kiddy Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Isn't unemployment going down? I do believe it is! Those claiming JSA (for 6 months), which is only a percentage of those unemployed. Remind me, just where are the austerity cuts being felt hardest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Mike Dailly saying he would vote yes if it was a guarantee Scotland would be a republic Surprising from him, had him up as one the most bitter unionists, he even claims once nationalists are anti English Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Those claiming JSA (for 6 months), which is only a percentage of those unemployed. Remind me, just where are the austerity cuts being felt hardest? So you're claiming what exactly? That unemployment is rising? I don't know. Where are austerity cuts being felt the hardest? At local government level maybe? Dinno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I'm not in favour of having the weapons anywhere, but having them 40 miles from a city is clearly a bit less sh*t than having them right in the middle of a city. And presumably there are lots of potential scenarios other than some gigantic explosion where being 40 miles away can make all the difference. Like I said, if the article was about whether we should have the weapons at all I'd have no problem with it, but she's essentially claiming that Faslane and Devonport are comparable and the MoD just keeps the submarines in Scotland out of spite, which is just rubbish. Basing them in Plymouth would be more similar to basing them in Govan or Leith rather than Faslane. Aren't they on submarines? If , as is wanted, Scotland becomes a member of NATO, will you be able to ban nuclear submarines from entering Scottish waters or using Scottish ports? Nuclear free Denmark doesn't seem to be able to do it. When accepting NATOS defensive shield how far away from you do you reckon you will be comfortable to place the nuclear arsenal at the treaty organisations disposal? What if the Americans absolutely insist on retaining Rosyth as a base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Aren't they on submarines? If , as is wanted, Scotland becomes a member of NATO, will you be able to ban nuclear submarines from entering Scottish waters or using Scottish ports? Nuclear free Denmark doesn't seem to be able to do it. When accepting NATOS defensive shield how far away from you do you reckon you will be comfortable to place the nuclear arsenal at the treaty organisations disposal? What if the Americans absolutely insist on retaining Rosyth as a base? New Zealand manages it. They have a common defence treaty with the States and Australia, and don't even let nuclear powered ships, let alone nuclear armed ships, into their ports. As for the arsenal, the US nuclear missile shield is the only relevent arsenal. Almost all tactical nuclear wepaons have been removed from Europe, we no longer live in the cold war and NATO's raison d'etre has evolved to fit that fact. Forward basing of US nuclear assets in Europe is no longer a prime concern for the US, or even the European partners in NATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 New Zealand manages it. They have a common defence treaty with the States and Australia, and don't even let nuclear powered ships, let alone nuclear armed ships, into their ports. As for the arsenal, the US nuclear missile shield is the only relevent arsenal. Almost all tactical nuclear wepaons have been removed from Europe, we no longer live in the cold war and NATO's raison d'etre has evolved to fit that fact. Forward basing of US nuclear assets in Europe is no longer a prime concern for the US, or even the European partners in NATO. It's not a NATO member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Would it be better for Scotland to be a named non NATO ally too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 It's not a NATO member. Congratulations. Now, in the next line you will see they are in a common defence treaty with the US, that serves the same function as NATO in the Atlantic, and don't have to base, or have an obligation to base, or safe port, the US nuclear arsenal. Indeed, within NATO, there is no cast iron obligation by members to house US nuclear assets, and countries that have, did so on the basis that it as for their own safety to do so - for example, the IRBMs, tactical nukes and small yield nuclear mines based near the German inner border. Ultimately, Scotland's access to NATO would be based primarily on having small but well trained armed forces, as well as a willingness to pitch in. Even tha tis not necessary. The entry on the Eastern European countries was as much about making sur ethey were aligned to the west as anything. No one expects them to contribute massively to NATO, or to house US assets, nuclear or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Congratulations. Now, in the next line you will see they are in a common defence treaty with the US, that serves the same function as NATO in the Atlantic, and don't have to base, or have an obligation to base, or safe port, the US nuclear arsenal. Indeed, within NATO, there is no cast iron obligation by members to house US nuclear assets, and countries that have, did so on the basis that it as for their own safety to do so - for example, the IRBMs, tactical nukes and small yield nuclear mines based near the German inner border. Ultimately, Scotland's access to NATO would be based primarily on having small but well trained armed forces, as well as a willingness to pitch in. Even tha tis not necessary. The entry on the Eastern European countries was as much about making sur ethey were aligned to the west as anything. No one expects them to contribute massively to NATO, or to house US assets, nuclear or otherwise. Will you be comfortable for Scotland to be in the same position as the Danes, who allow nuclear subs access to their ports but just choose not to let their citizens know when or where or for how long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Will you be comfortable for Scotland to be in the same position as the Danes, who allow nuclear subs access to their ports but just choose not to let their citizens know when or where or for how long? I would much rather a written constitution expressely forbid the basing of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. I understand the SNP has siad it could modify it's stance to allow the ol' blind eye treatment, but this is it saying it might do something at some unspecified point in time, if it was in power to do so, and primarily as a political manouvere to shut up BT on the subject. As it is, I am reaosnably confident that an independent Scotland would be a nuclear free state and a member of NATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I would much rather a written constitution expressely forbid the basing of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. I understand the SNP has siad it could modify it's stance to allow the ol' blind eye treatment, but this is it saying it might do something at some unspecified point in time, if it was in power to do so, and primarily as a political manouvere to shut up BT on the subject. As it is, I am reaosnably confident that an independent Scotland would be a nuclear free state and a member of NATO. Could a non SNP party veto that stance if it came to power? (nuclear free state)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Could a non SNP party veto that stance if it came to power? (nuclear free state)? Of course it could, which is why I'd want something like that written down into the constitution (with corss party, civic agreement on doing so), which would make it much harder to amend in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 To be honest, I do think it's taking the p*ss a bit to want to join NATO while being railing against some of the recent conflicts and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons and foreign conflicts is what NATO do, so I really don't see why the SNP are so keen on joining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 To be honest, I do think it's taking the p*ss a bit to want to join NATO while being railing against some of the recent conflicts and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons and foreign conflicts is what NATO do, so I really don't see why the SNP are so keen on joining? NATO has 28 member states, how many have nuclear weapons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 To be honest, I do think it's taking the p*ss a bit to want to join NATO while being railing against some of the recent conflicts and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons and foreign conflicts is what NATO do, so I really don't see why the SNP are so keen on joining? It makes sense in so much as our regional neighbours are all members, makes it easier to co-operate if everyone is using the same systems and coming together for training. I don't particularly think it's a massive piss take, given for example, that Iceland is a NATO member despite not having any standing armed forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 NATO has 28 member states, how many have nuclear weapons? I think there are only 3 NATO members with.nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 NATO has 28 member states, how many have nuclear weapons? How many refuse to house them? I think it's hypocritcal to shelter under a defensive alliance which has nuclear weapons as part of it's arsenal while refusing to allow them in your territory. It makes sense in so much as our regional neighbours are all members, makes it easier to co-operate if everyone is using the same systems and coming together for training. I don't particularly think it's a massive piss take, given for example, that Iceland is a NATO member despite not having any standing armed forces. Iceland are just there to act as an aircraft carrier in the North Atlantic. People are very blasé about defence and take the "well who's going to attack Scotland" line, which is fair enough. But as a member of NATO if there's another 9/11 type scenario where America is attacked, Scotland would be obliged to go to war. I don't see how you really benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 How many refuse to house them? I think it's hypocritcal to shelter under a defensive alliance which has nuclear weapons as part of it's arsenal while refusing to allow them in your territory. Iceland are just there to act as an aircraft carrier in the North Atlantic. People are very blasé about defence and take the "well who's going to attack Scotland" line, which is fair enough. But as a member of NATO if there's another 9/11 type scenario where America is attacked, Scotland would be obliged to go to war. I don't see how you really benefit. A couple of points, the USA's ideal number of nuclear armed nations is one: Them. I don't think they'll be too broken up about us refusing to house nuclear weapons. It was never a part of the deal to be obliged to keep nukes on sovereign ground. The Germans did, becuase they were the front line, the UK did, becuase they were the NATO supply dump from across the atlantic - it's important to note as well that the UK's own nuclear programme was only there to act as an insurance policy against American cold feet. Largely, the US had to base a lot of nukes in European countries due to the lack of range on these weapons. Since the 80s this has been of lesser concern. The modern alliance is not so hung up on the nuclear part of the 'nuclear alliance'. Secondly, the point about Iceland is that yes, it's an aircraft carrier that helps bottle up the GIUK gap. The point is that it's possible to be a contributing and important member of NATO without conforming to what might be said to be the more traditional ways of contributing. Actually having armed forces in Iceland's case, in our case, bottling up the southern approaches of the GIUK gap and contributing small but well trained forces without housing nukes. Plenty of countries find their niche, and becomign adumping gorund for a huge nuclear arsenal doesn't have to be it. Finally, NATO did invoke article V after 9/11 but were politely told that they weren't needed. Even then it was not unanimous and some countries sent only the barest of token forces for one or two tours through Afghanistan. Countries can pick and choose their level of engagement, so can we - up to and including housing nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 How many refuse to house them? I think it's hypocritcal to shelter under a defensive alliance which has nuclear weapons as part of it's arsenal while refusing to allow them in your territory. Iceland are just there to act as an aircraft carrier in the North Atlantic. People are very blasé about defence and take the "well who's going to attack Scotland" line, which is fair enough. But as a member of NATO if there's another 9/11 type scenario where America is attacked, Scotland would be obliged to go to war. I don't see how you really benefit. It will be up to us if we decide to fight alongside the Americans in any future war though. As a member of the UK we have no say. Scottish soldiers will be sent to a foreign country, and hundreds of them will die as it stands if a Westminster government decides to suck the President's dick and do what he wants. Independence can change that. And why would we "obliged" to go to war. We certainly can't be forced. We'll no longer be part of the special relationship between the UK and the US (thank f**k) so there'd be pressure on that front to do anything. Not our fucking problem as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 We'll no longer be part of the special relationship between the UK and the US (thank f**k) so there'd be pressure on that front to do anything. Not our fucking problem as far as I'm concerned. An interesting point - could you envision a "special relationship" between rUK and an Independent scotland? I'd imagine there'd be signifcant pressure from voices inside both countries to ahve shared defence and foreign policies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.