The General Election

[Guest tv tanned]

SNP: Although i agree that Scotland is shit on a bit' date=' i cant take that party seriously...i feel that their whole 'Scotland needs to be independent, so it can have the same rights as other nations that are in the UN' policy is utter bollocks...scotland would probably go up shit creek without other nations backing it and the UN dont take countries with a 5 million population too seriously and they would just be laughed at....[/quote']

OK, why would independence mean countries not backing Scotland? Currently people are against the British State because of the decisions taken by Blair in the international sphere. An independent Scotland would be removed from such a backlash.

I think you'll find the UN does actually take countries with a 5 million population, and lower, seriously. Try reading up on Ireland's record in UN peacekeeping missions for a reference point.

[HeinzHines]

OK' date=' why would independence mean countries not backing Scotland?[/quote']

Why should they? As a nation we basically have nothing to offer...we had oil, but long sold that to other nations companies...

Currently people are against the British State because of the decisions taken by Blair in the international sphere. An independent Scotland would be removed from such a backlash.

Hypothetical situation; Blair starts a war and England is being bombed...Scotland are now totally independent...will the bombs land here even though Scotland has done nothing wrong? I'd say yes...because on these isles Aberdeen has a massive oil economy that would be a huge terrorist target, linked with England or not...

Blair has made some bad decisions...and im sure you are right that the backlash has reflected badly on the other nations within the Uk/GB...but if we were an independent country i feel its just childish to be 'hahaha England have made a bad choice, good job we arent affiliated with them, could have made us look bad'...

And im sure in a big way that Scotlands drive to be independent from England/UK/Gb is down to nothing more of the racist attitude that Scotland holds to England...most Scots hate England for no reason at all, just because they are 'guffs'...and anyone who says they hate England for what happened a 500 years ago or whatever is a total twat....

But more on point...dont you think that this 'backlash' that is so damming to the nation is something that we shouldnt really care about? Come on..afterall, England are joined to us and even if they do make some bad decisions i feel we should just stand by and be together and if there is a backlash, then the nations should be big enough (mentally) to stand with each other and defend the decisions made...

As for Eire...they will be taken more seriously than Scotland because of ongoing violence problems/threats...

[KarmaTsunami]

it's looking more and more like the SNP for me.

[lepeep]

SNP...wants to become indipendant, but join the EU ?

can someone tell me how that works, or have I picked it up wrong from somewhere ?

[Guest stuartmaxwell]

to be honest, the socialist policies look fine on paper...

however, in practice is a different story, i believe them to be fundamentally flawed in that these policies rely on a much too perfect trajectory. plus, there doesnt seem to be any costings to back things up

when i am earning my 30k a year i wouldnt want to be helping the poor, i went to uni/work hard etc for me to enjoy MY earnings, not for some muppet in seaton. i can also see most in my poisiton agreeing with this.

to be honest, i would vote labour, they havent done a bad job. i am glad they went to "war", saddam hussain was a threat, even if it was only a 10% threat, it is still a threat. what if he HAD attatcked us, the media/people would be going MAD that we didnt take him out of the equation when there was intelligence to suggest that there was a small risk.

but i knwo fuck all so....

[lepeep]

That's what I think about the SSP.

"free money for everyone"...

where does it come from ? ah, the people who want to work...

so, the workers pay for the people who are too lazy to work.

I happily pay my tax to support the NHS etc, but paying taxes to keep everyone "equal"...it just doesn't add up.

it sounds lovely, a society where everyone is equal, monetry, socially etc..but, in reality it will never happen. ever.

[Dayeth]

i am glad they went to "war"' date=' saddam hussain was a threat, even if it was only a 10% threat, it is still a threat. what if he HAD attatcked us, the media/people would be going MAD that we didnt take him out of the equation when there was intelligence to suggest that there was a small risk.[/quote']

I've tried to say this before.

[Cloud]

Why should they? As a nation we basically have nothing to offer...we had oil' date=' but long sold that to other nations companies...[/quote']

Ireland has/had nothing to offer, either. But they wised up, used the money wisely that they got from the EU and transformed their country from a backwards country with a poor quality of life (I believe they were pretty much the poorest country in Western Europe before they joined the EC) to a modern, forwards thinking economy.

Hypothetical situation; Blair starts a war and England is being bombed...Scotland are now totally independent...will the bombs land here even though Scotland has done nothing wrong? I'd say yes...because on these isles Aberdeen has a massive oil economy that would be a huge terrorist target, linked with England or not...

Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Look at history here - during World War 2, Ireland was independent, and the only time Dublin got bombed was because they sent fire engines from Dublin to Belfast after Belfast got completely nailed - it's believed that Hitler bombed Dublin as a "warning". Ireland's neturality was very much sided towards the Allies (the D-Day landings were helped by Irish weather reports, for instance) - but the simple fact is that they successfully kept out of the conflict bar one night of bombing.

Ask *anyone* and they'll tell you that on the basis of current evidence, it was worth 50 years of hardship in Ireland from 1922 onwards to now reap the rewards - do you really think Ireland would be as prosperous if they were still part of the UK? I doubt it.

As it stands, even if a majority of Scottish people voted against going to war, England could drag us into it and we wouldn't have a say. Is that fair, right or just? I think not.

As for Eire...they will be taken more seriously than Scotland because of ongoing violence problems/threats...

I don't understand this statement - what has Ireland got to do with violence and threats? For a long time, some would even say up until the signing of the Belfast Agreement, the Irish goverment helped, not hindered the various terrorist factions. Read "Bandit Country" by Toby Harnden if you want to know more.

Eventually, the UK will break up - if you look at current evidence, the differences between Scotland and England are staggering, and they can only increase. I'm personally in favour of a loose confederation, however.

[Guest stuartmaxwell]

i got negative scene points saying something along the lines of "uk sold them arms etc", keep them coming

you will find that it was america who sold them arms, a long time ago, we are a partner of america.

america-most powerful country in the world, largest army, security structure

EU- no say on fuck all, governed by the joke that is NATO. tried to govern allied forces and protect saddam hussein, even thought there was a 10% risk to america/uk.

i know which side i would rather be on,

[lepeep]

I don't understand the "threat" aspect of the argument to go to war...

I mean, if he was a threat, they would have negotiated etc.

North Korea is THE BIGGEST threat in our time, they have nukes, they say they WILL USE THEM, but you only ever see the US trying to talk them out of wars. (not invading).

I have a friend who informed me that Halliburton was drawing up contracts for Iraq MONTHS before the war started.

so don't give me the line it was all about pre-emptive strikes for the "greater good" and defence of the realm...it's all about cash, it's a damn shame that Greed means the destruction of lives, all for nice shiny cars and power over the masses.

fuck em.

I am sure there is a list as long as your arm of people in the world that would like to destroy our way of life, or are a threat to their own people, or neighbours...but you won't see the US going into africa to sort out sudan, or zimbabwe, will we ? ... I wonder why not ?....

[lil_kazzy]

Hypothetical situation; Blair starts a war and England is being bombed...Scotland are now totally independent...will the bombs land here even though Scotland has done nothing wrong? I'd say yes...because on these isles Aberdeen has a massive oil economy that would be a huge terrorist target' date=' linked with England or not...

[/quote']

Take Switzerland for example. Neutral country. Borders on Germany. Relatively rich really. Didn't get bombed during WWII for just happening to border on Germany. They were pretty much un-involved. (Apart from the fact that trains went through from germany to italy and the other way, but I really don't see that that would be a problem for Scotland).

I don't think that terrorists are really interested in the UK at all. We're far from the world's most powerful countries. There's no way there was even a 10% terrorist threat - America, France, Germany, Japan, Australia would have been the first targets. And even Spain (as was proved last year).

'Terror threat' is no reason not to vote for an independent Scotland. In fact, completely the opposite. Westminster wants to cut down our defences. For some strange reason, they believe that defences should be given out according to population, rather than land-mass. Now I'm certainly not for nuclear weapons (or weapons of any sort), but if defence is what you're worried about, Labour is going to cut down the defences in Scotland, meaning we'd be pretty much unable to defend our borders if it came down to it.

(I'm aware that Switzerland probably isn't the best example in the world, but it's the best I could come up with at the moment)

[Guest stuartmaxwell]

NK is also a threat, communist government i believe, but i dont knwo anything about NK and what their plans are.

of course halliburton would hav ebeen drawing up plans months before. this would have been essential, almost like a contingency plan, say intelligence suggests that (insert country here) were to attack next week, there is prob a plan in place for a return action. i doubt we leave ourselves open to attack to be honest

i think we are beggining to discuss stuff that we know nothing about, there are no facts and this is simply speculation

[HeinzHines]

Take Switzerland for example. Neutral country. Borders on Germany. Relatively rich really. Didn't get bombed during WWII for just happening to border on Germany.

They did get bombed in WW2...the only reason that they werent heavily invaded by the nazi's was because they were making aliminum weapons, tools, spark plugs etc...for the nazi's and hitler seemed it right to not fuck them over too much because they were basically aiding his campgain...

[Cloud]

They did get bombed in WW2...the only reason that they werent heavily invaded by the nazi's was because they were making aliminum weapons' date=' tools, spark plugs etc...for the nazi's and hitler seemed it right to not fuck them over too much because they were basically aiding his campgain...[/quote']

It's not like they had much of a choice, considering they were totally surrounded by the Axis forces anyway. Gotta admit though, it's better to be netural and working for the bad guys than it is to be occupied by the bad guys.

[Laxton's Superb]

It's not like they had much of a choice' date=' considering they were totally surrounded by the Axis forces anyway. Gotta admit though, it's better to be netural and working for the bad guys than it is to be occupied by the bad guys.[/quote']

not at all! better being spineless than courageous? look at De Gaulle under occupation..inspiring.

[lepeep]

NK is also a threat' date=' communist government i believe, but i dont knwo anything about NK and what their plans are.

of course halliburton would hav ebeen drawing up plans months before. this would have been essential, almost like a contingency plan, say intelligence suggests that (insert country here) were to attack next week, there is prob a plan in place for a return action. i doubt we leave ourselves open to attack to be honest

i think we are beggining to discuss stuff that we know nothing about, there are no facts and this is simply speculation[/quote']

so, you've just mooted your whole argument to use this line of policy as a reason for voting ?...or did I read this all wrong (as per usual ! he he)

quite a dangerous road to go down, if we are not allowed an opinion on things we don't really know about...

that'll be 99% of government policy (unless you read all the white papers ?)

and just to clarify "contigency plan" ?...what's that got to do with writing up plans for contracts in Iraq BEFORE T Bliar has "asked parliament" for their permission to go to "war".

[Guest stuartmaxwell]

it aint a reason for me voting them

the way i see it, his party are responsible for national security (in a way)

do we need to wait until we are nuked/attacked before going to parliament, reviewing, arguing, pushing a law through then coming up with a plan of attack??

there are always going to be plans in place whether we like it or not, that is a responsibility that ANY party would have.

but maybe i have a skewered view on all of this??

[Cloud]

not at all! better being spineless than courageous? look at De Gaulle under occupation..inspiring.

Would you rather live in your own country and get on with it, enjoying your relative freedom - or would you rather live in exile, being watched at all times (as De Gaulle undoubtably was) and not having much of a say in anything?

Switzerland under occupation would've been considerably worse off than they were during WW2 - so really, they made a smart choice by cooperating with the Axis as opposed to resisting them - would Switzerland be in the position they're in today if they had fought and resisted as opposed to cooperating to a degree? I doubt it.

It might be very romantic to resist, but when push comes to shove, it's not always the best option.

To link Ireland into this - would it have suited them to stay entirely independent and netural during WW2? No. It obviously suited them best to cooperate with the Allies on the side - just as Switzerland didn't have a choice, they didn't either - yes, they could've told the UK to fuck off (especially considering they were under de Valera at the time), but there was a *lot* of money being spent in the country at the time by people smuggling goods back across the border.

[Laxton's Superb]

the though of the Nazi's or anyone else occupying my country turns my stomach

[Cloud]

the though of the Nazi's or anyone else occupying my country turns my stomach

So how can you blame Switzerland for cooperating as opposed to being occupied?

[Laxton's Superb]

cooperation is just an eaier to swallow pill...they were essentially occupied, in that they were subjects of the Reich

[Cloud]

cooperation is just an eaier to swallow pill...they were essentially occupied' date=' in that they were subjects of the Reich[/quote']

And you could say the same about Ireland - if they had joined forces with the Axis, they would've been invaded within..ooh..ten seconds flat. The same goes for Switzerland - really, could you blame them for being netural but helping the Reich?

It's all very well leading the resistance of a country from abroad - but you're not the one that has to suffer while the ordinary people of your country do.

[lepeep]

do we need to wait until we are nuked/attacked before going to parliament' date=' reviewing, arguing, pushing a law through then coming up with a plan of attack??

there are always going to be plans in place whether we like it or not, that is a responsibility that ANY party would have.[/quote']

Everyone forgets that hans blix and his inspectors were asked to leave Iraq by the US. (Impatient to "get on with the job" ?)

Imatient for what ?...killing people, and blowing up a country unable to attack us.

and, if they did have Nukes (able to destroy us), would you go to war with a country that had nothing to lose ?

It all just reeks of gobshite, so this defence argument doesn't wash, at all.

And, if they had left Hans Blix to it...who would have believed that Iraq DIDN'T have WMD ? "prove to me you don't have WMD", "OK, here they are not" "ha! proof he's hiding them, he's not showing us them" "that's cos we don't have any, honest".."Liar!" (etc).

I'd have happily supported a case for war if all the lines of peace had been extinguished, I had a completely different stance on the 1st Gulf war, the boy invaded a country, we stepped in to help.

this time, it's all about profit and Oil. (defend oil wells, but not hospitals and Museums with priceless artifacts ?)

I'd jst rather "give peace a chance" instead of the worldy default of Kill First, ask questions later.

(poof, eh).

[Mr. Tristen]

Those of you that still think in terms of 'Scotland' rather than 'United Kingdom' when you talk about countrys are gonna get us all killed one of these days.

[Guest Bob]

Those of you that still think in terms of 'Scotland' rather than 'United Kingdom' when you talk about countrys are gonna get us all killed one of these days.

Don't be fucking stupid. *slap*