Wings Over Scotland

I bet the poor in India and South Africa will be happy we’re all in this together.

Now presumably an independent Scotland could spend more on aid than we do right now as a proportion of the UK’s spending, thus independence would mean more money on international aid being donated from these isles. Lets take a look:
 
link to en.wikipedia.org
 
1. Sweeden – 1.45%
2. Norway – 1.06%
3. Luxembourg – 1.04%
4. Denmark – 0.88%
5. Netherlands – 0.82%
<SNIP..>
10. UK – 0.52%
 
So, if you support higher levels of Brittish spending on international aid, vote yes and collectively we will be donating more than we do now. Of course we could also stipulate that the aid money we provide be spent on well… “aid” as opposed to earmarking some of the aid budget for UK military endeavors abroad:
 
link to bbc.co.uk
 
Another reason to vote Yes.
 
Lastly, perhaps things like this wont happen anymore with our aid money:
 
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
 
 

We should be committing to 1% like our Norwegian friends, and pushing hard to make sure people realise that this and so many other areas will be better if we start to move towards the Reid Foundation style Common Weal; the REAL way to head off unionist charges that nothing will be different if we keep the £, Queen, NATO etc, is to commit to some REALLY socially and politically progressive policies which aim to construct that kind of society!

 
I thought it might be informative to make a brief comparative study of the rhetoric of those who defended slavery in the US and BitterTogether’s attempts to defend UKplc.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The Southern (BitterTogether) Argument for Slavery* (Scots in UK):
A comparitive study

Defenders of slavery (Scots in UK) argued that freeing slaves (Scots) would lead to

i) A profound and killing economic impact (Economic Uncertainty Myth)
ii) Widespread unemployment and chaos (Economic Uncertainty and Fear)

Defenders of slavery (Scots in UK) also argued that the status quo was truly better since owners (Westmonster) would protect and assist slaves (Scots) when they were sick and aged (Pensions Scare).
*Source: link to ushistory.org

Aye like naebed said or we will take your highlighter away.

This is an extract from the (already out of date?) Judith Hart memorial speech given by Douglas Alexander on Friday, as reproduced on Labourhame.
“Over recent years, Britain’s Department for International Development has rightly come to be seen as a global leader on aid effectiveness and I am proud that this year the UK will achieve the target set and worked for by Labour to meet the UN goal of committing 0.7% of our GNI on international development.  The road we have travelled is nowhere better exemplified than in our Tory Prime Minister, forced by public opinion, to meet and match Labour’s aid  commitment.”
There was an article in the Guardian last week about the fact that the MoD were after aid money to fund their “humanitarian” projects.
link to guardian.co.uk 
The mixing up of military occupation and humanitarian aid makes Afghanistan a very dangerous place to work for humanitarian aid workers.
There was a report out recently about the toxic legacy of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq. These were munitions that were fired by UK and US in Iraq and there is increasing evidence that they are causing birth defects and illness in children.  link to ikvpaxchristi.nl When I was reading Douglas Alexander’s Judith Hart “neighbourly – good samaritan” speech on Labourhame I couldnt help but think of the people of Iraq, do they think we have been a good neighbour? 
Another aspect of UK foreign aid is the fact that DFID only give money to other organisations to do the work, unlike some other european countries DFID have no direct implementation humanitarian aid unit. In some circumstances direct implementation is a far more efficient way to deliver aid. I think that a humanitarian aid unit should be in the plan for an independent Scotland.

Saw a Bitter Together leaflet the other day. It said “FACT Independence is forever”. Personally I don’t see how they can claim this to be a fact. Surely nobody expects our current model of humans living in separate nation states to carry on for the remainder of human existence?

@David
 
 
It is a very weak argument by the British nationalists. Let me give you an example of clear thinking on how one generation cannot impose its will on generations that come after it. This is from Immanuel Kant, a German of Scots descent:
 
 
 
“One age cannot bind itself, and thus conspire, to place a succeeding one in a condition whereby it would be impossible for the later age to expand its knowledge (particularly where it is so very important), to rid itself of errors, and generally to increase its enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature, whose essential destiny lies precisely in such progress; subsequent generations are thus completely justified in dismissing such agreements as unauthorised and criminal.  The criterion of everything that can be agreed upon as a law by a people lies in this question:  Can a people impose such a law on itself?” 
 
I would suggest that this generation is trying to ” rid itself of errors” of a previous generation
 
 
 

We shouldn’t give any other foreign government, institution, charity or person a single penny from public money. Most of it is spent on dignatories, executives, marketing & cocktail parties anyway. And what does get spent is usually countered by civil war, tribalism, murder, theft, cronyism & embezzlement.
If your heart bleeds though, feel free to send your own money to poor folks in Botswana or Senegal if the act of giving makes you feel good.
I strongly object to liberal types spending my tax receipts on pointless humanitarian programs when they wont send their own money cos apparently they need the money for a new telly.