Commenting on the response from the Ministry of Defence to the delays and confusion that emerged in a mock nuclear accident ‘Exercise Senator’ in 2011, which showed huge delays in responding to the accident in a convoy on the motorway network in central Scotland , Angus Robertson MP , SNP Defence spokesman and Westminster Leader said :
“The answer from the MoD concerning the outcome of Exercise Senator in 2011 has some alarming revelations. We know that the exercise, which simulated a nuclear convoy having an accident on the M74 was a catalogue of errors, communication failures and breakdown in systems which left agencies involved in the exercise in a near shambolic state . Any nuclear incident is the most serious of all – and the report on the way this particular exercise was carried out exposed huge safety concerns in the ability of the MoD to deal with a real nuclear accident in good time and in an organised way. It is just breathtaking...
This exercise has exposed worrying deficiencies in the way a real nuclear incident might be dealt with. Only with a Yes Vote in September next year can we be sure that Scotland is rid of Trident once and for all."
If a failing company needed 30 million to stay afloat but they told a potential investor they only needed 7 million to lure them in, in the hope once the investor had skin in the game they'd be forced to cough up the rest to not lose their initial stake - you'd think that might be breaking a law or two?
The Tory leadership supported the war because they... supported the war.
I think IDS thought being all statesman like and supporting the government might buy him some favour with the electorate. It was a huge mistake politically.
Blair was completely f8cked without IDS, and yet the latter didn;t even ask a price for his support.
"The largest amount of blame on Iraq has to go to the people who earlier concocted the information that other people used later to make their decision."
IDS was gung-ho for war no matter what. The Tories are every bit as much to blame for Iraq as Labour - the British involvement couldn't have happened without them.
'Scotland fixes stamp duty, the most broken tax in the nation. Now when will the rest of Britain follow suit?'
Good news if you're Scottish: your government is fixing one of the most ridiculously broken parts of the British tax system! (If you aren't Scottish, you're going to have to hold on a bit longer).
Stamp duty, the fee paid upon purchase of a house worth more than £125,000, is set to be devolved to the Scottish government. It will be the first time that Holyrood has exercised the powers given to it in the Scotland Act 2012 to amend the duty on land and property.
Under the existing regime, stamp duty is one of the last taxes left in the world which features a tiered rate structure based on the entire value of the thing being taxed. That is: on a property worth £125,000, you pay 0 per cent stamp duty, but on a property worth £125,001 – exactly on the threshold – you pay a tax of 1 per cent on the entire value of the house. That's over £1000, just for a £1 increase in the sale price...
So congratulations to Scotland. The proposed tax will now be charged only on the value of the home above £180,000, and will be set at 7.5 per cent up to £1.5m, and 10 per cent above that. That leaves people selling houses worth less than £300,000 better off; but more importantly, it also fixes the broken structure of the old system entirely.
Hopefully the rest of Britain will follow suit – and soon.
You may be right but I still think IDS made by far the wrong decision for his career. If Blair had lost the vote he would have had to ditch labour's whole foreign policy completely. It would have hammered his standing. Resignation would not have been out of the question. Labour would have looked like a party unable to govern when the chips were down.
'Scotland fixes stamp duty, the most broken tax in the nation. Now when will the rest of Britain follow suit?'
Good news if you're Scottish: your government is fixing one of the most ridiculously broken parts of the British tax system! (If you aren't Scottish, you're going to have to hold on a bit longer).
Stamp duty, the fee paid upon purchase of a house worth more than £125,000, is set to be devolved to the Scottish government. It will be the first time that Holyrood has exercised the powers given to it in the Scotland Act 2012 to amend the duty on land and property.
Under the existing regime, stamp duty is one of the last taxes left in the world which features a tiered rate structure based on the entire value of the thing being taxed. That is: on a property worth £125,000, you pay 0 per cent stamp duty, but on a property worth £125,001 – exactly on the threshold – you pay a tax of 1 per cent on the entire value of the house. That's over £1000, just for a £1 increase in the sale price...
So congratulations to Scotland. The proposed tax will now be charged only on the value of the home above £180,000, and will be set at 7.5 per cent up to £1.5m, and 10 per cent above that. That leaves people selling houses worth less than £300,000 better off; but more importantly, it also fixes the broken structure of the old system entirely.
Hopefully the rest of Britain will follow suit – and soon.
"The largest amount of blame on Iraq has to go to the people who earlier concocted the information that other people used later to make their decision."
IDS was gung-ho for war no matter what. The Tories are every bit as much to blame for Iraq as Labour - the British involvement couldn't have happened without them.
The people who concocted the evidence that other people used to make their decision - self-evidently - are more to blame.
You may be right but I still think IDS made by far the wrong decision for his career. If Blair had lost the vote he would have had to ditch labour's whole foreign policy completely. It would have hammered his standing. Resignation would not have been out of the question. Labour would have looked like a party unable to govern when the chips were down.
IDS must have known that, surely.
We're being armchair generals.
IDS may well have realised the leverage he had but it would have been playing politics with the nation's well-being.
You are talking (as are we all) as a political geek. But IDS was in charge of HMO and was told that there was a credible threat to the UK. It may seem laughable to you now but that was what he was being briefed.
Under those circumstances there was no option but to agree and not (be seen to) play politics.
IDS was also a soldier, and would IMO opinion have snapped out of the "politics" of it and into the "national interest" of his decision. Was he too enthusiastic to prove himself a patriotic defender of the UK? Perhaps. But that is not what is being discussed.
"The largest amount of blame on Iraq has to go to the people who earlier concocted the information that other people used later to make their decision."
IDS was gung-ho for war no matter what. The Tories are every bit as much to blame for Iraq as Labour - the British involvement couldn't have happened without them.
The people who concocted the evidence that other people used to make their decision - self-evidently - are more to blame.
That doesn't mean Labour as a whole either - but the individuals who concocted the evidence.
The Funding for Lending Scheme and associated mortgage support schemes are proving to be successful in stimulating the residential housing sales and mortgage finance markets.
The British Bankers Associaition (BBA) announced today that the number of mortgages approved for house purchases by Britain’s banks climbed over 24 per cent year-on-year in May, to 36,102, compared to 29,079 a year earlier. Mortgage approvals recorded a 16 month high.
The average mortgage increased by £3,000 to £159,200, and the total value of approvals for house purchases rose to £5.5bn.
Remortgage activity also edged higher, up 16.8% on the year, accounting for 20,675 approvals worth £3.0bn.
All good news for both George Osborne and the economy as a whole.
Those still uncertain about the impact of stimulating the mortgage market should take note that the value of total mortgage loans outstanding fell 0.2% in the month with households repaying £9.0 bn of loans compared with £8.6 bn of new lending.
Unsecured lending, although up slightly on the month, was also down 0.9% on a year to year basis.
So housing sales and mortgage lending are increasing, yet house price increases remain below inflation levels and households are continuing to pay down both secured and unsecured loans.
Difficult to do anything but praise George in these circumstances but no doubt tim will remain unhappy.
I think IDS thought being all statesman like and supporting the government might buy him some favour with the electorate. It was a huge mistake politically.
That assumes he'd have been able to take his party with him. It also assumes that Blair would have done the same thing. I'm speculating here, but Blair generally liked to tack only a little bit to the left of the Tories, so if IDS had opposed the war I doubt he'd have been as gung-ho.
Under those circumstances there was no option but to agree and not (be seen to) play politics.
Don't agree. It would have been quite simple for IDS to paint the veto as a patriotic decision (whatever the reality).
'HMO in all good conscience cannot go to war behind a government that is itself so fatally divided, and feels that a general election in this case is the only option.
I think IDS thought being all statesman like and supporting the government might buy him some favour with the electorate. It was a huge mistake politically.
My recollection is that IDS went out of his way to criticise Blair and Labour for not supporting the Americans more strongly. He acted as though he thought it was the 1980s, and that he could caricature Blair as being soft on Defence.
It was ridiculous, embarrassing posturing, unmatched except for Clare Short's unedifying performance.
Of course, it is silly to lay too much blame on IDS for the Iraq war. About 250 Labour MPs voted for war, and 139 against, and the Labour party did nothing to hold to account those who voted for the war, even once it became clear that it had been fought on a false prospectus.
"About 250 Labour MPs voted for war, and 139 against"
The vote in favour of war on the Tory benches was far more overwhelming than that. If their decision was so driven by "evidence" (which I don't believe for a moment) why didn't Robin Cook's speech setting out the limitations of the evidence give them pause for thought? Even if they felt for some mysterious reason that they had to accept everything Blair said about the supposed "threat" as gospel, why couldn't they have used their own judgement about the appropriate response to that threat? After all, one thing we knew even in 2003 was that North Korea posed a greater threat than Iraq, and yet no-one - not Bush, not Blair, not IDS, no-one - proposed an invasion of North Korea.
"About 250 Labour MPs voted for war, and 139 against"
The vote in favour of war on the Tory benches was far more overwhelming than that. If their decision was so driven by "evidence" (which I don't believe for a moment) why didn't Robin Cook's speech setting out the limitations of the evidence give them pause for thought? Even if they felt for some mysterious reason that they had to accept everything Blair said about the supposed "threat" as gospel, why couldn't they have used their own judgement about the appropriate response to that threat? After all, one thing we knew even in 2003 was that North Korea posed a greater threat than Iraq, and yet no-one - not Bush, not Blair, not IDS, no-one - proposed an invasion of North Korea.
So the 160 Tories were more to blame than 250 Labour MPs?
if IDS had opposed the war I doubt he'd have been as gung-ho.
If you read the accounts of those meetings, the Americans were prepared for a much tougher negotiation to persuade the Brits and were astonished at how pliant Blair was. That puppy whipped his pants off as soon as he was swept into the whitehouse. He could hardly get his firm commitments out quickly enough.
Having to go back to big George and say he couldn't marry him after all would have been a massive humiliation. Enormous.
"About 250 Labour MPs voted for war, and 139 against"
The vote in favour of war on the Tory benches was far more overwhelming than that. If their decision was so driven by "evidence" (which I don't believe for a moment) why didn't Robin Cook's speech setting out the limitations of the evidence give them pause for thought? Even if they felt for some mysterious reason that they had to accept everything Blair said about the supposed "threat" as gospel, why couldn't they have used their own judgement about the appropriate response to that threat? After all, one thing we knew even in 2003 was that North Korea posed a greater threat than Iraq, and yet no-one - not Bush, not Blair, not IDS, no-one - proposed an invasion of North Korea.
So the 160 Tories were more to blame than 250 Labour MPs?
Joan McAlpine: A no vote means Osborne's bad medicine will go on
With the Chancellor due to cut another £11.5bn from public spending this week, things can only get uglier.
Osborne says the UK is out of intensive care. Technically yes.
But the patient remains very poorly indeed.
And to many people’s horror, Ed Miliband has said a future Labour government will stick with the same failed treatment.
This flies in the face of advice from experts. The Financial Times’ Martin Wolf, considered one of the world’s leading economic commentators, wrote a devastating critique of the UK government’s obsession with austerity...
...with limited powers, the Scottish government have been able to ensure unemployment is lower than the rest of the UK.
But all this is threatened by Osborne’s austerity obsession – and Labour’s determination to follow suit.
At least now we know the consequences of voting no in 2014.
"About 250 Labour MPs voted for war, and 139 against"
The vote in favour of war on the Tory benches was far more overwhelming than that. If their decision was so driven by "evidence" (which I don't believe for a moment) why didn't Robin Cook's speech setting out the limitations of the evidence give them pause for thought? Even if they felt for some mysterious reason that they had to accept everything Blair said about the supposed "threat" as gospel, why couldn't they have used their own judgement about the appropriate response to that threat? After all, one thing we knew even in 2003 was that North Korea posed a greater threat than Iraq, and yet no-one - not Bush, not Blair, not IDS, no-one - proposed an invasion of North Korea.
The people most to blame are the people who concocted the evidence. Anything else is silly.
"About 250 Labour MPs voted for war, and 139 against"
The vote in favour of war on the Tory benches was far more overwhelming than that. If their decision was so driven by "evidence" (which I don't believe for a moment) why didn't Robin Cook's speech setting out the limitations of the evidence give them pause for thought? Even if they felt for some mysterious reason that they had to accept everything Blair said about the supposed "threat" as gospel, why couldn't they have used their own judgement about the appropriate response to that threat? After all, one thing we knew even in 2003 was that North Korea posed a greater threat than Iraq, and yet no-one - not Bush, not Blair, not IDS, no-one - proposed an invasion of North Korea.
The people most to blame are the people who concocted the evidence. Anything else is silly.
Bored now.
Yep my fault. Apologies - but when that whistle blew, this dog jumped....
The Tories have had plenty of opportunity to repudiate their support for the invasion of Iraq and to say that it was a mistake. But with the exception of Boris (quelle surprise!), I don't thnk that many have, have they?
Maybe it was blood thirstiness. I can;t think of any other explanation for why the tories suddenly became strangers to political reason.
Supporting the war was lose-lose for the tories. If it was a spectacular success Tony would have taken ALL the credit. If a failure, it was a failure they supported and one which would not have happened without them.
The idea that those poor, naive, easily led Tories were especially susceptible to Blair's "lies" over Iraq, (unlike many Labour MPs - a higher proportion of whom opposed the war than Tories - the Lib Dems, and most of the country) is laughable.
"So if one person voted on the basis of concocted evidence their culpability isn't shared by the individuals who concocted that evidence?"
You don't seem to have addressed my earlier question - if their decision was based on 'evidence', why didn't Robin Cook's speech setting out the severe limitations of Iraq's WMD capabilities (and even his assessment was overstated) give them pause for thought?
"About 250 Labour MPs voted for war, and 139 against"
The vote in favour of war on the Tory benches was far more overwhelming than that. If their decision was so driven by "evidence" (which I don't believe for a moment) why didn't Robin Cook's speech setting out the limitations of the evidence give them pause for thought? Even if they felt for some mysterious reason that they had to accept everything Blair said about the supposed "threat" as gospel, why couldn't they have used their own judgement about the appropriate response to that threat? After all, one thing we knew even in 2003 was that North Korea posed a greater threat than Iraq, and yet no-one - not Bush, not Blair, not IDS, no-one - proposed an invasion of North Korea.
The people most to blame are the people who concocted the evidence. Anything else is silly.
Bored now.
Yep my fault. Apologies - but when that whistle blew, this dog jumped....
I didn't mean you. I just meant i didn't want to get into an endless, narcissistic "i want the last word" type argument but it gets impossible not to.
The idea that those poor, naive, easily led Tories were especially susceptible to Blair's "lies" over Iraq, (unlike many Labour MPs - a higher proportion of whom opposed the war than Tories - the Lib Dems, and most of the country) is laughable.
The Tories are to blame for Iraq too.
Two arguments - one is Labour vs Tory.
The second is who are most culpable and that is plainly those individuals who concocted the evidence.
As a Tory who supported the Iraq War I make no apologies. It was and remains the right thing to do.
Not for WMD. Not for lies. But for the removal of the tyrannical monster that was Saddam Hussein.
If anything was done badly it was not the lead up to the war but rather the plans for afterwards. A lot of totally avoidable mistakes happened from when the allies reached Baghdad onwards.
"The big question IMO is: If the HoC voted "NO" and Blair resigned, would it stopped the war?
IMO the answer to that has always been 'No'."
Do you mean the war itself, or British involvement? It would have stopped the latter, but not the former.
Obviously, I mean that the war would have gone ahead without the British (at least in the short run). GeorgeW didn't need us and has said he would have gone ahead anyway.
This leads to all sorts of questions about what kind of war would it have been without the British.
Only with a Yes Vote in September next year can we be sure that Scotland is rid of Trident once and for all."
And maybe not even then:
"Independent Scotland 'faces dilemma between Trident and Nato' An independent Scotland faces a difficult battle to gain entry to Nato amid American scepticism about the SNP’s opposition to nuclear weapons, the authors of a major defence report have warned."
"So if one person voted on the basis of concocted evidence their culpability isn't shared by the individuals who concocted that evidence?"
You don't seem to have addressed my earlier question - if their decision was based on 'evidence', why didn't Robin Cook's speech setting out the severe limitations of Iraq's WMD capabilities (and even his assessment was overstated) give them pause for thought?
You seem to be side-stepping my question by accusing me of side-stepping your question.
The answer, obviously, because "evidence" is a collection which gets balanced on a scales. What would have been the effect of Robin Cook's speech on the scales if the concocted evidence hadn't been on the other end?
So again - are everyone who voted for the war equally culpable if even one person who voted yes was swayed by the concocted evidence?
Obviously not. In that case the people who concocted the evidence would be more culpable.
Maybe it was blood thirstiness. I can;t think of any other explanation for why the tories suddenly became strangers to political reason.
Supporting the war was lose-lose for the tories. If it was a spectacular success Tony would have taken ALL the credit. If a failure, it was a failure they supported and one which would not have happened without them.
It was a terrible decision politically. Terrible.
When it comes to acts of war I would seriously hope that the politicians in the Commons vote according to what they believe is right and wrong and not what was politically expedient for party political reasons.
If any change should happen I believe that acts of war should be the most serious of conscience vote issues and never three-line whipped (excluding obviously ministers).
As a Tory who supported the Iraq War I make no apologies. It was and remains the right thing to do.
Not for WMD. Not for lies. But for the removal of the tyrannical monster that was Saddam Hussein.
If anything was done badly it was not the lead up to the war but rather the plans for afterwards. A lot of totally avoidable mistakes happened from when the allies reached Baghdad onwards.
Yes, thanks very much for gifting Iraq to a pro-Iranian Shi'ite government! Congratulations! Pats on tha back all round! Huzzah!!
"Independent Scotland 'faces dilemma between Trident and Nato' An independent Scotland faces a difficult battle to gain entry to Nato amid American scepticism about the SNP’s opposition to nuclear weapons, the authors of a major defence report have warned.""
A "warning" about independence in the Telegraph? Surely not!
Not really much of a dilemma, it has to be said. The SNP policy is crystal-clear enough for even you to understand, Carlotta - if NATO make Scottish membership conditional on retaining inhuman weapons of mass destruction on our shores, we leave NATO. In those circumstances we would seek to join Partnership for Peace instead.
"So again - are everyone who voted for the war equally culpable if even one person who voted yes was swayed by the concocted evidence?"
If they stuck their fingers in their ears when Robin Cook was setting them straight, of course they were equally culpable. Indeed, as a party, it could be argued that the Tories were more culpable, because they voted more heavily in favour.
GeorgeW didn't need us and has said he would have gone ahead anyway.This leads to all sorts of questions about what kind of war would it have been without the British.
I wouldn't take those words at face value, either. Without Britain, the Americans would have looked like little more than a rogue state, with no other civilized country prepared to support them actively.
British support was more important than the Americans like to let on, I think. Blair had a stronger hand than he played, so overawed was he by the trappings of American power.
The Americans reported he couldn;t say yes fast enough, even though it was still a moot point whether he could get the country to back him.
Trident goes and takes 1000's of jobs with it. I hope the folk down Helensburgh way are happy about that..
Don't worry - they're going to die younger because of the Union...oh wait, they'll have left the Union....so they'll live longer...like they didn't after devolution....hang on....
As a Tory who supported the Iraq War I make no apologies. It was and remains the right thing to do.
Not for WMD. Not for lies. But for the removal of the tyrannical monster that was Saddam Hussein.
If anything was done badly it was not the lead up to the war but rather the plans for afterwards. A lot of totally avoidable mistakes happened from when the allies reached Baghdad onwards.
Good on you.
Those who supported the war should have the guts to be honest about their decision, whether they think it was a terrible error of judgement or still think it was right.
But the weasly dishonesty, cowering behind "I was duped by Blair, not my fault guv" so they don't have to account for themselves, is pathetic.
"Don't worry - they're going to die younger because of the Union...oh wait, they'll have left the Union....so they'll live longer...like they didn't after devolution....hang on...."
Hmmm. If I'm not very much mistaken, that is the cry of pain from a woman not used to having her platitudes about unionist harmony being challenged by hard statistics about the toll London rule has had on Scottish life expectancy.
As a Tory who supported the Iraq War I make no apologies. It was and remains the right thing to do.
Not for WMD. Not for lies. But for the removal of the tyrannical monster that was Saddam Hussein.
If anything was done badly it was not the lead up to the war but rather the plans for afterwards. A lot of totally avoidable mistakes happened from when the allies reached Baghdad onwards.
Good on you.
Those who supported the war should have the guts to be honest about their decision, whether they think it was a terrible error of judgement or still think it was right.
But the weasly dishonesty, cowering behind "I was duped by Blair, not my fault guv" so they don't have to account for themselves, is pathetic.
The Labour vs Tory argument clouds the more important thing which is the little gang who concocted the evidence ought to be held to account.
I must have missed this "Blowing up the world " event ..when did that happen..Certainly a few Scots will have their world blown up when they have to join the dole queue, after decades of security, but they are just the wee folk.
"When it comes to your morals versus the livelihoods of many, its no contest really, is it?"
Where's the contest? Exactly what livelihoods do you expect anyone in Helensburgh to enjoy after a nuclear holocaust? You do realise they're the number one target for nuclear attack in the United Kingdom, yes?
"Certinly be a few Scots will have their world blown up when they have to join the dole queue, after decades od security, but they are just the wee folk."
Let me get this straight, Richard - the PURPOSE of Trident is to create jobs in Helensburgh. That's the PURPOSE, is it?
"British citizens are bypassing immigration regulations to get their relatives into the UK, using a technicality that means that if they work in another European country for three months, they can be considered under EU rather than British law on their return
..... it seems bizarre that those people who are not British citizens find it easier to bring people in from outside the EU than British citizens,"
"Don't worry - they're going to die younger because of the Union...oh wait, they'll have left the Union....so they'll live longer...like they didn't after devolution....hang on...."
Hmmm. If I'm not very much mistaken, that is the cry of pain from a woman not used to having her platitudes about unionist harmony being challenged by hard statistics about the toll London rule has had on Scottish life expectancy.
Hmm...if I'm not mistaken, you really don't want to go anywhere near this one since you made such a comprehensive twit of yourself yesterday afternoon....worked out why devolution has led to lower relative life expectancy yet?
What has always perplexed me is, irrespective of who voted for or against the Iraq war, that Blair has never really been held to account for the falsehoods on which he was so desperate to go to war on. He truly is Teflon Tony.
I wonder how many people who wanted to overthrow Saddam regime realise that his Shi'ite replacements have been busy supplying the Assad regime in Syria with oil these last couple of years, since fighting erupted.
Also in another twist, essentially the same Sunni militants who were the bane of Coalition forces in western Iraq during the 2000s have launched attacks on the aforementioned Iraq-Syria fuel convoys!
"Hmm...if I'm not mistaken, you really don't want to go anywhere near this one since you made such a comprehensive twit of yourself yesterday afternoon"
Oh, Carlotta, my love, my sweet, I promise you I DO WANT TO GO NEAR THIS. Again and again and again. Did you really think we were going to stop pointing out the appalling track record of London rule in Scotland - not least the suicide crisis in young males - just because PB Tories don't like to hear it?
Anyone who believed Bush and Blair's flimsy bullsh*t over Iraq should really know better than to advertise such gullible stupidity.
The people who concocted the evidence ought to be held to account. The Scots Nat desire to make it about the Tories when it could be used as a good example of the problem of being ruled by Westminster illustrates what they're really all about.
As a Tory who supported the Iraq War I make no apologies. It was and remains the right thing to do.
Not for WMD. Not for lies. But for the removal of the tyrannical monster that was Saddam Hussein.
If anything was done badly it was not the lead up to the war but rather the plans for afterwards. A lot of totally avoidable mistakes happened from when the allies reached Baghdad onwards.
Well said, there's nothing more pathetic than the whining PB Tory victims who can't take responsibility for anything.
The people who concocted the evidence ought to be held to account.
"When it comes to your morals versus the livelihoods of many, its no contest really, is it?"
Where's the contest? Exactly what livelihoods do you expect anyone in Helensburgh to enjoy after a nuclear holocaust? You do realise they're the number one target for nuclear attack in the United Kingdom, yes?
If you reckon a Mutually Assured Destruction total war ever actually happens and England will be nuked but Scotland will escape unscathed if independent then you're absurd.
"This morning we get the “who do you recognise” figures and inevitably Boris is high up there.
What does this mean in electoral terms. I’m not so sure but the good Lord is having a bit of fun.
Well you need a high enough profile for polling on approval etc. to really mean anything for the politicians concerned.
We also know from such polling that being recognised is only good if you aren't toxic with the voters.
Hence the amusement of Clegg being most often confused with Osbrowne, and to be fair Osbrowne being most often confused with little Ed. I doubt even Dan Hodges thinks that's a good sign.
The purpose of Trident is to prevent some nutter having a go at the UK with a nuclear weapon.If they do then they will be attcked with one of ours. If we don't have it we can just throw insults at them. For Nutters I include most of the Jihadists, IRAN, possibly Pakistan if the wrong folk get their hands on the bad stuff. But I realise you think they are all really decent chaps and wouldn't dream of doing such a thing...Some of us are not prepared to take that risk.
"If you reckon a Mutually Assured Destruction total war ever actually happens and England will be nuked but Scotland will escape unscathed if independent then you're absurd."
If I had said "I anticipate that a Mutually Assured Destruction total war will result in England being nuked but an independent Scotland escaping unscathed", that would have been a truly fabulous point, Philip. As it is, not so much.
How much of Hiroshima had the Manhattan Project blown up in 1943?
Far too little. If the bomb had arrived in 1943 the net saving in lives would have been huge. If it had arrived in 1939 the net saving would have been colossal.
The purpose of Trident is to prevent some nutter having a go at the UK with a nuclear weapon.If they do then they will be attcked with one of ours. If we don't have it we can just throw insults at them. For Nutters I include most of the Jihadists, IRAN, possibly Pakistan if the wrong folk get their hands on the bad stuff. But I realise you think they are all really decent chaps and wouldn't dream of doing such a thing...Some of us are not prepared to take that risk.
Not sure the mutual;ly assured destruciton argument stands up anymore; not when people are willng to kill themselves and thousands of others to make a point. Why would a Jihadist care about a nuclear deterrent? He's off to heaven and everything he does is God's will.
The Soviet Union was a vile and repressive place, but its leaders were rational and they did not believe in holy war. Deterrents only work when your enemy essentially shares the same world view as yours in terms of defence.
"If you reckon a Mutually Assured Destruction total war ever actually happens and England will be nuked but Scotland will escape unscathed if independent then you're absurd."
If I had said "I anticipate that a Mutually Assured Destruction total war will result in England being nuked but an independent Scotland escaping unscathed", that would have been a truly fabulous point, Philip. As it is, not so much.
No instead you were claiming that Trident was a case of "let's blow up the world" - when the reality is that Trident has blown up nothing and is there as a deterrent.
Then when you were called on that you segued into "Exactly what livelihoods do you expect anyone in Helensburgh to enjoy after a nuclear holocaust"
But apparently that has nothing to do with the ludicrous notion that Scotland would escape a nuclear holocaust. I suspect to answer your question that Helensburgh in a nuclear holocaust would be devastated with or without Trident. Trident helps minimise the risks of nuclear holocaust though while unilateral disarmament does nothing to do so.
"The judge, who led an inquiry into press ethics, will be called to give evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. MPs want him to appear within weeks.
He has previously declined an invitation to appear before MPs, arguing that judges did not have to explain themselves to Parliament."
Perhaps he isn't being paid for this appointment ?
So you're a fan of genocide as a "life-saving measure", then?
?????
If America had vaporised Berlin in 1943 Germany would have surrendered. Millions of Russian, German, British, Jewish, French and probably Japanese lives would have been saved.
As I say, if America had announced it had a bomb in 1939 and demonstrated it, Hitler would never have attacked France and Britain. If that had happened on 1941 he'd never have attacked Russia. The Jewish genocide might never have happened.
A bomb in 1939 would have saved countless lives.
The previous ten centuries in Europe show its the lack of nuclear bombs that encourage instability. They encourage idiots to think that they can win wars. Nuclear weapons have made wars essentially unwinnable.
Not sure the mutual;ly assured destruciton argument stands up anymore; not when people are willng to kill themselves and thousands of others to make a point. Why would a Jihadist care about a nuclear deterrent? He's off to heaven and everything he does is God's will.
The Soviet Union was a vile and repressive place, but its leaders were rational and they did not believe in holy war. Deterrents only work when your enemy essentially shares the same world view as yours in terms of defence.
Many of our potential enemies do have a desire not to be totally destroyed in a nuclear holocaust.
A suicidal terrorist nuclear attack could happen one day (most likely a dirty bomb) but such is unlikely to cause worldwide nuclear holocaust and unless you think they'll steal one from us then unilateral disarmament doesn't reduce its likelihood. Most suicide bombing terrorists even then wouldn't want to see their families nuked in a nuclear holocaust either.
"Would he wish to retain the Bank of England as Scotland’s lender of last resort? “Yes, under what we propose. If you share a currency it’s sensible to share a central bank.”
It’s likely that in such circumstances the rest of the United Kingdom would want some control over Scottish fiscal policy. “You need a sustainability agreement on terms of borrowing and debt levels,” Salmond counters. “So long as you stick by that . . .” His voice fades."
Genius - he wants to retain the "blame England for everything" strategy even after independence.
Trident won't stop the next terrorist outrage that will happen sometime soon in this country. That doesn't mean it doesn't have it's place in defending us against more rational enemies, but I'm not sure the cost of it is worth it.
It certainly shouldn't be seen as a job creation scheme-if that's an argument that Unionists try to use, then I'd suggest they've lost already.
"Why has life expectancy in Scotland declined relatively since devolution?"
Ah, I see you've hurriedly corrected your embarrassing little factual error from earlier! Don't worry, old girl, I'm sure no-one noticed...
Unfortunately, most of the main determinants of life expectancy remain controlled by Westminster, so a devolved government can only ameliorate the problem. But, as you know, we're working on that one. Incidentally, on the subject of who made a "twit" of themselves yesterday, alternatives to the PB Tory gospel are also available -
Why would a Jihadist care about a nuclear deterrent?
Why didn't Bin Laden choose the suicide route as he was such a jihadist?
Because he and the chief architects of islamist hatred want to survive, thrive and dominate. They want impressionable youngsters to do their dirty work.
As long as the democracies keep nuclear weapons, no islamist state, or any other state, is going to do jack sh*t.
The Scots Nat desire to make it about the Tories when it could be used as a good example of the problem of being ruled by Westminster illustrates what they're really all about.
Who said anything about just making it just about the tories? They were cheerleaders for Blair and without them the vote wouldn't have passed but if you think scottish labour aren't acutely discomfited and indeed hammered for Iraq when it's debated in scotland then you know very little about the politics here. The lib dems through Kennedy regularly get credit for their stance too, even though it made no difference in the end.
Iraq is self-evidently a poignant illustration of westminster stupidity over the foreign policy powers they exercise. Anyone who thinks the No campaign are going to get to decide on the subjects debated, and so only featuring the ones that they think helps their cause, is living in a world of make believe. As they will find out in the final months and weeks of the campaign.
Comments
Commenting on the response from the Ministry of Defence to the delays and confusion that emerged in a mock nuclear accident ‘Exercise Senator’ in 2011, which showed huge delays in responding to the accident in a convoy on the motorway network in central Scotland , Angus Robertson MP , SNP Defence spokesman and Westminster Leader said :
“The answer from the MoD concerning the outcome of Exercise Senator in 2011 has some alarming revelations. We know that the exercise, which simulated a nuclear convoy having an accident on the M74 was a catalogue of errors, communication failures and breakdown in systems which left agencies involved in the exercise in a near shambolic state . Any nuclear incident is the most serious of all – and the report on the way this particular exercise was carried out exposed huge safety concerns in the ability of the MoD to deal with a real nuclear accident in good time and in an organised way. It is just breathtaking...
This exercise has exposed worrying deficiencies in the way a real nuclear incident might be dealt with. Only with a Yes Vote in September next year can we be sure that Scotland is rid of Trident once and for all."
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/jun/shocking-four-hour-delay-nuclear-exercise
I think IDS thought being all statesman like and supporting the government might buy him some favour with the electorate. It was a huge mistake politically.
Blair was completely f8cked without IDS, and yet the latter didn;t even ask a price for his support.
Amazing really, and very little remarked upon.
IDS was gung-ho for war no matter what. The Tories are every bit as much to blame for Iraq as Labour - the British involvement couldn't have happened without them.
Good news if you're Scottish: your government is fixing one of the most ridiculously broken parts of the British tax system! (If you aren't Scottish, you're going to have to hold on a bit longer).
Stamp duty, the fee paid upon purchase of a house worth more than £125,000, is set to be devolved to the Scottish government. It will be the first time that Holyrood has exercised the powers given to it in the Scotland Act 2012 to amend the duty on land and property.
Under the existing regime, stamp duty is one of the last taxes left in the world which features a tiered rate structure based on the entire value of the thing being taxed. That is: on a property worth £125,000, you pay 0 per cent stamp duty, but on a property worth £125,001 – exactly on the threshold – you pay a tax of 1 per cent on the entire value of the house. That's over £1000, just for a £1 increase in the sale price...
So congratulations to Scotland. The proposed tax will now be charged only on the value of the home above £180,000, and will be set at 7.5 per cent up to £1.5m, and 10 per cent above that. That leaves people selling houses worth less than £300,000 better off; but more importantly, it also fixes the broken structure of the old system entirely.
Hopefully the rest of Britain will follow suit – and soon.
http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2013/06/scotland-fixes-stamp-duty-most-broken-tax-nation
You may be right but I still think IDS made by far the wrong decision for his career. If Blair had lost the vote he would have had to ditch labour's whole foreign policy completely. It would have hammered his standing. Resignation would not have been out of the question. Labour would have looked like a party unable to govern when the chips were down.
IDS must have known that, surely.
IDS may well have realised the leverage he had but it would have been playing politics with the nation's well-being.
You are talking (as are we all) as a political geek. But IDS was in charge of HMO and was told that there was a credible threat to the UK. It may seem laughable to you now but that was what he was being briefed.
Under those circumstances there was no option but to agree and not (be seen to) play politics.
IDS was also a soldier, and would IMO opinion have snapped out of the "politics" of it and into the "national interest" of his decision. Was he too enthusiastic to prove himself a patriotic defender of the UK? Perhaps. But that is not what is being discussed.
So the Leader of the Opposition has a duty to be credulous, even at the expense of the lives of British soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians?
No its a crippling tax and much higher than in the rest of the UK.
The Funding for Lending Scheme and associated mortgage support schemes are proving to be successful in stimulating the residential housing sales and mortgage finance markets.
The British Bankers Associaition (BBA) announced today that the number of mortgages approved for house purchases by Britain’s banks climbed over 24 per cent year-on-year in May, to 36,102, compared to 29,079 a year earlier. Mortgage approvals recorded a 16 month high.
The average mortgage increased by £3,000 to £159,200, and the total value of approvals for house purchases rose to £5.5bn.
Remortgage activity also edged higher, up 16.8% on the year, accounting for 20,675 approvals worth £3.0bn.
All good news for both George Osborne and the economy as a whole.
Those still uncertain about the impact of stimulating the mortgage market should take note that the value of total mortgage loans outstanding fell 0.2% in the month with households repaying £9.0 bn of loans compared with £8.6 bn of new lending.
Unsecured lending, although up slightly on the month, was also down 0.9% on a year to year basis.
So housing sales and mortgage lending are increasing, yet house price increases remain below inflation levels and households are continuing to pay down both secured and unsecured loans.
Difficult to do anything but praise George in these circumstances but no doubt tim will remain unhappy.
Not so, when the decision of the Conservative Party to back the war was based on blind pro-Americanism rather than "evidence".
It's like burglars and open windows.
People in the smarter parts of Edinburgh will not be happy, presumably (and there are quite a few of those).
Tory revival! LOL only joking
And even then, blind pro-Americanism isn't as bad as actively concocting evidence to start a war.
Don't agree. It would have been quite simple for IDS to paint the veto as a patriotic decision (whatever the reality).
'HMO in all good conscience cannot go to war behind a government that is itself so fatally divided, and feels that a general election in this case is the only option.
It was ridiculous, embarrassing posturing, unmatched except for Clare Short's unedifying performance.
Of course, it is silly to lay too much blame on IDS for the Iraq war. About 250 Labour MPs voted for war, and 139 against, and the Labour party did nothing to hold to account those who voted for the war, even once it became clear that it had been fought on a false prospectus.
The vote in favour of war on the Tory benches was far more overwhelming than that. If their decision was so driven by "evidence" (which I don't believe for a moment) why didn't Robin Cook's speech setting out the limitations of the evidence give them pause for thought? Even if they felt for some mysterious reason that they had to accept everything Blair said about the supposed "threat" as gospel, why couldn't they have used their own judgement about the appropriate response to that threat? After all, one thing we knew even in 2003 was that North Korea posed a greater threat than Iraq, and yet no-one - not Bush, not Blair, not IDS, no-one - proposed an invasion of North Korea.
If you read the accounts of those meetings, the Americans were prepared for a much tougher negotiation to persuade the Brits and were astonished at how pliant Blair was. That puppy whipped his pants off as soon as he was swept into the whitehouse. He could hardly get his firm commitments out quickly enough.
Having to go back to big George and say he couldn't marry him after all would have been a massive humiliation. Enormous.
I thought you were a trainspotter, Sunil!
(Note : This has been a retort 'in the style of Sunil'.)
With the Chancellor due to cut another £11.5bn from public spending this week, things can only get uglier.
Osborne says the UK is out of intensive care. Technically yes.
But the patient remains very poorly indeed.
And to many people’s horror, Ed Miliband has said a future Labour government will stick with the same failed treatment.
This flies in the face of advice from experts. The Financial Times’ Martin Wolf, considered one of the world’s leading economic commentators, wrote a devastating critique of the UK government’s obsession with austerity...
...with limited powers, the Scottish government have been able to ensure unemployment is lower than the rest of the UK.
But all this is threatened by Osborne’s austerity obsession – and Labour’s determination to follow suit.
At least now we know the consequences of voting no in 2014.
More cuts, more suffering the UK’s bad medicine.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/news/joan-mcalpine-george-osbornes-deficit-1989385
Bored now.
Bored now."
Simple remedy available, old chap - put a sock in it, then.
Everyone who voted for the war is culpable. Simples.
IMO the answer to that has always been 'No'.
IMO the answer to that has always been 'No'."
Do you mean the war itself, or British involvement? It would have stopped the latter, but not the former.
So if one person voted on the basis of concocted evidence their culpability isn't shared by the individuals who concocted that evidence?
If it's shared then they're not equally culpable,
Maybe it was blood thirstiness. I can;t think of any other explanation for why the tories suddenly became strangers to political reason.
Supporting the war was lose-lose for the tories. If it was a spectacular success Tony would have taken ALL the credit. If a failure, it was a failure they supported and one which would not have happened without them.
It was a terrible decision politically. Terrible.
The Tories are to blame for Iraq too.
You don't seem to have addressed my earlier question - if their decision was based on 'evidence', why didn't Robin Cook's speech setting out the severe limitations of Iraq's WMD capabilities (and even his assessment was overstated) give them pause for thought?
The second is who are most culpable and that is plainly those individuals who concocted the evidence.
Not for WMD. Not for lies. But for the removal of the tyrannical monster that was Saddam Hussein.
If anything was done badly it was not the lead up to the war but rather the plans for afterwards. A lot of totally avoidable mistakes happened from when the allies reached Baghdad onwards.
This leads to all sorts of questions about what kind of war would it have been without the British.
"Independent Scotland 'faces dilemma between Trident and Nato'
An independent Scotland faces a difficult battle to gain entry to Nato amid American scepticism about the SNP’s opposition to nuclear weapons, the authors of a major defence report have warned."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10139820/Independent-Scotland-faces-dilemma-between-Trident-and-Nato.html
The answer, obviously, because "evidence" is a collection which gets balanced on a scales. What would have been the effect of Robin Cook's speech on the scales if the concocted evidence hadn't been on the other end?
So again - are everyone who voted for the war equally culpable if even one person who voted yes was swayed by the concocted evidence?
Obviously not. In that case the people who concocted the evidence would be more culpable.
If any change should happen I believe that acts of war should be the most serious of conscience vote issues and never three-line whipped (excluding obviously ministers).
"Independent Scotland 'faces dilemma between Trident and Nato'
An independent Scotland faces a difficult battle to gain entry to Nato amid American scepticism about the SNP’s opposition to nuclear weapons, the authors of a major defence report have warned.""
A "warning" about independence in the Telegraph? Surely not!
Not really much of a dilemma, it has to be said. The SNP policy is crystal-clear enough for even you to understand, Carlotta - if NATO make Scottish membership conditional on retaining inhuman weapons of mass destruction on our shores, we leave NATO. In those circumstances we would seek to join Partnership for Peace instead.
If they stuck their fingers in their ears when Robin Cook was setting them straight, of course they were equally culpable. Indeed, as a party, it could be argued that the Tories were more culpable, because they voted more heavily in favour.
Yeah, Richard, let's blow up the world as a job-creation scheme. Great plan!
I wouldn't take those words at face value, either. Without Britain, the Americans would have looked like little more than a rogue state, with no other civilized country prepared to support them actively.
British support was more important than the Americans like to let on, I think. Blair had a stronger hand than he played, so overawed was he by the trappings of American power.
The Americans reported he couldn;t say yes fast enough, even though it was still a moot point whether he could get the country to back him.
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing.
What happened afterwards was a bad thing.
Why that happened and whether that could have been reduced are other discussions.
What is almost certain though is that the sectarian fighting in Iraq would have happened at some point anyway.
As it has happened in so many places in the Middle East.
Those who supported the war should have the guts to be honest about their decision, whether they think it was a terrible error of judgement or still think it was right.
But the weasly dishonesty, cowering behind "I was duped by Blair, not my fault guv" so they don't have to account for themselves, is pathetic.
Hmmm. If I'm not very much mistaken, that is the cry of pain from a woman not used to having her platitudes about unionist harmony being challenged by hard statistics about the toll London rule has had on Scottish life expectancy.
When it comes to your morals versus the livelihoods of many, its no contest really, is it?
Where's the contest? Exactly what livelihoods do you expect anyone in Helensburgh to enjoy after a nuclear holocaust? You do realise they're the number one target for nuclear attack in the United Kingdom, yes?
Let me get this straight, Richard - the PURPOSE of Trident is to create jobs in Helensburgh. That's the PURPOSE, is it?
"British citizens are bypassing immigration regulations to get their relatives into the UK, using a technicality that means that if they work in another European country for three months, they can be considered under EU rather than British law on their return
..... it seems bizarre that those people who are not British citizens find it easier to bring people in from outside the EU than British citizens,"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23029195
IF you put it like that I agree. Anybody working on nuclear weapons should resign immediately.
First sensible thing you've said all year.
Think Albania but with worse weather.
Also in another twist, essentially the same Sunni militants who were the bane of Coalition forces in western Iraq during the 2000s have launched attacks on the aforementioned Iraq-Syria fuel convoys!
Oh, Carlotta, my love, my sweet, I promise you I DO WANT TO GO NEAR THIS. Again and again and again. Did you really think we were going to stop pointing out the appalling track record of London rule in Scotland - not least the suicide crisis in young males - just because PB Tories don't like to hear it?
Bless.
How much of Hiroshima had the Manhattan Project blown up in 1943?
What does this mean in electoral terms. I’m not so sure but the good Lord is having a bit of fun.
Well you need a high enough profile for polling on approval etc. to really mean anything for the politicians concerned.
We also know from such polling that being recognised is only good if you aren't toxic with the voters.
Hence the amusement of Clegg being most often confused with Osbrowne, and to be fair Osbrowne being most often confused with little Ed. I doubt even Dan Hodges thinks that's a good sign.
For Nutters I include most of the Jihadists, IRAN, possibly Pakistan if the wrong folk get their hands on the bad stuff. But I realise you think they are all really decent chaps and wouldn't dream of doing such a thing...Some of us are not prepared to take that risk.
If I had said "I anticipate that a Mutually Assured Destruction total war will result in England being nuked but an independent Scotland escaping unscathed", that would have been a truly fabulous point, Philip. As it is, not so much.
Westminster Abbey was built almost a thousand years ago. Philip Thompson conclusion : it's impossible to build abbeys.
Far too little. If the bomb had arrived in 1943 the net saving in lives would have been huge. If it had arrived in 1939 the net saving would have been colossal.
So you're a fan of genocide as a "life-saving measure", then?
The Soviet Union was a vile and repressive place, but its leaders were rational and they did not believe in holy war. Deterrents only work when your enemy essentially shares the same world view as yours in terms of defence.
Then when you were called on that you segued into "Exactly what livelihoods do you expect anyone in Helensburgh to enjoy after a nuclear holocaust"
But apparently that has nothing to do with the ludicrous notion that Scotland would escape a nuclear holocaust. I suspect to answer your question that Helensburgh in a nuclear holocaust would be devastated with or without Trident. Trident helps minimise the risks of nuclear holocaust though while unilateral disarmament does nothing to do so.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/10141312/Lord-Justice-Leveson-to-appear-in-front-of-MPs-within-weeks.html
"The judge, who led an inquiry into press ethics, will be called to give evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. MPs want him to appear within weeks.
He has previously declined an invitation to appear before MPs, arguing that judges did not have to explain themselves to Parliament."
Perhaps he isn't being paid for this appointment ?
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/06/phoney-war-not-campaign
?????
If America had vaporised Berlin in 1943 Germany would have surrendered. Millions of Russian, German, British, Jewish, French and probably Japanese lives would have been saved.
As I say, if America had announced it had a bomb in 1939 and demonstrated it, Hitler would never have attacked France and Britain. If that had happened on 1941 he'd never have attacked Russia. The Jewish genocide might never have happened.
A bomb in 1939 would have saved countless lives.
The previous ten centuries in Europe show its the lack of nuclear bombs that encourage instability. They encourage idiots to think that they can win wars. Nuclear weapons have made wars essentially unwinnable.
A suicidal terrorist nuclear attack could happen one day (most likely a dirty bomb) but such is unlikely to cause worldwide nuclear holocaust and unless you think they'll steal one from us then unilateral disarmament doesn't reduce its likelihood. Most suicide bombing terrorists even then wouldn't want to see their families nuked in a nuclear holocaust either.
It’s likely that in such circumstances the rest of the United Kingdom would want some control over Scottish fiscal policy. “You need a sustainability agreement on terms of borrowing and debt levels,” Salmond counters. “So long as you stick by that . . .” His voice fades."
Genius - he wants to retain the "blame England for everything" strategy even after independence.
It certainly shouldn't be seen as a job creation scheme-if that's an argument that Unionists try to use, then I'd suggest they've lost already.
Ah, I see you've hurriedly corrected your embarrassing little factual error from earlier! Don't worry, old girl, I'm sure no-one noticed...
Unfortunately, most of the main determinants of life expectancy remain controlled by Westminster, so a devolved government can only ameliorate the problem. But, as you know, we're working on that one. Incidentally, on the subject of who made a "twit" of themselves yesterday, alternatives to the PB Tory gospel are also available -
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/yet-another-problem-that-london-rule.html
Garbage. It was a deliberate, calculated mass-killing of Japanese civilians.
Why didn't Bin Laden choose the suicide route as he was such a jihadist?
Because he and the chief architects of islamist hatred want to survive, thrive and dominate. They want impressionable youngsters to do their dirty work.
As long as the democracies keep nuclear weapons, no islamist state, or any other state, is going to do jack sh*t.
Remind me how that worked out?
Who said anything about just making it just about the tories? They were cheerleaders for Blair and without them the vote wouldn't have passed but if you think scottish labour aren't acutely discomfited and indeed hammered for Iraq when it's debated in scotland then you know very little about the politics here. The lib dems through Kennedy regularly get credit for their stance too, even though it made no difference in the end.
Iraq is self-evidently a poignant illustration of westminster stupidity over the foreign policy powers they exercise. Anyone who thinks the No campaign are going to get to decide on the subjects debated, and so only featuring the ones that they think helps their cause, is living in a world of make believe. As they will find out in the final months and weeks of the campaign.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/25/gillard-ridiculed-knitting-royal-kangaroo?CMP=twt_gu
I guess she's damned if she does & would be damned if she didn't....