Question Time

[Fotbawmad]

After I watching it on Iplayer.It's hard to believe some of these audience members actually exist. Especially those raging neo-con types who talk in terms of needing to project Britain as a military power. The women who worked in the charity shop was the only one who made any sensible points. Most of the points made by the panel went along the lines of "blah blah blah, and only *insert my party* can deliver on it" , or "blah blah blah, if you vote UKIP/SNP, you'll get Labour/Tories".

[sparky88]

Knew there would be greetin nats after what heseltine said. Tbh I entirely agree with him. Scotland has a far more politically astute electorate than England imo and yep getting more money for the Scottish government is a key reason why many will be voting SNP. Its why I vote SNP and voted no. The best result for Scotland is the SNP holding a potential labour govt to ransom.

[BerwickMad]

Salmond would have ripped that up last night considering the quality on the rest of the panel. Sturgeon struggled a bit, as she did pre-referendum in TV debates.

[milhouse]

Northern crowd. These are supposed to be the people we associate with the most in the UK, apparently. How wrong could one be.

If you voted No in the referendum, watch that full QT and we'll see if you still come away with this nonsense that we're a working, happy family of nations. God, why didn't we ditch these right-wing maniacs when we had the chance.

As an olive branch, they could still have their own wee right-wing maniac party in an independent Scotland

[Baxter Parp]

Has Scotland always been this different from England politically in recent years or has this been a recent shift?

Recent shift. Started under Thatcher.

[strichener]

Location: Scotland

Hates: England

I don't support nuclear weapons. I understand both sides of the argument though. I don't think it makes people nasty or disgusting for supporting the policy. It would only be an absolute idiot who would want to see them ever used.

My opinion is only an idiot would pay billions, read it, billions of pounds for something that only an idiot would want to use. The idiocy of this would, I suspect, be lost on you.

No more cringe than the anti-English bollocks by your pal.

Do you understand mutually assured destruction? As I said, i'm not saying I agree that we should be spending that much money on it and think the money could be better spent elsewhere, but I'm not stupid enough to totally ignore the opposing argument. It's not about people being nasty and nice. So simplistic.

One sub with a couple of nuclear weapons does not equal MAD. The UK would need NATO allies to step up to the plate to be assured of MAD. Last time I can remember the UK being attacked was 1982 and I don't remember NATO troops landing on the Falklands.

[Fide]

I recorded this last night. Not sure I can watch it now after reading the last 3 pages.

Oh, UK.

[renton]

My opinion is only an idiot would pay billions, read it, billions of pounds for something that only an idiot would want to use. The idiocy of this would, I suspect, be lost on you.

One sub with a couple of nuclear weapons does not equal MAD. The UK would need NATO allies to step up to the plate to be assured of MAD. Last time I can remember the UK being attacked was 1982 and I don't remember NATO troops landing on the Falklands.

Correct, the military usefulness of a small arsenal with respect to the Russian stockpile was always dubious. You might damage Russia heavily, but it would still be a functional nation afterwards, more than can be said if the Russians went all out on us.

Militarily, it was only ever a last ditch measure in case the US decided to let Europe burn, rather than risk their own hides, and even at the peak of UK nuclear stocks, it's fairly uncertain that we'd have generated enough killing power from the V-bombers or Polaris to stop the Soviets - even with French help.

So, billions of pounds spent so the Foreign secretary can sit next to the US secretary of state at the big boys table.

Even if you aren't happy about the prospect of all that money going to public services, surely an appreciable fraction of the Trident money could go to rebuilding the UK conventional forces, reversing current cuts and making the UK a more visible and important presence in Eastern Europe, which is what will be more useful to NATO in the long term.

[speckled tangerine]

Correct, the military usefulness of a small arsenal with respect to the Russian stockpile was always dubious. You might damage Russia heavily, but it would still be a functional nation afterwards, more than can be said if the Russians went all out on us.

Militarily, it was only ever a last ditch measure in case the US decided to let Europe burn, rather than risk their own hides, and even at the peak of UK nuclear stocks, it's fairly uncertain that we'd have generated enough killing power from the V-bombers or Polaris to stop the Soviets - even with French help.

So, billions of pounds spent so the Foreign secretary can sit next to the US secretary of state at the big boys table.

Even if you aren't happy about the prospect of all that money going to public services, surely an appreciable fraction of the Trident money could go to rebuilding the UK conventional forces, reversing current cuts and making the UK a more visible and important presence in Eastern Europe, which is what will be more useful to NATO in the long term.

Excellent post.

Couple the fact that Trident is not in fact an "independent" weapons system, given it is US technology requiring US maintenance and US satellites to make it function. Giving the US an effective veto on its use.

There were rumbles recently that the US were sanguine about renewal in any case, preferring the UK to plough cash and numbers on conventional forces that are pretty dire on personnel and poorly equipped.

As Renton says it's an absolute fortune to maintain a facade of global might when in reality the UK is America's head of bibs and cones.

[Double Jack D]

Salmond would have ripped that up last night considering the quality on the rest of the panel. Sturgeon struggled a bit, as she did pre-referendum in TV debates.

I admire Sturgeons style immensely, I think it did her no harm in constantly being silenced to listen to the quite abhorrent statements from Heseltine or the mumbling jibberish from "knock on ma door fir a joab" Bannatyne.

Caroline Flint's Vote SNP get Tory has been debunked for months, she obviously doesn't know that Milliband is less popular than Cameron up here.

The Lib Dem dude is "horrified" that Scottish MP's may have the balance of power in this Family of Nations. I thought they were once the party of Federalism.

Despite the whole panel, Dimbelby and the majority of the surprisingly right wing audience mocking oor Nic she stood resolute in her more than considerable and principled opinion that Scotland, and the wider UK, should have more money spent supporting poor and vulnerable people rather than nuclear weapons, which are an expensive and ultimately useless luxury.

Not one SNP vote was lost last night and I suspect more than a few undecided Scots will be leaning closer to an SNP vote too.

[RedRob72]

I recorded this last night. Not sure I can watch it now after reading the last 3 pages.

Oh, UK.

I'd give it a miss mate, wee Nikki came across right enough though, Caroline Flint, typical modern Labour, lots of words but actually says f*ck all. That was about it, don't know why Bannatyne was on, he contributed nothing for a high profile, leading Business figure.

[BerwickMad]

My opinion is only an idiot would pay billions, read it, billions of pounds for something that only an idiot would want to use. The idiocy of this would, I suspect, be lost on you.

One sub with a couple of nuclear weapons does not equal MAD. The UK would need NATO allies to step up to the plate to be assured of MAD. Last time I can remember the UK being attacked was 1982 and I don't remember NATO troops landing on the Falklands.

A good argument against nuclear weapons in Britain. Well done.

[bob the tank]

I think it showed that basically the English now want rid of us. My expectations of the north eastern audience were completely wrong, these people have certainly changed from when I used to visit the area a few years ago. Wee Nic did a not bad job of fighting her corner against terrible odds.

[Thumper]

How do No voters feel when Hesseltine has the audience whooping as he talks down to Scotland?

They feel funny in their willies. Heseltine was Maggie's BFF after all. So dreamy.

Anyway, car crash stuff, but I can't wait for Glasgow. Remember how the Beeb was having to bus in folk from England so that they could get a "balanced" audience during the indyref debates? Now imagine that in a post-referendum Glasgow that's unapologetically YesNP.

[Fide]

I'd give it a miss mate, wee Nikki came across right enough though, Caroline Flint, typical modern Labour, lots of words but actually says f*ck all. That was about it, don't know why Bannatyne was on, he contributed nothing for a high profile, leading Business figure.

Bannatyne was taking up the "token c**t" chair, I believe.

I'm hearing he can't even pronounce "Russia" properly.

[renton]

A good argument against nuclear weapons in Britain. Well done.

The argument is that the UK does not possess a large enough arsenal to be sure of MAD in any near peer confrontation, rendering that doctrine, and therefore possession of those weapons, useless.

[Thumper]

Aye, the idea that three Trident subs are going to be able to eliminate Russia's entire nuclear capability is total fantasy. Trident is simply an extension of America's nuclear umbrella that we happen to be picking up the bill for. In itself it's no deterrent to Russia or any other nuclear state for that matter (all of which are many times larger geographically than the UK, orders of magnitude in most cases). I'd have liked for Sturgeon to have pressed that point but she was already the only anti-Tory on the programme and so can't really fight every battle.

[RedRob72]

Bannatyne was taking up the "token c**t" chair, I believe.

I'm hearing he can't even pronounce "Russia" properly.

Pretty sure there was one point when he asked 'what was the Question again' ??

[speckled tangerine]

The argument is that the UK does not possess a large enough arsenal to be sure of MAD in any near peer confrontation, rendering that doctrine, and therefore possession of those weapons, useless.

Shhhhhhhh.

Don't let on we need anymore. Or a woman in Stockton will buy some nearly new SS20s off ebay to fire back at Russia from her back garden!

[NotThePars]

Sturgeon played her hand well yesterday. Anyone who was put off by Salmond's perceived arrogance didn't see any of that yesterday. She was assertive when she needed to be, dismissive without being arrogant about it and she hardly put a foot wrong when the rest of the panel were attacking her. Like I've said before, I'm not too big on the SNP but they have a terrific leader. Really likeable.