We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies
Comments
-
here's another statement from Nicola
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13201727.Sturgeon_demands_zero_tolerance_on_obscene_and_despicable_tax_avoidance/
And here's today's Mail on Sunday
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scottish-mail-on-sunday
Rather suspect this will rapidly go the way of other SNP scandals.
Step 1... SNP leadership make populist speech condemning ethically questionable behaviour
Step 2... SNP politician gets caught behaving in an ethically questionable way
Step 3... SNP supporters try to distract our attention with similar things Labour/Tory politicians have done...
Which is of course fine and well if the point you're trying to prove is that the SNP are just as sleazy as Labour or the Tories.
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Was it acceptable for the PM to be somewhat economical with the truth regarding the 70,000 moderates who are fighting IS? From what I've been reading they are now concentrating their efforts in fighting Assad as they know the west are more involved in destroying IS now.0
-
Leanne1812 wrote: »Was it acceptable for the PM to be somewhat economical with the truth regarding the 70,000 moderates who are fighting IS? From what I've been reading they are now concentrating their efforts in fighting Assad as they know the west are more involved in destroying IS now.
Cameron was wrong to say there were 70,000 ground fighters and he was wrong to say that opponents of bombing were terrorist sympathisers.
That makes it no less absurd for Nicola to base her views of a couple of ex hostages and offer no credible alternative narrative.
Sadly her wish to score a few points of Cameron and progress the independence agenda, exceed her concern for any real progress in Syria0 -
Cameron was wrong to say there were 70,000 ground fighters and he was wrong to say that opponents of bombing were terrorist sympathisers.
That makes it no less absurd for Nicola to base her views of a couple of ex hostages and offer no credible alternative narrative.
Sadly her wish to score a few points of Cameron and progress the independence agenda, exceed her concern for any real progress in Syria
Well Alex Salmond has this to say. Will it pass the test as credible alternative?
Can I ask what you would have liked her to say? What would a credible alternative be as you see it?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1jLrWZIjVnU0 -
-
Leanne1812 wrote: »Well Alex Salmond has this to say. Will it pass the test as credible alternative?
Can I ask what you would have liked her to say? What would a credible alternative be as you see it?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1jLrWZIjVnU
I've made in very clear that I respect people who believe we should intervene and people who think we shouldn't intervene because I recognise the situation as very complex and there is the clear possibility of unintended consequences.
Do not have any respect for people making political capital out of the situation like Cameron nor do I have any respect for Nicola who is doing likewise.
I am pleased that Alex does support fighting the war on the ground in Iraq even if he doesn't want us to do any of the fighting.
A long way from your
but no matter.Did you really expect the SNP to vote for conflict? If so you really know very little about their policies & values.0 -
Leanne, putting aside for a moment the SNP position...
You seem to agree that ISIS are a horrific organisation that represent a threat to UK citizens both here at home and around the world?
You also seem to agree that the bombing of the ISIS controlled oilfields that fund their terror campaign was a positive step?
If the UK can continue to target ISIS terrorists and infrastructure without bombing civilians, as it has done in Iraq for over a year, do you still believe we shouldn't?
If so why?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Leanne, putting aside for a moment the SNP position...
You seem to agree that ISIS are a horrific organisation that represent a threat to UK citizens both here at home and around the world?
You also seem to agree that the bombing of the ISIS controlled oilfields that fund their terror campaign was a positive step?
If the UK can continue to target ISIS terrorists and infrastructure without bombing civilians, as it has done in Iraq for over a year, do you still believe we shouldn't?
If so why?
If it is only infrastructure being targeted then I cannot disagree or find it is wrong in any shape or form.
What I cannot reconcile with is the terrible death toll and destruction of towns & cities. A country destroyed with the huge amount of refugees that has created and continues still.
If you are saying there have been no civilian casualties in Iraq or Syria due to air strikes then I find that impossible to believe. I've seen videos and pictures that make me despair at all this suffering.0 -
Leanne1812 wrote: »If it is only infrastructure being targeted then I cannot disagree or find it is wrong in any shape or form.
What I cannot reconcile with is the terrible death toll and destruction of towns & cities. A country destroyed with the huge amount of refugees that has created and continues still.
If you are saying there have been no civilian casualties in Iraq or Syria due to air strikes then I find that impossible to believe. I've seen videos and pictures that make me despair at all this suffering.
do you support Uncle Alex's position, that it's a good thing to provide weaponry for ground troop in Iraq?0 -
Leanne1812 wrote: »If it is only infrastructure being targeted then I cannot disagree or find it is wrong in any shape or form.
What I cannot reconcile with is the terrible death toll and destruction of towns & cities. A country destroyed with the huge amount of refugees that has created and continues still.
If you are saying there have been no civilian casualties in Iraq or Syria due to air strikes then I find that impossible to believe. I've seen videos and pictures that make me despair at all this suffering.
You seem to be confusing separate issues.
The UK has been conducting air strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq for over a year and there have been zero reported civilian casualties from UK airstrikes.
Other nations (ie Russia) may be less discriminate in their bombing in Syria, and certainly Assad has been less discriminate in his bombing, but it is demonstrably the case that the UK has not created a "terrible death toll" leading to the "destruction of towns & cities" with our bombing of ISIS targets so far in either Iraq or Syria.
So are you now agreeing that IF the UK continues to act in the way it has done against ISIS to date this is OK?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards