FREEDOM!!!! [3]

I think the 'no trident' stance is one of the ones I dont get. I think the world has proven many a time that if you dont have a big stick, someone that does will fuck you with it. The whole point is never to use it and I believe that we would have been in to a 3rd world war long ago if those nukes weren't there.

Good thing for scotland is they can play the no nuke card knowing that we have them anyway.

For a country of 5 million to pay for nukes is madness. We dont need them.

And if a situation arises like the Cold War- well we didn't have any nukes then either. America just brought theirs with them, what we offered was strategy, the location. We still offer that to NATO allies if need be, but we dont need to be paying for hugely expensive and pointless nukes at the expense of the well being of the people.
Like I say if England is so keen on nukes why are they not in England? Oh yes, I remember the MOD report said there was nowhere suitable due to 'high population density' in all suitable areas.
Then they put it in the heart of Scotland's densest populated area, Scots lives being worth less to the MOD than English ones clearly.

In response to yesterdays open letter in the press by 130 NO business folks, today 200 YES business folks have replied with a similar open letter to the press-

More than 200 business figures have signed an open letter backing Scottish independence.

Stagecoach chairman Sir Brian Souter and Clyde Blowers boss Jim McColl are among signatories who say independence is in Scotland's economic interest.

It comes a day after a similar letter from 130 pro-UK business leaders said the case for independence had not been made.

The pro-independence letter has been published in The Herald newspaper.

Other signatories include Ralph Topping, retired chief executive of William Hill, Professor Nathu Puri, founder of Purico, former Scottish Enterprise chairman Sir Donald Mackay and former RBS chairman Sir George Mathewson.

The letter states: "An independent Scotland will recognise entrepreneurs small and large as the real wealth and job creators of the nation's economic future.

"It will encourage a culture in which innovation, endeavour and enterprise are nurtured. It will place power in the hands of Scotland's people to channel the huge resources of our country in the interests of those who live and work here."

The letter goes on to argue that the real threat to Scotland is the "real possibility of a British exit from the European common market". - BBC

This interesting, and telling I think-

'THE Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael, has indicated he would resign from the coalition government in the event of a Yes vote and join Alex Salmond’s Team Scotland to negotiate the terms of independence.
“It would be difficult to see how you could fit into a Cabinet which was at that point on its way to becoming part of a foreign country,” he added.
“I mean, if Scotland votes for independence then I will still want to be part of ­Scottish public political life.
“I would have to be realistic about what could be achieved, but you know I am not walking away from Scottish politics.
“If that is something that happens then, yes, I would want to get the best possible deal for Scotland. That’s what I do at the moment and that’s what I will always do in the future for as long as I hold the job I do.”- Scotsman


You can often tell the way the political class thinks the wind is blowing when they start manoeuvring to keep employed after the event.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:In response to yesterdays open letter in the press by 130 NO business folks, today 200 YES business folks have replied with a similar open letter to the press-

More than 200 business figures have signed an open letter backing Scottish independence.

Stagecoach chairman Sir Brian Souter and Clyde Blowers boss Jim McColl are among signatories who say independence is in Scotland's economic interest.

It comes a day after a similar letter from 130 pro-UK business leaders said the case for independence had not been made.

The pro-independence letter has been published in The Herald newspaper.

Other signatories include Ralph Topping, retired chief executive of William Hill, Professor Nathu Puri, founder of Purico, former Scottish Enterprise chairman Sir Donald Mackay and former RBS chairman Sir George Mathewson.

The letter states: "An independent Scotland will recognise entrepreneurs small and large as the real wealth and job creators of the nation's economic future.

"It will encourage a culture in which innovation, endeavour and enterprise are nurtured. It will place power in the hands of Scotland's people to channel the huge resources of our country in the interests of those who live and work here."

The letter goes on to argue that the real threat to Scotland is the "real possibility of a British exit from the European common market". - BBC

seems to be a lot of 'former' heads of this or that. Probably a bunch of out of touch retired people able to indulge in romance.

The difference I see is that the majority of the 200 business on the YES side operate in Scotland, the majority of the 130 NO businesses operate out of London.
London has a vested interest in Scottish money flowing through that city and not staying in Scotland which leads me to question whose best interests they are acting in- their own or the people of Scotland?

And just because someone is retired is a former head of something doesnt make them any less competent or able. Quite often they are speaking their minds more freely once they are no longer in positions where they they may have needed to curry favour or toe the line.

Lancebloke wrote:I think the 'no trident' stance is one of the ones I dont get. I think the world has proven many a time that if you dont have a big stick, someone that does will fuck you with it. The whole point is never to use it and I believe that we would have been in to a 3rd world war long ago if those nukes weren't there.

Good thing for scotland is they can play the no nuke card knowing that we have them anyway.

I agree Lance. If Scotland wants to be relegated to a small puny country with no voice on the world stage so be it, but dont drag the rest of the UK down with it. As it is we have Trident so we have bargaining power and we have military clout. As things are going in the world we need a big stick. Its also hypocritical of Salmond to want to be part of NATO if he is anti-nuclear, its a bit like he says Scotland is eco friendly with the biggest wind farms while making profit out of oil. its pure hypocracy and it stinks.

We just want to a be a normal small country- no we dont want to be striding about the world stage and getting involved in dodgy wars, living way beyond our means in an attempt to keep hold of the last vestiges of an Empire mentality.

If England want to keep trident they can do so- but you can keep it in your own country next to your own people and see how popular that is, and you can pay for it.

As to hypocritical to join NATO, I assume therefore you believe most of the NATO members including Norway are hypocrites too, as they dont have any nukes either.
And no hypocrisy either in maximising our energy potential in wind, hydro and wave. Oil wont last forever, we are looking to a sustainable future beyond it. Thats just good sense and good planning.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:We just want to a be a normal small country- no we dont want to be striding about the world stage and getting involved in dodgy wars, living way beyond our means in an attempt to keep hold of the last vestiges of an Empire mentality.

If England want to keep trident they can do so- but you can keep it in your own country next to your own people and see how popular that is, and you can pay for it.

As to hypocritical to join NATO, I assume therefore you believe most of the NATO members including Norway are hypocrites too, as they dont have any nukes either.
And no hypocrisy either in maximising our energy potential in wind, hydro and wave. Oil wont last forever, we are looking to a sustainable future beyond it. Thats just good sense and good planning.

you seem to like stereotyping England as striding about and silly references to Empire mentality. We dont. Thats just sour grapes and spin.

The UK has long overspent to stay in the big boys cubs- trident is a sterling example of that- we have to stay at the top table in the G8 (Or whatever number it is this week) and the UN. Its a club card.
One an independent Scotland does not need.

The UK has tried to stay relevant by spending beyond our means for decades, mainly because politicians like to strut on he world stage and feel important.

Strategically, nuclear weapons are a relic of the 20th century cold war. They're incredibly expensive to maintain, and they're intended never to be used.  If you ever fire them, you're basically already dead.  They're the whitest white elephant ever invented by mankind.

Their only real purpose is the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction, which assumes there is another country with enough nukes armed and pointed at you to sear the earth 10 times over, and the only thing that keeps them from pressing the button is the knowledge that you can do the same to them.  

Sadly, there's still a small place for that reasoning in the 21st century, but for the most part the battlefields have shifted. Now it looks like the next world war will be waged on a cyber-battlefield with a drone air force, a war where nukes will be vulnerable and expensive but not useful. Like WWII battleships.

At this point I'd be surprised if the UK is seriously contemplating a nuclear war with a comparable world power, but if the UK wants to keep them for a museum piece like HMS Victory that's fine. I'd just suggest looking at the cost.

I agree that there day is over. They are not much good against terorrists or in guerilla warfare and thats the way it will be in the foreseeable future. Drone strikes taking small groups f individuals.

War has been going this way for a long time- it started when you got two armies to charge at each other and then hack away till you got a winner. Then eventually the machine gun came along and the old tactic resulted in more dead than anyone could conceive of in just the few minutes.
So that had to change. Hitler came up with the wheeze that you didn't slowly march your army into a neighbour, you went right through it at speed and wiped out the resistance before it got stared and replaced the infrastructure as you went and destroyed the defences.
And the Blitz was born, wear down your enemy by targeting the civilians. An alternative to the battlefield altogether.
But then America went dropped some nukes and everyone realised it had all gone to far.
So everyone retreated, got their own nukes and pointed them at each other just in case, and neither side can use them because it would be a mutual suicide pack.
So what happens when the big boys cant fight?
Small mobile groups working in cells. No armies at all. Armies become specialised in very smaller numbers, tech becomes the new decisive factor on all sides and that's where we are now.

'A champagne celebration organised by a Conservative association in anticipation of Scots rejecting independence has been cancelled.'- BBC

They suddenly dont seem to sure of themselves. (And what better insight to the Tory No side than that they were anticipating to just win and to celebrating with champagne, in a constituency in which people are queuing at food banks)

Food Banks have been the one accomplishment that HAS grown in this country.........sadly !

Its a disrace is what it is.

Far as I can tell what happened was the middle classes bought a lot of stuff they couldn't afford, sold to them by filthy rich banks who were so greedy they didn't care they knew it couldn't last. Blew the world economy to bits.
Then convinced the same middle class it wasn't their or the banks fault at all, the reason things were tighter were those workshy, lazy poor and the immigrants who were soaking up all the wealth in benefits and stopping the middle classes from having a third car.
Since the banking collapse five times more legislation aimed at cutting benefits, and services have been passed as bills curbing the activities of the financial sector who caused the problem out of greed.


The result is the poor are now in such a dire position families are having to rely on charity to put food on their tables, whilst the upper middle classes and the rich have grown richer in the same time period.

I should probably just have a soapox strapped to the bottom of my muckle boots permanently, save time.

Yarrrp & IL be banging my drum.

I'll just take 40 winks

Nukes are not and probably will never been outdated. Just because todays war consists of guerilla tactics of small, mobile cells doesnt mean that the next one will be. Russia is beginning to show more aggression with its proxy wars. China and the U.S. seem like they are going to square off at some point via smaller conflicts involving taiwan, japan, s. Korea of some of the ACEAN countries. This talk of aircraft carriers and nukes being outdated is incredibly naive as is talk of drone wars. What happens when all the drones are gone? Do the people just stop fighting and let themselves be conquered? No... people will always be needed and therefore technology to get them through and fight and, more importantly, stuff to stop the big fights from ever happening.

Re the sustainable future... it always seems to me the Salmond is playing the oil card to get Scotland up the rich rankings. You say you are planning for a sustainable future? I think Salmond is playing all the good cards he has to convince people it will all be great the same as Westminster are doing the opposite. Both are talking bullshit.

As for nukes. What do you do if a rogue state gets their hands on one? North Corea or Iran or some ISIS murderers? do you say 'sorry chaps its too too old fashioned to have nuclear weapons, so last season darling'. They will just laugh and drop one on your capital city.

I dont understand what happens about pensions. currently theres what 65 million people in the UK paying taxes so everyone can get a decent pension, what happens if you suddenly lose 60 million people, how the hell do you get a decent pension paid when theres only 6 million people in the country, and its an ageing population. I am not an expert on it but it doesnt seem a good idea.

OK, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the UK really is interested in seeing what nukes will do. That's a scary thought, but it's possible.

The rogue nuclear state is exactly the problem with traditional nukes.  They are designed to be strategic, not tactical. In other words they're a bluff. They only work as a deterrent if you assume that your opponents believe you'll use them, and are rational enough to care.  

If you're talking about true terrorists, people with an end-of-days ideology as some of the IS leaders seem to have, a nuclear missile is no deterrent at all.

On the other hand, watching Western Civilization go up in a couple well-placed fireballs would look very attractive to such folks. Tempting even. Hackable...possibly....And you know there are people thinking that right now.

maybe they peddle end of days with 70 virgins to the drones doing the suicide missions but you can bet your best dollar the leaders will be holed up with off shore accounts and palaces for the here and now. They send the kids off to die, but the leaders wont risk their necks