Off Topic Political Debate

I know I'm in danger of dragging this thread back into the political way of things, but I don't understand why we have VAT anyway - apart from its obvious stealth. Tax 'Economic Bads', subsidise 'Economic Goods' fair enough - but a blanket tax on all purchasing, good and bad, has no merit in my eyes.

 

Soccer........
1895 - the British Ladies' Football Club (North team)
standing: Lily Lynn, Nettie Honeyball, Williams, Edwards, Ide
seated: Compton, F. B. Fenn, Nellie Gilbert, P. Smith, Rosa Thiere, Biggs

 

So Honeyball's beneath the big black cock? So to speak.

 

please log in to view this image

 

(From "thoughts for the day")
I completely agree with you. I do not subscribe to any argument for weapons - let alone nuclear ones. All I was saying is that anyone can set up a straw man and burn it easily. The diagram in "thoughts" was I know just for fun and not supposed to be a proper argument - but I have always been taught that a lot of people say something they mean and when challenged say - oh, it was just a joke, don't you have a sense of humour. That almost equates to cowardice. If you want to challenge the case for nuclear weapons you should make a proper argument - dealing with the points people in favour expound. The whole case for nuclear weapons as a deterrent is not that anyone expects to have to use them - but their opponent is left guessing whether they will. To me that is appalling - you are playing Russian Roulette with the planet.
I am not sure whether the Scots really want Trident removed as it creates mass employment in the area. However if the Scottish Parliament asked for their removal to England then it should be considered. I am not totally convinced though how something that is a UK issue not a Scottish one should be dealt with. Are the Scots to pick and choose which parts of the Union they will comply with - sounds too similar to the argument Brexiters made re the EU
Lastly the whole idea of the UK having an independent nuclear deterrent is a false farce. We cannot fire them without American permission so that makes it not independent and so valueless - the French do actually have an independent one.

 

Looks as if a nuclear device has gone off in the UKIP party HQ.

 

Hmm - to me that looks more like the Stirling Ladies team after they beat England 3-1 in 1881.

Definitely soccer though - pre-dates Rugby League by at least ten years. And I'm surprised andy couldn't tell from the shape of the ball.

 

That's a bit of an exaggeration. The MoD, in response to an FOI request, confirmed that there are actually only 520 jobs directly related to Trident in the area - anything else is simply a flow-on effect from its presence. In the event of Independence, the SG plan was - and more than likely still is - to base a Scottish Navy there. With that in mind, it's quite likely that the area would actually prosper from the removal of Trident.

 

is UKIP pro-trident then?

 

Really? I thought there were thousands of jobs that were in related industries but confess I only assumed but havenot looked for any facts. OK maybe the Scottish people would not mind if it did relocate.

 

Who knows what they believe in.

 

The 2 arguments which are normally given for the retention of nuclear weapons are the possible deterrent value, and, in the case of Trident, the number of jobs which are dependent on it. With the second of these I would ask just how far a person is prepared to use the argument of 'It creates jobs', well the holocaust also created jobs. The first is more difficult - does the deterrent value outweigh the possibility of it being used as a target for terrorists ? If you discount the possibility that a nuclear power would use such weapons whilst in the process of losing a conventional war against a non nuclear state (could that happen ?). Then we are talking about defence against other nuclear countries. We are talking about the USA, France, Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan, China or North Korea - allowing that North Korean weapons are not capable of reaching Britain, then it leaves only Russia as a remote possibility. In the absolute worst scenario the only reason for a Russian nuclear attack on Britain would be to knock out our nuclear weapons as quickly as possible, and if the aim were territorial/conventional then Germany is in the way, along with the rest of Europe. Britain's nuclear deterrent is different to that of France in that it is tied to NATO and could be activated in the defence of any other NATO country - so maybe we should be asking whether we want to remain in NATO ?

 

Further to the work debate

This just popped up on my fb:

please log in to view this image

mmm..............

 

I was going by the shape of the ladies...

 

I think the same was said of France in 1939...

 

I'm not 100% on the subject of Trident. I'm close-ish to that but not 100. The jobs argument is nonsense as cologne says, besides which, with that kind of money you could create loads more jobs than that doing something useful.
I'm pretty certain that any future perceived enemy is going to be of a guerilla nature rather than conventional nation v nation thing. The only thing that stops me is the two superpowers. I was less afraid of Soviet Russia than I am of a Republican America, but I think Russia is a lot more unstable these days. That said we only get delivered by the media how unstable the East are, never the West...
Interested to hear what you think.

 

Anyone who uses the argument that we should have nuclear weapons to create jobs should see a psychiatrist.
Of European nations only France have a nuclear weapon - so what makes us so special that we cannot be the same as Scandinavia, Germany Italy,Spain etc?
In reality we would never need a nuclear response to any country other than Russia- and if we needed one agaiinst them then we are already f*cked and the best it could do would be to attempt a small amount of damage in response to our total destruction.
I guess the only credible argument could be that if we had no nuclear capability Russia could invade with conventional forces - however it is inconceivable they would single us out for attack without France etc being attacked too. If the US allowed that they themselves would be immensely more at risk - it is what NATO is for and the American nuclear umbrella will exist as long as Russia has weapons.
Modern warfare has moved on and cyber and small scale terrorist attacks are now the "weapons" to defend against.
Think what spending the money we waste on nuclear weapons could be used for - our schools and NHS might actually imrove!

 

Steady, you're moving into Farage-talk here.