Where's Red Celt when you want a laugh!?

[mistermack]

Adults in general prefer not to continue getting pocket money from their dad throughout their whole life. They prefer to take control, and take their chances. That's all I want for Scotland.

It's not though, is it? You want to take control and take your chances, but you still want the country to have a carefree socialist lifestyle, with someone to kiss it better, if you scrape your knees.

When an independent Scotland goes to the markets, to borrow, the markets will be looking closely at the safety of Scotland's spending plans.
The end result will probably be a bit like Ireland. Loads of socialism, till the bubble bursts. Then a severe clampdown, to get the books in order. Ireland is managing, but things ain't what they used to be.

And the reason I have always preferred the left of politics is that in my experience the policies there are (even just a tiny wee bit) closer to the Altruism end of the spectrum between Altruism and Materialism. I see nothing but greed in the City of London and in much of (especially southern) English politics, whereas in Scotland there has always seemed to me to be a set of priorities that are a wee bit closer to what I'd choose for everybody if I were totalitarian leader myself.

Yes but, with a much smaller population, inner London has a much bigger economy than Scotland, with a GDP per person three times as big. So it looks like altruistic people can't really afford altruism, whereas greedy people could, if they wanted.

The only thing distorting the picture is the sheer luck of the oil in the North Sea.

[John_fi_Skye]

I don't disagree with most of that, but I do disagree with ".....you still want the country to have a carefree socialist lifestyle, with someone to kiss it better, if you scrape your knees", which - as befits a Rationalia fred - is bollocks. For reasons already given.

[Tero]

Just join the EU. Drinks on the house, Germany will pay. You may need to duscount some bed and breakfasts for Germans. So they can come sample the whisky.

[mistermack]

I don't disagree with most of that, but I do disagree with ".....you still want the country to have a carefree socialist lifestyle, with someone to kiss it better, if you scrape your knees", which - as befits a Rationalia fred - is bollocks. For reasons already given.

Don't get me wrong, I'm to the left myself. But there is a flaw in socialism, and that is that it gets abused, and therefor gets expensive.
Nobody has found a good way around that as yet. If you find a way of making sure that only the people who need it get social benefits, you would have a good system. But at present, when they try to cut the welfare bill, it's the genuine needy who get hit every time. They don't seem so good at playing the system.

[Hermit]

But there is a flaw in socialism, and that is that it gets abused, and therefor gets expensive.
Nobody has found a good way around that as yet. If you find a way of making sure that only the people who need it get social benefits, you would have a good system. But at present, when they try to cut the welfare bill, it's the genuine needy who get hit every time. They don't seem so good at playing the system.

Corporate welfare dwarfs personal welfare. Any social democracy that has the backbone to abolish subsidies, tax concessions and the occasional bailout will have trillions of dollars to spare. Trouble is, no such government exists.

[mistermack]

But there is a flaw in socialism, and that is that it gets abused, and therefor gets expensive.
Nobody has found a good way around that as yet. If you find a way of making sure that only the people who need it get social benefits, you would have a good system. But at present, when they try to cut the welfare bill, it's the genuine needy who get hit every time. They don't seem so good at playing the system.

Corporate welfare dwarfs personal welfare. Any social democracy that has the backbone to abolish subsidies, tax concessions and the occasional bailout will have trillions of dollars to spare. Trouble is, no such government exists.

As far as subsidies go, it's complicated in an international market, because if other countries give subsidies in an industry, they can kill your own industries by undercutting them. So if you don't want it to die, you have to respond.
Like in the Aircraft industry tussle between Boeing and Airbus. Boeing gets hidden subsidies disguised in military contracts, and Airbus replies with cheap EU loans. And in spite of the bickering, both do well out of it, because it's keeping down the competition from Brazil and Russia etc.

[Hermit]

But there is a flaw in socialism, and that is that it gets abused, and therefor gets expensive.
Nobody has found a good way around that as yet. If you find a way of making sure that only the people who need it get social benefits, you would have a good system. But at present, when they try to cut the welfare bill, it's the genuine needy who get hit every time. They don't seem so good at playing the system.

Corporate welfare dwarfs personal welfare. Any social democracy that has the backbone to abolish subsidies, tax concessions and the occasional bailout will have trillions of dollars to spare. Trouble is, no such government exists.

As far as subsidies go, it's complicated in an international market, because if other countries give subsidies in an industry, they can kill your own industries by undercutting them. So if you don't want it to die, you have to respond.
Like in the Aircraft industry tussle between Boeing and Airbus. Boeing gets hidden subsidies disguised in military contracts, and Airbus replies with cheap EU loans. And in spite of the bickering, both do well out of it, because it's keeping down the competition from Brazil and Russia etc.

So, yeah, always go for the low-hanging fruit then, even if it minuscule in comparison to the huge stuff you could get if you were not too lazy to bring along a ladder?

[mistermack]

So, yeah, always go for the low-hanging fruit then, even if it minuscule in comparison to the huge stuff you could get if you were not too lazy to bring along a ladder?

It might be a case of something looks easier than it really is.
You go and get a ladder, and find it doesn't reach. Or someone has moved the huge stuff, when you get back with your ladder.

I agree they should try to cane the big business that is getting away with murder. If they can.
It's never as simple as it looks. You don't want to cut off your nose, just to spite your face.

[John_fi_Skye]

I don't disagree with most of that, but I do disagree with ".....you still want the country to have a carefree socialist lifestyle, with someone to kiss it better, if you scrape your knees", which - as befits a Rationalia fred - is bollocks. For reasons already given.

Don't get me wrong, I'm to the left myself. But there is a flaw in socialism, and that is that it gets abused, and therefor gets expensive.
Nobody has found a good way around that as yet. If you find a way of making sure that only the people who need it get social benefits, you would have a good system. But at present, when they try to cut the welfare bill, it's the genuine needy who get hit every time. They don't seem so good at playing the system.

I agree 100% with that. And until as a species we realise that we need to find a way of motivating ourselves through altruism rather than through personal gain, what you say will always be true. But I think the continual left-voting of the Scottish electorate - which was happening before oil - is one of quite a number of pieces of what I regard as evidence that the electorate in Scotland, if unencumbered by the removal of the English electorate, will maybe demand and get a government that suits me better. And we certainly don't need BOTH Westminster AND Holyrood: that's just a recipe for politicians to point the finger at each other and blame each other for either "not giving us enough money/responsibilities" or "using your money unwisely". A Yes vote would at least sort that. It would also remove the financial obligation to support defence policies and procurement that are more suited to the British Empire than to the 21st century. And if the English politicians say, "It's my ball", and take it away with them, and prevent me from ever again watching English TV, then I'll never again have to listen to English commentators or pundits whose arrogance makes my blood seethe, and my Gaelic will improve as I listen to the commentaries of BBC Alba.

[Clinton Huxley]

What imperial defence policy? We need those aircraft carriers in case the French invade the Falklands again. Wake up!

[John_fi_Skye]

What imperial defence policy? We need those aircraft carriers in case the French invade the Falklands again. Wake up!

Étendards sanglants, and all that.

[Svartalf]

Well, once Scotland is free and wealthy, we can reactivate the Auld Alliance and deal with the goddamns once and for all.

[John_fi_Skye]

Yep, Svarty.

[klr]

Ah, those dastardly French, selling the Super Etendard and Exocet to the Argies.

When Scotland becomes independent, it can buy weapons from whoever it likes.

[JimC]

Ah, those dastardly French, selling the Super Etendard and Exocet to the Argies.

When Scotland becomes independent, it can buy weapons from whoever it likes.

SA-11 Buk units for the border?