Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Did you really expect the SNP to vote for conflict? If so you really know very little about their policies & values.

I agree.
The SNP's attitude to UK foreign policy is entirely consistent with their plans for Scotland if their dream of independence is realised. A small Scottish defence force whilst hiding under the nuclear shield of other NATO countries is their plan I believe.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Are labour just as shameful or did they vote according to their belief based on the motion? Are the few tories who voted against shameful for not following orders?

Did you really expect the SNP to vote for conflict? If so you really know very little about their policies & values.

There is conflict in syria and iraq: ISIL is a particularly vicious and nasty cult that rapes women and children, cuts heads off, burns people alive.
As it believes that all non-believers can be killed, it is impossible to negotiate with them, as their aim is a world wide Islamic state after their own image.

SNP doesn't have the option for voting against conflict : it only has the option of standing aside whilst non - scottish people are killed.

I full accept that people may see that standing aside is the lesser of the two evils as the bombs can kill innocent people
and I fully accept that some people think that supporting the Non-ISIL side is the lesser of the evils as this can provide protection to Kurds and others and allow them to fight back and defend themselves.

There is no moral high ground is refusing to help your fellow persons merely because they are not Scottish and you have nothing to gain.

Sadly, you seem more concerned with being anti-Tory than recognise the difficult decisions about how best to help the people of that region.
Hopefully they are merely SNP values and not Scottish values.

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

I agree.
The SNP's attitude to UK foreign policy is entirely consistent with their plans for Scotland if their dream of independence is realised. A small Scottish defence force whilst hiding under the nuclear shield of other NATO countries is their plan I believe.

Good, we agree. They are solid & consistent in their policies.

Would this make an independent Scotland the only nuke free member of NATO?

Leanne1812

A lot, I mean an awful lot of whinging these last couple of days and it's not coming from SNP supporters.

Just saying.........

Leanne1812

CLAPTON wrote: »

There is conflict in syria and iraq: ISIL is a particularly vicious and nasty cult that rapes women and children, cuts heads off, burns people alive.
As it believes that all non-believers can be killed, it is impossible to negotiate with them, as their aim is a world wide Islamic state after their own image.

SNP doesn't have the option for voting against conflict : it only has the option of standing aside whilst non - scottish people are killed.

I full accept that people may see that standing aside is the lesser of the two evils as the bombs can kill innocent people
and I fully accept that some people think that supporting the Non-ISIL side is the lesser of the evils as this can provide protection to Kurds and others and allow them to fight back and defend themselves.

There is no moral high ground is refusing to help your fellow persons merely because they are not Scottish and you have nothing to gain.

Sadly, you seem more concerned with being anti-Tory than recognise the difficult decisions about how best to help the people of that region.
Hopefully they are merely SNP values and not Scottish values.

SNP are bad huh......

You're lucky I'm responding as most of your post has reverted back to the inane anti English drivel you love to harp on about. But, I will respond because this is a deadly serious issue.

The SNP have voted against air strikes for what they, and I, believe to be valid reasons. They are not alone in voting against. Had another, different proposal that they, and I, believed to be more effective been on the table who knows how they may have voted.

It goes without saying IS need to be destroyed, it's how to achieve that aim that's in dispute.

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Good, we agree. They are solid & consistent in their policies.

Would this make an independent Scotland the only nuke free member of NATO?

Of course not!😀
It does however put the SNP's actions or inactions this week in context. As with the SNP's dishonest attitude toward the Royal family, NATO membership is designed to make the quantum leap to independence more palatable to Scots worried about abandoning everything in one hit. I would expect an independent Scotland to a be a non-NATO member republic like Ireland pretty soon after independence. It's where the SNP are traditionally and politically speaking.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

SNP are bad huh......

You're lucky I'm responding as most of your post has reverted back to the inane anti English drivel you love to harp on about. But, I will respond because this is a deadly serious issue.

The SNP have voted against air strikes for what they, and I, believe to be valid reasons. They are not alone in voting against. Had another, different proposal that they, and I, believed to be more effective been on the table who knows how they may have voted.

It goes without saying IS need to be destroyed, it's how to achieve that aim that's in dispute.

my post was about the serious issues of people being killed, raped, burnt to death by a cult that one can't negotiate with.

you have said its about SNP values

Did you really expect the SNP to vote for conflict? If so you really know very little about their policies & values.

and totally ignored the suffering of the people in the region and also ignore the facts that the choices aren't between conflict and non conflict but about how best to help the people being murdered by ISIL.

You give every impression of refusing to discuss what could be done to help and turn the issue into a point of SNP principle.

Did the SNP (or you) support the action in Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone etc or was there a matter of principle involved?

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Of course not!��
It does however put the SNP's actions or inactions this week in context. As with the SNP's dishonest attitude toward the Royal family, NATO membership is designed to make the quantum leap to independence more palatable to Scots worried about abandoning everything in one hit. I would expect an independent Scotland to a be a non-NATO member republic like Ireland pretty soon after independence. It's where the SNP are traditionally and politically speaking.

So you think the SNP voted against airstrikes just to be 'popular' ? Well that doesn't add up in the slightest does it. Because that would mean that in actual fact most of Scotland don't want airstrikes, which is only reason the SNP voted against. Yet Hamish/string are saying that Scots DO want airstrikes, and that 'Scotland was betrayed' by the SNP voting against ?

The SNP can hardly be courting popularity by voting against their contituents wishes can they ? You might have to make up your mind somewhere. Because at the moment, you're in total mince territory with this one

If Scotland is FOR airstrikes, then the SNP voted against and 'betrayed' Scotland. Which wouldn't make them popular, or further independence ambitions.

If Scotland ( I use Scotland as a 'broad brush' here ).. doesn't want airstrikes then the SNP are voting the way Scotland wanted them too. Which of course, is exactly what they are supposed to do. Hardly dishonest.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So you think the SNP voted against airstrikes just to be 'popular' ? Well that doesn't add up in the slightest does it. Because that would mean that in actual fact most of Scotland don't want airstrikes, which is only reason the SNP voted against. Yet Hamish/string are saying that Scots DO want airstrikes, and that 'Scotland was betrayed' by the SNP voting against ?

The SNP can hardly be courting popularity by voting against their contituents wishes can they ? You might have to make up your mind somewhere. Because at the moment, you're in total mince territory with this one

If Scotland is FOR airstrikes, then the SNP voted against and 'betrayed' Scotland. Which wouldn't make them popular, or further independence ambitions.

If Scotland ( I use Scotland as a 'broad brush' here ).. doesn't want airstrikes then the SNP are voting the way Scotland wanted them too. Which of course, is exactly what they are supposed to do. Hardly dishonest.

No, I'm suggesting that the SNP would never vote for any military adventurism by the UK, because they don't believe in it politically. The fact that currently mirrors Scottish opinion on Syria is a happy coincidence in my view. An independent SNP Scotland would abrogate its moral duty protect itself and anyone else to other nations. It's not the Scotland I recognise, but if it's where Scottish opinion is, then so be it. Let's not however have all the guff from some SNP peaceniks about the deaths of Syrian children and civilians.

.string.

Tromking wrote: »

I agree.
The SNP's attitude to UK foreign policy is entirely consistent with their plans for Scotland if their dream of independence is realised. A small Scottish defence force whilst hiding under the nuclear shield of other NATO countries is their plan I believe.

Yup - hiding behind someone else's sofa.


Not the Scotland I know.