Monday 14 April 2014

Hot air from blimps

Colonel Blimp
Colonel Blimp (Photo credit: psd)
Apparently, a bunch of mothballed military types have seen fit to write a threatening letter to Scotland's First Minister.

Where have these people been for the last two years? Why are they talking about negotiations on currency etc. being "complex and difficult" when the UK Government has already ruled out negotiations? Well, the UK Government except for Philip Hammond who seems not have have received the memo.

Why are they talking about a risk of these these negotiations being soured when they have already been turned rancid by the UK government's belligerent, antagonistic attitude?

Why are they purporting to speak for NATO? Nowhere do I see any of these people identified as having any particular standing within NATO.

By what authority do these people presume to speak for the US? Or France? Or any of the other member nations of NATO? Or, for that matter, the entire international community?

What exactly are these people proposing? Are they suggesting that some kind of pressure would be brought to bear in an effort to force the Scottish Government to allow Trident to remain on Scottish soil? Wouldn't that be illegal?

What kind of pressure do these people envisage being used? Economic sanctions? Military intervention? Wouldn't that also be illegal?

Where, in all of the pompous posturing from these blimpish buffoons, is there any indication that they have taken due account of the value of Scotland to NATO? Are they unaware of Scotland's geopolitical significance? Or are they merely intent on portraying Scotland as powerless in the face of a petulant and spiteful British state? Is their purpose to convey the impression that Scotland comes to the independence negotiations with no bargaining chips at all? Is that down to their ignorance? Or is it wilful dishonesty?

The UK Trident system represents only around 1% of of NATO's nuclear capability. In military terms, it is an expensive white elephant. Scotland's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), by contrast, represents a massively significant and increasingly important section of the Northern Atlantic. Is there any doubt that Scotland's strategic position is frequently used by the British state to bolster its position?

Are we supposed to believe that. like our oil reserves, this national asset suddenly becomes worthless when it is no longer administered by a British state which has shown itself to be neglectful and incompetent in this regard? Are we supposed to believe that NATO would not look favourably on the Scottish Government's defence plans relative to the badly managed decline of the U' imperialistic pretensions?

Why would rUK's problems with how to dispose of its WMD be a consideration at all for those voting in the referendum? We know, do we not, that Scotland's problems in being used as a dumping ground by the British state were never a consideration?

Why are these people trying to give the impression that the Scottish Government is making unreasonable demands? The SG has bent over backwards to stress its willingness to cooperate fully with rUK in the matter of removal of Trident, as it has in all other matters. What is unreasonable about declining to host another nation's WMD? Indeed, would doing otherwise not contravene various international protocols?

Are these people claiming that some way could be found to circumvent such protocols? If so, why would Scotland want to start its new life as an independent nation in such a way? Would that not seriously tarnish the nation's reputation and standing with the international community? Arguable more so than standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the vast majority of nations which possess no WMD, desire no WMD, abhor them, and will not permit them on their territory?

Who the hell do these people think they are?
Enhanced by Zemanta


  1. I think it's the next phase we are entering Peter. The one where the Unionists realise that independence is now quite likely so they want the Scottish electorate to think that "we" are being unreasonable & that all the negotiations will be too complex to bear.

    The basic economic arguments have been lost. The currency threat has backfired & there are contradictory messages beginning to come out of Westminster/Whitehall.

    But it is unprecedented that the British military is interfering with a democratic process. This is the behaviour of dictatorships backed by illegal militia.

    The shock to me is that the British media don't think this intervention by Sea Lords & Generals is noteworthy beyond the message itself.

    1. The failure of the media to hold the No campaign to account is something that is often remarked upon, to no apparent effect. As is the fact that normal standards are abandoned when it comes to the constitutional question. As you note, behaviour that would otherwise be roundly condemned passes unremarked by the mainstream media if it is done in the name of preserving the British state.