Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Do You Support Scottish Independence?

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
  • View Poll Results: Do you support scotland becoming independent of the UK
    YES (I am Scottish)
    22
    12.57%
    NO (I am Scottish)
    38
    21.71%
    No, but support more powers being given to the Scottish parliament (I am Scottish)
    8
    4.57%
    YES (I am English)
    37
    21.14%
    NO (I am English)
    62
    35.43%
    No, but support more powers being given to the Scottish parliament (I am Scottish)
    8
    4.57%

    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    The efficient management of UK state interests just seems to be consistently incompatible with Scottish interests - which is why I support seperation.
    Out of interest, what's different about Scottish interests compared to UK interests? What do Scottish people want that's so fundamentally different to the rest of the UK?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    This surely only holds while the union is still in place though, for afterwards resources are apportioned on a geographical basis according to the international laws of the seabed?
    But the problem is the level of spending itself; it is detrimental to the economy. And the fact that the SNP's planned source of funding is unsustainable is another problem; they aren't going to cut spending when the oil runs dry. On a related note, the SNP is also planning to shut down all of Scotland's nuclear plants, because "nuclear" is a scary word they don't understand. Why would I want those people to have even more power over me?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Out of interest, what's different about Scottish interests compared to UK interests? What do Scottish people want that's so fundamentally different to the rest of the UK?
    I would say that the working class of Glasgow have more in common with their economic counterparts in Liverpool, Manchester or Southampton, it is a shame that nationalism makes ThePhilosoraptor oblivious to this obvious fact. Just as Scottish farmers will almost always find more political common ground with a farmer in Wales or Southern England than they would with a nurse just down the road.

    (Original post by Nick100)
    But the problem is the level of spending itself; it is detrimental to the economy. And the fact that the SNP's planned source of funding is unsustainable is another problem; they aren't going to cut spending when the oil runs dry. On a related note, the SNP is also planning to shut down all of Scotland's nuclear plants, because "nuclear" is a scary word they don't understand. Why would I want those people to have even more power over me?
    Quite. Out of interest, have the SNP explained our proposed constitutional structure? Do they want a unicameralism legislature. The problem is, they seem to have no long term plan on anything - currency, europe and so on. They have published no clear documents afaik about anything of relevance. I doubt we will see any more coherence by 2014.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cyanohydrin)
    Yes, I have no doubt you can find such examples, just as you could for South Wales, South Yorkshire, Cornwall and Merseyside have no doubt been subject to similar instances as what you outlined. The reality is, the union has benefited Scotland, if you want to break up this island like you do then fine, but you simply cannot argue that the United Kingdom has brought a huge amount of prosperity to Scotland - we went from being one of the poorest nations in Western Europe, to being a very active participant in the world's largest ever empire, and reaped huge rewards from this. An awful lot of Glasgow is built on the profits of Scottish merchants, some of whom who were heavily in involved in such enterprises as the slave and tobacco trades, in which us Scots played a disproportionately high role. The great commercial palaces of Edinburgh and Glasgow were built on the back of the colonial trade.
    I am in no doubt that the union has benefitted Scotland. Whilst I am interested in history, I see no sense in forgoing what is best now for memories of what was best then.

    I am afraid your view of the European Union is beyond belief given the events last few years. In four years Greece will be a total shambles with potentially disastrous results for the EU. We can only be thankful that compared to Germany it is a small country on the edge of Europe rather than a new equivalent of post WW I Germany. When push came to shove, the citizens and taxpayers of Germany, the one EU country that matters, see themselves as German first and European second. They have no interest in bailing out Greece, but European elites can't allow the Euro to fail. So we have a state of permanent crisis, with one inadequate bailout after another, and with Greek/Italian/Irish economic policy governed from the ECB. The people who suffer as a result of this, are the poor in countries like Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal. Who have to make sacrifice, after sacrifice, with no end to the pain and no hope for a solution to the crisis. At end of the day we can't all be Germany, we can't all run massive trade surpluses. A number of European countries are being destroyed in order to save the Euro currency - namely Greece, but a similar story is playing out in the rest of the failing economies of Europe. I think you are utterly deluded to believe that this community of nations exists, the current tragedy highlights this.

    If the EU is shattered it will be tragedy for those of us who thought that the concept of a single market was a very good idea. But had that ruined by people who placed ideology ahead of economic common sense. What Europe needed was more treaties and intereuropean agreements but leaving every single country its own FULL sovereignity (without tricks). This would have avoided many issues we are seeing today (Like the compulsory need to force southern countries to comply with northern budgets knowing that is impossible in short time, as well as in longer ones in many cases. This issues showed with Southern Europe, and probably even more European countries sooner or later. A fiscal union would be theoretically possible, but again, it would become a blackmailing tool, as is adopting a unified EU legislation. What EU wants is deprive single countries of their legitimity to rule and shift full powers to the EU to then rule the whole continent according to their own standards. Let's make it clear, even if Greece stays in the EU now what is its weight, politically and economically? It's becoming a puppet of those running Europe. Scotland is better off, not swimming as a relatively insignificant state towards this collapsing mess of a system.

    Greece has had to accept quasi-colonial control in return for the £110bn rescue package. Ireland and Portugal have only avoided bankruptcy through massive eurozone/IMF loans on condition of devastating austerity measures. I don't want the people running this thing getting involved in Scotland. My mind boggles how you can still believe this stuff about the EU. Even Thatcher was an infinitely more compassionate and pragmatic figure than Olli Rehn and co. They are in the process of destroying an entire nation on the back of an economic dogma. The crushing of Greece, and the bankruptcy of her citizens, is of little consequence if it serves the greater good of monetary union.

    Good thing on the BBC website about Greece today actually http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17202274
    I know my stance on the EU thing is highly ideological; I reserve pragmatism for actually making decisions (where's the fun in having ideals if they all have to be utilitarian?). I accept what you say and if I had to make any real world decision on the matter I would be pursuing the course you advocate - which is by far the most sensible one.


    (Original post by Psyk)
    Out of interest, what's different about Scottish interests compared to UK interests? What do Scottish people want that's so fundamentally different to the rest of the UK?
    There are a number of aspirations which are incompatible with current UK policy;

    *A working welfare state
    *Representation in Europe
    *Renewable Energy Provision
    *A nuclear free country
    *An economy based on business (as mentioned previously it is UK policy to maintain a high public sector balance in the economy as compensation for directing private enterprise elsewhere)

    I wouldn't say they were necessarily incompatible with UK interests (for example, the last one isn't) but even where the interests align it is incompatible with policy direction from London - which is the problem.


    (Original post by Nick100)
    But the problem is the level of spending itself; it is detrimental to the economy. And the fact that the SNP's planned source of funding is unsustainable is another problem; they aren't going to cut spending when the oil runs dry. On a related note, the SNP is also planning to shut down all of Scotland's nuclear plants, because "nuclear" is a scary word they don't understand. Why would I want those people to have even more power over me?
    I was under the impression it was because nuclear energy was expensive (projections suggest 1 KW/hr of nuclear energy will cost consumers 5.3p by 2020, compared to the projected 1.7p for renewables generation), imported, difficult to dispose of (somewhere in the region of half the UK's nuclear waste is still in "temporary storage"), of indeterminate supply (.i.e. it will run out too someday) and because occasionally it blows up and kills everyone. I have a fair deal of sympathy with that line if I'm being honest.

    (Original post by Cyanohydrin)
    I would say that the working class of Glasgow have more in common with their economic counterparts in Liverpool, Manchester or Southampton, it is a shame that nationalism makes ThePhilosoraptor oblivious to this obvious fact. Just as Scottish farmers will almost always find more political common ground with a farmer in Wales or Southern England than they would with a nurse just down the road.
    I was not oblivious to this "obvious fact" when I was young and radical. Perhaps it is because I am older that I now think differently? Identity is much more fragmented than ideology allows for.

    Quite. Out of interest, have the SNP explained our proposed constitutional structure? Do they want a unicameralism legislature. The problem is, they seem to have no long term plan on anything - currency, europe and so on. They have published no clear documents afaik about anything of relevance. I doubt we will see any more coherence by 2014.
    *The long term plan on currency of to join the euro
    *The long term plan on europe is to be in the EU

    Out of interest, have you read Your Scotland, Your Voice ?
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    There are a number of aspirations which are incompatible with current UK policy;

    *A working welfare state
    *Representation in Europe
    *Renewable Energy Provision
    *A nuclear free country
    *An economy based on business (as mentioned previously it is UK policy to maintain a high public sector balance in the economy as compensation for directing private enterprise elsewhere)

    I wouldn't say they were necessarily incompatible with UK interests (for example, the last one isn't) but even where the interests align it is incompatible with policy direction from London - which is the problem.
    So do you not think there are also a lot of people in the rest of the UK who share those aspirations? There are probably regions of England that also have political opinions that also differ from the average UK opinions. What makes Scotland so different? I mean a lot of those are fairly uncontroversial but you make it sound like everyone outside of Scotland is almost unanimously against them.

    As for "nuclear free country", are most Scottish people against the concept of having nuclear weapons (is it just about nuclear weapons, or is it about nuclear power too?), or is it a case of "not in our backyard"? Would Scottish people be against the UK having nuclear weapons if they weren't stored in Scotland? If not, then I'm sure their opinion on that is probably not much different to most other parts of the UK. Most people wouldn't like them being stored in their part of the country.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    So do you not think there are also a lot of people in the rest of the UK who share those aspirations? There are probably regions of England that also have political opinions that also differ from the average UK opinions. What makes Scotland so different? I mean a lot of those are fairly uncontroversial but you make it sound like everyone outside of Scotland is almost unanimously against them.

    As for "nuclear free country", are most Scottish people against the concept of having nuclear weapons (is it just about nuclear weapons, or is it about nuclear power too?), or is it a case of "not in our backyard"? Would Scottish people be against the UK having nuclear weapons if they weren't stored in Scotland? If not, then I'm sure their opinion on that is probably not much different to most other parts of the UK. Most people wouldn't like them being stored in their part of the country.
    I'm afraid I don't have the quantitative data to answer your questions on the whole population. From the qualitative experience I've had the opposition is largely ideological rather than just NIMBY and largely anti-nuclear per se (although the two are often inextricably linked) and it is pretty universal. The one group I am sure of data for (The SYP have covered this in a series of national consultations to form a "Youth Manifesto") is the 12-25 age bracket, which is overwhelmingly anti-nuclear on an ideological basis. Even allowing for the fact that these people are young and radical it would require a massive reverse in order for Scotland to be remotely pro-nuclear, or even nuclear ambivalent.


    And the reason that Scotland is different is simply that we have the (conceptual) capacity to leave the UK and govern ourselves if we feel we would do a better job of it - and we're developing the will to do so. I understand that the English regions share many of the same gripes, but they lack the concept and will to pursue the route we are investigating to resolve them. (This doesn't make either wrong, it's simply a matter of difference.)
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    There are a number of aspirations which are incompatible with current UK policy;

    *A working welfare state
    *Representation in Europe
    *Renewable Energy Provision
    *A nuclear free country
    *An economy based on business (as mentioned previously it is UK policy to maintain a high public sector balance in the economy as compensation for directing private enterprise elsewhere)
    *An independent Scottish government won't be any more capable of running a "working welfare state" than the UK government is. Even if we accept that a big welfare state is desirable the Labour party already advocates that at Westminster.
    *The countries which have the most influence in Europe are Britain, France and Germany, another small country won't have substantial influence over EU policy.
    *Renewable energy provision isn't incompatible with UK interests at all; it is an objective of the UK government.
    *A nuclear free country with regard to nuclear power is pointless; nuclear energy is safe and nuclear fuel is not difficult to get a hold of. With regard to nuclear weapons, the SNP's policy seems to be to hide behind America, England and France when it comes to nuclear deterrence.
    *A large welfare state isn't very compatible with a business based economy.

    I wouldn't say they were necessarily incompatible with UK interests (for example, the last one isn't) but even where the interests align it is incompatible with policy direction from London - which is the problem.
    The first three and the last one do align with policy direction from London (even the welfare state isn't shrinking under the Conservatives). The other one isn't in our interest.

    I was under the impression it was because nuclear energy was expensive (projections suggest 1 KW/hr of nuclear energy will cost consumers 5.3p by 2020, compared to the projected 1.7p for renewables generation), imported, difficult to dispose of (somewhere in the region of half the UK's nuclear waste is still in "temporary storage"), of indeterminate supply (.i.e. it will run out too someday) and because occasionally it blows up and kills everyone. I have a fair deal of sympathy with that line if I'm being honest.
    Projections for nuclear power are based on current policy and technology; if the government actually embraced new nuclear technology they could make it cheaper than renewable energy. It's also more reliable than nuclear energy; the countries in Europe which rely on renewable energy frequently have to import nuclear energy from France when the weather turns bad. Nuclear waste isn't hard to dispose of either given how little of it is actually produced and how much of it can be recycled (90%). The Uranium in our waste would be enough to power the UK for decades.

    And nuclear plants don't occasionally blow up and kill everyone; Chernobyl blew up because the Soviet government tried to perform an experiment on it and Fukushima was damaged by one of the worst earthquakes and tsunamis in history (and still killed/poisoned very few people).
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    I know my stance on the EU thing is highly ideological; I reserve pragmatism for actually making decisions (where's the fun in having ideals if they all have to be utilitarian?). I accept what you say and if I had to make any real world decision on the matter I would be pursuing the course you advocate - which is by far the most sensible one.
    Eh? You support independence, and our slide towards the Eurozone?

    I was not oblivious to this "obvious fact" when I was young and radical. Perhaps it is because I am older that I now think differently? Identity is much more fragmented than ideology allows for.
    Maybe, but as somebody who lives in the borders region, even identity is an unusual thing. The culture of Northumberland, as with the north east of England in general, has much more in common with Scottish Lowland and Northern English culture than with that of Southern England. Linguistic links between the two regions, the lands just north or south of the border have long shared certain aspects of history (namely the Kingdom of Northumbria) and heritage and thus in my opinion the Anglo-Scottish border is largely political rather than cultural. Northumberland also has its own tartan or check, it even has it's own bagpipes. It is really quite indistinguishable, it would be sad to leave it behind, we have been united for longer than 300 years with regions like that.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    *An independent Scottish government won't be any more capable of running a "working welfare state" than the UK government is. Even if we accept that a big welfare state is desirable the Labour party already advocates that at Westminster.
    *The countries which have the most influence in Europe are Britain, France and Germany, another small country won't have substantial influence over EU policy.
    *Renewable energy provision isn't incompatible with UK interests at all; it is an objective of the UK government.
    *A nuclear free country with regard to nuclear power is pointless; nuclear energy is safe and nuclear fuel is not difficult to get a hold of. With regard to nuclear weapons, the SNP's policy seems to be to hide behind America, England and France when it comes to nuclear deterrence.
    *A large welfare state isn't very compatible with a business based economy.
    *I would have to disagree - the Labour party does not advocate the cradle to grave care it once did. The introduction of an internal market in the NHS, prescription charges, university tuition fees, third party "agencies" to get the long term unemployed off the books, slashing personal care for the elderly*, selling off council houses, mortgaging schools so that pupils can't have access to them in the evenings, charging mothers for nursery places* and, of course, the massive failure that is the methodone programme. Labour might be more pro-welfare statre than the conservatives, but there's a reason they have been getting soundly drubbed at every election in Scotland where there's an alternative.

    (*I think these ones might only have been in Scotland)


    *Even a small influence is better than none at all - which is currently the position in things like the Copanhagen climate summit or the EU fisheries talks.

    *Orkney has over 25% of Europes tidal energy. OREF recieves roughly a £45 million budget to support research. France - the whole of France - has roughly 12% of Europes tidal energy, and yet recieves roughly £405 million towards research. If we don't invest in renewables we will not maintain a lead in a market where we currently have several world leading companies. Instead of supporting those companies we are importing nuclear energy from abroad. Plus the UK government has something like a 20% target by 2020 whereas the Scottish government is looking for at least 50%

    *With regard to Nuclear weapons it's ridiculous to have them and then demand that we are somehow special and nobody else can. And the SNPs policy isnt to hide behind anybody or any killing machine - it's to engage in foreign affairs with the idea that perhaps we are not special and we should treat other countries as equals and with a bit of respect. If you do that precious few states will want to nuke you to begin with.

    *In what way? A large welfare state means a well provisioned workforce; the engine room of a business economy. The Scandinavian countries all seem to manage a good balance of the two.

    The first three and the last one do align with policy direction from London (even the welfare state isn't shrinking under the Conservatives). The other one isn't in our interest.
    Have you not followed the progress of Lansley's health bill?


    Projections for nuclear power are based on current policy and technology; if the government actually embraced new nuclear technology they could make it cheaper than renewable energy. It's also more reliable than nuclear energy; the countries in Europe which rely on renewable energy frequently have to import nuclear energy from France when the weather turns bad. Nuclear waste isn't hard to dispose of either given how little of it is actually produced and how much of it can be recycled (90%). The Uranium in our waste would be enough to power the UK for decades.

    And nuclear plants don't occasionally blow up and kill everyone; Chernobyl blew up because the Soviet government tried to perform an experiment on it and Fukushima was damaged by one of the worst earthquakes and tsunamis in history (and still killed/poisoned very few people).
    Projections are always based on current or currently known technology, and unless I'm mistaken Nuclear would have to advance at a pretty rapid rate in order to be produced as cheaply as renewable would. (Realistically we're talking someone needs to discover fusion ASAP). Since those projections new windfarms have been designed which can be something ridiculous like up to 70% more efficient by rotating on a vertical rather than horizontal axis.

    And whilst Integral Fast Reactors could theoretically recycle nuclear waste, not one of them actually exists yet. Hitachi estimate they could build a fast reactor (but not an IFR) within 5 years, and we don't have any estimates on how long it would take to build an IFR at all. The current policy of Mixed Oxide Processing is a scandalous waste; it only works for uranium, only extracts an extra 0.2% of the potential energy of the fuel rods, still leaves us with waste to manage in storage (because it cannot yet be recycled) and the other alternative is to stick it in a hole and line it with concrete, because we've run out of countries who are willing to let us export our waste to them.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to using IFRs to recycle our nuclear waste - I'm opposed to the plants producing that waste in the first place and think we need a solution for when we have exhausted our existing stockpiles.

    And don't forget three mile island on that list. A lot of things have to go wrong for a nuclear plant to become a nuclear disaster - but these things can and do go wrong; it's the real world. So far we've been quite lucky insofar as the disasters have been fairly well contained, but it smacks of optimisim to assume that such problems could never occur again or that they will always everywhere be containable.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cyanohydrin)
    Eh? You support independence, and our slide towards the Eurozone?
    yes...


    Maybe, but as somebody who lives in the borders region, even identity is an unusual thing. The culture of Northumberland, as with the north east of England in general, has much more in common with Scottish Lowland and Northern English culture than with that of Southern England. Linguistic links between the two regions, the lands just north or south of the border have long shared certain aspects of history (namely the Kingdom of Northumbria) and heritage and thus in my opinion the Anglo-Scottish border is largely political rather than cultural. Northumberland also has its own tartan or check, it even has it's own bagpipes. It is really quite indistinguishable, it would be sad to leave it behind, we have been united for longer than 300 years with regions like that.
    I accept your point - but is the shared culture you feel not exactly that - cultural, rather than political? (Salmond-o would refer to it as the "social union" - I hate that phrase though)

    I see no reason for it to change simply because the political state changes; as you point out your cultural connections precede your political ones.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    yes...
    So thus you support the Eurozone. Me and my family in Ireland used to have similar opinions to you, but what the Eurozone crisis has proven with all doubt is that small countries like Scotland are entirely vulnerable to being forced into doing stuff, at economic ransom, if it benefits the currency as a whole, and those that run it i.e. Germany and France. The British state would never in a million years destroy Scotland in the way the EU is destroying Greece, hence I feel our interests are better served in the United Kingdom. And the EU is destroying Greece, just checkout what they are being forced to do - sell of their assets, enact brutal austerity programmes and so on. You think these people have any interest in Scotland? It is not independence, it is being subsumed into this failure of a currency, indeed a currency that may well collapse, and has brought misery to millions of people.

    I accept your point - but is the shared culture you feel not exactly that - cultural, rather than political? (Salmond-o would refer to it as the "social union" - I hate that phrase though)

    I see no reason for it to change simply because the political state changes; as you point out your cultural connections precede your political ones.
    I don't know. It saddens me that we have to form a state because we feel ourselves so different to my friends twenty minutes drive away in England.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    *Orkney has over 25% of Europes tidal energy. OREF recieves roughly a £45 million budget to support research. France - the whole of France - has roughly 12% of Europes tidal energy, and yet recieves roughly £405 million towards research. If we don't invest in renewables we will not maintain a lead in a market where we currently have several world leading companies. Instead of supporting those companies we are importing nuclear energy from abroad. Plus the UK government has something like a 20% target by 2020 whereas the Scottish government is looking for at least 50%
    The future is in nuclear fusion not renewables; therefore most of the money should be directed to research into nuclear fusion. Once fusion has been achieved the world's power problems will be over and most of the tension between countries will no longer be an issue.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    *I would have to disagree - the Labour party does not advocate the cradle to grave care it once did. The introduction of an internal market in the NHS, prescription charges, university tuition fees, third party "agencies" to get the long term unemployed off the books, slashing personal care for the elderly*, selling off council houses, mortgaging schools so that pupils can't have access to them in the evenings, charging mothers for nursery places* and, of course, the massive failure that is the methodone programme. Labour might be more pro-welfare statre than the conservatives, but there's a reason they have been getting soundly drubbed at every election in Scotland where there's an alternative.
    During the Labour years government spending continually increased; they increase the "generosity" of the welfare state every time they are in power. The only time they shrink the welfare state is when they are hit by a dose of reality and realise that they don't have a limitless supply of resources at their disposal. And creation of an interal market in the NHS, while pointless, is not an anti-welfare state policy; it is designed to improve the efficiency of the welfare state, as are the agencies designed to get the long term unemployed to work.

    (*I think these ones might only have been in Scotland)
    If they were effected by Labour when it was in control of the Scottish Executive then independence won't help.

    *Even a small influence is better than none at all - which is currently the position in things like the Copanhagen climate summit or the EU fisheries talks.
    But we do have influence through the UK. Do you think individual cities would have more influence if they became independent?

    *Orkney has over 25% of Europes tidal energy. OREF recieves roughly a £45 million budget to support research. France - the whole of France - has roughly 12% of Europes tidal energy, and yet recieves roughly £405 million towards research. If we don't invest in renewables we will not maintain a lead in a market where we currently have several world leading companies. Instead of supporting those companies we are importing nuclear energy from abroad. Plus the UK government has something like a 20% target by 2020 whereas the Scottish government is looking for at least 50%
    If that energy is easy to harness why do the companies planning to harness it require subsidies? If you want to invest in renewables go right ahead, but there is no need for the government to do so. The government should allow more nuclear power plants to be built; if it's going to fund research into new sources of energy then it should look at nuclear fusion.

    *With regard to Nuclear weapons it's ridiculous to have them and then demand that we are somehow special and nobody else can. And the SNPs policy isnt to hide behind anybody or any killing machine - it's to engage in foreign affairs with the idea that perhaps we are not special and we should treat other countries as equals and with a bit of respect. If you do that precious few states will want to nuke you to begin with.
    But all nations aren't equal. North Korea, for example, is a terrible country which should have been defeated in the Korean war. And the SNP's policy in the event that they encounter an agressor is to hide behind England and America. What are we supposed to do against an agressor who has nuclear weapons if we have thrown all of ours away?

    *In what way? A large welfare state means a well provisioned workforce; the engine room of a business economy. The Scandinavian countries all seem to manage a good balance of the two.
    A large welfare state means reduced competition in certain sectors of the economy, distortion of incentives, reduction of incentives, consumption of resources by non-productive government jobs, and prohibitively high taxes. Countries with large welfare states have lower rates of economic growth; were that not the case then the UK would be one of the fastest growing economies in the world. It would be possible for Britain to achieve high economic growth rates, but only by cutting government spending and taxes.

    Have you not followed the progress of Lansley's health bill?
    The whole point of the reforms is to maintain the welfare state by preventing it from going bankrupt; they are not anti-welfare state in nature.

    Projections are always based on current or currently known technology, and unless I'm mistaken Nuclear would have to advance at a pretty rapid rate in order to be produced as cheaply as renewable would. (Realistically we're talking someone needs to discover fusion ASAP). Since those projections new windfarms have been designed which can be something ridiculous like up to 70% more efficient by rotating on a vertical rather than horizontal axis.
    But the problem is that the projections usually count subsidies in with reduced cost. And again, a major problem with renewable energy is its unreliability. If it is a calm, overcast day then solar and wind energy will be at a minimum and will be unable to fuel demand. Hence nuclear power will be needed to fill in the constant gaps left by renewable energy.

    And whilst Integral Fast Reactors could theoretically recycle nuclear waste, not one of them actually exists yet. Hitachi estimate they could build a fast reactor (but not an IFR) within 5 years, and we don't have any estimates on how long it would take to build an IFR at all. The current policy of Mixed Oxide Processing is a scandalous waste; it only works for uranium, only extracts an extra 0.2% of the potential energy of the fuel rods, still leaves us with waste to manage in storage (because it cannot yet be recycled) and the other alternative is to stick it in a hole and line it with concrete, because we've run out of countries who are willing to let us export our waste to them.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to using IFRs to recycle our nuclear waste - I'm opposed to the plants producing that waste in the first place and think we need a solution for when we have exhausted our existing stockpiles.
    The amount of waste produced by nuclear plants compared to the amount of pollution produced by the fossil fuel plants, which the SNP is all too happy to use given their policy regarding North Sea oil, is very small, and it doesn't go into the atmosphere. And importing Uranium is not a problem; the amount needed is very small. And furthermore, the fact that only 0.2% of the energy of the fuel rods is extracted with the current process should indicate to you that there is massive untapped potential in nuclear fission.

    And don't forget three mile island on that list. A lot of things have to go wrong for a nuclear plant to become a nuclear disaster - but these things can and do go wrong; it's the real world. So far we've been quite lucky insofar as the disasters have been fairly well contained, but it smacks of optimisim to assume that such problems could never occur again or that they will always everywhere be containable.
    Three mile island killed no one. Indeed, more people in the USA have been killed by wind power than by nuclear power, and far more people have been killed by coal than have been killed by nuclear fission.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zuzu)
    Got any proof of this?
    No, but the Treasury certainly does! The Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2011 have appropriate regional breakdowns of spending.

    Yeah I have been to Surrey with their fancy mansions and expensive cars, maybe you should move there if it is so great.. :rolleyes:

    Our Celtic/Scottish culture is more valuable than English gold.
    Tell that to a pensioner in Greenock who can't afford his heating bills. "Oh, just stick on a bit of Radio Scotland*, that'll see you through!". You're disconnected to the point of autism.

    [*A BBC product, of course]

    We have oil, it will pay for any troubles (although I ultimately would want a Celtic Socialist state - and possibly an Irish/Welsh/Cornish/Breton/Scotland/Manx union).
    So, a racist state, basically? Lovely image for the future.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    *Even a small influence is better than none at all - which is currently the position in things like the Copanhagen climate summit or the EU fisheries talks.
    The United Kingdom has huge influence in these areas.

    *Orkney has over 25% of Europes tidal energy. OREF recieves roughly a £45 million budget to support research. France - the whole of France - has roughly 12% of Europes tidal energy, and yet recieves roughly £405 million towards research. If we don't invest in renewables we will not maintain a lead in a market where we currently have several world leading companies. Instead of supporting those companies we are importing nuclear energy from abroad. Plus the UK government has something like a 20% target by 2020 whereas the Scottish government is looking for at least 50%
    Indeed. Although we are being sold a pig in a poke here. Alex Salmond wants us to magically invest huge sums of money (by, what else, public spending cuts or raising taxes) to invest in technology which currently isn't remotely viable. This is a gamble, and a massive one. Firstly, we have to invent faster than anyone else; secondly, we have to develop the industry standard; thirdly, we have to not be outpaced by alternative forms of energy.

    It's a risky game and at times seems to be more of a vanity project than a credible economic stance.

    *With regard to Nuclear weapons it's ridiculous to have them and then demand that we are somehow special and nobody else can. And the SNPs policy isnt to hide behind anybody or any killing machine - it's to engage in foreign affairs with the idea that perhaps we are not special and we should treat other countries as equals and with a bit of respect. If you do that precious few states will want to nuke you to begin with.
    We have no great problem with people having nuclear weapons - what we disagree with is people breaking international law by nuclear proliferation, when their nations have pledged not to. Anyway, we all hide behind killing machines - even the most committed pacifist would very likely call the police if he found a man running around his house with a gun.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No, but the Treasury certainly does! The Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2011 have appropriate regional breakdowns of spending.
    Yeah, but they spend more in Scotland because of the spread out population.

    We contribute more than we take.

    Tell that to a pensioner in Greenock who can't afford his heating bills. "Oh, just stick on a bit of Radio Scotland*, that'll see you through!". You're disconnected to the point of autism.

    [*A BBC product, of course]
    We would have more money with independence because of all the oil money could be spent in Scotland and invested for a rainy day.



    Scotland could be richer alone, just look over the water at our Norwegian friends.

    No mass poverty like in Dundee and Glasgow in Norway because they didn't have to give all the profits to Sweden and Denmark, like we have England and so on.

    So, a racist state, basically? Lovely image for the future.
    Is Sweden racist for being built around Swedes? Iran around Iranians? China the Chinese? Why not Scotland around Scots (of all colours and shapes and sizes).

    See how the BBC treat Mr Salmond

    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zuzu)
    Yeah, but they spend more in Scotland because of the spread out population.
    I find that hard to believe. Indeed, I imagine public spending is far higher in the inner city areas of Glasgow than the rural idylls of Aberdeenshire or Roxburghshire. It is not a simple equation of concentrated populations making public services cheaper: different demographics raise different concerns.

    We would have more money with independence because of all the oil money could be spent in Scotland and invested for a rainy day.
    As the Centre for Public Policy and the Regions has pointed out, this already happens in effect - the higher public spending above the UK per capita average is in fact slightly greater than the oil revenues. This is reflected in the Government Revenue and Expenditure in Scotland (GERS) figures - which the SNP promote because it showed Scotland in surplus for four years (helpfully, recent years) since they began in the early 1990s. These were modest surpluses, enormously outweighed by the deficits. And yes, these include all income from oil.

    Scotland wouldn't have anything to 'save'.

    Scotland could be richer alone, just look over the water at our Norwegian friends.

    No mass poverty like in Dundee and Glasgow in Norway because they didn't have to give all the profits to Sweden and Denmark, like we have England and so on.
    Britain doesn't have to give oil profits to foreign countries either. We do, however, through our international aid and development budgets, as well as by other means. Why? Because contributing to the prosperity of others makes the world a fairer, more stable place - and in turn makes us more prosperous.

    Is Sweden racist for being built around Swedes? Iran around Iranians? China the Chinese? Why not Scotland around Scots (of all colours and shapes and sizes).
    I am proud to be part of a modern, outward-looking democracy rather than a nationalist state. I am more content to say my state was formed for decent, pragmatic reasons than that it was formed because we decided we could not share a political system with some other people.

    As far as I am concerned, any act of nationalistic secession is wrong, no matter where on the globe it happens.

    Oh, and whilst we're at it, if you think posting that video of Alex Salmond - the First Minister of Scotland - acting like a fool is going to help your cause, then you're quite mistaken. Indeed, not only does he look like a nutter - what serious politician would call the BBC the "British Brainwashing Corporation"? - he then goes on to hypocritically demand "respect".
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Salmond said "the parties opposed to independence are the ones currently opposed to letting the people of Scotland decide".

    Liar! The parties opposed - want the referendum a whole lot sooner than you. What's your reason for wanting to wait nearly three more years to have it Mr Salmond?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zuzu)
    See how the BBC treat Mr Salmond

    Salmond just looks like a fool in this video, he has to resort to attacking the BBC instead of putting forward any sort of decent argument.

    Salmond would have been ripped to shreds if Paxman had interviewed him.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    He's playing directly to his core vote who will see him as sticking it to the English. Note how he always uses terms like "The London... , Westminster..., English..." always pointing out perceived inequalities yet keen to suggest he'll use a hung parliament to stick it to us.

    He's basically stirring up hatred against the Scots amongst the English and using his rhetoric to pump up nationalist feelings in Scotland.

    The only upside is that even in Scotland unless you are actually SNP he's totally transparrent. A fat fool.

    -----------

    It's also quite amusing that Murdoch has come out in favour of Salmond and independence. I don't know if Salmond should be pleased or worried. Clearly Murdoch is doing this out of spite to the Govt. due to Levenson but to have been granted the support of the most corrupt newspaper mogul on earth is hardly him much favour!

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 13, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.