Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Ketara made the point that nuclear weapons deter other nuclear armed powers

BUT

If nuclear weapons can't be used against another nuclear armed country (because you would both wipe each other out)

and they don't stop conventional wars like Vietnam, Falklands etc etc

Then they aren't really any good IMO.

You keep nuclear weapons around as a deterrent to stop other people using them on you, in a nutshell. Not for any functional 'good' so to speak. The only problems that arise are when someone who does not like you has them, and you do not. That puts you in a very nasty, precarious position, where they can obliterate you at will, and you can do nothing back.

As I said earlier, you can question whether nuclear deterrence will hold forever, whether or not we should rely on somebody else to provide for our defence, and so forth. But what it ultimately comes down to, is whether or not you're potentially prepared to risk the entire existence of this country on a 'need but don't have' basis, as opposed to a 'have but don't need' one, when the latter is a reasonably small chunk of the defence budget.

YMMV. I personally think the cost is worth the security. It doesn't remove the need for conventional forces, but it substantially lowers the risk of our nation going up in nuclear smoke. And that's an expense I'm willing to pay for!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


In other words, our deterrent is bloody useless!!

World affairs mutate regularly. And nuclear bombs are easy enough to come by, if you know how to solve a sixty year old physics equation and have any real industry behind you. You can say that we shelter under the American shield, but using that logic, we might as well scrap the entire Armed Forces, and declare that we don't need them anymore now that we have NATO. The truth is, you can't always rely on your objectives allying with those of an allies for the span of a decade, let alone a century. Nuclear independence gives us more actual independence.

Anyway, enough nuclear talk. Let's get back to laughing at Nick Clegg.

Did we ever stop?

Newsflash for you Ketara: our countries already going up in smoke! The SNP have induced mass panic in Westminster. Not that I'm complaining


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
I'm a stupid Yank, but I know a bit about Nuclear Deterrence issues.

Perhaps the Brits Nukes on their own are almost useless. Even within NATO, the contribution is small. However, it is still a contribution.

This contribution is a political weapon just as much as an actual weapon. There are two reasons:

1. NATO is a joint, cooperative arrangement. To be joint other participants besides just the US need to contribute stuff. Thanks for the Trident or two.

2. It gives you leverage and power on the world stage.

Regarding Point 2, let's look at two other countries as an example. Iraq and North Korea.

Iraq was one of the most hated and belligerent nations in the world. It was invaded and dismantled twice by a coalition of enemies.

North Korea is one of the most hated and belligerent nations in the world. It is just fine thanks to a pitiful little Nuke.

I think we can all see why you want a Nuke, even small and ineffective ones. Sure, the UK doesn't want to be belligerent and hated, but the world can change rapidly and suddenly you are on the "outs" of the world political system instead of on the "in".

Plenty of NATO countries are non-nuclear. Hell, Iceland doesn't even have an army.

As for North Korea, I think that its large neighbour to the north is more than a deterrent than its solitary nuke.

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
The idea that Trident is even slightly effective as a deterrent is pure, Unicorns-farting-rainbows-level fantasy.

Even if we were in a state of heightened tensions with Russia, we physically don't have enough qualified crew to man more than a couple of the subs at once,

Source. Because quite frankly, the Royal Navy has a wonderful ability to draft in the crew it needs from other ships/the RNR as necessary. We have plenty of spare submarine crew tied up in manning 'Astute' Class submarines that could easily be shunted sideways at a moment's notice, so I highly, highly doubt the veracity of this statement.

You can't just chuck some random sailors on a nuclear-armed sub, not even ones who serve on other nuclear-powered submarines, there are roles on Vanguard subs that require expensive specialist training and presently the number of people who have that training is predicated on a single sub operating at any one time, with one in reserve.

...but what it ultimately comes down to is this; Are you prepared to risk the existence of your nation upon you being wrong?

Yes, because I disagree with your assessment of how effective nuclear deterrence is for the UK. MAD worked because America has enough nukes to wipe out the planet several times over, as do the Russians. For everyone else nukes are pointless; the only people they would deter from using nukes are rational people, who would not use nukes in the first place, and if the leader of a nuclear power ever is mad enough to use their nukes, us having a handful to throw back at them will make no difference at all, because they're mad. The reality is WE are the ones who use the threat of nukes to push our agenda on the "world stage" - they're not about defence, they're about situations like the one described above where Thatcher threatened the French with the prospect of the UK nuking Argentina if they didn't make it easier for us to win a conventional war. They're about giving us a permanent seat on the security council despite the fact we're not a superpower any more. Former politicians, former Trident sub-commanders, former diplomats; as soon as a lot of people leave the offices that require them to back the party line on Trident, they admit Trident is a useless bauble.

If someone is serious about defending this country, Trident is the last thing they should be supporting. FFS, we're an island nation with no martime patrol aircraft and our navy is so inadequate at coastal defence that they have to have a destroyer chug up the coast for over a day to reach the North Sea or North Atlantic, those being the locations of not only most of our offshore oil & gas but also of our main area of responsibility as part of NATO. That is what NATO needs from us; the capacity to respond rapidly to an incursion into the Icelandic Gap, and as a location for command & control and air strike capacity in case of an incursion into northern Norway; right now we're not capable of either because successive governments have insisted on wasting money on a pointless nuclear system, on a bloated land army to aid in America's foreign misadventures, and on almost completely bespoke equipment and machinery rather than buying cheaper and often-superior off-the-shelf solutions where possible.

EDIT: And the idea that the reason for the difference in experience between Iraq and North Korea is NK's pitiful and questionably-function "nuclear programme" is a tad laughable. NK continue to exist because anyone that tried to invade them would find half the Chinese People's Liberation Army boiling over the border to eradicate them. And not because China are worried about NK's nukes; because China want a nice big mountainous buffer between them and the American-backed South Korean government with their American-manned military bases.

 Yodhrin wrote:

You can't just chuck some random sailors on a nuclear-armed sub, not even ones who serve on other nuclear-powered submarines, there are roles on Vanguard subs that require expensive specialist training and presently the number of people who have that training is predicated on a single sub operating at any one time, with one in reserve.

Much of Britain's military capabilities are little more than ornaments. Yes we could deploy them but they can't be sustained for more than a couple of months before running out of kit or personnel while the actual footprint on the ground would be tiny. At this point the Armed Forces are an expensive decoration, they either need a massive increase in funding (on kit that actually works) or they need to be pared back to a defense force because in reality that's all they really are after the Strategic Defense and Security Review although the writing had been on the wall since the early 90's.

As a Army regular I have seen just how flimsy some of our capabilities actually are, even if they do work very well (which is not a given). In a real war against real opposition we would not fare very well at all.

FFS, we're an island nation with no martime patrol aircraft and our navy is so inadequate at coastal defence that they have to have a destroyer chug up the coast for over a day to reach the North Sea or North Atlantic, those being the locations of not only most of our offshore oil & gas but also of our main area of responsibility as part of NATO. That is what NATO needs from us; the capacity to respond rapidly to an incursion into the Icelandic Gap, and as a location for command & control and air strike capacity in case of an incursion into northern Norway; right now we're not capable of either because successive governments have insisted on wasting money on a pointless nuclear system, on a bloated land army to aid in America's foreign misadventures, and on almost completely bespoke equipment and machinery rather than buying cheaper and often-superior off-the-shelf solutions where possible.

This.


That's where the trident money should be going.

 Yodhrin wrote:

You can't just chuck some random sailors on a nuclear-armed sub, not even ones who serve on other nuclear-powered submarines, there are roles on Vanguard subs that require expensive specialist training and presently the number of people who have that training is predicated on a single sub operating at any one time, with one in reserve.

Source. Because I would say that this is absolutely untrue, I'm afraid. Firstly, we have a minimum of one submarine at sea at any one time due to our 'continuous at sea' deterrent. Key word? Minimum. We often have more than one moving around at a time. If we only had two submarine crews, we'd be in trouble.

Secondly, people themselves move around. They don't just get put on a submarine and stay there for the rest of their lives, and die once extracted from it. There are always ex-crewmembers who have moved to other vessels, or retired/left the service. They are still available for reassignment/being recalled.

Thirdly, submarine crew are usually trained in multiple job roles. You can't have a nuclear sub that can't operate because one guy is ill in bed, so there are usually several people on a sub who can operate in any given position.

Fourthly, many systems do require more specialist training, but many others do not, or share systems with other submarines. As a result, it is possible to transfer other submariners to those less specialised positions, whilst shuffling the aforementioned permanent crew capable of operating the more complicated systems to those which require them.

I really don't know who told you we can only operate one submarine at a time, but I'm afraid they were talking absolute rubbish. There are about 3,500 operational submariners in the UK at any given time, and a good chunk of them work on the Vanguards. Considering there are only 135-180 crew members on a Vanguard at any given time, I'm reasonably sure we can operate four together.

Yes, because I disagree with your assessment of how effective nuclear deterrence is for the UK.

Okay. That's fair enough.

MAD worked because America has enough nukes to wipe out the planet several times over, as do the Russians. For everyone else nukes are pointless; the only people they would deter from using nukes are rational people, who would not use nukes in the first place,

What about dictators or other unsavoury people (of which there have many through history)? Is it so inconceivable that a new Hitler/Stalin/Mao could arise? With nukes? Who would then use them to start throwing their weight about with non-nuclear powers?

and if the leader of a nuclear power ever is mad enough to use their nukes, us having a handful to throw back at them will make no difference at all, because they're mad.

So let me get this straight. Only mad people would ever use a nuclear bomb, or threaten to use one. Even if it's against a non-nuclear power?

I disagree.

The reality is WE are the ones who use the threat of nukes to push our agenda on the "world stage" - they're not about defence, they're about situations like the one described above where Thatcher threatened the French with the prospect of the UK nuking Argentina if they didn't make it easier for us to win a conventional war. They're about giving us a permanent seat on the security council despite the fact we're not a superpower any more.

We're not a superpower, but we are a power. Our military has the ability to launch an invasion more or less anywhere with a beach. Our economy is one of the largest in the world. We have one of the most high-tech armaments industries, nuclear weaponry, and substantial diplomatic pull around the world. We're not the US/China/Russia, but we're very definitely in the next league down.

If someone is serious about defending this country, Trident is the last thing they should be supporting. FFS, we're an island nation with no martime patrol aircraft and our navy is so inadequate at coastal defence that they have to have a destroyer chug up the coast for over a day to reach the North Sea or North Atlantic, those being the locations of not only most of our offshore oil & gas but also of our main area of responsibility as part of NATO.

Who on earth said that coastal defence was our current priority? I think you mistake what your perception of our military's role to be as things stand, with what it's role actually is, and what it's commanders view it to be.

That is what NATO needs from us; the capacity to respond rapidly to an incursion into the Icelandic Gap, and as a location for command & control and air strike capacity in case of an incursion into northern Norway; right now we're not capable of either because successive governments have insisted on wasting money on a pointless nuclear system, on a bloated land army to aid in America's foreign misadventures, and on almost completely bespoke equipment and machinery rather than buying cheaper and often-superior off-the-shelf solutions where possible.

Bloated? The BEF in 1914 had more men then us. As for the rest, well....

Let me put it this way. I don't think you and me will see eye to eye on this, because you and I have completely different views about Britain's place in the world. I would also venture (in the most inoffensive way possible), that I'm not entirely certain that you're up to date with how the armed forces actually work at the moment.

As an addendum to my previousnpost.

I said £180m, when infact i was aiming for the B key.

The SNP have declared they want to borrow an extra £180 BILLION, this frightens me in our current economy.

Also the SNP and Labour have NOT stated they wont share power, they have said they will form a power sharing agreement, if they are a minority, basically creating a government through the back door, by making the 2 parties with less votes than the expected Tory vote (but not enough for a majority)

So basically the majority of England is expected to vote Tory, and the English WILL resent seeing some 4 million voters 200 miles north of them deciding who runs their country.

It instills bile and resentment, and the neverendum will always be nearby until this calms down.

The SNP\ Sturgeon have also said while they arent doing another referendum, Sturgeon HAS said that a 2016 SNP Holyrood manifesto will allow p[eople to vote for the option of another. This is totally against the 'Once in a generation pledge'

Anyway, vote for who you want, its a fair ballot and i hold no resentment to anyone personally, i just dont like the SNP's politics. Cry for the hard done by, but Sturgeon has option to be 6th highest paid politician in the western world! She gets more than Cameron, but she has no responsibility for fiscal operations, defence and international standing. She should not be paid more than the PM.

Mandy Boylett, UKIP Candidate for Stockton North has used YouTube to release a ring-tone to help promote UKIP


..





good god.

 reds8n wrote:
Mandy Boylett, UKIP Candidate for Stockton North has used YouTube to release a ring-tone to help promote UKIP


..





good god.

We're getting into Benny Hill territory!

Out of interest, reds8n, if you don't mind me asking - who are you leaning towards this election?

I bet you voted for Tony Blair like me, and also like me, I bet you regret every minute of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rick_1138 wrote:
As an addendum to my previousnpost.

I said £180m, when infact i was aiming for the B key.

The SNP have declared they want to borrow an extra £180 BILLION, this frightens me in our current economy.

Also the SNP and Labour have NOT stated they wont share power, they have said they will form a power sharing agreement, if they are a minority, basically creating a government through the back door, by making the 2 parties with less votes than the expected Tory vote (but not enough for a majority)

So basically the majority of England is expected to vote Tory, and the English WILL resent seeing some 4 million voters 200 miles north of them deciding who runs their country.

It instills bile and resentment, and the neverendum will always be nearby until this calms down.

The SNP\ Sturgeon have also said while they arent doing another referendum, Sturgeon HAS said that a 2016 SNP Holyrood manifesto will allow p[eople to vote for the option of another. This is totally against the 'Once in a generation pledge'

Anyway, vote for who you want, its a fair ballot and i hold no resentment to anyone personally, i just dont like the SNP's politics. Cry for the hard done by, but Sturgeon has option to be 6th highest paid politician in the western world! She gets more than Cameron, but she has no responsibility for fiscal operations, defence and international standing. She should not be paid more than the PM.

I remember the 1980s when a Conservative majority in England (but not in Scotland) imposed policies that Scotland didn't like. Nobody in England complained. It's democracy, we had to live it back then, and England would have to live with it now if the SNP held the balance.

It's the people of Scotland who decided when they have another referendum - not Salmond, Sturgeon, Cameron, Clegg, Miliband etec etc

If the SNP have another referendum pledge in their 2016 manifesto and if they get a majority, then in my view, they're well within their rights to hold another referendum. I don't think they will have another so soon.

And finally, I 100% agree with your comment on not liking the SNP. That is your right. I don't agree with it (I'll be voting SNP myself), but that is your divine right. No complaints from me If you don't like the SNP.

Dignitas.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If the SNP have another referendum pledge in their 2016 manifesto and if they get a majority, then in my view, they're well within their rights to hold another referendum. I don't think they will have another so soon.

And finally, I 100% agree with your comment on not liking the SNP. That is your right. I don't agree with it (I'll be voting SNP myself), but that is your divine right. No complaints from me If you don't like the SNP.

Yep, that sounds democratic.

Scotland voters elected to stay in the Union, but the SNP didn't like the result, lets keep on going! We will break them!

Will they do referendums anymore once you leave?

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

If the SNP have another referendum pledge in their 2016 manifesto and if they get a majority, then in my view, they're well within their rights to hold another referendum. I don't think they will have another so soon.

And finally, I 100% agree with your comment on not liking the SNP. That is your right. I don't agree with it (I'll be voting SNP myself), but that is your divine right. No complaints from me If you don't like the SNP.

Yep, that sounds democratic.

Scotland voters elected to stay in the Union, but the SNP didn't like the result, lets keep on going! We will break them!

Will they do referendums anymore once you leave?

Like I said, another referendum is unlikely because of the closeness to the last vote.

But if the SNP say vote for us and we'll hold another referendum, and then they get a majority and hold one - how is that not democratic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
Dignitas.

If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.

It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"

The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.

If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.

I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?

Why do I find the fact that an SNP voter talking about "no chance of referendum" to be highly dubious?

 reds8n wrote:
Dignitas.

C'mon now.

That's the plan after the election, surely?

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

Mandy Boylett, UKIP Candidate for Stockton North has used YouTube to release a ring-tone to help promote UKIP


..





good god.

HAHAHA. Mental!

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a643465/e4-is-actually-going-to-turn-off-on-election-day-so-you-might-as-well-vote.html#~paFSy2OLsYYEIv

E4 is going on strike - to try to encourage young people to vote in the general election.

The channel will be turned off when the polls open at 7am on May 7, the hope being that its youth audience will rush out to vote when there's nothing on the telly. Well, on E4, anyway.

To prove it's really happening, E4 has even introduced us to Darren - the guy who makes sure E4 is on, and who will turn it off when it's time to head to the ballot box.

If you try to watch E4 on May 7, for most of the day all you'll get is Darren manning the control room - and there won't even be any adverts. (Admittedly, the idea of watching Darren all day might appeal to some people - but we probably don't want them voting anyway.)

"Less than half of under 25s voted at the last election, so we've engaged the most powerful weapon that we have at our disposal to try and boost that number - switching off their favourite TV channel for the day!" said Channel 4's Dan Brooke.

But never fear Hollyoaks fans, the Chester-set show must go on even on polling day - E4 resumes airing on May 7 from 7pm onwards.

so any minute now we'll see politicians vying for the vote of that hard to reach Hollyoaks/Made in Chelsea demographic.

The UKIP ringtone sounds like some kind of brain-washing thing.

If I were this 'Darren', I'd seize the opportunity of a whole channel to myself for the day and perform a series of mimes, monologues and stand-up comedy routines. The resulting performance would be seen by all those millions that just can't turn the TV off, go viral on the Youtube, and I'd be made! E4 today, Live at the O2 tomorrow!


Seize the day, Darren! This could change your life!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I remember the 1980s when a Conservative majority in England (but not in Scotland) imposed policies that Scotland didn't like. Nobody in England complained. It's democracy, we had to live it back then, and England would have to live with it now if the SNP held the balance.

The Conservatives held a majority in the UK (What people held in England and Scotland are irrelevant). SNP will not hold a majority in the UK. After all, wether the SNP like it or not

However, it is down to the other parties to decide to work with them, and I think everyone has made it clear they won't form a coalition with the SNP. They might work with them on a case by case basis, but I can't see the SNP getting what they want out of this. If anything they will make Labour and Torys more likely to work together.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
[

I remember the 1980s when a Conservative majority in England (but not in Scotland) imposed policies that Scotland didn't like. Nobody in England complained. It's democracy, we had to live it back then, and England would have to live with it now if the SNP held the balance.

It's the people of Scotland who decided when they have another referendum - not Salmond, Sturgeon, Cameron, Clegg, Miliband etec etc

If the SNP have another referendum pledge in their 2016 manifesto and if they get a majority, then in my view, they're well within their rights to hold another referendum. I don't think they will have another so soon.

And finally, I 100% agree with your comment on not liking the SNP. That is your right. I don't agree with it (I'll be voting SNP myself), but that is your divine right. No complaints from me If you don't like the SNP.

The issue with the ref vote re-run and it being voted for through democratic process falls down is a bit like how the SNP may get a majority in scotland for a lot of seats due to YES voters predominantly being SNP voters, but No voters being from various party supporters.

Basically it means that the monority can govern the majority, i do not like this state of affairs.

Basically you have 100 voters and you have 100 seats at parliament, 30 of them vote for the SNP, 20 vote for Labour, 20 vote for Tory 9 vote for Lib Dem and 9 vote green, 7 vote Ukip say, 5 vote others

The main 3 old guard parties come to a combined total of 49 seats, Lab\Con wont form a coalltion, we know this from experience, they are too diametrically opposed. so this leaves Tory\Lib Dem, Lab, Lib Dem to form a hung parliament coalition, however this only creates a max of 29 seats, so the SNP have 1 more seat, a majority of the seats over anyone else.

This means that even though some 49% of the population doesnt want the SNP, they are governed by them because 30% wants it.

I realise this is how first past the post works, BUT, this means the tail is wagging the dog in terms of a second referendum, as the SNP would have been voted in by a minority of the population, this means that the SNP can take this that as they were voted in by the 'majority' I.e. most seats (when in fact they got less than half the vote overall) they have the 'wishes' of the populas to carry out a second referendum, when in fact some 55% of the voting public did not want to sepreate nor do they want a second vote.

Now granted this is extremely simplified, however the main point is, if the SNP achieve a majority in the 2016 holyrood election, even if only by 1 seat (as they have now) they can carry out a second referendum vote on the assumption that 'all of scotland' want it as scotland voted in an SNP government.

Someone called Nicola out on this at the Aberdeen leader debate when they called out that the SNP DO NOT speak for all of Scotland, in fact, over 60% of Scotland voted for a different part to the SNP.

This is why many in Scotland are so angry and feel lied to by the SNP, its all clever talking and hazy details.

I.e. the Labour team up, Yes they have stated they wont form a coalition government, but they HAVE stated they will form a 'power sharing agreement', this is the same thing as a coalition, its just got a different dress on, and it will again be trying to hold majority power over a nation that voted another party into more seats (but not a majority).

Nicola Sturgeon was also never voted into power, she was handed it, we got no say in that, similar story to when Gordon Brown became prime minister.

I believe that ANY prime minister\ first minister standing down before a term is complete, should result in a new election.

Its just all very murky, and i dont like the infighting its created up here, its turned friends against each other, including me personally, i lost friends in the ref which upset me greatly.

Scotland needs some kind of Unionist party that is none of the other three going.

Part of the reason why the SNP is so popular is because people are so fed up with the current state of affairs.

I don't really think the SNP are that answer and I'm now glad it was a No vote.

I'm not particularly interested in living in a country that wants to strong arm land from landowners to build crap "anywhere" housing and other short term economic projects.

The SNP would be disasterous for Scotland. They'd become a new bourgeois class among the chip on their shoulder masses. They'd blame the inescapable EU for their problems once they are absorbed.

Scotland doesn't need a massive population. It should have pride in striving to be a humble, green and pleasant (steady) nation.

 obsidianaura wrote:
If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.

It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"

The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.

If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.

I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?

Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.

I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why do I find the fact that an SNP voter talking about "no chance of referendum" to be highly dubious?

 reds8n wrote:
Dignitas.

C'mon now.

That's the plan after the election, surely?

I don't want another referendum so soon - it would be counter-productive. But should the rest of the UK vote to leave the EU and Scotland votes to stay in, then that's legitimate grounds for another vote in my view.

Why are you pro-SNP if you want to leave the EU?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I remember the 1980s when a Conservative majority in England (but not in Scotland) imposed policies that Scotland didn't like. Nobody in England complained. It's democracy, we had to live it back then, and England would have to live with it now if the SNP held the balance.

The Conservatives held a majority in the UK (What people held in England and Scotland are irrelevant). SNP will not hold a majority in the UK. After all, wether the SNP like it or not

However, it is down to the other parties to decide to work with them, and I think everyone has made it clear they won't form a coalition with the SNP. They might work with them on a case by case basis, but I can't see the SNP getting what they want out of this. If anything they will make Labour and Torys more likely to work together.

During the referendum, David Cameron stood up and said that Scotland was an equal partner in the UK. The rest of the UK can't complain if Scotland has influence. Great Britain is NOT greater England.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rick_1138 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
[

I remember the 1980s when a Conservative majority in England (but not in Scotland) imposed policies that Scotland didn't like. Nobody in England complained. It's democracy, we had to live it back then, and England would have to live with it now if the SNP held the balance.

It's the people of Scotland who decided when they have another referendum - not Salmond, Sturgeon, Cameron, Clegg, Miliband etec etc

If the SNP have another referendum pledge in their 2016 manifesto and if they get a majority, then in my view, they're well within their rights to hold another referendum. I don't think they will have another so soon.

And finally, I 100% agree with your comment on not liking the SNP. That is your right. I don't agree with it (I'll be voting SNP myself), but that is your divine right. No complaints from me If you don't like the SNP.

The issue with the ref vote re-run and it being voted for through democratic process falls down is a bit like how the SNP may get a majority in scotland for a lot of seats due to YES voters predominantly being SNP voters, but No voters being from various party supporters.

Basically it means that the monority can govern the majority, i do not like this state of affairs.

Basically you have 100 voters and you have 100 seats at parliament, 30 of them vote for the SNP, 20 vote for Labour, 20 vote for Tory 9 vote for Lib Dem and 9 vote green, 7 vote Ukip say, 5 vote others

The main 3 old guard parties come to a combined total of 49 seats, Lab\Con wont form a coalltion, we know this from experience, they are too diametrically opposed. so this leaves Tory\Lib Dem, Lab, Lib Dem to form a hung parliament coalition, however this only creates a max of 29 seats, so the SNP have 1 more seat, a majority of the seats over anyone else.

This means that even though some 49% of the population doesnt want the SNP, they are governed by them because 30% wants it.

I realise this is how first past the post works, BUT, this means the tail is wagging the dog in terms of a second referendum, as the SNP would have been voted in by a minority of the population, this means that the SNP can take this that as they were voted in by the 'majority' I.e. most seats (when in fact they got less than half the vote overall) they have the 'wishes' of the populas to carry out a second referendum, when in fact some 55% of the voting public did not want to sepreate nor do they want a second vote.

Now granted this is extremely simplified, however the main point is, if the SNP achieve a majority in the 2016 holyrood election, even if only by 1 seat (as they have now) they can carry out a second referendum vote on the assumption that 'all of scotland' want it as scotland voted in an SNP government.

Someone called Nicola out on this at the Aberdeen leader debate when they called out that the SNP DO NOT speak for all of Scotland, in fact, over 60% of Scotland voted for a different part to the SNP.

This is why many in Scotland are so angry and feel lied to by the SNP, its all clever talking and hazy details.

I.e. the Labour team up, Yes they have stated they wont form a coalition government, but they HAVE stated they will form a 'power sharing agreement', this is the same thing as a coalition, its just got a different dress on, and it will again be trying to hold majority power over a nation that voted another party into more seats (but not a majority).

Nicola Sturgeon was also never voted into power, she was handed it, we got no say in that, similar story to when Gordon Brown became prime minister.

I believe that ANY prime minister\ first minister standing down before a term is complete, should result in a new election.

Its just all very murky, and i dont like the infighting its created up here, its turned friends against each other, including me personally, i lost friends in the ref which upset me greatly.

I don't like Conservative governments or there policies, but I can't complain if people vote them in. And if they do get in, it will be on about 36% of the national vote. That's not a majority either. Like you said, it's the first past the post system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why are you pro-SNP if you want to leave the EU?

I'm pro-Scottish independence. That doesn't make me pro-SNP, but I will be voting for the SNP as they are the best vehicle for achieving independence. If Scotland were independent, I'd vote for somebody else.

I don't like the EU, myself.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.

It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"

The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.

If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.

I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?

Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.

I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.

Business is everything to us. It's indirect but it's still all their money that pays for everything, defence, health, schools, roads and pay it's all their money it doesn't come from ANYWHERE else. Encouraging business wherever possible it is the key to succeeding or becoming a poor country and fading into obscurity. At least that's what I believe.

The SNP would fast track Scotland straight into the EU.

There would be no escape.

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.

It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"

The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.

If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.

I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?

Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.

I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.

Business is everything to us. It's indirect but it's still all their money that pays for everything, defence, health, schools, roads and pay it's all their money it doesn't come from ANYWHERE else. Encouraging business wherever possible it is the key to succeeding or becoming a poor country and fading into obscurity. At least that's what I believe.

I agree that business is important, but the minute they start dictating the democratic process, we've had it. All they care about is the bottom line. First chance they get - they'll be off to China.

Besides, plenty of people who pay tax don't work for business. NHS (1 million people) police, fire service, civil service, self-employed etc etc

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.

It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"

The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.

If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.

I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?

Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.

I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.

Business is everything to us. It's indirect but it's still all their money that pays for everything, defence, health, schools, roads and pay it's all their money it doesn't come from ANYWHERE else. Encouraging business wherever possible it is the key to succeeding or becoming a poor country and fading into obscurity. At least that's what I believe.

I agree that business is important, but the minute they start dictating the democratic process, we've had it. All they care about is the bottom line. First chance they get - they'll be off to China.

Besides, plenty of people who pay tax don't work for business. NHS (1 million people) police, fire service, civil service, self-employed etc etc

Yes,where does that money come from? and a self employed person, is running, "a business."

If we do lose all our business to China, we're dead in the water end of.

We all serve the mighty 1% bow down to our masters.

 Medium of Death wrote:
The SNP would fast track Scotland straight into the EU.

There would be no escape.

The SNP is not Scotland. The plan was to have a vote on the EU at the first Parliament elections in an independent Scotland. Personally, I'd prefer to see Scotland out of the EU but dealing with them on a Norway/Switzerland style relationship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.

It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"

The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.

If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.

I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?

Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.

I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.

Business is everything to us. It's indirect but it's still all their money that pays for everything, defence, health, schools, roads and pay it's all their money it doesn't come from ANYWHERE else. Encouraging business wherever possible it is the key to succeeding or becoming a poor country and fading into obscurity. At least that's what I believe.

I agree that business is important, but the minute they start dictating the democratic process, we've had it. All they care about is the bottom line. First chance they get - they'll be off to China.

Besides, plenty of people who pay tax don't work for business. NHS (1 million people) police, fire service, civil service, self-employed etc etc

Yes... where does that money come from?

If we do lose all our business to China, we're dead end of

You must have missed that bit when the Bank of England pumped £400 billion into the economy . Business is not as independent as it likes to think. They're up to their necks in grants, subsidies. etc.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
The SNP would fast track Scotland straight into the EU.

There would be no escape.

The SNP is not Scotland. The plan was to have a vote on the EU at the first Parliament elections in an independent Scotland. Personally, I'd prefer to see Scotland out of the EU but dealing with them on a Norway/Switzerland style relationship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:
If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.

It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"

The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.

If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.

I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?

Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.

I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.

Business is everything to us. It's indirect but it's still all their money that pays for everything, defence, health, schools, roads and pay it's all their money it doesn't come from ANYWHERE else. Encouraging business wherever possible it is the key to succeeding or becoming a poor country and fading into obscurity. At least that's what I believe.

I agree that business is important, but the minute they start dictating the democratic process, we've had it. All they care about is the bottom line. First chance they get - they'll be off to China.

Besides, plenty of people who pay tax don't work for business. NHS (1 million people) police, fire service, civil service, self-employed etc etc

Yes... where does that money come from?

If we do lose all our business to China, we're dead end of

You must have missed that bit when the Bank of England pumped £400 billion into the economy . Business is not as independent as it likes to think. They're up to their necks in grants, subsidies. etc.

But it did that buy selling government bonds to financial businesses ( or something like that I don't understand how QE works). You cant really just make up money. Otherwise we'd just pay off our debt, or wreck other countries by making up money and buying their recourses.

They are inescapable these businesses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm thinking about quantitate easing now.

I know printing money devalues your currency against others but I was wondering about the following scenario.

Say the government prints £5 million and gives it so 100 agents. Then the agents go somewhere we don't get on with, like Russia for example.

The 20 agents buy as much gold as they can from Russia then returns with the gold and puts it in the Bank of England's vault.

Does that harm the Russian economy and improve the UK's? Or is there more to it?

Have I just solved the UKs problems in one post?!

 Rick_1138 wrote:
The main 3 old guard parties come to a combined total of 49 seats, Lab\Con wont form a coalltion, we know this from experience, they are too diametrically opposed. so this leaves Tory\Lib Dem, Lab, Lib Dem to form a hung parliament coalition, however this only creates a max of 29 seats, so the SNP have 1 more seat, a majority of the seats over anyone else.

This means that even though some 49% of the population doesnt want the SNP, they are governed by them because 30% wants it.

I realise this is how first past the post works, BUT, this means the tail is wagging the dog in terms of a second referendum, as the SNP would have been voted in by a minority of the population, this means that the SNP can take this that as they were voted in by the 'majority' I.e. most seats (when in fact they got less than half the vote overall) they have the 'wishes' of the populas to carry out a second referendum, when in fact some 55% of the voting public did not want to sepreate nor do they want a second vote.

A situation that STV could have prevented. But it was more in the interests of the big two parties to claim that it was too complicated (you poor little stupid proles could never understand something so mind blowingly complex - better to just obey your political masters, they know better) and to insist that it would be unfair, effectively giving two or more votes to some people (because a system where a constituent can be elected with 35% of the vote whilst 65% of the population hates their guts is SO much more fair!).

 Rick_1138 wrote:
Nicola Sturgeon was also never voted into power, she was handed it, we got no say in that, similar story to when Gordon Brown became prime minister.

I believe that ANY prime minister\ first minister standing down before a term is complete, should result in a new election.

That is an unfortunate misunderstanding of how UK politics works. At a general election we do not vote for a party, a Prime Minister or a party leader. We vote for our own constituents. From the elected ministers, the one that can hold the confidence of parliament becomes Prime Minister. It is a misunderstanding that is shared by many of our country folk.
It is also a misunderstanding that the main two parties exploit and have no interest in educating the populace about.