[Irviding]

QUOTE (Der_Don @ Saturday, Dec 10 2011, 16:17)

Spain, Italy, France and Germany are the leaders in total military personal in the EU. The UK is in 5th, so I guess we could somehow handle this.

Probably not, considering my tax dollars defend your country (55k US troops are stationed in Germany, second largest troop deployment of our military aside from Afghanistan now that we left Iraq mostly, and a good 15k above our deployment in Japan) and without the UK in Europe, the US certainly will pull back also. Here's an image of our Empire of military bases.



The US is already focusing on other nations with the Obama foreign policy, like India and Brazil... we need to get them into our SoI before China does and Europe isn't helping with that, other than using the British to help us.

Oh, and if you think the Spanish and Italian militaries (Spanish naval defense is also mostly managed by the US) are really above the UK in terms of strength, you're, well, very wrong.

This post has been edited by Irviding on Tuesday, Dec 13 2011, 04:09

[Melchior]

QUOTE (Typhus @ Sunday, Dec 11 2011, 11:17)

Cameron was shortsighted, but I believe the attitude of Merkel and Sarkozy was unduly confrontational. The sheer level of hostility we've been seeing indicates that a lot of strong feelings are finally being expressed. And the answer is not to say 'Oh, the British are just xenophobic'. Instead, the Germans and French should understand our grave concerns about our identity and try to sweeten the bitter pill.

tbh, the British don't have a very good attitude towards people from the continent. Economic immigrants are treated like second class citizens and are bombarded with news stories about how they're crushing Britain's "national identity" and are a burden on the welfare state and aren't welcome. But when Brits take holidays to Spain and Greece, they don't speak a word of the local language, give the locals their best middle-class smiles in lieu of actually speaking to them, vomit all over the place and go home - if the German's treated London like a holiday resort you'd never hear the end of it. To the rest of Europe Britain's Euro-scepticism just seems like Britain thinks she's entitled to a favourable political position in the world order.

[taffyska]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Oct 22 2011, 10:57)

Only an idiot would want to withdraw from the EU. The Euro-sceptic agenda pushed by closet racists and the neo-Right, and it's based on absurd fallacies and a complete misinterpretation of both how the EU operates and how it benefits us. I do support closer relations with out Commonwealth partners, but we would be truly idiotic to abandon the EU project. Personally, I'd like to see the UK taking a more active role in EU diplomacy as well as just sitting around enjoying the trade benefits- driving for in integrated European peace-keeping military force would be a wise idea in my view, as would re-negotiating our positing within the union.

This is exactly why Britain is still in the EU, we have politicians who think the same, IDIOTS!.
The majority of Britain want out of EU, Fact! no-one can deny this(rightly or wrongly).
For Britain to ignore the commonwealth is stupid, the commonwealth together make up 28% of world trade, they have some of what the world calls Asian tigers, India, malayia,singapore etc.
together they have the same economic power if not more than the USA( excluding debts).
A lot of the commonwealth is already tied to Britain money wise, but have good ties in place with most countries world wide, especially the bigger ones, ie EU, China and the USA.
Aside from Japan and china individually the commonwealth holds more of the American debt than these 2 together.
Historically all Europe have wanted to do to Britain is dismantle us whether by means of war or economically.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (taffyska @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 11:11)

This is exactly why Britain is still in the EU, we have politicians who think the same, IDIOTS!.

No, Britain is in the EU because it's in our financial and national interest to remain so. There's no argument about this, regardless of how much the Euro-sceptics try and make one; the simple figures are there, and plain for all to see. The UK gets about twice what it puts in in raw monetary form back in increased trade due to the lack of tariffs, and in rebates, financial assistance for "struggling" sectors and international cost-sharing programs. Plus, it's a fantastic boost for our political strength- or, at least, it would be if we weren't so schizophrenic about the whole thing.

QUOTE (taffyska @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 11:11)

The majority of Britain want out of EU, Fact! no-one can deny this(rightly or wrongly).

Thing is, politics isn't about what the majority want- nor should it be. That's the beauty of representative democracy- it has little regard for the whims of the uneducated masses.

QUOTE (taffyska @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 11:11)

For Britain to ignore the commonwealth is stupid, the commonwealth together make up 28% of world trade, they have some of what the world calls Asian tigers, India, malayia,singapore etc. Together they have the same economic power if not more than the USA( excluding debts).

Agreed, but for any nation to ignore the commonwealth would be detrimental to their trade. The problem is, this "unique relationship" that people often talk about in relation to the Commonwealth just doesn't exist in my eyes. There are some large economic powers in the commonwealth- India, Singapore, Canada, Australia et cetera- but these countries are already out of Britain's sphere of economic and political influence, to a greater degree or a lesser one. I mean, India has absolutely no desire to improve trade relations with the UK- they're far too busy being quietly critical of Western policy whilst cosying up to China and Russia. Whilst I agree on the basic terms with your statistics regarding the economic of the commonwealth nations, I disagree with the notion that there's any kind of union amongst them.

QUOTE (taffyska @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 11:11)

A lot of the commonwealth is already tied to Britain money wise, but have good ties in place with most countries world wide, especially the bigger ones, ie EU, China and the USA.

This I would also disagree with fundamentally. Very little of the economic strength of the biggest hitters in the commonwealth is tied directly to the UK. Australia and New Zealand, there's certainly a degree of it. Canada- some too, though they maintain a closer trading relationship with the US than they do the UK. But the Far East and Southern Asia? Not a snowball's chance in hell. These are the emerging markets, and the "commonwealth" has very little meaning to them. Emerging economies look to other, recent emerging/emerged economies rather than historic trading partners. I mean, sure, there have been a few billion pounds worth of trade deals between India and the UK this year, but it's small change compared to the trillions invested in the country by the Chinese, for instance.

QUOTE (taffyska @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 11:11)

Aside from Japan and china individually the commonwealth holds more of the American debt than these 2 together.

Isn't that because the commonwealth comprises 55-odd nations, or 25% of all nations on the planet? I'm also not quite entirely sure what you're getting at- it appears that you are saying that China and Japan, whilst individually holding more US debt that the commonwealth, hold less when added together. Which is a statistical impossibility unless your factoring in negative equity, or twisting the figures.

QUOTE (taffyska @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 11:11)

Historically all Europe have wanted to do to Britain is dismantle us whether by means of war or economically.

Disagreed. What an oddly dated, suspicious statement. I'm pretty sure that this feeling is common in the UK- indeed, I've experienced it first-hand. Why? I mean, why on earth do people think that it's in Europe's interest to weaken the UK? It's utterly illogical and completely counter-intuitive, as doing so would severely weaken the EU; remember, the UK is, in economic and power projection terms, probably the second strongest state in the EU, and the one with the best working relationship with the Americas as a general region- important for current trade (North, Canada) as well as future (Latin and South). In fact, it's hugely in the EU's interest, both in terms of economic strength and force projection, to have the UK on board. Remember, we spent most of the later years of the 20th century stopping the Ruskies from rolling across the North German plains and taking Western Europe, whilst the European member states bickered amongst each other incessantly and made a general unhelpful slide in the directly of apathetic, mildly pacifist socialism. There's nothing in recent history- and nothing in current policy- which suggests that mainland European states want to dismantle Britain. It may be a prevalent view amongst some, but it's driven by insipid, lackadaisical paranoia seized upon by closet racists and illogical chauvinists, for the most part. One only need look at the posts of myhame earlier in this thread to see the kind of self-pleasuring, deluded bile that many of those with a poorly-informed and prejudicial anti-European sentiment will descend to if pushed.

[John The Grudge]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 17:34)

The entire other side of my family is Scottish and lives in Scotland (irviding comes from my last name Irving - pretty Scottish ) and has absolutely no interest in independence. Scotland would not survive without being a member of the UK

They're talking nonsense.

I'll reference this:

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/...-financial-feet

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (John The Grudge @ Tuesday, Feb 21 2012, 16:55)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 17:34) The entire other side of my family is Scottish and lives in Scotland (irviding comes from my last name Irving - pretty Scottish ) and has absolutely no interest in independence. Scotland would not survive without being a member of the UK They're talking nonsense. I'll reference this: http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/...-financial-feet

Oh yes, because a publication by the Scottish National(ist) Party isn't going to be full of politically biased rhetoric.

I'll refer you to this handy article from The Guardian, who aren't exactly a bastion of unionist ideology. It's from 2007, but with the increasingly favourable formula used to calculate Scottish income from Westminster, it' basic principals are still accurate

QUOTE (The Guardian)

...In any case, whatever share of North Sea oil Scotland might finally grab, it would still struggle to be the new Ireland. Public spending is currently more than 50% of GDP and tax revenues about 40%, with the balance made up by other UK taxpayers. Ireland's public spending is only 35% of GDP (Britain's is 46%). Scotland currently enjoys Scandinavian levels of spending and American tax levels. Independence would necessitate action to tackle the deficit - either tax rises or spending cuts, or both. Copying Ireland would require a massive reduction in the scope of the state. Tough choices indeed.

How about a second opinion? Lets see what the BBC say on the issue. Selected extracts from here.

QUOTE (The Beeb)

The most recent figures, using Treasury and Scottish government data, show the deficit on Scottish spending over expenditure is a smaller share of gross domestic product than that of the UK as a whole. According to Glasgow University economists projecting Treasury figures, it's on course to stay that way until 2015-16. That requires a large share of oil and gas revenue. Without oil and gas, the Scottish deficit looks very large.

QUOTE (The Beeb)

But an independent Scotland could expect to have more than 80% of the UK's oil and gas revenue, subject to negotiation with the Treasury. With that, the public spending deficit looks more manageable. But it's often a deficit, nonetheless. The volatile price of oil means volatile income. The trend is clearly for the volume of oil and gas production to fall, though that is partly offset by higher average prices, higher tax rates, and so buoyant revenues. So Scotland's public finances could break even some years, but there's little sign of large oil revenue surpluses to pay off debt and build up a national trust fund.

QUOTE (The Beeb)

Scotland would be expected to take on a share of the UK's national debt. Just how big a share is one of many negotiations that could be expected between administrations in Edinburgh and London. Alex Salmond said this week it should be based on either share of UK GDP or share of population. These proportions are not far apart, so with the way public sector net borrowing looks now, the Scottish portion of it would be around £80bn, and continuing to head north. Scotland would have to service that debt by issuing bonds. It would have its own credit rating, and with no credit history and political leaders who want to turn on the spending taps to get out of recession, the bond markets may not be impressed. And what about its bank exposure? Opponents of independence ask what might have happened if Scotland had faced the meltdown in 2008 of Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland all on its own. Pumping in more than £70bn in capital and hundreds of billions in guarantees looks impossible for a small country.

QUOTE (The Beeb)

Unless there are dramatic changes in taxation and currency, some parts of the Scottish economy might see little difference, such as retail, manufacturing, tourism, or the oil and gas sector. Many companies already operate across many borders, and it would make little difference to deal with another, new country. But there would surely be a bigger impact for firms in those sectors that look to regulators to shape their markets, such as the finance sector, energy suppliers and rail. Scotland's corporate sector happens to be very big in those areas.

What about the finite supply of North Sea oil and gas? I mean, costs are increasing and returns reducing; it won't be that long until their producing will become unprofitable. And without these revenues, the Scottish finances are in a poor state. Take a look


What about the question of popular support? Well, it's never exceeded 50%, and in fact according to YouGov a poll in April 2011, suggested 57% of Scots reject the idea of being independent

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Tuesday, Feb 21 2012, 18:18

[GTA_stu]

I've never liked the idea of Scottish independence. It's just a good drum for Salmond and his cronies to bang. They bang on about independence and it just sickens me because they act like some sort of oppressed country which wants to break free from the shackles of tyrrany and control. Salmond just spurts out BS after BS about how it will improve Scotland in every single way, and how it will make them a proud country. I can't help but feel that he's been watching too much braveheart and got a bit carried away. I've seen very little in the way of actual practical ways he plans to implement it, or how the finance side of it will work. He loves to go on about the oil and gas, like it's some kind magical independence potion which will save Scotland and make everyone rich beyond their wildest dreams. But as Sivis has shown it's not as simple as that.

Honestly I just see it as a desperate attempt to boost Scottish national pride. It's like the people who claim they're "ethnically Scottish" which is just absurd. Wear your kilts and play your bagpipes, is there really any need to separate the union which has stood strong for so many years and had such great success?