Jimbo
|
Son of Star WarsOn top of trident it now transpires that Blair has been negotiating secretly with the US to bring the Son of Star Wars to either Scotland or Yorkshire. I have no doubt if he gets his wish to bring it to the UK it won't be based in Yorkshire.
As with his cash for honours deals, all of this negotiating was done without the knowledge of the elected Parliament. Blair it would seem, deems himself above Parliament and our elected representatives. Brown as usual was quietly complicit in Blair's machinations.
Scottish New Labour MP Ian Davidson said "I am astonished that we have gone so far in complete secrecy. We seem to be in Bush's pocket."
|
IF Convenor
|
People seem to fail to realise that the UK is a monarchy. That means rule by an individual.
The individual exercising the Royal Prerogative is, however, not the nominal Monarch but the Prime Minister. If you want to end these sorts of abuses of power you will need to remove the monarchy.
|
Aventinian
|
Re: Son of Star Wars | Jimbo wrote: | | As with his cash for honours deals, all of this negotiating was done without the knowledge of the elected Parliament. Blair it would seem, deems himself above Parliament and our elected representatives. Brown as usual was quietly complicit in Blair's machinations. |
I doubt national security matters are regularly discussed by the head of government in public.
| IF Convenor wrote: | People seem to fail to realise that the UK is a monarchy. That means rule by an individual.
The individual exercising the Royal Prerogative is, however, not the nominal Monarch but the Prime Minister. If you want to end these sorts of abuses of power you will need to remove the monarchy. |
Or simply restrict the Royal Prerogative...
But yes, there are few systems where the head of the elected government would bring such an issue before Parliament before anything definite was decided.
|
Aventinian
|
Oh yes, and on the actual substance of the matter:
Why would you be annoyed if it was brought to Scotland? There'd be a small economic boost as a result of services required for whatever is to be placed here.
The only argument I can see against it is that it turns us into a target in a major/nuclear war. But since everyone on this board seems to discount my arguments for trident on the basis of 'if you can't find someone you can label as having the potential to attack us, then nobody ever will' - then I would reverse that back upon you: who would attack us.
Can't see any problem myself.
|
billalba
|
I suppose it is possible that all these potential enemies usually point to the cold war and the russians...perhaps in an independent Scotland we could go back to being friendly with these countries..Scotland had good relations with russia prior to the union..why shouldnt it become friendly again...
|
Jimbo
|
| Aventinian wrote: | Oh yes, and on the actual substance of the matter:
Why would you be annoyed if it was brought to Scotland? There'd be a small economic boost as a result of services required for whatever is to be placed here.
The only argument I can see against it is that it turns us into a target in a major/nuclear war. But since everyone on this board seems to discount my arguments for trident on the basis of 'if you can't find someone you can label as having the potential to attack us, then nobody ever will' - then I would reverse that back upon you: who would attack us.
Can't see any problem myself. |
I take your point Aventinian but having it makes you a definite target whereas not having it reduces this possibility. How many Russian nukes do you think were pointed at Denmark or Switzerland during the cold war compared to here? Also; I'm pretty sure it breaks some Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty not to mention the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as does Trident2. Though I'm no expert on this I'm pretty sure there are some on this forum who are.
Here we have Westminster and Washington telling other countries what they can have whilst sending out the message that 'we'll do as we please.'
BTW are you from Rome?
|
Aventinian
|
| Jimbo wrote: | | Also; I'm pretty sure it breaks some Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty not to mention the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as does Trident2. Though I'm no expert on this I'm pretty sure there are some on this forum who are. |
Nor am I, I begrudingly admit. I shall likely look into it at some point.
But without actually knowing the ins and outs of the NP treaty myself, there seems to be a view that it is not illegal to renew Trident so long as our nuclear attack capability does not actually increase, but instead stays at a constant level.
A lot of bull gets thrown about when International law is discussed. But like I say, I'll have a look myself at some point.
| Quote: | | Here we have Westminster and Washington telling other countries what they can have whilst sending out the message that 'we'll do as we please.' |
Hmm... the difference, of course, being that the Star Wars system would be defensive - rather unlike what the likes of Iran and North Korea want their hands on (although I suppose you could argue along the lines that MAD operates in the interests of peace).
What worries me about the system is that either it will create a new arms race as a couple of the present nuclear powers make sure that they will have the capacity to get around the restraints; or that it will signal an end to America enforcing the NPT and that non-nuclear countries will be fairly much left to their own devices when it comes to nuclear development.
| Quote: | | BTW are you from Rome? |
I wish. I'm sure the Aventine Hill is a bit sunnier at the moment than Arthur's Seat.
|
Aventinian
|
| billalba wrote: | | I suppose it is possible that all these potential enemies usually point to the cold war and the russians...perhaps in an independent Scotland we could go back to being friendly with these countries..Scotland had good relations with russia prior to the union..why shouldnt it become friendly again... |
I thought we were quite friendly with the Russians these days. Apart from the odd occasion where it seems their secret service are murdering people very publicly in our territory...
|
billalba
|
Aventian...We were quite friendly with the russians until they stopped agreeing with the UK...The UK press have been falling over themselves to paint Russia as a corrupt state (they may be correct in their assumptions - I dont know)...but if you slag of a country enough it will eventually get the huff and not be bothered about what you say..
I think that as an Independent country Scotland can start again with all these relationships in a more positive frame of mind that is available to the Westminster parliament who only see projection of power as being the answer..
|
SouthernJock
|
This is bit of a non story.
First its wishful thinking by Blair to think that the US are going to place a defence system in the UK, which is for the defence of the US. The US government are only interesting in the defence of the US. Blair an others are kidding themselves on, to think differently.
Second point is it is a defence system, a kind of long range patriot missile, not sure why CND types are getting there knickers in a twist, likewise, not quite sure why the Russians are also getting touchy about a defence system being based in southern Poland and Czech republic, those locations are the optimum choice for 'over the horizon' tactical missles from the Middles East, positions would be useless for any tactical missles from Russia as there to close.
Dont get me wrong Im not for having these systems anywhere in europe , if the US want to defend the US, then they can have these sytems on US soil
|
Aventinian
|
| SouthernJock wrote: | This is bit of a non story.
First its wishful thinking by Blair to think that the US are going to place a defence system in the UK, which is for the defence of the US. The US government are only interesting in the defence of the US. Blair an others are kidding themselves on, to think differently. |
As I recall, we are not to be covered by it; what will be installed in the UK (proposed) is an early warning system.
| Quote: | | Dont get me wrong Im not for having these systems anywhere in europe , if the US want to defend the US, then they can have these sytems on US soil |
Why, when they'll pay us good money to put them on ours?
If I had a field, I'd happily house their system for the amount of cash they'd give me.
|
Jimbo
|
| Aventinian wrote: |
What worries me about the system is that either it will create a new arms race as a couple of the present nuclear powers make sure that they will have the capacity to get around the restraints; or that it will signal an end to America enforcing the NPT and that non-nuclear countries will be fairly much left to their own devices when it comes to nuclear development.
|
As you say Aventinian, the worry would be the potential arms race this could spark. Also: the US claim that the further into eastern Europe they can get this system placed the better. which I can see the benefits of from an American defensive point of view. But I do not think that the Russians or the Chinese will look on this kindly. The suspicion that abounds re the US in these countries is pretty much on a par with Iran. The Russian point of view may be 'how do we know this is only a defence system and not a cover for other missiles?' Or 'can these "defence" missiles be adapted to carry warheads?'
The US would not be happy with Russia, China or anyone else for that matter placing any type of missile system in Cuba, defensive or otherwise for just the very same reasons. The Russians may look upon this as a Bay of Pigs in reverse.
|
Blackleaf
|
| Quote: | First its wishful thinking by Blair to think that the US are going to place a defence system in the UK, which is for the defence of the US. The US government are only interesting in the defence of the US. Blair an others are kidding themselves on, to think differently.
|
It isn't wishful thinking by Blair.
The Americans want a "Son of Star Wars" system in Europe, and the UK isn't the only one wanting to have it. The Czech Republic and Poland are also hoping to have it based in their countries.
|
Blackleaf
|
| Aventinian wrote: |
As I recall, we are not to be covered by it; what will be installed in the UK (proposed) is an early warning system. |
Yes, we are. The system will defend Europe from a missile attack.
|
Aventinian
|
| Blackleaf wrote: | | Aventinian wrote: |
As I recall, we are not to be covered by it; what will be installed in the UK (proposed) is an early warning system. |
Yes, we are. The system will defend Europe from a missile attack. |
Source?
|
Jimbo
|
| Blackleaf wrote: | | Aventinian wrote: |
As I recall, we are not to be covered by it; what will be installed in the UK (proposed) is an early warning system. |
Yes, we are. The system will defend Europe from a missile attack. |
I think you may be wrong here. I am pretty sure I read that this is a defence system purely for US purposes. By placing it in Europe it gives the system a 3,000 miles start up advantage. From Blair's perspective it would bring in cash and help cement UK/US collaboration and make the US slightly dependant on UK goodwill. But I could be wrong. no one really knows what's in our delusional PM's mind.
|
|
|
