Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There's been some talk of scotland seceding from the UK:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/03/05/286126493/independent-scotland-heres-a-primer-on-upcoming-secession-vote

 

So how do you make this into a disad? I mean there is a lot of lit about how if scotland where to do this it would destabilize the UK and the EU so there is definitely impact. But what would the link be? US-UK relations? 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy

I'm gonna have an entire international politics file now

Mexico politics, Canadian politics, English politics.

I'm psyched

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scottish secession is/not happening now.

US action doing blah is supported by Tories/labor and is un/popular in the UK

-> backlash

 

Kill me now.  Don't run this, it's bad.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only decent impact for this is that without Scotland being part of the UK, they'll have to retcon James Bond when they reboot it in 40 years.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only decent impact for this is that without Scotland being part of the UK, they'll have to retcon James Bond when they reboot it in 40 years.

No, that's the internal link.

The impact is a madman with a super laser blows up every major city

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's the internal link.

The impact is a madman with a super laser blows up every major city

Nah, James Bond would still exist, but he'd have grown up in England rather than in Scotland as established by Skyfall. The villain never wins (in the long run )in the James Bond universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, James Bond would still exist, but he'd have grown up in England rather than in Scotland as established by Skyfall. The villain never wins (in the long run )in the James Bond universe.

you think that

BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW BLOFELD IS REALLY DEAD?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure seems like a lethal fall to me:

http://youtu.be/rbCFYceDGkM?t=3m31s

 

Besides, if he didn't come back in the Brosnan films, he clearly wasn't alive.

I still think that that blofeld is alive.  Think about it-

  • Bond has never seen his face
  • Blofeld has a massive organization
  • He's done crazier things
  • He's goddam insane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually helping put together a paper and a presentation on this at Monmouth College this summer with some faculty. If I remember to cut some cards for this, I should probably share them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a possible impact of the oil DA. Scotland is a major oil-producting nation (well, oil constitutes a major part of the Scottish economy). Low oil prices tank the Scottish economy, results in nationalism, Scotland secedes from the UK.

 

Impact-level, I've heard that most of the UK's nukes are in Scotland. Scotland is also very anti-nuke. I've heard some people say that there's ev that independent Scotland would dismantle UK's nuclear arsenal and trigger a global move against proliferation ----> prolif good, prevents conventional war.

 

 

But I don't see why you'd want to run this unless you want to catch someone off-guard with a weird internal link scenario, but the impact is so conventional and impact-turnable that there's no real point. Ultimately I think Scottish nationalism is a no-go DA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only decent impact for this is that without Scotland being part of the UK, they'll have to retcon James Bond when they reboot it in 40 years.

eh..

 

 

Scottish independence results in British disarmament—solves proliferation

Fargo 2012 (Matthew Fargo is an intern at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “Independence for Scotland and Disarmament for the United Kingdom: Or, the Law of Unintended Consequences,†Date is date accessed, July 27, http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/nuclearweapons/articles/independence_for_scotland_and_disarmament_for_the_united_kingdom_or_the_law_of_unintended_consequences/index.html)

A mixture of geography and nationalism has set the stage in the United Kingdom for a referendum in 2014 that will ask voters a straightforward question with complex consequences: Should Scotland be an independent nation?¶ A complicating factor for the referendum is that while the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a recognized nuclear weapon state in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the strategic nuclear weapons forces which it possesses are all located on submarines based in Scotland. The majority party in the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish National Party, has declared that if they achieve independence in 2014, they would call for the unilateral removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland.¶ British nuclear forces are comprised solely of four Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines, each armed with up to sixteen Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles. With ten warheads on each missile and a single Vanguard submarine deployed at a time, the United Kingdom maintains 160 operational warheads, and has declared that it will not exceed a maximum of 225 operational warheads at a given time.¶ The possibility of Scottish independence brings into serious question the future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent. According to William Walker, there is no other existing submarine base in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland that would be able to host the United Kingdom’s Vanguard ballistic missile submarines. As the referendum nears and it becomes clearer whether it is likely to pass, there will undoubtedly be a more vigorous search for other basing alternatives within the U.K. Ministry of Defense and Parliament.¶ It has also been reported that an independent Scotland would find it difficult to field much in the way of a modern military force on par with countries of approximately the same size in Europe. Although the Scottish National Party has opposed the membership of an independent Scotland in NATO for years, First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond may change course in order to ensure the future security of Scotland. Defense experts in the U.K. have speculated that Scotland would be unable to bar British nuclear submarines from its bases if it expects to become a full member of NATO.¶ Meanwhile, the United Kingdom continues to debate the wisdom of building new ballistic missile submarines at an estimated cost of £25 billion ($39.6 billion). The British American Security Information Council established an independent commission to examine the future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear forces and found that the elimination of Trident from the military budget would save approximately £1.6 billion ($2.5 billion) annually for the next fifty years.¶ Although studies have been conducted into potential alternatives, Defense Secretary Liam Fox announced in 2011 that plans to begin a “like for like†replacement of the existing ballistic submarine force are already underway but the final decision will not be made until 2014.¶ The United Kingdom’s maintenance of continuous at-sea deterrence has existed since the 1960s, but alternatives such as creating a dual-use submarine force to replace the aging Trident system or maintaining a far cheaper non-deployed strategic force have been suggested. However, there is an even better solution – British nuclear disarmament.¶ The future of the United Kingdom’s strategic forces has been debated in Parliament in the past. Some Members of Parliament have declared that nuclear weapons “serve no useful or practical purpose†defending the United Kingdom from “the most pressing threat currently facing the U.K.†– terrorism. Furthermore, although the United Kingdom envisions its strategic forces as an independent nuclear deterrent, it continues to rely on the United States for technical support and cooperation. Defense Secretary Fox has insisted that, "Policy remains that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at-sea deterrence is right for the U.K." In his autobiography, former Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote that, “In the final analysis, I thought giving [Trident] up too big a downgrading of our status as a nation, and in an uncertain world, too big a risk for our defense.â€Â¶ British disarmament would also divorce the power and prestige of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council from the possession of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the United Kingdom would be the first Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognized nuclear weapons state to fulfill its NPT Article VI obligation to “pursue negotiations in good faith…to nuclear disarmamentâ€.¶ Although this would only be a small step toward total global nuclear disarmament, it could serve as an important example for moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons cannot rebuild ailing economies, cannot bridge cultural divides, cannot defend against terrorism, and no longer serve the national interests of the United Kingdom.¶ Let Trident rust in peace.

British disarm solves extinction – inevitable without it

Milne et al 2002 (Sir Hugh Beach has served as Master General of the Ordnance of the British Armed Forces and director of the Council for Arms Control. John Finney is Professor of Physics at University College London. Previously he has been Chief Scientist at the ISIS Facility, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, and Science Coordinator of the European Spallation Source Project. Tom Milne is a researcher at the London Office of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Sebastian Pease FRS is a physicist specializing in various aspects of nuclear energy. He is a former Director of the UKAEA’s Culham Laboratory and of the controlled fusion research programme. From 1942-46 he worked on operational research at the Headquarters of RAF Bomber Command. Sir Joseph Rotblat FRS, co-recipient of the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize, is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of London. He worked on the Manhattan Project “An End to UK Nuclear Weapons,†http://www.britishpugwash.org/documents/end-to-uk-nuclear-weapons.pdf)

What good has this exceptional effort done the UK? A previous British Pugwash report 2 concluded that even at the height of the Cold War, Britain’s nuclear weapons had no influence on the course of events. They deterred no enemy. An independent British nuclear force was rationalized as a “second centre of decision†that would give the Soviet Union pause should it doubt American willingness to use nuclear weapons in Europe’s defence. But at no time did the British arsenal constitute more than two per cent of the total nuclear arsenal available to NATO, and it was never reasonable to think that the UK would be prepared to use nuclear weapons in circumstances that the US would not. No allied country depended on UK nuclear weapons and no serious consideration was given to the use of these weapons in any of the wars in which the UK has been involved (Suez, Falklands/Malvinas, Persian Gulf and Yugoslavia). The report’s conclusion, that Britain could dispense forthwith with its nuclear weapons, was based not on the fact that the Cold War is over, but on the uselessness of the weapons during the entire period since the Montebello test. Subsequent events have not altered the basis for this conclusion: it holds good today.¶ Not only have UK nuclear weapons been of no military value, they are dangerous to possess. There could be accidents and at times of great international tension the weapons could attract pre-emptive strikes. Use of nuclear weapons by the UK would invite disastrous nuclear counterattack.3 And each country that retains or acquires nuclear weapons serves, directly or indirectly, as an incentive for other nations to do likewise. The UK is legally committed to nuclear disarmament, moreover, under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an undertaking reaffirmed in unequivocal language at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.¶ The current report discusses options open to the UK government in the areas of nuclear arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament. Chapter 2 reviews the state of the UK nuclear weapons programme, Chapter 3 addresses the prospects for multilateral disarmament, and Chapter 4 discusses existing UK disarmament policy. Because present UK public opinion favours nuclear disarmament only in conjunction with disarmament by other countries, it seems unlikely that the decommissioning of Trident could be achieved in the short run. Chapter 5 deals, therefore, with opportunities for action that, in political terms, may be more readily achievable. These are: 1. an intensification of the present policy of seeking multilateral disarmament; 2. unilateral reduction of the UK nuclear arsenal; 3. a commitment not to develop or procure a nuclear successor to Trident. These courses of action are not mutually exclusive. However, our major recommendation is option 3: that the UK government should decide and announce that no successor nuclear weapons system will be developed or procured to replace Trident when it is decommissioned in about 20 years’ time.¶ A decision not to develop a nuclear successor to Trident would be comparable in the nuclear weapons context to the decision by the UK in 1956 that it would no longer develop offensive chemical and biological weapons.4 The UK’s chemical and biological weapons facilities now concentrate their work entirely on defensive measures, including means of enforcing the international chemical and biological weapons conventions that prohibit possession of these weapons. In this way the UK has made a significant contribution to reducing the threat from chemical and biological weapons. It is our main conclusion that by taking a similar approach in the nuclear field, ending development of UK nuclear weapons and intensifying UK efforts to address the political and technical problems confronting multilateral disarmament, the UK would make a significant contribution to reducing the global nuclear threat and, in doing so, increase national security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense but both of those are powertagged.

First "Defense experts in the U.K. have speculated that Scotland would be unable to bar British nuclear submarines from its bases if it expects to become a full member of NATO."

Second, it says they're already looking for alt nuclear bases.

Third, complete disarmament is only an option on the table and an unlikely one if Blair has anything to say about it.

Fourth, it says that it *might* insipre other countries (like france i guess) to disarm, which doesn't come close to solving prolif which isn't mentioned in that card at all.

 

All the second card says is that if the UK launched a nuke bad things would happen. At best it's no better than a generic miscalc card as far as liekly hood goes, except it's only one country with a very advanced system so it's actually a whole lot less than that even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...