As our First Minister succumbs to the politician's syllogism, what is missing is the voice of Palestinian refugees. Helping them closer to home is the answer, not forced migration to Europe
A good report and is very concerning we have Yousaf calling for us to take Palestinian refugees. Just virtue signalling. Good to see you on GB News who are a good news channel and shows up BBC and STV of which I will not view anymore. Nigel Farage reported issues when Denmark took Palestinian refugees with 64% of the refugees committing crime and also the children of the refugees. So you can see why Palestines neighbours want nothing to do with them. Yousaf must go he is toxic to Scotland but that is SNP in todays world. Disgraceful politics being borne out in our country.
So a politician suggesting that we should look to save lives is "disgraceful politics" ? I thought it was SNP supporters who were blinkered and irrational?
Humza Yousafs response is by design symbolic Dean, he doesn't represent an independent nation. Commentators like yourself work tirelessly to deny Humza and the country we live in a meaningful voice on the world stage. Interesting that you managed to avoid criticism of Sunak in your piece, failing to spot the tradition Westminster subservience to our US masters.
The UK's position in NATO, as an ally of the USA, doesn't seem particularly relevant when deciding how best we (in Britain and in Europe more widely) can best help refugees. What matters is listening to refugees and focusing on doing the most cost-effective thing in line with what they want. I want to maximise aid to refugees, not maximise Yousaf's 'look at me, am I nice' symbolism.
Surely saving lives in the short term has to take precedence over finding the most cost effective solution? What if the local states cannot be convinced to take in more refugees? How can you possibly defend the horribly intolerant language of a Home secretary hell bent on pandering to the most racist elements of the UK electorate? And finally, dont be naive.. we pander to the US on this matter, not because of NATO, but due to the ongoing commercial advantage of having an ally in that region.
The best way of saving lives is to ensure there is a sustainable approach to the global refugee crisis, short termism is how we've ended up with 244m migrants by 2015 alone (and that was before the Syrian civil war escalated etc) - and tremendous political instability and reactionary tilts to our politics. We need a viable, sustainable and long term framework. Forced migration to Europe isn't what refugees and nor is it economically sensible in terms of allocation of resources to aid the needy
A good report and is very concerning we have Yousaf calling for us to take Palestinian refugees. Just virtue signalling. Good to see you on GB News who are a good news channel and shows up BBC and STV of which I will not view anymore. Nigel Farage reported issues when Denmark took Palestinian refugees with 64% of the refugees committing crime and also the children of the refugees. So you can see why Palestines neighbours want nothing to do with them. Yousaf must go he is toxic to Scotland but that is SNP in todays world. Disgraceful politics being borne out in our country.
In the case of Jordan it's certainly the case the Palestinian refugees taken in following the 2nd intifada has proven a source of instability since.
So a politician suggesting that we should look to save lives is "disgraceful politics" ? I thought it was SNP supporters who were blinkered and irrational?
You didn't bother reading the article, did you John?
No I did read it. Have you?
Yes mate, I did.
Which part of it don't you understand?
Hah, I understood it all thanks. I guess you wont be opining on it...
Humza Yousafs response is by design symbolic Dean, he doesn't represent an independent nation. Commentators like yourself work tirelessly to deny Humza and the country we live in a meaningful voice on the world stage. Interesting that you managed to avoid criticism of Sunak in your piece, failing to spot the tradition Westminster subservience to our US masters.
The UK's position in NATO, as an ally of the USA, doesn't seem particularly relevant when deciding how best we (in Britain and in Europe more widely) can best help refugees. What matters is listening to refugees and focusing on doing the most cost-effective thing in line with what they want. I want to maximise aid to refugees, not maximise Yousaf's 'look at me, am I nice' symbolism.
Surely saving lives in the short term has to take precedence over finding the most cost effective solution? What if the local states cannot be convinced to take in more refugees? How can you possibly defend the horribly intolerant language of a Home secretary hell bent on pandering to the most racist elements of the UK electorate? And finally, dont be naive.. we pander to the US on this matter, not because of NATO, but due to the ongoing commercial advantage of having an ally in that region.
The best way of saving lives is to ensure there is a sustainable approach to the global refugee crisis, short termism is how we've ended up with 244m migrants by 2015 alone (and that was before the Syrian civil war escalated etc) - and tremendous political instability and reactionary tilts to our politics. We need a viable, sustainable and long term framework. Forced migration to Europe isn't what refugees and nor is it economically sensible in terms of allocation of resources to aid the needy