It’s embarrassing really.

I’m afraid I’d have to agree. To say there hasn’t been a debate is putting it mildly. This summer is (supposedly) the height of Unionism with 2014 reckoned to be the high point for nationalism, all on the basis of flag-waving-friendly events, rather than anything based on say, a defensible idea or proposal.

I’ve no confidence that we are going to see any different going forward. At this rate we’ll arrive at either continued union or independence by sleepwalking, whereas we should be addressing difficult questions like Tom Hunter’s comment re the lack of entrepreneurs in Scotland.

Or perhaps we who are interested in politics sometimes make the mistake of believing everyone should be interested too!

Germany and Brazil both have higher GDP’s, however i would discount Brazil on account of GDP per head should be taken into account, there has to be a point that you get to before you say we have our own issues to deal with before you can afford to contribute to international stability.

Personally unless you are able to convince me that Germany is about to go all Nazi on us again i wouldnt have a major problem with them going nuclear. Tho i would question the need for them to while members of nato when Both us and the french have Nuclear weapons as well as the americans.

There are 30+ countries with above average populations. Which makes 150+ with below average populations. Population is not in and of itself a detemining factor of power (see the Raj) but but a small population does restrict national power.

The UK economy is more dependent on non eu trade that pretty much any other eu memberstate, with the possible exception of Germany, tho that i doubt if you take account for the rotterdam effect.

Your pulling the old ‘realities of the 21st C’ gig here, which is at best ahistorical. The UK has treaty obigations internationaly on a scale that is only approached in Europe by France. And france is some way off. Those are commitments that we have chosen to take, and the application of which have been on the whole positive. See deplooyment of british forces to Kuwait in the 60′s which detered an iraqi invasion.

On power projection your prejudice is plain here, and not surprising.

We dont have high military spending. No western nation does. We have low military spending. As a percentage of GDP its less than a third of Saudi Arabia.

Power projection is Amoral. You call it bullying. Its not. It can be but to simply say it is is at best childishly simplistic. At worst…well i dont think that would get past the mods.

For example, the US Navy maintains at see 3-4 carrier battle groups at any one time. Thats a Carrier, couple of cursiers/destroyers, usually a frigate or two, a sub or two plus support ships. Basically enough firepower to wipe out Belgium in an afternoon. Also enough capability to, for example, say hundreds, if not thousands of lives if used to support relief efforts in the wake of a natural disaster. Or it could for example sail between two nations that could be about to come to blows and make it clear that someone who has a big gun wouldnt look to happily on that. not that im thinking of china and taiwan at all here.

As for who can really project power there are plenty that would disagree with my view, but since you ask the three certains are us, the US and France. All have the ability to deploy organic naval airpower, marine forces, and troops by sea, and well as by air, basically anywhere in the world, and also operate nuclear powered subs. none of this has to do with nuclear weapons. the possible fourth is Russia, tho i get a funny feeling mst of the russian armed forces are a bad joke just now. Both Italy and spain may soon join that club in the next 10 or so years, depending on equipment choices and economic outlook. LEss likely is australia doing so. Japan could if they wanted to but dont seem to, and China and india will.

On your second last para, we do have nukes, so whats your point. we dont pose a real strategic threat to any of those nations, are formally allied to at least 4 of them, so why our having or not having them would impact their decisions is beyond me.

Tho it should be noted that ive never seen anyone who is in anyway informed on nuclear matters claim that japan shouldnt be considered a de facto nuclear weapons state.

on your last para, i wasnt making a case for a nation being worthy of having a nuke.

you want to get into that thats fine, but then we have to start talking about what you do if a country you deem unworthy of having such weapons decideds to go and get them.

and israel doesnt say they dont have nukes. their policy is to refuse to comment in any way.

Germany and Brazil have bigger economies than the UK (and Italy between the UK and Russia, another nuclear state – makes sense to add Canada in there too as they’re next on the list). The UK used to be 4th biggest, but has slipped to 7th, and will probably continue to do so. Unless we’re talking about passing nukes around to whoever the top five are at any one point, then this is a flawed premise.

21 countries have higher populations than the UK, including Egypt, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Ethiopia, DR Congo and Iran as well as the afore-mentioned states of Germany and Japan, with Italy again right behind the UK. Overall there are about 35 countries with “above average” populations (the average being around 34 million), including Myanmar, Kenya and Tanzania.

In the globalised economy we now find ourselves in, very few countries (developed ones, certainly) could say they didn’t have global economic and territorial interests. Same goes for treaty commitments. This is a complete non-argument that seems completely ignorant to the realities of the 21st century (just like nukes themselves!)

As for “projecting power” internationally, aside from the horrible picture it paints of one country trying to bully others and the flawed idea that “might is right” that it underpins, this sounds like nothing more than an excuse for high military spending and for having a nuke itself. It’s like saying the boy with the big baseball bat deserves to keep the big baseball bat because he projects power… with his big baseball bat. I’d also be interested to know which of the other nuclear powers – USA, China, Russia, France – is incapable of doing this (and which one is only just capable), and therefore should get rid of their nuke immediately.

If the UK didn’t already have a nuke, there is no credible argument for why it should tool up ahead of countries like Germany, Japan, Italy, Australia, Brazil or Canada.

And that’s without even getting into the non-NPT nuclear states of India, Pakistan and North Korea – none of whom would really fit into your rules for a country being worthy of having a nuke – or Israel and their “we don’t have a nuke, honest” stance.

Has an above average population.

Has global economic and territorial interests.

has treaty commitments world wide.

maintains a diplomatic network that is second only to the United States (who only beat us cos they are the only super power.

Is one of only 3 (maybe 4) coutries that can project power (for good or ill) interntationally.

You can call that being one of the boss countries is you like.

I tend to take the view that with power comes resonsibility.

And with great power comes great responsibility.

But is that is the unspoken argument, then does that mean that the nat argument is that Scotland doesnt have anything to offer the world in way of leadership?

There already is a Muslim bomb as you put it, operated by a country that has a border with Afghanistan.

I don’t think the current Pakistani government are going to do anything stupid with it, but if Pakistan were taken over by Taliban-style extremists, that would be very problematic.

According to Wiki it is renewed every ten years. Coincidentally, it’s next date for renewal is December 2014.

The SNP’s public stance on Nuclear weapons will be seen as a serious threat to the continuity of this defence pact which is almost wholly based on nuclear cooperation and the sharing of military and commercial intelligence.

As alluded to in a Scotsman article by professor Malcolm Chalmers in April this year, without a friendly US attitude toward the concept of an independent Scotland, the chances of it happening are incredibly slim. Snowballs and hell come to mind.

GIven that the UK/USA Agreement has been renewed every ten years since 1958, despite increasing international ire over its legality, I would argue that the SNP volte face on Nato policy must go ahead if independence is to have a fighting chance.

Assuming it does, I would then imagine there would have to be some hardball, behind the scenes, negotiation with the US Industrial Military Complex effectively surrendering the notion that Scotland will ever be nuclear free.

If not, the potential forces working against the independence camp will carry much more potency and threat than a few well intentioned Better Together benches cobbled together in Scottish high streets.

Realpolitik in this instance is horrible and can leave you feeling impotent and small, but it seems to me a far more realistic assessment than anything that has so far been publicly debated.

Regards

I would also guess that the Scandanavian countries do not have the huge social problems that we have in Scotland, cronic unemployment problem leading to a cycle of drink/drugs (Minimum pricing will not do anything to solve this problem) as well as poor quality housing stock. Problems that certainly were not fixed in the good days.

You are right to say that there is no love lost here in Scotland for George’s “Scorched Earth” policy, yet there was plenty of love here for Darling’s plan at the last election despite there being not very much (announced) diferences between the two plans (Darling promised to cut slower and after 2014 and there was to be a rise in NI rates). Not so much uncomfortably straddling the left & right of Scottish & Brittish politics but standing firmly on the right of Scottish politics.

Puting aside everything else, the Economy will be the key issue in this referendum. Unfortunately for the yes camp, they show no sign of grasping this.