Tibbermoresaint
-
Posts
2,441 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Tibbermoresaint
-
-
10 minutes ago, Flybhoy said:
Seek help you absolute fucking fruit loop.....
No denial. Worrying.
-1 -
Just now, Flybhoy said:
Celtic killed him?
I'm sure they supported the organisation that supports terrorism.
0 -
Just now, Flybhoy said:
No, and I never suggested he was.
But you support his murderers.
0 -
1 minute ago, Flybhoy said:
Norman Tebbit is a c**t anyway.
Is Tim Parry a c**t?
0 -
1 minute ago, Malky3 said:
What facts? Do you even know what a fact is? You stated your personal opinion on a statement that had never been made by anyone on this thread. You then followed that with a bit of gossip.
Nice obfuscation. If you think the facts I post are incorrect then say so and provide evidence to the contrary.
0 -
9 minutes ago, Malky3 said:
Here we go again with Nationalists that can't read.
Go back and read my posts again, just the one you quoted will do. At no point have I stated a preference for any hard border. You've absolutely made that up which is no surprise since lying is a nationalist trait!
Merely stating facts, chap.
At no point did I say that you'd stated anything.
You're right about lying though. It's British nationalist lies that have brought us close to the abyss of Brexit.
0 -
1 hour ago, Malky3 said:
You're right - no one wants a hard border with the ROI. That is absolutely true. Yet here we are just a few months away from a possible No Deal Brexit, which means no backstop and the return of a hard border at the EU's insistence. Do you really think that an Independent Scotland would be treated differently? This isn't a "narrative", it's reality. Maybe a hard border between the UK and the EU can still be avoided but no-one seems to have found the piece of technology that would satisfy the EU side and the "backstop" hasn't managed to make it through the UK parliament.
You're also right that Scotland exports most of it's produce through ports in England which proves just how retarded the Nationalist argument for Independence from the UK really is. However I'm all for doing something with Methil - one of the biggest skid marks on Nicola Sturgeons briefs (her own constituency being another)
The idea that it's better to have a hard border with 500m people rather than with 50m is just bizarre.
The Scottish Government are well aware of the need for greatly increased container facilities on the east coast. They've had feasibility studies on the go for sometime. From what I've heard the preference is for the south shore of the Forth, (sorry, Methil) either to the west or east of Edinburgh.
0 -
1 minute ago, Malky3 said:
Are you ITK?
0 -
3 minutes ago, Malky3 said:
In the same way that theres not going to be a hard border in Ireland? You're more optimistic than anyone in the EU appears to be
You shouldn't believe all you read.
0 -
3 minutes ago, beefybake said:
Quite agree. After independence, a hard border with England would be very undesirable.
For both countries. Which is why it won't happen.
1 -
14 minutes ago, Malky3 said:
Ask Alex Salmond. The man so desperate to have them as the biggest bank in the world he offered them all the support Scotland could give to help buy ABN Amro.
0 -
Just now, Malky3 said:
Marked down for boring repetition.
Marked down for evasion. Where were you educated?
0 -
2 minutes ago, strichener said:
I don't disagree with the sentiment but we do have debt and it will still exist when we have complete control of our finances.
How much is the current debt?
0 -
The Scottish Government has underspent its budget by £780m over the last two years.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17719872.snp-government-underspent-its-budget-by-450m-last-year/
How does that impact any debt?
0 -
10 minutes ago, strichener said:
No I wasn't being asked to show it, I was being asked how much it was specifically. The actual original claim was that Scotland had no debt and therefore the onus is on that person to back up their claim. Of course they cannot do so as it is complete shite. It is clear from the Scottish Government's budget that they are maxing out their credit card every year.
Sources of Funding for Scottish Budget: Cash grant 19,940.6 Non Domestic Rate Income 2,853.0 Scottish Rate of Income Tax 11,684.0 Forecast receipts from LBTT and Landfill Tax 747.0 Fines, Forfeitures and Fixed Penalties 25.0 Queen's and Lord Treasurers Remembrancer 5.0 Capital borrowing 450.0 National Insurance Contributions 2,107.5 Total Cash Authorisation 37,812.1 If anyone is actually interested in the amount that the Scottish Government has borrowed they have a website that you can freely browse to find out this information or even look at the Public Works Loan Board for circa £9.7bln of debt to public bodies.
So how much is the debt?
0 -
Just now, strichener said:
If only there was some way that you could verify that it is > £0.
So how much is it?
0 -
Just now, strichener said:
Why? Do you believe none exists?
You've told us it exists. Are you lying?
0 -
2 minutes ago, strichener said:
I can take it that you aren't sufficiently interested in the level of debt to find out for yourself. No reason for me to waste my time in referencing it for you. Or perhaps you are in denial that we have debt?
I'm merely waiting for you to tell us how much debt we have.
0 -
7 minutes ago, strichener said:
Find out for yourself. The Scottish Government website would be a good starting point.
0 -
5 minutes ago, strichener said:
> 0
A little more precision please.
0 -
4 minutes ago, strichener said:
Yes we do, the Scottish Government has borrowed from the UK treasury as have local authorities.
What is the current level of debt?
0 -
7 minutes ago, renton said:
205 years ago the US and UK were at war. We've only really been 'allies' in any real sense since the early 1900s when some of the final grievances of that last conflict were reconciled to allow the British to concentrate on their naval arms race with the Kaiser's Germany. The US Rainbow war plans had a specific scenario for invading Canada as part of a war against Britain well into the 1930s. The US brought the UK to it's knees in the late 50s over Suez, and froze the UK out of it's nuclear technology (which was jointly developed) until the McMahon act of 1958.
When it comes to nuclear war planning, the reason for the UK deterrent is exactly the reasons for the US disapproval of it. The more nations who have nukes, the less control any one nation has on the timing and scenario of such an engagement. The US didn't want the UK and France having independent deterrents on the basis that they might force the US into a conflagration not of it's choosing. The UK and France wanted those deterrents precisely to stop the US having a choice to let us burn if push came to shove. The UK of course committed it's deterrent entirely to the devices of SACEUR to avoid further discomfort with it's US allies while retaining a notional independent second strike capability.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that alliances, even as ones revered as the UK revers it's relationship with the US are still built on tangible political motives than sentimental ones. The US would probably see UK basing of their deterrent on US soil as a way of gently nudging the UK out of that strategic game. Basing in Georgia is as fraught with difficulties and risks as Faslane in an independent Scotland, albeit for different reasons. A further domestic policy issue would be that it's a harder sell to the general public if the deterrent is not only working with US weapons but working out of the US. This would further make it harder to secure money to keep it going long term.
Maybe the relationship with Scotland would be a complete unknown. It's unlikely we wouldn't be Western aligned at least to start with. It's a risk to be managed. Ultimately repatriation of the deterrent down south would be the only way to maintain it long term. However, I'd simply opine that Faslane would be a good place to leave them in the short term if Scotland and the US could be persuaded to let them stay there (as I said, given the central space Trident occupies in UK political thinking we could leverage it to f**k) and in some ways less risky than leaving them entirely at the mercy of the US.
If the US genuinely didn't want the UK to have a deterrent it could simply refuse to sell us the missiles. But of course they want us to have a deterrent not simply to spread the cost but to maintain the fiction of NATO being a genuine alliance.
They would welcome the deterrent being based in Georgia. They would welcome the rent and the opportunities for integration and training.
0 -
9 minutes ago, renton said:
This is the crux of the matter. I'm not sure they could. I'm not sure the US would necessarily let them, or at least wouldn't put the kinds of conditions on it that made it unfeasible over any length of time. Lockheed Martin might be happy selling Trident hardware to us, but there is no doubt that the US would ultimately prefer to be the only nuclear equipped western state.
The arguments about blockading Faslane apply equally, if not more so to Georgia, surrounded as it would be by US naval and air power. A UK SSBN couldn't even get to it's patrol zone without running the guantlet of the largest ASW equipped power on the planet. Let along the US army able to break down the doors if they so wanted.
Georgia might look attractive in so much as the US and UK traditionally align on foreign policy, and also because it makes missile storage easier. It doesn't make warhead storage any easier, and that's the bit - alongside the submarine that still has UK propriety technology. It doesn't do much for credibility when your whole deterrent is based on the US not simply locking your sailors up to stop you going about your business.
Supply chains similarly impact credibility, because as you rightly point out, it's about being able to run a 365 deterrent, right? Much harder to do, when committing a considerable part of your navy supply chain to maintaining a service on a foreign base 4000 miles away. 4000 miles further away from potential targets as well.
The US and UK have been allies for 200 years. Their relationship is known and predictable. UK and Scotland? A complete unknown, which is where the risk lies.
0 -
14 minutes ago, renton said:
A deterrent gap is probably the end of deterrence full stop so would be unacceptable.
If you can grasp this then you can grasp why Faslane isn't an option. The issue isn't money, supply chain or anything else. It's credibility. The rUK know they can run a 24/7/365 deterrent from Georgia. They don't know that they can from Scotland. They don't know what future Scoto-rUK relations will be like and they certainly aren't going to allow their deterrent to be used as a bargaining chip. It wouldn't take much to blockade Faslane or to prevent supplies or crews reaching the boats. That's far too much of a risk.
-1
Double Winning St Johnstone FC Thread
in Scottish Premiership General Chatter
Posted
I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next man but this is just ridiculous.