The search for Scotland moves to the Med and the South Atlantic as ‘independence’ gets ever ‘lite’r

Scottish ‘independence’ is, as of today, officially envisaged as not being independent at all.

Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory – as are the Falkland Islands.

A British Overseas Territory is one with a degree of self-government – under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

You could call it devolution – which is what Scotland already has.

Today we have what is arguably the greatest intellectual mash-up in the independence campaign.

With the First Minister metaphorically staggering around the world serially trying to find Scotland somewhere – looking at Ireland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and even the tax haven of the Isle of Man, the MP for Na h-Eileanan Siar, Angus MacNeil, has ridden to Mr Salmond’s rescue – or rather sailed to it.

Mr MacNeil’s ambitions are even greater than his master’s – taking his ID parade for Scotland to the Mediterannean and the South Atlantic.

The MP  has just outclassed the First Minister’s mastery of the overstatement by reassuring the electorate for the 2014 Independence Referendum that actually, an ‘independent’ Scotland will be just like Gibraltar or The Falkland Islands – still British.

He somehow forgot to check the actual status of these places – that they are British Oversea Territories whose sovereignty lies with the UK. Or perhaps he was fully aware of the fact and this is Plan B in action.

Does this mean that the SNP’s current wheeze to be able to claim victory in September 2014 is to spend the fortune it’s taking, put the country through a referendum, achieve a vote for independence -  and then declare the promised status quo: we’d still have British sovereignty, but we’d have decided on it independently. The sole difference here would be imagining our ‘detachment’ as emblematically taking us  ‘offshore’ so that we can be just like Gibraltar and The Falklands – a British Oversea Territory.

One wonders if the drive to an ever ‘lite’r definition of independence has now gone halogen – and if Mr MacNeil was speaking in a very squeaky voice as he made this airy promulgation.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

73 Responses to The search for Scotland moves to the Med and the South Atlantic as ‘independence’ gets ever ‘lite’r

  1. FA

    Grow up.

    Who writes the rules? Westminster and all it’s cronies and the “tug the forelock brigade” like yourself.

    Are the territories full members of the United Nations?

    One of the main problems that you have as I see it is you do not see Scotland as a nation but a subset of England/ UK. Maybe your time in Northern Ireland has you thinking that your too small too run anything.
    If you think what is proposed is so weak then you may as well vote YES based on your rambling’s above.
    Thankfully I and many more do not. This is about power to decide whether we go to war or not, educate our children our not etc etc.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 27 Thumb down 18

    • FA is trying to inject another silly idea observed in amusingly unbalanced articles into an online debate that’s already 70%+ for independence within Scotland … fortunately most are immune & can see article for what it is!

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 17

  2. FA your are sinking into the mire and worse than facebook or twitter. Think before you consider a response. Think about the girl who died today because of online abuse. I am afraid that in recent weeks you have fallen into that catogary. From this moment on I will have blocked For Argyll. I am shocked beyond believe what you are writing here.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 18

  3. For Argyll seems to have struck a nerve with this one – no refutation of arguments, only fury coming back, with a threat of censorship.

    “Blocking For Argyll”, mmm.., what will it be next, burning unionist papers and books?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 19

  4. There’s another thread today which deals with exams and teaching & in this case science was obviously not the writer of this piece’s stronger subjects, mixing up halogens with helium. B+ for the intent but D- for the execution.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

  5. Scotland will be whatever the residents of this country want it to be should a ‘Yes’ vote be successful not what the SNP propose, this is their view, their wishes, their vision of a post ‘Yes’.
    For FA to constantly advise us of SNP’s ‘ludicrous’ proposals and to use this as evidence not to vote for Scotland choosing her own destiny is deliberately misleading.
    For the squillionth time, if we vote ‘Yes’ we will at long last have democracy where political parties representing their policies and vision can be elected depending on what type of Scotland the electorate desire.
    As things stand, Scotland takes the government other countries choose for us in general elections.
    That’s not good enough and a situation which will one day come to an end, an inevitable progression.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 8

    • If as is claimed, the SNP atrophies and disintegrates following a “Yes” vote the people in the Northern Isles who, as has been pointed out, are devoutly Liberal, will be faced with a permanent Labour government which they didn’t vote for .

      That would be a “democratic deficit”, would it not?

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 13

      • The last time I checked the “Northern Isles” were part of Scotland (An actual country contrary to some opinion) They quite rightly should have no complaints whoever is elected at Scottish general elections unless in the highly unlikely event that they decided to become independent.
        The UK (Not an actual country contrary to some opinion) governs these isles with a one size fits all political system many in Scotland are finally beginning to realise doesn’t represent the majority’s wishes.
        If Scotland, collectively, does not want a right of centre government it should through democracy be allowed that. If Scotland and its residents want to change direction of which there are many to choose, it should have sole responsibility to choose.
        Those who know only what we have lived under in the UK might care to want better than mediocrity of this country, look further afield at more successful models to aspire to.
        The passive attitude of UK citizens to the economic situation the UK finds itself in these modern times, one that is shamefully played down by media and government, is an acceptance more poverty, an ever widening gap between wealth and destitution for years to come is proof that we feel powerless to have any positive meaningful effect to alter his course.
        I am taking the bold empowering choice towards giving the country I was born the opportunity to thrive under its own steam.
        Vote ‘Yes’

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 8

        • Not many “ticks” for that reply, ” Junior”!

          The Northern Isles were once Scandinavian and there’s a half-decent argument doing the rounds that, legally, they still are.

          If Orkney and Shetland are now “part of Scotland” there must have been a transfer of sovereignty at some point between then and now. When exactly would you say that transfer of sovereignty took place?

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14

          • “Not many “ticks” for that reply, ” Junior”!”

            Are ‘Likes’ ‘Dislikes’ your yardstick Argyle?

            Gies peace

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

          • Aye, Junior, glad you got your mates to help you out, there, I was starting regret making pun of your nom de plume.

            And the date from which Scotland/UK acquired sovereignty over Orkney and Shetland is …………..?

            You brought it up, I only asked you when the Northern Isles became “part of Scotland”. We eagerly await your answer, please don’t disappoint us.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9

    • when are you going to stop peddling this nonsense that Scotland will be what the people want?

      That is complete and utter nonsense. It will be what the governing party want, which in experience of the Scottish Government and UK government is NOT what the people want.

      For example, no-one wants cuts, but it would be utterly irresponsible for the UK government to not make cuts just because they were unpopular.

      Sorry JnrTick, but you are totally wrong in that assertion. It will be what either the SNP or Labour want. Since the latter have no vision, it will be the SNP who call the shots, regardless of what the people want. As i keep saying and you have no defense, the SNP have no plans to ask Scotland if they want to be in or out of the EU. Or have windfarms. Or have Trident. It’s a ‘one vote decides everything’ situation, which is the same as today. And on that basis, I’m out.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 17

      • Don’t apologise Jamie, have the courage of your convictions.
        I would never apologise for disagreeing with anyone if I believed my views could stand up and I could defend them.
        It’s way too late to explain why I believe your post is utterly flawed and that you miss the point. Maybe tomorrow

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5

  6. The SNP use different countries to illustrate different aspects of independence. They do not suggest that our situation post Indy will be identical to any of them. To suggest they do as part of your argument is a disservice to what should be a serious debate.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5

    • So the use of the word ‘like’ – as in ‘Scotland would be / could be ‘like’ xxx’ – means precisely what?
      This word has been used consistently by the First Minister in his searches and by Angus MacNeil in his addition to the list of possible IDs.
      The sheer variety of constitutional models, some conflicting, to be replicated in Scotland will be some constitutional challenge for the Deputy First Minister to wrestle into cohesion – from the tax haven of the Isle of Man, to the social focus of Sweden, to the British Oversea Territory status of Gibraltar and the Falklands…

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 20

      • Wouldn’t such an arrangement create a moral(!?) dilemma though, in that the UK is committed to defend BOT’s as it did the Falklands. And part of its arsenal of defence is nuclear weapons. So Salmond would throw the nuclear deterrent out of Scotland but continue to enjoy the protection
        of its existence. Cant is the word that comes to mind. That and cowardice.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 18

  7. Rancid c
    Do the think Cameron should nuke Spain over Gibralter?
    The reality is if Spain wished to drive over the border enmasse their is little the Royal Navy could do about it. Of course the biter together campaigners and ukippy’s will point to the new aircraft carriers being built (pity about the lack of aircraft)
    So lets use a first attack weapon.
    Lunacy Rab c or is Cameron a coward!!
    I am sure Scotland will be able to have its own defence forces by not spending billions on a weapon that cannot be used. This is not cowardice but pragmatic and practical.
    As I keep telling newsie and the no’ees the Empire is gone, it is dead, it has expired, just like monty pythons Norweigen blue!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 8

      • Us as in our responsibility to have appropriate forces and alliances
        Lowry who do you expect to attack us. England?

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8

        • typical insular, inward looking view of defense from people tho have not got a single clue about defense and global threats.

          Keep it up H20. just answer me this – who attempted to bomb Glasgow Airport? Come on.

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 16

          • Based on replies from H2O I think it pretty clear that the SNP are planning to develop a MacDad’s army!

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10

          • Terrorists resident in the UK bombed Glasgow Airport. Just as terrorist’s resident in Bradford sickeningly bombed London’s buses and Underground. What deterrent were the Nukes? Obliterate Bradford? wilfully obliterate and irradiate a part of Pakistan because that is where they were allegedly trained? Did the think through your question before you asked it?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

    • Trident is in reality only a deterrent, without which for example there would be little to deter the annexing of Oil fields by hostile forces.

      As far as I am aware, the UK’s armed forces still swear allegiance to the Crown, not the government of the day.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14

      • Trident isn’t really a deterrent against any current threat, it’s just a relic of cold war which was obsolete before it went into service on royal navy subs … it’s a strike first offensive weapons system that will never get fired in anger as once you do everyone would lose … I’m certain any possible ‘hostile forces’ know that fact!

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5

        • in all seriousness, do you think there is no threat from the likes of North Korea or Iran? None at all? No-one mad enough to try and use nuclear weapons? Not the same people who would do something as unimaginable as fly planes into buildings?

          You could argue i’ve fallen for the scaremongering, but there is too much recent history to consider putting my head in the sand. Like the Scottish Government are doing, pretending the world is a nice peaceful place with no threats.

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 14

          • next to zero existing nuclear threat from North Korea or even Iran .. none whatsoever for UK from them .. just imaginary ones in the good ol’ power of nightmares style … newly elected President Hassan Rouhani of Iran seems like the right sort of man to make the recent sanctions get weakened/reduced (sanctions are basically over the sale of Iran’s oil not being in US Dollars more than the questionable evidence for a decade now of any nuke weapons program there).
            I’d be far more worried about nuclear material in Pakistan!

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

          • Oooh, so maybe not Iran, but you’re adding Pakistan into the mix?

            Interesting. I liked the ‘existing threat’ bit – a pretty clear admission that a future one is possible.

            I rest my case.

            Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11

          • North Korea. What planet are you on? Have you looked at a map. Have you asked yourself why South Korea and Japan are not frantically building nukes?
            And as for Iran the head of the Isreali Defence Force is comfortable Iran wouldn’t use nukes, and they’re first in line!!! Can we please keep the debate sane. Sanity tells us that since the end of the Cold War Trident is simply a hugely expensive phallic symbol, and UK politicians should start caring about what the country really needs if they want to save the Union (fat chance).

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

          • Anyone who thinks a Cold War type situation could never happen again is either completely naive, or has no idea of modern history. It’s as simple as that.

            Next you’ll be telling me the Cold War never happened!

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

      • Rab C – stay off the evil drink!

        Who would annex the oilfield? How would an adversary transport the oil to their country without world opinion knowing?

        Based on proximity

        England.? ( already take oil revenues)


        Faroe Islands?



        Republic of Ireland?

        With a cool pragmatic head no one is going to annex our fields with or without nuclear weapons.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • I wonder why the moroccans keep asking for their wee bit of territory back…? This thread, the entire thing is quite amusing…can somebody get back to the business of running the country please ?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6

        • News Flash,
          The Grand Duchy of Fenwick, who have been in cold war hostilities with the USA over the brand name of their wine, have accepted an alliance with Scotland.
          A.Salmon,The indefatigable Scottish Leader, stated, “Our two great nations will not shirk from these rebranding thieves USA and Nippon who have shattered our economies with cheaper versions of our national drinks. We are a welled oiled machine especially at the weekends and having the Grandy Duchy with us we can protect and enrich our nation”.
          ( Apoligies to The Mouse That Roared)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

    • Reply to H2O 7/08/13 10;55 am………….it was only resting. Just what YOU need when you stoop to offending posters’ nomme d’ plume what’s a “biter together campaigner”?? I think when you are being so bitter you should check your posts eh no?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  8. You are scaremongering.
    Or, if you are not we must shut down all nuclear power stations immediately as they are targets.
    Of course the nukie folk say that Faslane is not a target.
    Explain to me why North Korea would specifically target Scotland? Can’t hear you!
    The threat is from folk like you who prey on fears and doubts to explain why we are supposed to need nuclear weapons. Even many learned military people are doubting the wisdom of nuclear weapons. I suspect you and Lowry and your ilk will stay in your bunkers.
    As for Glasgow airport a couple of doctors who couldn’t get propane gas cylinders to light and then got the vehicle stuck in a door cannot justify holding nuclear weapons and it is laughable is that is your best shot ( no pun intended).
    So we keep billions of pounds wasted in a system designed to fend of North Korea and who else? Argentina, Spain. You are beginning to worry me you could be a UKIPpy in disguise and just hate all foreigners.
    That is why getting rid of them from the Clyde and transferring to the Thames is a win win — cause Jamie will head down South for protection.

    Where in dear old Scotland we will spend the money to benefit the people.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 9

    • Why would N Korea attack Scotland directly? I hope you are laugning at yourself at your completely naive and ignorant question.

      The short answer, if you are listening is – they wouldn’t attack Scotland directly. Have a wee think about why they load Trident onto submarines….

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 15

      • Oh dear, have I touched a raw nerve!? You need a cool head to deal with such matters.
        Just to remind you
        It was you that mentioned North Korea not me. I do not think they will attack. Sue me if they do!
        It is you that cannot let go of the nuclear weapons as it connects you with the good old days of the “cold war”
        So how would they attack us ?


        Answers please on a postcard to: J Black c/o For Argyll demilitarised zone nr Oban
        Complete waste of money.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8

    • North Korea’s missiles can just about reach India. Their nukes are far too big to put on the missiles anyway, and yes why would North Korea suddenly feel the need to nuke Scotland (or the UK). Unbelievable!!

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

      • and the penny drops! Of course N Korea would never directly attack Scotland!
        But that does not mean that they are not a threat to us and that we should not have a deterrent that we can deploy. The point is oft made that only a few countries in the world have these weapons and that is right. Only one or two responsible countries need to have them as part of a global alliance.

        We happen to host them. No big deal. They may never be used, but we have no idea what the future holds and as I say, who would you rather had the most powerful weapons in the world? If N Korea decided to launch an attack against the free world, it’s effectively an attack on us.

        We should be in a position to respond. I’m comfortable that we have nuclear weapons and that we are responsible enough to have them. Does the cost bother me? Not really. It’s shared amongst us all, and has many indirect benefits too, can you imagine?!

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12

          • If you spend the money on houses, upgrading our roads, hospitals, schools you would employ thousands more oh and of course stop making soldiers, aircrew and navy personnel redundant.

            But as long as you and JB stop hiding behind the couch hiding from bogey men then I suppose nuclear weapons designed to kill millions is worth it.

            You both need a reality check.

            Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4

          • I will do. You could maybe help me with that? Out of 5.3m people in Scotland, how many were at the last anti-Trident/anti-nuclear protest at Faslane. You can go for the highest reported, rather than the actual, I don’t mind. And then maybe express that as a percentage of our population.

            This figure will really help me understand the strength of feeling about this matter in Scotland.

            Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10

        • If N Korea decided to launch an attack against the free world, it’s effectively an attack on us.

          ‘Free world’ ? What’s that then ?

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3

        • Are a threat or not a threat ?-make your mind up.

          The cost doesn’t bother you then you have too much money.

          Are you happy conventional forces are being reduced but nuclear weapons are protected from cuts.

          If Argentina attacked the Falklands would you nuke them?

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  9. Put really simply H20, it’s a pretty clear fact that someone has to have the biggest and most powerful weapons systems. Sounds like you re embarrassed by the size of your weapon, but let’s not be smutty :p

    So tell me, which would you rather had the most powerful weapons systems in the world:

    1) North Korea or Iran
    2) The UK and US.

    Either a 1 or a 2 will suffice. I don’t really expect an answer from H20, therefore answers to h20, c/o The declining Hippy Peace Camp at a nuclear base in Scotland.

    and btw – i choose 2!! Have a lovely evening!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13

    • Jamie

      you are losing the plot I think. My answer

      3) Scotland with no nuclear weapons –no hippys in sight but plenty of bitter together individuals wondering how the world has changed since the Boer war.


      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8

  10. JB

    Your question was too simple but 2 dimensional but expected by Noeees like yourself.

    Would you not agree that an independent Scotland has the right NOT to have nuclear weapons on its territory?

    It would appear that a different answer than you wished is beyond your comprehension.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6

    • So, if i’m following you correctly, you will only answer the questions that you want to answer?


      And btw, I agree that Scotland has the right not to have nuclear weapons only once Scotland has been asked. This is the whole basis of my arguement. Indy is being used as a policy driver, nothing else. It’s a way of the SNP getting their way without ever actually asking the people of Scotland.

      Why else will the SNP not commit to a series of votes following Yes to directly ask the people of Scotland what they want?! The Indy vote is the wrong vehicle to use, and as +lve said before, the way it’s being used to drive policy is turning many many people off.

      Most of the big decisions have already been made by the SNP, hardly democratic. don’t forget, the SNP want Indy wrapped up before the next elections, meaning most of their policy will be almost set in stone before they can be voted out.

      As i’ve said before, if we didn’t have Trident or nuclear subs here today, i’d not support introducing them. As it is, they have been here since before i was born and frankly, i’m not bothered about their presence in the slightest. Most other people I know are the same.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 15

  11. @jame black

    “If N Korea decided to launch an attack against the free world, it’s effectively an attack on us.”

    What utter nonsense. It’s that sort of simplistic logic which triggered World War 1 and any number of unwarranted conflicts before and since. My enemy’s enemy is my friend too, eh?

    I expect you’ll also be arguing that God is on our side because, for sure, that’s what your “free world” exponents like Reagan and Bush I & II (ex officio “Leaders of the Free World”) believed.

    And as for the term “free world”, that’s simply Americanese for every nation, no matter how despicable its regime, whose actions happen to be aligned with US interests at any given time. It has everything to do with that part of the world in which the US and its corporations can operate freely and nothing to do with having a free or open society. I stifle my guffaws when I hear my American friends use the phrase in all innocence and sincerity; I blame it on their upbringing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  12. “Wings over Scotland” had Panelbase poll on this nuclear deterrent issue. The results are available at that website today. I quote them below-MUCH MORE INFORMATION AND POLLING DATA AVAILABLE AT WINGS-I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT :-)

    The results of the polling make clear that the majority of Scots do NOT think that the nuclear deterrent achieves much.

    Q: Which of these threats do you think the siting of nuclear weapons in HMNB Clyde (Faslane) provides Scotland with a practical defence against?

    Tick as many as apply.


    None of the above: 58%

    Being attacked by North Korea: 18%

    Being attacked by Iran: 17%

    Being attacked by terrorists: 16%

    Being attacked by Russia: 14%

    Being attacked by China: 12%

    Conservative governments elected by the rest of the UK: 8%

    Being attacked by space monsters: 5%

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

      • Are the midges able to fly from North Korea or even Iran ?

        Even if they can’t they are obviously a threat in my head and therefore I need some defence system that I cannot afford but need anyway and although I can never use it I need it to keep the midge at bay.

        Maybe Lowry and Jamie Black can help form the New Home Midge Guard. British Empire For Ever.

        oh heck! I forgot about the “clegs” (not the guy from Libs who told porkies to the students)

        We need conscription immediately but I am sure my pals in London wouldn’t sacrifice us in North Britain. Where’s my aircraft carrier –where’s the planes?
        No money,How come?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

    • Does Wings tell us how many people have turned up at anti-nuclear protests in Scotland? I’m still trying to get a feel for how much of an issue Trident is to Scottish people. The Yes people tend to have figures for everything, can you help? were there 100,000 people? 50,000? 10,000? 1000?



      Even less maybe?

      Something like 200 people in the whole of Scotland who turned up last time to protest at this supposed great evil on our shores.

      As a percentage, it’s miniscule. It’s enough for me to know that when all is said and done, the Scottish people are fairly easy going, and actually couldn’t care less about nuclear weapons. There are far more pressing issues for us to worry about. They hve never caused a problems and happen to support masses of jobs and a whole industry into the bargain. and whether you like it or not, might one day play a part in some conflict that the SNP can’t even bear to think of.

      If the SNP talk about this enough as an issue, then some people might think it’s a problem and of course, if there was a blank canvass, we probably would not have them. But I think the lack of interest and lack of action by Scottish people over nuclear weapons over the years speaks volumes.

      It’s a non-issue. Move on to something of more relevance maybe. Nothing happening here apart from a lot of s**t stirring.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 11

    • JB

      cybernats?. I think your ramblings are becoming more worrying.

      Now that others have demonstrated that North Korea is not a threat you must surely now agree that nuclear weapons based on the Clyde are a complete waste of resources.

      At least couldn’t the monies be used for conventional forces and stop the current redundancies in the armed forces?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  13. It would be interesting to see the results of a poll along the lines of:
    Which of the following do you think will be MORE LIKELY as a consequence of having ALL of the UK sponsored US nuclear missiles based on the Clyde, compared to having no nuclear weapons in Scotland at all::

    A nuclear attack on Scotland by Russia?

    A nuclear attack on Scotland by China?
    etc., etc.

    Accidents, with nuclear war as the consequence, will happen, and almost have already – not that that will be news to anyone much older than a teenager.

    Just a couple tasters; there are plenty more:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  14. Lowry
    Your post that
    “Based on replies from H2O I think it pretty clear that the SNP are planning to develop a MacDad’s army! ” would illustrate to me how small your pride in this country is. Denigrate your country how sad. If Scotland is your country?
    Scotland will have it’s own armed forces appropriate to the country’s size and any potential threats. Nuclear weapons are not part of that plan. If Engerland or more accurately the corrupt Westminster system wishes to pay for nuclear weapons then they can berth the subs on the Thames. No doubt as a result they will have to have less ships, aircraft and army to pay for it.
    Spain and Argentina will smile at that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.