coprolite Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 8 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: f**king grammar nazi. My point was during the GE there was focus on Holyrood as an argument that the SNP was not fit to govern therefore didn’t deserve people’s votes. At the same time there was little reference to the fact that the Labour Party had been governing Wales and hadn’t done any better job. Do you live in Wales and work in England? I go across the bridge a couple/few times a week for work, or occasionally take the kids across to administer a disciplinary skelp. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Clavdivs Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 Sir Kerr has announced a 2.5% of GDP defence spend with a 41 Billion spend alone on upgrading UK's Nuclear fleet ( Independent sources saying it could cost up to 172 Billion over 10 years ). Yet,Labour cannot find the 1.3 Billion to end the two child cap and the 1.4 Billion to keep pensioners warm in winter . Just another of the myriad of reasons Scotland needs out of this broken,corrupt and London centric union. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazzyStar Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 A thread name change I can get behind. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 Incredible scenes Jeff. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 Shocked to discover that @Homer Thompson is @pawpar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Waldo Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 14 hours ago, SandyCromarty said: The UK is not, miltarily, a 'superpower and never will be, to spend the ridiculous amount of money on nuclear weaponry is wasteful and that money could be used on the NHS. Talk of thousands losing jobs is a well worn phrase used to justify Tridents ongoing works. Thousands lost their jobs on the Clyde when shipbuilding moved to Jaan and Korea, many of those men were absorbed elsewhere in Industry where I worked alongside many of them onshore and offshore Aberdeen. The UK is a small country on the world stage and maintaining a military nuclear budget is echoes of a long gone past and as I said it is empirical posturing. And to repeat myself we are a USA puppet state militarily. We need to cut that tie and the demands placed upon us. No one claimed that the UK is a military superpower, and yes it is ridiculous to spend that amount on nuclear weaponry but if we scrap Trident now we'd save very little. Ten, fifteen years ago, I would agree but it is too late now. I do not think you cannot equate domestic shipbuilding with nuclear submarines. How many countries can build ships, how many nuclear submarines? Remember we have nuclear boats that do not carry nuclear weapons, we'd lose that skill. We've not designed the next lot yet and you cannot simply pause building for a few years. Yes, we are a small country but we are part of the NATO alliance, which relies on collective responsibility. I am pretty sure if Poland and Germany were not in NATO, they would be pursuing there own nuclear weapons. They've got hunners of tanks, we don't. The big NATO countries specialise is areas - France recently used our huge C17 transports coz they don't have any. Norway recently said they'll help escort our aircraft carrier next year coz most of our escorts are gubbed. I do not think we are just an American puppet, a lot of time we align and sometimes we (wrongly) doff the cap, but each to there own opinion. My main point was, politicians who still say that scrapping Trident would save billions 'to give to the NHS' are either, not clued up, or being disingenuous with the public. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 7 Share Posted August 7 I totally get the argument that unilaterally giving up nuclear weapons is the only moral thing to do, and if there's any worry about deterrence against China building up their capability and Russia's increasing belligerence, then why not just do as the Netherlands etc do and rely on the American umbrella? 1. There is no way the US would risk a nuclear exchange to defend any European country, be it Trump led or anyone else. 2. Nuclear deterrence costs peanuts compared to it's conventional equivalent. If I was suddenly given the power I'd probably go for unilateral disarmament if multilateral wasn't a goer, but it wouldn't be an easy decision. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 If anything this is even better than "What is the point of Labour ?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 On 06/08/2024 at 07:32, Sheas_cake said: Indeed. Although a significant number (something like 25%) of pensioners own second homes, so they would instantly be binned off any entitlement to means-tested benefits. That can't be right. Only 3% of people in the UK own a second home. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 I wondered what thread this was. If the name change is meant to be funny it's failed badly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 3 minutes ago, Sheas_cake said: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-second-homes-fact-sheet/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-second-homes-fact-sheet#households-with-second-homes Number 6 refers to older folk with second homes (or "access" to second homes) I read that as 27% of the 3% of people with second homes are over 65. Since over-65s make up about 25% of the population, that's still only 3 or 4% of them having second homes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 Just now, Sheas_cake said: Yeah I think you're right. I've made a c**t of that It's a rite of passage on this forum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 47 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: I wondered what thread this was. If the name change is meant to be funny it's failed badly. Agreed. Shit thing to do. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Jambomo said: Agreed. Shit thing to do. My understanding is that we are not meant to have threads that have a poster's name in the thread title. They've been pulled in the past. It doesn't matter who it is btw, it isn't on. Edited August 8 by DeeTillEhDeh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonksy+HisChristianParade Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 3 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: My understanding is that we are not meant to have threads that have a poster's name in the thread title. They've been pulled in the past. It doesn't matter who it is btw, it isn't on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 Just now, Bonksy+HisChristianParade said: If the title thread had been changed to your name I would object as well. You really need to grow up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jives Miguel Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 Never interacted with this chap, but have seen people refer to him as "Old Man Danger", which is a very funny nickname to me. That's all I have to say on the matter. Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 6 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: If the title thread had been changed to your name I would object as well. You really need to grow up. Thanks for reporting this. The title has been changed 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 (edited) 1 minute ago, Homer Thompson said: Thanks for reporting this. The title has been changed Haha. Get it changed without a user's name in. Edited August 8 by DeeTillEhDeh -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 2 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: Haha. Get it changed without a user's name in. There. It no longer has "a" posters name HTH 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.