselves have never put forward a coherent economic case for leaving (probably why they lost). but on EU we know with certainty that they would not be in EU. every official with a say has said that. they would have to apply to join and assuming they get special treatment on the waiting list and compulsory adoption of the Euro, still gain 100% acceptance of all members. that includes a number of states that have upstart regions they need to show aren't going to get EU membership, Spanish in particular said they'd veto the Scots.

 

[alfredmizen]

one could talk around the economics of independence all day, it would be speculative and the SNP themselves have never put forward a coherent economic case for leaving (probably why they lost). but on EU we know with certainty that they would not be in EU. every official with a say has said that. they would have to apply to join and assuming they get special treatment on the waiting list and compulsory adoption of the Euro, still gain 100% acceptance of all members. that includes a number of states that have upstart regions they need to show aren't going to get EU membership, Spanish in particular said they'd veto the Scots.

A rather inflammatory term Are you having that [MENTION=205]Tom Hark, Preston Park[/MENTION] ?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

This post makes you sound very, very bitter. The combination of a condescending tone and a belittling description towards Scotland makes me think you haven't really considered what is best for Scotland at all.

Thought it was reasonable and based in reality myself. You are conflating my opinion of the SNP with Scotland. The people of Scotland have already considered what is best for their nation, why don't you respect their decision?

If they became independent we'd still be their biggest trading partner. They're not suggesting we build a wall and close our borders, they just want to be able to decide their own laws, their own spending and their own budget. Canada isn't in union with the US and they still trade billions of dollars a year, why would this be any different? Scotland could still be in the EU too, leaving the UK doesn't rule them out of the EU.

Yes and we will set our fiscal/monetary policy in the interests of England/Wales/NI no matter the potential economic damage this could inflict on Scotland. eg Scotland according to the SNP would keep the pound therefore the Bank of England would be in charge of their interest rates. In addition it is not at all certain an Independent Scotland would be allowed in the EU for various reasons. But you missed or conveniently ignored my argument that any claim that Scotland could have complete autonomy to 'decide their own laws, their own spending and their own budget' while being members of the EU is laughable.

Shared history and Shared values - So you admit the main reasons are because you are scared of change? Lots of countries share values, we don't all automatically share the shame government. History is history, why does that even come into it?

See previous reply, change can be good if it leads to a better outcome. It is not a reason to share the same government but it is something to be taken into account when breaking up a successful political union that has endured for over 300 years.

Finally, you say they'd be an irrelevance, but an irrelevance to whom? They have the same population and Norway and Finland. Are these countries irrelevant or are they in fact world leaders according to the HDI?

An irrelevance economically and politically in comparison with being part of a country which has one of the worlds largest economies and still has some significant political influence.

Following the logic of your argument I assume you are you in favour of an English parliament and for the UK to leave the EU.