Should Scotland be an independent country?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 I find it interesting that at a time when Putin is acting like a total dick, no one has mentioned defence yet. Leaving where the nukes reside aside for a minute, will an independent Scotland be part of NATO? Will it commit to 2% of GDP on Defence? Lots of comps to Ireland on here but Ireland effectively takes a free ride on defence. Scotland is far more exposed and can't really do the same.

[Space Mackerel]

4 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Eh? Yer putting more words in my mouth than if was eating the dictionary, ya loon!

Off you go to BUPA or any one of the others and ask for health cover. 
in fact, ask how much a basic cataract (choice of lens) cost and get back to me. See if you get much change out of £4000 nowadays. 

[Space Mackerel]

4 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

 I find it interesting that at a time when Putin is acting like a total dick, no one has mentioned defence yet. Leaving where the nukes reside aside for a minute, will an independent Scotland be part of NATO? Will it commit to 2% of GDP on Defence? Lots of comps to Ireland on here but Ireland effectively takes a free ride on defence. Scotland is far more exposed and can't really do the same.

You live Australia? They don’t have nukes and are in NATO right? 
Ireland has declared its neutral, like Switzerland. You want to have a go at the Swiss now? They are literally in the centre of Europe.

Edited June 19, 2022 by Space Mackerel

[Roxy Hearts]

2 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

You live Australia? They don’t have nukes and are in NATO right? 

Most countries in NATO don't have nukes.

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Most countries in NATO don't have nukes.

I know. The US, UK and France have the independent nuclear deterrent, to a degree, Italy and Germany have tactical nukes stored under US command. 

[Space Mackerel]

6 minutes ago, jonesy said:

I know how much BUPA costs. I've been covered by them in the past.

 

I very much doubt that @Ked was expecting the kind of folk who are struggling with food banks to be forking out for private insurance. A grown up discussion about what and who state-funded healthcare covers will be needed in either event. It'd be better if those with the best interests of people, rather than profits, were at the forefront of this, rather than using the 'untouchability' of a system which was never designed to be dealing with what it does now as some kind of sacred cow come election time.

Ahhhh, back to making profit for shareholders out of healthcare. Do these company owners need bigger super yachts now? 

[Roxy Hearts]

Well done Matt Fitzpatrick. Played brilliantly.

[jack D and coke]

16 minutes ago, jonesy said:

When I hear Neil Oliver's voice, it has me reaching for the drink, anyway.

 

(Trying to get some balance in for you, Jack).

[Space Mackerel]

2 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Seems like we're not quite at that point for a grown up conversation.

 

You won't find any argument from me about the disgusting profiteering from some of these companies. But universal free healthcare, given the shifting demographics and lifestyles of our population, is unsustainable without some serious jiggery pokery.

You’re in favour of the free market capitalists getting involved in what treatment you receive? Tell me more. 

[Ray Gin]

How is expecting people to pay some private companies for healthcare better than rich people paying a bit more tax to better fund state healthcare?

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

How is expecting people to pay some private companies for healthcare better than rich people paying a bit more tax to better fund state healthcare?

The more we pay to private medical companies means  that maybe the neo liberal government we vote for might tax them surely? 

[Space Mackerel]

4 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Well, you see, if all the poor just die off quicker it means we can harvest their organs and sell them to the Chinese. That's how we fund an independent Scotland once the oil dries up.

Did you just inhale a massive bag of glue before posting that? 

[Space Mackerel]

2 minutes ago, jonesy said:

No. But izzat how I get onto the same plane of reality as you in order to make sense of your posts? 😛 

Harvesting organs to sell to the Chinese to pay for Scottish independence? 
 

And we were discussing the cons and cons of giving our hard earned money to already uber rich people. 

[Ulysses]

24 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

 I find it interesting that at a time when Putin is acting like a total dick, no one has mentioned defence yet. Leaving where the nukes reside aside for a minute, will an independent Scotland be part of NATO? Will it commit to 2% of GDP on Defence? Lots of comps to Ireland on here but Ireland effectively takes a free ride on defence. Scotland is far more exposed and can't really do the same.

 

Two thoughts on that. 

 

Ireland did ask the Americans to consider a bilateral agreement on security in the 1950s, but for very good reasons they said the only show in town was NATO and for equally good reasons we couldn't take part.   Maybe that will change in the future, but I don't think so.  We currently spend very little on defence, but that looks as if it is about to change.  Some of that can be blamed on Putin's activities in Eastern Europe, but there's been a review of our defence capability under way for a long time.  The options are being put on the political table, and so far it looks as though the more costly option of hiking our spend to more than 1.5% of GNI* is the one that will prevail (depending on the political winds in the meantime).  But even if it doesn't prevail for now, we're looking at more than doubling defence spend in the next 6-10 years.  My worry is what we'll spend the money on, but that's a whole other story.

 

Scotland is already spending more than 2% of GDP on defence, so that means a different starting point.  Whatever about nukes and NATO membership, a decision to maintain its commitments at 2% or more of GDP would not be a major fiscal issue for an independent Scotland.  The politics is a whole other matter, and that's a debate that would be worth seeing.  What would also be fascinating to see is how the strategy-budget-tactics-deployment-equipment decisions play out.  Inside or outside NATO, the kind of spending undertaken by a country like Ireland, Finland, Scotland or Denmark is quite different to that in a country like the United States or the UK.

[Section Q]

On 20/06/2022 at 05:23, Ulysses said:

 

Are you suggesting we should have stayed where we were?

Why would I suggest that.....?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

53 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

You live Australia? They don’t have nukes and are in NATO right? 
Ireland has declared its neutral, like Switzerland. You want to have a go at the Swiss now? They are literally in the centre of Europe.

No, Australia is not in NATO. The clue is "North Atlantic".

 

And I'm not having a go at anyone. I'm asking a question about Scotland's defence intentions.

[Ulysses]

37 minutes ago, jonesy said:

I know how much BUPA costs. I've been covered by them in the past.

 

I very much doubt that @Ked was expecting the kind of folk who are struggling with food banks to be forking out for private insurance. A grown up discussion about what and who state-funded healthcare covers will be needed in either event. It'd be better if those with the best interests of people, rather than profits, were at the forefront of this, rather than using the 'untouchability' of a system which was never designed to be dealing with what it does now as some kind of sacred cow come election time.

 

The worry is that once those who are better off start forking out for private insurance, the presence of private money and private customers bends and misshapes the system.  Despite what the campaigners say, the damage isn't done by big pharma or capitalist investors playing a role in your care.  That might happen if the government starts handing over or selling chunks of the system to corporations, but in a mixed payment system the damage is done by small players; individual customers who are paying more and who expect more for that they are paying, and individual consultants and practitioners who have to realign schedules and resources to give the paying customers what they expect.

 

I pay for private medical insurance here.  It doesn't give me a lot extra, with one crucial exception.  It gives me access to more of the time slots in the diaries of medical consultants and the people who support them.  In other words, if I have something up I can get seen more quickly.  Money doesn't directly take precedence over medical need, but it puts the payer on a faster track. 

 

In many cases that doesn't matter.  If I have any of the major urgent life-threatening illnesses you can think of, I won't get treated any quicker or better than the person who's relying on the public care system.  I might get a nicer room in the hospital, but that's about it.  But for a lot of less urgent but still nasty stuff, I will get seen and treated earlier.  Getting that earlier treatment can have a massive effect on your quality of life, and it can also reduce the risks of needing urgent treatment later on.

 

So why not just say that's unfair, and put everyone in the same queue for resources?  Because the private payers would then have no incentive to pay, and their money makes up around 15-20% of the income of the system.  Without that couple of billion a year the system would shrink dramatically and some services would collapse.  I don't know what the answer is, though.

[Ulysses]

12 minutes ago, Section Q said:

Why would I suggest that.....?

 

I don't know.  You said it took a long time and a lot of pain, and I'm asking if you think we shouldn't have put in the time and put up with the pain.

[Section Q]

On 20/06/2022 at 09:38, Ulysses said:

 

I don't know.  You said it took a long time and a lot of pain, and I'm asking if you think we shouldn't have put in the time and put up with the pain.

Not sure how you thought that mate.

There's a simplistic view out there that all will be rosey after/if Scotland becomes independent from the UK. We also have a number of zealots, (they're in every pub), who will tell you that. 

Ireland's journey to independence isn't really comparable to Scotland's push to become self governing. 

Personally I'd like to see Scotland as an independent socialist country.

[il Duce McTarkin]

1 hour ago, jonesy said:

No. But izzat how I get onto the same plane of reality as you in order to make sense of your posts? 😛 

 

The bit in bold is where you're going wrong. 

[Ulysses]

57 minutes ago, Section Q said:

Not sure how you thought that mate.

There's a simplistic view out there that all will be rosey after/if Scotland becomes independent from the UK. We also have a number of zealots, (they're in every pub), who will tell you that. 

Ireland's journey to independence isn't really comparable to Scotland's push to become self governing. 

Personally I'd like to see Scotland as an independent socialist country.

 

I didn't think a particular thing.  I was curious to know whether you thought a painful and long journey like that shouldn't have been started in the first place.  For most Irish people, even when the country struggled greatly it was still worth it.  We weren't British, we were colonised, and we just had to move on.  And even if we were to make a complete bollix of things, at least it was our own choice to make.

 

I'm not sure that the fundamental journeys or ambitions are that different if you compare Ireland to Scotland - except, of course, for that 100-year time difference.  There was never a good or bad economic case for Ireland to be independent.  We just weren't British, we were different, and we wanted to determine our own place in the world.  And that was all that mattered.  It's all that ever matters.  So if someone sees that difference in Scotland, and wants Scotland to determine its own place in the world, they'll want to vote for independence - and all the list of pros and cons in the world won't matter to them.  Likewise, if someone doesn't see that difference, and would rather see Scotland as part of a United Kingdom that determines its place in the world then they'll want to vote against independence, and a list of arguments for and against won't really matter to them either.

 

I absolutely get your point about the zealots who believe all will be wonderful if Scotland were to leave the UK.  But of course there's another equally simplistic view out there that all will be disastrous after/if Scotland becomes independent from the UK, with plenty of zealots to tell you that.

 

In truth, the economic arguments are hogwash.  Scotland will find no pot of gold if it leaves, nor will it wear sackcloth and eat gruel.  I don't know if an independent Scotland would be a socialist country, but I suppose what independence supporters would say is that at least that choice to be socialist or not would be made by Scotland's voting public, without the force of much bigger numbers in England getting in the way.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Ulysses

[Section Q]

On 20/06/2022 at 10:58, Ulysses said:

 

I didn't think a particular thing.  I was curious to know whether you thought a painful and long journey like that shouldn't have been started in the first place.  For most Irish people, even when the country struggled greatly it was still worth it.  We weren't British, we were colonised, and we just had to move on.  And even if we were to make a complete bollix of things, at least it was our own choice to make.

 

I'm not sure that the fundamental journeys or ambitions are that different if you compare Ireland to Scotland - except, of course, for that 100-year time difference.  There was never a good or bad economic case for Ireland to be independent.  We just weren't British, we were different, and we wanted to determine our own place in the world.  And that was all that mattered.  It's all that ever matters.  So if someone sees that difference in Scotland, and wants Scotland to determine its own place in the world, they'll want to vote for independence - and all the list of pros and cons in the world won't matter to them.  Likewise, if someone doesn't see that difference, and would rather see Scotland as part of a United Kingdom that determines its place in the world then they'll want to vote against independence, and a list of arguments for and against won't really matter to them either.

 

I absolutely get your point about the zealots who believe all will be wonderful if Scotland were to leave the UK.  But of course there's another equally simplistic view out there that all will be disastrous after/if Scotland becomes independent from the UK, with plenty of zealots to tell you that.

 

In truth, the economic arguments are hogwash.  Scotland will find no pot of gold if it leaves, nor will it wear sackcloth and eat gruel.  I don't know if an independent Scotland would be a socialist country, but I suppose what independence supporters would say is that at least that choice to be socialist or not would be made by Scotland's voting public, without the force of much bigger numbers in England getting in the way.

 

 

OK.....!

[The Mighty Thor]

6 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

No, Australia is not in NATO. The clue is "North Atlantic".

 

And I'm not having a go at anyone. I'm asking a question about Scotland's defence intentions.

Always a good question this. 

 

Scotland has only ever been routinely invaded by one country. 

 

I'd be interested to hear how the SNP will prepare to prevent that happening again. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

12 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Always a good question this. 

 

Scotland has only ever been routinely invaded by one country. 

 

I'd be interested to hear how the SNP will prepare to prevent that happening again. 

Well, it sounds like customs officials will be needed for starters at that border!

[The Mighty Thor]

30 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Well, it sounds like customs officials will be needed for starters at that border!

If some are to be believed it'll be like North & South Korea. 

[The Mighty Thor]

7 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

How is expecting people to pay some private companies for healthcare better than rich people paying a bit more tax to better fund state healthcare?

The current Junta have already, very quietly mind you, started to get private companies to run GP services in Englandshire. Centene run 37 GP practices in London under a Government contract (nowvthe obvious question is which of the Junta has their snouts in this trough?)

Its going exactly as you'd expect it to. A glorious shitfest. 

 

But but the only way to protect the NHS is to stay in the UK. 😂

 

 

😂

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

5 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

If some are to be believed it'll be like North & South Korea. 

Hardly but at least it will create some black market income for those on the border.

[The Mighty Thor]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Hardly but at least it will create some black market income for those on the border.

Geoff you wait and see. Some of the utter nonsense put forward by the 'better together' mob in 2014 was incredible. It'll be worse this time round. 

The banks were leaving. The big 4 grocers would pull out etc etc. 

 

Mind you it roped in plenty on here. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Geoff you wait and see. Some of the utter nonsense put forward by the 'better together' mob in 2014 was incredible. It'll be worse this time round. 

The banks were leaving. The big 4 grocers would pull out etc etc. 

 

Mind you it roped in plenty on here. 

As Uly says though, the key point with any kind of independence debate is one of nationality first. If Scots do not feel British at all anymore then they should vote for independence and accept any hardships that come their way. If, however, there are shared aspects of being British that people value as part of how they are governed then they should weigh those up. That's it. If a bank chooses to leave, it chooses to leave. If Tesco's don't think Scotland is profitable they will pull out. It wasn't until the 1990s that the main grocers came to Northern Ireland. We had Stewarts and Crazy Prices instead. We still managed to buy food!

[Dazo]

7 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

How is expecting people to pay some private companies for healthcare better than rich people paying a bit more tax to better fund state healthcare?

I’d imagine most rich people already have some sort of private medical cover. So while already contributing substantially more they take a lot less. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

56 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

If some are to be believed it'll be like North & South Korea. 

What side will Scotland be?

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, Dazo said:

I’d imagine most rich people already have some sort of private medical cover. So while already contributing substantially more they take a lot less. 

 

That hasn't answered my question. How is having more people paying private companies rather than paying more money in to the NHS an improvement?

[Dazo]

4 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

That hasn't answered my question. How is having more people paying private companies rather than paying more money in to the NHS an improvement?

Without the sums I’d say it’s pretty hard to say either way. Less demand may lead to a better service for everyone though. 

[Unknown user]

3 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Hardly but at least it will create some black market income for those on the border.

Why the assumption that there would be a hard border?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

16 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Why the assumption that there would be a hard border?

You don't need a hard border for customs checks. Sturgeon wants Scotland to be part of the European single market. England isn't part of it. Ergo, customs checks 

 

 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

You don't need a hard border for customs checks. Sturgeon wants Scotland to be part of the European single market. England isn't part of it. Ergo, customs checks 

 

So what if surgeon wants Scotland to be part of the single market?

 

When we become independent we won't be part of it, so why would there be customs checks?

Surely it's much more likely that we'll keep a single market with our UK friends, at least in the short term?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Smithee said:

 

So what if surgeon wants Scotland to be part of the single market?

 

When we become independent we won't be part of it, so why would there be customs checks?

Surely it's much more likely that we'll keep a single market with our UK friends, at least in the short term?

Ok cool. On Day 1 that is correct. Legislation would be needed for Scotland to join the single market. Do you accept that should that happen, customs checks will be needed?

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Ok cool. On Day 1 that is correct. Legislation would be needed for Scotland to join the single market. Do you accept that should that happen, customs checks will be needed?

 

Only if you accept that should we colonise the moon we'll need spaceships to get there!

Yeah, obviously, but there's no reason to think we'd need customs checks on independence day. And after that it's the democratic will of the Scottish electorate that decides

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Only if you accept that should we colonise the moon we'll need spaceships to get there!

Yeah, obviously, but there's no reason to think we'd need customs checks on independence day. And after that it's the democratic will of the Scottish electorate that decides

Quite but the key point is a direction of travel is proposed by the Scottish Government. Simply saying it is then for the Scottish people to decide is very Brexity and probably not a good strategy to win.

[Unknown user]

30 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Quite but the key point is a direction of travel is proposed by the Scottish Government. Simply saying it is then for the Scottish people to decide is very Brexity and probably not a good strategy to win.

Win? I'm just having a conversation online, there's no reason to assume there'll be customs checks. In fact, given that there hasn't ever been anything like that (to my knowledge) it seems like a pretty unlikely development to me. I don't think either country would want it at the end of the day.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Smithee

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Win? I'm just having a conversation online, there's no reason to assume there'll be customs checks. In fact, given that there hasn't ever been anything like that (to my knowledge) it seems like a pretty unlikely development to me. I don't think either country would want it at the end of the day.

Well, a Common Travel Area doesn't mean no customs checks. The custom checks between the two Irelands only ended in 1973 when the UK and Ireland both joined the EEC.

 

So unless there was a continuation of the UK single market (Act 6 of the Act of Union of 1800) the divergence of law would need a regulatory border.

 

 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Well, a Common Travel Area doesn't mean no customs checks. The custom checks between the two Irelands only ended in 1973 when the UK and Ireland both joined the EEC.

 

So unless there was a continuation of the UK single market (Act 6 of the Act of Union of 1800) the divergence of law would need a regulatory border.

 

 

There's no reason to assume there'll be customs control at the border 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Smithee said:

There's no reason to assume there'll be customs control at the border 

Of course. Cakeism isn't just a Brexit phenomena it seems.

[Konrad von Carstein]

 

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Of course. Cakeism isn't just a Brexit phenomena it seems.

We have no idea what agreements we'll come to with England in the lead up to the dissolution of the Union, but we do know there's no reason to assume the worst.

[Sharpie]

14 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

I did. He’s inferring some sort of quasi American insurance system of funding. 
 

I broke my collarbone skiing in Canada. It cost $1100 for 2 shite X-rays to tell me and a $20 sling. 

 

Yes thats about right but I assume there was some setting by a doctor of the injured wing. Did you not buy medical travel insurance prior to the trip, in my days of travel my wife and I always did. I appreciate the cost may have been a factor for you, we finished travel because the insurance company which had given relief after five years bcause of medical treatments cancelled that, when that happened with my record of cancer, hip replacement and other problems, medical would have required selling my house to buy, so all travel ceased immediately.

[The Mighty Thor]

8 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

What side will Scotland be?

On the side of right. Not with the semi-fascist regime. 

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 minute ago, The Mighty Thor said:

On the side of right. Not with the semi-fascist regime. 

You have no idea what a semi-facist regime would even look like. Certainly doesn't resemble what is in Westminster. 

Maybe you need to grow up, become an adult and stop reading comics. Might help you realise that the world we live in isn't ideal but you have to get on with it.

Scotland on the side of right. It's comic book language written for 5 year olds.

[The Mighty Thor]

38 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

You have no idea what a semi-facist regime would even look like. Certainly doesn't resemble what is in Westminster. 

Maybe you need to grow up, become an adult and stop reading comics. Might help you realise that the world we live in isn't ideal but you have to get on with it.

Scotland on the side of right. It's comic book language written for 5 year olds.

There's one in Westminster. You're too blinded see the removal of rights, the removal of asylum seekers, the abolishment of the electoral commission and now the assault on the ECHR are all fascist moves. Why would they be doing it otherwise? 

 

You've got the ladybird book set right? 

Economics

Geopolitics 

 

It shines through in your posting. 

[Space Mackerel]

6 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

You don't need a hard border for customs checks. Sturgeon wants Scotland to be part of the European single market. England isn't part of it. Ergo, customs checks 

 

 

 

Why can't England join the EFTA, SM or EU? That would stop custom checks.