Without oil Norway's GDP would be around that of Gabons. Without stability you cannot have wealth, but that does not guarantee wealth.

Populist anti establishment. Americans really hate the government and our current system. (yes that's our fault, that's why Trump and Sanders have this much support).

@Major General Smedley Butler

Without oil Norway's GDP would be around that of Gabons.

Not really lol. Without oil, norway would have a gdp per capita closer to denmark maybe. Still, not gabon.


@OxTheArtist

Scotland could take #2 if it had independence.

Scotland's independence will hurt more then will do good, at least on the short term. Plus, scotland's oil will soon be gone, you can't count on it as a main source of income on the long run.
However, the conservative party in the UK is very stupid, and the previous sentence might not be true in a few years.


For oil arguments:
- The world is actually in a clean energy path, so oil isn't a ressource that will be very important in 20-30 years.
- The price of the barrel is at 30$ right now, and might reach 20$ by the end of the year, so it's not really a lucrative business in many countries. In the US and Brazil oil companies are actually losing money in the extraction of oil.
- Norway and Scotland's oil reserves will be non-existant in the medium term.

Ummm in the coming years, only about 0.2-2.5% of energy will be from so-called renewable resources.

I think Trump (as a moderate) is popular because people are looking for change.
Domestic and foreign violence has increased greatly, the proverbial hydra of terrorism's heads are growing back faster than they can be destroyed, and although I'm no expert on economics, things seemed to be doing iffy in that area.
And in a time when violent suicide bombers are causing international havoc, along with the migrant crisis from it, people want someone that can change things.
On top of that, the rather recent yet rapid growth of PC culture is something the Internet, and to a lesser extent reality, is ticked off about.
Trump's ideas of restricting illegal immigration and temporalily banning Muslims from entering the US is something people like. "He's keeping us safe from danger". The San Bernandino shootings didn't help disprove his idea.
I can agree with him in some areas (stopping outsourcing and being tougher on illegal immigrants), but banning Muslims and his wall are a bit too far out.

Overall, he wants change. The US wants change. (this is also why Bernie is becoming popular) And with his rather interesting way of speaking (look it up), and bold, crowd-stirring ideas, the American people like him. Many may disagree with him in some areas or not at all, but his rather outlandish comments just gather more attention to him.

Remember, this guy is a business mogul. He's a businessman. He's good at getting people into an idea.

He honestly doesn't actually believe the crazy shit coming out of his mouth, he's a moderate. The people around him have no clue where the radical crazy came from. He's conning the GOP right now. Watch, as soon as he gets the nomination he pivots left.

He's conning the GOP right now. Watch, as soon as he gets the nomination he pivots left.


+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Been saying this for months. Glad some people have clarity. Trump is a con-artist. He's acting like Buchanan, but we all know he's closer to Clinton.

@Genghis, not really no...

Renewables were accountable for 16.7% of the world's energy consumption in 2010, and that percentage has raised since, and will continue raising.





So, go away with your pro-oil stupid arguments. Renewable energies will take over non-renewable energies in the medium-long term.

Scotland's independence will hurt more then will do good, at least on the short term. Plus, scotland's oil will soon be gone, you can't count on it as a main source of income on the long run.

Please, bring your arguments. I've had an independence debate before and I'd happily have one again.

Scotland has a huge surplus of oil, and according to oilofscotland.org , businessforscotland.co.uk , telegraph.co.uk , and more creidble sources, Scotland's oil will last for over 100 years. There are currently at least 30 billion barrels of oil in the North Sea for Scotland, and possibly double that amount, in the potential 300 oil fields of Scotland's North Sea Oil portion (telegraph).

So, not only will the oil benefit in the short, term, the fact that Scotland has water on 3 sides of the country, and that it is on an island, allows lots of wind and water to be generated. Renewable energy is becoming more and more popular, so the oil will simply become free money sooner or later, with renewable energy dominating the country.

So tell me, with the Tories STEALING Scotland's off-shore oil, how would Scotland be harmed from getting independence? The equivalent of over £2,000 gets stolen from every Scottish citizen, from the amount of oil the Tories steal from Scotland (they take but they don't give back), and this wouldn't happen if Scotland had independence!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25451385

This BBC article in 2013 outlines the Scottish energy usage.

Nuclear power provided 34.4% of electricity generated in Scotland in 2012, while 29.8% came from renewables, 24.9% came from coal, 8% from gas and 2.8% from oil and other sources.

While you may say that there is an "over reliance on nuclear power", I'd say that this isn't bad, because Scotland isn't in a geographically volatile area, like Japan, nor are the designs flawed in any way, like the Soviet Union. Where do I think the nuclear waste should go? The moon. I can't say that that'll happen, but that's my personal opinion. We aren't using the moon for anything else, are we? May as well fill the craters up with nuclear waste, because our planet doesn't want it.

I actually think for a majority of non-coastal developed nations, nuclear power is the way to go. Its smart, clean, and a highly efficient source.

They are quite a big modifier towards it - being the third most populous country in the world, it is a lot harder to keep everyone up to date with taxes and sustain the huge machine that is the american public welfare/healthcare. I just can't see those things working on a country with a big population.

Sweden has a population of 9 million people. Denmark is even farther behind - 5 million. For comparison, the city of São Paulo alone has 11 million, NYC has around 8 million. Gets quite unsustainable at these numbers.

Oh freaking really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Maybe one aircraft carrier would do?
Maybe the F-22 is already adept enough at slaughter, you don't need a better one.
Spending nothing on the F-35 ALONE would free up 8 billion dollars.
You spend 610 billion dollars, China spends a quarter of that. Imagine what you could do with say, 450 billion dollars. A fuckload, that's what. An extra 1,300 dollars per capita, that could go towards things like healthcare. Or having a minimum wage that is livable.

I don't think over reliance on nuclear is bad. If it's properly done, nuclear energy is very safe. Nuclear is almost always better then the alternative.


The main problem for scotland, as I said, is the short term. About the oil, as I said, it's not very lucrative right now, and I used the current proven reserves to make the statement that scottish oil will soon be fully extracted.


Plus, the tories aren't stealing your oil, it's normal to share the ressources benefits of one region with your country (even though the region that extracts it should have a bigger income on it). If you get independent, that wouldn't be the case of course.


Now, problems for scotland in case of independence:
- Need to take over programs that are actually taken in charge by the "federal government", such as healthcare (where scotland pays LESS then it receives), education, safety,... That would be a problem that could be solved in a few years period, but you'll have overcosts in the beggining.
- Losing many jobs and companies that will move to England in case of independence, such as the scotish royal bank for example (and yea, they said they would leave in case of independence). The situation would however be stabilized in the medium term.
- Losing the pound, nope the UK wouldn't let you keep that ;). You'll have troubles on this, but it can be solved on the medium term as well, or on the short term if scotland joins the euro.
- Dropping out of the EU. That's probably the biggest problem, if scotland is independent it won't stay by default in the union. There's no status for that, and it would be probably voted on the european parliament with every country able to veto. Good luck on avoiding the UK, or even spain to veto your stay in the union. That's probably a thing that isn't really fixable.
- Cameron already said scotland isn't getting a second referendum. It really won't happen on the short term.


However, there's a light on the end of the tunnel. If the UK leaves the EU, the biggest problems to your independance are fixed. The EU would accept an independent scotland if the UK leaves the EU, and the tories will be forced to give you another referendum if the UK isn't in the EU anymore.


PS: I'm for Scotland's independence as a right of the people to decide if they wanna stay in the UK or not. Just stating why you'll have problems to get it.

However, there's a light on the end of the tunnel. If the UK leaves the EU, the biggest problems to your independence are fixed. The EU would accept an independent Scotland if the UK leaves the EU, and the Tories will be forced to give you another referendum if the UK isn't in the EU anymore.

+1. This is the single biggest reason why Cameron is pushing for the UK to remain in the EU. Cameron is worried about his legacy as prime minister. Period. He knows that if the UK leaves the EU, he'll have given the SNP and Scottish nationalists their best argument for a second referendum in less than 5 years. Based on the blowout the SNP gave to the Lib-Dems and Labour in the general election, I can guarantee that Nicola Sturgeon and Angus Robertson will be quite organized to win. What does this mean? A majority vote for the UK to leave the EU is also a majority vote to let Scotland declare independence. This fact alone will brand Cameron as the most infamous prime minister in several decades in British history. That's why Cameron is seething at Boris Johnson and is angry at his MPs for trying to court UKIP votes by supporting the No side.

Maybe we should decrease both socialist spendings and military spending since we have a gigantic debt. How about instead of scraping just one military program, we stop giving our soldiers ridiculously expensive shit and body armor and stop fighting foreign wars.

Cut subsidies, cut bureaucracy, continue R&D but reduce personnel, cut most social programs, cut Education Dept, HUD, etc. Not hard to get spending under revenue, but politicians lack the will.

@Major General Smedley Butler

Maybe we should decrease both socialist spendings and military spending since we have a gigantic debt.

Just decrease military spending and stop giving welfare to huge corporations and the US budget is equilibrated.

How about instead of scraping just one military program, we stop giving our soldiers ridiculously expensive shit and body armor

Dafuk, if you send people to war you better equip them so they don't fucking die. Even better, spend to threat their problems when they come back.

and stop fighting foreign wars

Only inteligent thing you said.


@GeneralPE

On the contrary, it's hard to cut spending. If it was so easy, republicans would have done it during Bush. Plus, social spending is one of the few thing paying taxes is worth for after safety and justice.

Edited 2/24/2016 00:16:07

Except we're not sending them to war , so they don't need that ridiculous crap. And cutting down on socialism for favored industries is covered in lowering socialist spendings.

The US is at war still. And I disagree on the idea that you shouldn't equip your soldiers well if you're at peace... Just cut the ammount of soldiers you have, keep the quality. These days it's better to have 100 thousand soldiers well trained and equiped then 1 million poor trained and equiped.

Just see the french military interventions in Africa. France sends 1 thousand soldiers and beat the crap out of tens of thousand terrorists.

And for social expenditures, of course you shouldn't give thing to corporations, it's like trowing money away. It doesn't give any benefits to the society in general. However, government spending in education and healthcare is a good thing.

The reason Republicans didn't cut spending is that higher spending helps the PPC. Lobbyists and special interests. Plus, entitled 18 year olds with no responsibility always bitching.

We don't need a good army. We have two weak neighbors and two big oceans. A good navy and air force is all we need. It'd just be a big money dump so generals can have new toys they'll never use.