Except it isn't is it? Salmond has made it perfectly clear that he wants to keep the pound and hence keep the BoE in charge of our interest rates with a knock on effect on inflation and wider economic controls. It's not true independence and hence one of the reasons I will be voting no.
Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack
- Thread starter Craig1981
- Start date
That isn't exhaustive, and it can also be a requirement for some Customs Post Clearance checks.
I'd be questioning why it was sold under license if the license wasn't required according to you, doesn't that seem to be a tacit acknowledgement of their intended use?
Some Governments are better than others.
Was it a specific Arms export licence?...or was it simply a Category defined Scheduled Substance Licence?
I suspect the latter as the former would mean we sold banned Chemical Weapons contrary to the international treaty to which we are signatories (and Syria is not)...
Many Chemicals are subject to Substance Import and Export Licences, it doesn't have to be military or for military purposes. You are assuming a Military Licence was necessary, when it was far more likely that the Licences are simply Category 1,2 or 3 under the Precursor Chemical Authorisation Regulations.
Last edited:
The pound at least temporarily yes, and it's no less true independence than any of the other currency blocks around the world.
You'd pick Tory-London rule over Scottish Independence just because of the intention to remain with Sterling?
Flabbergasted doesn't even cover that one.
It wouldn't be banned chemical weapons, as we didn't sell them the gas. Just components for it. I'm unsure as to what scheme it went under, but whatever scheme the DBIS had its hands on it.
Meh I'm arguing with arguing man, I give in and you win. Everything we read in papers and everything we're told by everyone is always the truth and absolutely no one anywhere have their own agendas. Send me the postcode for your utopia please and I'll be relocating there soon.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,214
- Location
- Southampton
For gods sakes this thread is bad enough without all your scottish independance ****
Salmond has proven himself completely inept when it's come to the crunch -where's the detailed policies, the actual legal advice (that they won't disclose) about the EU, NATO and a host of other issues. It's not just signing away our fiscal independence, to suggest otherwise just shows how vacuous their position is.
Their sole argument is based round we will keep the oil money, nothing else. Pretty much anyone you speak to has the same worry - they haven't made a reasoned case for independence at all yet, it basically comes down to those who will vote yes regardless based on "Braveheart", everyone else is still waiting on the case to be made and how an independent Scotland will look. They've got 1 year to make a case and they seriously need to pull their finger out if they want to win. As it is they've had years to sort this out and when it comes down to it, they are seriously left wanting.
And on the other side?
Not much has been made of the oil, and if you've missed the rest of it I'm not going to waste my time preaching to someone who should be converted.
Well, it was sold under normal circumstances then, you stated that the licences involved proved it was for military purposes (military licences, arms licences were the terms you used), yet you do not know which licences are required and being that the substances can be used for a wide range of products from medical to industrial use, the licences do not actually imply anything other than that they are required to import and export Precursor Chemicals and have nothing to do with Arms Export Licences at all.
Well, how do you know any better?
Lol that's the point which you're not grasping. I, you, anyone on these forums, the snp and the dailyrecord don't really have any hard facts, yet you've taken what's been fed to you as gospel then gone into the independence spiel.
Because I know that the Chemicals do not require Arms Export Licences and that if they did then that would be in violation of international treaty to which we are compliant.
The EU put an embargo on Precursor Chemical Exports to Syria in place for this reason, an embargo there is no evidence that Britain has broken.
Yet we still sold them chemical during a civil war which was later banned by another establishment?
Such a resoundingly good get out clause.
Like those taking the word of the Western Security Services, read Anglo-US, as being 'gospel'?
Yeah?
You seem to have forgotten one crucial thing. The masses have short memories and we live in an instant society that's quickly forgotten.
Are you seriously trying to find loopholes so that Assad can carry on gassing women and children? Unbelievable.
Or he's pointing out that the US are hypocrite and basically break the UN convention themselves anyway....
As much as we like to think we're the good guys we still do some nasty **** as well. I bet those several hundred people still in Guantanamo, who havent been in front of a judge, allowed to speak to lawyers or possibly even in a warzone when they were picked up (illegal rendition anyone...) wouldn't say we were the good guys. Or the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of illegal drone attacks against people the US judge as unsavoury characters. (Of course they aren't allowed a trial, or even to explain their side of the argument....).