Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I was talking of all the countries involved in bombing thrashing out a plan. Have they already? If so do you know what it is?

The remarks of the SNP were accusing the Tories of not providing a plan, not the rest of the world. My remarks were about the SNP.

But as far as your stance, if it is one, is concerned, you have this notion that no-one should take military action against Daesh until the talks in Vienna have reached a conclusion, a decision taken, a new Government elected and then a comprehensively detailed plan is made, dutifully agreed by all the nations involved?

Was it a useful thing that the RAF bombed that oil well? Was it a bad thing, were there civilian casualties? Was it the result of carpet bombing?

In the meantime, how many more casualties are we going to get in the streets of Europe? How much further are Daesh going to be able to get entrenched in their safe sanctuary? How many casualties at their hands in Syria, Iraq etc? How many other countries will they infect with their poison?

Do you even care? Will you enjoy your ringside seat? Would your opinion change of a butter runs amuck in Glasgow using training, guns and slandering encouragement from Daesh? Or would that just be another wonderful chance to blame it all on Westminster aka the U.N.?

Don't have high expectations to those questions since we never get a concrete answer but only hot air from Planet SNP.

.string.

Shakey wrote:

Hamish/string

I'm flattered to be implied twinned with Hamish who knows what he's talking about and gives figures to back it up,

There's a difference there with being absorbed into a collective though.

Thrugelmir

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.

So the SNP are against the bombing of oil tankers ( with civilian drivers) who are transporting oil across the border from Syria to Turkey. Where the crude oil is being sold at $30 to $40 dollars a barrel on the black market. This money then provides ISIS with funding. While much of the oil ends up in Europe. There's plenty of corrupt people who side with those paying them without having any ideological attachment at all.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

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.

No. I'm sorry you posted about highlighting the SNP 'in context' and went on to cite Nato, and the Royal Family etc etc as dishonest politics. However, When you say that you seem to be separating off the SNP, and Scottish public opinion. You cannot have one without the other. It may be as simple as the SNP voting the way that reflects the majority of Scotland when it comes to Syria. I suspect it is.. because Scottish Labour's leader came out against the airstrikes too. And if anyone in Scottish Labour was for.. they kept it to themselves.

Unlike the UK, there are General Elections looming in Scotland. And neither party came out for airstrikes. That's because they know fine and well, what the reaction would be. At the very least, the SNP have been consistent. Scottish Labour have some work to do there with all major issues affecting Scotland.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I'm flattered to be implied twinned with Hamish who knows what he's talking about and gives figures to back it up,

There's a difference there with being absorbed into a collective though.

Yes, I've noticed a wee bit of 'hero worship' going on there. I'm happy for you. However, the rest of us remember the bloody HUGE graphics messing up the board, expanding the width x 3.. whenever we logged in day after day copied and pasted from elsewhere, usually a Twitter 'collective' or a unionist blog.

Hamish almost always posts graphics or text without a link underneath as to where they came from. I guess it's just 'his way' and I've given up asking where they came from ( like his Scottish only Syria polls 2 pages back that don't actually exist ).. But all the big graphics in the world.. prove absolutely nothing much apart from how big the graphics can truly be on this forum. And boy, they can be BIG.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So the SNP are against the bombing of oil tankers ( with civilian drivers) who are transporting oil across the border from Syria to Turkey. Where the crude oil is being sold at $30 to $40 dollars a barrel on the black market. This money then provides ISIS with funding. While much of the oil ends up in Europe. There's plenty of corrupt people who side with those paying them without having any ideological attachment at all.

So are most of Labour ( there were only 60 ish voted for bombing ). There are probably easier ways of cutting off ISIS financial ties. Turkey sealing their borders and disallowing tankers through would probably be an excellent place to start. Don't Turkey want to join the EU ?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, I've noticed a wee bit of 'hero worship' going on there. I'm happy for you. However, the rest of us remember the bloody HUGE graphics messing up the board, expanding the width x 3.. whenever we logged in day after day copied and pasted from elsewhere, usually a Twitter 'collective' or a unionist blog.

Hamish almost always posts graphics or text without a link underneath as to where they came from. I guess it's just 'his way' and I've given up asking where they came from ( like his Scottish only Syria polls 2 pages back that don't actually exist ).. But all the big graphics in the world.. prove absolutely nothing much apart from how big the graphics can truly be on this forum. And boy, they can be BIG.

My browser/the website auto resizes his big pictures.

skintmacflint

LABMAN wrote: »

I await a credible SNP alternative strategy.

You will wait forever. SNP don't have credible alternative strategies for anything. They get by with having an abundance of rhetoric for everything, but solutions / strategies for nothing.

However I can tell you Sturgeon today ruled out diplomacy with IS, saying ' I don't advocate diplomacy with Daesh. No one seriously would.'

That's it so far. Maybe she'll run another poll.

skintmacflint

Generali wrote: »

My browser/the website auto resizes his big pictures.

Mine must as well, as I haven't seen these huge graphs. Which at my age I'd quite appreciate to be honest.

Leanne1812

skintmacflint wrote: »

You will wait forever. SNP don't have credible alternative strategies for anything. They get by with having an abundance of rhetoric for everything, but solutions / strategies for nothing.

However I can tell you Sturgeon today ruled out diplomacy with IS, saying ' I don't advocate diplomacy with Daesh. No one seriously would.'

That's it so far. Maybe she'll run another poll.

Email from SNP.



The Scottish National Party Westminster Group will not be voting for airstrikes in Syria. While we want to see the end of Daesh terrorists, we do not believe that this form of military intervention will be an effective tool or help bring peace to the region.

Syria is already the most bombed country in the world with 3,000 bombings from 10 other countries in recent months- which have not succeeded in reducing the influence of the group around the world. It has also been argued that this bombing campaign will kill civilians which can only strengthen the resolve of Daesh terrorists worldwide.

The SNP have tabled a cross-party motion in the House of Commons that states:

‘while welcoming the renewed impetus towards peace and reconstruction in Syria, and the Government’s recognition that a comprehensive strategy against Daesh is required, does not believe that the case for the UK’s participation in the ongoing air campaign in Syria by 10 countries has been established under current circumstances, and consequently declines to authorise military action in Syria.’

This motion has been signed by 110 MPs from six political parties who feel that bombing Syria is not the right course of action.

We have not heard a convincing post-war plan from the Prime Minister. We know when the UK bombed Libya in 2011, the UK Government spent 13 times more money on bombing the country than contributing to its reconstruction. Without a sensible and reliable post-conflict plan the UK Government are helping to create further turmoil in a an unstable region of the world.

The influential Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons has taken a wide range of evidence from military experts, academics, lawyers, the Foreign Secretary and Syrian groups. The cross-party committee set a number of questions for David Cameron, and just yesterday the committee voted by majority that these questions had not been answered by the Prime Minister.

The SNP does not believe that the UK government has an adequate plan, and that a bombing campaign which will most certainly kill civilians, is the most appropriate course of action.