politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The government should accept the SNP’s demands for FFA
Comments
-
Because it was in their manifesto?JPJ2 said:what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
0 -
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.0 -
I don't think so, it will not be the Tories that table it for certain. Lots of hot air but as usual they will crap themselves when their bluff is called.CarlottaVance said:
But the SNP aren't asking for FFA - they are asking to be given the power to 'think about it'.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , going down, worse than the Record , some deluded halfwit thinks that the SNP asking for FFA is being out-manoeuvred, what planet are these clowns on.CarlottaVance said:The Nationalists have been out-manoeuvred, and if they are not to be overwhelmed by waves of attacks, they need to deliver a convincing response. They could start with providing clarity on their position. If, as it seems, they do not believe Scotland is ready for FFA, they should have the courage to say so. Until they do, they continue to be fair game, and an easy target.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/leaders-game-s-afoot-and-snp-is-facing-a-red-card-1-3801109
Its a Tory backbencher who is asking Scotland be given it......0 -
It can hardly be a trap then, they have publicly stated they want it, let's see if the Tories vote for it.CarlottaVance said:
Because it was in their manifesto?JPJ2 said:what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
0 -
Grow up David, next it will be reds under the beds. Pathetic juvenile scaremongering rubbish, adults will not find it scary I am afraid.david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.0 -
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
0 -
Who's bluff is being called?malcolmg said:
it will not be the Tories that table it for certain.CarlottaVance said:
But the SNP aren't asking for FFA - they are asking to be given the power to 'think about it'.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , going down, worse than the Record , some deluded halfwit thinks that the SNP asking for FFA is being out-manoeuvred, what planet are these clowns on.CarlottaVance said:The Nationalists have been out-manoeuvred, and if they are not to be overwhelmed by waves of attacks, they need to deliver a convincing response. They could start with providing clarity on their position. If, as it seems, they do not believe Scotland is ready for FFA, they should have the courage to say so. Until they do, they continue to be fair game, and an easy target.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/leaders-game-s-afoot-and-snp-is-facing-a-red-card-1-3801109
Its a Tory backbencher who is asking Scotland be given it......
The amendment by veteran Conservative backbencher Sir Edward Leigh would seek quickly to hand over all powers to the Scottish Parliament on, among other things, finance, home affairs, trade and industry, energy, transport and social security; leaving matters like defence, foreign affairs and the constitution reserved to Westminster.
The SNP has put down its own amendment on FFA - set to be debated on the first day of the Bill's detailed committee stage on Monday - but its critics claim it is "a fudge" as it only hands the power to Holyrood to decide if and when it would operate full powers over tax and spending in Scotland.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/snp-challenged-by-labour-to-back-tory-bid-to-fast-track-full-fiscal-auton.1288713430 -
Clearly, there will be another independence referendum but it won't be until the pro-independence groupings have discovered or formulated credible answers to the questions which caused them so many problems last autumn.
The problem is that the realisation of the credible answers is there but it relies on a compliant England to make those answers credible. If England doesn't play ball as seemed likely last autumn but wouldn't have been the case IF the Scots had voted for independence, then answering those questions on currency, spending, defence, membership of NATO, EU etc remains problematic.0 -
More interestingly, will the SNP vote for it? Or only vote for it if its clear the government will vote it down?malcolmg said:
It can hardly be a trap then, they have publicly stated they want it, let's see if the Tories vote for it.CarlottaVance said:
Because it was in their manifesto?JPJ2 said:what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
0 -
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.0 -
Never mind the Russian bear.With that level of defence spending Zetlanders would be able to seize control of their oil fields from their central belt mainland oppressors.david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
0 -
Wednesday’s flyby of two Russian bombers close to the Icelandic coast should be taken seriously, Birgir Ármannsson, head of the Icelandic parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Morgunblaðið today.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
http://icelandreview.com/news/2015/02/20/russian-flyby-should-be-taken-seriously0 -
Yes, they'd have much preferred a Nazi invasion.....Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.0 -
It's not of my choosing, or of the Conservatives' choosing (though Sir Edward Leigh did commend the idea in parliament the other day).JPJ2 said:David_Herdson
"Which is precisely why the fight shouldn't be taken to the SNP; the SNP should be invited to take the fight to the unionists, on ground of the unionists' choosing."
Forgiving me laughing, but given you have accurately pointed out how the SNP have thoroughly and comprehensively defeated their opponents in Scotland, what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
The proposal comes from the SNP's own amendment to the current Scotland Bill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33092159
My suggestion is that the government should accept in entirety the principle of the amendment. I've not seen the precise wording I don't know if it's workable or tight enough (and hence, whether that specific amendment should be supported), but if not, I see no reason why it can't be redrafted to achieve the same end.0 -
Which is not what you said. You said: "we are paying for all London's infrastructure.", which is obviously false.malcolmg said:
We subsidise them for sure , you can whinge all you like but we have subsidised their transport and infrastructure. We were forced to pay 10% of the Olympic farce, including money taken off charity funds, yet when the Commonwealth games came up how much did Scotland get , big fat ZERO, we had to fund it ourselves.JosiasJessop said:
Not true. For instance over 60% of Crossrail's funding comes from Londoners and London businesses from a variety of routes, including a supplementary business tax.malcolmg said:
You idiot, we are paying for all London's infrastructure.tlg86 said:
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...Dair said:The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/84027c08-cdf2-4fae-a0cb-34dc8cd66983
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding
Do you work for McCains? I was wondering if you get a discount for all those chips on your shoulder.
0 -
If it is real FFA and not some made up rubbish , of course they will vote for it , they would look pretty silly otherwise. However if as it is sure to be, some half baked Tory kid on FFA where they retain all the power then no chance.CarlottaVance said:
More interestingly, will the SNP vote for it? Or only vote for it if its clear the government will vote it down?malcolmg said:
It can hardly be a trap then, they have publicly stated they want it, let's see if the Tories vote for it.CarlottaVance said:
Because it was in their manifesto?JPJ2 said:what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
0 -
LOL, Mr pompous ass trying to be smart. Go forth and multiply.JosiasJessop said:
Which is not what you said. You said: "we are paying for all London's infrastructure.", which is obviously false.malcolmg said:
We subsidise them for sure , you can whinge all you like but we have subsidised their transport and infrastructure. We were forced to pay 10% of the Olympic farce, including money taken off charity funds, yet when the Commonwealth games came up how much did Scotland get , big fat ZERO, we had to fund it ourselves.JosiasJessop said:
Not true. For instance over 60% of Crossrail's funding comes from Londoners and London businesses from a variety of routes, including a supplementary business tax.malcolmg said:
You idiot, we are paying for all London's infrastructure.tlg86 said:
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...Dair said:The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/84027c08-cdf2-4fae-a0cb-34dc8cd66983
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding
Do you work for McCains? I was wondering if you get a discount for all those chips on your shoulder.0 -
Morning Stodge, and thanks for the comments.stodge said:Morning all
David's piece (for which many thanks) is once again one with which I am broadly in disagreement. It highlights the Conservative "dilemma" that has emerged since May 7th. I sense a growing ideal to be rid of Scotland - after all, the Conservatives won their majority in England and Wales alone and the chances of Labour being able to overturn that without Scotland look to be nil (though the chances of a non or anti-Conservative grouping of parties having enough seats to deny the Conservatives a majority in England isn't so small).
For a Party which once had the word Unionist in its name, it's a remarkable shift in position but no more than it once being the most pro-European of the major parties now seriously considering withdrawal.
[snip for size]
Granting FFA is, as others have said, a significant step down the road to full independence and it may be that were it to be granted to Scotland, some in London might start asking for something similar and, as I've always opined, an independent London is much more financially viable than an independent Scotland.
To deal briefly with the SNP, if they break up after independence, it's too late. By then the game is over.
However, to turn to the Tories:
I think that in looking for inconsistencies in Conservative policies, you're missing the deeper, underlying continuous thread in conservativism which drives the policies.
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change.
That aim drives everything else. It's why the Party is sceptical of change for change's sake or when not widely demanded, but is also why it is open to supporting sometimes substantial change to head off even more revolutionary possibilities. It's why the party supports the regulated market: not as an end in itself but because time and experience has shown that it tends to deliver the best outcome for most people, and people who are content are unlikely to demand violent change. It why the party was pro-EEC but over the time has become EU-sceptic: the aim hasn't changed but the nature of the EU has. And it's why it is a unionist party, because a strong sense of national identity helps bind a people together.
However, when events undermine a policy based on that's based on that fundamental aim, then the policy has to change. In some ways, I'd liken what I'm suggesting here to Disraeli's support for the 1867 Reform Act. Sometimes you need to propose quite radical change in order to take the steam out of revolutionary change. This is one such time. Others, of a last-ditch attitude, will no doubt argue the opposite, as they always have. I happen to think that in this case, they're wrong.0 -
Jonathan said:
Tories need to remember that power comes up from the people, not down from the state. Our govt is too centralised. I think London has been a great success that needs to be repeated.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jonathan, perhaps. But devolution will only become a bigger issue, and I do not think such an approach towards the matter will necessarily endear Labour to England.
FWIW this applies across the UK. We should see more devolution in Scotland, England, Wales and NI.
0 -
In paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 (protection of Scotland Act 1998 from modification), insert new sub-paragraph—david_herdson said:
I've not seen the precise wording I don't know if it's workable or tight enough (and hence, whether that specific amendment should be supported), but if not, I see no reason why it can't be redrafted to achieve the same end.JPJ2 said:David_Herdson
"Which is precisely why the fight shouldn't be taken to the SNP; the SNP should be invited to take the fight to the unionists, on ground of the unionists' choosing."
Forgiving me laughing, but given you have accurately pointed out how the SNP have thoroughly and comprehensively defeated their opponents in Scotland, what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
“(5A) This paragraph does not apply to amendments to Schedule 5, Part II,
Head A, Section A1 insofar as they relate to:
(a) taxes and excise in Scotland,
(b) government borrowing and lending in Scotland, and
(c) control over public expenditure in Scotland.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Scottish Parliament to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to remove the reservation on taxation, borrowing and public expenditure in Scotland, with the effect that the Scottish Parliament could then legislate in these areas to provide for full fiscal autonomy in Scotland.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0003/amend/pbc031206m.15-21.html
Since this simply passes the power to Holyrood to wake up one fine morning and say 'oil price looks good, lets have FFA tomorrow' I suspect its a little one sided...0 -
*Applause*david_herdson said:
Morning Stodge, and thanks for the comments.stodge said:Morning all
David's piece (for which many thanks) is once again one with which I am broadly in disagreement. It highlights the Conservative "dilemma" that has emerged since May 7th. I sense a growing ideal to be rid of Scotland - after all, the Conservatives won their majority in England and Wales alone and the chances of Labour being able to overturn that without Scotland look to be nil (though the chances of a non or anti-Conservative grouping of parties having enough seats to deny the Conservatives a majority in England isn't so small).
For a Party which once had the word Unionist in its name, it's a remarkable shift in position but no more than it once being the most pro-European of the major parties now seriously considering withdrawal.
[snip for size]
Granting FFA is, as others have said, a significant step down the road to full independence and it may be that were it to be granted to Scotland, some in London might start asking for something similar and, as I've always opined, an independent London is much more financially viable than an independent Scotland.
To deal briefly with the SNP, if they break up after independence, it's too late. By then the game is over.
However, to turn to the Tories:
I think that in looking for inconsistencies in Conservative policies, you're missing the deeper, underlying continuous thread in conservativism which drives the policies.
Conservatism, if summed up in a few words, is the minimisation of the risk of uncontrolled social change.
That aim drives everything else. It's why the Party is sceptical of change for change's sake or when not widely demanded, but is also why it is open to supporting sometimes substantial change to head off even more revolutionary possibilities. It's why the party supports the regulated market: not as an end in itself but because time and experience has shown that it tends to deliver the best outcome for most people, and people who are content are unlikely to demand violent change. It why the party was pro-EEC but over the time has become EU-sceptic: the aim hasn't changed but the nature of the EU has. And it's why it is a unionist party, because a strong sense of national identity helps bind a people together.
However, when events undermine a policy based on that's based on that fundamental aim, then the policy has to change. In some ways, I'd liken what I'm suggesting here to Disraeli's support for the 1867 Reform Act. Sometimes you need to propose quite radical change in order to take the steam out of revolutionary change. This is one such time. Others, of a last-ditch attitude, will no doubt argue the opposite, as they always have. I happen to think that in this case, they're wrong.0 -
David_Herdson
"It's not of my choosing, or of the Conservatives' choosing (though Sir Edward Leigh did commend the idea in parliament the other day)."
The whole basis of your "Call the SNP's bluff" article is utterly fanciful. It will never happen, except as a last throw of the dice to head of a "Yes" vote in the second Referendum.
The ego of Tory unionists, taken in the majority, just could not stand losing around a third of their landmass (and one or 2 other things) :-)0 -
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.0 -
That'll be a 'no' then.CarlottaVance said:
Wednesday’s flyby of two Russian bombers close to the Icelandic coast should be taken seriously, Birgir Ármannsson, head of the Icelandic parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Morgunblaðið today.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
http://icelandreview.com/news/2015/02/20/russian-flyby-should-be-taken-seriously0 -
I am not a professional historian but; you are wrong in so many ways that you should be banished to Freeview-009. [It also educates whilst you sleep...!]OldKingCole said:Mr Dancer, "England" was a cultural unity for about 50 years up to the Normal Conquest, after which the ruling class was "foreign" for the best part of 300, and the rulers regarded "England" as part of their domains, much of those domains being the other side of the Channel. I think you've got to come to around the time of Chaucer and Tyndale before you can have an England where the rulers regarded themselves as English.
0 -
Sounds suspiciously close to this will kill Nationalism stone dead.david_herdson said:Sometimes you need to propose quite radical change in order to take the steam out of revolutionary change. This is one such time. Others, of a last-ditch attitude, will no doubt argue the opposite, as they always have. I happen to think that in this case, they're wrong.
0 -
David_Herdson
"because a strong sense of national identity helps bind a people together."
Except in Scotland apparently, as Scottish nationalism is bad, but British nationalism is good.
0 -
Heaven forbid that Scotland should ever be able to decide on something good for Scotland, much better to keep it as it is and have someone only do it if good for London.CarlottaVance said:
In paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 (protection of Scotland Act 1998 from modification), insert new sub-paragraph—david_herdson said:
I've not seen the precise wording I don't know if it's workable or tight enough (and hence, whether that specific amendment should be supported), but if not, I see no reason why it can't be redrafted to achieve the same end.JPJ2 said:David_Herdson
"Which is precisely why the fight shouldn't be taken to the SNP; the SNP should be invited to take the fight to the unionists, on ground of the unionists' choosing."
Forgiving me laughing, but given you have accurately pointed out how the SNP have thoroughly and comprehensively defeated their opponents in Scotland, what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
“(5A) This paragraph does not apply to amendments to Schedule 5, Part II,
Head A, Section A1 insofar as they relate to:
(a) taxes and excise in Scotland,
(b) government borrowing and lending in Scotland, and
(c) control over public expenditure in Scotland.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Scottish Parliament to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to remove the reservation on taxation, borrowing and public expenditure in Scotland, with the effect that the Scottish Parliament could then legislate in these areas to provide for full fiscal autonomy in Scotland.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0003/amend/pbc031206m.15-21.html
Since this simply passes the power to Holyrood to wake up one fine morning and say 'oil price looks good, lets have FFA tomorrow' I suspect its a little one sided...0 -
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
0 -
LOL, you are not too bright really, you think oil is all Scotland's got. No wonder the SNP run rings round unionists.CarlottaVance said:
In paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 (protection of Scotland Act 1998 from modification), insert new sub-paragraph—david_herdson said:
I've not seen the precise wording I don't know if it's workable or tight enough (and hence, whether that specific amendment should be supported), but if not, I see no reason why it can't be redrafted to achieve the same end.JPJ2 said:David_Herdson
"Which is precisely why the fight shouldn't be taken to the SNP; the SNP should be invited to take the fight to the unionists, on ground of the unionists' choosing."
Forgiving me laughing, but given you have accurately pointed out how the SNP have thoroughly and comprehensively defeated their opponents in Scotland, what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
“(5A) This paragraph does not apply to amendments to Schedule 5, Part II,
Head A, Section A1 insofar as they relate to:
(a) taxes and excise in Scotland,
(b) government borrowing and lending in Scotland, and
(c) control over public expenditure in Scotland.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Scottish Parliament to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to remove the reservation on taxation, borrowing and public expenditure in Scotland, with the effect that the Scottish Parliament could then legislate in these areas to provide for full fiscal autonomy in Scotland.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0003/amend/pbc031206m.15-21.html
Since this simply passes the power to Holyrood to wake up one fine morning and say 'oil price looks good, lets have FFA tomorrow' I suspect its a little one sided...0 -
Poor old Yanks, always getting it in the neck.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Thank goodness they weren't in fact our senior partners in 1940..0 -
Next you will be telling us we won the wardavid_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.0 -
Nowadays, Iceland would whup our butts despite spending a fraction of what we waste on armchair admirals and generals.TheWhiteRabbit said:
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.0 -
No she does not: Unless you factor in the bennies your nation get (for being a desolate, distant land). If you exempt the following defence commitments: Cyprus, Gib, EU, NATO; Atlantic-South, Atlantic-North, ISIS, Nigeria, &c; you get more than your share of bennies via defence. [Not out and watch Selex go 'Sarf.]Dair said:And that's the FFA trap.
Currently there is no choice. Scotland remits £3.5bn for Defense regardless of the opinion of Scotland.
....
If you had a pair your would have a voice. You do not: Stop squeaking (from a lack of b0ll0x)....
:http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/members/cuamhain5.83395/:0 -
Yes if only they had butted out and not ruined our partyTheuniondivvie said:
Poor old Yanks, always getting it in the neck.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Thank goodness they weren't in fact our senior partners in 1940..0 -
Lol, commitments, we could not beat an egg, ISIS are running amok and in every area you mention we are insignificant , inefficient and failures. Apart from the holiday resort locations where beer and sunburn are the enemy.FluffyThoughts said:
No she does not: Unless you factor in the bennies your nation get (for being a desolate, distant land). If you exempt the following defence commitments: Cyprus, Gib, EU, NATO; Atlantic-South, Atlantic-North, ISIS, Nigeria, &c; you get more than your share of bennies via defence. [Not out and watch Selex go 'Sarf.]Dair said:And that's the FFA trap.
Currently there is no choice. Scotland remits £3.5bn for Defense regardless of the opinion of Scotland.
....
If you had a pair your would have a voice. You do not: Stop squeaking (from a lack of b0ll0x)....
:http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/members/cuamhain5.83395/:0 -
Maybe. I don't think there's much to lose now though from a unionist perspective.Theuniondivvie said:
Sounds suspiciously close to this will kill Nationalism stone dead.david_herdson said:Sometimes you need to propose quite radical change in order to take the steam out of revolutionary change. This is one such time. Others, of a last-ditch attitude, will no doubt argue the opposite, as they always have. I happen to think that in this case, they're wrong.
The reason Robertson's original assertion was wrong actually had very little to do with nationalism directly. It was that the alternative Holyrood government to Labour became the SNP. This was not particularly because of nationalism (even excluding Labour, until recently nationalists comprised a minority of the rest), but because they made the breakthrough on domestic matters that the Lib Dems and Tories couldn't. Once in office, a referendum was always likely and it was that that's lit the blue touchpaper. Had one of the other parties become an effective alternative government, that wouldn't have happened. But that's all water under the bridge. We are where we are and we have to work with a reality where the SNP will be one of the two main Scottish parties for the foreseeable future.0 -
You're talking to people who are still in denial at the utter humiliation of the "mighty" British Army in Helmand Province, one small part of a tiny, impoverished nation where the local population armed with often improvised and massively outdated weaponry were an easy match for the occupying forces.malcolmg said:
Lol, commitments, we could not beat an egg, ISIS are running amok and in every area you mention we are insignificant , inefficient and failures. Apart from the holiday resort locations where beer and sunburn are the enemy.FluffyThoughts said:
No she does not: Unless you factor in the bennies your nation get (for being a desolate, distant land). If you exempt the following defence commitments: Cyprus, Gib, EU, NATO; Atlantic-South, Atlantic-North, ISIS, Nigeria, &c; you get more than your share of bennies via defence. [Not out and watch Selex go 'Sarf.]Dair said:And that's the FFA trap.
Currently there is no choice. Scotland remits £3.5bn for Defense regardless of the opinion of Scotland.
....
If you had a pair your would have a voice. You do not: Stop squeaking (from a lack of b0ll0x)....
:http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/members/cuamhain5.83395/:0 -
We also invaded Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Both were handed to the local Septics (just to show remote and redundant colonies were not the fight between 1939/45). We even gave the Canucks' New-Foundland soon after: Do keep up young child....Dair said:The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.
Another shameful episode in British history.
:clueless-and-dumb:0 -
Mr. Dair, and Mr. G, you do seem to delight in knocking the UK and its armed forces. Not sure that's necessarily consistent with being 'best pals' should Scotland become independent.0
-
Or sharing embassiesMorris_Dancer said:
Mr. Dair, and Mr. G, you do seem to delight in knocking the UK and its armed forces. Not sure that's necessarily consistent with being 'best pals' should Scotland become independent.
0 -
MD, you have to respond to jingoistic bollox. Some sad Tories living on past glories is very sad indeed, the UK has been kidding itself since 1918, we got lucky in 1940's with Hitler going into Russia and Japan bombing the Yanks.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dair, and Mr. G, you do seem to delight in knocking the UK and its armed forces. Not sure that's necessarily consistent with being 'best pals' should Scotland become independent.
We are a middling past its best power and all recent events have shown we cannot even beat a few tribesmen. Time to smell the coffee and start acting our age and not our shoe size.
Most other countries survive very well without having to hold onto the US's coat tails and try to pretend they are tough.0 -
Would that be the embassies that we bought and paid for and continue to fund the lavish lifestyles of chinless wonders playing at being somebodies.Plato said:Or sharing embassies
Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dair, and Mr. G, you do seem to delight in knocking the UK and its armed forces. Not sure that's necessarily consistent with being 'best pals' should Scotland become independent.
0 -
With backs to the wall in 1940 the British government had to occupy Iceland to secure the North Atlantic as far as possible, as well as a war against the Vichy French to secure a number of other parts of the world and prevent the French Navy falling into Hitlers hands.TheWhiteRabbit said:
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
I am very glad that Scotland stood with the rest of Britain, Dominions and Empire against Nazism. I am a little surprised that malcolmg and dair consider this an embarrassing part of British History.0 -
For the Troupe-of-Jockanese-Clowns: 2015 SDSR: It will be painful!
Wait-and-learn: The promises of the past would have been expended by politicians. How foolish can some folk be...? *
Eight 2087 frigates from The Clyde and a similar number of Venators (EM-CAMM) for local duties (Portsmouth or somewhere close). France can only afford 6 similiar frigates, two FREDA and two Horizons: England may play the devil and request Astute-8 (HMS Achilles).
Defence will be defining soon....
* Hence Sturgeon's acceptance that Scotland needs the Faslane upgrade. [A.K.A.: Cammie governs Engurland the UK (on behalf of HMQ).]
[Src.:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon/11668647/Nicola-Sturgeon-David-Cameron-has-right-to-govern-Scotland.html ]0 -
They already regard the UK as a foreign country. In the same way that IS-sympathisers do.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dair, and Mr. G, you do seem to delight in knocking the UK and its armed forces. Not sure that's necessarily consistent with being 'best pals' should Scotland become independent.
0 -
Fox, there were many many poor decisions made in WWII , it was not all Vera Lynn and White Cliffs of Dover. Started as usual by bungling politicians in Westminster and bungled by useless Generals throughout , we were just lucky that the Yanks eventually came in, and even then it was the Russians that broke the Germans.foxinsoxuk said:
With backs to the wall in 1940 the British government had to occupy Iceland to secure the North Atlantic as far as possible, as well as a war against the Vichy French to secure a number of other parts of the world and prevent the French Navy falling into Hitlers hands.TheWhiteRabbit said:
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
I am very glad that Scotland stood with the rest of Britain, Dominions and Empire against Nazism. I am a little surprised that malcolmg and dair consider this an embarrassing part of British History.0 -
We also faced the IRA's plotting with Hitler
Collaboration between the IRA and Abwehr during World War II ranged in intensity during the period 1937–1943 and ended permanently around 1944. The Irish Republican Army (IRA), a paramilitary group seeking to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and unify Ireland, shared intelligence with the Abwehr, the military intelligence service of Nazi Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army_%E2%80%93_Abwehr_collaboration_in_World_War_IISix million Jews, thousands of political dissidents, homosexuals, Roma people, Soviet prisoners of war and the disabled were put to death by the fascist hate machine that overran and terrified Europe from 1939 to 45. Sean Russell was one of many nationalist fanatics who looked to Hitler for political and military support in the IRA's quest to reunify Ireland at the point of the bayonets of the Gestapo. At the Wannsee conference, the infamous Nazi gathering that planned the "Final Solution", the Jewish community in Ireland was marked down for annihilation. Having freed Ireland from British rule, the Nazis expected their collaborators to help them round up Dublin's Jews and ship them off to Auschwitz. That was the price Sean Russell was prepared to pay to end partition.[11]
%93_Abwehr_collaboration_in_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Russellfoxinsoxuk said:
snip.TheWhiteRabbit said:
snipdavid_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
snipTheuniondivvie said:
snipdavid_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.0 -
In this circus we all need clowns (if only to check our sanity).foxinsoxuk said:...
I am very glad that Scotland stood with the rest of Britain, Dominions and Empire against Nazism. I am a little surprised that malcolmg and dair consider this an embarrassing part of British History.
[Src.:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mad+clown ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N9Fzv7bYCM
:back-and-sun-burnt:
0 -
Hard to understand the gibberish, however the money being wasted on rust buckets could fund many more jobs and benefits to the country if spent on real stuff. Still we get the bonus of all the rusting nuclear hulks being parked here rather than on the Thames.FluffyThoughts said:For the Troupe-of-Jockanese-Clowns: 2015 SDSR: It will be painful!
Wait-and-learn: The promises of the past would have been expended by politicians. How foolish can some folk be...? *
Eight 2087 frigates from The Clyde and a similar number of Venators (EM-CAMM) for local duties (Portsmouth or somewhere close). France can only afford 6 similiar frigates, two FREDA and two Horizons: England may play the devil and request Astute-8 (HMS Achilles).
Defence will be defining soon....
* Hence Sturgeon's acceptance that Scotland needs the Faslane upgrade. [A.K.A.: Cammie governs Engurland the UK (on behalf of HMQ).]
[Src.:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon/11668647/Nicola-Sturgeon-David-Cameron-has-right-to-govern-Scotland.html ]0 -
Dear Dear how low can Tories stoop. I gave you the benefit of the doubt previously but you show you are just your average lowlife sneering nasty Tory.david_herdson said:
They already regard the UK as a foreign country. In the same way that IS-sympathisers do.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dair, and Mr. G, you do seem to delight in knocking the UK and its armed forces. Not sure that's necessarily consistent with being 'best pals' should Scotland become independent.
0 -
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?malcolmg said:
Fox, there were many many poor decisions made in WWII , it was not all Vera Lynn and White Cliffs of Dover. Started as usual by bungling politicians in Westminster and bungled by useless Generals throughout , we were just lucky that the Yanks eventually came in, and even then it was the Russians that broke the Germans.foxinsoxuk said:
British History.TheWhiteRabbit said:
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.0 -
David_Herdson
"They already regard the UK as a foreign country. In the same way that IS-sympathisers do."
Oh dear, if an SNP blogger were to tweet something equivalent it would make the papers as an abusive scandal.
Don't worry, the unionist media will have your back, you are quite safe :-)0 -
I'd like to commend Mr Herdson for a magnificent bit of fly fishing. Never have the trout risen more enthusiastically.0
-
I've included Iceland in my new expanded "Sunil's Commonwealth"foxinsoxuk said:
With backs to the wall in 1940 the British government had to occupy Iceland to secure the North Atlantic as far as possible, as well as a war against the Vichy French to secure a number of other parts of the world and prevent the French Navy falling into Hitlers hands.TheWhiteRabbit said:
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
I am very glad that Scotland stood with the rest of Britain, Dominions and Empire against Nazism. I am a little surprised that malcolmg and dair consider this an embarrassing part of British History. 0 -
. Having caught up with the thread, I cant be bothered with it, life is too short so I am off. I suggest others ignore MalcolmG too . Its all attention seeking spoilt brattish behaviour.malcolmg said:
Dear Dear how low can Tories stoop. I gave you the benefit of the doubt previously but you show you are just your average lowlife sneering nasty Tory.david_herdson said:
They already regard the UK as a foreign country. In the same way that IS-sympathisers do.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dair, and Mr. G, you do seem to delight in knocking the UK and its armed forces. Not sure that's necessarily consistent with being 'best pals' should Scotland become independent.
0 -
No, it was in fact the Gaullists wot took over St Pierre et Miquelon in Dec 1941FluffyThoughts said:
We also invaded Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Both were handed to the local Septics (just to show remote and redundant colonies were not the fight between 1939/45). We even gave the Canucks' New-Foundland soon after: Do keep up young child....Dair said:The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.
Another shameful episode in British history.
:clueless-and-dumb:0 -
We've left it at least 100 years too late but that's no reason not to get it right for once.kle4 said:
Hear Hear. It's just so piecemeal and inconsistent. I know the UK is good at fudging things and kicking the can down the road, but with all this localised devolution stuff on top of the national settlements, it kind of feels like we've taken fudges as far as we can and we need a proper sit down to agree a comprehensive picture of what we want the whole country to look like already.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jonathan, it amuses and irritates me in equal measure that Scotland is always considered a single entity but some want to carve England into foolish fiefdoms, entrenching and deepening resentment by institutionalising political division via an idiotic form of devolution.
Sadly, I think we've left it a bit too late, given Scotland's already on the way out unless the SNP go all PQ on us, which I should imagine they are aware of the danger of and being careful about.0 -
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants on here to pontificate and talk jingoistic bollox when in reality they would have made sure they would be exempt if they actually had to do anything similar.foxinsoxuk said:
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?malcolmg said:
Fox, there were many many poor decisions made in WWII , it was not all Vera Lynn and White Cliffs of Dover. Started as usual by bungling politicians in Westminster and bungled by useless Generals throughout , we were just lucky that the Yanks eventually came in, and even then it was the Russians that broke the Germans.foxinsoxuk said:
British History.TheWhiteRabbit said:
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
It was anything but a proud moment, bungling useless Westminster politicians allowed it to happen instead of nipping it in the bud much earlier.
Finally as ever the poor ordinary public had to go and get shot whilst those same useless halfwits pontificated over their champagne etc and ordered millions killed and all down to their uselessness.
There is little to be proud of for anybody anywhere given the slaughter that took place.0 -
I wouldn't disagree with that, but then I think what has been and is happening in Scotland has much less to do with Nationalism than many people think.david_herdson said:
Maybe. I don't think there's much to lose now though from a unionist perspective.Theuniondivvie said:
Sounds suspiciously close to this will kill Nationalism stone dead.david_herdson said:Sometimes you need to propose quite radical change in order to take the steam out of revolutionary change. This is one such time. Others, of a last-ditch attitude, will no doubt argue the opposite, as they always have. I happen to think that in this case, they're wrong.
The reason Robertson's original assertion was wrong actually had very little to do with nationalism directly. It was that the alternative Holyrood government to Labour became the SNP. This was not particularly because of nationalism (even excluding Labour, until recently nationalists comprised a minority of the rest), but because they made the breakthrough on domestic matters that the Lib Dems and Tories couldn't.
Also contained in your words is the reason why Devolution has been failing from the beginning. Labour didn't really want anything to happen with it apart from them being in charge, and if devo isn't a process it's nothing. The rise of the SNP has actually paralysed the devolution process because every Unionist party has either prevaricated on or obstructed further powers out of fear it will give the Nats more clout.
0 -
"The Germans started it - they invaded Poland!"malcolmg said:
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants on here to pontificate and talk jingoistic bollox when in reality they would have made sure they would be exempt if they actually had to do anything similar.foxinsoxuk said:
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?malcolmg said:
Fox, there were many many poor decisions made in WWII , it was not all Vera Lynn and White Cliffs of Dover. Started as usual by bungling politicians in Westminster and bungled by useless Generals throughout , we were just lucky that the Yanks eventually came in, and even then it was the Russians that broke the Germans.foxinsoxuk said:
British History.TheWhiteRabbit said:
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
It was anything but a proud moment, bungling useless Westminster politicians allowed it to happen instead of nipping it in the bud much earlier.
Finally as ever the poor ordinary public had to go and get shot whilst those same useless halfwits pontificated over their champagne etc and ordered millions killed and all down to their uselessness.
There is little to be proud of for anybody anywhere given the slaughter that took place.0 -
Sad Tory tries to pretend Nasty Tory was just jesting with his pathetic comments. Hard luck we know Tories of old , he would have polished his boots before posting Jack.matt said:I'd like to commend Mr Herdson for a magnificent bit of fly fishing. Never have the trout risen more enthusiastically.
0 -
The Faeroes too...Sunil_Prasannan said:
I've included Iceland in my new expanded "Sunil's Commonwealth"foxinsoxuk said:
With backs to the wall in 1940 the British government had to occupy Iceland to secure the North Atlantic as far as possible, as well as a war against the Vichy French to secure a number of other parts of the world and prevent the French Navy falling into Hitlers hands.TheWhiteRabbit said:
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
I am very glad that Scotland stood with the rest of Britain, Dominions and Empire against Nazism. I am a little surprised that malcolmg and dair consider this an embarrassing part of British History.0 -
For the eejits amongst us:
Type-26 will be the last warship on the Clyde. SELEX are Italian-owned [IIRC] but do produce some niftie AESA radars.
Astute-8 should be ordered. As France can only afford 6 FREMM (and are planning 5 sub-FREMM, 2 FREDA and have 2 - ageing - Horizon AAW) then the Royal Navy with a new fleet of 8 2087, 8 GP frigates and six - slightly less aged - Type-45 AAW destroyers) should suffice. [Then we add in the C3/MHPC stuff.]
Add in the cost of the QE-class strike-carriers (for Scotland's finance benefit) and a number of LHD(A) replacements to follow [2025-onwards] then I have a good guess what and where funds will be going. Maybe HMS-Achilles until we retire the Vanguard-class and replace them with the Bellicose-class 'Successor'* SSBN...?
* Naming Commision (RN):
Bellicose
Belligerant
Bellephrone
Bulldog
[Bloodhoud as an optional fifth member of said class.] 0 -
Edinburgh's trams finally up and running I see.malcolmg said:
We subsidise them for sure , you can whinge all you like but we have subsidised their transport and infrastructure. We were forced to pay 10% of the Olympic farce, including money taken off charity funds, yet when the Commonwealth games came up how much did Scotland get , big fat ZERO, we had to fund it ourselves.JosiasJessop said:
Not true. For instance over 60% of Crossrail's funding comes from Londoners and London businesses from a variety of routes, including a supplementary business tax.malcolmg said:
You idiot, we are paying for all London's infrastructure.tlg86 said:
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...Dair said:The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/84027c08-cdf2-4fae-a0cb-34dc8cd66983
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding
South London (Wimbledon/Croydon/Addington) have had them up and running since 2000.0 -
Ha Ha Ha, great input , was person reading it to you going slow so you could take some of it in. What a turnip, what part of "ignore" were you doing.SquareRoot said:
. Having caught up with the thread, I cant be bothered with it, life is too short so I am off. I suggest others ignore MalcolmG too . Its all attention seeking spoilt brattish behaviour.malcolmg said:
Dear Dear how low can Tories stoop. I gave you the benefit of the doubt previously but you show you are just your average lowlife sneering nasty Tory.david_herdson said:
They already regard the UK as a foreign country. In the same way that IS-sympathisers do.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dair, and Mr. G, you do seem to delight in knocking the UK and its armed forces. Not sure that's necessarily consistent with being 'best pals' should Scotland become independent.
0 -
Those would be the Embassies of the United Kingdom that you vote to leave.malcolmg said:
Would that be the embassies that we bought and paid for and continue to fund the lavish lifestyles of chinless wonders playing at being somebodies.Plato said:Or sharing embassies
Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dair, and Mr. G, you do seem to delight in knocking the UK and its armed forces. Not sure that's necessarily consistent with being 'best pals' should Scotland become independent.
Not our fault if you don't want to stay.....
Did we give India a share of our Embassies when she became independent?0 -
Yes them too!foxinsoxuk said:
The Faeroes too...Sunil_Prasannan said:
I've included Iceland in my new expanded "Sunil's Commonwealth"foxinsoxuk said:
With backs to the wall in 1940 the British government had to occupy Iceland to secure the North Atlantic as far as possible, as well as a war against the Vichy French to secure a number of other parts of the world and prevent the French Navy falling into Hitlers hands.TheWhiteRabbit said:
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
I am very glad that Scotland stood with the rest of Britain, Dominions and Empire against Nazism. I am a little surprised that malcolmg and dair consider this an embarrassing part of British History.0 -
The Scots won't worry about finances, independence is in their hearts now.
Incidentally, I was watching a documentary this week on Carrickfergus castle and laughed out loud at one point. After being besieged for a year by Edward Bruce and the Scots, the Anglo-Normans were running out of rats to eat.
A deputation of thirty Scots were allowed inside to talk surrender terms. The occupants barricaded the gate behind them and ate them.
Well, I thought it was funny anyway.0 -
Well seen that you did not take history at school, a 5 year old could give a better answer than that.Sunil_Prasannan said:
"The Germans started it - they invaded Poland!"malcolmg said:
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants on here to pontificate and talk jingoistic bollox when in reality they would have made sure they would be exempt if they actually had to do anything similar.foxinsoxuk said:
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?malcolmg said:foxinsoxuk said:
British History.TheWhiteRabbit said:
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:Dair said:Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
It was anything but a proud moment, bungling useless Westminster politicians allowed it to happen instead of nipping it in the bud much earlier.
Finally as ever the poor ordinary public had to go and get shot whilst those same useless halfwits pontificated over their champagne etc and ordered millions killed and all down to their uselessness.
There is little to be proud of for anybody anywhere given the slaughter that took place.0 -
Nice bit of Pegasus shared history there.
The Lycian seer Polyeidos told Bellerophon that he would have need of Pegasus. To obtain the services of the untamed winged horse, Polyeidos told Bellerophon to sleep in the temple of Athena. While Bellerophon slept, he dreamed that Athena set a golden bridle beside him, saying "Sleepest thou, prince of the house of Aiolos? Come, take this charm for the steed and show it to the Tamer thy father as thou makest sacrifice to him of a white bull."[12] It was there when he awoke. Bellerophon had to approach Pegasus while it drank from a well; Polyeidos told him which well—the never-failing Pirene on the citadel of Corinth, the city of Bellerophon's birth. Other accounts say that Athena brought Pegasus already tamed and bridled, or that Poseidon the horse-tamer, secretly the father of Bellerophon, brought Pegasus, as Pausanias understood.[13] Bellerophon mounted his steed and flew off to where the Chimera was said to dwell.
FluffyThoughts said:For the eejits
Bellicose
Belligerant
Bellephrone
Bulldog
[Bloodhoud as an optional fifth member of said class.]0 -
So how could independence only take 18 months but FFA 'several years'?malcolmg said:
LOL, you are not too bright really, you think oil is all Scotland's got. No wonder the SNP run rings round unionists.CarlottaVance said:
In paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 (protection of Scotland Act 1998 from modification), insert new sub-paragraph—david_herdson said:
I've not seen the precise wording I don't know if it's workable or tight enough (and hence, whether that specific amendment should be supported), but if not, I see no reason why it can't be redrafted to achieve the same end.JPJ2 said:David_Herdson
"Which is precisely why the fight shouldn't be taken to the SNP; the SNP should be invited to take the fight to the unionists, on ground of the unionists' choosing."
Forgiving me laughing, but given you have accurately pointed out how the SNP have thoroughly and comprehensively defeated their opponents in Scotland, what makes you think that the SNP will fall into a trap (if it even is that) of your making?
“(5A) This paragraph does not apply to amendments to Schedule 5, Part II,
Head A, Section A1 insofar as they relate to:
(a) taxes and excise in Scotland,
(b) government borrowing and lending in Scotland, and
(c) control over public expenditure in Scotland.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Scottish Parliament to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to remove the reservation on taxation, borrowing and public expenditure in Scotland, with the effect that the Scottish Parliament could then legislate in these areas to provide for full fiscal autonomy in Scotland.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0003/amend/pbc031206m.15-21.html
Since this simply passes the power to Holyrood to wake up one fine morning and say 'oil price looks good, lets have FFA tomorrow' I suspect its a little one sided...
Its embarrassing - but 10/10 for brass neck!0 -
LOL Makes Stalingrad look tame.CD13 said:
The Scots won't worry about finances, independence is in their hearts now.
Incidentally, I was watching a documentary this week on Carrickfergus castle and laughed out loud at one point. After being besieged for a year by Edward Bruce and the Scots, the Anglo-Normans were running out of rats to eat.
A deputation of thirty Scots were allowed inside to talk surrender terms. The occupants barricaded the gate behind them and ate them.
Well, I thought it was funny anyway.0 -
You been sleeping for the past few years then. I know you have the mental age of your shoe size, so honest question are you trying to be funny or are you trying to make some point regarding us funding those trams before having to also pay 100% of our own ones.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Edinburgh's trams finally up and running I see.malcolmg said:
We subsidise them for sure , you can whinge all you like but we have subsidised their transport and infrastructure. We were forced to pay 10% of the Olympic farce, including money taken off charity funds, yet when the Commonwealth games came up how much did Scotland get , big fat ZERO, we had to fund it ourselves.JosiasJessop said:
Not true. For instance over 60% of Crossrail's funding comes from Londoners and London businesses from a variety of routes, including a supplementary business tax.malcolmg said:
You idiot, we are paying for all London's infrastructure.tlg86 said:
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...Dair said:The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/84027c08-cdf2-4fae-a0cb-34dc8cd66983
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding
South London (Wimbledon/Croydon/Addington) have had them up and running since 2000.0 -
The SNP are clever. That discomfits Tories used to dim-witted opposition from the Labour and Lib Dem leaderships in 2010-15.0
-
My enemy's enemy is my friend. For Dair, anything must be better than British rule.CarlottaVance said:
Yes, they'd have much preferred a Nazi invasion.....Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.0 -
Just to make sure I understand.malcolmg said:
You been sleeping for the past few years then. I know you have the mental age of your shoe size, so honest question are you trying to be funny or are you trying to make some point regarding us funding those trams before having to also pay 100% of our own ones.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Edinburgh's trams finally up and running I see.malcolmg said:
We subsidise them for sure , you can whinge all you like but we have subsidised their transport and infrastructure. We were forced to pay 10% of the Olympic farce, including money taken off charity funds, yet when the Commonwealth games came up how much did Scotland get , big fat ZERO, we had to fund it ourselves.JosiasJessop said:
Not true. For instance over 60% of Crossrail's funding comes from Londoners and London businesses from a variety of routes, including a supplementary business tax.malcolmg said:
You idiot, we are paying for all London's infrastructure.tlg86 said:
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...Dair said:The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/84027c08-cdf2-4fae-a0cb-34dc8cd66983
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding
South London (Wimbledon/Croydon/Addington) have had them up and running since 2000.
The Scots pay for the Croydon Trams, completed on budget and on time, more or less.
The Scots pay for the Edinburgh trams, completed horribly late and very over budget.
The English are stupid
Is that how it goes?0 -
It is important to remember that in WW2, the SNP supported their friends the Nazis; little has changed in their hatred of the English, and their tactics.Sean_F said:
My enemy's enemy is my friend. For Dair, anything must be better than British rule.CarlottaVance said:
Yes, they'd have much preferred a Nazi invasion.....Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
0 -
Living in an island that actually had a Nazi invasion, I fear Dair is mistaken.....Sean_F said:
My enemy's enemy is my friend. For Dair, anything must be better than British rule.CarlottaVance said:
Yes, they'd have much preferred a Nazi invasion.....Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
0 -
As always, hindsight is a brilliant judge.malcolmg said:
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants on here to pontificate and talk jingoistic bollox when in reality they would have made sure they would be exempt if they actually had to do anything similar.foxinsoxuk said:
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?malcolmg said:
Fox, there were many many poor decisions made in WWII , it was not all Vera Lynn and White Cliffs of Dover. Started as usual by bungling politicians in Westminster and bungled by useless Generals throughout , we were just lucky that the Yanks eventually came in, and even then it was the Russians that broke the Germans.foxinsoxuk said:
British History.TheWhiteRabbit said:
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who lastTheuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
It was anything but a proud moment, bungling useless Westminster politicians allowed it to happen instead of nipping it in the bud much earlier.
Finally as ever the poor ordinary public had to go and get shot whilst those same useless halfwits pontificated over their champagne etc and ordered millions killed and all down to their uselessness.
There is little to be proud of for anybody anywhere given the slaughter that took place.
I think the defeat of Nazism was a good thing, and I think we should be pleased this country played its part.
0 -
*SLAM DUNK*CarlottaVance said:
Living in an island that actually had a Nazi invasion, I fear Dair is mistaken.....Sean_F said:
My enemy's enemy is my friend. For Dair, anything must be better than British rule.CarlottaVance said:
Yes, they'd have much preferred a Nazi invasion.....Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.0 -
malcolmg said:
Well seen that you did not take history at school, a 5 year old could give a better answer than that.
The Congress-of-Vienna (1815)?
Where is the cause of the Nazis defined...?
The Greek Revolution (1827)?
The Independence of Belgium/Treaty-of-London (1839)?
Queen Victoria's reluctance to stop the take-over of Hannover (1866)?
Scotland's bestest-buddy failing during the Franco-Prussian War (1869-1870)?
The Treaty-of-Berlin (1878)?
The Entente Cordiale (1904)?
HMS Dreadnought (1906)?
I give up: History is a set of butterfly-events. Correlation <> Causation: If I fart in my bath-water it does not guarentee a SNAT will grow a braincell....
:eejits:0 -
Prof Tomkins:
The FFA amendment to the Scotland Bill is plainly not designed to be taken seriously. This isn’t full fiscal autonomy, but full fiscal irresponsibility. You could even call it full fiscal stupidity, or #FFS. It’s also profoundly undemocratic. Two million Scots voted only nine months ago to preserve our Union and the pooling and sharing of risk and resource upon which it is founded. Yet amendment 89 seeks to undo all this in a single clause – with not so much as the whiff of consulting the public. Isn’t it time for the Scottish Government to stop playing games with devolution, to stop their stunts, and to show some respect to what, after all, is the settled will of the Scottish people?
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/full-fiscal-detriment/0 -
Shocked and horrified by Dair siding against us fighting the Nazi's and peacefully acting accordingly in Iceland etc then during the most existential crisis the world has ever faced. Its rare to have Godwin invoked by someone online actually siding with the Nazi's - I'm sure other SNP supporters would not side with Dair here.0
-
Nasty Tory, who said anything about the English, I said we would have contributed to those tram systems mentioned in England and also stated the truth that conversely the Scottish trams were purely funded by Scotland. I did not comment on how well the projects were run, what unknown difficulties they encountered due to local infrastructure , age of places etc.CarlottaVance said:
Just to make sure I understand.malcolmg said:
You been sleeping for the past few years then. I know you have the mental age of your shoe size, so honest question are you trying to be funny or are you trying to make some point regarding us funding those trams before having to also pay 100% of our own ones.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Edinburgh's trams finally up and running I see.malcolmg said:JosiasJessop said:malcolmg said:
You idiot, we are paying for all London's infrastructure.tlg86 said:
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...Dair said:The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/84027c08-cdf2-4fae-a0cb-34dc8cd66983
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding
South London (Wimbledon/Croydon/Addington) have had them up and running since 2000.
The Scots pay for the Croydon Trams, completed on budget and on time, more or less.
The Scots pay for the Edinburgh trams, completed horribly late and very over budget.
The English are stupid
Is that how it goes?
You seem to have some fixation that I do not like the English , or should I say it suits your puerile Tory position to promote that.
Poor attempt at slander I am afraid.0 -
CarlottaVance said:malcolmg said:
Cuckoo,Fishing said:malcolmg said:
Deluded halfwitFishing said:OldKingCole said:Hmmmm ........ the English Parliament being based away from the bases of the main newspapers and other media (although theBeeb's doing OK with it's News & Current Affairs based in Salford). I'm rather surpsed how well Germany copes with the Berlin/Frankfurt split. Or is that a source of strength: politicians and finance people aren't always running across each other?
malcolmg said:
You really are thickmalcolmg said:
Their single and stated goal is the abolition of the current devolution settlement.foxinsoxuk said:
Are you really claiming the SNP don't want separation?
No comment.malcolmg said:
....too thickJPJ2 said:Scott_P
"Are you really claiming the SNP don't want separation? "
Of course I am claiming they don't want "separation", just as the USA don't celebrate "Separation Day" on 4th July.
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.
Another shameful episode in British history.
You do understand why that happened don't you?
No probably you really don't given your comment. I despair at the lack of awareness sometimes but not surprised.
0 -
More like bollox, a feted Tory bloated on public largesse and living in luxury in a tax haven , tries to portray she lived the invasion. What a hoot, worst she will have encountered is getting into a large German automobile. Cue violins.Plato said:*SLAM DUNK*
CarlottaVance said:
Living in an island that actually had a Nazi invasion, I fear Dair is mistaken.....Sean_F said:
My enemy's enemy is my friend. For Dair, anything must be better than British rule.CarlottaVance said:
Yes, they'd have much preferred a Nazi invasion.....Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.0 -
Chasticed:Plato said:FluffyThoughts said:For the eejits
Bellicose
Belligerant
Bellephrone
Bulldog
[Bloodhoud as an optional fifth member of said class.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Bellerophon_(1786)
:bloody-french:
P.S. Last one should be "Bloundhound". Maybe a sixth vessel (as we have a pool of Trident-D5): "BePendant")! 0 -
the loonies are outfranklyn said:
It is important to remember that in WW2, the SNP supported their friends the Nazis; little has changed in their hatred of the English, and their tactics.Sean_F said:
My enemy's enemy is my friend. For Dair, anything must be better than British rule.CarlottaVance said:
Yes, they'd have much preferred a Nazi invasion.....Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.-1 -
Well quite. I do like #FFS. It needs an emoticon.CarlottaVance said:
Prof Tomkins:
The FFA amendment to the Scotland Bill is plainly not designed to be taken seriously. This isn’t full fiscal autonomy, but full fiscal irresponsibility. You could even call it full fiscal stupidity, or #FFS. It’s also profoundly undemocratic. Two million Scots voted only nine months ago to preserve our Union and the pooling and sharing of risk and resource upon which it is founded. Yet amendment 89 seeks to undo all this in a single clause – with not so much as the whiff of consulting the public. Isn’t it time for the Scottish Government to stop playing games with devolution, to stop their stunts, and to show some respect to what, after all, is the settled will of the Scottish people?
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/full-fiscal-detriment/0 -
I am not sure how you arrived at him siding with the Nazi's, he merely commented on whether us invading Iceland was something to be proud of.Philip_Thompson said:Shocked and horrified by Dair siding against us fighting the Nazi's and peacefully acting accordingly in Iceland etc then during the most existential crisis the world has ever faced. Its rare to have Godwin invoked by someone online actually siding with the Nazi's - I'm sure other SNP supporters would not side with Dair here.
More jingoistic licence from the frothers on here.0 -
Is Tomkins still fighting for UK to be a republic or is he so far up the Tories rear end for cash now that he has had to change his views. The man is so much of a fraud that he could be a Lib Dem.CarlottaVance said:Prof Tomkins:
The FFA amendment to the Scotland Bill is plainly not designed to be taken seriously. This isn’t full fiscal autonomy, but full fiscal irresponsibility. You could even call it full fiscal stupidity, or #FFS. It’s also profoundly undemocratic. Two million Scots voted only nine months ago to preserve our Union and the pooling and sharing of risk and resource upon which it is founded. Yet amendment 89 seeks to undo all this in a single clause – with not so much as the whiff of consulting the public. Isn’t it time for the Scottish Government to stop playing games with devolution, to stop their stunts, and to show some respect to what, after all, is the settled will of the Scottish people?
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/full-fiscal-detriment/0 -
malcolmg said:
Dear Dear how low can Tories stoop. I gave you the benefit of the doubt previously but you show you are just your average lowlife sneering nasty Tory.david_herdson said:
They already regard the UK as a foreign country. In the same way that IS-sympathisers do.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dair, and Mr. G, you do seem to delight in knocking the UK and its armed forces. Not sure that's necessarily consistent with being 'best pals' should Scotland become independent.
Are you capable of posting anything? Anything at all without abusing another poster?
Mr Herdson is one of the most respected posters on PB. It's not for me to adjudicate on another poster or fight his fights but enough is enough. I am wondering when the Mods are going to stop this daily tirade of abuse from you.
You are nothing but a small minded nasty little Scot and so unrepresentative of those Scots that I have worked with over many years in Scotland who have more respect in their little finger than you have had in your entire life.
Just give it a rest why don't you? Your a child, an embarrassment both to yourself and to Scotland
Just feck off !
0 -
You, of all posters really should know the difference between slander and libel.....malcolmg said:
Poor attempt at slander I am afraid.CarlottaVance said:
Just to make sure I understand.malcolmg said:
You been sleeping for the past few years then. I know you have the mental age of your shoe size, so honest question are you trying to be funny or are you trying to make some point regarding us funding those trams before having to also pay 100% of our own ones.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Edinburgh's trams finally up and running I see.malcolmg said:JosiasJessop said:malcolmg said:
You idiot, we are paying for all London's infrastructure.tlg86 said:
And don't expect your railways to be funded by England...Dair said:The faster FFA comes the better and I urge every person in England to write to their MP and DEMAND that FFA is imposed on Scotland by the current Tory government. The sooner the better. Don't just sit back, get active and demand it, it is what you want after all.
Just don't expect the £3bn per annum paid by Scotland towards the National Infrastructure Plan which should really be renamed the English Infrastructure Plan given where the vast bulk of the spending occurs. Oh and expect a drastic revision of the £3.5bn per annum currently paid by Scotland towards Westminster's Debt Interest Repayment.
And if you really think Scotland will continue to pay £3.5bn per annum towards a Power Projection military budget (comparisons Denmark £2.4bn, Ireland £1.5bn, Iceland £0bn) then you need to consider what happens the first time a party stands for election to Holyrood on a platform of cutting contributions to UK Defense - hint, the Greens may soon be close to the official opposition and/or likely coalition partners for the SNP in the foreseeable future.
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/84027c08-cdf2-4fae-a0cb-34dc8cd66983
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding
South London (Wimbledon/Croydon/Addington) have had them up and running since 2000.
The Scots pay for the Croydon Trams, completed on budget and on time, more or less.
The Scots pay for the Edinburgh trams, completed horribly late and very over budget.
The English are stupid
Is that how it goes?
0 -
I met up with an interesting friend earlier this week, who was decorated with the Military Medal for his service in Dunkirk, the Greek campaign and the battles in the Western Desert. A true Desert Rat who has just returned at the age of 96 from the commemorations in Kalamata*, where the disastrous Greek campaign ended. Jock Watt sailed a fishing boat to Crete to escape the Nazis and fight on. I highly recommend his memoir:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Tankies-Travels-Jock-Watt/dp/1846830214
I am very glad that there were many Scots of his inclination 70 years ago.
*http://ww2today.com/28th-april-1941-last-ditch-stand-at-kalamata0 -
In terms of International Law though it was still - strictly speaking - an act of aggression in that Britain was imposing its will on a sovereign state. We had come very close to doing the same thing to Norway in early April 1940 but were foiled by the Germans beating us to it. Some would argue that Germany's invasion of Norway and Denmark was no more reprehensible.TheWhiteRabbit said:
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.0 -
Whom exactly?justin124 said:
In terms of International Law though it was still - strictly speaking - an act of aggression in that Britain was imposing its will on a sovereign state. We had come very close to doing the same thing to Norway in early April 1940 but were foiled by the Germans beating us to it. Some would argue that Germany's invasion of Norway and Denmark was no more reprehensible.TheWhiteRabbit said:
An invasion that caused no deaths, sped the successful conclusion of the war, involved compensation for the minimal amount of damage done plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:
The only danger that Iceland seems to face is from Invasion from the aggressive, expansionist United Kingdom, who last invaded the peaceful, neutral country in 1940.Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
Enjoy watching Russian bombers fly over Glasgow then.Dair said:
It is a pointless and wasteful commitment far beyond anything Scotland should consider.CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:Those are brutal losses and inevitably the momentum lies with the SNP. So let them have it. Their battle now - on ground of their choosing - is FFA. For reasons I set out earlier, I think there are good political grounds for letting them have *the option of introducing* it. Let the unionists then fight on whether and if so how Holyrood take up the opportunity.
Iceland is a member of NATO. It's Defence budget is 0.1% of GDP.
Given the Bear's aggressive current posture, defence spending should be rising across the whole of NATO.
Another shameful episode in British history.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.0 -
There were also Indian nationalists who openly fought alongside the Axis, but the British Indian Army of WW2 was the largest volunteer army ever raised.Sean_F said:
As always, hindsight is a brilliant judge.malcolmg said:
My father spent 5 years of his life in it , fought through Europe , what do you think. Easy for armchair waffle merchants on here to pontificate and talk jingoistic bollox when in reality they would have made sure they would be exempt if they actually had to do anything similar.foxinsoxuk said:
Mistakes are made in any war of consequence. Some are much easier to see in hindsight, but do you regret the participation of Scotlands soldiers, sailors and airmen in the fight against Nazism? Or was it a proud episode in Scottish military history?malcolmg said:
Fox, there were many many poor decisions made in WWII , it was not all Vera Lynn and White Cliffs of Dover. Started as usual by bungling politicians in Westminster and bungled by useless Generals throughout , we were just lucky that the Yanks eventually came in, and even then it was the Russians that broke the Germans.foxinsoxuk said:
British History.TheWhiteRabbit said:
plus favourable trade terms for the duration.david_herdson said:
It's the country that's neutral in 1940 that should be ashamed.Dair said:Theuniondivvie said:
Is Reykjavik much plagued by overflying Tupolevs?david_herdson said:
.Dair said:CarlottaVance said:
Meeting an independent Scotland's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP per year would be higher, wouldn't it?Dair said:
£3.5bn a year for Defensedavid_herdson said:.
Of all the military operations the British have led, I'd say that has to rank as the least destructive.
It was anything but a proud moment, bungling useless Westminster politicians allowed it to happen instead of nipping it in the bud much earlier.
Finally as ever the poor ordinary public had to go and get shot whilst those same useless halfwits pontificated over their champagne etc and ordered millions killed and all down to their uselessness.
There is little to be proud of for anybody anywhere given the slaughter that took place.
I think the defeat of Nazism was a good thing, and I think we should be pleased this country played its part.0 -
You sad excuse for a human, did you read his insulting post or are you just your average nasty Tory sticking up for another one. I am afraid it will take a bit more than a pathetic excuse like you to prevent me being free to express an opinion and be able to reply to a vile insult. Go worship your hero sad sack.Moses_ said:malcolmg said:
Dear Dear how low can Tories stoop. I gave you the benefit of the doubt previously but you show you are just your average lowlife sneering nasty Tory.david_herdson said:
They already regard the UK as a foreign country. In the same way that IS-sympathisers do.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dair, and Mr. G, you do seem to delight in knocking the UK and its armed forces. Not sure that's necessarily consistent with being 'best pals' should Scotland become independent.
Are you capable of posting anything? Anything at all without abusing another poster?
Mr Herdson is one of the most respected posters on PB. It's not for me to adjudicate on another poster or fight his fights but enough is enough. I am wondering when the Mods are going to stop this daily tirade of abuse from you.
You are nothing but a small minded nasty little Scot and so unrepresentative of those Scots that I have worked with over many years in Scotland who have more respect in their little finger than you have had in your entire life.
Just give it a rest why don't you? Your a child, an embarrassment both to yourself and to Scotland
Just feck off !0
