To see oorsel's as ithers see us - Al Jazeera - Breaking up Britain? 19th Jan 2012
Among the many perceptive insights in this article are these -
When independence comes "the UK will lose 90 per cent of its oil and gas reserves in the North Sea and almost half its land mass."
Malcolm Rifkind ("who is himself a Scot" Aye, right) says "It would certainly open up the question of permanent membership of the Security Council in a way that would be quite awkward for the UK."
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, Research Director at the Royal United Strategic Institute, notse the central nature of the nuclear issue, and the desperation of the UK to force Scotland to retain the bases. The observation is made that if the bases go after independence, "it is a real possibility that the UK could be left with no operational nuclear deterrent because the submarines could not be safely berthed."
The article also notes that "The ability to continue formulating its own policy is also a factor motivating Scotland's drive [towards] independence."
And there you have it in a nutshell - defence, the nuclear bases and the UK's status in world affairs hang on Scotland's independence, and nothing else really matters as much to the Unionists.
But the essence is this, for me at least -
1. I want a nuclear-free Scotland, and the only way to achieve this is full independence. I am totally and utterly opposed to the concept of the nuclear deterrent and WMDs.
2. I do not want anyone other than the Scottish Government that I elected to commit my country to war and to foreign engagements.
3. I do not want anyone other than the Scottish Government that I elected to send our servicemen and women into harms way and to die.
4. I am not a pacifist, and believe in conventional defence forces, and in joining with other countries in international military operations, e.g. peacekeeping operations or strategic interventions that Scotland supports.
The only way to achieve these objectives is the full independence of Scotland as a nation, since all of the UK parties are committed to nuclear weapons and the 'independent' nuclear deterrent.
Independence delivers devo max, i.e full fiscal autonomy, by default. The price of devo max without independence exacted by the UK is -
1. Retention of Scottish nuclear bases.
2. Retention of the Trident weapons of mass destruction.
3. Retention of the concept of the nuclear deterrent.
4. Retention of the right of the Westminster Parliament to send Scottish servicemen and women to war, and to die.
If you want to retain the UK, by definition you are endorsing all of the above.
If you want devo max without independence, by definition you are endorsing all of the above.
If you want neither devo max nor independence, by definition you are endorsing all of the above.
The Labour Party, the Tory Party, the LibDems are committed to the UK, therefore they are committed to all of the above.
THAT IS THE STARK REALITY OF REJECTING SCOTLAND'S INDEPENDENCE - THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION.
The media slide away from these issues whenever they can, and focus instead on the economy. The economy is important - defence issues are vital.
Unionist politicians slide away from these issues whenever they can, at least until they are driven into panic mode by being forced to face them, as Jim Murphy has been today by Alex Salmond's position on Scotland defence forces and resources..
Last night on STV, a politician I have some respect for, Henry McLeish, slid away from these issues, because despite his realism on Scotland and Scottish politics, he is a Labour politician and shackled to nuclear weapons like the rest of them.
Until very recently, these issues, and therefore the lives of Scottish servicemen and women were in the hands of one Liam Fox, the then Defence Minister. The circumstances leading to his downfall - preceded by desperate attempts to defend him and prop him up by Tory politicians - told us all we need to know about the reality of defence matters, defence procurement and the M.O.D. when in such hands.
At the moment, more Scots seem to want devo max than want independence. If they reject independence, there is no guarantee they will get devo max, because it will then continue to be in the gift of the Westminster Parliament, and Scotland has no democratic way of securing it, nor any negotiating card to play.
If the Scottish voter in favour of independence cannot persuade those against it to change their minds, then we default to nuclear weapons, war and death.
It's as simple as that, and nothing will ever compensate us for that fatal choice. Make it with care, Scottish voters.
Loading...
7:46
Trades unions threaten to abandon Labour - Ed panicsby TAofMoridura135 views
I read your statement above, it's inspirational, simply brilliant. Mc Leish does come across well however, the labour party should have disbanded after Blair attacked Iraq, they have no credibility. They're warmongering imperialist scum, the people of Scotland will rise to the challenge ahead, don't worry about it, we're taking control of our own affairs. Why send weapons inspectors to Iran when Faslane is loaded to the hilt with WMD's. Peace brother God bless.
MrZambology 1 month ago
ITS A TRAP!
hlashflahflhsjfh 1 month ago
Well said TAoM. That's why it's independence which is the world wide hit, and not 'devo-max'. The irony is- most Scots want the wmds gone yet there seems to be a general feeling that defence is secure in the union and at risk with independence.
If, illegal, unwanted wars, defence underspend (jobs) in Scotland, and wmds are the defence examples of the 'union dividend', then I'd say defence is another reason to vote YES.
mesmiths 1 month ago