Question Time

[Blaven]

Back on subject, just watched it again, but still did not think the panel engaged with the public at all also it did not work because the 2 strongest performers (of a poor bunch) were both from the same side of the argument, felt sorry for Savage he did not look comfortable at all, not his natural habitat of course

Savage was scrambling to find something to say that had any truth in it.

Tells us he operates in all these countries that use different currencies, yet cant get a handle on a chance of a change in currency in Scotland.

He was a bawhair away fae a britnat rant and rage. If it wasn't for the mad old twat ranting aboot jebus, he probably would have.

[ICTJohnboy]

Back on subject, just watched it again, but still did not think the panel engaged with the public at all also it did not work because the 2 strongest performers (of a poor bunch) were both from the same side of the argument, felt sorry for Savage he did not look comfortable at all, not his natural habitat of course

So what is his natural habitat?

His spell as chairman of ICT would tend to suggest that it's not running a football club.

[Enigma]

I'm in favour of boycotting sporting events hosted by despotic regimes.

So if Scotland qualify for the next World Cup you will want us to withdraw and boycott the tournament?

[BigBadSaint]

What's the currency? What's the currency? More than likely the pound...you know it.... but even if it's the Caledonia Groat Cameron, Boris, Rees-Mogg and their chums will still have no idea how many groats a pint of milk or a loaf of bread costs.

[Ad Lib]

So if Scotland qualify for the next World Cup you will want us to withdraw and boycott the tournament?

I would support a boycott. Ditto for Qatar.

[Enigma]

I would support a boycott. Ditto for Qatar.

Tbh this approach would have prevented 1978 so perhaps there is merit. As much as I do sympathise with your view, as a football fan I really couldn't support a boycott. I'd spend the whole tournament thinking 'that could have been us'. I take it the same would apply if Partick Thistle qualified for Europe and drew a Russian team?

[Ad Lib]

Tbh this approach would have prevented 1978 so perhaps there is merit. As much as I do sympathise with your view, as a football fan I really couldn't support a boycott. I'd spend the whole tournament thinking 'that could have been us'. I take it the same would apply if Partick Thistle qualified for Europe and drew a Russian team?

Getting drawn a team in a competition is different. In the case of Russia and Qatar FIFA has explicitly sanctioned that a competition is to be centred in those countries, giving them all the benefits of the advertising revenue, the big carnival atmosphere and the tourism and the like, helps to prop up despotic regimes and I don't think our sporting associations should condone that.

I wouldn't urge teams to forfeit matches against Russia or Qatar if they were drawn against them in international or European football, as that isn't a conscious choice by governing bodies to advantage a country, so much as randomly being drawn against an individual team. I wouldn't personally go to the away games in those countries though whereas I would jump at the chance to go somewhere like France or Italy if Thistle qualified for Europe.

[Blaven]

I would support a boycott. Ditto for Qatar.

A boycott would leave you still standing as a hypocrite then.

By your definition, relinquishing membership to the organization would be your only option.

[Ad Lib]

A boycott would leave you still standing as a hypocrite then.

By your definition, relinquishing membership to the organization would be your only option.

I think you'll find I said earlier I would support resignation from international sporting bodies in protest at giving the hosting of major events to despotic regimes. When asked if I would support a boycott, I merely answered that question. Try again.

I would point out at this point, however, that sporting organisations are, or ought to be, independent of government control. If the SFA does not wish to take a stance on whether Vladimir Putin's Russia should be given a backhander by Sepp Blatter and FIFA, that's their prerogative. It wouldn't make them hypocrites but it wouldn't make them principled either. I would expect them not to make any moral claims for political capital out of pretending to be ideologically against despotism.

On the other hand, a state whose government specifically holds to a policy of calling nuclear weapons morally abhorrent and calls for a constitutional prohibition on having such weapons, who then explicitly signs up to a nuclear military pact, is hypocritical because they have taken a moral stand then not followed it to its logical conclusions.

[Ad Lib]

Ask any labour or libdum Mp about scrapping trident and everyone of them will spout unilateral disarmament would be their proffered option.

Bollocks. The official party policy of both of those parties is to work towards multilateral disarmament, not unilateral and all but their lunatic fringe, very few of whom are elected, hold to that position.

Every country with nuclear weapons will not tolerate any other country that has not got nucler weapons from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This is definitionally untrue. Otherwise there would only be one country with nuclear weapons. The West has tolerated the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Israel, India, Pakistan, China and Russia in the last century.

If Scotland decided that they wanted a share of assets and that meant a share of the nuclear weapons, how many do you think the RUK would be willing to part with?

None. But for strategic, not moral reasons. The UK Government has never pretended to believe that the possession of nuclear weapons is morally abhorrent.

[Blaven]

Bollocks. The official party policy of both of those parties is to work towards multilateral disarmament, not unilateral and all but their lunatic fringe, very few of whom are elected, hold to that position.

This is definitionally untrue. Otherwise there would only be one country with nuclear weapons. The West has tolerated the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Israel, India, Pakistan, China and Russia in the last century.

None. But for strategic, not moral reasons. The UK Government has never pretended to believe that the possession of nuclear weapons is morally abhorrent.

Oh dear. The last century.

How is Iran getting on with its nuclear warhead program?

So if Scotland decided it would like to have a warhead of its own, we would not get one on strategic grounds?

It will be strategicaly ok for us to store and possibly deploy from Scottish waters the RUK warheads , but not for Scotland to own one?

The UK government also wouldn't believe that it would be morally abhorrent to store their WMD on foreign soil?

Does that sound morally ok to you?

Would you be happy for the RUK to keep their warheads on Scottish soil and not allow Scotland any say on any deployment of said warheads?

[Ad Lib]

Oh dear. The last century.

How is Iran getting on with its nuclear warhead program?

Well for one it denies having one and the Ayatollahs have previously declared it haram. A moral stance, I'd observe...

That aside, the international community has implemented sanctions on Iran for breaking laws about the restrictions on use and enrichment of uranium. Many existing nuclear powers have expressed grave concerns at allowing a situation to develop where a country, which is not itself very stable, in a region that is in a monumental state of war, to develop nuclear weapons which could escalate conflicts with Israel and could realistically facilitate nuclear terrorism or war should the weapons fall into the wrong hands.

That's not the same as saying no other country can have nuclear weapons. It is a very particular case where international laws have been broken and where the very existence of governments and states are put immediately and materially in danger by the potential development of weapons which are not securely controlled by stable and peaceful governments. Pragmatism not principle.

So if Scotland decided it would like to have a warhead of its own, we would not get one on strategic grounds?

It will be strategicaly ok for us to store and possibly deploy from Scottish waters the RUK warheads , but not for Scotland to own one?

It really depends, doesn't it. It may not be in the strategic interests of Scotland, whether it's defence or other interests, to continue to allow a foreign government to control nuclear military facilities on our soil. In that situation, it would be perfectly reasonable for Scotland to tell that other government that they were no longer content to permit that arrangement and to insist that in safest and most time efficient manner possible to remove themselves from those facilities. This requires neither moral outrage against the idea of nuclear weapons nor does it require a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons.

I think it's perfectly foreseeable that the rUK would not be comfortable with an independent Scotland acquiring nuclear weapons of its own when those weapons would not be under its control and would be defended, at first instance, by a military significantly smaller and less well equipped than that of the UK itself. This would potentially leave Scotland exposed as a target for rogue governments or terrorist groups who may seek to acquire those weapons. It is perfectly foreseeable why our immediate neighbours would be anxious at the split resources and command structure there which would materially harm their own security too. Observe, no moral abhorrence or hypocrisy exists here. For them it is purely a pragmatic issue. That is not the position of a state which purports to have a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons.

The UK government also wouldn't believe that it would be morally abhorrent to store their WMD on foreign soil?

Does that sound morally ok to you?

Would you be happy for the RUK to keep their warheads on Scottish soil and not allow Scotland any say on any deployment of said warheads?

I don't think the rest of the UK would think it remotely morally abhorrent to host nuclear weapons on foreign soil. Considering the Americans (at least used to) do it in Turkey, there is no moral rubicon there for them. I don't see any moral issue at play there either. The difference is I don't pretend to believe that nuclear weapons are in and of he themselves morally abhorrent and I don't call for a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons. I just think they're a chronic waste of money and not an effective military investment in terms of strategically securing our own defence and achieving military objectives further afield. I suspect you don't really understand what I actually mean when I use the word "morality" in this context. It's not about whether or not something is desirable or undesirable, prudent or imprudent, nice or unpleasant. It is about whether there is an ethical case for permitting something to exist or facilitating its existence.

On the second point I honestly don't particularly care, from a moral point of view, where the rUK keeps it's nuclear warheads. All I care about is that insofar as they have nuclear weapons they are properly secured in a suitable facility that minimises the prospect of sabotage. I am pragmatically, not ideologically, anti nuclear weapons.

I don't think it is reasonable or practical to say that Scotland should "have a say" on whether or not they deploy these warheads if they agree to let rUK continue to use Faslane, whether temporarily or permanently. They are only going to "deploy" the warheads at sea, and almost certainly not anywhere remotely near Scotland. They are merely storing the subs and warheads here. It is the port, not the place of deployment or combat. Saying that because an rUK has one of its Vanguards at Coulport therefore Alex Salmond should have a veto on whether or not one of the other Vanguards situated somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere in the Atlantic Ocean can fire a Trident missile is just intuitively moronic.

[Confidemus]

You have to admire Ad Lib's blinkered defiance in soldiering on, even when he's so painfully and obviously wrong.

[vikingTON]

Well for one it denies having one and the Ayatollahs have previously declared it haram. A moral stance, I'd observe...

That aside, the international community has implemented sanctions on Iran for breaking laws about the restrictions on use and enrichment of uranium. Many existing nuclear powers have expressed grave concerns at allowing a situation to develop where a country, which is not itself very stable, in a region that is in a monumental state of war, to develop nuclear weapons which could escalate conflicts with Israel and could realistically facilitate nuclear terrorism or war should the weapons fall into the wrong hands.

That's not the same as saying no other country can have nuclear weapons. It is a very particular case where international laws have been broken and where the very existence of governments and states are put immediately and materially in danger by the potential development of weapons which are not securely controlled by stable and peaceful governments. Pragmatism not principle.

It really depends, doesn't it. It may not be in the strategic interests of Scotland, whether it's defence or other interests, to continue to allow a foreign government to control nuclear military facilities on our soil. In that situation, it would be perfectly reasonable for Scotland to tell that other government that they were no longer content to permit that arrangement and to insist that in safest and most time efficient manner possible to remove themselves from those facilities. This requires neither moral outrage against the idea of nuclear weapons nor does it require a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons.

I think it's perfectly foreseeable that the rUK would not be comfortable with an independent Scotland acquiring nuclear weapons of its own when those weapons would not be under its control and would be defended, at first instance, by a military significantly smaller and less well equipped than that of the UK itself. This would potentially leave Scotland exposed as a target for rogue governments or terrorist groups who may seek to acquire those weapons. It is perfectly foreseeable why our immediate neighbours would be anxious at the split resources and command structure there which would materially harm their own security too. Observe, no moral abhorrence or hypocrisy exists here. For them it is purely a pragmatic issue. That is not the position of a state which purports to have a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons.

I don't think the rest of the UK would think it remotely morally abhorrent to host nuclear weapons on foreign soil. Considering the Americans (at least used to) do it in Turkey, there is no moral rubicon there for them. I don't see any moral issue at play there either. The difference is I don't pretend to believe that nuclear weapons are in and of he themselves morally abhorrent and I don't call for a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons. I just think they're a chronic waste of money and not an effective military investment in terms of strategically securing our own defence and achieving military objectives further afield. I suspect you don't really understand what I actually mean when I use the word "morality" in this context. It's not about whether or not something is desirable or undesirable, prudent or imprudent, nice or unpleasant. It is about whether there is an ethical case for permitting something to exist or facilitating its existence.

On the second point I honestly don't particularly care, from a moral point of view, where the rUK keeps it's nuclear warheads. All I care about is that insofar as they have nuclear weapons they are properly secured in a suitable facility that minimises the prospect of sabotage. I am pragmatically, not ideologically, anti nuclear weapons.

I don't think it is reasonable or practical to say that Scotland should "have a say" on whether or not they deploy these warheads if they agree to let rUK continue to use Faslane, whether temporarily or permanently. They are only going to "deploy" the warheads at sea, and almost certainly not anywhere remotely near Scotland. They are merely storing the subs and warheads here. It is the port, not the place of deployment or combat. Saying that because an rUK has one of its Vanguards at Coulport therefore Alex Salmond should have a veto on whether or not one of the other Vanguards situated somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere in the Atlantic Ocean can fire a Trident missile is just intuitively moronic.

Too long; didn't read.

[Blaven]

You have to admire Ad Lib's blinkered defiance in soldiering on, even when he's so painfully and obviously wrong.

I always find it very funny. Libs starts off his argument on one shade of grey and then proceeds to go through every other shade in order to defend the first one.

He IS nothing more than a twat.

[Blaven]

Well for one it denies having one and the Ayatollahs have previously declared it haram. A moral stance, I'd observe...

That aside, the international community has implemented sanctions on Iran for breaking laws about the restrictions on use and enrichment of uranium. Many existing nuclear powers have expressed grave concerns at allowing a situation to develop where a country, which is not itself very stable, in a region that is in a monumental state of war, to develop nuclear weapons which could escalate conflicts with Israel and could realistically facilitate nuclear terrorism or war should the weapons fall into the wrong hands.

That's not the same as saying no other country can have nuclear weapons. It is a very particular case where international laws have been broken and where the very existence of governments and states are put immediately and materially in danger by the potential development of weapons which are not securely controlled by stable and peaceful governments. Pragmatism not principle.

It really depends, doesn't it. It may not be in the strategic interests of Scotland, whether it's defence or other interests, to continue to allow a foreign government to control nuclear military facilities on our soil. In that situation, it would be perfectly reasonable for Scotland to tell that other government that they were no longer content to permit that arrangement and to insist that in safest and most time efficient manner possible to remove themselves from those facilities. This requires neither moral outrage against the idea of nuclear weapons nor does it require a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons.

I think it's perfectly foreseeable that the rUK would not be comfortable with an independent Scotland acquiring nuclear weapons of its own when those weapons would not be under its control and would be defended, at first instance, by a military significantly smaller and less well equipped than that of the UK itself. This would potentially leave Scotland exposed as a target for rogue governments or terrorist groups who may seek to acquire those weapons. It is perfectly foreseeable why our immediate neighbours would be anxious at the split resources and command structure there which would materially harm their own security too. Observe, no moral abhorrence or hypocrisy exists here. For them it is purely a pragmatic issue. That is not the position of a state which purports to have a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons.

I don't think the rest of the UK would think it remotely morally abhorrent to host nuclear weapons on foreign soil. Considering the Americans (at least used to) do it in Turkey, there is no moral rubicon there for them. I don't see any moral issue at play there either. The difference is I don't pretend to believe that nuclear weapons are in and of he themselves morally abhorrent and I don't call for a constitutional prohibition on nuclear weapons. I just think they're a chronic waste of money and not an effective military investment in terms of strategically securing our own defence and achieving military objectives further afield. I suspect you don't really understand what I actually mean when I use the word "morality" in this context. It's not about whether or not something is desirable or undesirable, prudent or imprudent, nice or unpleasant. It is about whether there is an ethical case for permitting something to exist or facilitating its existence.

On the second point I honestly don't particularly care, from a moral point of view, where the rUK keeps it's nuclear warheads. All I care about is that insofar as they have nuclear weapons they are properly secured in a suitable facility that minimises the prospect of sabotage. I am pragmatically, not ideologically, anti nuclear weapons.

I don't think it is reasonable or practical to say that Scotland should "have a say" on whether or not they deploy these warheads if they agree to let rUK continue to use Faslane, whether temporarily or permanently. They are only going to "deploy" the warheads at sea, and almost certainly not anywhere remotely near Scotland. They are merely storing the subs and warheads here. It is the port, not the place of deployment or combat. Saying that because an rUK has one of its Vanguards at Coulport therefore Alex Salmond should have a veto on whether or not one of the other Vanguards situated somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere in the Atlantic Ocean can fire a Trident missile is just intuitively moronic.

Just going to go to that last part of your tomb.

Would it not be very, very lucky, ( or rather bloody catastrophic ) that if the rUK had to deploy its warheads, that all subs or ships were at sea and not in port or in Loch Long at the time?

[AUFC90]

Getting drawn a team in a competition is different. In the case of Russia and Qatar FIFA has explicitly sanctioned that a competition is to be centred in those countries, giving them all the benefits of the advertising revenue, the big carnival atmosphere and the tourism and the like, helps to prop up despotic regimes and I don't think our sporting associations should condone that.

I wouldn't urge teams to forfeit matches against Russia or Qatar if they were drawn against them in international or European football, as that isn't a conscious choice by governing bodies to advantage a country, so much as randomly being drawn against an individual team. I wouldn't personally go to the away games in those countries though whereas I would jump at the chance to go somewhere like France or Italy if Thistle qualified for Europe.

I'd fucking love to see travel to Moscow or St Petersburg to watch the football.

[ecto]

So what is his natural habitat?

His spell as chairman of ICT would tend to suggest that it's not running a football club.

good good, happy you got that off your chest?

[MassiveFanDan]

[sophia]

Not quite Question Time, but the latest of James Cook's panel format shows comes from Inverness tonight.

BBC2 20:30

The ginger rodent and the corpulent chap from NO argue against a fair and just Scotland and on the side of righteousness is Inspector Rebus and Angus Robertson.

Making up the panel and claiming to be undecided is Nicky Marr, an erstwhile secondary presenter on a local radio station and excruciating columnist for the Inverness Courier.

Her column drips with such a shallow me me me self satisfaction that, far from being undecided, she's a stick on NO.

She also appears to have a long standing jealousy of Nicola Sturgeon, which would reinforce her misplaced views.

I'm undecided.

Oh, by the way, during a previous debate James Cook in defending the charge of bias in the BBC said that he was / they were (paraphrasing) holding the YES position to account.

Of course, that gave the game away completely.

He should have been briefed to be neutral between the YES and NO arguments.

That summed up the BBC.

look at the time!