English votes on English issues? .

[tony1851]

With the wonderful thing called hindsight, I am now wondering if it would have been better for the Scots to have said YES! to independence. As an independent country they would not be sending MPs to Westminster (to prop up a minority Lie-bore government), would they?

In some ways, yes, but consider the wider implications for the standing of the UK in the wider world. We would be a smaller country - and therefore have even less influence than we do now. And think of Trident, which that woman wants us to get rid of.
Why should we dismember our once great nation to suit the self-serving, narrow, inward-looking nationalists?

 

[KenGMac]

As I understand it?

SNP MPs at Westminster have "Abstained" totally, completely, absolutely from voting on what was a matter that was only an English / Welsh Et-all matter!

The only time the SNP at Westminster voted on a matter was IF that bill had any effect whatsoever on Scotland, these bills and Acts include, Health, Transport, Etc.

If a bill or voting is about an ENGLAND ONLY matter then the SNP will and have HISTORICALLY NOT voted!

This also means that all Scottish Labour / Lib Dems [If there are any left soon?] will be barred and not allowed to vote on English matters?

Roll on Tam Dalziel! yeah the West Lothian [a place somewhere in Scotland] Question

Have fun all

Ken

 

[randers]

More layers of government....but not necessarily more expensive since there'd be constitutional separation of who-does-what therefore no duplication.

More MPs to pay, unless you reduce the number of seats in the Commons to compensate!

If they're only representing 1 country then there wouldn't be a need for so many. And why we have 650 even now is mystifying. (If you take the fact it's a self-continuing industry out of the equation that is).

 

[randers]

With the wonderful thing called hindsight, I am now wondering if it would have been better for the Scots to have said YES! to independence. As an independent country they would not be sending MPs to Westminster (to prop up a minority Lie-bore government), would they?

In some ways, yes, but consider the wider implications for the standing of the UK in the wider world. We would be a smaller country - and therefore have even less influence than we do now. And think of Trident, which that woman wants us to get rid of.
Why should we dismember our once great nation to suit the self-serving, narrow, inward-looking nationalists?

The Trident thing isn't (I believe) about defence at all - since we've had it we haven't needed to use it, sure. But is it saving us from something? Well the many/hundreds of countries that don't have a nuclear deterrent haven't been getting invaded or attacked by nuclear weapons either so it doesn't seem to be that. Does it protect us from traditional conflict? No, we still get plenty of them (Falklands, middle East, Afghanistan etc). So if it doesn't look like it protects us any more than the countries which don't have it what's it for.... It gets whoever is our pm a seat at the top table at the UN, a chance to take selfies with the big boys. In reality is it hindering our defence - the sort of conflict which we do still get is the conventional one and terrorism, and what we spend on Trident is instead of spending on those things. I wouldn't profess to be an expert but it looks to me like it's an expensive vanity toy for some of the politicians.

 

[joe-90]

Worse than that it makes us a target. We are a part of NATO, so if the USA gets into a war with Russia over Ukraine - then by default, we are also at war with Russia. As a nuclear force we are thus a target. Get rid of it.

 

[Micilin]

Renders- the Uk wasn't attacked by ' the Middle East' or Afghanistan, so protection wasn't an issue there.

However I think your point on whether it is the best way of spending money in a different world is a good one.


For me, we grew up with the constant idea that we could see the world wiped out in the Cold War, so there was a lot of anti nuclear feeling, but it never happened.

Which I suppose was rather the point.

 

[tony1851]

The British army in 1914 was very small relative to the German and French standing armies at that time.

There had been moves before then advocating a very much larger conscript army. Had there been an army of, say, 2,000,000 men instead of around 400,000 in 1914, would the First World War have happened?

It's called deterrence.

If going on past experience, you realize that your house hasn't burned down after living in it for a few years, do you then decide to cancel your house insurance on that basis?

 

[randers]

Yo're probably more expert on this than I am Tony1851, but the point I was trying to make was that the countries which don't have a deterrent haven't been getting attacked either, so on that basis it's hard to see what difference having no Trident would have made - why would we have been attacked and others not? It would however have let us have a bigger conventional army if that's what people wanted (as in the WW1 example).

 

[jeds]

Yo're probably more expert on this than I am Tony1851, but the point I was trying to make was that the countries which don't have a deterrent haven't been getting attacked either, so on that basis it's hard to see what difference having no Trident would have made - why would we have been attacked and others not? It would however have let us have a bigger conventional army if that's what people wanted (as in the WW1 example).

Just to get this right; you are saying the stable, non-threatening Countries of the World should get rid of nuclear arms whilst all the unstable, threatening Countries build more? Or maybe you were thinking the non-stable Countries would ditch theirs as well. If so I spot a flaw in the plan.

 

[randers]

Yo're probably more expert on this than I am Tony1851, but the point I was trying to make was that the countries which don't have a deterrent haven't been getting attacked either, so on that basis it's hard to see what difference having no Trident would have made - why would we have been attacked and others not? It would however have let us have a bigger conventional army if that's what people wanted (as in the WW1 example).

Just to get this right; you are saying the stable, non-threatening Countries of the World should get rid of nuclear arms whilst all the unstable, threatening Countries build more? Or maybe you were thinking the non-stable Countries would ditch theirs as well. If so I spot a flaw in the plan.

No, I'm saying that we've sunk many many millions into trident and are looking to do so again, but if we're compared to other nations like us but which don't spend on Trident (Sweden? Switzerland? Germany?) what is it we gain since they haven't been attacked by anyone? (Somehow we've been in more conflict than them but that's probably another question). It's a question that I don't see the answer to - compared with others I can't understand what the benefit has been.

 

[AronSearle]

but if we're compared to other nations like us but which don't spend on Trident (Sweden? Switzerland? Germany?) what is it we gain since they haven't been attacked by anyone?

It's a question that I don't see the answer to - compared with others I can't understand what the benefit has been.

That's because you havent looked very hard for the answer.

Germany was split in two for the latter half of the century by two nuclear powers, yet somehow you can't seem to find any evidence that nuclear weapons didnt affect them, lol. You think half of Europe would have remained under forcefull soviet domain if russia had no nukes?

And of course, germany DOES have nukes

As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are still hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy.

Sweeden and Switzerland were small neutral states, Switzerland in particular is surrounded by nuclear capable countries, and any aggressors would have to pass through these.

The historic facts show nuclear weopons have had a very real deterent effect in the past. whilst you can argue there is no current threat that would require them (and I would agree), 10 years is a long time if you consider what has only happend in the last 5.

Renewing trident or any other capability would take more than 10 years.

 

[randers]

That's because you havent looked very hard for the answer.

I'm asking questions and looking to understand - I don't need your insults.

How is it that the facts show that nuclear weapons have had a deterrent effect - none have been used against countries with or without them, not even against countries without nuclear near-neighbours and nuclear allies have they?

 

[AronSearle]

I'm asking questions and looking to understand - I don't need your insults.

That's OK, my insults are added free of charge.

How is it that the facts show that nuclear weapons have had a deterrent effect - none have been used against countries with or without them, not even against countries without nuclear near-neighbours and nuclear allies have they?

I've just specifically told you, can't you read?

East Germany and Eastern Europe was essentially 'conquered' by the USSR, and no one could do anything about it cus nukes.

As to the bolded parts, what part of 'deterent' do you not understand?

 

[randers]

So it's just an assumption that it's down to nukes. The evidence that they acted as a deterrent is 'cos you think they did'.
but lots of non-nuclear non-aligned countries didn't get attacked either.

 

[JBR]

Let's see if my explanation gets through!

If Britain and the Frogs were to get rid of their nuclear weapons, there is a very good chance that America would give up on us on the grounds that we are not doing our part, and may well pull out of Europe and NATO altogether and leave us to our own devices.

Russia would then be at liberty to sweep across the whole of Europe, as they had planned to do during the Cold War were it not for our nuclear deterrent.