Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


General Sir Mike: Scotland safer in the UK than under independence

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 June 2009
SCOTLAND is safer as part of the United Kingdom than it would be if it separated, the man who until recently headed the British Army has claimed.
General Sir Mike Jackson, who led Britain's armed forces into Iraq, made his claim on a programme marking ten years of devolution by BBC's Panorama last night.

His view was that a collective British force was more cost- effective and better able t
o defend the British Isles than if the UK was broken up.

"When it comes to external matters as opposed to internal – defence, security, foreign policy – then Scotland is better within the wider construct of the United Kingdom," he said.

He went on to add that the armed forces throughout the 300 years of Union were an example of how the four nations of Britain worked well as one.

It was a sentiment echoed in a speech by Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy last night.

"It is one army but it is also, when you look at it, a collection of warlike tribes who come together for common purpose," the general said.

"They come together with their own traditions. And that gives a great richness which reflects the societies whom they serve and from whom they recruit."

But the comments have angered Nationalists who argue that Sir Mike's last major command in Iraq was "a folly which Scotland got dragged into unnecessarily" and have since made the whole of the UK a target.

One Nationalist last night pointed out that the attempted bombing of Glasgow Airport showed just how perilous the situation had become north of the Border because of UK foreign policy which won little support in Scotland.

But they also believe that Scotland is less safe as part of the Union because of the nuclear weapons kept in the Clyde with the Trident submarines.

They believe that the existence of nuclear weapons north of the Border makes Scotland a target rather than protects it.

They point to the opposition to the weapons of mass destruction in Scotland among a majority of Westminster and Holyrood politicians, the general public and civic society and they argue that an independent Scotland would be able to axe Trident and its planned replacement.

Their case was yesterday strengthened in a report by former defence chief of staff Lord Guthrie who said that renewing Trident was wrong.

SNP defence spokesperson Angus Robertson said: "Trident is frankly obscene, and in the current economic climate it must be obvious that these resources should be better spent."

There have also been complaints in the past that the traditional Scots regiments have been diminished and virtually scrapped by UK army cuts.

The SNP has consistently argued that they would be able to use Scottish defence money on increasing the size of conventional forces if the country was independent.

Mr Robertson has also suggested that Scotland could have its own navy based in the Clyde, which could co-operate with UK forces across the Border.

An SNP spokesman added: "Scotland's constitutional future is something that we believe the people should decide not any one individual."

He added: "We believe our future is best served as part of the Partnership for Peace, which includes countries like Austria, Ireland, Finland and Sweden.

"Nobody could pretend that these countries are unsafe or lack in security."

Saltire blunder

LABOUR blundered in the 1990s by allowing the SNP to "monopolise" the saltire, a minister admitted today.

Scots Secretary Jim Murphy said his party had allowed it to be co-opted as "an image of nationalism".

He said Labour had repeated its mistake of the 1980s when it had allowed Margaret Thatcher to "claim the mantle of patriotism" and wrap herself in the Union flag. He made the admission in a speech in Stirling which sought to reclaim the saltire and to argue there was no contradiction between Scots and British identities.

"All of us – across political parties and across civic Scotland – should challenge the notion that Scottishness belongs to any one political party," he said.

Independence takes a back seat because of devolution

SUPPORT for independence has plummeted in the ten years since devolution began a new poll has revealed.

The ICM poll of more than 1,000 Scots has shown that just 28 per cent back independence with 69 per cent preferring a form of devolution.

Ten years ago support for independence was at 47 per cent. Other questions revealed that 62 per cent want Holyrood to have more tax raising powers but 63 per cent are opposed to MSPs having more say on defence and foreign policy.

But when it comes to pensions 65 per cent were in favour of the Scottish Parliament being responsible instead of Westminster.

The polls have been taken as a boost for those who support devolution in Scotland and the Calman Commission proposals to improve it.

It also appeared to be bad news for the Nationalists who have seen backing for independence fall.

However, the Nationalists seized on the results of another question which showed that 55 per cent polled believed if Holyrood were to get more powers then there should be a referendum.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "This is solid support from the people of Scotland for the position that changes to the current funding system require approval by referendum."

He called on the unionist parties to support a referendum on independence next year.







Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 June 2009 9:24 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Devolution
 
1

Nevsky;,

Moscow 29/06/2009 22:46:38
It's more dangerous Scotland being in the UK than outwith. Dragged us into illegal wars, murdered or soldiers, put all their nuclear weapons here making Scotland the biggest target in Europe and make us a target for extremists becuase of a disgraceful foreign policy.

2

Jerry Springer,

29/06/2009 22:52:04
1 Nevsky;,Moscow 29/06/2009 22:46:38
It's more dangerous Scotland being in the UK than outwith.
=====================================================

There we have it.

Nevsky (who dreams of a job in a Norwegian Embassy -anyone would do, but got stuck in Russia) knows more about national security than the head of the British Army.

How can you argue with an expert like that?
3

druidh,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 00:10:01
Let's re-word the Generals statement and see if his logic still holds water...

"His view was that a collective EUROPEAN force was more cost- effective and better able to defend the EUROPEAN UNION than if the EU was broken up.

"When it comes to external matters as opposed to internal – defence, security, foreign policy – then BRITAIN is better within the wider construct of the EUROPEAN UNION," he said.

Surely that would also be true. However, I suspect there would be some resistance within the UK armed forces if full merger was suggested. nothing to stop the UK forces exercising, and co-operating with those of other EU states of course. And the same would hold true of a Scottish Deence force.
4

Forward not Back,

30/06/2009 00:11:22
I can't understand the Nats' antipathy to NATO. Do a quid pro quo and say remove the nukes but allow an American base. Or is that too easy?
5

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 00:16:25
I note that this supposed expert offers no explanation or justification for his opinion. Just an appeal to "history" and "tradition".

Obviously, this is enough to impress shallow-minded unionists who are not accustomed to questioning their "superiors". Those of us who retain the ability to think for ourselves will not be moved.
6

lachlan,

30/06/2009 00:20:33
#3
i agree.many supporters of 'the union' seem to switch the arguement when the e.u.is mentioned
7

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 00:20:34
5
Forward not Back

"Do a quid pro quo and say remove the nukes but allow an American base."

How many foreign military bases does the US allow on its territory?

8

Canada,

Canada 30/06/2009 00:24:25
And what to show for it Mike? Paschendale and dole queus. It's Little England now, not GB. Time to get out. Grow up. Behave like men.
9

Iainbroch,

30/06/2009 00:34:34
What a load of Tosh! More Unionist disingenuity!

I dont see many nations crapping in thier breeks at the thought they dont have the Team GB protecting them!
10

Brianwci,

30/06/2009 00:40:35
"His view was that a collective British force was more cost- effective and better able to defend the British Isles than if the UK was broken up."

Oh yes, just like 7/7. London was well protected by Trident then, almost as well as New York was in 9/11 by USA's nuclear weapons.
11

Darien,

Panama 30/06/2009 00:40:44
Scots Sec Jim Murphy and his new Lab Brit-Nat cohorts have sold out the Saltire. All BritNat unionists have sold out the Saltire in favour of the apron. They don't deserve the Saltire. And they don't want it anyway. Scots unionists are anti-Scots, by implication, and be necessity. They only really believe in the state known as Britain. They don't really believe in Scotland. If they did....
12

Brianwci,

30/06/2009 00:42:28
Trident makes Scotland the number 1 target in the event of a nuclear war involving the UK. You don't need to be a General to work that out.

Get rid of Trident, we don't want it. If England thinks it needs it, let them take it to the Thames.
13

Alanski2005,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 00:45:19
That General is just mouthing standard Labour Unionist Policy - same old bullsh!t. Who would we be safer from, I ask? - anyway, an independent Scotland free of nuclear weapons and without an aggressive imperialist agenda (ie. lackies of American foreign policy in Iraq etc) would be no more in 'danger' than the present situation. Using the fear factor angle again... tedious.
14

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 30/06/2009 00:51:06
Michael Jackson - the man who told Hoon to axe the Scottish Regiments.

Isn't the union wonderful when it is filled with forked tongues in positions of power?
15

ukrefusenik,

under a free flag 30/06/2009 00:52:37
that'll be an exclusive then ? read all about it ! lifelong unionist soldier thinks scotland safest if it stays unionist like him ! whats next ? pope claims being catholic is probably best ! warns of protestant soul danger ! who do you think is reading this stuff and keeping a straight face ? what a daft paper this is !
16

Darien,

Panama 30/06/2009 00:58:14
"SCOTLAND is safer as part of the United Kingdom"

What a pile of c**p.
17

Alanski2005,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 00:58:20
15 Darien

Thanks for that comment, i agree with you 100%.
18

Jo Flo,

looking for a place to spit in disgust 30/06/2009 01:08:17
warmonger

I take it the Gen is keeping in tow to the war making b@astards who pay his wage, obviously.

Perpetuating the myths of danger, creating danger.
Plain and simple warmonger.

"Safer", my aunties @rse
Never have we had to live under so much threat than with these idiots in "control"

That's next bunch of expensive fairies we should be looking at.

19

Edward,

30/06/2009 01:13:12
I had a feeling the Panorama programe would come out with unionist twists to justify the UK and I wassnt dissapointed, neither am I surprised to see Labour's house boy Maddox writing up on it
Of course the programme just had to come out with the 'If it wasnt for the UK, RBS and the Bank of Scotland wouldnt have been able to survive' bilge!
Scotland is such a small country was another inuendo that came out. Which was quite funny as also in the programme it looked at little Norway, and came away with the idea that little Norway was doing rather well, as it was using Oil and Gas revenues to its own benifit
20

Fletty73,

Stirling 30/06/2009 01:13:33
The attempt to blow up the entrance to Glasgow Airport would not have happened if Scotland was not providing cannon fodder to the British Army for it's geopolitical Middle East invasions.
21

Edward,

30/06/2009 01:15:16
Labour's house boy, David Maddox, must have closed his eyes and had his hands over his ears, at the bit on the Panorama programme that compared Scotland with Norway and found Norway doing very well thank you thanks to a similar sized country benifiting from its own resourses
22

Edward,

30/06/2009 01:24:19
Jim Murphy states :"All of us – across political parties and across civic Scotland – should challenge the notion that Scottishness belongs to any one political party," (I dont remember this being in the programme by the way)
Poor Jim Murphy, just doesnt get it
The Saltire is the flag of SCOTLAND
the SNP is the SCOTTISH National Party
The SCOTTISH National Party is the party that is working for SCOTLAND and aims for an Independent SCOTLAND. So has every right to wave the flag of SCOTLAND. Or does Jim Murphy believe that the SNP should promote another flag?
The other political parties are all for the retention of the UNION, in fact the Tories proper name is the Conservative and UNIONIST Party. Labour wrapped itself in the UNION flag and only use Scotland for its own convenience and survival
So if we have the Tories, Labour and the Libdems all flying the UNION jack and want to promote the UNION with England, they and especially Labour have got a damn cheek critising the SNP for flying the SCOTTISH Flag, after all the SNP is the party for and of SCOTLAND
23

Jo Flo,

bedward 30/06/2009 01:29:35
Yes, well, don't know Fletty.

Maybe an easier target for the mental b@astards.

I do agree, we shouldn't be giving up our our sons and daughters to inane slaughter anywhere. A young hielander was laid to rest yesterday having being killed in afghanistan, a devasting and unecessary loss for a small highland community.

When wil it end?

Never saw panarama as I watching Andy till late, (oh for f@cks sakes!) tried to get it on iplayer to be infrormed not till 2nd july?

Did send a complaint about the title "Will Scots ever be happy?" to BBC, C@untzs.

Bueno noches
24

Reekin' Lum,

30/06/2009 01:30:27
"SCOTLAND is safer as part of the United Kingdom". The usual twaddle from the usual suspects. What is their problem? Scaremongering continues and will, indeed, get heavier as the time for a referendum approaches, and Margaret Brown ( formerly Maggie Broon) will have mastered totally middle English pronunciation to match the Union flag tattoo that he/she apparently has on each cheek of his/her buttocks.
25

Edward,

30/06/2009 01:31:35
Its funny, the Jim Murphy bilge about the Saltire story also appears in the Times, written up by that other anti SNP journalist Angus McLeod. Obviously Labour are pushing hard on this
26

Edward,

30/06/2009 01:35:11
Quoted in the Times 'Mr Murphy said it was right that the Parliament should have more powers: “We get the best of both worlds here. We have a Scottish government looking after things like the health service and the education system and we also have the British Government, led by a Scot, dealing with things like the economy, welfare, international development and social security.”
Yes the idiot actually stated this
Things in the Fuherer bunker must be really bad, if idiots like Murphy actually believe Brown is doing a good job of the economy, welfare, international development and social security!
27

Castaway™ ,

30/06/2009 01:42:00
TNS Polls: Using the same format as the Scottish Government is proposing to put in a referendum which is to ask the Scots whether they agree or disagree that the administration should "negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state".
May 2009 I agree 36% :I do not agree 39%:Don't know 25%
Feb 2009 : 38% : 40% : 22%
Oct 2008 : 35% : 43% : 22%
Jun 2008 : 39% : 41% : 21%
Mar 2008 : 41% : 40% : 19%
Nov 2007 : 40% : 44% : 16%
Aug 2007 : 35% : 50% : 15%
Average over the 7 polls = 37.7% : 42.3% : 20 %
Remove May 2009 and Aug 2007:-
Average over the 5 polls = 38.5% : 41.5% : 20 %
28

Jo Flo,

30/06/2009 01:42:06
murph and gang are at a loss

taking the scottish flag?

someone is having a lash

the flag, as the murph says, is for everyone

use it you useless c@nt

too many idiots
29

baffies away,

30/06/2009 02:26:08
The first staff officer jumped right over the second staff officers back, and the second staff officer jumped right over the third staff officers back......Generals back then and now are just the same as anyone who has met any of them will tell you! Clueless, just keep them away from maps and decisions.
30

Castaway™ ,

30/06/2009 02:27:52
Jim Murphy doesn't object to the emblem/symbol of the BLP ? - The rose which is the national flower of England/Red Rose of Lancaster.

"All of us – across political parties and across civic England – should challenge the notion that Englishness belongs to any one political party".
31

Robbie 2,

NZ 30/06/2009 02:30:12
“SCOTLAND is safer as part of the United Kingdom..” claims a career soldier - how surprising!
But according to an article in the Guardian (not by me) Britain was only the 35th safest country in the World below most of Europe and countries as diverse as Botswana, South Korea, Malaysia and Qatar.” Did General Mike read this report?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/02/newzealand-tops-global-peace-ranking

Small countries, as normal, are top of the ‘safest country’ list, with, “New Zealand now officially your best bet for a risk-free destination, according to the new Global Peace Index (GPI), an annual ranking of the world's nations on the basis of how peaceful they are…….the usual Nordic suspects clustered below New Zealand: Denmark, Norway and Iceland came second, third and fourth, followed by Austria and then Sweden.

The index ….uses a weighted mix of 23 criteria, including foreign wars, internal conflicts, respect for human rights, the number of murders, the number of people in jail, the arms trade, and degrees of democracy.”

New Zealand has like virtually ever country, problems, inceased violence and crime, (which they can try to resolve themselves ), compared to years gone by, but it is staunchly ‘nuclear free‘, did not join in the invasion of Iraq (because there was no UN resolution) and has over the years steadfastly tried to remedy the injustices done to the indigenous population by past imperial governments.

In virtually ever statistic on quality of life and happiness, small western sovereign democracies come out top.
32

Am Fògarrach,

30/06/2009 02:34:40
LABOUR blundered in the 1990s by allowing the SNP to "monopolise" the saltire, a minister admitted today.

Scots Secretary Jim Murphy said his party had allowed it to be co-opted as "an image of nationalism".

* * * * *

Labour was not then and is not now in a position to allow or disallow the use of the Saltire by the SNP or any other party except their own.

Labour could then and can now use the Saltire as much as it pleases.

Mr Murphy's moaning about this subject confirms what an idiot he is.
33

Fletty73,

Stirling 30/06/2009 02:55:35
3 Maddox unionist yarns all neatly packaged into 1 anti-Scotland thread. How handy.
As balanced reporting as a 2 legged table, 1 of them shoogly.
34

donald,

glasgow 30/06/2009 04:08:45
It was Team GB that created these terrorists by waving the Union Jack in their faces.
35

drunken proffet,

Tassy 30/06/2009 04:54:45
An alternative to a Scottish Referendum on Independence, maybe a Referendum on Indepence for London. They could declare themselves a City State, I think Rome was the last one. Remain a World Power, and leave the rest of the UK to organise their lives, albeit on a less disciplined or organised manner.
36

drunken proffet,

Tassy, 30/06/2009 04:56:06
Sorry, Independence for London. Trying to type without my glasses.
37

Julian.,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 04:56:16
jerry springers,

You are a t0sser of the highest order.
38

mangrove jack,

Oz 30/06/2009 05:02:24
The Kiwis are located in the @rse end of nowhere with only Oz to count on if they happened to be attacked. Yet NZ is rated as the safest country in the world.

Nice try General but in future you will soon have to rely on your south of the border inventory for ongoing supplies of fresh cannon fodder.
39

Phil C,

30/06/2009 05:44:43
Only an independent nuclear-free Scotland can make itself safer. If the good General thinks that being part of a warmongering England is the safest route for Scotland, then so be it. Hardly surprising from a man in his position.

I'm sure General Sir Mike Hooha has a cunning plan to rebuild the British Empire, but viewed from a more rational and peaceful stance, he appears to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, a few Tridents short of a knackered world.
40

Ewan M,

30/06/2009 06:05:47
Different day, same SNP dillusion...........
41

Ewan M,

30/06/2009 06:09:41
Phil C are you aware that the UK not only has England in it but Wales and Northern Ireland?

Sounds like someone just doen't like England. I thnik people have a word for people like that.
42

Ewan M,

30/06/2009 06:11:34
Donald form Glasgow "It was Team GB that created these terrorists by waving the Union Jack in their faces".

That is clearly the most idiotic comment ever on these message boards - how proud you must be trying to justify the mass murder of innocent people because we wave the Union Jack. You should be ashamed.
43

Dumbill,

Offshore 30/06/2009 06:30:33
What's wrong with an independent, neutral, Scotland?
It has worked for the Swiss and the Irish.
44

Angleland Isover,

30/06/2009 06:32:05
england's just a wee country in a big world, without Scotland it would be insignificant. That is what scares the sh!t out of the empire fantasists.
45

james 1st,

hamilton nz 30/06/2009 06:51:01
the most likely attacker of an independant scotland would be our current protector ie england, who else would bother
i dont care what lists say new zealand is not a particularly safe place to visit,certainly feel safer walking in edinburgh than i would otara or mangere a couple of aucklands fabulous suburbs
46

Saul Tyre,

30/06/2009 06:54:59
General Sir Mike Jackson, who led Britain's armed forces into Iraq,......

How did a guy with such a naive view of Scotland and probably everything else become responsible for the lives of so many soldiers? My only advice to the servicemen can be: Get out of the British army now while you stll have the chance.
47

Alex,

Ellon 30/06/2009 06:59:27
More dusty ,colonialist twaddle from Sir Mike and his ilk..its not Scotland's wellbeing that concerns him but rather England's continuing dwindling status on the world stage that is at the heart of this nonsense about making Scotland safer by remaining in the UK .
48

M78,

Tain 30/06/2009 07:05:57
An other Maddoxian slip.
49

,

30/06/2009 07:06:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
50

yockel,

30/06/2009 07:08:11
The "British" army is not capable of defending the UK full stop. Current military thinking is based not on Europe but on the British Army being an integrated sub-unit of the the American army. Pity the equipment is not integrated.
As for the new carriers we do not have enough sailors to crew them and no fleet to protect them. There is no scenario predicted in which they could be used other than to fly the flag.
51

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 07:08:36
So, a retired English General claims that Scotland is “safer” as part of the Union, but does not specify “safer from whom?”


Does this guy believe that there are hordes of belligerent enemies just awaiting the day we vote for Independence so that they can invade us?

Where exactly does Sir Mike believe this threat comes from?

52

John S,

30/06/2009 07:30:45
Who is Jim kidding ? The Labour Party would have never have allowed the saltire in any shape or form to represent or be used by its Northern Branch.
53

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 30/06/2009 07:44:27
"General Sir Mike: Scotland safer in the UK than under independence"

Um, safer from what? The English?
54

thebigiam,

30/06/2009 07:53:53
By Sir Mike's logic, I assume he is therefore in favour of an EU army. But I suspect he is not. I can't see how Scotland in the EU would be any less safe than it is today.
55

gus1940,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 07:57:54
Does he mean just like Ireland?
56

john z,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 07:59:43
As regards Mike Jackson - it fits in to the category of 'well he would say that wouldn't he'.

Scotland as an independent country would not be in Iraq, or Afghanistan. It would not have backed the outrageously stupid George dubbya bush, and would certainly not now be exposed to attack from Muslim religious freaks who like blowing people up.

So, just the usual piffle then. If England wants nuclear missiles, as I have said before, get them out of Scotland and put them on the f****** river Thames.

A country the size of Scotland has NO NEED for intercontinental nuclear ballistic missiles.

England's establishment thinks it would still like to be a global power - but it isn't. Sadly, old english colonialists like Jim p(m)uppet Murphy still believe in 'rule britannia'.

Other small countries manage just fine without Englands help, so I'm not sure I ever will get the concept of Scotland NEEDING England.
57

john z,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:00:57
Oh and with an independent Scottish army, maybe we would finally get rid of that odious colonial union rag flying from Edinburgh castle.
58

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 30/06/2009 08:02:51
It's a bit obvious that Sir Mike is a little worried re: Independent Scotland as there would be no cannon fodder for him to deploy.
59

Linda,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:03:57
Don't let facts get in the way of an anti independence slant by bankrupt Johnston Press.

The BBC ICM Poll this morning showed 38% in favour of independence (despite recession etc) and 52% against.

Once Scotland gets rid of Trident Nuclear Base back to the Thames or only 40 miles from London then we will be much safer as an independent country.

As some Labour run councils have in the past banned the Saltire they would have a cheek to try to reclaim it from Scotland's only party.

If Labour and Tory parties really believe in more financial powers for Scotland how about registering a Scottish Labour and Tory Party to raise its money in Scotland and only use this money and Scottish resources to fight elections in Scotland instead of being subsidised from England.
60

,

30/06/2009 08:04:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
61

john z,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:09:41
Number 50;


QUOTE: england's just a wee country in a big world, without Scotland it would be insignificant. That is what scares the sh!t out of the empire fantasists."

I could not agree more. That is EXACTLY what this is all about.
62

,

30/06/2009 08:14:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
63

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 30/06/2009 08:15:37
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8124108.stm

The above article says it all. Time for "Wee UK" to take a look at herself and stop pretending she is ruler of the high seas. She ain't.
64

Enigma,

30/06/2009 08:17:32
As usual this programme was all about what the Scots want. Never mind what you guys get out of this so called `Union`, I don`t know what the English get out of it. It seems clear though that the British Establishment, stuffed full as always with ambitious Scots, simply don`t want to ask us what we want, they may not like the answer. Go for your independence guys, though from what I`m not sure. If you think the EU is preferable to what you claim is English meddling then dream on. Losing 5 million chippy neighbours will not change much down here.
65

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 30/06/2009 08:20:48
70

What an unusual post. You know little of Scotland and her peoples, that's for sure.
66

Melly,

Dunblane 30/06/2009 08:23:57
And who else pray would be safer under the "union" ? Norway?, Sweden?, Ireland?, Denmark?, Belgium?. My they must be so envious of Scotland`s position as part og the UK !!
67

Enigma,

30/06/2009 08:23:59
70

And what a strange response to a point you clearly didn`t grasp. My interest is England, not Scotland.
68

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 30/06/2009 08:27:29
73

"As usual this programme was all about what the Scots want"

And in your case "My interest is England, not Scotland."

I suppose Scotland losing 55 million disturbed neighbours is a small price to pay.

As for your point, there is none since this is a story regarding Scotland and her place in the Union/World Stage, commented upon by Sir Mike in one of Scotlands national newspapers.
69

Enigma,

30/06/2009 08:29:12
71

It seems your premise is based on the assumption that the English are obstructing Scottish aspirations. Au contraire my friend, we don`t care, your future is in your hands.
70

Enigma,

30/06/2009 08:30:11
74

It`s not us upping the anti mate, you are th guys doing all the complaining. Do us all favour.....
71

Enigma,

30/06/2009 08:30:56
74

As usual another story about what the Scots want. Yawn
72

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 30/06/2009 08:31:37
75

You appear not to know where Berkshire is. Given your poor grasp of geography and your non declaration of location, I'm assuming you don't even live in the UK and are simply a trouble maker.

Carry on, there are a few people on these boards who will happily take you to task.
73

Nevsky;,

Moscow 30/06/2009 08:31:46
70 Enigma*

Does not sound like the Scots are chiipy. Sounds distinctly like you are feeling a bit chippy.

The Scottish people are the ones who will make the decision and not the English i am afraid.

I would trade the union for Scotland having a 'full' place within the EU without even a thought!
74

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 30/06/2009 08:32:29
74

BERKSHIRE

77

Yes, in a newspaper called THE SCOTSMAN. Funny that.
75

paulr,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:34:16
The front line regiments were all scottish, Argyle and sutherland highlanders, black watch and so on.
Which regiments were cut and merged to save money, not the english regiments, only the Scottish regiments.
76

Reject London,

DUNDEE 30/06/2009 08:38:46
Mike Jackson is a money-making, unprincipled Anti-Scottish two-faced liar.

He has on several occasion told Scottish soldiers to "shut-up and get on with the job" - this was in response to them saying they did not have enough kit or armoured protection in Iraq.

He also called concerns made by families, soldiers and supporters about the destruction of the Scottish regiments as a "wall of noise".

He has privately demeaned the Scottish military as 'precious' and made other slurs.

He did nothing to promote better pay and conditions for soldiers whilst in charge of the Army, submitting to Whitehall bean-counters. The moment his pension was secure and his book was due for release he wnet on TV denouncing the Government for the way in treated the Army.

This man is nothing more than a disgrace - why anyone would listen to his views is beyond reason.
77

gus1940,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:40:33
I missed last night's Panorama becausxe of the tennis - is it going to be repeated?
78

Reject London,

DUNDEE 30/06/2009 08:40:53
visit the ROAR facebook group to keep up with news about the forthcoming attempts to disband another former Scottish Regiment (now a battalion)

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=106892434746&ref=ts
79

Phil C,

30/06/2009 08:43:05
#47 Ewan M

Tut tut! Did you not know that Wales and N Ireland were part of England too? You need to research more before spouting!

I'm with Dumbill #49 - What's wrong with an independent, neutral, Scotland?
80

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 08:49:31
77 Enigma

If you are so bored by Scottish issues being discussed on a Scottish forum, then why are you posting here?
81

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

30/06/2009 08:53:57
Glasgow airport.
82

Andy Ritchie's left boot,

30/06/2009 08:56:52
I am reminded of the Mnady Rice Davis quote - "he would say that, wouldn't he?"

This individual's view holds no more weight than anyone else's view. I also believe he is wrong as an independent Scotland wouldn't go round the world picking fights and getting into trouble. Also, extrapolate his view and we would have a European army.
83

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 30/06/2009 08:57:27
Keep your nose out of Scottish affairs Sir Mike.
84

Andy Ritchie's left boot,

30/06/2009 08:57:35
or even Mandy Rice Davis. A lot prettier than the current Mandy, a man who doesn't know the difference between an entrance and an exit.
85

Salthorse,

Londra 30/06/2009 09:05:29
As a serving officer I can confirm that RETIRED Gen Sir Mike is talking the usual arrogant Army Officer Unionist Propaganda b@ll@cs!

I want an SDF, I want to be in Scotland not forced to live in England through no choice of postings, I want to be able to serve my country not a Union that is clearly unbalanced, unfair and repeatedly dragging us into illegal wars in the atypical Colonial manner.

Time to be free of these incompetent fools in Westmidden.

Saor Alba
86

Lianachan,

Highlands 30/06/2009 09:05:43
#84 gus1940

"I missed last night's Panorama becausxe of the tennis - is it going to be repeated?"

You should be able to get it on the internet, with the BBC iPlayer. I sky plus -ed it when I realised what was going to happen.

Offensive title for that Panorama show, though - "Will the Scots Ever Be Happy?". Disgraceful. Cheers, BBC.
87

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 09:13:41
Murphy can use the Scottish Flag anytime he wants. It is the Labour party that are scared of the Saltire because they always have to have an eye on the English voters.

Sir Mike is making an obvious point a big army is better than a smaller army and able to fight in more wars.

He missed the other obvious point. We are we always having wars in the first place. London pride and self deluded grandeur.

What a war like tribe our souther cousins are. Always invading someone for their own safety.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan would be a risk if we had not meddled in the middle east in our colonial past nor in our recent history using the British state the mechanism of choice for certain big businesses.

If you want to eliminate the Terrorist threat. Leave Muslim lands. Deny access to people from these countries to yours. Job done.

They will soon return to killing each other as Islam requires an enemy to function. The justification for all the attacks in Infidels invading muslim lands. Leave and the immediate war is over until they attack us. But let us not waste billions and hundreds of young mens lives chasing shadows in deserts.

Osama wants us to fight on until bankruptcy. He said so many times and our idiots in government won't admit their folly as it might affect their re-election prospects.
88

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/06/2009 09:19:34
#81 "The front line regiments were all scottish, Argyle and sutherland highlanders, black watch and so on.
Which regiments were cut and merged to save money, not the english regiments, only the Scottish regiments"

The super regiment process happened throughout the army not just in Scotland.
89

morris,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 09:31:55



94

The BBC are hardly a credible organisation in Scotland as it is, and this "opinion poll" asks the most ambiguous question possible.

Would you prefer a parliament with increased powers but still within the UK ?

What powers are we talking about because until you qualify the question the answer means SOD ALL!
An example for the cranially challenged:

If I asked you which Rolls Royce would you like?
1) The Tartan one
2) The Red White and Blue one
3) Who cares ! ITS A ROLLER !

I don't know what answers you would get, but I know if you added in

The Red White and Blue Roller is a Rolls Canardly.

it rolls doon hills but can ardly get up one.

Does anybody think you would get the same answers?

Those who still don't get it NEVER WILL!

I presume the Scotsmans 28% was not a typo on your part but no doubt they will claim it was on theirs!
SCOTSMAN YOU ARE NOT A NEWSPAPER.
You are a comic.
90

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 09:34:12
Financial News - Support for Johnston Press dwindles amongst bankers a new poll of who wants them to lend money shows.

They should have been refinanced by today but failed to find a source of funding. The banks are allowing them until results published to see how bad it really is.

Well they do keep publishing shiote from Lord Haw Haw and Skull and they wonder why nobody buys their rag.

===============

Johnston Press plc

('Johnston' or 'the Company')



As previously announced, Johnston Press has been in discussion with its lenders regarding refinancing the Company's existing facilities.



As part of these ongoing constructive negotiations, the Company is pleased to announce that it has agreed with its lenders to defer the testing of certain covenants at 30 June 2009, the Company's interim period end, to 31 August 2009 pending the outcome of its discussions with its lenders.



The Company will provide a further update on its refinancing discussions at the time of the Interim Results announcement.
91

DialMforMurdoX,

30/06/2009 09:34:14
This was just a rehash of Taylor's "Holyrood and the Search for Scotland's Soul" from Sunday evening. It's a pity that Craig Williams allowed the Panorama title to be a dig at the Scots. No doubt it was a deliberate decision to inflame passions. Well done.

Poor old General Mike Jackson, fear of losing the thin red line of Scottish cannon fodder.
92

WL,

livingston 30/06/2009 09:34:21
What Scotland needs are armed forces similar to to those of the Republic of Ireland and with similar tasks.
93

morris,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 09:37:25
92 Yes but as long as it manifests itself in the form of Jerry Springaleak ,I doubt we have anything to be concerned about.

Many ranking officers oppose the Governments defence policy and must be experts also according to J.S so how come they cannot agree?

How can you ignore a balloon like Jerry?
He is such an asset to the independence cause!
94

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 09:46:15
95morris, edinburgh 30/06/2009 09:31:55

94

The BBC are hardly a credible organisation in Scotland as it is, and this "opinion poll" asks the most ambiguous question possible.

======================

Morris, This BBC have a tendency to provide polls that suit their London Masters political agenda.

A clue is in the name BBC.

Do polls of 1000 people usually get wall to wall coverage?
95

morris,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 09:46:19
Completely off topic but LIVINGSTON FC may go under if the local cooncil don't look at all the possibilities of collecting their overdue rent.

Maybe if the stadium was also used as a pop concert venue out of season/ and on any permissible days, and the rent collected that way Livvy could remain on site and the cooncil would act in the local interest . How about starting with a concert to save Livvy ?Better still tell Gordon Smith to get his finger out and save the club NOW by putting money where his mouth is and I don't mean IBROX!
96

morris,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 09:53:42
101 No doubt the cost of this opinion poll represents the increased funding to BBC Scotland.

You said it LOUD and CLEAR. We should ridicule this anti Scottish piece of "mediaocrity" out of Scotland permanently unless it honours its 9% pro rata spending NOW.Its simply not good enough to say we will adjust but it will take time. You are cutting budgets throughout the UK anyway so if its possible to adjust your total spending its possible to simultaneously adjust your lack of Scottish funding.

This only takes time when its expedient to do so!
97

Luigiana,

Aberdeen 30/06/2009 09:58:25
#92 The Morn

"The unionist propaganda machine has been in full operation lately. They must be getting VERY worried."

What they havent told us is how many people now intend to vote SNP at the next election. They have tested this privately, they know this, and they are absolutely cr'apping themselves.

Expect more bullsh1t from General Mike "Union" Jackson and his cronies, as the penny slowly drops that the union is heading for the buffers. Things are getting critical - the gloves are off. The SNP has done an excellent job to steering clear of the street brawl the unionists would like to engage. The willingness to discuss Calman and put it to the elctorate in a referendum was a recent example. Salmond continues to outmanouver Gray, Murphy and the rest of the numpties. No need to slug it out now - the SNP have the moral high ground and the electorate are not stupid.

Voting Labour is not stupid - it's a bad habit that can and will be broken.
98

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 30/06/2009 10:02:05
From the BBC 2 years ago today:-

30 June 2007, 20:18 GMT 21:18 UK

"BLAZING CAR CRASHES INTO AIRPORT"

"A car which was on fire has been driven at the main terminal building at Glasgow Airport."

From the article :-

"SCOTLAND is safer as part of the United Kingdom"

Aye! Right!

99

Class On Grass,

Custody's Last stand 30/06/2009 10:02:38

The biggest threat would, of course, be England. We would need to feed and clothe them as part of a divorce settlement. They would take the house and the kids. If not then it would become a custody battle.

100

Dún Aenghus,

30/06/2009 10:09:00
This man does not know his geography. Where are the "four nations" in the UK? The north east of Ireland is two thirds of the province of Ulster.The province of Ulster belongs to THE IRISH NATION! It is worth remembering that within that two thirds of a province,48% of the population wish to be reunited with the rightful owners of the six counties of Ulster,ie the Irish nation. So! what is this silly man talking about? He is a typical out of touch Britisher.
Independence for Alba........NOW!
101

mr broon,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 10:09:42
Retired General Sir Mike Jackson was only being asked for his expert opinion.

However, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation now has an enlarged membership of 28 countries,
including the UK.

Yet, its members also include
Albania
Belgium
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Iceland
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Slovakia, and
Slovenia

all of which are small nations, many with even less of a population than Scotland.

In reality, defence would not be a problem for Scotland.

102

Peter20,

30/06/2009 10:10:59
We are NOT safer as part of the UK from the point of view of terrorism. The Iraq war being a prime example. However, has Salmond or anyone wanting a truly independent Scotland got the balls to say NO to the USA when they fancy another war. Lets face it, we'll do anything to keep the USA onside - we'll never slag them off and we'll beg for them to come and visit our lovely country. We can live without the English, but not the good old U S of A, sio fight with them we will. Or would amyone like to suggest otherwise?
103

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 10:15:09
102 morris,


I have a degree of sympathy for the current plight of Livingston FC and wish them no ill-will whatsoever.


I am less aware of the causes of their financial difficulties than I am of a similar predicament which afflicts the Club of my choice, and indeed more than a few others in the SFL.

The whole structure, both financial and administrative, of all levels of Scottish football needs to be examined and reformed from the top down all the way to schools football.

Staging the occasional pop concert in League grounds, admirable as that concept is, is not going to provide a long term solution to the underlying problems which exist in our professional or semi professional game.

I do agree however, that the responsibility for any such review lies with the SFA, and time is fast running out for action to be taken.

104

Dún Aenghus,

30/06/2009 10:15:43
Mr. Jackson feels a continuous threat from outside forces,because Mr, Jackson and his ilk had and have a history of invading,plundering and stealing the land and property of other nations and people.A bully always remains under a certain amount of threat.We in Scotland want no part of this Britisher bullying. As an Independent sovereign state,we wish to live in peace with our neighbours and the rest of the world. Independence......NOW!
105

Queen D,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 10:19:00
Alasdair , I seem to remember a similar paper here in the West, comparable to the one to which you refer.
Sadly , it appears to have been replaced by an interloper with a strangely political alliance where once ,it too, had something known as impartiality and balance.
The paper in which you write at this time appears to have a 2 month hangmans noose over its head , a sword of Damacles ,if you prefer!

Mr Maddox , you will pay for your Labour/Unionist propaganda with your job!

To assume the rest of the world considers the UK some sort of Great power is laughable.
The world press is available on line and makes most interesting reading, particularly the Australians , never a bunch to indulge in PC writing!
I love the Ozzies!
106

morris,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 10:20:14
105
Whilst I follow your thinking without any difficulty and would agree with the thrust of what you say,even you would surely have to concede that to continue voting Labour when they cannot possibly form a government at Westmidden,and they are guaranteed a Tory government (which according to most Labour voters are the opposite of what they are attempting to do)is hardly genius is it?

Yes this habit can be broken but if they had any brains they wouldn't need this explained to them far less not even recognise it after it has been explained (again and again).

VOTE LABOUR and elect an opposition .
VOTE LABOUR and elect a Tory government.

Nah I don't think so.

Stupid is maybe not the tactful word ,okay but the cap fits quite well!

The abstention almost begins to make as much sense !


At least they can say WISNAE ME!

Labour can ONLY say..

Labour are perfectly placed to challenge next time around. Yes we are disappointed to have finished third,and lost 150 seats many of which were in England , but we were second in Scotland !
Only Labour could see a positive side to humiliation!
I pray to God Ian Gray is never allowed to teach children again !
Nobody's children deserve that!
107

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 30/06/2009 10:23:06
110 Peter20,30/06/2009 10:10:59

From Wikipedia:-

On Alex Salmond.......

"During the prolonged parliamentary debates in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq he voiced strong opposition to Britain's participation. In the aftermath of the war, he lent support to the attempt of Adam Price, a Plaid Cymru MP, to impeach Tony Blair over the Iraq issue. Salmond has gone further than many anti-war politicians in claiming that Blair's statements on the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were consciously intended to deceive the public.[6] He has also claimed that Blair had made a pact with George W. Bush "to go to war come what may"


Care to repeat your question??

108

bluehead,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 10:28:05
just who is the general kidding ?with brown and his mob on the loose nothing is safe,especially the Scottish people
brown and his mob have destroyed everything they have touched,they have sold britain to the continent,we are no longer masters of our own fate,we have to do the bidding of some foreigner in Brussels now,
everything that was sacred to the people of this country has been destroyed
the fact that anyone would vote for this labour goverment which are now more of a national disease
shows that we have lost the plot
to the general I say the further the people of Scotland are away from brown and his mob the safer they will be!!!!!


109

Nevsky;,

Moscow 30/06/2009 10:33:28
I though Mike jackson died at the weekend...this is the same one, alcoholic with terrible plastic surgery?
110

Roibert a Briuis,

30/06/2009 10:38:33
Why you woudl believe anything from the BIASED Broadcasting Corporation BAFFLES me but then again so are a lot of the things that appear in the Scotsman.....including this post :-(
111

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 30/06/2009 10:43:02
Anyone else notice how the BBC twist statistics. For example, if a poll (like their one) shows 38% in favour of independence and 54% against, they describe this a "most Scots don't want independence".

Sheer propaganda in my opinion.
112

Roibert a Briuis,

30/06/2009 10:44:32
OH Morris "I pray to God Ian Gray is never allowed to teach children again ! Nobody's children deserve that!"

Did you no hear our Prime Mentailst wants to be a teacher when we finally throw him out of Westmonster and sadly the English will send him back up here - that is about the only thing Scotland NEEDS protecting from!!!! ooops forgot ZANULiebour and its North British Branch
113

pwd,

Borders 30/06/2009 10:46:02
# 45 Dumbill

"What's wrong with an independent, neutral, Scotland?
It has worked for the Swiss and the Irish."

It has only worked for them because of the protection given to surrounding member states by NATO. Protection on the cheap if you like. The same protection given by NATO enabled France to dishonestly posture as capable of defending itself outside NATO. Look East if you want to see what happened to small states in the wrong geographical position and without NATO protection.
114

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 10:52:06
118 Nevsky;

I suspect that they are not one in the same person as I guy I went to see on Glasgow Green in the early 1990’s , whatever his personal or psychological problems may have been, showed a lot of respect for his Scottish audience.
115

Lianachan,

Highlands 30/06/2009 10:58:23
#123 You saw Jackos Scottish gig? Shouldn't you be killing yourself just now, or buying wheelbarrow loads of CDs instead of sitting here posting?
116

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 11:00:35
122 pwd,

Which “wrong geographical position” are we in?
117

Lianachan,

Highlands 30/06/2009 11:05:07
#125

Well, we are a small country with an imperialistic neighbour who is known for repeatedly invading us (and other countries).
118

JCA REID,

Annan 30/06/2009 11:12:52
It is all a fallacy! The only folk to have invaded us are the Romans & the English! This 300year old Union has given us over 500 War Years. This century is only 9years old & already we've had 14years of conflict not of our choosing, or making.[8years Afghanistan & 4 in Iraq].
Simply we're fodder. & before folk complain I'm an ex-Serviceman.
119

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 11:14:41
124 Lianachan,

Yes I was there, and although his form of music does not represent my usual tastes I found him to be very entertaining and very professional in his presentation.

I particularly remember his (apparent) departure from the stage at the end of the concert on a James Bond style “jet pack”, flying high over the stage and then disappearing behind in a plume of smoke.

Whatever else he was, he could certainly entertain.
120

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 11:18:12
122
pwd

"Protection on the cheap if you like."

You might want to check up on what Switzerland and Ireland contribute to NATO before making such comments.

http://tiny.pl/3bm5
http://tiny.pl/3bmf

There is not reason why Scotland could not have a similar relationship with NATO until we are finally rid of this US contrivance.

121

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 30/06/2009 11:28:13
Cancel the entire education budget, it doesn't contribute anything anymore. Just give the kids their worthless A certificates when they reach 16 years of age.

Put the money saved into Trident and our new battle ships and aircraft carriers.
122

Dan,

Englandshire 30/06/2009 11:33:21
"...sadly the English will send him back up here - that is about the only thing Scotland NEEDS protecting from!!!!"

And don't you forget it! It's actually part of a secret unionist scheme, if Scotland ever gets independance we're going to send Brown and his cronies back over the wall and close the gates! :P

Seriously, from an English perspective, I really don't see what the problem with Scots independance is?
Given that so much has been made of maintaining other nations national rights, Kosovo for example, why are we hanging onto Scotland? A touch of double standards.

Would Scotland be safer out of the Union? Depends, ignoring the English, (as some on here would love to do), who actually presents a genuine threat to Scotland?
1) erm...
2) Maybe...
3) Nope, can't nail it
The only potential threat I can see if it's not happening already is to Scots fishing grounds and that will mostly be from English, Irish, Norwegian or Icelandic fishermen and you can do sweet FA about that as it is.
In reality, for the vast majority of Scots I don't think independance will make that much difference on a day to day basis. Won't make that much difference to England on a day to day basis either. Let it happen.
123

Arfur,

30/06/2009 11:33:50
Yeh the nutters at Glasgow airport blow that argument out of the water..............why did they do it? oh yeh cos our armys are in just about every country with a problem.

I dont see the Irish or the Swiz or Iceland or Norway having to defend their country week in week out.

Usual unionist clap trap for the brainless idiots that fall for this guff.
124

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 11:37:41
122pwd, Borders 30/06/2009 10:46:02
# 45 Dumbill

"What's wrong with an independent, neutral, Scotland?
It has worked for the Swiss and the Irish."

It has only worked for them because of the protection given to surrounding member states by NATO. Protection on the cheap if you like. The same protection given by NATO enabled France to dishonestly posture as capable of defending itself outside NATO. Look East if you want to see what happened to small states in the wrong geographical position and without NATO protection.

=========================================

You are living in the past militarily. We have passed the age of physical empire. It is now about energy and water resources.

We should all start to concentrate on domestic issues not imaginary enemies that we have created out of meddling and imperialistic practises of London/Washington/Paris/Moscow.

Scotland like any other peaceful nation would not pick fights and invade other nations to appease the London imperialists.

How many Wars will London start in the name of Peace and Defence.

How many times will idiots swallow the lies.

Deny passports to all people from rogue nations and stop the access. Keep our people safe from our own rogue government.

If only we could see London the way the rest of the world see's London. It is not the saviour of anyone.
125

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 11:45:16
130 Mikko

Are you “Linda from Shettland” in disguise?
126

Nevsky;,

Moscow 30/06/2009 11:49:35
Wait a minute...the MOD are abandoning St Kilda leaving the Western seaboard of Scotland open to attack from the inhabitants of Rockall!

Scotland, independent..probably part of NATO or a neutral country..whatever the people decide is good enough for me!

127

tommy M,

Scotland 30/06/2009 12:03:00
In Scotland, the oldest nation in Europe, we are unable to legislate on our own response to world terrorism. Wetsminster controls it for us. That seems insane to me.

Let there be no more illegal wars in Scotland's name.

Independence can't come soon enough as far as i am concerned.
128

IainGlasgow,

30/06/2009 12:14:09
""It is one army but it is also, when you look at it, a collection of warlike tribes who come together for common purpose," the general said

There is that phrase popping up again!

Common Purpose
Common Purpose
Common Purpose
Common Purpose

Wake up to the truth

www.cpexposed.com
129

IainGlasgow,

30/06/2009 12:15:08
http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/articles/brian-gerrish-state-nation
130

Yeah1,

30/06/2009 12:17:38
"SNP defence spokesperson Angus Robertson said: "Trident is frankly obscene, and in the current economic climate it must be obvious that these resources should be better spent.""

Angus Robertson is not really qualified to comment on obscene spending and a good use of resources when he himself charged us taxpayers £2,300 for a sofa bed!
131

Mcsnagpile,

30/06/2009 12:24:01
Historically the Scots have had to defend themselves predominantly from the English. Perhaps an alliance with somebody else might be more appropriate.
132

Sedov,

30/06/2009 12:25:14
This defender of the British state and the union and a representative of the ruling class is a stark reminder that independence alone cannot solve the problems caused by a failed capitalist system.

Only the solidarity of all British workers against our common enemy - the British state- can bring about a better Scotland.

The calls for seperation by the SNP works against that priciple and an independent Scotland, with the rest of the UK intact, would be isolated and ecomically cut off by the likes of this general and his pals in big business.
133

Eve,

Scotland bonnie Scotland shall be free once again 30/06/2009 12:35:04
General Sir Mike Jackson? Must admite it's the first I've ever heard of him.

His opinion means very little to me as he's obviously incredible bias. And as he was/is involved in NATO it's obviously he supports the MOD abusing our land and waters, in the way they have been come a custom to over the past 50 years or so.
134

Willie Mor,

30/06/2009 12:37:25
"He(Sir Jacko)went on to add that the armed forces throughout the 300 years of Union were an example of how the four nations of Britain worked well as one"

What a profound statement from the man who led the British army to an ill conceived war, and defeat in Iraq.

And does he not remember the Battle of Culloden, the numerous Irish campaigns the last of which resulted in the Black and Tans being deployed against one of his home nations, the recent 30 year deployment of troops in that bit of his Brittanic world they call NI.

Or does he remember the troops and tanks in George Square during the general strike.

Or what about the slaughter in the trenches during the First World war.

Yeh Jacko, one doesn't need to think to much about your politics. Blimp!
135

Observer,,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 12:39:09
Evidently there are two Wacko Jocko's. I wonder if this one sleeps in an oxygen tent too and has a chimp called Rufus, sorry, Bubbles.
136

Eve,

Scotland 30/06/2009 12:45:13
#146 Observer,,: He doesnae look that way inclinde.
Apparently he's more like "Darth Vader" or "The Prince of Darkness".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6216808.stm
137

Observer,,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 12:51:12
147 Well he's bonkers whoever he is. The UK helped to make the entire world seven times more dangerous due to the Iraq invasion, according to Bergen and Cruickshanks, so only someone who was totally away with he budgies could assert that the UK makes us safer. It's not only us that are less safe in the UK, it's the rest of the world as well.
138

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 12:56:28
136
Hagbard Celine

"Yes, I checked your URLs and the answer is "SFA"."

Sorry! I should have made the instructions clearer. You were supposed to read the content.

You are possibly arrogant enough to be offended when I tell you I prefer to take NATO's word over yours.

139

Eve,

Scotland 30/06/2009 12:58:07
""All of us – across political parties and across civic Scotland – should challenge the notion that Scottishness belongs to any one political party," he said."

Murphy really needs to get a life. If want to wrap him self in the saltire then he should just get on with it. The are numerous shops that sell flags in particular areas of tourism (which is just about every where in Scotland).

I would recomend that he buys the biggist wan he can find cause he'll need it cove that massive .......................................

Besides I thought he said that he was going to fight in Scotlands interst. Murphy we don't need to fight over a flag, everyone in Scotland outside the Labour party and Torie party know all ready that the flag belongs to the people. Time youse took note of the state of society these days. Take a walk doon Bridgen you'll see the ugly union Jack and the saltire flying.
140

Gorach,

Oban 30/06/2009 12:59:24
An independent Scotland will be well defended with a very strong army in particular. Anyone who decides to give us a go will find out just like in the past.
And our famed regiments will be re-instated.
141

Peter20,

30/06/2009 13:05:23
116 Jo'burg Jock - all criticism of Tony Blair and the UK - no direct criticism of the USA (surprise surprise) - care to venture a different answer. Salmond is a USA lapdog - look at ghow he handled the Trump affair! Roll on Scottish Independence but don't think we'll be anything but USA puppets - beats being an English puppet though eh?
142

PaulW,

Scottish Borders 30/06/2009 13:09:50
What Sir Mike is really worried about is:

how will the Rest of UK (RUK) have an army big enough to "project force" overseas, without the "jocks" as cannon fodder (who still make up a disproportionate share of the Army)(answer: good news for Ghurkas!)

how will the RUK keep its Security Council seat if we don't have Faslane and nuclear tubs to guarantee the RUK's place? (answer: do we care?)

how will RUK train pilots and commandos if they don't have bits of Scotland to dive bomb on practice runs, fire depleted uranium shells and to hike across. (answer: bad news for people of the Dales, Peak District and Dartmoor)

No disrespect to Sir Mike, but frankly, given that Scotland has always suffered more per head than the Rest of the UK from past wars (150,000+ Scots killed in the Great War alone), I don't care about what the rest of the UK wants. If we have common cause, we will stand beside them, if we don't (e.g. overseas misadventures) then we will not back them up.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Czech republic etc. all seem to manage to defend themselves, Scotland can too.
143

Eve,

Scotland 30/06/2009 13:10:13
#148 Observer,,: You've got a very valid point there, I've just read some more of that article on him form the BBC. Some of it's a wee bit on the disturbing side.

I guess war hardens some people that they find it very difficult to have any compassion what so ever.

Aglow he's managed to get one thing right! Gorden Brown should have made the Irac enquiry public.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5554649/General-Sir-Mike-Jackson-criticises-Gordon-Browns-decision-to-hold-secret-Iraq-inquiry.html

Though he is completely and utterly wroung about Scotland and the Scots to make the comments he has made in the days Scotsman.
144

morris,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 13:11:28
138
A very minor point Tommy (and for information purposes only,
but the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is older than Scotland and I think Denmark may also be at least around the same time as Scotland.I do agree however we are recognised as one of the oldest nations/kingdoms.

The oldest "democracy" is almost certainly ICELAND whose Althing (parliament dealing with ALL THINGS literally as far as I know )was around in Viking times and definitley existed around 930AD.

Youir point is of course correct in essence. I trust that you recognise that I agree with you in every respect.
145

Peter20,

30/06/2009 13:11:33
Is it just me or do a lot of NAts on here just pick and choose what Scotland has been involved in - Empire Building was English, Iraq war was English, WW2 was no doubt British. Happy to share the wealth but none of the baggage that goes with it eh?
146

PaulW,

Scottish Borders 30/06/2009 13:12:33
#151 - a very good point - only under Independence will ROAR's objective to see restoration of the Scottish regiments be achieved.

147

PaulW,

Scottish Borders 30/06/2009 13:23:05
#156 - the point being that Scotland wants nothing to do with Trident, or Iraq, but Scotland is tainted with the British brush as far as the international community is concerned, particularly among militant groups allied to Bin laden, as demonstrated by the attack on Glasgow Airport. So, being part of the Uk hasn't made us safer there, has it, as we have made ourselves a target for a war we thought was illegal and didn't want? Not in my name, pal!

As for WW2 - I would have voted for our involvement in that war, as that was a fight for survival of democracy in general across Europe against evil. The Great War, I would say "no" to - that was a battle between Imperial Powers over land and our lions were led by donkeys (including some from Scotland).

Iraq was illegal. No need for debate there. It should have been a UN led mission, and it should have had a substantial arab presence in the coalition.

Afghanistan - actually I can see a need for intervention there, as Bin Laden is evil, and especially if we can stamp out the illegal opium trade as another benefit. However, it should be a more international force.

Any as for sharing the wealth - we seem to be sharing our oil wealth with London - according to the BBC Alba channel, our oil money was used to pay for the M25 and the Channel tunnel and probably paid for Trident, even though it is not wanted by the vast majority of Scots. Why not base it on the Thames if it is so good?
148

Farky,

Sir who? 30/06/2009 13:29:48
Who can with certainty that we would be less safe? What tosh from Sir Whacko Jacko. You can't honestly expect the man to say anything else though, can you "Sir"?
149

Sumlogic,

Wrong way up 30/06/2009 13:32:18
More like the UK needs Scotland and its resources, what do tanks, ships and helicopters run on…..

If and when Scotland and its people finally see the sense in the unavoidable annulment of the ‘forced union’, what’s left of the UK will be in a much weakened position and unlikely / unable to strut about on the world stage and play with their war toys in other nations back yards, they also lose their choice location for the Nuclear base!

That’s most likely a good thing, there are too many countries enforcing their views on other nations and messing about! One less would be a blessing.

Not only can Scotland finance itself (yes even borrowing if necessary like most other Independent nations) as an independent nation it would be safer too, no longer carrying the unnecessary burden of world hate that the current UK can 'boast'.

Why would this bloke say anything other than what he does!!!!

Independence...taking Scotland forward!
150

yockel,

30/06/2009 13:40:23
#158 A cost benefit analysis of WWII would be interesting. Even in terms of lives saved it is unlikely that it was a good idea. Like WWI it too was all about land and the economy. There were no great democratic issues, unless you mean the replacement of an elected government by communism, in half of the country.
151

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 30/06/2009 13:41:26
Well here is another Englishman telling Scotland that it's better being part of the UK - what's new??

If it wasn't for the Scottish soldier, there would be no "British" Army.
152

goody2shooz,

birmingham 30/06/2009 13:42:55
i agree nuclear weopons are a terrible thing and the sooner they are all phased out the better,but sadly there here to stay at the moment and who knows who will get them in the future.Anyway radiation does not recognise boundries so what good is having the trident subs moved a hundred miles south the solway firth instead of the firth of clyde.
153

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 30/06/2009 13:49:07
Peter20,30/06/2009 13:05:23

"Jo'burg Jock - all criticism of Tony Blair and the UK -no direct criticism of the USA (surprise surprise) -"

The criticism was made in the House of Commons. I am sure that if there were any members of the house representing the USA then Alex would have had something to say about them.

Since there weren't - I don't think there was much point.

You see when you are voicing criticism, It's best that those people (whom you a criticising) can hear you.



154

peter1958,

GLASGOW 30/06/2009 13:53:59
I love it! the full range of SNP mythology and prejudice on display. A £1 for every "no harm if they fall" quote would me me a very rich man.

Mike Jackson is right, of course.
The SNP have no plan for the future defence of an independent Scotland worth the name.

The general, uncosted promise, that savings on Trident or nuclear defence would be reinvested in land forces is pure pie in the sky when a latge proportion of the SNP is opposed to an army of any size let alone the full reinstatement of the remaining six infantry regiments.

Why not just come out and admit it - an independent Scotland won't have a defence force and won't spend on defence.
155

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 13:54:01
156
Peter20

"Is it just me..."

No. Such "creative reading" is common among the ideological unionists.

156

morris,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 13:54:37
163 There is the small matter of WE DONT WANT THEM.As long as that is true that is what should happen.

Of course if they are imposed upon Scotland against the wishes of the people here, then we will remove them under independence.Where you house them in England is your affair,but I would be most uncomfortable if I were in Wales or Northern Ireland.Whats the bet that the best sites are in these two countries after Scotland says Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

WE dont want them THATS THE POINT. Whether it makes any difference remains to be seen. I dont intend to find out.
157

Salahun,

Brittany 30/06/2009 13:55:02
I'm a Sccotish nationalist. I think they are not matter to speak about this question in this context. Sccotish poeples don't accept the provocation and humiliation. Togheter will be vbuild an independant Scottisch Stat. For me i think a real independent Scotish stat is a gaelic stat. A futur stat who teaching gaelic thong for all poeples in Scotland, this point is not a matter of any discussion. The thong of the Alba or Scotland is the gaelic, english is a foreign language. I don't explain the multiple explosion happened in the lasts monthes in Scotland. The explosion of BP instalation is an accidental act or a voluntary acts for intimidation of nationalist?? I ask a Scotish parlementary enquet about this explosion. In Russia, the language who are teaching for education stat is the russian language, rather they are good russians diplomats and scientifics who speak fluently english and others foreign language, in France in all schols of the French Republic is the french, most french poeples speak also others language, in Spain, the spanish was the language of the knowledge...and this is the rules in all independents stat of the world. In Africa the situation is differents as in celtics countries, in most africans stats they are a pluralities of language but the language of the economy, the commerce and in many case the language of news papers is the english or the french, i take only two exemples:In Nigeria is a famous country by his population near one hundreds million habitant the language of the elits and the politicien clas is the english, the second exemples the républic of Sénégal speak French whit others language as arab, swahili, woloff...
I will be clear, first they are not an independent Scotish stat whitout the reestablishment of the Sccotish Gaelic as the officiel thong of the Futur Républic of Scotland. Personaly i will be opposed if this point was not stipulated clearly in the futur constitution of the free stat of Scotland. I don' t want a clonage st
158

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 30/06/2009 13:57:54
152 Peter20,30/06/2009 13:05:23

"Salmond is a USA lapdog - look at ghow he handled the Trump affair!"

No. No. Please try and understand, This is called encouraging foreign investment to create jobs.

Tony Blair's antics during the Iraq affair can be referred to as "sucking up" to the USA.

Trump didn't get anyone killed, - as opposed to what Blair did with his pal Bush.

159

peter1958,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 14:02:23
Salahun has pointed the way for all nats - whatever you save on defence you can reinvest in the establishment of Gaelic as the mother tongue of all Scotland - especially the Glasgow bits.

160

Queen D,

30/06/2009 14:03:15
Peter 20 , you think that only the Nationalists re write History?
BBC news has been happily engaged in that for some time.
The G20 " riots" were mentioned on Radio 4 news the other day , I saw NO riot , I saw police behaving abominably and 3 hoodies smashing a bank window while middle aged , bespectacled man tried to stop them.
I made an assumption at that point that ran along the lines of , " the media /police think its too well behaved , lets get them going and sell newspapers / bash heads"
Most notably over Iraq and Afghanistan, they refer to the USA invasion of Iraq , lightly air brushing our disgusting involvement .
Same for Afghanistan." The US invasion...."
They did a poll of 1010 to decide and announce on national news that Scots did'nt want independence. We rarely feature on national news unless its bad!
And so the lies and spin continue aided and abetted by a Scottish media that should burn with shame.
161

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 30/06/2009 14:03:33
#163
Two observations: If radiation knows no borders, they WHY NOT have them located in England.
Also you can take some measures to protect against radiation, but none against nuclear flash, burn and blast. I'd rather that would happen as far away from Scotland as possible.

The stupid thing about Sir Mike's comments is that it assumes that an independent Scotland would be still be seen as target by terrorists. The reason it is a target is because Scottish soldiers are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I wonder if an Independent Scotland would also pass a "Mercenary Law", saying that Scottish Citizens would not be allowed to go and fight in foreign armies for pay.
162

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 14:03:56
165
peter1958

"...when a latge proportion of the SNP is opposed to an army of any size..."

Really? And you know this, how?

Only one party has a policy on defence post-secession - the SNP. And it certainly isn't anything like what you describe. Perhaps this is the policy you envisage being adopted by one of the other parties.

Or perhaps you are just talking krap.

163

peter1958,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 14:04:22
Sumlogic - a wee sum for you.

110 v 67 = 1
164

morris,

edinburgh 30/06/2009 14:05:44
165 We cannot admit it because it has no truth to it.

You should read SNP party policy documents.

A common defence policy/ international co operation was always something the SNP would favour, but using only conventional weapons in the case of our contribution,and a properly funded armed services here in Scotland has always been the SNPs intention.Why is it people who have never been to an SNP meeting know more about the party than people who have I wonder?
Its the SNP who are constantly taking activists from other parties and everybody knows it,not the other way round and some of them very high level people indeed!
165

,

30/06/2009 14:07:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
166

peter1958,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 14:07:36
Come on Hermit - spell out the SNP Schlieffen Plan for Scotland - you being an old soldier and such like no doubt promotion to Generalissimo is on the cards - or maybe Admiral of the Fleet.

Don't kid us on Hermit!
167

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 30/06/2009 14:07:36
152 Peter20,30/06/2009 13:05:23

"but don't think we'll be anything but USA puppets - beats being an English puppet though eh?"

The SNP will establish a country that is no one's puppet, but that might be a little difficult for you to comprehend.

168

peter1958,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 14:08:48
Spell out the numbers!
169

PaulW,

Scottish Borders 30/06/2009 14:13:48
#165

I am sure in your parallel rotten universe, you can construct such a situation where your opponents conform to your prejudices. However we do not live in Second Life.

In the real world, we in the SNP do have plans for Scottish Defence Services, it will have Army, Navy and Air forces. It will be a conventional force with no nukes, and I will bet you that we will have no recruitment problems once regiments are restored.

http://www.snp.org/node/6599

The SDS will collaborate in UN peace keeping missions and European defence and the Partnership for Peace. The key is that it is primarily a defensive force, not a first strike force requiring first strike capability around the globe. Scotland would have no desire to be expansionist around the World, unlike our current role, where we try to "project power".

170

The Scotchman,

30/06/2009 14:21:36
The only thing Scotland needs protection from is the corrupt Union with the like of Sir Mike.

And take Trident. Will be sending a cheque for our money on returning this unwanted useless present.

Will look lovely sitting around Tower Bridge. Perhaps some of it sitting around Dover if the French don't object.
171

peter1958,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 14:22:45
The SNP has never gone into print about numbers or budgets. Salmond has been anti NATO for well over a decade and wishes Scotland to leave. The guff about Scotland taking part in UN peacekeeping missions would be wholly predicated on a Scottish parliament granting permission - Kosovo spings to mind and the bombing of Belgrade as tough decisions upon which the SNP had no unity whatsoever.

As David Cairs said in June 2002 in the Strategic Defence Review:
"The SNP must clarify these matters if it is to convince the Scottish people that they know how to defend us. I suspect that no clarification will emerge. For the truth is that the current SNP leadership knows that their entire defence policy is an utter shambles."

No change there then!
The website reference given is just words on a manifesto - and we all know how much the SNP value those - anyone seen my first time buyers grant?
172

peter1958,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 14:27:34
Same article by Cairns illustrates SNP muddle: -

"But during a recent debate on defence in the Scottish Grand Committee some of my Hon friends were unkind enough to suggest that the Scottish National party had a somewhat insubstantial defence policy. I decided to verify this for myself, but I have to report that calling the SNP defence policy insubstantial is actually a bit flattering.

There is next to nothing on the SNP’s web site on the subject. A search of Hansard yielded slime pickings, so in desperation I turned to the SNP’s 2001 General Election Manifesto – a document so compelling that it moved the SNP into third place in Greenock and Inverclyde, unfortunately it was from second place, and secured them the princely total of under 15% of the vote.

Here you will find some paragraphs on defence – although considerably fewer than the space devoted to a fascinating article entitled ‘A day in the life of Alex Salmond’ , which I thoroughly recommend to all honourable Members.

What there is on defence is illuminating. For example; ‘…our opposition to nuclear defence will make our continued participation in nuclear alliances difficult’

The Hon Member for Moray sought to clarify this position in his contribution in the Scottish Grand committee debate when he said: “we cannot take part in an alliance predicated on the first strike of weapons of mass destruction. That is a principle on which we are not prepared to compromise” So nothing could be clearer – an independent Scotland would be out of NATO, on principle.

However someone appears to have forgotten to tell this to Mr Colin Campbell MSP, who is the official SNP Defence spokesperson. He told Scottish CND: “the SNP supported full participation in NATO, but the stumbling block of first use of nuclear weapons made it modify its stance. The SNP states that an independent Scotland should not be part of the NATO command structure”. Now Mr Campbell has chosen his words very precisely. He could have s
173

Eve,

Scotland 30/06/2009 14:29:53
#162 For Scotlands Future: Aye, it's a shame though cause I actauly like the English when they don't dectate to us.

#163 goody2shooz: Well it's OK for you it's no in yer conutry and no the river that you live clostiest too either. When I was at school we use to sing "The river Clyde the wonderful Clyde the name of it fills me and fills me with pride...."

I can asure you we where no singing about those stuiped WMD.

ohh We wouldnae want it at the borders either, NOT when it borders Scottish water or/and land.
174

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 30/06/2009 14:30:05
156 Peter20,30/06/2009 13:11:33

"Happy to share the wealth"

Wealth!

Aye! Right!

Scotland will become wealthy when it secedes from this corrupt union.

175

Peter20,

30/06/2009 14:36:26
Jo'Burg Jock - Are you seriously claiming Scotland didn't share in the British Empire's wealth? Get real - and does anyone think a majority of people in England wanted the Iraq war? Politicians do lots of things in our name - don't be so naive as to think the Westminster government policies reflect the wishes of the English any more than it does the Scots.
176

PaulW,

Scottish Borders 30/06/2009 14:41:33
No 182 and 183 - you didn't look hard enough.....

from this paper on 27 September 2002

SNP proposes nuclear-free Scottish Defence Service

AN INDEPENDENT Scottish government would employ a full-time regular defence force of 20,000 - an increase of 5,000 on the present military establishment employed in Scotland, the SNP conference was told yesterday.
Colin Campbell, the party’s defence spokesman, gave details of a Scottish Defence Service (SDS) which would operate in a nuclear-free Scotland following the removal of Trident.

Mr Campbell said current estimates showed that a defence programme would cost £600 million a year with an extra £300 million for works.

The total defence budget of £1.8 billion would be about the same figure as the Ministry of Defence currently spends in Scotland.

He told the delegates: "We are looking at a maximum establishment of 20,000 regular personnel in Scotland ... that is 5,000 extra people being paid in Scotland and spending their money in Scotland. That’s worth about £150 million a year."

He reckoned there would be 7,000 more indirect jobs as a result of the SNP’s defence policy.

Apart from 20,000 full-time regular troops, Scotland would also have 20,000 regular reservists and 8,000 part-time reservists.

A detailed defence policy unanimously approved by the conference declared that the prime function of the SDS would be to "defend the land, sea and air space of Scotland" and to "maintain a high standard of professionalism, adaptability and preparedness to enable it to carry out international obligations".

According to the policy, Scotland would work internationally to eliminate nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and establish a peacekeeping college.

The conference agreed an amendment which emphasised that decisions on defence taken by the Scottish government should be endorsed by the Scottish Parliament.

177

Edward,

30/06/2009 14:43:41
#183 peter1958,Glasgow
Its amazing the amounty of guff you have been coming out with to try and justify why Scotland should remain in the Union with England.
It should come as no surprise to you and your Labour colleagues that the SNP are and should be more focused in getting Scotland on to Independence. It would be clearly prosumptious of them if they started to talk about details of defence planning and expenditure before we have even had a referendum on Independence!
It would be the likes of you and your ilk that would be the first to criticise the SNP if tyhey had started to plan out defence, with accusations of the SNP taking the Scots for granted and assuming that that we would all vote for Independence!. No Party, regardless can ever make an assumption and take the electorate for granted (even allthough Labour have been doing that for ages)
Then know doubt you will argue that an Independent Scotland could not look after itself, not could it muster a proper defence force. Well if thats the case, Im surprised that the Finn's, the Norwegians, the Swedish and the Danes manage. After all they are of similar size in population, all wee countries as Labour would have us believe.
178

Edward,

30/06/2009 14:46:40
#186 Peter20
You obviously have not been to the south east of England then! Or will you say that Scotland has had the same wealth spent on it as the South East of England! You should have gone to Specsavers!
179

Salahun,

30/06/2009 14:47:38
We need to see togheter the military menace on Scotland as in this part of the world, i think Scotland don't have problem whit his neighbour for to need a military armement. We have the exemples of many emergents countries as India, China, ...who are a poor countries 50 years a go, and who can imagine 50 years a go the Popular republic of Chiness will be a power world stat?? The General Sir Mike as other of his England compatriot make a coufusion between the fudamental right of Scotland to be independent and the military aspect of defense of Scotland. For me , i known perfectly this rethoric of provocation of the persons whon are opposed to our independence. I pries the God, this provocation was only verbal and they are not a links between the explosion of the petrol instalation and , Glasgow airport??
Please, i don't read the news from "Scotland" since month, and i want know if the parlementary have choose a date of referendum on the independence??

What i want, i want a tolerant Scotland, opened on the world. I think this project is realisable togheter, the hand in the hand.

salahun@gmail.com
180

Eve,

Scotland 30/06/2009 14:47:53
#186 Peter20,: "does anyone think a majority of people in England wanted the Iraq war?" Well they didnae voice their opionon aganist it lould enough to be heard like us Scots did.
181

Edward,

30/06/2009 14:49:28
Perhaps Gen Mike Jackson can explain why there is no 'Royal Regiment of England' and tghe English regiments have in the main been left as they are, while we have to accept that Scotland cannot keep its regiments, but have a 'Royal Regiment of Scotland' like some 18th Century imperical colonial militia!
182

Wolfe Tone,

30/06/2009 14:49:38
Let a serious campaign begin now, with the intention of making Scotland a nation once again. Let us for the first time in 300 years,have faith and pride in ourselves as a nation. Lets forget the past,move forward and tell the English robbers to GTF.
183

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 14:51:53
177
peter1958

"Come on Hermit - spell out the SNP Schlieffen Plan for Scotland - you being an old soldier and such like no doubt promotion to Generalissimo is on the cards - or maybe Admiral of the Fleet.

Don't kid us on Hermit!"

Straight into ranting gibberish mode as soon as your claims are challenged.

YOU are the one trying to fool people into thinking you are some kind of military expert.

YOU are the one making ridiculous claims about SNP defence policy, based on nothing more substantial than total ignorance and blind prejudice.

Grow up!
184

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 30/06/2009 14:52:42
186 Peter20,30/06/2009 14:36:26

Electric Hermit was right!

""creative reading" is common among the ideological unionists."

I have no idea what the "wishes of the English" are in relation to Iraq, therefore I have no desire to be drawn into your "selective" world.

The only thing that the British Empire has shared with its provinces is its system of subservience.

185

Edward,

30/06/2009 14:59:00
There was an interesting angle regarding Indpendence in the weekends Sunday Telegraph
It had a section on Catalonia
It seems that Catelonia can do things that if attempted by the Scottish Government we would have howls from gthe very bias media in Scotland.
'A growing number of Catalans want independence for their prosperous region, spurred on by the possibility of separate nationhood within the European Union'
"We are Catalans first and Europeans second, but don't call us Spanish!" say many in Spain's independent minded northeastern region, when asked to define their national identity'
Catalonia, , is home to seven million of Spain's 44 million inhabitants - and over the past four years the proportion wanting complete independence from Madrid has risen by half, from 14 per cent to 21 per cent, according to the regional government's figures. Some 35 per cent also back creation of an almost entirely independent Catalonia within a federal Spain (Doesnt that sound familiar!)It is the Catalan flag, with its narrow crimson and gold stripes, that mostly flutters from balconies across towns and in the region's capital, Barcelona - not the national flag of Spain
Promotion of the language and the Catalan culture has been extended worldwide with "embassies" opened in London, Paris, New York and Beijing.
Catalonia's status as a powerful region has been greatly enhanced by the EU: the region has had its own "embassy" in Brussels since 2004 and directly lobbies the European Commission and the European parliament - to secure changes to the law and seek direct regional funding from the EU budget. Such funds, worth billions of euros a year, are directly managed by the Catalan parliament and government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5664509/Catalonia-pays-homage-to-the-EU-not-Spain-as-push-for-independence-grows.html
186

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 30/06/2009 14:59:46
What do you expect him to say, he's Brown's pet monkey.
187

Wolfe Tone,

30/06/2009 15:00:13
The sun never sets on the British Empire
because God widnae trust an Englishman in the dark.
Long live the Republic of Scotland!
188

PaulW,

Scottish Borders 30/06/2009 15:02:03
#193 Agree 99% with you - although I don't actually blame the vast majority of the English though - instead I blame those British Nationalists, like the peters on this feed, who claim to speak for them and are living in a by-gone era when the Globe was covered in pink to mark the "Empire". they just can't let go of the last vestiges of Empire.

I may be wrong, but I beleive most English people are fair minded and would let us go, if they knew the truth, especially when we have a referendum and we vote the way I think the people of Scotland will.
189

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 30/06/2009 15:03:33
186 Peter20,30/06/2009 14:36:26

"Jo'Burg Jock - Are you seriously claiming Scotland didn't share in the British Empire's wealth"

From:-
House of Commons
Scottish Affairs Committee
Poverty in Scotland
Second Report of Session 2007–08

The first sentence reads:-


"POVERTY IS STILL A REALITY IN SCOTLAND TODAY."

I don't need to "CLAIM IT"

IT'S OFFICIAL.

190

Enigma,

30/06/2009 15:12:33
192

Edward, the English regiments were culled in 60s and 70s. The Black Watch and KOSB etc. were lucky to escape the axe/amalgamation then, when almost all England`s county regiments and rifle regiments passed into the history books. That they didn`t was probably the result of friends in high places.

199

PaulW It`s not a matter of us `letting you go`, we`re not holding you though some on this site appear to be obsessed by the plotting of perfidious Albion.As was clear on last night`s Panorama programme, most English people wish you well and wish we could have the same sort of control over our affairs. Some of us even thing independence all round is rather a good idea.
191

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 15:14:15
182
peter1958

"Salmond has been anti NATO for well over a decade and wishes Scotland to leave."

When were you appointed spokesperson for the First Minister.

Even if you are right (which seems unlikely given your record to date) quitting NATO wouldn't be a bad thing at all. It is increasingly redundant anyway. Other than as a mechanism for allowing the US to access European resources in aid of its wars of aggression.

The future of of European defence lies with the EU. And it is to be expected that Scotland will play a significant role.

192

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 15:21:02
182
peter1958

"The website reference given is just words on a manifesto..."

Well, duh-uh! Let's have a standing ovation for the man who just discovered that party manifestos are "just words".

It is a statement of policy, you balloon! A statement which totally contradicts what you claimed that policy to be. Either you lied, or you are just plain ignorant.

And if you were looking for full costings in a party manifesto then you are an even bigger fool than has already been made evident. The SNP has no way of knowing exactly when secession will happen, or what the negotiated settlement will be.

193

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 15:26:23
183
peter1958

A wee bit of advice, sonny. If you want to know about SNP defence policy, David Cairns is probably not the best person to ask.

If you were half as clued up as you try to make out you would be aware of the various ways in which neutral nations can participate in various aspects of NATO operations without actually being members. You were given information on this earlier. But it didn't suit you to read it.

194

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 15:27:55
186
Peter20

"...don't be so naive as to think the Westminster government policies reflect the wishes of the English any more than it does the Scots."

Then let them do something about it. We are.

195

PaulW,

Scottish Borders 30/06/2009 15:28:16
#203

Enigma

Nice to hear from you and thanks for your positive sentiments to counterbalance some of those like Peter 1958, etc. - you are living proof that, as i said, most English people are fair-minded. We will rely upon English MPs ratifying the results of any referendum, so in that respect we unfortunately still do rely on England to "let us go". But, if they are all like you, then we should be OK and, speaking as a resident of the Borders, I will be the first to offer the hand of frienship (and a dram) to our English neighbours for having done the right thing by us. Slainte! :-)

196

PaulW,

Scottish Borders 30/06/2009 15:29:56
oops - meant "friendship" of course
197

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 15:31:09
190
Salahun

"Please, i don't read the news from "Scotland" since month, and i want know if the parlementary have choose a date of referendum on the independence??"

No date has yet been announced. Details are to be published at the end on November.

198

Enigma,

30/06/2009 15:36:15
208

PaulW Thanks for your comments.
I`m sure ratifying such a document would no more than a rubber stamp process for English MPs. It seems that neither the English or Scots are immune from the meddlings of other`s politicians, be they at Westminster or Brussels.

207

Then why elect the likes of Brown and Darling??
199

Enigma,

30/06/2009 15:38:17
211

The Westminster Parliament is not `English` either in theory or in fact. I think you are wrong on all counts.
200

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 15:40:43
208
PaulW

"...you are living proof that, as i said, most English people are fair-minded."

I never doubted it. This is not about the people of England. It is about the government of the UK and the whole unionist political establishment.

Scotland has never had to look beyond her own borders to find those who wish her ill.

201

WL,

Livingston 30/06/2009 15:42:51
#192
He could at the same time explain why there are Scots Guards, Irish Guards and Welsh Guards but NO ENGLISH GUARDS. When will we see the day that there will be an English regiment with the word ENGLISH in its name? Discrimination of the English?
202

PaulW,

Ayton 30/06/2009 15:48:52
#212 Enigma

Very true! Fortunately, there is some glimmer of hope from Brussels over Common Fisheries Policy. here's hoping you are right about the rubber stamp in Westminster.

As for Brown or Darling - I can only apologise to England for them....I certainly didn't vote for either of them!
203

Enigma,

30/06/2009 15:48:59
215

Discrimination against the English perhaps. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of institutions with an English prefix. The last thing the Establishment want is the English to regard themselves as seperate from British, which is why at every opportunity words like `racist` or little Englander` are banded about on the media.
204

Enigma,

30/06/2009 15:51:02
216

`Wiped Scotland off the face of the Earth`

Isn`t that over egging things a tad? What do you think Brown means when he speaks of `the nations and regions of the UK`?
205

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 15:51:31
Enigma,

Most people have a clear distinction between English Government and English People.

The Government of the UK have always to take account of their biggest client state this would be normal and correct. I would not expect the government to be focused on Scotland. However Scotland has problems that require the focus of a government to solve them as does Wales and Ireland. The North of England could do with some focus as well.

I want independence so I can elect and change the government based on its performance for Scotland. We cannot do that at the moment yet we are expected to send our sons to risk their lives fighting to provide the rights of self determination in the sand covered deserts of the middle east. While at home the Scots should just accept the voting intentions of their neighbours are being right for them.

Our arguments for independence are the same arguments the Brit Nationalist use to stay out of the EU but we are parochial and xenophobic allegedly.

Self control, self determination and smaller government make sense for good management.

I see no reason to pay my taxes to fund lavish lifestyles in London for the elite within the political class who could not even point to my town on a map nor understand our dialect without a translator.

Scottish Independence is all about Scotland and nothing about England, Wales or anywhere else.

I happen to really like the English.
206

Enigma,

30/06/2009 15:53:25
219

I don`t hold out much hope for CFP, not south of the Border, where the UK Government has all but thrown the towel in!
207

Enigma,

30/06/2009 15:55:44
220

I don`t disagree with you, save about the `English Government`, which it is certainly not!
208

mr broon,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 15:58:31
132~

Ireland may be neutral but it conveniently comes under the defence umbrella of the UK and NATO.

In 1815, after Sweden, the Swiss Confederation is the oldest neutral State in the world but it also has one of the largest reserve armies and air forces in Europe. Within 24 hours, the Swiss can mobilise an army of 800,000 men and women, and over 18,000 personnel in its air force.

Iceland and Norway are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and have been for many years.

During the Cold War every NATO army trained its servicemen in winter warfare in Norway.
209

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 16:02:33
224
mr broon

All good examples of what can be done.

What the hell is wrong with these unionists who assert that Scotland is totally incapable of doing things that other small nations take for granted?

210

Salahun,

Fr 30/06/2009 16:17:39
Thank You 210. I don't like this period of november for discussion about the date of referundum rather i think it will be fixed between 2010 and 2013. I think in the next autumn poeples will be interested only by the "pig virus", "Porcin influenza", i have read government of Canada will be give the vaccin for his citizens in the next otober. Oll specialist on virulogies have call the top of epidemy will be in the next autumn. I don't understand afther all this time in the government what Salmon wait for take decision of the réferundum on Scotland independence???
I think the result of the referendum will be positiv for Scotland but we can imagine the "NO" win, i think this eventuality was not a fatal issu, Irland is invited by parlementary of Bruxell to try a new referendum about the europeen constitution, personaly i don't see lot of difference between this proposistion and the dictatorial stat. The Irish peoples have rejected the constitution at two occasion , i think we need to respect his voulouty. In Canada , also, the poeples of Quebec have tak part in referendum about the independence of the Quebec... I think you as Scotland poeples need a psychological preparation for this important evenment. I have a hope to participat in this fabulous aventure of independence of Scotland and togheter we will build a prosperous Scotland. I don't want discuss about english kind, if the poeples or the english was different or no. When you see a man as TBlair you have a response, i think.

salahun@gmail.com
211

Eve,

Scotland 30/06/2009 16:18:58
#219 Enigma: If you what to be labeled English then you should correct them! It's a simple thing that us Scots do all the time. Only arrogant people will argue with you and no respect yer right to choice the labels connectected to yer self.

212

Eve,

Scotland 30/06/2009 16:24:21
#220 Sgian Achlais,: "Scottish Independence is all about Scotland and nothing about England, Wales or anywhere else"

That something I wish more people would realise.
213

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 16:24:56
227
Salahun

"I don't like this period of november for discussion about the date of referundum rather i think it will be fixed between 2010 and 2013."

The referendum will take place in 2010. November 2009 is the date for publication of a White Paper based on the results of the Scottish government's consultation exercise, the National Conversation.

It is possible, of course, that the unionist alliance will attempt to block the referendum. If they succeed, they will pay the penalty at the Scottish general election in 2011.

214

Salahun,

30/06/2009 16:34:27
What we can do for changing the opinion of unionist about the ind^pendence?? I 'm already to take a campagne and meeting for the independence. I think it's necessarly to explains for this unionist, first in Scotland we are not in North Irland, and the expression of unionist need to be changed, second Scootish poeples have waiting this moment since thoussand years and he have the fudamental right for expression of his self. I think they are a Scotish woman deputy who are opposit to the independence??

Salmon is a political man and i'm absolutly favourable for the Scotland independence, i want to take participation in this fabulous aventure, for the first time in human contemporary history will be see a Scotich Gaelic Celtic nation to walk to the light of the independence...
The God save Scotland.

salahun@gmail.com
215

Jerry Springer,

30/06/2009 16:43:08
231 Salahun,30/06/2009 16:34:27

Agreed. What an excellent post.

Nobody can really dispute any of the points you made.
216

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 16:48:09
223Enigma, 30/06/2009 15:55:44
220

I don`t disagree with you, save about the `English Government`, which it is certainly not!


==============================

OK 82% English (Based) Government based on MP's but I do accept many of the MP's in the cabinet are claimed as Scottish yet they are far from it.

Most are Establishment Brit Nationalists with a pathological dislike of Scotland and not even the vaguest notion of what Scotland means to many Scots as does England to many English.

The next time you hear Brown or co talking about being Scottish remember they are also claiming to be socialists.

I would believe the voices in Rufus's head before I believed a Labour politician.
217

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 16:48:49
232 Rufus

At least “Salahun” appears more lucid than you do.
218

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 16:50:08
232Jerry Springer, 30/06/2009 16:43:08

I did not know Borat had an equally serious brother.
219

Wolfe Tone,

30/06/2009 16:51:40
#231 Salahun/ Jerry Springer........ Well babbled!
Its an old Unionist trick and it does not work on intellectual Nationalists.
220

Jerry Springer,

30/06/2009 16:54:42
234 dunedin bully wee 1877,30/06/2009 16:48:49
232 Rufus

At least “Salahun” appears more lucid than you do.
====================================================

Only "appears" to be more lucid than me.

In reality however, he is infinitely more lucid than you.
221

Jerry Springer,

30/06/2009 16:55:19
236 Wolfe Tone,30/06/2009 16:51:40
#231 Salahun/ Jerry Springer........ Well babbled!
Its an old Unionist trick and it does not work on intellectual Nationalists.
==================================================

But it worked on you though.
222

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 16:55:49
231
Salahun

I love the way you write with an accent. "Scootish" is a classic. Thank you!

To the extent that they have the interests of Scotland and its people at heart, the majority of unionists will come around when they realise secession from the union is inevitable. Just as the Tories grew to like devolution and proportional representation when it became a reality without the sky falling.

Unionists are inherently conservative. They fear change. They provide a valuable function as a brake on excessive radicalism. But they must not be permitted to block the progressive aspirations of Scotland's people.

"I think they are a Scotish woman deputy who are opposit to the independence??"

That would be Annabel Goldie, leader of the Tories in Scotland. A woman I had a great deal of respect for - until she debased herself by associating with contemptible little creeps like Foulkes.

223

Wolfe Tone,

30/06/2009 16:56:20
#238 Wrong again!
224

Ugly George,

30/06/2009 16:56:27
I haven't read all the posts, so am not sure if this has been pointed out to you numbskulls >>> Michael Jackson is dead!

Full marks to Maddox for quoting him though, it's not as if Jackson is in any fit state to refute it.

225

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 16:56:38
234dunedin bully wee 1877, 30/06/2009 16:48:49

I think Smee or some other Unionists are having a laugh. It is very unlikely that someone in France is making similar points to Elmer Phudd and Spud Murphy as per GMS about referendum dates, especially Salmond to be that interested in politics you would get the names correct even if the grammar was out.

I find it hard to imagine someone in a foreign country stumbling onto today's unionist troll agenda.

Maybe I am cynical.
226

Wolfe Tone,

30/06/2009 16:59:18
238 Springer the minger,your cover has been blown,so GTF.
227

Jerry Springer,

30/06/2009 17:00:19
I see Electric Hermit has been on holiday in Dorset.

http://tinyurl.com/kkasn9

228

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 17:01:16
242
Sgian Achlais

"Maybe I am cynical."

Not a bad thing to be. But I try to focus on the points made in a post rather than the identity or personality of the poster.

229

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 17:01:22
237 Rufus


“Only "appears" to be more lucid than me”


It should read “more lucid than I” with the “am” being implied.


Once you to the big school after the summer, perhaps they will teach you some grammar.
230

Wolfe Tone,

30/06/2009 17:01:57
The real definition of the word "unionist" is
INSECURE...........
231

Jerry Springer,

30/06/2009 17:01:57
243 Wolfe Tone,30/06/2009 16:59:18
238 Springer the minger,your cover has been blown,so GTF.
================================================

Yeah as soon as you move to Ireland and leave us in peace.
232

Wolfe Tone,

30/06/2009 17:05:13
248 Minger...What a strange thing for an invading unionist to say about Ireland.
Give it back,thief!
233

Jerry Springer,

30/06/2009 17:08:08
246 dunedin bully wee 1877,30/06/2009 17:01:22
237 Rufus
“Only "appears" to be more lucid than me”
It should read “more lucid than I” with the “am” being implied.
Once you to the big school after the summer, perhaps they will teach you some grammar.
======================================================

Oh Bully Boy, you have 'hurt me to the quick'?

'Do dont appear to be very bright' as you often say.

Come back when you can calculate 10% and only once you can explain to us who Dick Chaney is.

Oh and then only after you can explain what 'internacine' is.

Oh and of course only once you can explain why you thought something I wrote in German was Gaelic (Something which you hilariously tried to correct my spelling of).

In a rush to correct everyone all the time, you make a complete Dummkopf of yourself (BTW Bully Boy, Dummkopf is German not Gaelic).

HEHEHE
234

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 17:09:41
241Ugly George, 30/06/2009 16:56:27
I haven't read all the posts, so am not sure if this has been pointed out to you numbskulls >>> Michael Jackson is dead!

Full marks to Maddox for quoting him though, it's not as if Jackson is in any fit state to refute it.


=============================

Politically he has always been on the ball.

Previous Quotes that explain a lot of the troubles in Unionist politics.

Trouble with the natives "Just Beat It"

Political Correctness "Doesn't matter if your Black or White"

Cause of Global Warming "Sunshine, Moonlight, Goodtimes or Boogie"

Irish Troubles caused by the "Billy Gene"

Scottish Nationalism "Who's Bad"

.....I will stop now.
235

Ugly George,

30/06/2009 17:10:06
Dead or alive, Mr Jackson is a Numpty.

What Nuclear Powered Superstate rogue or otherwise would feel sufficiently threatened by an Independent Scotland, to want to Nuke it?

Five Million impoverished souls, living on a barren wasteland on the fringes of the Arctic, huddled together for warmth because they have no Nuclear power stations, far less weapons.

With Supreme Commander Salmonds non-nuclear strategy - you will be as "safe as houses",only your houses will be freezing cold and will have outside toilets, just like back in the Nats halcyon days before the Union.
236

Wolfe Tone,

30/06/2009 17:12:34
Time for tea.
Later!
237

Jerry Springer,

30/06/2009 17:17:20
246 dunedin bully wee 1877,30/06/2009 17:01:22
237 Rufus
“Only "appears" to be more lucid than me”
It should read “more lucid than I” with the “am” being implied.
Once you to the big school after the summer, perhaps they will teach you some grammar.
======================================================

Oh nearly forgot.

The dimwit that is Bully Boy does not know how to add up Champions League Points either.

Just for you Bully Boy

3 points for a win

1 point for a draw

0 points for a defeat.

Celtic's record should not be too hard for you to calculate now that you are armed with that information.
238

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 17:18:31
245Electric Hermit, 30/06/2009 17:01:16
242
Sgian Achlais

"Maybe I am cynical."

Not a bad thing to be. But I try to focus on the points made in a post rather than the identity or personality of the poster.

=======================================

Clarify.

"The Multiple personalities of THE unionist POSTER"

The Rural Crofter, The Military Expert, The Offended English person, The Scientist, The Economic Genius, The Political Insider, The Racist, The Semi-Racist, The Sectarian, etc, etc.

Often I note the same language structure being used to justify different points by different monikers but with very distinct political positions.

Especially when they are rapid firing they/it does not have the same control over the subterfuge.

But always the same weapons, Fear, Lies, Fear, Insecurity, Fear more Lies and a refusal to answer basic questions.

Like Westminster they play games and debating techniques when all that is required is honesty and intergrity
239

Observer,,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 17:19:00
252 Oh look not only are we going to be invaded and generally pulverised by unknown and unspecified enemies for equally unknown and unspecified reasons if we dare to become independent, we are also going to lose the benefit of indoor plumbing and central heating as well. Perhaps we will revert to painting ourselves blue and living in caves too.

Why stop there ? Why not just say if you vote SNP you'll all die on the spot. You'll just drop deid.

Perfect unionist argument.
240

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 17:19:31
254 Rufus

You posted in German?

Ich glaube, Sie sind verwirrt.
241

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 17:36:20
255
Sgian Achlais

"Often I note the same language structure being used to justify different points by different monikers but with very distinct political positions."

Let them play their silly games. The "arguments" are readily disposed of regardless of how many clones post them.

242

Enigma,

30/06/2009 17:48:41
226

I know exactly how you feel, my country is always described as a set of `regions` as in `nations and regions of Britain. English is not a word any in power care to use.
243

John PH,

Fife 30/06/2009 18:01:37
“It is one army but it is also, when you look at it, a collection of warlike tribes who come together for common purpose,” the general said.

Scots have never been warlike. At times, when together they did become Warlike, it was only to defend their country from the aggressive English invaders from the south
244

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 18:01:43
254 Rufus


Do you really have how no idea of how crass and stupid you appear to be on this forum?


Are you not embarrassed at being found out at almost each and every post you make despite your plethora of monikers?


Take a look at yourself and decide if this is the way a rational and sensible individual should progress.


My invoice follows.

245

Enigma,

30/06/2009 18:06:15
260

Er Flodden?

There are some on this site who maintain the Scottish regiments were the best in the British Army, not fighting the English either.
246

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 18:18:15
262 Enigma,


It is not clear what point you are trying to make.

The bagpipe tune of “The Battle of Flodden Field” is a “lament”, not a celebration.

What are you trying to say?
247

Enigma,

30/06/2009 18:26:49
262

Flodden was fought in England to thwart a Scottish invasion
248

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

30/06/2009 18:27:50
#259 Enigma,

It's a Devolution thing, The Greedy Scottish Scots want more and more of it, or preferably Independence.

The British Scots( Scots who have forsaken their own country and latched on to yours), have drawn a line in the sand ____ Scotland, Wales and NI getting equal status with a clutch of cobbled together English Regions, is where they will make their last stand, when we force their hand.

It matters not a jot, that the Welsh, N Irish and English are ignorant/indifferent or even hostile to this plan...If it they think it may spike the Scot-Nat guns...that is what you will get.

If you are not too keen on the idea, you need to Boot Brown and his Self Preservation Society into touch, by whatever means are at your disposal.
249

Enigma,

30/06/2009 18:34:18
265

Tell me how I can vote in Brown`s constituency?!
250

muppetspotter,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 18:36:08
chortle - whenever I need a laugh I just have to read one of these threads and wet myself at the blue specced delusions.

The biggest laugh has to be the "revisionist historians" who seem to forget that Scotland did actually rather well out of the Empire but would rather blame all that sort of thing on our English cousins who of course dragged us kicking and screaming to make all that money out of coal, ships and trade - forced us to be slavers and to sell opium to the chinese and we mustn't foget - are the route of all the ills in Scotland and especially the world.

If you are serious abot Scotland standing on its own two feet then let's here some of you take responsibility for our past - our imperial past that we share with England whether you lot like it or not!
251

Herry Oaksters,

30/06/2009 19:01:05
258
muppetspotter,Edinburgh.
Time to move on or would you rather be stuck in the past?
252

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

30/06/2009 19:06:28
#257 Enigma

Short of moving to Cowdenbeath...you can't.
253

dunedin bully wee 1877,

30/06/2009 19:10:13
258 muppetspotter,


I suspect that “wetting yourself” may be a rather regular occurrence for you.

You have my sympathy.
254

Brianwci,

30/06/2009 19:10:29
British Nationalists are holding all parts of the UK back.

Japan and Germany's infrastructure is far superior to the UK's because they didn't have to spend money on keeping up the appearance of EMPIRE and/or being a Great Power.

Money spent on weapons, wars and armies have deprived ALL peoples of the UK. Our problem is not the English on the contrary, the English have the same enemy as Scots and Welsh, viz, the British Nationalists whose real love is power and the trappings of power.

They willingly sacrifice the happiness of Scots, English and Welsh to hang onto this absurd fantasy of Britain as a World Power.

We need to support the English Democrat Party and we need them to support us. Breaking up the UK will benefit the ordinary English citizen as much as it will the Scots if they too ditch the concept of Power Politics in favour of People Politics (SNP Government) which is the basis of Government in Scandinavia, Switzerland, the Netherlands and countless other non power based nations.
255

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 19:22:38
258
muppetspotter

"The biggest laugh has to be the "revisionist historians"..."

Perish the thought that anyone might challenge the received jingoism.

I suggest you use a mirror.

256

Iainbroch,

30/06/2009 19:27:22
re258

What planet are you from?
257

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

30/06/2009 19:33:26
#258 muppetspotter,

Are you a Traditional Historian...One of those muppets who catalogue events according to who was King and measure a kings worth by counting the severed heads of his rivals and go to great lenths explaining how the British Empire brought "civilization" the world?

When your Empire was on the go, the people who got rich by exploiting the "savages" were the same people who got rich by exploiting their fellow countrymen, as their descendants and kindred spirits do to this day.

Denouncing them as Unionists might be a generalisation but one that is not too wide of the mark.
258

mark mccann,

Leighton Buzzard 30/06/2009 19:53:31
The Scotsman, the BBC, even the venerable Herald. All of them show a huge bias towards unionism yet the SNP continue to rise in opinion and in the recent EU polls. It's obvious to me and most Scots that the picture they paint only hardens their resolve to dump the union ASAP. Keep printing and broadcasting your lies please! I'd start getting worried when they actually start telling the truth. I'll be home next year to vote them out, and in answer to all the posts above, once England lose the billions they get from our oil rich seas, they will prove to be the greatest threat to our security. First thing an independant Scotland should do? Rebuild the Wall! Then use our shipbuilding expertise to build a decent navy to protect our rigs, offshore windfarms, tidal generators....
259

Observer,,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 19:55:48
258 the average Scot did not in point of fact do rather well out of the Empire. The merchant class, the traders in people and goods, the military class, the ruling class of all descriptions did rather well, but not the ordinary worker for whom living conditions were usually quite dreadful, just as well they didn't live that long.

But you have clowns like this Jackson who apparently hankers back after the good old days.

I don't know what shape exactly the Scottish military strength will form but I am fairly certain they will be deployed in a more sensible and therefore safe way, not just for us but for the rest of the world as well.

That is not historical revisionism.
260

Alan B,

30/06/2009 19:57:30
To really assess the generals comments you have to define the threat.

In some ways the general is correct if we are taking about defending ourselves from a overseas land invasion etc. But that is not going to happen. England would not want scotland invaded either as it would give access over land to england.

But that type of invasion and threat is simply not very realistic.

The threat at the moment is via terrorism and scotland would be much safer from terrorism if independent. Scotland simply is not disliked round the world in the way england is and as such the uk. Partly for it colonialism, partly for aligning with the US and fighting its wars, and partly due it isolationism from europe and general perceive arrogance.

Also the general assumes that scotland independent would not support more integration round eu foreign policy and defence. The best way to really improve security is for the eu to take a lead in sorting out some of the simmering problems first in europe, its neighbours and then further afield.

Personally i think the only argument for some sort of union with england is round defence and security. But it would be better taking the form of 2 independent nations with a defence union. Which could even be via nato.
261

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 20:07:25
269
Alan B

"Which could even be via nato."

Not so long as NATO is a vehicle for US imperialist foreign policy.

262

Alan B,

30/06/2009 20:18:02
#Electric

Whether scotland joins nato after independence is for scotland to choose so I am not really sure what your point is.

My point was round independence.

For instance is an independent scotland was in nato and nato is about protecting the borders of its members an independent scotland would be protected from attack by nato which would involve the other members which is largely underpinned by the US.

As I have said i think much can be gained from the EU taking a more integrated role round defence and security through it foreign policy and using access to its huge market to that end.

263

jane shore,

london 30/06/2009 20:24:19


Mark McCann .... (267)....Are you for real? I know that Leighton Buzzard can be a desperate sort of place to have to live in.....but .....rebuild the wall etc.

OR perhaps thats a little bit of British irony that hasnt quite worked.

Or.......sheeeeez??

PS Its Independent

264

Observer,,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 20:32:56
272 If he's talking about Hadrian's wall I believe that was actually built by the Roman's to keep *us* out, I can't imagine the English will do the same thing, but you never know I suppose.
265

jane shore,

london 30/06/2009 20:35:11

hi Observer......I have visions of a 6ft dry stone wall across Cumberland & Northumberland!
266

Observer,,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 20:37:54
274 We would be too busy arguing about who would build it and what funding mechanism to use for that to ever actually happen. Sorry Mark.
267

Joburg Pete,

30/06/2009 20:38:54
Does the commander mean that Britain will not be able to protect Scotland if the Scots go independent?
268

Observer,,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 20:40:57
276. No.
269

Joburg Pete,

30/06/2009 20:45:45
What the heck does he mean then?
270

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 20:50:16
271
Alan B

"Whether scotland joins nato after independence is for scotland to choose so I am not really sure what your point is."

My point is that no useful purpose is served by seceding from one union with imperialist ambitions only to be mired in another. If Scotland is to be involved with NATO at all that involvement should be kept to a minimum and regarded as an interim measure. All of Europe should be looking to the time when NATO is abolished. The potential of the EU as an "honest broker" and counterweight to other power blocs will never be realise so long as we are bound up with the US.

271

Observer,,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 20:54:19
280 It''s difficult to tell he doesn't get specific. He seems to think there is strengh in numbers. But that's not relevant if you consider that it is how the troops are used that can lead to danger. He doesn't touch on foreign policy at all.
272

Alan B,

30/06/2009 21:24:02
#Electric


(While we have moved away from assessing the generals comments regarding scotland security post union.)

I do not think you can really compare NATO and the uk union. One is a very centralised political union renouncing sovereignty and the other is a defence treaty so that members countries vow to defence each other.

As for US imperialism. The US was very isolationist and even in ww1 only joined near the end after being brought into it by the fall out from europe.

After ww1 Wilson did not go imperialist and colonialist and let the uk and france split and divide up the spoil.

WW2 was abit of the same. The US still isolationist only getting drawn into it by europe and the japanese.

Even after the war the US were at the forefront of getting the uk to give up its empire. And correctly too.

As such over all i think we should be careful when taking such an anti US stance as you do when we see european imperialism and colonialism.

The US have got drawn into European affairs generally due to the mess of europe with both world wars and also the advent of communism and it support for a world wide revolution. Even after the change from the original soviet leader with lenin , stalin was far worse.

Were the US imperialist in asuring the freedom of western europe. And lets face it europe would have been under Soviet Stalinist rule if it were not for the US.

As such most post ww2 politics should and needs to be judged from the US abandoning its isolationism due to europe making a mess of things. And the battle of communist dictators against democracy and the capitalist systems that has resulted in.

To an extent i do not think the eu needs to be a counter balance to the US but just ensure stability in europe and its neighbours.

Remember with the decline of Yugoslavia it was the european leaders that effectively begged the US to sort out the problem with military intervention. Clinton refused land troops and only agreed to arial bombing
273

Alan B,

30/06/2009 21:24:45
cont... If you were against the you have to blame europe and not the US.

The US also supports turkish membership of the EU. Not exactly imperialist but more realising security would be best served if the EU brought stability to its neighbours and in relation to turkey bordered with Iran, Iraq and Syria.

The US invasion of Afanistan was also not imperialist as they simly were not interest in nation building and influencing and controlling it. Europe more saw the need for puting in some sort of stability here. It was rightly or wrongly a response to sept 11.

While i think the US is wrong in its support for Israel again that is clearly not imperialist but a wrongheaded support for what it regards its closest friend largely due to the influence of the jewish community in the US.

Where the US is more on shakey grounds is over middle east oil. But europe is no better and to some extent worse.

In truth though the western economies depend on oil, europe more so than the US on middle east oil proportionally, and it is only by moving away from dependency on the oil economy that we will no throw money at these mad regimes.

At the end of the day both europe and the US drive cars and that is why we need the middle east and why we cosy up to them and try to get them to sell us their oil at cheap prices.
274

Alan B,

30/06/2009 21:31:07
#Observer

I think the general is correct if you look at it from the perspective of what would happen if their was to be a land invasion or arial bombing of scotland. An integrated british force would stand a better chance.

But
1)the uk forces are pretty weak anyway, we would need the yanks
2)a land invasion etc is not the treat of the modern world.
3)if we were in nato then that would be a security blanket were england and the US along with other members would be oblidged to defend us. But there is no chance scotland would be invaded while the rest of the west was not embroiled in a war anyway. We are simply to remote and would give noone reason to invade us.
275

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 21:37:38
286
Alan B

"(While we have moved away from assessing the generals comments regarding scotland security post union.)"

I don't think we have. We are exploring the reasons he is wrong.

I will take your points individually so as to keep posts to a manageable length.
276

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 21:43:07
286
Alan B

"I do not think you can really compare NATO and the uk union."

I wasn't trying to. I was merely making the point that, to whatever extent the purpose of secession is to dissociate Scotland from an imperialist power, the benefits are negated so long as we are still associated with another imperialist power - albeit a different form of association.

I see independence not just as a worthwhile objective in itself but also as an opportunity to make a fresh start. To break away from the "old politics". Not much point otherwise.
277

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 22:03:10
286
Alan B

"As for US imperialism. The US was very isolationist and even in ww1 only joined near the end after being brought into it by the fall out from europe.

After ww1 Wilson did not go imperialist and colonialist and let the uk and france split and divide up the spoil.

WW2 was abit of the same. The US still isolationist only getting drawn into it by europe and the japanese.

Even after the war the US were at the forefront of getting the uk to give up its empire. And correctly too."

A very naive view of history. From the second half of the 19th century the central objective of US foreign policy was the breaking of the European powers. Principally, Great Britain and its empire. Not out of any moralistic opposition to imperialism per se, but out of a determination to make the US the global superpower.

Power is relative. Weakening Britain, France, Germany etc. was effectively the same as strengthening America. The two world wars suited US purposes perfectly.

The whole thing about Uncle Sam riding to Europe's rescue is a pernicious myth. The US does not do altruism. The US looks to its own interests and nothing else matters.

And before you leap in to tell me this is no different from other nations, ask yourself whether that contradicts my point or reinforces it.

"As such over all i think we should be careful when taking such an anti US stance as you do when we see european imperialism and colonialism."

Ah! The old cry of "anti-Americanism". As if the mere questioning of Uncle Sam's integrity was some kind of sin. The US is no more above criticism than any other country. Accusations of "anti-Americanism" are nothing more than a way of trying to avoid addressing those criticisms.
278

Dún Aenghus,

30/06/2009 22:11:12
The blood drenched British empire is gone,
BUT NOT FORGOTTEN!

VOTE FOR A FREE SCOTLAND! VOTE SNP.

Restore our pride as a people and as a nation.
279

Alan B,

30/06/2009 22:12:54

"I see independence not just as a worthwhile objective in itself but also as an opportunity to make a fresh start. To break away from the "old politics". Not much point otherwise."

Is independence not more about scotland implementing policies for scotland mandated by the scottish people via the democratic process. Rather than having policies implemented on us that we do not necessarily want. Where scottish problems are ignored. And solutions to english problems and issues are implemented in scotland when we very often have different issues and problems.

All which has results in scotland having an economy that underperforms and performs less well than other small northern european countries. Which mean that poverty is an issue, our health record is poor etc etc. It also narrows scotlands outlook which should be more internationalist.

Regarding defence we have afew options:
1)neutrality
2)a defence force not aligned to nato
3)join nato and get the protection that would offer. If you feel there is a threat worth protecting yourself from. (i know you think that association with the US is a price not worth paying).
4)try to work out a defence union with england post independence. probably would mean nato membership.

While independence would i agree be a new start for scotland you have to take seriously what is required in the world we find ourselves in from a security perspective.
280

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 22:16:19
286
Alan B

"Remember with the decline of Yugoslavia it was the european leaders that effectively begged the US to sort out the problem with military intervention. Clinton refused land troops and only agreed to arial bombing"

Don't just accept the US version of events. Ask questions. Ask yourself why Europe was unable to deal effectively with the Balkan situation. Simple answer, it was not politically or militarily equipped to do so. Now go on to ask yourself why Europe was not so equipped. Answering that question honestly, it is impossible to avoid looking at NATO.

Americans and their European mouthpieces incessantly tell us that Europe was reliant on NATO and NATO was reliant on US subsidy. Largely, this is yet another myth. The US has never subsidised NATO. But it has used its influence within NATO to ensure that Europe did not develop capabilities in certain key areas, such as heavy air-lifting and strategic bombing.

The US and its European sycophants will represent this as US generosity. It is the generosity of the drug dealer.

US interests have always been served by having Europe weak and divided. NATO has been a vital tool in this regard.
281

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 22:24:20
286
Alan B

"The US also supports turkish membership of the EU. Not exactly imperialist but more realising security would be best served if the EU brought stability to its neighbours and in relation to turkey bordered with Iran, Iraq and Syria.

The US invasion of Afanistan was also not imperialist as they simly were not interest in nation building and influencing and controlling it. Europe more saw the need for puting in some sort of stability here. It was rightly or wrongly a response to sept 11."

You have to understand that we are not talking about the old European-style imperialism. What the US engages in is more properly called neo-imperialism. But the difference in style should not be mistaken for a difference in substance.

It is all about power; the accretion of power; and the extension of power. There is no space here to go into full detail. But if anyone doubted US neo-imperialistic ambitions then surely those were dispelled by the Iraq debacle.

282

peter1958,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 22:27:00
The ravings of Lt Gen Hermit on NATO is proof positive that every village needs it idiot. If only to amuse the rest of us.

As Col in Chief of the Scottish Defence Forces (Cumbernauld Div) he is busy depolying his forces as we speak.

I particularly enjoyed his ideas as set out in previous threads about sneaking up on machine guns. With military thinking of this magnitude behind......we are doomed.
283

Alan B,

30/06/2009 22:30:13
#291 Electric

I never said the US did altruism. There were effectively dragged into both wars. They wanted no part in either of them. Partly as they were at the other side of the world in these days. The world is a much small place now.

"The two world wars suited US purposes perfectly"

Why then did the US not take colonies after ww1 like the UK and France that split up the middle east between them.

The US took an isolationist position before both wars.

I think we have to deal with the fact that imperialism and colonialism via empires was a european thing.

The US got involved in europe as europe made a mess of things.

To some extend we have reaped what we sowed. As we now do not want the US to be so internationally assertive.

At the end of the day no country is not based to some degree on self interest.

My point about anti americanism is it comes across as a denial of what european countries have done and does.

Your points seem to be more your perception of the US rather than based on what actually occurred in history and a real critique of why the US moved away from its isolationist position to taking a much more interventionist line.

The US did not cause europe to go and invade half the world

The US did not cause ww1 which was a colonial based war.

The US did not cause ww2.

The US did not cause the soviet union and communist regimes with stalin and his like with their support for taking over much of the world and suppressing democracy.

The US did not cause the problems from the disintegration of the european empires.


While the US obviously has made many mistakes in dealing with things it pales into comparison with what has happened from europe.

Part of my support for the eu to sort stuff out is that it will allow the US to disengage from much of the problem areas as they are resolved.

284

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 22:36:25
293
Alan B

"Is independence not more about scotland implementing policies for scotland mandated by the scottish people via the democratic process."

It is certainly that. But I see the potential for very much more. A new Scottish Enlightenment, if you will.

Scotland's secession from the union will be an event all but unique in history. Scotland will be (effectively) a newly independent country with well-established infrastructure and democratic institutions.

The Scottish Parliament has, in a number of ways, demonstrated what is possible when there is a break with the past and established practice managed by a society with the administrative and technical resources of of an "old country" allied to a new ethos and a new vision.

Independence is an opportunity to scale that up. An independent Scotland has the potential, not just to be better, but to be special.
285

Alan B,

30/06/2009 22:41:16
#294 Electric

Have to completely disagree.

Your view is that everything is the US's fault. Rather that blaming europe for the mess it makes of things.

Europe take the lead over Yugoslavia and makes a mess so you think it is the US fault that Europe cannot deal and is not prepared to deal with a crisis.

Remember the US has alway wanted western europe to do more for defence.

The reason europe is not militarily powerful is most of the small countries that make up europe are happy not to have a strong defence system and do not want to have a greater european defence system. Much like most of us would be happy for scotland to have minimal defence spending.

You have have got some like ireland etc who are happy with neutrality. You have the scandanavian countries who stayed distant from european integraton for so long.

The only big countries in europe capable of defence are germany, france, italy and the uk.

We all know the reasons they have not integrated for defence and it is nothing to do with the US.

Germany does not even want to put any troops outside germany. And was pushed into deploying troops overseas only more recently. Much of that has to do with ww1 and ww2 and europe not want germany to cause another one.

You seriouly cannot blame the US for that.

France and the uk just are not compatible and the english do not like the french. And the uk stayed out of the eec and so remote since.

Again that is the choice of these countries not the US.

Italy. get real.

The fact is europe has not created a strong military as they simply will not integrate enough and not enough want europe to have a military role. The EU may evolve that way but you cannot blame the US for that.

It is not the US fault that european countries would rather no have big military budgets etc or pull together as one.
286

peter1958,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 22:42:25
I would have much more respect for SNP spokesmen if they simply admitted that once independent the armed forces of Scotland will shrink to nothing but a couple of ceremonial regiments, a couple of fishery protection vessels and a couple of aircraft for observations and comms.

The Irish have a standing force of just under 10,000 for all services and little capability beyond guard duty, Norway on the other hand is not only a member of NATO but a standing force of well over 23,000 and even has conscription - which I can't see the SNP advocating for one minute.

So which members of the arc of insecurity will Scotland belong to?
287

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 22:43:03
293
Alan B

"While independence would i agree be a new start for scotland you have to take seriously what is required in the world we find ourselves in from a security perspective."

I fully intend to take a realistic approach. Which is why I am giving so little credence to the mouthings of an old soldier.

I mean no disrespect to General Sir Mike Jackson. But he is of the past. I am looking to the future. A future where the assumptions and perceptions of an old soldier of the "old country" are not necessarily relevant.

Too often, imprecations to "be realistic" are no more than a euphemism for not asking awkward question. for simply accepting the status quo. I am not inclined to do that.

288

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 22:44:39
299
Alan B

"Your view is that everything is the US's fault."

Get back to me when you are ready to address my "view", rather than telling me what it is.

289

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 22:47:46
300
peter1958

Why would any government of any country base their defence policy on your silly notions?

290

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

30/06/2009 22:48:08
#296 peter1958,

Sneaking up on machine guns is not a bad tactic compared to a massed frontal assault in broad daylight.

The extensive fields of white crosses in France and Belgium indicate that point rather well.
291

peter1958,

Glasgow 30/06/2009 22:48:40
Rear Admiral of the Fleet (Huggenfield Loch Sector) has no view other than seen through the bottom of his glass.
292

Alan B,

30/06/2009 22:49:23
#295 Electric

You did not really address the issues there.

Why does the US support Turkish membership to the EU and how does that further US imperialism.

AS i see it turkish membership would be beneficial from a security point of view as it bind turkey to europe and would hopeful allow her to become a modern and affluent democracy. With borders with iran, iraq and syria then a rich country within the eu would have a strong influence over these countries which lets face it are a bit bambot.

The eu has done well in securing the democratic stabilisation of europe which seemed so unlikely after the failures of the german democracy. Look at spain. And eastern europe.

The US has also been a strong supporter of the EU taking in the old eastern block countries. Making the EU bigger and potentially a trading threat along with its ever increasing influence in the world. It does this as it sees the EU as a way of securing stability and democracy which will prevent future conflicts.

Also what was the US supposed to do after Sept 11. If Clinton had not sat on his hands then it probably would not have happened. Do not really blame clinton as he had to contend with the massive changes as the soviet regime had fallen and needed to give space for stability to take root.
293

awantapassport,

scorchin' sooth coast 30/06/2009 22:50:14
I read this article about General Sir Mike Jackson, who led Britain's armed forces into Iraq's opinion before I watched online "Holyrood and the Search for Scotland's Soul" and "Will the Scots Ever Be Happy?".

Thank you BBC. I can only assume that anyone watching with a pro Unionist attitude would have taken from it a positive (in their eyes), anti independence justification. Likewise, as a Nationalist, I saw the positives of Independence.

A clever bit of editing.

I must say, the more I see and read Sir Boris of Londinium the more I despise the man and his blinkered ignorance... or is he just devious? I'd hope for the former, but he is a Tory!


294

Alan B,

30/06/2009 22:52:45
#301 Electric Hermit

You are being to evasive in your answers.

"I fully intend to take a realistic approach."

So what do you believe scotland should do post independence from a security and defence point of view.

I outlined what i think the options are available at this time. But not sure what you want.
295

Alan B,

30/06/2009 22:57:04
#Electric

"Get back to me when you are ready to address my "view", rather than telling me what it is"

I am trying to address your view but it does come across to me as anything that happens is the US fault. If europe is in a mess after the world wars created in europe it is somehow what the US wanted all along.

To me your critisms of the US are like others that critise because of what you think there motives might be rather than what they could and should have done in certain situations.

It comes across too much like a big plot from the US. Like they almost started both world wars to undermine europes empires and weaken european nations. The truth is european nations did it to themselves.
296

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 22:57:22
308
Alan B

"You are being to evasive in your answers."

I have not been evasive at all. I have tried to answer your points methodically and honestly. But when you start a post with the words, "Your view is...", you don't really deserve a response at all.

297

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

30/06/2009 22:59:02
All this defence rot is the smelliest rotting red herring of all time.

Can any of you tell me the last time the UK, Scotland or England was attacked by a foreign military power.

...do not include attacks on allies that occasioned our declaration of war on a third party, or wars relating to colonies or overseas possessions.
298

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:01:56
309
Alan B

"I am trying to address your view but it does come across to me as anything that happens is the US fault."

Then you are wrong.

"It comes across too much like a big plot from the US."

And, not satisfied with being wrong, you get completely ridiculous.
299

Alan B,

30/06/2009 23:05:25
#Electric

Ok let me apologise.

What I meant to say is that your view comes across to me as being that the US is to blame for everything.
300

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:05:33
308
Alan B

"So what do you believe scotland should do post independence from a security and defence point of view."

Why do you need to ask. Isn't it your habit to tell me what I think?

301

awantapassport,

30/06/2009 23:06:51
Electric Hermit and Alan. Hope you don't mind me butting in?

I am anything but a supporter of American Imperialist objectives, but I can see it from both your sides (very close anyway!)

Historically the British Empire is a taint on us all. Peoples of the world have strong identifications with their past. The US domination of world affairs is a relatively new one in a non-Western context.

I agree with Alan about Turkey's future membership of the EU for stability and commerce and, as he mentioned, their progression into acceptable human rights for their people.

As to whether we remain in NATO... if yer no in it ye cannae change it... much like the EU.
302

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:08:46
313
Alan B

"What I meant to say is that your view comes across to me as being that the US is to blame for everything."

See my earlier remarks on the subject of those who cry "anti-Americanism" every time somebody suggests that the US may be something less than the fount of all that is good and the seat of all moral authority.

This is related.

303

awantapassport,

doonsooth 30/06/2009 23:09:51
311 Colonel... well said. Reeks of the Empire mentality that we need to rid ourselves of... Peace
304

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:10:52
315
awantapassport

"As to whether we remain in NATO... if yer no in it ye cannae change it... much like the EU."

If the EU is not changed in a way that makes NATO completely redundant then its potential is not being realised.

305

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 23:13:13
Alan B & Electric Hermit,

I was really enjoying your discussion and was a little miffed when it started to disintegrate into he said/she said. The different perspectives were interesting and well thought out.

Very informative and a positive change from much of what passes for comment here. I include myself amongst those who post drivel at times.
306

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:18:33
315
awantapassport

"I agree with Alan about Turkey's future membership of the EU..."

In principle, so do I. But the whole enlargement process has been handled badly. As has the constitution. It's a chicken/egg thing.

It's also another topic.

307

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:20:07
319
Sgian Achlais

"I was really enjoying your discussion and was a little miffed when it started to disintegrate into he said/she said."

Likewise.

I dislike people presuming to tell me what I think.

308

awantapassport,

sunnysoothcoast 30/06/2009 23:23:07
318... Electric Hermit. I agree. You only have to look at the potential waste of money that Trident may be, despite the Institute for Public Policy Research's findings.

More defence cooperation within the EU community must be the future.
309

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

30/06/2009 23:23:33
#317 awantapassport

I hadn't given it a thought till ten minutes ago...It must have been the Vikings.

A thousand years of near perpetual war...masquerading as Defence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWsGyNsw00
310

Sgian Achlais,

30/06/2009 23:23:34
Well on Turkey I disagree with them joining in the near future. The border with Iraq is porous and passports are very easily purchased in Turkey.

The last thing we want is Europe having a border with Iraq or Iran.
311

awantapassport,

afftaebed 30/06/2009 23:27:14
seespeak tae yes later...
312

Alan B,

30/06/2009 23:30:11
#316 Electric

While we obviously disagree.

I think the core difference is you are taking a view what the US motivation could be and what you think they might think of a certain situation.

Where as my perspective is more through look at what happened at certain points in time and judging it from that perspective.

As such you state

"The two world wars suited US purposes perfectly".

Personally i just think it is ridiculous to state that 2 world wars where so many people died suited the US perfectly.

It also does not stick with the US policy of being so isolated and inward looking till then.

Again with europe not dealing with Yugoslavias disintegration and having to ask for US intervention

"Simple answer, it was not politically or militarily equipped to do so. Now go on to ask yourself why Europe was not so equipped. "

It was somehow the US fault that europe could not deal with the problem.


To a large degree while you think the US is motivated by wanting to dominate the world. I take the perspective that the way much of the world has acted eg ww1 and ww2 and the whole rise of communism has pushed the US from its isolated stance to more involvement.

For me if europe integrated fully including Russia then the US would decrease its involvement in europe. The US is simply not interested in the rest of the world and is so self absolved.

I do agree that the US gets involved in the middle east for oil. But what are you suggesting. That the US and europe should cease to buy oil from there with the obvious implications for the short term. I have strongly supported the eu puting in place policies to move away from oil dependency but we in europe sit in our petrol cars just the same as the US.
313

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:31:07
322
awantapassport

"More defence cooperation within the EU community must be the future."

Precisely. And Scotland's future defence and security policy must be considered in that context and not the context of NATO or the UK and its so-called "Special Relationship" with the US.

For the benefit of those who have springs in their heels the better to leap to unwarranted conclusions, this does not mean having NO relationship with the US. Only that any relationship must be on different terms. Terms not dictated by the US. Terms that require the US to learn the meaning of mutuality.

314

Alan B,

30/06/2009 23:33:13
#Electric

"I dislike people presuming to tell me what I think."

Come on i have already said that is not what i intended.

What i intended was to say was how your view was coming across to me. Which is very different.
315

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:33:45
326
Alan B

"I think the core difference is you are taking a view what the US motivation could be and what you think they might think of a certain situation.

Where as my perspective is more through look at what happened at certain points in time and judging it from that perspective."

You want to understand historical events? Follow the money! By which I mean, look at who gains and loses from any particular event.

316

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:39:23
326
Alan B

"Personally i just think it is ridiculous to state that 2 world wars where so many people died suited the US perfectly."

You might have a point if people dying was the only thing that happened. A narrow and distorted view of history.

I will mention just one thing. The US came out of WW2 in a position to realise its ambition to have the dollar replace sterling as the global reserve currency. Unless and until you grasp the implications of this, you do not understand the history of the last 70 years at all.

317

Alan B,

30/06/2009 23:42:35
#Sgian

"The last thing we want is Europe having a border with Iraq or Iran."

What way would you suggest is the best to stabilise the middle east.

Why i support turkish memership is along with a strong european defence system an affluent turkey bound to democracy and human rights would have a strong influence on the middle east.

War with iraq as we have seen and the problem with iran is not what we need. But how do we prevent it.

How do we deal with the mess of Iraq which goes all the way back to UK colonialism and the empire.

While we cannot go back in time, a strong eu bordering with iran and iraq could and would have

- prevented the kurds getting chemical weapons dropped on them in 88
- prevented the kuwait invasion that sparked the first gulf war
- maybe stopped the islamic revolution in the 70s that has isolated iran from the west so much

etc

I would also like the see the EU take a strong line with Israel. Forcing israel to hand back the land to the 67 border and then pushing the final land settlement to independent arbitration with a range between the 67 and 47 borders.

Finally if the eu can move away from the oil economy and not have the west throwing money at these dodgy regimes we may have more peace and stability.
318

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

30/06/2009 23:43:04
peter1958,

Is that why you are so interested in Norwegian Troop numbers...you are worried they may break the 750 year old cease-fire and attack us again?
319

The Col. of Monte Cristo,

30/06/2009 23:44:22
But only if we become Independent?
320

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:45:23
326
Alan B

"It was somehow the US fault that europe could not deal with the problem."

This has been explained. You accuse me of being evasive when it is you who is evading my responses.

And you seem incapable of getting beyond the undisputed fact that Europe was not equipped to deal with Yugoslavia in order to ask why this was so. Either that or you accept the simplistic explanations offered by US propaganda.

Does it not strike you as somewhat of a contradiction that the US struts the stage as the lead actor, but accepts no responsibility whatever for the quality of the performance?

321

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:49:03
328
Alan B

"What i intended was to say was how your view was coming across to me. Which is very different."

Then you should be asking why you perceive things differently from the way I state them. At no point did I say or imply that "everything was the fault of the US". And yet, somehow, that is what you read. Why would that be?

322

Alan B,

30/06/2009 23:49:17
#329 and 330 Electric

I could understand if you critise the US for things it did (like the iraq war). But your critisms like below seem to be because the US emerged from the wreckage of europes mess. With hints that the US was behind it or something.

"The US came out of WW2 in a position to realise its ambition to have the dollar replace sterling as the global reserve currency"

It is statements like this that come across as the US wanting or being behind ww2. I really fail to see where you are coming from.


323

Alan B,

30/06/2009 23:53:01
#Electic

"Then you should be asking why you perceive things differently from the way I state them"

I disagree I do. I just cannot understand your critism of the US, when so much is based on european failures.
324

Alan B,

30/06/2009 23:57:33
#334 Electic

"And you seem incapable of getting beyond the undisputed fact that Europe was not equipped to deal with Yugoslavia in order to ask why this was so"


Sorry rubbish. I have already said that europe was incapable. And i have said so in other threads before as you will know and is the reason i support stronger european defence integration.

I already answered in #299 why i believe the eu was not capable.

At the end of the day you blame the US for the EU being weak. I blame the EU countries. Both of us want the EU to have a stronge defence.

325

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 23:59:52
331
Alan B

"It is statements like this that come across as the US wanting or being behind ww2."

The statement is undeniably true. A matter of verifiable historical fact.

The conclusions you draw are entirely your own.

326

Alan B,

01/07/2009 00:04:09
#335 Electric

Can you explain how you think the US was behind ww2?



327

Alan B,

01/07/2009 00:05:54
#335 and 336

sorry misunderstood your post.
328

Electric Hermit,

01/07/2009 00:08:34
332
Alan B

"I just cannot understand your critism of the US, when so much is based on european failures."

With such simplistic thinking, failures of understanding are all but inevitable.

I have repeatedly suggested you look a little deeper than the fact that Europe was unprepared to deal with Yugoslavia to ask why this was. What were the circumstances and processes which led to this situation.

Fortunately, many in Europe were more willing to ask such questions. And they concluded that the reliance on US capability that had been fostered by NATO was very far from being in Europe's interests.
329

Electric Hermit,

01/07/2009 00:09:42
336
Alan B

"Can you explain how you think the US was behind ww2?"

Since this is your daft notion, it would be up to you to explain it.

330

Alan B,

01/07/2009 00:10:28
#Electic

"The statement is undeniably true. A matter of verifiable historical fact"

But what is the point. And what relevence does it have.

Your posts are too full of hints to fully understand what you are really trying to say.

331

Electric Hermit,

01/07/2009 00:11:01
337
Alan B

"sorry misunderstood your post."

Glad to hear it.


332

Alan B,

01/07/2009 00:11:51
#339 Electic

I have already said that i misunderstood your post in #337.
333

Electric Hermit,

01/07/2009 00:13:20
334
Alan B

"At the end of the day you blame the US for the EU being weak. I blame the EU countries."

Blaming is easy. Looking for reasons and explanations is rather more demanding.

334

Alan B,

01/07/2009 00:15:36
#338 Electric

"I have repeatedly suggested you look a little deeper than the fact that Europe was unprepared to deal with Yugoslavia to ask why this was. What were the circumstances and processes which led to this situation"

And have already outlines the reasons above why i think europe was unprepared.

You blame the US for the EU not developing a strong military. I blame the EU countries for not having a stronger defence.
335

Electric Hermit,

01/07/2009 00:16:14
342
Alan B

#339 was posted before I saw your apology.

336

Alan B,

01/07/2009 00:17:29
#343 Electric

That is abit desperate and playing on symantics.

I have outlined the reasons in a post above as i have already stated.
337

Electric Hermit,

01/07/2009 00:19:14
340
Alan B

"But what is the point. And what relevence does it have."

No relevance whatever. If you are naive enough to believe the bankrupting of Britain was just a happy coincidence from the US perspective.

338

Alan B,

01/07/2009 00:19:56
#Electric

Anyway i need to go. Got work tomorrow and I am an hour ahead of you guys.

Be good :)
339

Electric Hermit,

01/07/2009 00:29:14
346
Alan B

"I have outlined the reasons in a post above as i have already stated."

I really didn't think all that stuff was intended as a serious attempt at an explanation. Maybe it was the fact that you felt the need to repeat so often the mantra, "It was not the fault of the US!".

Or maybe it was just the fact that, "They didn't want to!" seems such a shallow "explanation" for Europe's failure to develop a functioning military capability.

340

muppetspotter,

Edinburgh 01/07/2009 08:48:02
#260,262,264,266.....stop it....your killing me....

seriously though you have once again demonstrated the single issue fanatic's inability to listen. Where in my post did I say the empire was a good thing? All I said was that we, as Scots, did rather well out of it and were complicit it it's "excesses". My point is not whether or not it was a good thing or not but that to ignore our (Scotland's) part in building it and benefiting it is hypocrisy and revisionism at its most crass. It is you, my friends, who should be looking in the mirror - I'm quite happy to accept that we were complicit and to move on.
341

Queen D,

01/07/2009 09:19:40
Did'nt have time to read all the posts and may have missed the answer to this , but is'nt he the chap who disbanded the Scottish Regiments while they were fighting in an unholy war in Iraq?

342

scully,

Colchester 07/09/2009 09:29:37


Jackson I just want you to know that the spirit will not be seen in the Middle East again. until the Conspirators that causded my son,s death are brought to Justice and Publicly put on trial and sentenced. Before my husband died he said our Son would be safe in the Police force. He was wrong. the Enemy was within. No you cowardlt Bs. Come and get me . If You Dare. you know where am. My Name is Walsham
343

scully,

Colchester 07/09/2009 09:33:56
Now how about the BBC telling all the truth now.Its been a long hard road staying on the path back home to God.And remember this one thing. Jesus was a Jew and he would never have challenged God. or try to take the place of God, Think about what I have said
344

scully,

Colchester 07/09/2009 09:46:09
Why did everyone want the Golden eggs that would have given the Royal Family Untold Power. Well you Killed Him, now you get nothing.two down. two to go.I will tell you Now. they tried to take eggs from my overis without my consent or knowledge, they took something from my Husband At Notley hospital in Essex while he was in for a Hernia operation.Steptoe is dead.Their Plans were not Gods Plans. Now you know the truth of the Matter. My Son found out went he was moved to Colchester Police Station . He is now dead
345

scully,

Colchester 07/09/2009 09:49:01


We will always remember PAPASMURF I think Road traffic at BBC Radio 2 will remember also. You nearly had it all
346

scully,

Colchester 07/09/2009 09:51:52
Because of a rogue element in the Police force. they shot themselves in the Foot. Its time Baker went back to Yorkshire.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.