Mr Bairn Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Well that's nonsense from Salmond. They don't oppose nuclear weapons. They oppose having them in Scotland. I'm pretty sure everyone except for 3 or 4 tyrants oppose their existence full stop. To their credit the SNP pragmatically understand that iScotland is still going to have ties to the issues left behind from the war on terror even if we distance ourselves from future middle east, USA led projects. NATO membership is an absolute no brainer so we have the US to protect us in event that the dirty bomb is fired at Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 They oppose having them in Scotland. I'm pretty sure everyone except for 3 or 4 tyrants oppose their existence full stop. To their credit the SNP pragmatically understand that iScotland is still going to have ties to the issues left behind from the war on terror even if we distance ourselves from future middle east, USA led projects. NATO membership is an absolute no brainer so we have the US to protect us in event that the dirty bomb is fired at Scotland. The white paper says that they won't object to nuclear armed ships using Scottish ports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 The white paper says that they won't object to nuclear armed ships using Scottish ports. What, for refuelling and stuff? Do we even have any seaports big enough to accommodate massive warships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 What, for refuelling and stuff? Do we even have any seaports big enough to accommodate massive warships? Rosyth presumably. And they don't have to be massive warships, our nuclear weapons are all on submarines. This is what the white paper says about it: It is our firm position that an independent Scotland should not host nuclear weapons and we would only join NATO on that basis. While the presence of nuclear weapons on a particular vessel is never confirmed by any country, we would expect any visiting vessel to respect the rules that are laid down by the government of an independent Scotland. While they are both strong advocates for nuclear disarmament, both Norway and Denmark allow NATO vessels to visit their ports without confirming or denying whether they carry nuclear weapons. We intend that Scotland will adopt a similar approach as Denmark and Norway in this respect. Wishy-washy nonsense. It's possible to make educated assumptions about which ships are likely to be carrying, or indeed are capable of being armed with nuclear weapons and preventing them docking. You can't make a principled stand and then admit you won't actively do anything to enforce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 It's pragmatism though. Pretty much everyone wants to see nuclear weapons become a thing of the past, but the problem with that is that the "good" countries, and I'll include Russia and China in that, are never going to decommission while a handful of tyrants possess nukes. This has the trickle down effect to alliances, specifically NATO, and nations that borders nuclear states. Everyone wants to see iScotland be a nordic style, passive on the world stage, strong economy, even stronger society type nation, the problem is we've been associated with London the last 300 years and our enemies aren't going to forget that. If Scotland was to be independent we should hand the bombs back to London but play our fair part in the NATO alliance, After all if the worst did happen we'd expect the Americans to deploy their anti missiles, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 From memory, my understanding is that being a member of Nato means that you have to provide facilities for any Nato allied vessels that want to visit. This includes vessels carrying nukes. I''m not happy about this, but I'm pragmatic about it if it means that nukes will no longer be based in Scotland. It's got to be better than the current situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 From memory, my understanding is that being a member of Nato means that you have to provide facilities for any Nato allied vessels that want to visit. This includes vessels carrying nukes. I''m not happy about this, but I'm pragmatic about it if it means that nukes will no longer be based in Scotland. It's got to be better than the current situation. That's the kind of pragmatism I'm talking about. I'm not saying we need to keep them at all(I'm starting to think maybe a Chernobyl type incident would be more likely than actually needing to use them), but they're going to exist no matter what so might as well be complicit with the good guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Rosyth presumably. And they don't have to be massive warships, our nuclear weapons are all on submarines. This is what the white paper says about it: Wishy-washy nonsense. It's possible to make educated assumptions about which ships are likely to be carrying, or indeed are capable of being armed with nuclear weapons and preventing them docking. You can't make a principled stand and then admit you won't actively do anything to enforce it. Personally I don't think there is any reason we can't be like the other non nuclear Nato countries: 1) I'd be quite happy to be under the nuclear umbrella protection of Nato. They will want Scotland in for our strategic North Atlantic corridor location. 2) Like those in other more populous, sunnier, wealthier parts of the UK. I don't want them in my backyard. They are less than 30 miles from our most populous city. Not good. Get rid and we negate the Glasgow area as a target and lessen the potential for a horrific accident. 3) I don't want to be paying for them, they' re obscene maintenance costs and even more obscene cost of replacement. That money can be spent on health, education, job creation etc. Principled. No. Hypocritical. Probably. Do I care. No. Realpolitik. Definitely. If rUK wants them. They find a home for them. But just as importantly they pay for them. Just a personal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 I better start learning Mandarin for when the Chinese invasion force lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Hearing from some people in the know that we have a great chance of winning the eurovision. Interesting to see the unionist love in to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Hearing from some people in the know that we have a great chance of winning the eurovision. Interesting to see the unionist love in to that. Say what now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Say what now? Anything that provokes union flag waving will be latched on to by the unionists, the same way there will be a Nat love in if we do well at the commonwealth games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peteryes Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 These threads expose the desperation and threadbare loyalist unionist argument. Scared to free our country from London abuse. When the cabinet papers are released regarding Thatcher's Thames Flood barriers the extent of the robbery will shock even the most indoctrinated loyalist to think again Sectarian divide and rule loses its power once every body accepts and understands British Imperialist divide and rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peteryes Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 'I am voting against Scotland's interests because my Da took me to Ibrox once.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 These threads expose the desperation and threadbare loyalist unionist argument. Scared to free our country from London abuse. When the cabinet papers are released regarding Thatcher's Thames Flood barriers the extent of the robbery will shock even the most indoctrinated loyalist to think again Sectarian divide and rule loses its power once every body accepts and understands British Imperialist divide and rule Laughable. Go live in Africa then moan about imperialism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 These threads expose the desperation and threadbare loyalist unionist argument. Scared to free our country from London abuse. When the cabinet papers are released regarding Thatcher's Thames Flood barriers the extent of the robbery will shock even the most indoctrinated loyalist to think again Sectarian divide and rule loses its power once every body accepts and understands British Imperialist divide and rule Laughable. Go live in Africa then moan about imperialism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Hearing from some people in the know that we have a great chance of winning the eurovision. Interesting to see the unionist love in to that. aye right. We could bring Lennon and Harrison back from the dead, reform the Beatles and still not win that thing. Some god-forsaken former soviet republic will win as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Darling Denies he is leading a negative campaign Darling denied he had overseen a campaign that was too negative and lacked a positive vision for staying with the rest of the UK. There have been reports of concern in his campaign team at the direction of the polls http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/31/alistair-darling-scotland-pound-currency-union That's probably pretty good news for Yes. He is obviously blind to what is happening around him. Even when his own side are lining up to slaughter him over it. "There are no allied tanks in Baghdad" springs to mind. If he's citing polls then it will be interesting to see what happens if the polls predict a Yes victory for the first time, a week before the referendum. What it says to me is that under Darling the lies and scaremongering will continue. This could get interesting watching the in fighting. But I'll just end this with a final quote from the article I will continue to make the positive case with passion. Ally has completely lost it me thinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 If he's citing polls then it will be interesting to see what happens if the polls predict a Yes victory for the first time, a week before the referendum. But we know that definitely won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Brian Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 But we know that definitely won't happen. Definitely? When do you think it will happen then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.