By: Sintra
- 4th December 2013 at 18:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know Socialism in the states is a thin veil for counter-capitalism NGO efforts from the KGB no different than the west used NGO work to capitulate the Soviets.
"counter-capitalism NGO efforts from the KGB"?!
Are you seriously saying that discussions about Welfare, Pensions, Medical aid, etc, in the USA are being fueled by... Putin?!!!!
Dear me, i trully hate stereotypes but, yep, you´ve just sounded like one.
By: MadRat
- 4th December 2013 at 22:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pretend communism is dead. Pretend it's neither global nor idealism. I saw communism and how it distorted half a billion people. If you haven't been paying attention to the socialism movement in America than you have no idea how it's trying to crush the opponition with an iron fist. American has changed much in seven years.
By: Portagee
- 5th December 2013 at 00:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MadRat - I'm going to leave the political discussion aside , not least because I think your way off the mark, and this isn't the place for political discussions.
If the Scots blindly believe that they can rid themselves of nuclear weapons and remain a part of the NATO alliance it is wishful thinking.
Why is this wishful thinking? There is no reason what so ever that a Non-nuclear Scotland can't or won't be part of NATO. Once fully integrated there would be no difference from now other than it be Scottish Pilots in Scottish Marked Jets performing Northern Atlantic and North Sea QRA. It might actually get MPAs back patrolling sooner than the Current UK will.
The UK will never allow the Scots to simply walk away. Letting the Scots leave means leaving a vital flank vulnerable in the islands, threatening the very existence of the remainder of the UK.
The RoUK has no real say over whether Scotland walk away. The Westminster Government have already stated that they will not oppose the will of the people of Scotland. An Independent Scotland would become part of the integrated NATO Defensive Zone, taking over the mission that the RAF of the Current UK have for Northern QRA. As a member of NATO it would be have all the necessary back up on this "flank" that the Current RAF would receive from other NATO members if required.
The facts that the UK owns the sub base, not Scotland is plenty reason to assert itself to retain control.
An Independent Scotland as stated elsewhere are entitled to approx 8% of all UK assets and Debts, Scotland may take less than 8% of some things, ( Scotland doesn't want 8% of 4 Nuclear submarines and their warheads) so would negotiate for perhaps 10% of other things. That's across the whole Government not just Defence.
There are already a number of things that are taken as read... such as the hand over of Current UK Defence sites in Scotland to the Scottish Defence Force. Some might be run or operated jointly for a number of years either with the RoUK or other NATO countries.
So I'm afraid your assertion about Faslane is quite wrong.
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 5th December 2013 at 00:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You don't actually equate socialism with communism do you?
Socialism, at least, the European version of it, and communism are poles apart.
By: MadRat
- 5th December 2013 at 00:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You don't walk away from your percentage of future obligations. Scotland must pay its share of the debt. And the RoUK as you term it has no obligations to turn over 8% of the force structure. The UK won't simply leave the Scottish coast unguarded while the same Scot idealists decide whether or not they need other things like ships, tanks, planes, etc.
By: swerve
- 5th December 2013 at 01:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Errr . . . the quid pro quo for Scotland taking on its share of the debt is that it would get the same proportion of the assets. The RoUK is, absolutely, obliged to turn over the Scottish share of the armed forces, along with the Scottish share of everything else - as long as Scotland accepts its share of the debt, which the SNP says it will. It has to, of course, since not doing so would destroy the credit rating of an independent Scotland, & leave the majority of its banks controlled by the government in London.
Of course, immovable assets located in Scotland would count towards Scotland's share of assets.
The US federal government's position in 1861 is not a guide here. We don't have a concept of central government assets being owned centrally, independently of the region in which they are located. We have, instead, innumerable precedents for assets being transferred back & forth between local & central government, depending on expediency. As far as our constitution is concerned, state assets are state assets, & it doesn't matter very much which level of the state paid for them. Consider, for a moment, the National Health Service. Nobody is even talking about what would happen to NHS assets in Scotland if Scotland becomes independent. Why is that? Because there's nothing to discuss: they will become Scottish assets. It's taken for granted. What else could possibly happen? Even asking the question would be regarded as stupid. And so on . . .
The Scots paid for a share of central assets with their taxes, so if there's a split, they own that share. It's taken for granted. The only areas for debate are exactly what their share is, & the fine detail of who gets what. If you disagree with how we do things, well, so what? Your opinions carry no weight.
Ask yourself this: how does the UK guard the Irish coast?
By: Tempest414
- 5th December 2013 at 06:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Errr . . . the quid pro quo for Scotland taking on its share of the debt is that it would get the same proportion of the assets. The RoUK is, absolutely, obliged to turn over the Scottish share of the armed forces, along with the Scottish share of everything else - as long as Scotland accepts its share of the debt, which the SNP says it will. It has to, of course, since not doing so would destroy the credit rating of an independent Scotland, & leave the majority of its banks controlled by the government in London.
Of course, immovable assets located in Scotland would count towards Scotland's share of assets.
The US federal government's position in 1861 is not a guide here. We don't have a concept of central government assets being owned centrally, independently of the region in which they are located. We have, instead, innumerable precedents for assets being transferred back & forth between local & central government, depending on expediency. As far as our constitution is concerned, state assets are state assets, & it doesn't matter very much which level of the state paid for them. Consider, for a moment, the National Health Service. Nobody is even talking about what would happen to NHS assets in Scotland if Scotland becomes independent. Why is that? Because there's nothing to discuss: they will become Scottish assets. It's taken for granted. What else could possibly happen? Even asking the question would be regarded as stupid. And so on . . .
The Scots paid for a share of central assets with their taxes, so if there's a split, they own that share. It's taken for granted. The only areas for debate are exactly what their share is, & the fine detail of who gets what. If you disagree with how we do things, well, so what? Your opinions carry no weight.
Ask yourself this: how does the UK guard the Irish coast?
I agree with most if not all what you say about splitting assets however by defending it own cost the UK naturally defends the Irish cost in the most part this will not be the same of the North and East Scottish costs and this is why a SDF will need to be more powerful than the Irish forces
By: j_jza80
- 5th December 2013 at 08:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not false.
The privatisation of most previous public industry (such as railways or power generation to name two) is directly contradictory to communist ideology.
It depends how you define Communism. If you're referring to early 20th century Communism, then you're quite right. Chinese Communism has changed to the point that it isn't really Communism any more (to the point that my Economics lecturer at University wouldn't refer to it as Communism at all), and it actually promotes elitism in a similar fashion to capitalism.
By: jbritchford
- 5th December 2013 at 09:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seriously man.
Most NATO members don't have nukes.
Vulnerable flank?!?
True, but I think that quite a few members have access and training to use American nuclear weapons in an emergency. I can think of the Netherlands and Turkey off the top of my head, and I think that Germany, maybe Italy & Belgium also had aircraft and crews trained for this mission within NATO.
By: Amiga500
- 5th December 2013 at 09:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, but I think that quite a few members have access and training to use American nuclear weapons in an emergency. I can think of the Netherlands and Turkey off the top of my head, and I think that Germany, maybe Italy & Belgium also had aircraft and crews trained for this mission within NATO.
Fair point.
But, given the current locale of the UK's nuclear arsenal, would it be a surprise if many of the people that would eventually constitute this potential Scottish Defence Force wouldn't already be well versed in the use of nukes?
Arranging training with rUK is likely to be something the SNP would accede to if NATO membership required it. After all, its not really propaganda worthy, but actually effective, so would be of little interest to politicians.
By: swerve
- 5th December 2013 at 11:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
.... however by defending it own cost the UK naturally defends the Irish cost in the most part this will not be the same of the North and East Scottish costs and this is why a SDF will need to be more powerful than the Irish forces
Agreed. Great Britain shields Ireland from most of its possible enemies, so by defending ourselves we indirectly defend Ireland - but that would not be true for an independent Scotland.
But we do not directly defend Ireland. It's just a by-product of keeping our own territory safe.
By: Portagee
- 5th December 2013 at 12:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I haven't seen anything written, but given an SDF's ADIZ would likely extend around the North coast of the Island of Ireland and out into the Atlantic, bordering both RoUK (NI) and ROI airspace, a tri-national agreement whether formal or informal would be implemented.
I do wonder though whether the RoUK would look to have a more Westerly oriented stance, this would possibly assist with any Irish solution.
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 5th December 2013 at 12:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The privatisation of most previous public industry (such as railways or power generation to name two) is directly contradictory to communist ideology.
By: snafu352
- 5th December 2013 at 17:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the Scots vote for seperation they become a seperate sovereign nation and thus can of course opt to request the removal of another nations weaponary from their territory.
Whether this is sensible or fair as it potentially impacts the second nations own defense is arguable; but it is not a decision that one can dispute if one is prepared to allow Scotland to vote for independence.
By: Moggy C
- 5th December 2013 at 18:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Salmond talked more sense than he knew in the days (pre-2008) when he likened an independent Scotland to Iceland and Ireland.
He has gone a little quiet on that front recently, but if I were him, so would I.
As I have mentioned before I am hugely in favour of an independent Scotland, not in the Pound, and part of the EU if it wants to be. Were I running such a country I'd declare neutrality and have no military whatsoever, using that money to try and fund the somewhat optimistic range of policies with which I had earlier bribed the electorate.
Regrettably the odds are looking to favour a 'No' vote, which I feel is a great shame.
By: Broccoli
- 5th December 2013 at 18:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Disarming would be cheapest choice since UK is already covered by US deterrence, and their deterrence is already very much US based.
I think it comes as a shock to most people on either side of the Atlantic when they learn how much the UK depends on the United States for its nuclear deterrent. Even I was a little taken aback during my visit to Aldermaston when Don Cook, the Managing Director of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, began to address us in his flat American accent.
I thought “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Couldn’t they have found someone British?”
After a couple of days at the AWE, and a tour of the lovely historical collection, I accepted the reality that, no, the United Kingdom does not in any way, shape, or form have an independent nuclear deterrent.
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 4th December 2013 at 18:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"counter-capitalism NGO efforts from the KGB"?!
Are you seriously saying that discussions about Welfare, Pensions, Medical aid, etc, in the USA are being fueled by... Putin?!!!!
Dear me, i trully hate stereotypes but, yep, you´ve just sounded like one.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 4th December 2013 at 22:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pretend communism is dead. Pretend it's neither global nor idealism. I saw communism and how it distorted half a billion people. If you haven't been paying attention to the socialism movement in America than you have no idea how it's trying to crush the opponition with an iron fist. American has changed much in seven years.
Posts: 594
By: Portagee - 5th December 2013 at 00:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MadRat - I'm going to leave the political discussion aside , not least because I think your way off the mark, and this isn't the place for political discussions.
Why is this wishful thinking? There is no reason what so ever that a Non-nuclear Scotland can't or won't be part of NATO. Once fully integrated there would be no difference from now other than it be Scottish Pilots in Scottish Marked Jets performing Northern Atlantic and North Sea QRA. It might actually get MPAs back patrolling sooner than the Current UK will.
The RoUK has no real say over whether Scotland walk away. The Westminster Government have already stated that they will not oppose the will of the people of Scotland. An Independent Scotland would become part of the integrated NATO Defensive Zone, taking over the mission that the RAF of the Current UK have for Northern QRA. As a member of NATO it would be have all the necessary back up on this "flank" that the Current RAF would receive from other NATO members if required.
An Independent Scotland as stated elsewhere are entitled to approx 8% of all UK assets and Debts, Scotland may take less than 8% of some things, ( Scotland doesn't want 8% of 4 Nuclear submarines and their warheads) so would negotiate for perhaps 10% of other things. That's across the whole Government not just Defence.
There are already a number of things that are taken as read... such as the hand over of Current UK Defence sites in Scotland to the Scottish Defence Force. Some might be run or operated jointly for a number of years either with the RoUK or other NATO countries.
So I'm afraid your assertion about Faslane is quite wrong.
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 5th December 2013 at 00:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
False
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 5th December 2013 at 00:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You don't walk away from your percentage of future obligations. Scotland must pay its share of the debt. And the RoUK as you term it has no obligations to turn over 8% of the force structure. The UK won't simply leave the Scottish coast unguarded while the same Scot idealists decide whether or not they need other things like ships, tanks, planes, etc.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 5th December 2013 at 01:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Errr . . . the quid pro quo for Scotland taking on its share of the debt is that it would get the same proportion of the assets. The RoUK is, absolutely, obliged to turn over the Scottish share of the armed forces, along with the Scottish share of everything else - as long as Scotland accepts its share of the debt, which the SNP says it will. It has to, of course, since not doing so would destroy the credit rating of an independent Scotland, & leave the majority of its banks controlled by the government in London.
Of course, immovable assets located in Scotland would count towards Scotland's share of assets.
The US federal government's position in 1861 is not a guide here. We don't have a concept of central government assets being owned centrally, independently of the region in which they are located. We have, instead, innumerable precedents for assets being transferred back & forth between local & central government, depending on expediency. As far as our constitution is concerned, state assets are state assets, & it doesn't matter very much which level of the state paid for them. Consider, for a moment, the National Health Service. Nobody is even talking about what would happen to NHS assets in Scotland if Scotland becomes independent. Why is that? Because there's nothing to discuss: they will become Scottish assets. It's taken for granted. What else could possibly happen? Even asking the question would be regarded as stupid. And so on . . .
The Scots paid for a share of central assets with their taxes, so if there's a split, they own that share. It's taken for granted. The only areas for debate are exactly what their share is, & the fine detail of who gets what. If you disagree with how we do things, well, so what? Your opinions carry no weight.
Ask yourself this: how does the UK guard the Irish coast?
Posts: 594
By: Portagee - 5th December 2013 at 01:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Stated much more eloquently than I could
Posts: 976
By: Tempest414 - 5th December 2013 at 06:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree with most if not all what you say about splitting assets however by defending it own cost the UK naturally defends the Irish cost in the most part this will not be the same of the North and East Scottish costs and this is why a SDF will need to be more powerful than the Irish forces
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 5th December 2013 at 08:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not false.
The privatisation of most previous public industry (such as railways or power generation to name two) is directly contradictory to communist ideology.
Posts: 1,542
By: j_jza80 - 5th December 2013 at 08:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It depends how you define Communism. If you're referring to early 20th century Communism, then you're quite right. Chinese Communism has changed to the point that it isn't really Communism any more (to the point that my Economics lecturer at University wouldn't refer to it as Communism at all), and it actually promotes elitism in a similar fashion to capitalism.
Posts: 1,518
By: jbritchford - 5th December 2013 at 09:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, but I think that quite a few members have access and training to use American nuclear weapons in an emergency. I can think of the Netherlands and Turkey off the top of my head, and I think that Germany, maybe Italy & Belgium also had aircraft and crews trained for this mission within NATO.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 5th December 2013 at 09:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fair point.
But, given the current locale of the UK's nuclear arsenal, would it be a surprise if many of the people that would eventually constitute this potential Scottish Defence Force wouldn't already be well versed in the use of nukes?
Arranging training with rUK is likely to be something the SNP would accede to if NATO membership required it. After all, its not really propaganda worthy, but actually effective, so would be of little interest to politicians.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 5th December 2013 at 11:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed. Great Britain shields Ireland from most of its possible enemies, so by defending ourselves we indirectly defend Ireland - but that would not be true for an independent Scotland.
But we do not directly defend Ireland. It's just a by-product of keeping our own territory safe.
Posts: 594
By: Portagee - 5th December 2013 at 12:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I haven't seen anything written, but given an SDF's ADIZ would likely extend around the North coast of the Island of Ireland and out into the Atlantic, bordering both RoUK (NI) and ROI airspace, a tri-national agreement whether formal or informal would be implemented.
I do wonder though whether the RoUK would look to have a more Westerly oriented stance, this would possibly assist with any Irish solution.
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 5th December 2013 at 12:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To say nothing of common sense.
Posts: 2,248
By: snafu352 - 5th December 2013 at 17:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the Scots vote for seperation they become a seperate sovereign nation and thus can of course opt to request the removal of another nations weaponary from their territory.
Whether this is sensible or fair as it potentially impacts the second nations own defense is arguable; but it is not a decision that one can dispute if one is prepared to allow Scotland to vote for independence.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 5th December 2013 at 18:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Salmond talked more sense than he knew in the days (pre-2008) when he likened an independent Scotland to Iceland and Ireland.
He has gone a little quiet on that front recently, but if I were him, so would I.
As I have mentioned before I am hugely in favour of an independent Scotland, not in the Pound, and part of the EU if it wants to be. Were I running such a country I'd declare neutrality and have no military whatsoever, using that money to try and fund the somewhat optimistic range of policies with which I had earlier bribed the electorate.
Regrettably the odds are looking to favour a 'No' vote, which I feel is a great shame.
Moggy
Posts: 272
By: Broccoli - 5th December 2013 at 18:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Disarming would be cheapest choice since UK is already covered by US deterrence, and their deterrence is already very much US based.
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2139/britains-independent-deterrent
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/british-trident-subs-to-field-enhanced-us-made-warheads/