Re: We're all doomed! Doomed I say- the Corona virus thread for panicking in!

[Lancebloke]

{{ I think its the nebulous nature of where to point the finger Figg. Poll tax, miners, that was Thatcher making choices and enacting them. The target of anger was obvious. But an invisible virus? Hard to blame even Boris for that.
I think the blame for the response however will come, once this more intense period is over where folk are just more worried for their own health and loved ones, their finacnes, jobs, and are just trying to get through it. }}

I know that nobody blames Johnson for the virus, or even some deaths, but as Starmer has pointed out, you can blame the government for care home deaths, they failed the vulnerable in their time of need. You can blame them for their cack-handed incompetence, for Cummings herd immunity euthanasia, for the nurses begging for PPE, for the degradation of the NHS, for stopping nursing bursaries, for contracting out to their mates without scrutiny, for selling bits off to US companies, for the moronic and insidious slogans, for Priti Patel selling immigrants down the river, the fact they have hidden the deaths of 55,000 people and kept it out of sight because they were afraid of people seeing the mind-blowing loss of life. The happy-clappy 'care badges, wasting money which should have been spent of saving NHS lives.
The list is endless. and it makes me fucking enraged.

Whoever the government is, there are people who are not happy. Massive complaints about austerity followed massive complaints about the spiralling national debt and the problems we were leaving for future generations.

Do you want fully funded public services where no service is left needing anything or do you want the country not to be crushed under its debt in 50 years time?

Nothing is ever good enough.

I think i have already expressed feelings about the handling of this specific crisis was a no win situation so will leave that alone.

[Pettytyrant101]

Massive complaints about austerity followed massive complaints about the spiralling national debt- Lance

{{snag there of course is we got the ten years of austerity, pay feezes for public sector, massive lack ofinvestment in services and the closing down of many services for poor and vulnerable etc but the debt went up.
And its hard for MP's to justify pay freees etc whilst taking pay rises several time above inflation themselves the entire time and squandering billions of tax money on pointless stuff like Trident and air craft carriers we dont have any planes for. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Exactly Petty, and it might have helped if Grayling and co hadn't squandered billions. It is also odd that the people who have suffered most are the ones who are most vulnerable. it isn't the Tory billionaire donors that's for sure. And yes I do want 'fully funded services' Britain is supposed to be the 6th richest country on the planet and has pretensions of being civilised. Which means the sick and disabled not committing suicide because they have been sanctioned and poor people are not found starved to death in squalid conditions. If nurses have to use food banks, the system stinks.

[Lancebloke]

The national debt was always going to go up because the deficit was so big. The point was to reduce the deficit to enable us to manage the debt better rather then having ever increasing amounts that we are paying out.

You talk about wasting money, what is more wasteful than paying interest on something you never pay off... in fact you are only increasing that amount?

Trident is far from useless and the carriers do have planes.... we can have those debates if you like.

I will not argue about money being squandered but that is not a Tory problem. All governments do that, often by using British companies to supply things at a hugely inflated cost which often is not paid back in taxes or reduced welfare.

And you cannot have a fully funded set of public services... regardless of how rich you think the country is, the comment is completety unviable. I would be surprised if there has ever been a nation in the history of the world that has been able to sustainably do that.

And yes, these things hit the poorest because they are more reliant on government for support. Unless you are talking about a fundamental shift away from capitalism, that is how it works. And if you think that is what we should do, I would challenge anyone to find a real world alternative that has proven sustainable and satisfying as a way of life for its citizens.

My main point here isn't that I like the current government, i didn't vote for them and I wouldn't unless the alternative is just worse. It is that the world is far, far more nuanced than most peoples current outrage allows for. Fix this problem completely and you will just end up with 2 or 3 others to rage about.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Other nations, particulary Scandinavian ones do it much better than us, have far better protections and benefits, top league tables for happiness and well being and none of them even make the top ten richest countries, were 4th, with only US, China and Japan being wealthier. Even Norway with its massive oil wealth doesnt touch us. Of course we could afford to do more. Its a delibrate choice not to.
And we could tax the wealthy and corporations more.
Trident is not only a waste of money- same as polaris before it was, billions for weapons you keep till their obselete or useless then replace with more weapons youll never use that cost even more billions. We'd be far better saving themoney, spending more on conventional forces which we actually do use and would still cost far less.
They are also undemocratic, poll after poll shows Scots do not want nukes in our country, our Parliament has voted for their removel overwhelmingly with only Tories voting against. Yet we have them forced upon us, and placed right amongst the densest populated part of the country. Store them all right outside London, see how well that goes down.
They are just a stupidly expansive pass to the Big Boys Table so our elected MP's can feel like they are stil relevant and important on the world stage, as if we still had an empire or something. }}

[azriel]

I fully agree with Lance on the financial state of this country. On the surface all we see is what looks like a mind boggling waste of money & I do agree with Trident being a deterrent that actually isn't & is costing money that could go elsewhere. Im wondering if we all get up on our soap boxes because us "yokels" are keep in the dark. We are not told anything near the truth. If we had a better understanding & there was more transparent clarity life would jog along better. My beef is the Monarchy. Unless its explained to me precisely why they deserve the money they receive I shall always be sceptical & a non royalist. In fact, as the years go by Im thinking Monarchy in any country is starting to look dated & out of touch ? Is it needed in our society ? Could we fizzle them out ? They don't seem to have the powers of previous kings & Queens. Plus, to me, it feels obscene that one brooch that Maj wears could solve a financial crisis. perhaps its just me being narrow minded ? I think more education is needed.

[halfwise]

The problem is with the concept of money as a conserved quantity. It ain't. But if it doesn't seem conserved then you have a crisis of faith and money loses value. People buy government bonds and the government pays interest on those....and a sufficiently clever government would just print money to cover the interest and "poof" you've generated money. But they are afraid if they get caught the simpler minded would lose faith and it would all collapse.

What's the true value of labor? Of jewels? This is all a sliding scale, and those with sufficient power or wit can set the scale. Get sufficiently clever people in charge who can manipulate the shell game and many problems will go away. But it takes smarts, courage and faith to do that. Such things are in short supply in our leadership.

What I'm saying (and I've said it before) is governments with enough credibility can print money to get people through this crisis. But they have to be very judicious about how it's distributed so the financial system doesn't go off the deep end. And it has to be done only in very special cases so that the price of labor doesn't get devalued.

[Lancebloke]

Without the "benefit" of being able to rewind history to remove nuclear weapons from existence and seeing what happens this could obviously never be proven, however I am certain that is this useless deterrent did not exist we would have had at least one more world war and probably several other major wars in which millions would have died.

Do you honestly think the USSR with its vastly superior manpower and resources wouldn't have steamrolled its way across Europe at some or several points? What do you think is keeping India and Pakistan from an all out war when they have literally had to pull back from the brink on several occasions? Plus several other hypothetical, but possibly likely situations that could arise like the resurgence of China and again Russia?

Put the fucking things outside London. That will be a primary target anyway (as would Edinburgh and Glasgow) and we have power stations that are more likely to cause some kind of nuclear apocalypse through an accident.

And I don't belive they are undemocratic. I could be wrong but isn't defence policy a UK government thing and Scotland last voted to stay in the Union.

Tax the wealthy and corporations more you say? I agree if you mean close the loopholes that results in some corporations paying what they should, but taxing them more? Why? If they are paying what they should then they are already adding FAR more to the economy than everyone else through their own tax payments, employment and the tax for their workers. And they are the ones that should pay more? That is discrimination at its finest!

Halfy - if you mean actually printing money, then this is something that has to be done super carefully as you say. The same with any commodity, the value is often in its rarity. If you print money to pay off debt then its value drops and it becomes more expensive to service other and future debts.

If you give money to people then you end up with higher rates of inflation and stuff costs more.

So while it can be used as a stimulus, it has to be done very carefully and is very much not a solution. As we have seen with this like quantitative easing after 2008 where we all literally printed money there are still massive holes to be plugged.

And yes, there are countries that do things better in some regards. But why? What is driving that and how do we get there? Can we get there?

All very well telling me Scandinavian countries register better when measured for things like happiness (which I am aware they do, but I belive they also have quite high suicide rates in comparisonto us) but how do we take the good stuff and add it to the good stuff that other countries are top of.

Which brings me back to my point on my last reply, give me an example of a perfect nation that has ever existed. Is it possible to have fully funded services of all types and have it all in a way that is completely fair and sustainable.

There has to be compromise. 1 because you can't do it all and 2 because people don't agree with your view of what perfect is.

[Mrs Figg]

I kind of got that the world is nuanced, I have spent quite a while here,   and I am only 'enraged' when the sick and poor are shafted by the politically motivated austerity. I am certainly not going to apologise for becoming angry about that. Actually, the moment that I stop become enraged will be the moment I lose my humanity and become a twat.

[Pettytyrant101]

I am certain that is this useless deterrent did not exist we would have had at least one more world war and probably several other major wars in which millions would have died.- Lance

{{ I did not say they had always been of no use. But they have had their day. As a detterent they no longer are, having them as acces to the top table makes them desirable. Iran doesnt want nukes to fire at any one, they want nukes so they can threaten to fire them at Israel if they dont get their seat at the top table. Same goes for N.Korea, they ar enot going to fire them at S. Korea (Not without Chinese permission, and they are playing a different game entirely right now)Nukes have become a means to an end, not a detterent.
Our renewal of Trident is also down in no small measure to staying in with America, as thats who sells them to us under a terrible contract signed when we took on Polaris.
As I don't see Britain as an Empire, and in particular not Scotland, which I would prefer as a small independent nation, aligning with other small independent nations in Europe of simialr inclination as represente dthrough their Parliaments, and globally where possible to try to plot a slightly different course.

'several other hypothetical, but possibly likely situations that could arise like the resurgence of China and again Russia?'

Again they are obselete. Why would anyone fire Nukes? Its crude. There are in this technological age far better ways. Russia and China arent putting in all this effort in hacking, manipulaitng social media and free preess to their advantage or favour, using acquistions of businesses and then acting as donors to Senaors and the like, through lobby groups, making mass investments in Africa because they want to throw nukes about. The days of firing crude radioactive missiles at one another are gone.
Look what a random mutated virus has done? Trump has one thing right so far I think, his Space Force, the next front and cold war is in space, that race is back on again.

'Put the fucking things outside London.'

One of the other contenders other than here was Portsmouth, but it was rejected by the MOD as being to close to a major population centre. Apprently Glasgow and the entire Clyde valley and surrounds, including me of course, and 3/4 of Scotlands 5 million population reside, but it doesn't count as 'a major population centre'. After all we're only Scots.
You really think there wouldn't be uproar if they put them anywhere near a major English city?

'I could be wrong but isn't defence policy a UK government thing and Scotland last voted to stay in the Union.'

Defence is devolved. The decision as to where to put them is one made entirely by Westminster.
However Scotland has a devolved Parliament, which represents the people, and which voted for their removal by a large margin, every Scottish MP of all parties in Wesminister, bar the 1 Tory MP at the time, voted against the renewal. Not the SNP, every party in the Scottish and Westminster Parliament sent to those places by the people of Scotland voted against, bar the small Tory representives.
According to the Westminister government Scotland is an equal partner in the union. We were explicitly told that during the referndum. We had an equal voice and say, if we rejected independence.
If the people of Scotland through both nations Parliaments say we do not want them in Scotland, should that not be part of the democratic process when it comes to Wesminster deciding where to put them? Rather than say, completely ignoring that democratic vote and refusing to acknowledge it let alone take it into consideration?

'I agree if you mean close the loopholes that results in some corporations paying what they should, but taxing them more? Why? If they are paying what they should then they are already adding FAR more to the economy than everyone else through their own tax payments, employment and the tax for their workers.'

We agree on the first part. The issue is however the enormity of the gulf that has opened up in the last forty to fifty years between the earnings of a worker and those at the top end of the same company. And the relative lowering, taking into account inflation, of investment from government in social services and the money received by the poorest. In no small part due to taxing of the wleathiest falling from a range of 70-90% to its current 45%
The disparity between worker and top of compnay however has risen at a shocking rate. The difference between the wages of the bosses and the wages of the workers producing. To the point many who are in full employment at the lower end require government assistance still just to meet the governments own minimum living wage standard.
No one should be working full time and still not earning enough to live reasonably on. Yet millions in the UK are. And especially not when those who own the company are taking many, many times that wage themselves.
When I was a kid my Dad was working at the bottom end for the Americans (stayed till they left and rose to be in charge of their entire distributing centre). They paid a bit more than he would have got locally for a similar low end job, so equivilent to getting maybe a quid above the living wage.
We went to Blackpool once a year, or Nottingham where we had relatives, sometimes twice, my dad was in the pub every weekend, and osmetimes a coupleof midweeks, at least three or four nights in every month brother and I would be at grandparents as parents ould afford to pay the rent, their taxes and still go out fo a drink, or a meal or cinema. We were well fed and clothed, warm, even had a colour tv by then. All on one full time job just above the living wage, and my mums part time job a few days a week as a house cleaner.
The equivelent working couple today with two children will require a top up of one form or another just to meet the basic living standard, they will be lucky to afford a holdiday once a year, or go out to a meal or cinema a few times a month, or go to the pub two nights in a week. They wil be lucky to afford to pay rent, tax and have enough food to feed and cloath their two children without resorting to charity and food banks.
The only two ways I can think to fix this is either legislation which allows the government to enforce a maximum rate at which  the top can earn over their workforce, or to tax the higher up far more and redistrubte the money through tax credits to the low paid to increase wages at a rate which really doe go a long way to moving people out of the working poor bracket and more towards the lower end of the middle classes. And to help fund service such as the NHS.

'What is driving that and how do we get there?'

You start where you always have to start, with dreaming its possible. There has to be way that neither seeks to overtly or covertly control, nor curbs the freedom to create invent and market and sell your product, that allows for those people who have particular skills to be rewarded for them at a rate which reflex their skills, and to be better of than those who dont, but without the difference needing to be gross.
And does'nt have people needing foodbanks, or elderly choosing between food and heating, or care homes so crammed that they are now being decimated of life in our current crisis. Or children neeeding free meals at school as their family is so poor they cannot even afford to feed their children three times a day.
There simply has to be better, humanity has come this far, we have can get there if we try.

'give me an example of a perfect nation that has ever existed.'

There isnt one yet, but some countries are trying harder than others to make one. But this is still a new world, all of us and the rest of the world (well a lot of it) being able to communicate in this manner, so instantly to people we'd otherwise never have interactied with all our lives. Thats a game changer in the long run I think.
Its a lot harder to point and fire a nuke at the strange threat, from those strange people who don't think like us living in a distant dangerous land when you were just talking to one of them about last nights episode of The Walking Dead.
I think the effect of this has yet to fully play out. The old adage we have more in common than we do different holds true. And if it also holds true globally, that could change a lot of things eventually.
And a human at their very best can and at moments in history have accomplished remarkable things.

'There has to be compromise.'

Of course. They just have to be good ones!}}

[Lancebloke]

I think sayings nukes have had their day is incredibly naive.

The West and Russia are still vying for dominance, we have seen that with Crimea, Ukraine and Syria.

China is asserting military control over the South China Sea with its island and military base construction projects. That is in addition to all of the other things you mention.

These are all very real potential threats and there may very well be a time where the only thing stopping a massive conventional war is the threat of mass destruction regardless of how big or advanced your conventional forces are.

Nukes will only be obsolete when they can no longer be reliably delivered or something with a bigger bang comes along. I hope by that point the world is a lot more friendly because the one thing humans have proven over and over and over and over is that we are great at taking advantage of the weak, in whichever way they are weak.

And as far as I can see, defence is not devolved. The Scottish government does not play a role in the UKs defence policy and so by agreeing to stay part of the Union the Scottish peoples traded that away.

And yes, i am sure there will be uproar wherever they get put. They still have to be put somewhere if we are to keep them (see above reasons).

With regards to the taxing or wage capping.... that is not how economics works. Make the poorest richer and inflation will take care of it pretty quickly. So are we going to start fixing the prices of goods and services?

Can a football team no longer charge certain prices for tickets and merchandise and limit the wages of players?

Are we going to say that T.V. and mobile phone companies MUST lower their prices so CEOs and shareholders can't be paid dividends or big salaries?

If not, where does that money go because redistribution of the wealth to people won't work. Send it to the NHS or police, forcibly through taxing, will both result in the same thing (higher prices for them to pay) and probably result in outside investment going elsewhere.

I agree that there are likely better ways of doing it than we are, however in my opinion the only way things will ever get to a Utopian situation is when we learn how to create matter and full on Star Trek replicate things we need or want. That plus the problem of the human condition which governs so many of our 'wants' and 'needs.'

[Lancebloke]

Bollocks... was supposed to have kept that short.

[Pettytyrant101]

'when they can no longer be reliably delivered or something with a bigger bang comes along.'

{{ There already things well into development which do that, thats whats behind the resurgence in nations getting into space. Its going to be an arms race, in orbit. As an investment going forward for the Uk its entriely unnecessary. We dont need it for staying in our current alliances, the majority of NATO member dont have them. And its very shortly going to be completely superceded. Its a poor investment. The current threat is still through conventional forces, terrosism and cyber. Thats where defence money should go at moment, and it would be less than renewing Trident. Leaving some over for public investment. It would target actual exisitng real ongoing threats and it would be a reduction in government spending overall on defence.

'The Scottish government does not play a role in the UKs defence policy'

The offical Pledge, delivered by Gordon Brown via and on behalf of the Cameron government, says we are an equal partner and voice and have an equal say. So surely if by all democratic means, through Scottish and Westminister Parliaments Scotland expresses a desire not to have them here, then thats our equal choice. Thats our equal voice. That is our equal say, saying not here, move them elsewhere. Is it really so unreasonable for England to accept that? Would a reaosnable response to our equal say and voice and clear expression of what we want not just be to say, 'ok well we want them, and we decide if we have them, but we dont have to keep them in your country so if you dont want them there we'll take them.'
Would it not be democratic and honouring the Pledge therefore to hear that equal voice and to remove them elsewhere in the UK? Is that really too much for us to ask?

'Make the poorest richer and inflation will take care of it pretty quickly.'

How on earth are you deifning rich when it really effects inflation?
I am talking about a family of four, with one full time working adult, and one part time working adult both on minimum wage earning enough to comfortable house and feed their family, provide to their needs, afford to go out a few times a month and to go on holiday, and afford some luxuries like Netflix, and or buying a games console or something, without requiring government aid just to help meet the basic needs of housing and feeding, with little left over for anything else.
Doing so would not harm the economy as any potential rise would be offset by the increased demand spurned by the lowest level having a modest disposable income to spend.

'Can a football team no longer charge certain prices for tickets and merchandise and limit the wages of players?'

As with everything it would be scaled. I said a person should be paid appropriate to their skills, and thats its fine for someone to be better off than someone else, and get benefits out of that from being so. It just should not be to such a gross discrepency which globalisation has opened up between top and bottom.
The top end has exploded in wealth earned, whilst the bottom has stagnated or worse gone backwards. This must be addressed eventually, it cant just go on growing and growing as it has.
So yes it needs to be enforced by having a maximum amount the top can earn times their lowest paid workers wage. That doesnt cap wages, but it does mean a company will have a maximum it can pay its top people dependent on what they choose to pay the bottom people. Shareholders could have a max earn that would be dependent as normal on the companys stock value. And if a company produces less then the government takes nothing from them besides normal taxes as is now, but if the company makes above everyone getting a fair wage at all levels of employment for what they do, and all shareholders getting their max payment, the extra is taken for investment in essential public services.
The rich stay rich, just not stupidly rich, but if they wished to increase their own earnings they would have to increase the earnings at the bottom inline to stay within the difference. Shareholders would still get very good payouts for investment if company does well, and they would know when investing in a company before they do what the top line they could expect to make from it, and public services would receive extra cash from profitable companies without anyone losing a penny in wages at any level. }}

[Lancebloke]

The resurgence of the space race is because the US is no longer unchallenged as a superpower. If it does nothing there are others that will.

And I still think you are being totally naive on the nukes. They have and continue to deter mass conventional war. The result has been the countless proxy wars that we see, however nothing on the scale of direct wars between big powers (which is why the likes or Iran want them.... they then don't end up being a big proxy player).

The equal partner thing a) doesn't change the fact that defence is a UK government matter and b) doesn't change the fact that the base is already there and would cost tons to move. And to throw that back, an equal voice doesn't mean Scotlands is louder. Do we have to do everythinf Scotland wants because it says so... where is the equal voice for the rest?

Also, the main storage site for nuclear weapons is Aldermaston which is about 40 miles SW of London. So we do also have them near a population centre down here!

How am I defining rich? Well... i didn't mention rich. I said making the poorest richer... as in the divide between income and outgoings shrinks somehow.

And this obviously drives inflation. If there is more affordability then prices rise. If 6 million people can afford a tin of beans that they couldnt before then retailers raise prices. Basic supply and demand.

Outside of what inhave already said, the last point becomes silly when the "rich" that are actually doing things "morally" are already paying a fuck ton more in to the economy and supporting a huge amount of people through their wealth.

They are already taxed over double that if the lowest bracket. The are often mass employers. They are often philanthropists, putting millions if not billions in to charities.

But yes, fuck them.... lets make them pay a bit more. And then because we still don't have enough... a bit more. And a bit more. Oh... and when they die let's take a bit more!

[Pettytyrant101]

Do we have to do everythinf Scotland wants because it says so... where is the equal voice for the rest?- Lance

{{ I am all for England, NI and Wales being given a free vote on if they want nukes in their country either. If they all vote no then its clear the people of the Uk as a whole dont want them and they should therefore go. And if a nation votes that they do want them there then we have a new home for them. That'd be democratic. And listening to everyone. But the Tories would never grant the rest of the UK such a vote.

'If 6 million people can afford a tin of beans that they couldnt before then retailers raise prices. Basic supply and demand.'

If 6 million more people are spending more money then there is greater demand, greater need for production, more money for shops and manufactures, and more jobs which equals more tax going to the government for public services. Investment would increase maintaing supply and preventing inflation getting out of hand.
Increasing spending to public services like social workers, district nurses, care homes, suicide and mental health centres, drug and addiction seervices, in turn reduces strain on other services such as the NHS and police, prisons. Reduces criminality, deals with severe mental health in humane ways and create a long term saving on the initial investment as prevention is less expensive than cure. Allowing government to better control spending and target resources to other areas.
For the working poor, who are working five to seven days a week often to still be unable to get by without a handout to meet basic living standards, nor given the dignity to be able to get paid at least enough to provide properly for themselves or family for their labour is not good enough. Its a dignity they deserve as human beings and as  a share of the wealth they help generate, owed to them as much as to the those at the top.
That the 4th richest nation in the world cannot any longer provide that diginity, or even have the desire or wish any longer to even try to do so, is one of the main reasons I want this Union to end.



'when the "rich" that are actually doing things "morally" are already paying a fuck ton more in to the economy and supporting a huge amount of people through their wealth.'- Lance

They are paying a fuck ton less than they used to not so long ago. Or in fact at any point I think in modern British history.
The tax on the top dropped from a high of 90% to a current 45%
Not to mention the many other tax breaks and backdoors and offshore havens provided to the wealthy to evade paying their share of tax.
The government as a result of this large reduction in the top tax rates took in a lot less tax as result and cut back on public spending, or under Labour restorted to borrowing it.
The wages at the top and bonuses started to rise by many times inflation.
In the same time period tax on the working and middle classes increased. To make it worse inflation on goods increased faster than on wages. Forcing more into poverty. Then the government froze the wage increase of milions at 1% for a decade, whilst goods continued to rise by over 2%. And local taxation continued to rise in most parts of the country.
And all this time the gulf between what those at the top earned and those who worked for them continued to dramatically increase and continues to do so. And the spending on public services continued to be cut and cut back. And tax payer money, recooped from the working and middle classes through austerity measures was used to bail out the top classes in the banking crisis, a catastrophe of their own making.

Its unsustainable, any system taken to its extreme will eventually collapse, and when its the top having so much in comparison to those who toil at the bottom, when people feel a loss of pride or shame that though they work as hard as they can they still cannot provide for their kids or partners, when they feel humilated- he historical result is usually a revolution of some sort. We are seeing this all across the globe with people turning to more extreme parties on both sides, the rise in popularity of far left socialists/communists and far right supremicists/nazis. Even terrorist organisation along with the religion is the political, driven by that same sense of injustice at inequality. That is all in no small part driven by a sense of rightful injustice. Even Trump and Boris are reflections of it.

I wouldnt tax the dead, not in favur of digging up corpses for money. Unless they've been there at least 1000 years, then its archeology and absolutely fine and dandy   }}

[Lancebloke]

And what if the majority of the UK population wants to keep nukes and England, Wales and N.I. say they should stay in Scotland?

Either way, Scotland voted to be part of the Union and defence is the province of the UK government. The Scottish government have no place to say otherwise. The SNP/Scottish MPs have the right to raise it in Westminster and go through that route, the same as my MP does about the state of my local high street.

And Petty, the only way that will happen it to have a government run version of everything. Otherwise business will do what business has always done and drive prices up. That is standard economics where goods are controlled by for-profit companies.

Top tax rate of 90%? I am sure you wouldn't be suggesting that as why would any person with that kind of wealth want to live here and pay taxes? You would lose more than you would gain. I imagine pushing 50-60% would do that.

[Pettytyrant101]

what if the majority of the UK population wants to keep nukes and England, Wales and N.I. say they should stay in Scotland? - Lance

{{ No one part should be able to enforce it upon another. If other parts of the UK vote to keep the nukes then they can keep them in that part of the UK, thats fine thats a partnership. Ignoring the clearly democratically expressed views of one part of the UK and then imposing it upon them regardless is not what we were told this Union was about.

' Scotland voted to be part of the Union'- Lance

Yes, with specific caveats and promises and pledges. Chief among that promise of an equal political voice and say. The Union will fall inevitably for so long as Westminister ignores those promises made, many only decided to vote to remain after the Pledge was made. It itself made in desperation as polls were showing a win for YES. But they still have to stick to it if they want this Union to have any hope of lasting.

'The SNP/Scottish MPs have the right to raise it in Westminster and go through that route, the same as my MP does about the state of my local high street.'

See, this is the sort of English attitude to Scotland that is part of the issue. You are comparing an entire country, voting through both its available democratically voiced instuitions for the removal of what is considered a dangerous and immoral weapon, to complaining about pot holes in an english road.
That dismissivness of an entire nation, that equating Scotland to at best no more than an english parish is insulting.

'Otherwise business will do what business has always done and drive prices up.'

Which is why you need some government intervention- wether that is in closing loopholes, offshore accounts and using the full force of the law including imprisonment for those who abuse the system, or to ensure that there is a sustainable balance maintained between what those at the top of a company pay themselves and what they pay the workforce doing the actual work making the wealth. Ensuring the lowest paid are no longer working poor requiring  handouts but can sustain themselves on their full time wage alone.
That should not be too much to expect, its how it was for decades before.


Top tax rate of 90%? I am sure you wouldn't be suggesting that as why would any person with that kind of wealth want to live here and pay taxes?- Lance

If there is profit to make someone will make it. So long as business can still make profit they are sustainable. In modern days I'd say a rate of about 50%-55% is sustainable, and would increase tax revenue for public services by 10%. Which is still far less than used to be the norm.}}

[Lancebloke]

No one part should be able to enforce it on others? Why not?

Holyrood can force its will on other parts of Scotland within the powers it has. Why can the UK government not do the same?

And I am not comparing a country with a parish. I am saying there is clearly a set of devolved powers and a set of reserved powers. Defence is reserved and therefore Scotland's place to debate and challenge any decisions is in Westminster, not through a poll.

The English attitude is the problem? I would argue the Scottish nationalist voice is just as much of a problem with an often "holier than thou" attitude and a tendency to paint a lot of people with the same brush.

On the government intervention piece... good luck with that. The world isn't what it was in the early 1900's. The UK is a rich country because of the ties it formed while burning half the world and forging an empire. It would not be abke to sustain its population itself and therefore it is highly subject to outside markets. And while that is the case the goals you mention are just not achievable.

Yes, we can get closer and we should try. But push big business and the wealthy out of the country and you will not have any left to tax. They will go elsewhere because business is about making the most profit from your investment. If that means investing in Liberia or Bolivia instead then they will.

And, without trying to sound like a dickhead, the virtue signalling around the morality of nukes whilst suggesting conventional forces be built up instead is painful. Conventional weapons have killed hundreds of millions of people... they need people to be killed using them so that people on the other side can get killed.

Nuclear weapons are potential civilisation enders, yes, however they have probably saved more lives through avoiding conventional war than anything else in history. They continue to do so and will do until they are actually obsolete (which is going to be a long time yet).

[Pettytyrant101]

Scotland's place to debate and challenge any decisions is in Westminster, not through a poll.- Lance

{{{ A Bill passed with an overwhelming majority in the Scottish Parliament by its MSP's, and every Scottish MP bar the lone Tory voting against renewal in Westminister is not a poll.

'On the government intervention piece... good luck with that. '

I assume you dont advocate no government regulation at all of markets or business? Therefore its merely a matter of how much and on what aspects. Ensuring greed is curbed by good enforcement of tax laws and by tying lower wages to higher to ensure fairness seems a step in right direction to me. And a higher tax rate above 50% is perfectly sustainable without frightening off business as its still far outweighed by potential profits.


'they have probably saved more lives through avoiding conventional war than anything else in history.'

There have been nonstop conventional wars since their invention! Globably Africa has had loads, Vietnam, China/Tibet, Falklands, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Ukraine, just to name a very few. Many of the players involved have nukes, but as everyone knows they cant really use them they have been fighting conentional wars as normal. There hasnt been a single year since the invention of nukes without a conventional war happening somewhere.
So what are they deterring? Not terrorists as 9/11 proved they are uselesss there. Not cyber attacks or manipulating social media narratives, no use there either. And they haven't prevented conventional wars, Britains been in quite a few since they got nukes, as have all the other nuclear powers, so no use there. In reality the only threat they actually are are to those who have them in terms of dealing with and disposing of the nuclear produce from it all.
Given all that if you are going to have an army and armed forces investing in what you actually need and use would seem prudent. }}

[Lancebloke]

Dude. Have a look at the stats!

Since the first use of atomic weapons in WW2 (which probably saved millions of lives) the number of deaths from war as a percentage of population has dramatically dropped.

Do you think there would not have been a mass Soviet invasion of western Europe if it weren't for nuclear weapons?

Do you think the Vietnam war wouldn't have resulted in a direct conflict between China and the US if it weren't for nuclear weapons?

So you not think the various skirmishes between India and Pakistan at some point wouldnt have turned in to a full scale war if it werent nuclear weapons?

Of course there are still wars going on. That is because countries without them can still be attacked by those with them, because countries like Iran and Iraq can face off with a good chance of victory and not the assurance of losing no matter what, because conflicts that can be settled without nukes will be settled without them (these are normally where the one with them doesn't have their homeland threatened).

If China is no threat then why are they building military forces to threaten South Asian countries? If Russia is no threat why are they still initiating or getting involved in proxy wars across the world... even in Europe now?

A nuke is as immoral a creation as a bullet. They are both designed primarily for killing. In the case of the former, 1 can kill millions. In the case of the latter, you sacrifice millions to kill millions.

And no, I don't advocate no regulation. But my initial point was that it is pretty much impossible in a capitalist society to end up in a utopian, all services paid for, all citizens happy world.

Despite the opinion of many Americans, socialism is the middle ground but requires certain freedoms to be given up but also compromise as to what will not... therefore unhappy people both sides.

Then on the other side you have truer forms of Marxism/Communism (not really the ones we often see in the real world) which seeks to balance out the socio-economic divides but requires much freedom to be given up.

I am pretty sure that this debate could go on and on, particularly over text!

I think we can both agree that things can and should be better than they are. It seems we may disagree on the other bits, but more from a practical point of view than what we would like to see.

Happy to carry on if you want, or get back to the doom and panic of Covid!

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I think we certianly disgaree about the means if not the ends, and thats the thing really. If its not about where youre going, but just the best way to get there then two sides can compromise, finds ways forward, but also inch by inch, move forwards.
When the writers of the Declaration of Arbroath, or Magna Carta, or the Declartion of Independence set out their ideals they knew it was not instantly going to create a perfect, fair and just society for all. But they were aiming for one anyway. And if all sides hold to that aim, arguing only abou tmeans, then little by little you do progress towards it.
The current problem is that is gettitng lost, now its not about compromise its about destroying the others argument not listening to it. Its about scoring the point and putting down your opposition. Its politics of bile and sound and fury. Politics without compromise cannot work, and can't ever have such lofty goals as those who dreamed of them in the shaping of our societies. }}

[azriel]

You finally got there talk about go round the sun to meet the moon but, that's what discussion & argument is all about. It can open your eyes, mind & soul to things that you didn't think possible. Sometimes you do need to thrash it out. Whats important is all being on the same wave length, ( hopefully ) I quite enjoyed this little banter

[halfwise]

Petty and I long ago had a discussion about the first use of the atomic bomb, and he showed me all the proofs that they didn't actually have to be dropped because the Japanese already were suing for peace through back channels. They big hold up was that they couldn't accept the US demand that the Japanese formally reject the divinity of the emperor. The real reason they were dropped was to signal the Russians to stop moving into Asia. Eisenhower himself wrote "there was no reason to drop those damn things." They idea that they saved lives is convenient propaganda America has foisted on it's own citizens. Some more patience and the war would have ended bloodlessly.

The only things nukes deter is the use of other nukes. That's why the reduction treaties are so important - the stepping down has to be done slowly, like two armed men in a face-off. So the deterrent will always be necessary, it's just a questions of where to put them.

I'd think of this as the same as where should a waste dump be placed. Nobody wants them nearby, so the smaller populations will be outvoted. That's just the way it works.

[Lancebloke]

The only things nukes deter is the use of other nukes.

Well... i completely disagree with that, but I have made my points already so nothing to add.

[halfwise]

It's a good point that Russia probably held off on doing some land grabs because of the nuclear deterrent. But even without nukes China and the US would not go to war because it would be so massive as be comparable to nuclear war. I concede that nukes serve as a cheap deterrent for countries that don't have strong conventional forces.