Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Yay, so we managed to get a domestic policy put through, Big woot. Its up to the English government if they want to have "free" education. That doesn't change the point that the English government still gets a say in a great many areas of Scottish politics that it shouldn't.

0.o Throwing out numbers that clarify that those who weren't receiving the poor end of her policies is your point? There's one Tory MP in the whole of Scotland now, (who is generally regarded as being a lapdog for Cameron, seeing as she said that the Scottish people are "wasters". ...Way to represent your people) what's that say for people's respect for the Tory party nowadays? The Tory party are pariahs in Scottish politics because of her. When the Conservatives got voted into government a few years ago it nothing but improve the independence movement. The Scottish people just looked down south and thought, "wow, they voted that lot in again. Better get away quick before they screw our country up another time".

Oh look one of their first policies was to sell off Sherwood Forest for logging...

How are you managing to argue with me?
I linked to an article which seemed relevant and mildly interesting. I've not mentioned my personal politics. If you read the figures I quoted they support what you're saying?

As an aside, I do like the way the fact I owe 16k for something that you guys get for free is swept under the carpet though

And we didn't vote our current government in. We couldn't make our minds up which bunch of twerps we wanted in power, so we got the government no one wanted. I used to vote lib dem as they said they'd get rid of tuition fees (this being a bug bear of mine and the only reason I'm in debt). They didn't.
If you can get out of this coalition crap then I envy you.

PS - Sherwood forest is still there... I've seen it

So if Scotland goes, who gets the oil?

If Scotland goes, and Texas invades Scotland - because we have a battleship sitting around with nothing to do - would England do anything? If its a problem, what if we helped you with the Falklands. Could we have Scotland then? Is Scotland big enough to fit twin cab double dooleys? Can Scots learn a civilized language like Spanish? What if we just allowed conquered Scotland and gave it to the Comanche nation and the Kiowas? Would that be a problem? I mean you know Wallace was the first Texan right?

If Texas invades Scotland, then Canada, then Tahiti, can we say the sun never sets on the Lone Star State? Would Mexico get nervous?

^^ Heh, yeah, I may have misconstrued you point a tad there.

There was a nice little bit on the BBC there about the Tory part and its politics. They want money, it doesn't matter how they get it. As long as the country appears to be making money they're happy. Thus you get massive cuts to everywhere in the budget and the selling off of resources. That appears to increase the funds in the treasury, but it only serves to lower the quality of life in the UK for the average person. But then again how many of the Tory party were once amongst the common plebs before they got into power? They're the rich telling the poor what to do because they of course know best. Tell that to the people out on the streets because you cut their benefits because they weren't working (in a country where there's no jobs...).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
So if Scotland goes, who gets the oil?

If Scotland goes, and Texas invades Scotland - because we have a battleship sitting around with nothing to do - would England do anything?

If Texas invades Scotland, then Canada, then Tahiti, can we say the sun never sets on the Lone Star State?

Thatcher sold the oil to private investors. The majority no longer owned by the Scottish government. However Westminster has said that Britain gets the oil, not youknow the country in which the oil actually resides. Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, however has essentially told Cameron to shove it in that respect.

Also I'd note that Scotland does contribute a rather large number of soldiers to the British army and is one of the primary training locations for it. Its not as if we can't defend ourselves. Though I'd also point out that the British military has received cuts as of late. Coincidentally the Scottish elements of it have been cut to a larger extent than the other country's. That's in no way because the British government doesn't want us Scots running off with a load of kit and men if we go independent. Of course not...

 Albatross wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Why is equality for its own sake a good thing?

Not for its own sake but there are various aspects of society that arguably are reasons for more equality rather than less.

Such as? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just curious about your take on it.

I can't think why everyone in a modern society would accept a situation of extreme inequality, which would benefit only a small elite, so a certain amount of levelling is a good thing for peace and tranquility.

So I make the basic assumption that we want everyone in our society to have a reasonable chance of a happy, productive life. Obviously that can't be imposed by society but we can try to set up conditions that make it more possible for people to fulfil their potential.

One example of this is the provision of educational opportunities. We cannot make everyone intelligent and hard-working, but we can try to educate people to a level their abilities enable them to achieve. The return on this investment would be a more productive society thanks to better science, management, and so on.

If you look at the UK today, education provision is all over the place with crappy state schools in poor areas, the middle class using house purchasing power to get into the good state schools, and the wealthy using their wealth to buy top class education.

The situation at university is just as bad, with the Scottish funding free places while the English are being challenged with high fees.

The general effect of this is that people are not educated to the level they have the talent for. Bright working class children are overlooked, while upper/middle-class children of average ability get coached into the best universities and from there sometimes into good jobs they probably do badly, thus perpetuating the cycle and also screwing stuff up along the way.

So I would argue that the education system should aim to educate everyone equally well.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Thatcher sold the oil to private investors. The majority no longer owned by the Scottish government. However Westminster has said that Britain gets the oil, not youknow the country in which the oil actually resides. Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, however has essentially told Cameron to shove it in that respect.

Go to a pub in Lerwick and start spouting off about "Scottish Oil" and see how long you last... The majoraty feeling in Shetland is that they will vote not to be independant of the UK unless they can be completly independant, but that the Scottish Govenment have time and again ignored any attempt at self govenence by a comunity that is far more isolated from Edinburgh than Edinburgh from London.

Seriously, get the chip off your sholder and stop taking everything Alex Salmond says as fact. It is massivly more complex than you are making out. The British Govenment dose not hate Scotland. You are commeing across like a GCSE politics student. Lots of broad statements and incorrect infomation.

Steve steveson wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Thatcher sold the oil to private investors. The majority no longer owned by the Scottish government. However Westminster has said that Britain gets the oil, not youknow the country in which the oil actually resides. Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, however has essentially told Cameron to shove it in that respect.

Go to a pub in Lerwick and start spouting off about "Scottish Oil" and see how long you last... The majoraty feeling in Shetland is that they will vote not to be independant of the UK unless they can be completly independant, but that the Scottish Govenment have time and again ignored any attempt at self govenence by a comunity that is far more isolated from Edinburgh than Edinburgh from London.

Seriously, get the chip off your sholder and stop taking everything Alex Salmond says as fact. It is massivly more complex than you are making out. The British Govenment dose not hate Scotland. You are commeing across like a GCSE politics student. Lots of broad statements and incorrect infomation.

Yes and its ever so hard to concisely put across a full opinion over a medium like a forum. I didn't vote for the SNP in the last election, and didn't have much of a high opinion for them before it, but they are a party that represents my country's nationalism, so I feel as though I should respect their points. The current government are Tories. I don't respect them in any way because of their current policies. What they did to my country in the past just adds to my low opinion of them.

In fact if Scotland were to become independent its been surmised that he'll erect a statue to himself in the Glasgow' George Square alongside the other great figures of Scotland. It'll be the statue of Adonis with his head crudely affixed, in one hand a pie, and the other pointing triumphantly to the local Gregg's, ushering the people to the promised land. =P

 Wyrmalla wrote:


I didn't vote for the SNP in the last election, and didn't have much of a high opinion for them before it, but they are a party that represents my country's nationalism, so I feel as though I should respect their points.

It truly is the blind leading the blind. Good luck with your independence and all that .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[quote=Wyrmalla 519266 5484097 6ce94532b43987836a322963d0c3c2ee.jpg

Also I'd note that Scotland does contribute a rather large number of soldiers to the British army and is one of the primary training locations for it. Its not as if we can't defend ourselves. Though I'd also point out that the British military has received cuts as of late. Coincidentally the Scottish elements of it have been cut to a larger extent than the other country's. That's in no way because the British government doesn't want us Scots running off with a load of kit and men if we go independent. Of course not...

You think?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Why is equality for its own sake a good thing?

Not for its own sake but there are various aspects of society that arguably are reasons for more equality rather than less.

Such as? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just curious about your take on it.

I can't think why everyone in a modern society would accept a situation of extreme inequality, which would benefit only a small elite, so a certain amount of levelling is a good thing for peace and tranquility.

So I make the basic assumption that we want everyone in our society to have a reasonable chance of a happy, productive life. Obviously that can't be imposed by society but we can try to set up conditions that make it more possible for people to fulfil their potential.

Do we not have that now?

One example of this is the provision of educational opportunities. We cannot make everyone intelligent and hard-working, but we can try to educate people to a level their abilities enable them to achieve. The return on this investment would be a more productive society thanks to better science, management, and so on.

If you look at the UK today, education provision is all over the place with crappy state schools in poor areas, the middle class using house purchasing power to get into the good state schools, and the wealthy using their wealth to buy top class education.

The situation at university is just as bad, with the Scottish funding free places while the English are being challenged with high fees.

The general effect of this is that people are not educated to the level they have the talent for. Bright working class children are overlooked, while upper/middle-class children of average ability get coached into the best universities and from there sometimes into good jobs they probably do badly, thus perpetuating the cycle and also screwing stuff up along the way.

See, I would challenge that. There's a tendency to cling to economic determinism when it comes to educational achievement, which is unhealthy, and clearly hasn't worked. If it was a simple case of throwing money at problems, why don't more children from deprived backgrounds succeed, in the wake of all the money spent by Labour on the lower strata of society? Frankly it's insulting to assume that just because a person is poor they will not be able to access education. Good education is not about money, or even facilities, it's about time. Giving kids time, yes at school, but also at home. Encouragement also counts for a lot. The fact is, kids from deprived backgrounds rarely get enough time and encouragement from their parents when it comes to education. They come from backgrounds that don't value educational achievement. I've seen it first hand. Private schools aren't space-age education pods. I currently work in one, and I was pretty shocked at the quality of facilities. Compare that to the school I went to back in Middlesbrough and the difference is night and day. In the last two decades, Teesside has had several state-of-the-art schools built there, with the very latest technology and beautiful new glass and steel buildings. Do they improve the lot of underprivileged kids? Uh, no. Not really. Unity City Academy, a school right slap-bang in the middle of one of the poorest areas of the town, lasted four low-achieving years.

What needs to change is culture, not the amount of money. Parents that send their kids to private school care about the educational outcomes of their children, in fact, most kids who achieve highly do so because their parents care. I didn't succeed the first time round because My mum was on her own and was working two jobs, which meant she didn't have the time to make sure I attended to my studies, even though my school was excellent. I ended up going to university as a mature student, and found the barriers to doing so to be non-existent. Schools can only do so much, basically. Sooner or later we're going to realise that personal responsibility is not the just the best way, it's the only way. It's how to engender that responsibility that is the challenge.

I think British society has undeniably become less equal than it was 50 years ago.

However you are right that throwing money at a problem doesn't in itself cure it.

My argument was not that specifically education needs to be fixed in this specific way and no other, it was an attempt to show that "levelling" does have a genuinely productive purpose other than simply for its own sake.

There is no reason for anyone from Ireland, Wales or Scotland to mourn her passing. She is the poster image of the hated shown by England towards the other members of the United Kingdom.

Only when independence is finally achieved, will we be able to protect Scotland from the destructive, hate-mongering tories and Westminster. What Thatcher did should never happen again, yet it currently is...under Cameron's rule.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Stay classy, Glasgow.

You know you might be on the wrong side when a former member of the IRA's Army Council at the time they tried to assassinate her is opposed to street parties celebrating her death

Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness has said people should not celebrate the death of Baroness Thatcher.

The former prime minister died on Monday aged 87 after suffering a stroke while staying at the Ritz hotel in central London.

Later on Monday, "street parties" were held in Londonderry and west Belfast as well as other parts of the UK.

In a tweet, Mr McGuinness said people should "resist celebrating the death of Margaret Thatcher".

He added: "She was not a peacemaker but it is a mistake to allow her death to poison our minds."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22078303

Yep. If an IRA Army Council member is setting a better standard of behavior towards someone who was undoubtedly an enemy of the IRA, and probably signed orders for the SAS to hunt him down, torture him and kill him, and certainly did set policies that killed friends and comrades... you should have a long sit with yourself and reconsider your personal behavior.

I see that the Scottish Persecution Complex is showing itself once more.

Lets look at the check list.

Scottish? Yes
Lived in Glasgow during Thatcher? Yes.
Had to live through Poll Tax? Yes.

Okay I get yes for all three, so I guess that means I'm allowed to comment.

The death of Thatcher is not a cause of celebration. Having to live through the brownouts, mounting rubbish, 3 day week, rolling strikes, worker intimidation meant that I was pleased that Thatcher came to power. Whether you agreed with her policies or not, you would have to be wilfully blind and/or ingnorant not to say that something had to be done to address the problems. Thatcher had the discipline to take a course of action and see it through, right or wrong.

If you don't like Thatchers legacy, then get 'into' politics, get elected and champion bills and parlimentary acts that will change the governments' course. As it is, half the voters don't even bother to vote. Apathy loses you the right to complain.

Cheers

Andrew

He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think. He outlived her, so I guess he'd get the last laugh on the matter, that is if he'd bother to indulge the woman. =P

 Wyrmalla wrote:
He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think. He outlived her, so I guess he'd get the last laugh the matter, that is if he'd bother to indulge the woman. =P

Lik
As to the motivations why doesn't matter. He doesn't have to like her. Or even respect her. But there is a certain self pride in examining your own actions, and not lowering yourself to acting like an animal.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think. He outlived her, so I guess he'd get the last laugh on the matter, that is if he'd bother to indulge the woman. =P

Presumably NI protestants will be dancing in the streets when he finally meets his long-deserved end. I wonder what you'd make of that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think British society has undeniably become less equal than it was 50 years ago.

It's also more prosperous. When young 'underprivileged' rioters are filming their exploits on smart-phones, yet still pleading poverty, you know something's not quite right. I still remember when we got our first VHS player. It was an event.


Couldn't afford any tapes, mind.

 Eetion wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think. He outlived her, so I guess he'd get the last laugh the matter, that is if he'd bother to indulge the woman. =P

Lik
As to the motivations why doesn't matter. He doesn't have to like her. Or even respect her. But there is a certain self pride in examining your own actions, and not lowering yourself to acting like an animal.

Exactly. Behaving like a civilized human being doesn't mean you dislike someone. Though honestly his apathy might prove he dislikes the Baroness more then you and the rest of your ilk's constant childish cawing. Remember the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
He's saying that she was so *evil that as long as people continue thinking about her she'll continue having power over them. In no way is he implying that he laments her death or thinks its anything but a good thing for his country I don't think.

No, that's what you are implying based on your own personal prejudices, which you have lain bare for all to see.

Regardless of what his own personal and private thoughts may be, the fact that he can treat someone who may be considered at one point a mortal enemy with a class and decency beyond many others is quite telling.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
and probably signed orders for the SAS to hunt him down, torture him and kill him, and certainly did set policies that killed friends and comrades

Would you like to provide evidence of your claim that British Troops were ordered to hunt him down , torture him and kill him. As far as I knew he lived in Derry quite openly and would the time he spent in jail not make it even easier for him to be found by your fictional SAS Death Squad.

 Hesh_Tank_On wrote:
Would you like to provide evidence of your claim that British Troops were ordered to hunt him down , torture him and kill him. As far as I knew he lived in Derry quite openly and would the time he spent in jail not make it even easier for him to be found by your fictional SAS Death Squad.

Stop claiming as a fact that which was not presented as such;

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
and probably signed orders for the SAS to hunt him down, torture him and kill him, and certainly did set policies that killed friends and comrades

Probably. As in may have, there is a chance that, there is the possibility that. Not - a certainty that yes she gave those orders.

 Albatross wrote:
It's also more prosperous. When young 'underprivileged' rioters are filming their exploits on smart-phones, yet still pleading poverty, you know something's not quite right. I still remember when we got our first VHS player. It was an event.


Couldn't afford any tapes, mind.

Hey, welcome to the ranks of anarcho-capitalist Tea Party types, by the way.

 Albatross wrote:
It's also more prosperous. When young 'underprivileged' rioters are filming their exploits on smart-phones, yet still pleading poverty

On the bright side they'll probably upload them on youtube and it'll end up as evidence, saving the taxpayer some money in warrants for evidence

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
It's also more prosperous. When young 'underprivileged' rioters are filming their exploits on smart-phones, yet still pleading poverty

On the bright side they'll probably upload them on youtube and it'll end up as evidence, saving the taxpayer some money in warrants for evidence

Hey... isn't that a plot in Michael Caine's "Henry Brown"??

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hesh_Tank_On wrote:
Would you like to provide evidence of your claim that British Troops were ordered to hunt him down , torture him and kill him. As far as I knew he lived in Derry quite openly and would the time he spent in jail not make it even easier for him to be found by your fictional SAS Death Squad.

Stop claiming as a fact that which was not presented as such;

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
and probably signed orders for the SAS to hunt him down, torture him and kill him, and certainly did set policies that killed friends and comrades

Probably. As in may have, there is a chance that, there is the possibility that. Not - a certainty that yes she gave those orders.

I have pointed out how easy it would be to find him. He is still alive, British Troops didn't hunt him down and didn't torture him so the chances that an order was signed by Thatcher were "probably" not at all. He is entitled to his opinion however to claim that British Troops would be ordered to torture anyone is wrong on so many levels.

 Hesh_Tank_On wrote:
I have pointed out how easy it would be to find him. He is still alive, British Troops didn't hunt him down and didn't torture him so the chances that an order was signed by Thatcher were "probably" not at all. He is entitled to his opinion however to claim that British Troops would be ordered to torture anyone is wrong on so many levels.

There were some Brits in the task forces that floated through Camp Nama at various points, so I wouldn't get too worked up.

 Hesh_Tank_On wrote:
I have pointed out how easy it would be to find him. He is still alive, British Troops didn't hunt him down and didn't torture him so the chances that an order was signed by Thatcher were "probably" not at all. He is entitled to your opinion however to claim that British Troops would be ordered to torture anyone is wrong on so many levels.

He is entitled to my opinion? Wait, what?
He never stated as a fact out that British troops were ordered to carry out an assassination or abduction mission. He said that there was the possibility that they may have been. All I did was to point out that you quoted someone, mis-read or ignored the content and then proceeded to make demands for evidence based on an argument that was more in your own mind than the screen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as your claim that British soldiers wouldn't torture anyone a quick search on Google for "British Army Torture" brings up a lot of results. You can also look into "Shoot to kill" too

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hesh_Tank_On wrote:
I have pointed out how easy it would be to find him. He is still alive, British Troops didn't hunt him down and didn't torture him so the chances that an order was signed by Thatcher were "probably" not at all. He is entitled to your opinion however to claim that British Troops would be ordered to torture anyone is wrong on so many levels.

He is entitled to my opinion? Wait, what?
He never stated as a fact out that British troops were ordered to carry out an assassination or abduction mission. He said that there was the possibility that they may have been. All I did was to point out that you quoted someone, mis-read or ignored the content and then proceeded to make demands for evidence based on an argument that was more in your own mind than the screen.

So are You saying as long as you put the word "probably" in front of any claim you can just ignore the need for evidence? He didn't say it was possible he said it was probable there is a big difference between the 2 words in UK English.

Thatcher may have had her faults but signing off on torture is not one of them.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hesh_Tank_On wrote:
I have pointed out how easy it would be to find him. He is still alive, British Troops didn't hunt him down and didn't torture him so the chances that an order was signed by Thatcher were "probably" not at all. He is entitled to your opinion however to claim that British Troops would be ordered to torture anyone is wrong on so many levels.

He is entitled to my opinion? Wait, what?
He never stated as a fact out that British troops were ordered to carry out an assassination or abduction mission. He said that there was the possibility that they may have been.

There's a difference between 'possible' and 'probable'. Someone really needs to back up an assertion if they claim it is 'probable'.

 Hesh_Tank_On wrote:
So are You saying as long as you put the word "probably" in front of any claim you can just ignore the need for evidence? He didn't say it was possible he said it was probable there is a big difference between the 2 words in UK English.

Thatcher may have had her faults but signing off on torture is not one of them.

I'm neither claiming that she signed off on torture, nor am I saying she did not. What I am saying is that if someone raises something as a possibility you shouldn't attempt to treat it as though it is a fact.
Possible - A person or thing that has the potential to become or do something
Probable - Likely to be the case or to happen.
Neither of these are statements of fact and their inclusion was obviously speculation.

Feel free to disregard the rest of my post though.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Feel free to disregard the rest of my post though.

Was this really needed? As we are going off topic feel free to continue in PM's .

However I stand by my view that in a thread about Baroness Thatcher if someone claims that it was probable that she ordered the torture and murder of Martin McGuinness they need to provide evidence.