Off Topic General Election

http://archive.is/LPxFK

Well there's a surprise - school spending to face a 7% funding cut under the Tories. Even more of a surprise is that their own mouthpiece are printing the story.

Makes you wonder what worse news they are not reporting...

 

BB would you prefer them to cover it up?

Or to borrow more money and forget the cut?

Or is there another alternative?

The point I'm making is that once you have defined the enemy and decided they are all evil, producing negative propaganda is an easy option. Not getting just at this post but the negative bashing of everything does get rather boring and often simply gives more credibility to the very enemy that you hate.

Would it not be better to at least offer something of your alternative?

As Yorkie tried can we not have sensible debate on subjects with people offering positives that relate to the future?

 

Of course there's another alternative - unfortunately they will not listen. Michael Fallon himself described North Korea as deluded if they thought nuclear weapons would act as a deterrent from attack by foreign powers, claiming instead that they would be targets because of them. So we are apparently expected to be targets and pay ridiculous sums of money for the privilege - money that would be better spent on public services.

And by we, I mean Scotland, as we have to house the damned things.

 

That's more like it. Must say I'm undecided if nuclear weapons, in the current world, are good for the UK or not (based on the fact that we do have them). I'd certainly want defence spending, on things like the SAS and intelligence greatly increased so I don't see it as a huge financial win/win. (A personal bone for me is that I do want members of the SAS to be looked after for life. I do not see them being forced back intio Civi street as a good thing (unless they want to of course but there should be alternatives). There are many useful things they could be offered to do well into retirement. To me they are total heroes - but an aside).

But on Education I would like to see a total shake up as opposed to focussing on cuts. I'd like to see greater focus on 'you are never to old to learn' and I'd like to see parents, who clearly do not give a damn about the education of their kids being put under greater pressure. Not sure of all the answers but being a parent is one of the most responsible and difficult jobs yet no qualifications are required.

Personally not interested in the Scottish case. Until they go they are part of the UK and the logically place to put the subs is where they are. But I do appreciate why the nationalists raise the issue.

 

BB just following up on Fallon a few thoughts:

No country with nuclear weapons has been invaded.
One country without them has suffered an attack.
If the world gave up nuclear weapons would North Korea do the same?

After all North Korea can be taken out without nuclear weapons. And while China has shown great restraint there is evidence that the N Koreans think there is a threat of invasion. (Of course N Korea's problem is when they almost have them. That is when China and the US will have to make a decision).

I think I'd need better arguments than those presented above by Fallon.

On the cut I do however think the 7% could be found. I'd happily accept higher taxes as I rate Education that highly. I think good education reduces other problems and thus may in the long term produce further savings.

 

Perhaps the Nationalists should worry more about there own failings when it comes to the children of the less well off getting access to a University place?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...__quot_shocking_quot__barriers_to_university/

 

It is true to say that no country with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked, but it is also true to say that no country with nuclear power has ever been attacked - simply because, logistically speaking, bombing and occupying of a country with nuclear power stations would be a logistic nightmare. To cut a long story short - only 3rd World countries get attacked, either by other 3rd World countries - or by others claiming to do it in the interests of speading democracy. If there were ever a major war in the World - then it is a safe bet to assume that the Americans will be involved in it. It is also fair to say that Britain is identified as being 'in the service of the USA' in this capacity - so, what raises the danger of attack to Britain is not Trident itself, but rather that it is seen as being 'in the service of the USA' just as all US. military establishments in the UK. raise the possibility of attack (once such a war has actually started). We have reached a state where the USA. is so far ahead in terms of conventional weaponry that the only way that countries can 'take a short cut' is by going nuclear. Personally, I would scrap Trident - remove all US. military personnel from the UK. and also withdraw from NATO.

 

No country with a Nuclear Power station has been attacked because they have those power stations, but because they are countries of such a size and with allies that there is no-one that can attack them.
Were The Falkland Islands and Biafra 3rd world countries? Or were their attackers claiming to do so in the interests of spreading democracy? I am sure I can think of a few more examples as well.
Why should you wish the US military to leave the UK, you do not live here? I would have thought that you would have been grateful for the US military, the BATR and Nato being based in your country over the past 60 years and deterring the Russians from driving their tanks down The Fulda Gap. Or perhaps you would have preferred to be living on a state commune tending your carrots and whittling pegs?

 

You can leave out the sarcasm about carrots and whittling pegs thank you very much. Iran has nuclear power stations which are their only real security against attack - and precious few allies. My place of residence is also of no relevence here. I do not want American forces in Germany either - their function is over - nor do I want to be a part of a NATO organization which plants missiles on Moscow's doorstep but accuses the Russians of aggression when they react. If the Americans had withdrawn their forces from the old West Germany then the Russians would have done the same in the old GDR. as was the case in Austria, which had been occupied by both powers.

 

Cologne I won't argue the toss over Ukraine or Israel

But you raise something I had thought about. How can you make your country unsavoury? I thought that if we disposed of Trident we could ensure SAS cells were embedded not only in the UK but in other parts of the world. And have subs (nuclear powered so they could remain undetected for long periods) loaded with non nuclear missiles. Thus if we were invaded we could fight a war based on terrorism. Bit like ISIS but on a bigger scale.

You describe (not saying you are promoting it ) something similar with leaving nuclear bombs (nuclear material) lying around so bombing us would first negate invasion and secondly possibly leave a nuclear cloud roaming the earth (a random danger to the attackers).

Is either less savoury than having nuclear weapons roaming the oceans? I'm not sure?

And how effective they would be I'm not sure if we look at two scenarios:

1). The attacker is a religious nut case who thinks he is going to a glorious heaven
2). The attacker is motivated by a lack of food due to a natural or otherwise disaster (magnified by the out of control population growth).

a complex and fascinating topic.

Must say cannot share your anti US approach. Never seen any evidence that ignoring problems makes them go away. The more dialog with the states the better in my opinion. An isolated US I believe would be very dangerous (as their ability to vote Trump in as president I think clearly demonstrates).

You've certainly stimulated a few thoughts for the rest of my day

 

Who would attack Iran? Iraq has enough problems with Isis and the Kurds and it's military is in no fit state to take on Iran. The US and Israel have weapons technology that could flatten most of Iran and leave their Nuclear Power stations standing - so who is left?
The only reason the Iron Curtain came down and Russia walked away from all of those countries was because it was totally skint and could no longer fund a military to keep them all in place. Their brand of State Socialism/Marxism/Leninism/Trotskyism/Stalinism* had totally failed and they had to shrink their empire. Their is absolutely no evidence that they would have reversed the tanks out of any of those countries, including the GDR if the US had pulled out of West Germany - the reality is they no longer had the cash or the will to occupy those countries.

* I will let you choose the description that you prefer.

 

Wear_Yellow can go along with most of that but it does rather focus on the short-term. The war most likely in Iran's part of the world will be Shia vs Sunni. And that war is already raging. Once ISIS days as a territory occupier are over there is going to be one hell of a mess. And that says nothing of the Kurds who I'm convinced will rightly declare a country. And that brings Turkey as well as Iran into play. And says nothing of Israel being drawn into more military action than just bombing tactical targets as they are doing at the moment. If it starts to boil up what would it take for Saudi Arabia to invade Iran?

 

The point about nuclear power stations is that having attacked a country it is normally necessary to occupy it - the existence of nuclear power stations in such a scenario (within a war zone) is unthinkable for obvious reasons, and also for not immediately obvious ones eg. withdraw and sabotage. Whether or not I dislike the USA. (and I speak about the regime, not the people) it is probably true to say that they are the most disliked country on this planet (for various reasons, and by various groups) - it raises the level of danger to Britain that we are so closely associated with them. What reason could anyone have for attacking Britain - does it have a wealth of natural resources ? I think not. The only reason could be strategic ie. to knock our military (and nuclear) capacities out - as an extension of actions against the USA. For what other reason would anyone be dopy enough to invade our foggy island ?

 

Yes it does. An example: the Falklands. If you take the UK you get the goodies as well. As for why: religious take over?

As I said to Wear_Yellow you have to think long term.

I appreciate the pacifist approach, and would wish it was a viable option, but don't see it at the moment.

 

Shia vs Sunni has been raging for centuries and has been waging across borders, not much will change there. But this was a discussion over country states attacking other country states - governments may fund rebels (or freedom fighters depending on your political view) in another country, but they are not likely to go ahead with an all out war. By kicking ISIS out of Iraq and Syria, the Kurds effectively have their own country, it may not be recognised, but Turkey will do nothing about it for fear of the backlash in the West. They are already struggling with the drop in tourists and it would only take a few Western Governments to put Turkey on their "do not travel to " lists and Turkey will be a basket case.
Why would Saudi attack Iran? - after all "only 3rd World countries get attacked, either by other 3rd World countries - or by others claiming to do it in the interests of speading democracy"

 

Sorry Wear_Yellow none of that makes any sense to me.

I hadn't realised you had limited the discussion to recognised states. But as with ISIS if you get a force united then they declare a state.
The Kurds are in four countries. They have never had such unity, such weaponry, so many friends and so much respect worldwide, and so many battle hardened troops. Just saying all is as before is not a persuasive argument to me.
"but Turkey will do nothing about it for fear of the backlash in the West. " or with a semi dictator if you push them too far will they react?
"Why would Saudi attack Iran?" Because if not Iran could invade Saudi? Remember where Medina is.

I'll ignore the tantrum at the end

 

Reigious takeover may be in the heads of a few nutters, but we could have a nuclear arsenal the size of America and it would not defend us against a tragedy such as in Manchester.

 

I agree that the quote of mine was not very well thought out - there are many counter examples. It is, of course, entirely possible that Saudi will be encouraged by the USA to attack Iran - this would come over well in the present White House. Just as Iraq was encouraged all those years ago. As for Erdogan - he is not interested in censure from the West, he turns it to his own advantage.

 

Well I'd dispute that it's the logical place to put them - the Americans made that choice, partially on the basis of it's proximity to "the bright lights of Glasgow". Of the options discussed at the time, Falmouth was deemed the perfect option - but of course the rights and safety of a million Glaswegian citizens were nothing compared the fact that the land at Falmouth was owned by Royalty, and the fact that it had a "vigorous sailing centre" which might get spoilt.

 

Thanks for pointing out the major difference between tertiary education in Scotland and in England - not many outwith Scotland actually realise there is a difference and consequently tend to make fools of themselves when trying to denigrate the SNP by using stats that they don't understand.

The simple truth is that a far higher percentage of University students in Scotland attend college first - my own son was one such student, studying for his degree via two years at college and then two at University. Those who choose this route are not actually counted as attending University - rather they are counted as attending college, so this quite obviously has a major affect on 'the stats'. Combining the percentages, or simply including the numbers that actually finish at a University will indeed confirm that the poorest children in Scotland don't have the problem you are claiming - they have the opportunity to live at home whilst studying at college rather than have the problem of moving city and finding generally unaffordable accommodation.

I suppose too that the hidden agenda behind this article from a pro-Union newspaper may have meant the deliberate missing out of another telling stat, simply to suit its narrative - the fact that Scotland has a higher percentage of the population educated to degree level than rUK.

And it's no coincidence that that particular stat has risen steadily since 2007.