The less-deserving pro-independence website

Wings Over Scotland


In their back yard

Posted on February 22, 2017 by

We thought you’d like a wee cross-tabbed update on yesterday’s Trident poll news:

tridentnimby

Of all the people who wanted to retain the UK’s nuclear weapons, just over HALF of them (56%) were prepared to have them kept in Scotland. 15% did a total U-turn when confronted with the thought of having them in the same place they’ve been for the last 30-odd years, and nearly a third suddenly weren’t so sure nukes were a great idea when they were reminded they’re kept about half an hour from Glasgow.

It’s an interesting stat to keep in mind when the subject is debated.

Print Friendly

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 22 02 17 13:56

    In their back yard | speymouth

76 to “In their back yard”

  1. Macart says:

    Of the top five threats to national security in no particular order.

    Cyber security
    World terrorism
    Nuclear weapon proliferation
    Climate change
    Organized crime

    So which one do folks believe requires a response which indiscriminately wipes out populations and who do they propose launching against, d’you reckon?

  2. Smallaxe says:

    Why would anyone want to have Unclear Subs armed with MISS-iles on their doorstep?

    #DeathWish

    Peace Always All Ways

  3. galamcennalath says:

    Seems quite reasonable that if you do want WMDs you should be willing have them near where you live. In that respect, “just over HALF” are actually willing to reject NIMBY attitudes.

    I wonder if you asked the same questions in Plymouth or Portsmouth, with Trident based there, what responses might you get?

    Having said that, I still believe there is a lack of knowledge and understanding around the UK’s WMDs. There hasn’t been enough information or public discussion. The consensus among Unionists at WM and lack of interest by the media doesn’t help.

    The UK would use these in retribution after they had lost, launched by crews on a suicide mission. The argument that this is so awful it acts as a deterrent, seems far fetched.

  4. Luigi says:

    Are some people really so ignorant and/or thoughtless that they have to be reminded that the nukes have been located within a stones throw from our largest city, and always have been?

    Sleepwalking to vapourisation. 🙁

  5. yerkitbreeks says:

    Presumably the 56% are Radio 4 listeners. One of the criteria for allowing a launch is this radio station going off the air !

  6. Famous15 says:

    Another name for indyref2?

    Nukes out?

    Rejoin the world?

    You decide;everything?

    Scotchit? Etc etc

  7. heedtracker says:

    Its right next to Glasgow, as far as Trident thermo nuke blast zone goes. Its odd why people are seemingly fine and dandy with such a destructive force next door too, let alone planet toryboy covering up nuke launch test fails. Wonder they’re covering it up. Edinburgh and all central belt would be destroyed with fallout too. Belfast might get it, but its all about prevailing westerly winds. But no English city would be badly affected at all, Newcastle maybe. Sheep to the slaughter us Scots suckers.

  8. CameronB Brodie says:

    Mass-media has a major influence shaping public attitudes. During the cold-war, the focus of public attention was understandably concerned largely with the prospect of nuclear annihilation. As that danger receded, we began to become aware of the threat posed by environmental degradation. Now our attention is on the threat of radical Islam, immigration and benefits scroungers (again). Add to that the misfortune that we are Scots and the future looks hopeless, frankly. Funny dat, not.

    Trident is yet another scam foisted on an ignorant public, this time by unprincipled interest in the armaments, mining and refining industries. It is also a phallic extension for the British Civil servants who could not bear France being Europe’s sole nuclear power. It has no ethical, military, moral justification, IMHO.

  9. Sunniva says:

    That’s pretty depressing.

  10. Donald says:

    If one of the criteria for launch is radio 4 going off air, then someone put a transmitter and some recorded radio 4 in a bunker. The entire UK nuclear weapons system would become useless because of a few quid of electronics in someones basement (+ generator). Crowd funder anyone?

  11. HardandShrimp says:

    Tricky thing asking people about having things. The UK defence strategy is largely geared towards maintaining this weapon system. Everything else has been cut, cut and thrice cut.

    Many will think, “Yeah we probably should have something and tick keep”. However, if they were prioritising the defence budget would it be the first player on the team sheet? Would be a proper navy? Would be enough planes and pilots to keep our airfields and territorial air space covered? There are senior military types who not have it as the first player on the team sheet.

  12. Ken500 says:

    Is it polled in Scotland or UK.

    Less than half agree. 470 agree. 381 + 177 DK = 558

    Of the 470 who agree 265 want them based in Scotland. 57%? of those who agree.

    25% of the total

  13. Ross says:

    Like the cheap dummy flashing alarm box you can buy for the front of your house to deter burglars….they don’t know if it is or it isn’t hooked up to a genuine system that will have them in handcuffs faster that they can say ‘fair cop guv’

    Same applies to WMD’s…isn’t the cheaper option is to say yes we have nuclear capability, when secretly really we only have subs armed with feather dusters and water pistols….is anyone really going to call our bluff and if they do the worlds imploded anyway and our expensive trident program was about as useful as a chocolate fire guard!!!

  14. Vestas says:

    What’s the age data on the Trident questions Stu?

  15. nodrog says:

    In the event of a nuclear war with Russia or any other nuclear power – Scotland is the NUMBER 1 TARGET.
    Do you still think it is a price worth paying for our so called – “SAFETY & SECURITY”.
    I DO NOT.

  16. nodrog says:

    Famous15 says:
    22 February, 2017 at 1:21 pm
    Another name for indyref2?

    EUROECOSSE

  17. Chick McGregor says:

    Nukey Okay!

    Well rUKOK anyway, Scotland … not so much.

  18. Proud Cybernat says:

    O/T

    The next Indy Ref needs to make it clear that what is being asked of the people of Scotland is to decide which of TWO very different futures they prefer – it is NOT the indy v the status quo. There is NO status quo in the New Ref.

    The naming of the campaign should reflect this situation.

    This time there is no “better to stick with the devil we know” option for waverers. People really need to understand that important difference between IR2014 and IR20??. Thus, in that regard, the naming of the campaign can help make that abundantly clear. Indeed, it MUST make it clear.

    Thinking hats on peeps.

  19. Robert Peffers says:

    @heedtracker says: 22 February, 2017 at 1:30 pm:

    ” … Edinburgh and all central belt would be destroyed with fallout too.”

    Matter of fact, heedtracker, the Forth/Clyde Valley acts like a funnel, and with those prevailing westerly winds, the fallout would be drawn fairly quickly across the central belt.

    Before ending up in Rosyth Dockyard RADIC I worked in the Dockyard Yard Services and sometimes had to work on top of the big cranes. Even on a relatively calm day it was a bit hairy up on top of the cranes.

    Mind you, you could see the rain, or whatever, coming at you from the west and it came at a fair old clip. So the East would not have much time to take evasive action to survive.

  20. Liz g says:

    They can’t fire them,and if they did it’s all over any way.
    But what they can do is have an accident,and while all the talk of Actually firing them is countered by the “But it’s a deterrent”platitude.

    Not enough is made of the danger involved in coupling and uncoupling the warhead from the missile,this is not a miss fire at sea that the Americans can correct,this is a huge risk to the most populous part of Scotland taken on a regular basis for decades past and apparently for decades to come.

    To mis quote….” they only have to fuck up once”.

    Why this has ever been tolerated is beyond me….
    Why some float the idear that it would be somehow wrong or unfair to demand their imedeate removal on the day of Independence,to me, border’s on insanity.

    For Holyrood to allow a Foreign Government who view’s Scotland as it’s main competitors to conduct such a risky procedure anywhere on Scotland’s soil is I think almost Treasonous to the Sovereigns it is obligated to protect!

    Why should any interests of Westminster be of any concern to Holyrood unless Scotland can accommodate these interests at no risk to the interests of Scotland.

    Westminster and America will ofcourse understand…
    Scotland must put Scotland first.
    Scotland must take back control of its river’s and port’s.
    Scotland must be free to build walls around Faselane if it wants to.

    And on a more serious note …. Scotland should not tolerate armed guards from another country…. Would America or England have another army armed and patrolling within 150 miles of Washington or London.

    Infact let’s see if the Scottish Government can have an armed base the same size as Faselane and Coleport 150 miles outside London,how far would that negotiation get?

    Them being so close to Glasgow actually illustrates my point.
    I have thought for years we were having the wrong conversation about the neuks anyway.
    This is an island,is there any space on it to house them far enough away from people? Nobody should have to live in the blast zone of these things.

    Perhaps that should be the survey question ,are you happy to live in the blast zone of a base,on a scale of 1-10 how protected do you feel?

    America has space and France has space but does this Island?
    Answer that ….Then we get to “should” we have them,not leave people living with them THEN agonize over the morality of it.
    The moral question doesn’t even need asked …This bloody Islands no big enough for Trident.

  21. Lenny Hartley says:

    Proud Cybernat, indyref2 is already in the public arena and in people’s minds, changing it would be a waste of time and effort, everybody will still refer to the referendum as indyref2 what did
    Mr Salmond say at Ellon over the weekend “Indyref2 or New Indy Ref as I’ve got to learn to call it, apparently”

  22. Clootie says:

    This old archive scenario gives a graphic picture of nuclear war
    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

  23. G4jeepers says:

    Maybe should have asked the question, if one of your submarines had a potentially catastrophic fault in it’s onboard reactor, would you bring it (and all of your other subs) into dock all at the same time?

    Coz that’s what happened just ‘t other day funnily enough

    http://archive.is/YzHiK

  24. orri says:

    Given the choice between a commitment to a weapons delivery system that we, as in the UK, are not 100% in control of and I’m not even sure whether we own it or lease it or a more adaptable conventional armed force mix suited not only to actual defence rather than a retaliation after we’ve been defeated I think I’d pick the later.

    To an extent Trident is our equivalent of the Maginot Line.

  25. Proud Cybernat says:

    @ Lenny

    You’re right, of course, that IndyRef2 is the (shorthand) name people use to refer to the process of giving Scotland another bite at the constitutional question. But, of course, in IndyRef2014 the actual campaign was ‘YES Scotland’.

    I think Nicola is right to call for the new forthcoming campaign to be disassociated from the 2014 campaign since the prevailing circumstances are radically different. I think she suggested ‘New Indy’.

    People, of course, will still use IndyRef2 as a shorthand – nothing wrong with that. I think, though, Nicola was referring to the actual campaign name.

  26. Bob MACK says:

    I think the issue is that people do not actually believe such weapons would ever be used. Ergo it is safe to have them.

    And yet history tells us they were indeed used, and probably will be again at some point.

    It is an erroneous assumption to call Trident a deterrent .It is no such thing. It is a weapon to be deployed for mass elimination of enemies. All at the cost to our beloved country.

    I have family who work with these monstrosities, and yet they cannot conceive of a situation where it will actually be used.The facts are simple. When America fires, we fire. We would never ever be allowed to fire Trident without American sanction. Unless the Americans give satellite access these weapons are at best scrap.

    So there we have it. We are a weapons facility for the good old US of A.!Nothing more.

  27. galamcennalath says:

    IndyRef2?

    SovRef – Sovereignty Referendum, who rules Scotland? The Scots, or someone else?

  28. orri says:

    Announcing that the nuclear powered subs had been withdrawn from the South Atlantic was one of the precursors to the Falklands being invaded. If I was being paranoid I’d think boldly announcing they were all in dry dock was a lure to persuade Argentina to make another bid. Hopefully the investment in physical defences would be enough to rebuff any such attempt with a minimal loss of life on our part but even that might be enough to spark a repeat of the Falklands Factor that led Thatcher to a second term in office.

  29. Macart says:

    Yupfurrit2

    Go on Nicla. You know you want to. 🙂

  30. manandboy says:

    a) Again – since the end of the Cold War, the Nuclear Defence Industry is more important than the Warheads because it serves other purposes important to The Establishment. Always follow the money.

    b) As for the location at Faslane – and the rest – it’s just part of the Democratic Deficit, i.e. our voice is not heard in Westminster’s ears.

    c) In Indy14, Independence was an end in itself.
    In the next one, Independence is the alternative to being devastated by Brexit.

  31. galamcennalath says:

    orri says

    Falklands Factor

    I agree that May is just the type of character to believe a limited war somewhere would be just the ticket to boost English nationalism to further bolster the motivation for, and deflect from, Brexit.

    There was no Falklands Factor in Scotland. Thatcher’s percentage and seat number went down (by one). If May tried a similar stunt now it would assist the Indy cause further!

  32. manandboy says:

    Indy name:-

    The ‘Do or Die’ .

  33. CameronB Brodie says:

    I think there is quite a bit of thought behind the tag “New Indy”, which emotes a sense of change as well as hope. Hopefully it also distinguishes a new approach from 2014, as the original process and the subsequent outcomes have enabled a more grown up discussion now.

    The BBC no longer has the same power to shape public perception and their experts are clearly no match for the principles of contemporary social science. Bring it on!

  34. Fireproofjim says:

    Orri Falklands Factor
    You are right that the withdrawal of all the Navy ships from the SouthAtlantic was the encouragement that Galtieri and his Fascist Junta needed to invade.
    And of course the Thatcher government benefitted from the result, but not from any devious plan but by a typical cock-up. We off course got another ten years of Tories for our sins.
    However, the Falklands was and is small peaceful agricultural community, invaded by real, full-blooded Nazis, complete with torture chambers, concentration camps and death squads.
    What should any government of the day have done other than try to protect their citizens? There was near unanimous agreement in the Commons and the country that the Junta should not win.
    It is noticeable that the Argentinians felt only relief at the downfall of Galtiera, and although they continue to claim the Falklands, (as all Argentinian governments must) they have vowed not to use military force again.

  35. Proud Cybernat says:

    ‘Indy A-Gain’

  36. manandboy says:

    Imagine that in 1833 a contingent of Argentinian ships sailed up the English Channel, and took a fancy to the Isle of Wight and decided to claim it for the Argentinian people as a part of Argentina, to remain in control there to this day.

    Imagine how the English would feel about that today, were it possible for that to happen.

  37. Proud Cybernat says:

    Should have been: ‘YES A-Gain’

  38. manandboy says:

    I forget by who and where, but I’m sure I read Brexit described as ‘the abyss’.
    This Independence vote is at least, if not more, about avoiding the imminent ‘abyss’ as it is about gaining Independence, which, timing wise, could wait a little longer.

    It’s ‘Do or Die’ for me, or some title which depicts the life or death component for Scotland in Brexit.

    Should Brexit prevail and Indy fail, Scotland as we know it, will be as good as dead. The Right wing ToryUKIP Government will see to that. And with no opposition and 95% State Propaganda, the dogs in the street know what’s coming.

    Will the mibbees Aye, mibbees Naw voters please wake up, think about the abyss called Brexit – and turn around.

  39. sensibledave says:

    … and if they had and if, nearly 200 years later, the people of the Isle of Wight were adamant that they wanted to remain part of Argentina – then they would do.

  40. Kupo says:

    WAKE UP, SCOTLAND. Do people in this country need to see visual reminders of Hiroshima or maybe Nagasaki. These killed more than 130,000 people, not including radiation spread and infrastucture loss and water pollution within the area of effect.
    And these modern nukes are even more powerful. Now what would the numbers be in a concentrated city like Glasgow or the whole central belt? FFS.

    But never mind. Thats no big deal. Am alright the noo. Am just away tae watch that brilliant Jeremy Kyle show, or katie price in therapy show, or benefits street. I Cannee get enough of that demonising people on benefits show.

    There are some bloody simpletons in our country sleepwalking through their life through utter ignorance, not stupidity. Are people that lazy to exercise there grey matter to the point they can’t come to an obviously logical conclusion of self preservation over the above history. Which did happen so we know what these things can do.

    Oh, and lets not get into the mibbee 500, 10,000 or 1,million made up jobs they generate out of Jackie baillies a$%e to justify it.

  41. James Barr Gardner says:

    galamcennalath says:
    22 February, 2017 at 3:39 pm
    orri says

    Falklands Factor

    The factor is as always, its about Oil, that is why they have built 2 massive aircraft carriers. Not forgetting a slice of Antarctica of course.

  42. Hamish100 says:

    Can we discuss this on the new BBC news Scotland channel. Remember after 9pm-12am only

    Oops next year

  43. bjsalba says:

    O/T
    looks like Newsnet is back

  44. Meg merrilees says:

    G 4 Jeepers

    Just followed your link – crumbs!

    It lead me to this article however – which is just as scary.
    Apparently they ‘got away with it ‘ in 10974 when two subs ( one USA, one Russian) collided in the Holy Loch – just outside Glasgow! Thankfully on this occasion nothing serious happened but it could have resulted in a fire with the discharge of plutonium or possibly been interpreted as an attack causing armed missiles to be launched!!! Jeezo!

    CIA papers recently released:
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/758538/CIA-documents-nuclear-submarine-crash-UK-coast-Glasgow-Holy-Loch-World-War-3

    We have to get rid of these horrendous weapons.

  45. gus1940 says:

    I’m surprised that the French have never campaigned for the return of The Channel Islands – they are a damned sight closer to France than The Falklands/Malvinas are to Argentina.

  46. Sunniva says:

    I remember attending an anti-Trident conference held in the General Assembly rooms of the Church of Scotland on the Mound in the 1980s, about 1983 I think. Douglas Hurd, then a junior minister in Thatcher’s government, was there making the case for Thatcher’s government.

    And somebody put it to him, that opinion polls had consistently shown that well over 65% of Scots opposed Trident near the Clyde. And I can vividly remember his answer.

    He exploded. ‘You can’t have government by opinion polls! Public opinion changes all the time!’

    And I thought at the time that this was wrong. Because public opinion is fairly consistent over some major things. It’s only on trivial things that public opinion might fluctuate wildly.

    However, time, or rather, state propaganda, has proven him right. Because those Scots in favour of keeping Trident in the Clyde has risen from 35% to 56%. Sad.

  47. Liz g says:

    Big Indy…..This time we mean it!

    Grand Indy….We hiv a bit of repealing tae be done as well!

    Scotland in Union…. Scotland OOT Union…!

    People’s Indy…..We are taking our future,get out of the way!

    Very hard to think of this stuff,will probably need to come from more creative minds than mine.
    One point though….. Scotland in Union have spent time and money on their brand and logo…..We should give it the eat your cereal treatment and have the UNION as the joke we want away from.
    Shouldn’t be that hard to make the Union a joke in Scotland try explanin our terms and conditions to anyone else and it’s easy to see how crazy it sounds.
    Why would anyone agree to it?

  48. CameronB Brodie says:

    Sunniva
    The prevailing climate of fear generated by the political elite and reproduced by the corporate media, will do that to an unarmed population. One could almost see it as bloodless state terrorism, frankly.

  49. Lenny Hartley says:

    Proud Cybernat, think the problem is that “new Indy”‘is not a name that grabs your attention, Indy18 or whatever is possibily better but every body and their dog will still call it Indyref2. So instead of wasting time and resources on a rebranding exercise think they would be better spent on sorting out selection issues for the council elections for example.

  50. James Kay says:

    Sunniva
    The figure has fallen to 27%. The first column of numbers gives all those for and against location in Scotland. The other columns are for subsets of the whole group.
    Even if you disregard those who do not know, the figure of 27% rises only to 37%

  51. CameronB Brodie says:

    One could almost see it as bloodless state terrorism, frankly.

    One could almost see it as bloodless, corporatist-state terrorism, frankly.

  52. made not maid,jeezo.

  53. ronnie anderson says:

    Wingers of the younger persuasion will have ah treat in store with the new bbc Scotland channel 7 pm to 12 pm.

    The wee totty .

  54. CameronB Brodie says:

    Of course, it is only bloodless over here. Sorry, I forgot to represent the hundred of thousands of dead middle-eastern and Afghani civilians that point to the UK considering itself above international law.

    Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Jihadi warriors, mujahideen, in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention.[1] Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[1] Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah’s PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).[3]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

  55. CamernoB Brodie says:

    Oops, Pakistani civilians, as well.

  56. BBC Scotland Tells Lies says:

    Re: The BBCs plans for a new channel. It is supposed to start in the same month as IndyRef2,(Sept 2018).

    Why are they waiting until that date???

    Is it all part of the “VOW 2”?

    “Vote to stay in the UK and you get a big shiny new channel”.

    Utter nonsense, we should all tell the BBC where they can shove their new channel.

  57. Artyhetty says:

    Just before the 2014 independence referedum, chatting to a friend in the street, a guy he knew well, from way back in CND, came and said hello, he argued bitterly that we must vote no. But ‘what about Trident’ we said. I can’t quite remember but his response was along the lines of, we are stuck with it anyway, so vote no. He is in favour of independence now.

    Knew of a few no voters who seemed to actually ignore the fact that the britnats have some wmd’s parked a few miles away which could wipe out them, and much of Scotland. Wtf.

    Propaganda by omission of information is a great tactic, very successful. The facts have been buried. A bigger crime against Scotland there could hardly be, we are an occupied territory in that respect. Great job, take their oil, and dump nukes and subs on their land, win win. Ha ha ha, say the establishment in london, ha ha ha.

  58. CameronB Brodie says:

    Sorry for going on about this but the CIA apparently spent $630 million in 1987, on supporting radical Islamic ‘nationalists’, the origins of Al Qaeda, allegedly, yet western society will crumble with Scottish self-determination.

    I’ll say one thing for Yoons like that twat Robertson, they’re full of pish.

  59. Artyhetty says:

    Ok, said I already posted this comment, really?

    Just before the 2014 independence referedum, chatting to a friend in the street, a guy he knew well, from way back in CND, came and said hello, he argued bitterly that we must vote no. But ‘what about Trident’ we said. I can’t quite remember but his response was along the lines of, we are stuck with it anyway, so vote no. He is in favour of independence now.

    Knew of a few no voters who seemed to actually ignore the fact that the britnats have some wmd’s parked a few miles away which could wipe out them, and much of Scotland. Wtf.

    Propaganda by omission of information is a great tactic, very successful. The facts have been buried. A bigger crime against Scotland there could hardly be, we are an occupied territory in that respect. Great job, take their oil, and dump nukes and subs on their land, win win. Ha ha ha, say the establishment in london, ha ha ha.

  60. Artyhetty says:

    Grrr, that posted without me pressing submit, hmm.

  61. Artyhetty says:

    Kupo@4.48pm

    Well said, it is a huge concern, ignorance is bliss. Media and UKok gov are also great at keeping the plebs ignorant.

  62. ronnie anderson says:

    Bbc Scotland 6.30 news.

    Auld wummin ! am Scottish & british & dont watch Scottish television

    Manny ! aye if it brings in mair work .

    We just have to wonder what was the question they were asked.

  63. galamcennalath says:

    Suggestion that the Tories want to build two new nuclear power stations at Tories and Hunterston.

    That should help their chances in Ayrshire and Lothian for the council elections 🙂

  64. Liz Rannoch says:

    Been checking back some stuff on nukes/subs and I’m left wondering if something’s going on? Now, we all know that WM wants to hang on to it’s cash cow and would probably like to turn it into a toffs playground, but what if it’s also planning something else? Here comes the paranoid bit.

    On 10/7/13 the Guardian published an article on how WM is planning to turn the Faslane area into ‘the same status as the British sovereign military bases in Cyprus’. Then I found the Royal Navy article from 22/7/16, mentioned on the previous thread, about how impossible it would be to relocate.

    OK I know it’s not subs/nukes but please bear with me – The UK Defence Journal on 10/11/16 published a piece on how ‘RAF Lossiemouth will host the brand new facility designed to support the P-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft’ – £100 million! – where’s that money coming from? On 9/1/17 The Ferret wrote a piece on how the MoD are increasing the patrols around the wider Faslane area, creepy or.. what?

    Coming thick and fast now! Next it’s 2/2/17 and the UK Gov site announces that they are investing another £4 million in a single hub for ALL the subs. 10/2/17 – DnG24 announce that: ‘A SECONDARY school in Dumfries is to become the first in Scotland to forge links with the Army Cadet Force (ACF) as part of a new £50 million UK-wide initiative’.

    Not to be outdone the UK Defence Journal (again) on 15/2/17 inform us that USD 540 million is to be spent on new, super-duper, kill-more-quicker missiles. Why do I keep being reminded of those sci-fi films where the aliens ‘store’ humans for whatever they need them for?
    Am I being paranoid?

  65. Breeks says:

    Know what? I don’t care for Indyref2 as a title or motif.

    My vote is just keep it as YES.

    Everybody and his dog knows it’s our second Indyref. We don’t need the instructions, nor even a YES2. – YES was a fresh and popular icon, and was never toxic or discredited even in defeat, quite the reverse, and it was also an extremely versatile image, YES, AYE, Ja, Oui, etc..

    Next time around, KISS, keep it simple Scotland. Stick with YES. Let it fly as the colours we were so proud to support in 2014.

    We now “own” the word YES, the brand YES, and the YES franchise, so successful was our campaign.

    Yes, it’s true, being able to use 2014 car stickers and badges could hit fund raising, but it could also double the number of flags and badges we fly. We have YES and EU stars as newer Indyref motifs, but I don’t see any sense making 2014 iconography obsolete. Recycle it. Use it.

    YES was also telling us the truth in 2014, and to some extent it is an image we already trust.

  66. Clapper57 says:

    @ronnie anderson says:
    22 February, 2017 at 6:40 pm
    Bbc Scotland 6.30 news.

    “Auld wummin ! am Scottish & british & don’t watch Scottish television”

    Yes Ronnie, and I think they edited out her shouting…NO SURRENDER !!!!

    Mind you the other numpty they asked about new Scottish news Channel was also pathetic with his Scottish cringe stereo type suggestions for potential programmes….however the other guy was good saying he hoped it would bring more jobs for Scotland…..so one out of three positive….about right for Biased Broadcasting Corp.

  67. Meg merrilees says:

    Liz Rannoch

    It’s unusual when you see the regularity with which they are proposing/doing things in the area relevant to Submarines.

    Someone already suggested on Wings that we have to be careful in case they are preparing to mount a ‘land grab’.

    If the Sewel convention says that WM can legislate for the abnormal without our say, and defence is reserved then there is nothing to stop them legally going ahead and declaring Faslane as a critical part of the UK defence and under extraordinary legislation, who knows, maybe they can declare it as a piece of WM property within Scotland.

    Hope that isn’t the case!

    Mind you, maybe the subs will have to be taken out of service before then as they are so old and past it.

  68. Ian Foulds says:

    How many countries have such weapons? About 12 say?

    How are the rest of the World intending to defend themselves?

    What is the tactical point in having them?

  69. ian m says:

    AYE SCOTLAND

  70. Fred says:

    @ Dave McEwan Hill, just superb! 🙂

  71. Legerwood says:

    Clapper57 says:
    22 February, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    Actually I thought the man in the number, if that is the one you were referring to as demonstrating the Scottish cringe, was making a very pointed criticism of the kind of news stories that Reporting Scotland includes in its bulletins at the moment and just how inconsequential they are. In doing so he was also making the point that more of the same at 9 on the new channel would not be acceptable although likely given their current amateurish performance. In other words they would be unlikely to raise their game to meet the new circumstances and challenges.

    Or have I read more into it than was actually said?

  72. Clapper57 says:

    @ Legerwood 11.37pm

    “Or have I read more into it than was actually said”?

    Guess it’s all personal interpretation really.

    Not knowing him or his politics either of us could be right.

    Cheers

  73. sensibledave says:

    Ian Foulds 9:33 pm

    You wrote: How are the rest of the World intending to defend themselves? What is the tactical point in having them?

    Answers…

    1. By being allies with those that have them, for example NATO countries.

    2. Short Answer …. To let any potential attacker/invader know that if they were to try anything – then they will die in the process … thus removing any benefit in doing whatever they thought they might do.

    No one wants to hear the longer argument but, put simply, the countries that have Nuclear weapons have them for the same reason that almost all countries have armies, i.e. as a reason to stop others taking the p**s.

    Some country’s armies and battlefield and air-power weaponry means that they they “punch above their weight”. Israel is an example. They are a small country with a relatively small population and relatively large military capability. Whatever ones views are with respect to Israel, we know that anyone that messes with them militarily will be hurt in the process. Which is why people don’t mess with them. Leaders of governments also know and fear the capabilities of Mossad and the leaders of potential aggressors towards Israel know that they will be taken out by Mossad, sooner or later, if they instigate anything – which is another reason why they dont.

    In summary, in answer to your very simple and incredibly naive question, its all about deterrence. Its the reason why Russia, The USA, China, India, Pakistan have not directly picked a fight with each other – deterrence.

  74. Smallaxe says:

    To you:

    The Damned – 13th Floor Vendetta (Captain Sensible’s band)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znCpaXPfMhc

    LYRICS: In case you don’t like music (Punk)

    The organ plays til midnight on Maldine square tonight
    The dancers dance with a fever and delight
    His brow is tense but, his hands never shake
    Revenge has come sweetly
    And death is his mate
    The organ plays til midnight
    Note perfect like clockwork
    Perfect, precise and aSlave
    To the master’s demands
    Two souls locked together for all eternity
    Soon to be ONE our work is nearly over
    But who is the victim
    And who is the innocent
    The organ plays til midnight
    Note perfect like clockwork
    Perfect, precise and a Slave
    To the master’s demands

    Ps Maldine Square is where Dr Phibes resides



Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box. Include paragraph breaks or I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




↑ Top