Samsung Galaxy Note 7 review: An almost flawless smartphone, almost
Michael Moore says a separate Scotland could could not have protected Libyans from Gaddafi.
If he has not been quoted out of context, by no means unknown, it seems a bit of a strange thing to say.
Of all the very cogent reasons for Scotland staying part of the UK I would not have thought that protecting Libyans was in the top 100!
With the SNP in full flow in Inverness, that doesn't really show the coalition as a entirely credible alternative.
"The Libya point is quite straightforward."
"if Salmond's approach had been mirrored by others, many thousands more Libyans would now be dead and a cruel despot would be systematically rooting out and executing those people perceived to have even harboured the hope of an end to his tyranny."
I'm not arguing with any of that.
I'm simply saying that in the context of Scotland staying in the UK there are more important and more relevant aspects to which the Scottish Secretary of State should be drawing attention in the week of the SNP conference and its attendant publicity.
This is the sort of thing best left to a backbench rabble rouser, rather than a serious debating point from a Minister of the Crown
If Scotland decides on independence it will have far more worries than its international influence; the first being where its funds come from.
I hope that if Salmond gets his wish, the English get theirs and have a full referendum on our relationship with Scotland. With luck it will reduce our taxation and give our ears a rest from the continual complaining about how hard done by some think they are.
If we have a referendum on our membership of the EU and reapply the immigration controls thrown away by Labour, the Scots may also find a border control applied. I wonder how popular Salmond and his gang would be then!!
Perhaps these should also be thoughts for those separatists in Edinburgh.
They already have free prescriptions.free parking at hospitals.free Universities and even manage to leave the street lights on all night.
Why would they want independence.
Maybe it should be England that seeks independence and maybe they would also reap the benefits that Scotland get just now.
"..if Salmond's approach had been mirrored by others, many thousands more Libyans would now be dead"
Salmond specifically said he would not have supported the Iraq war, but did agree with helping Libya - so where does that idea that all these Libyans would be dead because of his approach come from?
But the thread is about Moore's attitude to independence, not Salmond's, whose stance has been fairly constant for the last thirty years.
Moore is dealing with irrelevancies.
What is going to happen to the jobs at Faslane or Rosyth? Never mind Libyans, what will it mean to the average punter in the nether regions of Glasgoe, the crofter on Harris, or the shopgirl in Peebles?
Let the rest of the world come later, Moore is Secretary of State for Scotland; it is Scotland, not Libya, which should be his concern.
Apologies if you felt I went 'off-thread'.
I completely agree with your final sentence in your last post - he should be thinking about Scotland!
"What's that old saying about opportunistic politicians .."
Yes, there are so many of them, and 'millionare's row' probably used most of them! (:-0)
I was also a bit off thread.
Michael Moore is entitled to say publicly whatever he wishes provided it is within the bounds of good taste and he doesn't infringe his own party policies.
However, he appears to be in conflict with Salmond in that he is indicating that Scotland should not be independent from the remainder of the UK. Whether he was simply using the Libyan situation in isolation to reflect this is for him to confirm. It could also be he is attempting to get others to consider exactly what it would mean to have a formal state border between Scotland and the remainder of the UK.
Right or wrong, I get the impression that at a personal level he is very much opposed to the Republican views expressed within the SNP. Whereas Salmond has said, effectively, that he wishes to dictate to Westminster the parts of his version of independence which would apply.
There could be exciting times if these two were put alone on the same stage to debate their positions if the Salmond riposte is anything to go by.
In reality Moore is just toeing the party line (see the other thread!).
Salmond could have an independence bill passed by this time next week, such is the size of his majority, but all he has actually promised is a referendum.
We all know how the coalition feels about referenda, even the MPs are not being allowed a free vote, let alone the people, south of the border (this is light hearted post, so please don't anybody have an apoplexy!).
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.