Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

skintmacflint

And the SNP's credible alternative strategy is what exactly. Which was the question asked Leanne.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

The SNP are a pacifist party from what I can see, if that view is becoming the dominant one in Scotland then good on them for their powers of persuasion. Perhaps this is an example of your contention that a divergence in Scottish and rUK opinion and attitudes is happening, I'm not so sure though. Unless the UK wide Labour Party gets taken over completely by the pacifist Corbyn faction then Labour in power are content to oversee the worlds fourth most expensive military and project the UK's influence accordingly. An independent SNP Scotland would do nothing militarily to assist the women and children of Syria, it would leave it others.

wotsthat

Tromking wrote: »

The SNP are a pacifist party from what I can see, if that view is becoming the dominant one in Scotland then good on them for their powers of persuasion.

I think the SNP will position themselves to highlight the differences between them and 'Westminster' even to the point of engineering a difference and persuading Scots the difference matters.

It's how nationalism works.

Leanne1812

skintmacflint wrote: »

And the SNP's credible alternative strategy is what exactly. Which was the question asked Leanne.

I'd say that would have been a case for the gov and all the parties to decide. Try and reach an agreement between them. Once again, it wasn't just the SNP who opposed air strikes.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

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.

so the SNP didn't support air strikes on a pragmatic basis as they didn't think they would be effective : very reasonable.

nothing of course to do this rubbish then

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

fun4everyone

If we had voted YES the Forth road bridge would have remained open!!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

So you think it's "easier" to secure a vast land border hundreds of miles long in remote terrain from smugglers than to target the oil wells that are the source of the product being smuggled?

You really didn't think that one through...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

fun4everyone wrote: »

If we had voted YES the Forth road bridge would have remained open!!

Heh heh, nicely done....

That is of course a fully devolved matter so it'll be interesting to see just how good or bad the Scottish government contingency planning and response is over the next few weeks of closure.

Safe to say it hasn't been great so far but we'll see.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'd say that would have been a case for the gov and all the parties to decide. Try and reach an agreement between them. Once again, it wasn't just the SNP who opposed air strikes.

It's easy to simply oppose everything in a frenzy of 'TORY-BAD' soundbites.

But part of being the opposition is a duty to propose viable alternatives...

As an SNP supporter what concrete action would you like the government to take against Daesh in order to degrade their capabilities against us and in support of our allies who have requested help?

What's wrong with the two UK air strikes so far that have taken out Daesh controlled oil wells in the middle of the desert?

Should Daesh have been allowed to keep pumping that oil to fund their terror?

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

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.

Email from the SNP; Hmmm yes - as dictated by Sturgeon who defines what SNP MPs think - see here Nicola Sturgeon says SNP will vote against air strikes on Syria. Another example of a politician, not elected to Westminster and therefore duty bound to represent all her sonstituents, elected to represent her party and only her party due to the proportional representation system.

The amendment, which was proposed by a Conservative MP John Baron was defeated in the HoC by an overwhelming majority.

Regarding the email itself as others have said, nothing is said about an alternative approach in any convincing or comprehensive form, just superficial remarks about processes of other strategies which are already going on and mentioned in the Goverments proposal. See here (*) for its wording plus some insight.

But I note that the SNP declines to authorise military action in Syria" ---- authorise? - these people are really full of themselves, while exposing yet another policy vacuum.


Edit: url associated with malfunctioning link above (here (*))
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cabinet-approves-syria-airstrikes-motion