• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UK TV debate

The Don said:
Francesca R is suggesting that there are people out there who think that the point of defence as a whole is simply to look macho.

Is there anyone out there who has suggested that ?
Click to expand...
Francesca R is referring to a long-standing refrain in which "punching above our weight" is literally used in a positive sense. The people who do this see no reason to explain what is gained by it; it is taken as a given that "punching above our weight" is a fine thing. Better than being like Belgium. We can still be a Great Power even without the weight - which we haven't had for a very long time.

I've experienced this my whole damn' life and I've groaned every time. There's another vacuous line about being "a bridge" between the US ("special relationship") and Europe or Russia, whatever. This is, again, taken to be a good thing, despite the obvious fact that bridges get walked on by people from both sides.

What it's really about is PM's getting side-by-side time with US Presidents, of course. "Yo Blair" and all that. It makes them feel Churchillian. Sensible people get Churchillian by drinking lots of brandy.
 
ddt said:
I get the impression that many Scots actually want their country to be like Flanders.
devo-max

For the rest, what's actually wrong with Belgium? According to wiki, the Belgian PPP per capita is 10% higher than the British. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Nothing is wrong with being a small N European country. That is what Scotland is; but because we are "in bed with an elephant", as it is said here, we have been chained to an empire. Now the empire has expired, so our situation is no more admirable than advantageous. But there remain some imperialists who
... must grieve when even the Shade
Of that which once was great is pass'd away.
Click to expand...
http://www.bartleby.com/101/522.html. The Labour Party has been taken over by them. The seeming political revolution in Scotland is in historical terms - if it happens at this election - the final rejection by Scotland of this subsidiary imperial, or pseudo "Great Power" role, and its replacement by a more realistic recognition of what our country really is. And what is wrong with being a small, energy-rich N European country with a well-educated population? A Norway, or a Denmark. A Belgium, even. Not for the first time. https://moultray.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/flemish-influence-in-scotland http://flemish.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/2014/01/25/berwick-upon-tweed-and-the-torching-of-the-red-hall/
 
ddt said:
They're part of the EEA. They have free trade with the EU (and other EEA countries), at terms set by the EU without one iota own influence in setting the terms.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the free trade is good. What kind of restrictions are they bound to in terms of trading with non-EU nations? And just out of interest, what restrictions are EU nations bound to in the same regard?
 
Westminster and its attachment to nuclear weapons is I agree a attempt to hang on to past glories. Who could we use them on without immediate and final retribution. Iceland the next time they pinch our fish maybe but no one else.
Its hard for some folk in Britain to accept that in one hundred years Britain has gone from the most power full nation on the planet to being well Portugal but with crappy weather. We don't even do being crap with style but have to embarrasse ourselves with throwing our weight around like we still have clout.
Scotland is a small northern European nation with a very small population so why pretend different. Scotland is perfectly capable of succeeding in the modern world on her own, small or not.
I still don't get the argument that the EU and west minister are the same situation. In he first case there are strong and necessary economic ties. In the second case there is a foreign nation that plops there weapons of mass destruction down in another nations land and says you will like it or else. Economic ties are a fact of reality ,west minister lording it over a foreign nation is old style imperialism. The two situations are not the same.
 
The Don said:
Francesca R is suggesting that there are people out there who think that the point of defence as a whole is simply to look macho.
Click to expand...
CapelDodger said:
Francesca R is referring to a long-standing refrain in which "punching above our weight" is literally used in a positive sense.
Click to expand...
Actually she was referring to people who criticise defence spending, including nuclear, using only the straw argument that it's solely for nebulous things to do with keeping up appearances, not being able to deal with no longer ruling an empire, or to cosy up to American presidents etc.

See the post above this as an example.
 
Francesca R said:
Actually she was referring to people who criticise defence spending, including nuclear, using only the straw argument that it's solely for nebulous things to do with keeping up appearances, not being able to deal with no longer ruling an empire, or to cosy up to American presidents etc.
Click to expand...
My mistake. I thought you were referring to people who really do think appearance is the point of defence spending rather than anything actively defensive.

See the post above this as an example.
Click to expand...
No doubt you could take my previous as an example as well; for the record, I'm all for buying defence against credible threats.
 
CapelDodger said:
No doubt you could take my previous as an example as well; for the record, I'm all for buying defence against credible threats.
Click to expand...

I'm also not against expensive boondogles like Trident so long as the party (parties) proposing that we spend all that money (and in the process potentially denying resources to combat credible threats) make it quite clear that the reason we are doing it is not for the purposes of national defence (and so those who are against it are treasonous dogs) but that it's the price of membership of the international top table.
 
Francesca R said:
Your statement "It is impossible for any single western European state to individually compete [outside the EU]" is as incorrect as "It will be impossible for Scotland to compete outside the UK" was.
Click to expand...

This surely is in the category of 'unproven' given the results of the referendum.
 
Scotlands population ,even the unionists, are overwhelmingly against nuclear weapons surely it is tyrannical to place these weapons in Scotland. It is a violation of democratic principles, after all if they are so safe by not keep them on the Thames.
I maintain that west minister and there attachment to nuclear weapons is about throwing there wight around. There are better things this money could be spent on. Iceland is a northern European island nation with a better standerd of life . If nuclear weapons were a great thing wouldn't Sweden and Norway have them too.
 
I just want to add while I disagree with some other posters I do appreciate these are difficult questions and I appreciate and respect that others may dissagre with me.
 
skeptichaggis said:
Scotlands population ,even the unionists, are overwhelmingly against nuclear weapons surely it is tyrannical to place these weapons in Scotland. It is a violation of democratic principles, after all if they are so safe by not keep them on the Thames.
I maintain that west minister and there attachment to nuclear weapons is about throwing there wight around. There are better things this money could be spent on. Iceland is a northern European island nation with a better standerd of life . If nuclear weapons were a great thing wouldn't Sweden and Norway have them too.
Click to expand...

I too am against nuclear weapons. They will only have to be used once more (if you count the bombing of Japan as #1), which they might well be, to realise what a terrible mistake they have been.

However to cover this point, while Scotland is part of the Union the UK government can, within certain limits, place them where they are best judged to be placed. You would probably find most Cornish people are against nukes, but that does not give them the right to refuse to have them on their land.
 
skeptichaggis said:
Scotlands population ,even the unionists, are overwhelmingly against nuclear weapons surely it is tyrannical to place these weapons in Scotland. It is a violation of democratic principles, after all if they are so safe by not keep them on the Thames.
Click to expand...

When the nuclear deterrent was restricted to land-based missiles, and weapons delivered by aircraft, they were stationed at sites all along the east coast of England, because they were the best locations for them. Ditto nuclear depth-charges deployed from the naval ports on the south coast. HMNB Clyde was initially chosen for Polaris because it was the best option on many levels, not solely because it might eventually piss Scots off.
 
Last edited:
Its not that I think its done to piss Scots of ,but I do think Scotland's small population(and therefore limited voter power) was at least in the back of the planners mind, the poll tax was started first in Scotland partially because of that as well.
The analogy of Cornwall is wrong, corn wall has been part of a recognized English state since the early medieval period and in the modern ere it does not have its own Parliament in which sits a majority of elected officials who are against nuclear weapons not just in Scotland but period.
There's a direct connection with the dumping and disposal of nuclear waste from england in Scotland in the198Os .Westminster said it was the best option(just like trident) and completely safe so why not dispose of it on there own soil. I don't buy into crackpot claims like trident is in Scotland to give English MPs a chance to reach shelter because the first strike would hit Scotland. Or the silly claim that Westminster is deliberately ruining Scotland. Claims such as those are stupid conspiracy crank nonsense.
I do believe however that Westminster treats the Scottish Parliament and voters with utter contempt.
I also think that any people Scottish ,Cornish or welsh should get the final say on weapons of mass terror in there own backyard. Even without conflict the risk of a accident is not worth taking.
 
skeptichaggis said:
Its not that I think its done to piss Scots of ,but I do think Scotland's small population(and therefore limited voter power) was at least in the back of the planners mind, the poll tax was started first in Scotland partially because of that as well.
Click to expand...
The only population considerations seem to be to site it near the smallest number of people possible. The land-based missiles and air bases I mentioned previously spread the eggs in such a way that, if they were all attacked, would certainly have killed more civilians than a single strike on HMNB Clyde (Glasgow, of course, would be high on the Soviet target list already).

The analogy of Cornwall is wrong, corn wall has been part of a recognized English state since the early medieval period and in the modern ere it does not have its own Parliament in which sits a majority of elected officials who are against nuclear weapons not just in Scotland but period.
There's a direct connection with the dumping and disposal of nuclear waste from england in Scotland in the198Os . Westminster said it was the best option(just like trident) and completely safe so why not dispose of it on there own soil.
Click to expand...
But not the waste from Scottish and/or Welsh nuclear power stations? You are aware that potential storage sites are dictated by geology, not nationality?

I also think that any people Scottish ,Cornish or welsh should get the final say on weapons of mass terror in there own backyard. Even without conflict the risk of a accident is not worth taking.
Click to expand...
But not English?
 
I concede that you have a point but the two are not neccesseraly separate from each other.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom