Observer
Let's have a go, shall we?
“You just so completely don't get where we are coming from Smee it's almost comical.”
I do, actually. It's just that what you call “aspiration” I call “half-baked, ill-informed naivete”, and I start from objective, quantifiable facts while you don't.
“We will be a small European nation that yeah doesn't play with the big boys, we'll be in with the smaller nations”
Right. With as little influence as they have.
“The reason why we want to be independent is because it will bring government closer to the people.”
Non-sequitur. You can have closer, more responsive government without “independence”. That's what devolution does. You could even try devolving more power down to the local tier – although I keep detecting a Nat tendency towards having smaller, larger councils. Are we going to get the Regions back again?
“The big boys are all mega capitalists and in the nuclear club. We want to join the other guys. The ones who have options.”
What “options” would these be?
On the economic front, you are ignoring the fact that it is not 1905 or 1922 or even 1973, it is 2009. Corporate globalisation has happened. There is no Scottish currency, central bank or stock exchange. There is no such thing as a “major Scottish company” - they are all “British” at least, if not international. (There might be an exception or two to that, but I doubt it.)
The cold, hard, unpleasant fact is that Scotland is and will be a “branch-office” economy. The choice is between staying part of the Union and having some entrenched say at head office (or at least at one of them), or having none.
Politically, I also fail to see where there are any “options” that we don't currently have. Oh, we could do an Ireland and choose to free-ride our security on other people's efforts. Morally despicable and also pretty dangerous, if you have any idea at all of the quantity and quality of intelligence-sharing which happens under the UKUSA agreement. (Hint: look it up.)
This argument seems to rest on the notion that once “independent”, the nutty bits of the world will somehow leave us alone, just because of that.
Hmm. Lockerbie. Glasgow Airport. Denmark. Do I need to say more?
“We have done Empire and power for so bloody long and what has it got us?”
No, actually we stopped doing “Empire and power” around 1956 (if not earlier). Since then, what we've done is a bit more than our fair share of defending and securing the liberal democracies against the various totalitarian / theocratic threats facing them. And where we've felt that our Septic chums have gone off on a bit of a tangent (e.g. Vietnam), we've left them to it.
Similarly, on the economic and social front we have developed a solution which is balanced between the high-tax, high benefit situation of Continental Europe and the free-for-all of the US. Personally I quite like it. What's your problem?
“My finger will be pointing to Norway - not an Imperial power any more. Never was.
But who do you wanna be like? A big bad nuclear power or Norway?”
Nothing like a false choice as a poor debating technique.
I don't want to be a “big bad” nuclear power, I think continuing as a “small and cheap-as-possible” nuclear power is quite appropriate, thanks.
As for “being like Norway”, that is simply not possible for Scotland. It is 2009, not 1905 or 1973. Norway has always had, and continues to have, a lot more oil and gas than we do. (See here and here.)
And as pointed out above, globalisation has happened. The next-door-neighbour isn't the small and inoffensive Sweden / Stockholm, it's England / London. Oh, the alternative is to do what the Irish did and put Germany / Frankfurt in charge of their economic policy. That worked for a while, but didn't turn out too well, did it? I assume you've taken on board the incontrovertible fact that if we had joined the Euro back in the 90s then our property / equity boom-and-crash would have been even worse than it is.
Norway was independent in 1905, Ireland in 1922. Pre-globalisation. Entities like Bank of Ireland, Den Norske Bank, StatoilHydro could be set up and protected. No more. Look at who really owns and runs corporate Belgium, Slovenia, Lithuania, etc etc. It's French, German, Swedish, Austrian companies. So what does those countries' “independence” really mean?
As you say, “D'oh.”
The other thing I'd like to point out is that no-one has challenged my main point, which is that an “independent” Scotland wishing to join the EU will find itself paying more than £300m a year than it currently does.
Can I just write that one up as a “hit, a palpable hit”?
39 comments:
Your really struggling to fill AM2's shoes Smee, I don't think your up to it, it would appear that unionism, at least online blogging unionism is flaking away.
Looks like Labour are about to launch an all out attack on your beloved nasty party.
Yes more too small, too poor, too stupid.
Keep going Smee, your making independence even more likely.
Wow you've went to town on what was largely a throw-away comment.
Will address it later and try to explain what I *really* mean as opposed to what you *think* I mean.
No Muttley, it's not "too small" etc.
It IS "smaller, poorer, weaker, less influential".
It is also "too late".
Still no come-back on the £300m+ "independence" would cost us.
He shoots, he scores!
They think it's all over......
"smaller, poorer, weaker, less influential".
IT IS NOW!
Smee scores an own goal.
The crowd are going banana's.
The bare chested lad to the left of the central figure used to me local pub landlord.......
http://images.newsquest.co.uk/image.php?id=1097018&type=full
What a confused and wrong idea of an own goal you have, Muttley.
On the "poorer" front, we've established we'd be over £300m worse off on our EU budget contributions alone.
STILL no come-back on that?
Interesting analysis by the IMF- estimates of gross domestic product per capita based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) show that citizens of Iceland, Ireland and Norway - the Arc of Insolvency as unionists dubbed them - are not only wealthier than the UK but set to get even more wealthy than the UK.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2009&ey=2014&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=142%2C176%2C178%2C112&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=&pr.x=60&pr.y=10
Of course these countries don't fight as many wars as the UK does do, nor do they have a seat at the security council....
Incidentally smee Scotland will not become smaller with independence. It will be exactly the same size as it is now!
What is it with unionists - do you think we will actually SHRINK if we become independent?
Indy
Fascinating, but irrelevant.
Could you redo the analysis for an "independent" Scotland paying £300m a year more to the EU than at present, as well as carrying the extra costs of a separate foreign service and some sort of SBC?
What, STILL no response on the £300m a year extra "independence" would cost in EU dues alone?
I've been working up something in response to the broadcasting paper.
Things keep getting funnier and funnier.
"Weasel" Russel not only doesn't understand economics, he has no grasp of physics either.
What influence do we have now? We are governed by London-centric policies, and in relation to foreign policy as if we are the 51st State. An independent Scotland could govern itself with Scotland-centric policies within the global and European framework which I assume we are all aware of.
How can devolution bring power to the poeple when the tier at Westminster can explicitly overrule the combined wishes of the majority of Scots. Within the EU we don't actually need Westminster.
The UK and US economies are bust, and more to the point nothing either Labour or Tory are going to do will make them better. Only the Tories will cause more pain to more people in the process - marginally. Why tie yourself to the Titanic when you can see the iceberg.
And as for what you summarise as ''Glasgow Airport'' well that is a perfect example of why we need to break free of the Imperialist mindset that still dominates Westminster. Their craven abasement before the US implementation of neocon policies, decided upon long before 9/11, illustrates perfectly the agenda for oil that masks itself as defending liberal democracy. You really couldn't make it up. An independent Scotland could walk away from that shit, and make a hell of a point in the process.
We don't need to go to war on the Arab world - we've got oil. Capice?
Oh dear.
"What influence do we have now? We are governed by London-centric policies,"
Such as? Even if true (which I do not accept), why would Frankfurt-centric policies be any better?
" and in relation to foreign policy as if we are the 51st State."
False.
" An independent Scotland could govern itself with Scotland-centric policies within the global and European framework which I assume we are all aware of."
I think you mean "dictated to by the global and European framework with much less capacity to influence it".
"How can devolution bring power to the poeple when the tier at Westminster can explicitly overrule the combined wishes of the majority of Scots."
How? Devolved stuff is devolved. If we want to spend less on schools and more on hospitals, we can do it.
"The UK and US economies are bust,"
So is the Scottish one. And "independence" would make no difference to that starting position, nor to the revenue situation going forward. Swinney has signed off the GERS numbers twice now.
"And as for what you summarise as ''Glasgow Airport'' well that is a perfect example of why we need to break free of the Imperialist mindset that still dominates Westminster. Their craven abasement"
Um. "Imperialist" simultaneously with "craven abasement"? Curious.
" before the US implementation of neocon policies, decided upon long before 9/11, illustrates perfectly the agenda for oil that masks itself as defending liberal democracy."
Ah, the grand old myth. Despite their clumsiness and incompetence, you'll find that the agenda of the neo-cons (who all used to be liberal) really was to extend democracy. That was the lesson they took from Reagan-Thatcher victory in the Cold War. It's a pity they mucked it up.
And there is no "agenda for oil". If there were, you would find that, say, Iraq's oil fields would have been seized and given to US companies. That has not happened. One of the issues in the oil market today is that the Iraqi government has set such tough terms for involvement in their oil business that most Western firms can't make the numbers work.
"You really couldn't make it up."
You just did.
"An independent Scotland could walk away from that shit, and make a hell of a point in the process."
No we couldn't, and nobody would care what point we were trying to make.
"We don't need to go to war on the Arab world - we've got oil. Capice?"
Nobody went to war "on the Arab world", nobody did it for oil, and we don't have enough oil revenue to fund current levels of public spending.
Even before adding on all the extra bits of spending (loss of EU rebate, SBC, separate foreign office, DWP, etc etc) that the Nats want to foist on us.
And it's "capisce".
What?
No post on Simon Johnstons relevations of the 1875 coverup on oil wealth?
Records from 1975, just released, show Government officials accepted that the discovery of oil had transformed the economic case for separation.
They 'calculated' that Scots on average income would increase by up to 30 per cent per head and it could be “credibly argued” that repealing the Act of Union was to Scotland’s advantage.
Say it ain't so Smee.
1975 ed.
I started off by saying that you just don't get it, and My God you don't.
You honestly believe that the American led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were not about oil? Were not about securing US strategic interests in the area?
You can't be that daft.
Muttley
"Records from 1975, just released, show..."
This is just a repeat of McCrone.
We have some officials in the mid-70s writing opinions about the potential future (i.e. 1980 on), based on forecasts of oil production and revenue.
Those forecasts had been fully published.
The only things not published were the opinions of those officials.
Because they never are.
Got it?
Observer
Pray observe the facts.
How much oil does Afghanistan have?
None. (Oh, it has a smidgen of gas.)
How much relevance does Afghanistan have for the export of Central Asian oil to the world market?
None. (The Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline is happily pumping that oil out as we speak, without going anywhere near Afghanistan.)
How much Iraqi oil has been tranferred to the ownership or control of the US or US companies?
None.
For that matter, how much Saudi or Kuwaiti oil is owned or controlled by the US or US companies?
None.
The US, like us, has strategic interest in stability and preventing the growth of safe havens for terrorists.
Also like us, they have an interest in ensuring that the oil-producing countries can sell us much as oil as they want, and that they have as much access to advanced oil technology as they want.
But if they want to restrict their production, or do it all via their national state-owned companies, that's up to them.
After all, that's what most of OPEC does.
Smee - what 'extra costs' do you think we will carry?
I know some unionists who use the argument that Scotland will have to "start" paying for stuff with independence like armed forces, foreign services, broadcasting - as though we do not pay for any of these things now!
As for your 300 million thing, I haven't actually read your argument but I will make the effort at some point.
Indy
"what 'extra costs' do you think we will carry?"
Hilariously, Annex A of Weasel Russell's own paper makes it quite clear how much extra "independent" foreign representation will cost.
Do the sums yourself - the Danes, Irish etc end up paying a lot more than 8.5% of the UK's costs.
And they get less back for it.
Smee for goodness sake the route through Afghanistan for oil and gas lines from the Caspian region was identified as being a priority by the US Senate in 1998. Around about the same time as the invasion of Iraq was being planned - all this stuff is in the public domain.
The contractors 'though said there needed to be a ''stable'' Govt.
We are not there to combat terrorism - there was no Al Q presence in Iraq, Saddam was a sworn enemy of Al Q and fundamantalism, Iraq was a secular country.
And Al Q are mobile - you won't defeat them by invading Afghanistan - they are in Somalia now and the Yemen - they've always been in the Sudan and have plenty of boltholes in Pakistan as we know.
The British Army has been used to further the US agenda which is about securing access to oil.
BTW do you think the Saudi Royal Family would still be in charge of Saudi's massive oil reserves if it weren't for the presence of US troops? Al Q don't - that's one of their major motivations. Probably why the majority of 9/11 bombers were Saudi, but we didn't invade them eh?
"Smee for goodness sake the route through Afghanistan for oil and gas lines from the Caspian region was identified as being a priority by the US Senate in 1998."
Oh, the US Senate. Those experts. And how much executive authority do they have? None.
The BTC pipeline is a present, physical reality. Oil is flowing, right now, from Central Asia to Turkey and onwards. It goes nowhere near Afghanistan.
" Around about the same time as the invasion of Iraq was being planned - all this stuff is in the public domain."
Sorry? You appear to think that "Iraq" is somewhere the Caspian. Look at a map.
The alternative is that you think that the invasion of --->Afghanistan<--- was being planned in 1998. In which case you are beyond hope.
More later.
Now, Observer.
I note your comments about invading Afghanistan not necessarily being the best way to tackle AQ.
You might be right, although I don't agree.
But that's not the point.
Up above you said that both the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were "about oil".
Sticking to the 'ghan for the moment, that is plainly untrue.
Afghanistan has no oil.
Afghanistan has no value as a route for oil from elsewhere (i.e. the Caspian), as there is already a pipeline in place taking oil from the Caspian westwards to the Med.
That pipeline project was finalised in 2002, which means that the negotiations and planning for it were all in train well before 11/9/2001.
(Which is something I can confirm from personal knowledge, BTW.)
There was some discussion, back in the dim and distant past before BTC got going, about a pipeline going south from the Caspian through Afghanistan.
The stupidity of this idea is shown by the fact that it would also have to go through the nutty bits of Pakistan to reach the sea.
It was never seriously considered as an option once the BTC route began to look feasible.
For further info, see:
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9006669&contentId=7015093
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2263611.stm
So what I'd like is an acknowledgement that the allegation "Afghanistan was about oil" is ridiculous.
Mind you, I'm still waiting for any substantive response to the point that Scottish "independence" would provide motive and opportunity for the rest of the EU to claw back £329m a year from us.
I wrote a polemic and it has vanished. Oh well.
Smee you are a military historian better than me, you know the previous outcomes with Afghanistan, there is no evidence that this one will be any better.
I maintain that the current Afghan action is about oil. What else is it for Smee and don't give it Western democracy because neither one of us are idiots.
Observer
"I maintain that the current Afghan action is about oil."
One more time:
a) A'stan has no oil
b) A'stan has no significance as a route for oil, as the oil to the north is already flowing via an alternative route.
So how can it be "about oil"?
Come on. "Show your working" as they say in exams.
I am not going to direct you to any one website or any one authority on this. Simply type in Afghanistan and oil to any search engine.
There is no other reason for us to be there.
There was also no reason, other than US interest, for the invasion of Iraq.
Neither country poses or posed any threat to us whatsoever. If we are not there to support US interests then the only other alternative is to suppose that the Prime Miisters of Britain in the past few years have been clinically insane.
Considering the number of avoidable deaths which have resulted from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan I really do hope it's about oil, because at least that is rational, however evil it is as well.
Observer
1) Do you accept that Afghanistan has no oil?
2) Do you accept that the BTC pipeline exists and is in operation?
Of course I accept that Afghanistan has no oil. I also accept that the BTC pipeline exists and I've never argued to the contrary.
That is one of 4 routes which the US have identified as being viable to transport oil and gas, and one of those is via Afghanistan, provided that it has a ''stable'' Govt.
If you deny the oil and gas is a factor in the US actions then why on earth do you think we are in Afghanistan?
I have already illustrated that it is not to defeat Al Q. So what else is there?
Apart from sheer colonialism which is where I came into this argument what seems like a long time ago....
Right. One step at a time.
"Of course I accept that Afghanistan has no oil. I also accept that the BTC pipeline exists...
That is one of 4 routes which the US have identified as being viable..."
It isn't just "viable", it's up and running. Which means that the other 3 routes are now irrelevant. If for some reason we ever need more pipelines out of the Caspian, we'll just upgrade or double up the BTC.
"If you deny the oil and gas is a factor in the US actions"
No, I deny it is a factor in Afghanistan.
" then why on earth do you think we are in Afghanistan?"
Because it was/is a failed state which had a nutty government which was actively harbouring, supporting and sposoring AQ.
There's also the business of being the main opium/heroin supplier to Europe...
"I have already illustrated that it is not to defeat Al Q. "
No, you have illustrated that *in your opinion*, invading A'stan was and is not an effective way of defeating AQ.
You're dead wrong. All the evidence is that AQ has been severely weakened and disrupted. The ongoing problem there is not AQ, but the Taliban and the tedious fact that a chunk of the Afghan population want them back.
I disagree with you on this point, but I recognise your position as being rational (sort of) and not bonkers.
But the assertion that "Afghanistan is about oil" is, I'm afraid, deep in the realms of tinfoil hat-wearing bonkerosity.
As is your mention of "colonialism". Give me a break!
Oh yes.
STILL no response on the fact that Scottish "independence" would give the rest of the EU motive and opportunity to claw back over £300m from the current UK rebate, FROM US.
Curious.
Well I got my ''colonial'' quote from Gerald Warner.
Anyway I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Smee.
Isn't it time that you laid into labour and celebrated the rise of your Tory brethren?
Observer
If you want to leave it, fine.
You have demonstrated a total unwillingness and/or inability to provide a rational, factual basis for your belief, however.
Muttley
I'm a Tory, but this isn't a pro-Conservative blog. It says so at the top.
Labour's time is up - just as the Tories' was in 1997 - but I feel no particular antipathy towards them.
After all, they took the best of our policies and carried them on, and did some things we should have done. Of course they also made more than a few mistakes, like letting the pendulum swing too far back in the direction of excess public spending with insufficient reform.
And as for financial regulation, my lot wouldn't have done any better. Neither would "pledging a light-touch regulation" "reputation for probity" ex-RBS Salmond. Maybe the Lib Dems would have.
I received a personally-signed reply from Jim Murphy today. I knew you'd be impressed, Muttlers.
And one more time:
STILL no response on the fact that Scottish "independence" would give the rest of the EU motive and opportunity to claw back over £300m from the current UK rebate, FROM US.
Fascinating.
(That was for you, CTL.)
"I received a personally-signed reply from Jim Murphy today"
Really?
I am impressed, he must rate you.
I imagine the pressure is mounting over at Smee towers, now that AM2 is no more.
It's up to you now to carry the torch.
Good luck (snigger)
Ooo, thanks.
Now, how about a response on the fact that Scottish "independence" would give the rest of the EU motive and opportunity to claw back over £300m from the current UK rebate, FROM US.
Here's my response......
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Your delusional my swivel eyed friend
OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8297418.stm
You simply hHAVE to but this Smee.
Amazing.
Muttley confirms the total absence of any argument against the fact that Scottish "independence" would hand the rest of the EU motive and opportunity to claw back £329m a year from us.
And even more amusingly, his post full of spaces makes more sense than the following one.
STILL no response on the fact that Scottish "independence" would give the rest of the EU motive and opportunity to claw back over £300m from the current UK rebate, FROM US.
You mean a bit of that Scottish money that is now going to prop of the failed UK government would instead have to go to the EU. I didn't actually see you give any proof of that (only unsupported allegations) but if it did, it would be well worth the cost to no longer bring home Scottish soldiers in coffins and have Scottish taxes and oil money supporting their ventures in aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention planning on wasting MORE money on Tridents to keep in the Clyde.
Post a Comment