The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

To punch above our weight

Posted on July 07, 2014 by

Earlier today we referred to a story from the Sunday Times, picked up by some of the tabloids this morning, about how Scotland manager Jock Stein tried to cancel a World Cup scouting trip to New Zealand in 1982 in a panic because he feared that Margaret Thatcher was about to start a nuclear war over the Falklands.


It seems remiss not to note a chilling passage from the original ST piece.

“It has emerged the fears may not have been so far-fetched. Shortly before his death in 2009, Sir Michael Quinlan, a former senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, told the BBC:

‘I recall an occasion after the Falklands War when [Thatcher] suggested to me she would have been prepared to consider nuclear weapons had the Falklands gone sour on her.’

In 2005 Ali Magoudi, a former medical adviser to François Mitterrand, claimed Thatcher had threatened to launch a nuclear strike on Buenos Aires if the French president had not handed over codes to disable Argentina’s French-made Exocet missiles.

Magoudi quoted his former employer as stating: ‘It’s a good job I gave way. Otherwise, I assure you, that the lady’s finger would have been on the button.'”

It’s worth keeping in mind when Scottish Labour politicians insist that the UK must retain an independent nuclear deterrent, don’t you think?

Print Friendly

    211 to “To punch above our weight”

    1. Andy-B says:

      Miliband and Cameron have stated how much they admired Thatcher, and I’m sure the same kind of superior attitude rings around the halls of Westminster, to this day. You just have to look at how quickly, the UK entered into Iraq and Afghanistan, so yes its not a giant leap of the imagination to say, Westminster could use deadlier force.

    2. Brotyboy says:

      Who knew she was mad?

      Me for one.

    3. David McCann says:

      As Jim Murphy would likely say, “Armageddon is for all time”, so better together!

    4. Illy says:

      The UK doesn’t have an independent nuclear detterrent.

      The UK pays for some of the USA’s missiles to float near here and lets them play at being big and important. They cannot fire them without Washington approval.

    5. heedtracker says:

      Psychopaths. It’s some thought though, the possiiblilty that teamGB might have incinerated major Argentinian cites and still may do so ofcourse. How would all the far right propagandists at the BBC present that Trumph of GB military might to us? And nukes like Trident made not the slightest dfference to the Junta.

      We are ruled by mamiacs, until 18th Sept 2014 when for one day, Scotland will be free of the whole lot of them.

    6. Morag says:

      My God. A rather bleak archipelago many thousands of miles away, literally on the other side of the world. Home to less than 3,000 people who could have been comfortably accommodated in England if that were their preference (and a damn sight more comfortably than the inhabitants of Diego Garcis were provided for).

      And that evil witch would consider wiping out a city full of ordinary people going about their innocent lives, and releasing yet more radioactive contamination to pollute the entire planet? Where is her grave, so that I may spit upon it.

    7. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      My info Stu, completely insubstantiated but contemporaneous, was that Buenos Aires, would have been the second bomb.

      The first was to be off BA in the sea as the warning.

      That I had from a naval officer who would have been the one to set of the nuclear depth charge.

      She fekin nuts and so is Osborne and may and Boris. Cameron is just a big girl’s blouse.

    8. Morag says:

      Diego Garcia, even….

    9. Bugger (the Panda) says:


      That is why she was cremated.

    10. Big Al says:

      She took milk away from children…..not really surprising

      Anyone who admires her is clearly foolish

    11. Alt Clut says:

      As so often – well done ‘Wings’ for getting this out there !

      We shouldn’t be surprised: after all we know that we can’t trust the judgement of the professional political class in Westminster on anything else from the economy to expenses to child abuse etc. etc. so why should the use of weapons of mass destruction be different ?

      Getting rid of the monstrous things from one small country isn’t near to being a full solution but it’s only oily swine like Jim Murphy et al that pretend that it wouldn’t be a significant step forward.

    12. Tony Little says:


      I am pretty sure you are wrong. What the USA could do would be to prevent access to its satellite guidance system, so a missile could be fired but would be less accurate. It makes the possibility even more scary.

    13. Hugh Wallace says:

      If ever there was an argument for getting rid of nukes…

    14. Dan Huil says:

      The uk thinks it has an independent deterrent. It gives the USA billions of pounds in return for a phallic symbol and a sweaty seat in the UN security council.
      Utter utter waste.
      If an independent Scotland joins NATO it will have the same “protection” at a fraction of the price.

    15. john j says:

      I’m sure that she would have been prepared to use nuclear weapons, but fortunately for the world the British nuclear deterrent is independent in name only. The yanks would have just said no.

    16. Illy says:

      No, her admirers don’t have to be foolish, just rich and short-sighted.

      I don’t think many here will be suprised when I say that I wouldn’t object to Trident if the UK could launch it at anyone. But they can’t, which is the problem. They can only use it with Washington’s approval, which means it’s an ineffective deterrent from anyone in Washington’s current good graces. (The USA even lists it as *theirs* on their own reports)

      My biggest worry at the moment is what would happen if the result comes back on the 19th that 60% of voters voted yes, on a 60% turnout, and Westminster decides not to count it as that’s only ~40% of the electorate.

    17. Dear Wings over Somerset,

      Being a ‘Scottish political media digest and monitor’, I was surprised to see that you hadn’t commented on the recent incident in which a man threatened to bomb a Better Together office. It may be, of course, that it simply slipped under your radar, in which case, these should get you up to speed:

      Any thoughts on why the indy cause seems to attract such nutters? (I’m thinking particularly about the ‘first against the wall after independence’ brigade?). An interesting topic for your next post, I’m sure you’ll agree.



    18. robert davidson says:

      The story was “similar” but a little different to above as I recall.
      I do know Argies well fully aware of difference between Sea King and Apache helicopters and what would happen if a MiG took out a certain RNAS Culdrose graduate.

    19. Bugger (the Panda) says:


      At that stage they had nuclear bombs, to be dropped by the RAF, and nuclear depth charges.

      Why do you think they recovered somethings from HMS Sheffield from the sea bottom, before the Russians or anybody else could?

      They hired a rig from the USA which could lift the entire ship up and out.

    20. Illy says:

      @Tony Little:

      Without it’s guidence system it wouldn’t be able to guide itself at all, so it would follow a ballistic path from it’s launch site. As far as I’m aware Trident launches vertically, so it would either make escape velocity and dissapear into the solar system somewhere, or it would fall back to earth somewhere near its launch site, exact location probably more dependent on the prevailing wind than anything else.

      Either way, it’s not exactly useful for its stated purpose. So for all intents and purposes, the USA has total control over Trident, as I doubt that the UK government would us the warheads for suitcase bombs, which is the only way they can get them on target without the USA’s approval.

    21. Geoff Huijer says:

      And we still live with Thatcher’s legacy.

      Vote No – it’s what she would’ve wanted.

      No doubt Charlie (above) is a fan…

    22. mary vasey says:

      Politicians huh, many of them are psychopaths, which is what I learned studying psychology many moons ago and why they do not care what they do as they have no conscience to bother them. Way past time we ditched those westminster and no camp bullies.

    23. Pam McMahon says:

      It is not an independent nuclear deterrent, it is a US nuclear base in Scotland which, far from deterring anybody, is now just a target.

    24. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      Dear CharlieMurphy

      If you have any information about the alleged bomb threats I think you should inform the Police as soon as possible.

      That is what I would do.

      It was you you who did it was it?

      Just like the pyromaniac, who hangs about after setting the fire, to see the building burn down and the Fore Brigade try to save it.

      Charlie, grown up.

    25. Dan Huil says:

      Dear Mings for the union,

      Maybe he was the one Ian Davidson and the British nationalists never managed to bayonet.

    26. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      Illy et al

      What do think the Vulcan bombers, rushed back into service were designed to carry?

      These bombs were out of the control of the US and evidently so was Thatcher.

    27. heedtracker says:

      The fact is that the one people or country being threatened by GB nukes is Scotland and her people. Vote yes and you’re not only going to be invaded without Trident protection but you WILL lose 19 thousand Faslane jobs says Ian Davidson MP.

      And Its same project fear stuff with no RN ship work after independence so you will close what’s left of your shipyards. Threatened by your own military probably isn’t that unique though for a lot of people though. This moron says

    28. Hi Geoff,

      I’m flattered by your interest, but for the record I’m no ‘big fan’ of Mrs T. In fact, I’ve never voted Tory and never will. But, in the interest of fairness, I’ll give you another shot: can you guess my star sign?



    29. Illy says:


      If you’re talking about during the Falklands situation, fair enough, I wasn’t talking about that. Today nuclear explosives tend to be deployed on long-distance, automated platforms (cruise missiles, ICBMs, or drones)

      Nuclear explosives are currently the most efficient explosives we have at the larger end of the scale, and nuclear ammunition is currently some of the most efficient armour-piercing rounds available (Look up “depleted” uranium ammunition for some scarey reading).

      Trident is a revenge-strike deterrent, in that it’s a threat that relies on the UK’s ability to launch it *after* the UK has been wiped off the map. If it can’t go more than a few hundred kilometers without someone else’s say-so, then it’s pretty pointless if we can’t get their say-so.

      I don’t think the UK would use nuclear explosives in a first-strike capacity against any of the current “threats” they’re ranting about, they’re all too close to Israel, who seems to be the only country in the middle-east we’re *not* at war with.

    30. Geoff Huijer says:


      Don’t be flattered.

      Is your star sign ‘turnip’?

    31. Illy says:

      For a good use for nuclear bombs, take a look here:

    32. Peter Macbeastie says:

      I think, whether or not she could have done it or not, that Thatcher would have tried is hardly in doubt.

      As for Charlie there, first rule, which you would know if you were here for any length of time, is you can’t automatically believe everything you read in the press, or see on the BBC, because they all routinely print whatever they feel like.

      Plus the more cynical amongst us have long been wondering when the ‘lone nutter’ would come out of the woodwork apparently ‘in support’ of the Yes campaign.

    33. Pin says:

      Did somebody tell him New Zealand isn’t in Argentina?

    34. Hugh Wallace says:


      Sorry, but you are completely wrong in this. UK submarine commanders have the ability to launch on their own authority if communication is lost with London in the event of a nuclear war. The submarine has onboard all the technological wizardry required to launch a viable weapon. Neither the sub or the missiles rely on GPS navigation but use an internal inertial navigation system that is perfectly accurate enough to deliver a missile on target (no such thing as a near miss with a nuke). If GPS is used it is purely as a back up and double check. The missiles do not simply fire straight up and keep going and they don’t have the ability to reach escape velocity in any case.

      All this stuff is unclassified and in the public domain but I am ex-forces, an ex-seafarer and engineer and my best pal from school is a nuclear submariner on one of the ‘bombers’ so I am pretty well clued up on how this stuff works.

    35. Illy says:

      Does the UK currently have any bomber aircraft equipped with nuclear explosives? Or any nuclear explosive warheads anywhere except for use with Trident?

      I’m not going to argue about whether Thatcher could have nuked Argentina, people with more knowledge of that time are saying that she could have done that without America’s approval, and if we were using nuclear bombs on aircraft at the time, I believe them.

      I am curious though, if we use nuclear explosives anywhere in the military other than Trident *today*.

    36. joe kane says:

      It just shows how quickly the British milk can turn sour.

      The British Establishment had such great relations with military fascist junta leaders of South America up until the Falklands War. It enjoyed good relations with such mass-murderers as Pinochet and the antisemitic Galtieri.

      The British Government was on the cusp of withdrawing the British citizenship of the Falkland islanders too before the barmy, out-of-touch, tinpot fascists in Buenos Airies decided to invade.

    37. Fiona says:

      @ Illy

      Do you genuinely want to be able to launch a revenge attack after the UK was wiped off the map? I don’t. I can’t see the point in that at all

    38. Jim Mitchell says:

      Dear Mr Murphy

      Re your post,this ‘outrage’ not only did not come as a surprise to some of us oldies,except in the sense that he took so long to arrive on the scene.

      If you check back through various election campaigns you will find that it is nothing new for someone to pop up from that same organisation with the same kind of threat,usually in a manner that could only be of use to the unionist side!

      I don’t know if this is why the Rev left it alone but it realy is nothing new, btw, by coincidence I had just popped a letter into my local paper,,on the theme of honesty and competence with regard to unionist governments, It has never been my attention to use this site for personal debate but with the Rev’s permission perhaps you could give us a few comments on the views I have expressed.

      Dear Sir

      As Scotland gets around to making up it’s collective mind regarding it’s decision in Septembers referendum the one thing that everyone can be agreed on is that there is much to be considered, perhaps we should concentrate upon the basics, such as what is the least that any people should have a right to expect from any government system and those who are in charge of it?

      By using this method we can reduce the relevant factors down to honesty and competence.

      So how does the British governmental system stand when it comes to the first?

      Well we can consider the hiding of the McCrone report for starters and also the recent revelation that a second report by Professor McCrone was also hidden, the one that said an oil fund should be set up, with special consideration being given to Scotland!

      We can also add the admission by several ex cabinet ministers of the time that the value of North Sea oil was deliberately downplayed to lessen interest in it. then of course we were all assured that the oil would all be used up before the turn of the centaury, we have also recently learned that when Oil companies expressed interest in looking for oil off the West coast, near the Arran, that the MOD quickly quashed the idea for fear that platforms would interfere with the transit of submarines in and out of

      There was also the notorious first referendum, when anyone on the electoral register who couldn’t vote was counted as a no vote, it also had the 40% rule, we were also told that a yes vote would be bad for Scottish industry, particularly things like Ravenscraig and our Coal industry, which we lost after the failure of a yes vote anyway!

      We have also gone to war in Iraq, although many of the public throughout Britain marched against it, an illegal war too, or at least that’s what the government of the day’s own law officers considered it to be and then we went looking for weapons of mass destruction that we had been told about, only to find that they didn’t exist.

      Other honesty issues range from the MPs expenses scandal to current news, rumours and speculation regarding issues allegedly concerning some recent Westminster mps,
      which we have to hope prove unfounded.

      I think that on the evidence presented that Westminster has clearly failed us on the honesty front, as for competence, well we are still feeling the impact of what is just the latest financial crisis to hit the British economy and which nearly wiped it out entirely, we are told that it wasn’t their fault, just that those in charge didn’t see it coming! We will also live with the fall out for some time to come.

      We have had recessions, depressions, reductions in the value of the pound, Black Wednesday, the sale of Britain’s gold reserves, Gordon Brown claiming to have ended boom and bust and his destruction of many pension schemes, both whilst chancellor, the list here is endless ranging as it does from ministry of defence procurement policy to the loss of data by officials, as with honesty, the Westminster style of government has failed.

      It would be wrong of course not to present at least some type of comparisons representative of the side which wishes to present a new style of government for Scotland, but who’s view could be put forth as unbiased, how about that of the Scottish people?

      Because of devolution, aspects of government are, as we know, administered from Holyrood, by, what has become to be known as the Scottish Government, so how is it rated by the people, well as opinion polls show although having been in control for something like seven years, the present governments rating is still nearly as high as when they first took office, by now at British level it is normal for a government to be hit with some form if disillusionment in their ratings, what is particularly interesting is that those members of the public responding to the Holyrood polls cannot possibly be all SNP voters!

      I trust that this will help simplify things, there were of course many other examples which I could have included and am more than willing to list if anyone cares to ask.


      Jim Mitchell

    39. heedtracker says:

      Launching a 1982 nuke strike if Falklands had gone sour on St Thatch is one thing but if there’s second Falklands war, would it be any different. A few $10-$100 million missiles sinking the new jet free $10 billion aircraft carriers and those new Clyde built destroyers in minutes? Future PM Bojo/deputy PM Farage, hit their Trident launch button, to save ukok face.

    40. Bugger (the Panda) says:


      They probably still have nuclear depth charges.

    41. Oh my, thanks for the replies; I’ll have to hire a secretary at this rate!

      Bugger (the Panda): first rate parody of the nationalist tinfoil tendency. Well done. I particularly appreciate the way in which you have employed the age-old schoolyard principle of ‘whoever smelt it dealt it’. Have a nice day!

      Dan Huil: Another first rate effort. Out of interest, by ‘Mings for the Union’, are you referring to that doddery old Lib Dem? Many thanks.

      Geoff Huijer: Got it in one! Another rib-tickler. Keep in touch! xxx

    42. galamcennalath says:

      I believe international law makes it illegal to deploy intercontinental missiles anywhere but your own soil, or in international waters.

      Hope I’m right in saying that because I see that it has two consequences.

      Firstly, Trident could not be kept in an independent Scotland.

      Secondly, by declaring the US missiles and submarines held by the UK as actually belonging to the UK, they can be based in the UK. Thus the law is sidestepped. The warheads, I believe, are actually UK.

    43. joe kane says:

      So having an independent nuclear deterrent didn’t actually deter the loonies in Buenos Aires or Baghdad from threatening Britain’s strategic interests.

    44. Illy says:


      I don’t know of any country with the *ability* to launch a nuclear revenge strike that has been invaded. So nuclear deterents appear to work. (as evidenced by the different reactions to Iraq and North Korea)

      I obviously don’t want it to ever have to be used, as (and I’ll quote for this one) “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth system leaves everyone blind and toothless”

      This is one of those things that I wish wasn’t true, but appears that the evidence says that it is true. There are a lot of those in the world.

    45. chalks says:

      Anyone that admires Thatcher has no place in the world.

    46. Illy says:

      “Firstly, Trident could not be kept in an independent Scotland.”

      Yes it can, we claim it as Scottish if it’s still in Scottish territory on independence day, same as any other UK government property they choose to leave behind for us.

      I don’t see the issue with this.

      (“International Law” doesn’t actually exist btw, its just a set of treaties that the bigger countries have agreed on, and bullied the smaller countries to accept. According to Westminster, we won’t be signed up to any of them when we go independent, so the “International Law” that says we can’t have any nukes won’t apply to us, as we won’t have signed up to the treaties)

    47. Hugh Wallace says:


      I don’t know who you are or where you are getting your information from but your knowledge of nuclear weapons systems is completely off. You clearly don’t understand GPS technology or how it is used either. Depleted uranium munitions are NOT nuclear weapons (in that they do not cause a nuclear ‘explosion’ – even that is a gross oversimplification of what actually happens). Nukes are NOT efficient because the political fallout is almost worse than the radiological. Nukes are NOT deployed on drones by anyone (a ‘drone’ large enough to carry such a weapon is too big to be a drone and no country is mad enough to allow an unmanned vehicle to wander the skies armed with WMDs – far to easy for its control systems to be hacked or for it simply to crash in a remote area). I don’t know where you get your ideas from, but please stop believing them because you are being filled up with a load of nonsense.

      As to whether or not the UK would use its nukes now; I agree, probably not (due to that political fallout I mentioned) and the role of Trident is definitely as a deterrent rather than to be used in reality. But the UK has scores of other nuclear weapons – most stored at Machrihanish in Scotland – which can be dropped by plane, fired from cannons or delivered by ship, and these are very much the UK’s, not the US’s on loan.

    48. heedtracker says:

      Illy says:
      7 July, 2014 at 4:07 pm

      I don’t know of any country with the *ability* to launch a nuclear revenge strike that has been invaded

      GB nukes didn’t stop the Falklands war nor did they stop the attacks on the World Trade centre.

    49. Fiona says:

      @ Illy

      Maybe it deters. Maybe throwing train tickets out of the window keeps elephants off the line as well.

      The only people doing much invading these days seem to be the nuclear powers: so it seems to me it encourages invasions rather than deterring them. People who believe they can win wars in short time scales and at little cost are dangerous bastards: they always have been and they always will be.

      You honestly believe that anyone is going to invade America if it gets rid of its nuclear weapons? I don’t think so

    50. Sinky says:


      Falklands was not about the 3000 residents it was all about the oil and territorial rights.

    51. Andy-B says:

      As someone has already mentioned, at present the only people, under threat from the WMD’s and nuclear subs at Faslane are Scots, due to radio-active pollution, and theres nothing SEPA can do about it. God only knows what state Cape Wraths in, is it an overstatement to say it could be Scotland’s Chernobyl,maybe just a wee bit, or so I hope.

    52. Morag says:

      I’ve had a look at the report on that “bomb threat” incident, and the amount of detail is very scanty. Some unidentified man walked into the office and threatened to firebomb it, then walked out again, unapprehended. That’s it.

      Whom does this story benefit? One obvious answer, and it’s not the Yes campaign. Get real.

      Let’s assume it actually happened. We have no idea who the man was. If he was a Yes supporter he was a lone nutter. The union has its lone nutters who support it too. I wonder what unionism does to attract such people? Or hey, maybe it’s just that lone nutters are unpredictable people who can attach themselves to any side.

      However, we don’t know if it was a Yes supporter. As the story damages Yes, at least potentially, what’s so wrong about asking, was this an actual attempt to damage Yes? It’s a low-risk strategy. Maybe the staff knew it was going to happen and knew not to try to apprehend the man. Maybe it was a complete surprise and they were just too shocked to try to detain him till the police arrived. Whichever it was, there dosn’t seem to be CCTV footage, or even a description, so I doubt the person will ever be apprehended.

      It’s absolutely true that many Yes supporters have been expecting a faked-up incident of a threat of vandalsim or real vandalism against Better Together for a while. And hey, what have we here?

      But really, the story is so light on facts that one wonders what there is to discuss.

      Nice attempt at deflection from the real story though, 10/10 for trying.

    53. Conan_the_Librarian says:

      @ Charlie Murphy

      Well done, you are so smart, and brave too! I’m sure your local Labour branch committee will all have a nice giggle with you at discomfiting the evil cybernats in their lair.

      And such a way! All independence supporters are crazy because one person be he mentally ill, taking the piss, false flag or imaginary threatened to “burn them out”.

      You should go far in the Labour Party, Charlie; at least as far a Kathy Wiles…

    54. Dan Huil says:

      From BloombergBusinessweek 27/7/12

      “Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT:US) and Babcock International Group Plc (BAB) will take over support activities involving the U.K.’s Vanguard submarine-based nuclear deterrent under a contract signed today.

      The U.K. Ministry of Defence finalized a 15-year agreement with the ABL Alliance for support of the Trident weapon system at the Royal Naval Armament Depot in Coulport and the Strategic Weapon Support Building at Faslane, the defense ministry said in a statement. The contract is valued at 150 million pounds ($236 million) over its duration, a defense ministry spokesman said.

      AWE Plc, based in Reading, England, will act as the prime contractor. The company, owned equally by Lockheed Martin, Serco Group Plc (SRP), and Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (JEC:US), also runs the U.K. Atomic Weapons Establishment under a government-owned contractor-operated arrangement.”

      Anyone know the people behind these companies [and their ultimate allegiances]?

    55. Andy-B says:

      Get a load of these dinner plates, the first 3 would put me right off my tea, imagine cutting your steak pie in half and seeing old misery face Lamont keeching back up at you, yuk!.

    56. Tartan Tory says:

      Dear CharlieMurphy

      An alleged incident where someone apparently walks into an office in Cumbernauld and tells them that they are going to fire-bomb them, then casually walks off and is never seen or heard of again…..

      “It was the big boys that dun it mister, then they ran away….”

      Doubtless you have jumped to several conclusions, not least of which would be that someone typical of the Yes camp will be the alleged perpetrator of this viscous crime which warrants media headlines across the country.

      Allow me to draw your attention to something sir. NOTHING in the media has any proof or substance to it whatsoever and NOTHING in the (BBC) report I read as your first link even suggests a political motive.

      However, you have come on here with the three presumptions:

      Firstly, that the event actually took place (it’s in the media so it must be true).

      Secondly, that if such an event did occur, that it must be the sole preserve of a Yes cyberNat typical of a wings poster.

      Finally, you have chosen to come here to suggest that Wings hasn’t brought this up as a headline piece as if it is in some way hiding the truth.

      All these assumptions are totally incorrect.

      If an incident actually did occur, I’m sure the police could have found the suspect by now with all the CCTV that we have these days. Perhaps a jilted teenage boyfriend walked in there and told his estranged girlfriend that he would torch her office without any political motive whatsoever?

      Edit: I’ve just read the other two articles and note that the Daily Record has asserted that the man was from the SNLA. Interesting that the other two media organisations haven’t printed this. I mean, it’s not like the Daily Record to present mis-information, or to sensationalise something that is a complete fabrication, is it?

      Welcome to ‘Wings’ by the way. Perhaps you could spend some time reading about what it actually happening, instead of presenting stuff which ‘might’ have happened and which is of little consequence in the bigger picture. If you were simply looking for a load of abuse then I suggest you try FaceBook or Twitter. 😉

    57. Roll_On_2014 says:

      Well Stu that certainly puts the current UK’s myth of ‘DEFENCE’ in the bin.

    58. geeo says:

      “I’ll give you another shot: can you guess my star sign?

      Dear charlie,
      want another shot at spelling your name ??

      Anyhoo, IF there was someone who ACTUALLY did give this threat, and i only say that due to previous lies and mis-represented stories like ‘lallygate’, then there are 2 things i will say about this alleged incident.

      1. ALL incidents of abuse either physical or verbal or otherwise are to be totally and unequivically condemned.
      I like to think i speak for everyone on wings saying that

      2. It is interesting how you link this incident to Yes supporters when in fact, this group mentioned have previously issued DEATH threats against A. Salmond, leader of the SNP and current 1st Minister.

      Did the police ever issue a description ?
      Did he have white hair, black eyebrows and blinky eyes by any chance ?

    59. Dcanmore says:

      Britain had a tactical nuclear deterrant capability which would have been delivered by bombers. Aircraft designated for this role were the V-bombers, Canberra, Jaguar and Buccaneer (Nimrod had nuclear depth charge variant). The device was WE.177 and was the last nuclear bomb in the RAF inventory, it was retired in 1998.

      Since then all of Britain’s nuclear warheads are located on the submarines. So back in 1982 it was quite feasible for the UK to have nuked Buenos Aires using tactical bombers despite the obvious lunacy of that decision.

    60. Findlay Farquaharson says:

      Thatcher would have needed American permission to unleash the nukes. nuke the bastards strategy would likely not have been approved by America.
      Tommy Sheridan in Alloa toon hall this evening.

    61. Dcanmore says:

      The only reason nuclear weapons exist today, in the West at least, is because it’s from an industry with very powerful connections in politics. I believe the military complex is the biggest employer outside of govenment in the United States with $700bn being spent on it every year. The nuclear component would a sizeable chunck of that expenditure. The British Government is keeping Americans employed by ordering new Trident missles, warheads, systems and logistics while the British payoff is constructing, manning and upkeep of the submarines. Basically a very expensive government sponsored employment scheme where mostly the Americans win out. Special relationship me thinks.

    62. Bugger (the Panda) says:


      You would think that by now slab would have tried to up their game and recruit people of a calibre greater that Jola, JaBa and Ian (I walked the killing fields) Gray but, true to form, they seem wedded to idea that they mustn’t be anything outstanding like have a modicum of dynamism, intelligence and nous.

      Must be an equal opportunity employer thing; nothing to challenge the average IQ.

      Jeez if a dumb blond, not that there is one but, left the SNP and joined slab, he or she would raise the average IQ of both parties.

    63. Sinky says:

      Gavin Hewitt from Scotch Whisky Association is on Channel 4 Dispatches to-night claiming he was “bullied” into staying silent on the referendum debate.

      The Scotch Whisky Association lost all credibility when they opposed alcohol minimum unit pricing by using the courts to prevent the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament, not because it damaged whisky sales as whisky is sold above the minimum unit price but because it affected the cheap vodka that the largest multi national drinks corporations also make.

    64. heedtracker says:

      @ Dcanmore, the did send Vulcan bombers too. They were a bit odd though with fuselage holes having to be patched with aluminium kettles. RAF air strikes with nukes was just one more option.

    65. Kenny Campbell says:

      Only the V-Bombers had the range and ever then it took a super human effort. Any delivery would have been by Navy not the airforce. There were only Harriers on station from the carriers.

    66. biggpolmont says:

      nuclear missles controlled by Westminster (Whatevever political colour) Thatcher or Cameron blue or Blair pink
      Doesn’t bear thinking about
      talk about guided by the misguided

    67. Mosstrooper says:

      There is plenty of doubt about whether a YES person may or may not have issued a bombing threat.

      There is no doubt that it was a NO voting OO person who glassed a wee lassie.

    68. Capella says:

      The mad firebomber will have been CCTVd umpteen times in Cumbernauld Shopping Centre where the office was situated. The average person is photographed 200 times a day in the UK. So the police will have no trouble in tracking him down. Like the abuse aimed at JK Rowling, we can assume that if the culprit is a YES supporter the fact will be front page news. If we hear nothing more about (as in JK Rowling incident) it then it’s probably a false flag operation.

    69. jon esquierdo says:

      illy The Tornado flown by Britain ,Germany and Italy have a nuclear delivery capability The last two countries have free fall nuclear bombs on their soil

    70. No no no...Yes says:

      O/T but radioactive

      Here is another example of the Union dividend:

      I wonder what the local MP Crash Gordon is going to say about the radioactive matter?

    71. biggpolmont says:

      sinky why do you think he is doing it?
      discredit Yes… folk vote no…. snp lose next election…
      no minimum price…. bigger profits for the Scotch Whisky industry or is it my twisted mind?

    72. Illy says:

      On efficiency, I was talking purely in physical terms: size of explosion to mass required to create it. Nukes are the most efficient there as they’re a nuclear reaction, rather than a chemical one.

      If you’re talking in political terms, depleted uranium rounds cause all the same problems, as they cause all the same radiological problems. They’re the waste product from nuclear reactors, fitted into bullets. They’re only called “depleted” as they’re not radioactive enough to be worth keeping in the reactor, not that they’re no longer radioactive.

      I was unaware that the UK maintained a supply of traditional weapons equipped with nuclear warheads. They don’t get much attention compared to Trident these days.

    73. Illy says:

      “You honestly believe that anyone is going to invade America if it gets rid of its nuclear weapons? I don’t think so”

      No, but I think Iraq might not have been invaded if it hd actually had wat America claimed it had.

    74. Luigi says:

      Whatever Thatcher’s evil intentions were, I do not believe that the USA and the USSR would have allowed her to start WW3. Even at the height of the cold war, they were not that daft.

    75. Illy says:

      (Aplologies for spelling in my last post)

    76. galamcennalath says:

      Nuclear weapons deter. Does anyone honestly think the Soviet Union would have continued to exist it it hadn’t been nuclear armed?

    77. msean says:

      Surely Maggie would have been stopped from nuking anybody by the USA or somebody not mad in Whitehall?

    78. heedtracker says:

      @ Luigi, if Thatcher had nuked Argentina, why would that have started WW3?

    79. DRD Woodward says:

      Not sure that I accept this article as factually correct. I accept Thatcher might have been du-lally enough to use nukes, but I’m not sure of the claim that Exocets had disabling codes. If they did I still don’t see how this would have help the British forces.
      Given the year 1982 the technology was light years from what we have now in terms of systems control . That was in the era where the most powerful computing power was a digital watch. If the Argentinians had disable codes , presumably to disable a missile after launch , surely those codes would be on an individual missile basis and presumably transmitted on an encrypted channel to the missile. How would having a list of the codes help. You would need to know which individual missile it was that was inbound, know the transmission frequency and the the code. I cant see the French developing such an advance missile with a single common disable code. That would make the system to vulnerable. … I don’t know … maybe someone has more info on this , but I’m not convinced that the story is accurate!

    80. Capella says:

      @ sinky 4.43
      Lallands peat Worrier has a good post on this.

    81. Bugger (the Panda) says:


      name one

    82. Dcanmore says:

      @Kenny Campbell …

      I didn’t realise at first but the Sea Harriers were nuclear capable with WE.177 as well. They replaced the nuclear delivery of the Buccaneer, F4 Phantom and Sea Vixen in the Royal Navy.

    83. galamcennalath says:

      DRD Woodward says:
      Not sure that I accept this article as factually correct.

      I always thought that Argentina only had a few Exocets and France agreed to ensure they obtained no more. Information provided also allowed the UK to buy up all other Exocets which were in third party hands. Whether threats of nuking we’re involved, I couldn’t even hazard a guess.

    84. Dcanmore says:

      A very interesting article from the Imperial War Museum …

      “The WE 177 was a versatile weapon, capable of operating in a strategic and tactical role, and the first WE 177 (the thermonuclear Type B) was delivered to RAF Cottesmore in 1966. A single stage version (Type A) was delivered to the Royal Navy in 1972, Over the following years, a remarkable range of RAF aircraft was fitted to carry the weapon, including the Vulcan, Jaguar and Tornado, and in the Naval role, the Sea King, Scimitar, Buccaneer and Sea harrier. The submarine-launched Trident missile system is now Britain’s sole nuclear weapon.
      History note

      The WE 177 bomb was Britain’s last air-dropped, free-fall, nuclear weapon, and was withdrawn from use on 31 March 1998, having been in service for some 32 years. The last WE 177 warhead was dismantled in August 1998, and so for the first time in 45 years, the RAF no longer had a nuclear capability.”

    85. Hugh Wallace says:


      I see where you are coming from on ‘efficiency’ but hyperbaric bombs could be classed in the same category. But in ‘bangs for bucks’ league, nukes are monstrously expensive for their output and our armed forces as so good at delivering high numbers of warhead on target now that there is no tactical advantage in nuke weapons these days. At least, not against the ‘enemies’ the UK regularly ends up fighting against.

      The radiological residue left over from depleted uranium rounds is a different order of magnitude (and chemical composition) than produced by nuclear detonations, so while they are definitely a Bad Thing for (living) people’s health and the environment, they are not in the same ball-park as WMDs and to equate the two is wrong. A bit like apples and oranges both being fruit and leaving sticky juice behind if squeezed too hard. And I will go back to saying, you don’t know very much about what you are talking about so you really should desist on this subject. The reason that depleted uranium is not highly radioactive is not because they have been out of a reactor for a while and have cooled down. They are chemically different at an atomic level. Even a thorough reading of wikipedia on top of Higher chemistry should have told you that.

      The whole deterrence thing is about stopping nuclear armed nations, such as the Soviet Union and China, invading the west, not about stopping Iraq invading Kuwait or Argentina invading the Falklands. Quite, quite different objectives for different scenarios. But you are right that Iraq probably wouldn’t have been invaded by the US if it had nukes to hand but Israel has long ensured that they didn’t.

    86. Conan_the_Librarian : Thanks for the reply. I’ve learned a lot about myself whilst commenting on this thread. Specifically, that I’m a Thatcherite Labour party insider named Ming, born under the sign of the turnip. Heavens!

      The rest: thanks for the laugh. I make that 4 posters in the last couple of hours that have suggested the bomb threat was a unionist plot … just mad, mad stuff. I expect David Icke will be declaring his support for indy any day now! 😀

    87. Les Wilson says:

      Westminster to The white House.

      “Mr President, as you now will know there has just been a nuclear attack on Faslane in Scotland, do we have permission to use our Nuclear weapons once the culprit is known?”
      “We already know, said the President, it was Russia!

      “oh shit!” exclaims Westminster, “what do we now then Mr President?”
      Is there any damage to your side? asks the President. ” No Sir but many thousands of Scots are dead and dying”

      “Well,if you fire back we are all in a global Nuclear War with Russia, with a potential of millions dying. If I talk to the Russians, and make them see sense, maybe we can stop the escalation here.
      Unfortunately in that case only the Scots will have been hit, London and New York will remain intact.” I hear where you are coming from Mr President, please speak to the Russian and get back to me as soon as the plan is working for us”

      White House calling Westminster –

      “The President here, I am happy to tell you that the Russians, having seen the devastation in Scotland, do not want the same on their cities just like I do not want New York, or you London, blown to bits” So the answer to your initial question, is no, you do not have permission to retaliate, which would be suicidal for everyone.”

      Totally agree Mr President, the Scots have suffered, but it is for the greater good, right Sir? ” “Right, yes of course, a small price to pay” exclaimed the President. “Totally agree with you Mr President, I can sleep at night now, knowing all is well!

      Goodnight Mr President, and thank you! “Anytime Westminster!” As he was putting the phone down, the President heard the chink of glasses together, and smiled”

    88. Harry McAye says:

      O/T Was in Burnbank earlier this afternoon, timing picking up a prescription to coincide with Jim Murphy’s soapbox visit. What a farce it turned out to be. Literally a handful of folk, outside of his entourage and the other Yes supporters who turned up (about a dozen). He talks some amount of pish. We’d be turning our backs on needy countries, that one was churned out again. Usual rhetoric, nothing of substance, slag the SNP, I’m a proud Scot and boy, did he not like the heckling, some of it coming from the aforementioned handful of “ordinary” folk.

      I had to leave early as I look after my Dad and had been away longer than I intended, and because I had heckled him quite vociferously he turned on me as I walked away. He cannot take it.

      Shouldn’t he be in Westminster anyway or is this coming off his holiday entitlement?

    89. Robert Graham says:

      dear charlie f/off ok its that simple just like you now go away ok

    90. CalumCarr says:


      Unsurprising but shameful editorial in the Telegraph.

      The last six lines are:

      ‘it is that the Yes campaign’s approach reinforces a growing sense that the nation of Alex Salmond’s dreams is not positive and outward-looking, but insular and small-minded; that his campaign is based ultimately not on love of Scotland but hatred of England. The Union is good for business, good for Scotland and good for Britain. There should be no shame – or fear – in saying so.

    91. heedtracker says:

      @ CharlieMurphy I expect David Icke will be declaring his support for indy any day now!

      Does anyone know if Icke is a unionist? Its nice that UKOK bettertogether types just assume he is:D

    92. heedtracker says:

      @ CalumCarr Telegraph says ” Union is good for business, good for Scotland and good for Britain.” If these creeps only had the balls, they’d say out loud, Scottish independence will diminish England and do the exact opposite for Scotland.

      If only the ukok propaganda machine could be honest with itself for just one moment.

      Rule Britannia from Lands End to Carlisle. Vote Yes.

    93. Jamie Arriere says:

      Er. Um. Eh? Whit?

      Does this mean we should be nicer to him? Is it real?

    94. Liquid Lenny says:

      DRD Woodward

      I think that the excocets were probably disarmed on the ground using the codes. “We” had all sorts of unsavoury characters at Puntas arenas and perhaps the Argentine military were not very good at protecting the airstrip.

      It is now public knowledge that the UK had special forces operating in Argentina, they tried to say that the chopper crashed in Chile onroute, however I heard that it dropped its payload off before being destroyed. (Friend of a Friends, Friend sort of third hand)
      It would be interesting to see what percentage of Exocet attacks were successful after the chopper went down in Chile.

      As for the Vulcans, they struggled to get there and back and they had to fly several Victor tankers which topped up each other until the last one was supplying the Vulcan.
      Very close run thing, all for one bomb on the Runway,

      According to my calculators about the same mileage to BA from Accension than Stanley.

      To add to the current Nuke debate, I understood that they had nuclear warhead capability on the Nuclear Hunter killer subs.

    95. Luigi says:

      @ Luigi, if Thatcher had nuked Argentina, why would that have started WW3?

      Unintended consequences – many people are of the opinion that with one launch, that’s it, one thing leads to another. End result – death of the planet. The only reason it didn’t in 1945 was that only the USA had a nuclear aresnal (two bombs in total, both of which were dropped).

    96. Les Wilson says:

      If you want an idea of what would happen to your town or Faslane from a nuclear strike, you will need to have google earth and a plug in, but instructions here

    97. Paula Rose says:

      Charlie darling, I’m concerned about your development, did it take an age for you to put that comment together?

    98. Red Squirrel says:

      I wouldn’t trust them with a wind up submarine bath toy. Trident can’t leave soon enough – if rUK play any more games they can pack up their toys on Sept 19th.

    99. Jim Mitchell says:

      I see that Charlie is a typical unionist,makes points that he thinks is clever, but never answers question!

      I wonder if he’s David Cameron in disguise!

    100. Robert Peffers says:

      @ Illy says: 7 July, 2014 at 4:07 pm@

      “I don’t know of any country with the *ability* to launch a nuclear revenge strike that has been invaded”.

      So, Illy, you haven’t heard of the attacks upon the Twin Towers and the Pentagon? How on earth did they manage to attack the USA installations without invading USA territory?

      Then again how did the IRA manage to make so many attacks upon the United Kingdom without invading UK territory?

    101. Les Wilson says:

      These would be perfect for securing our oil rigs, meet the “Ghost”

    102. CameronB Brodie says:

      I’m not surprised really, as this was the woman who armed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, then sent the SAS over to train them in insurgency techniques. Charming.

      Re. nuking Argentina. I know old cowboy Ron owed here a few favours, but I’m not sure if his advisers would have been up for him giving Thatcher the necessary targeting data. Then again….where there is a will the is often a way.

    103. heedtracker says:

      Unintended consequences – is a bit thin luigi but the picture of a ferocious teamGB maniac like Thatcher straddling a nuclear bomb dropped from a Vulcan is actually a very easy to conjure, with her shrieking “stick it up yer Junta.” Plus her Westminster palace looks like one more peado ring to boot. Will Scotland ever be rid of them though.

    104. Conan_the_Librarian says:

      @ Charlie Murphy

      You’re welcome. I hope you also realise why such a non story doesn’t need anymore discussion, as various types as you described have already done so on the main stream media.

      BTW, what are you if you are not a Labour Party activist or a Thatcherite? I would be most concerned if such a humourous, polite individual were merely a troll, or a Libdem supporter.

    105. Cag-does-thinking says:

      O/T as the BBC seem to be asleep or on a day off today. They even have a pro Yes story! How did that slip through?

      I’m not very knowledgable about the drum so apologies if it turns out to be some weird conspiracy site but it would appear to be good news for one Thomas Sheridan of the Pollok parish…..

    106. donald anderson says:

      Oz has admitted in the Guardian that Ship orders would d still come t Scan Independent Scotland. Time to let Kneel Davidson and co know.

    107. Chic McGregor says:

      I am no monarchist, but at least with an absolute monarchy you get a mix of good and bad just based on genetic chance. You get good kings or queens as well as bad ones, depending on your luck.

      The problem we have with democracy, as it has developed, is that you nearly always get those who are at least bereft of conscience to the point of being a psychotic socio-path, if not, frequently, yer actual psychopath.

      This, I suppose, is almost inevitable in a system where the rewards of not only being dishonest, but also being very good at it, are so evidently rewarded.

      Any democracy, to stand even a chance of having decent human beings in charge, must have a cast iron system of checks and balances built in. For example, a written constitution with specified mandatory jail sentences for any elected representative caught lying. Ditto for corruption, cronyism, media control and other areas.

      Indeed some democracies have got to the stage where anyone with normal levels of humanity, anyone with principles and genuine desire to do good, will be regarded as dangerous lunatics who must be brought down. Either by vilification, fabricated scandal or even assassination.

      It is truly a lunatics running the asylum scenario.

      The little people, i.e. us, are just so many mushrooms to keep in the dark and cover with shit.

      “We’re all in it together.”? Aye right! as in “We’ll keep making it and you keep shovelling it.”

      The ultimate irony being that the end of humanity might involve mushrooms of a different kind.

    108. Caroline Corfield says:

      For those who wish to see some evidence of false flag operations, I direct you to this article and specifically the information about Belgium which was found and publicised at the time, there is no conspiracy theory over what went on in Belgium, it was security forces committing acts of terrorism on their own population in order to justify their existence and certain policies.

    109. Peter says:

      The same revolting piece of effluent who claims to oppose sectarianism. Wonder what would happen to the catholic celtic supporter TK if he joined in with his bitter together comrades on one of their marches? Maybe he should be encouraged to join his new best friends?

      #Terry Kelly, renfrewshire > Alan Clayton, Argyll • a day ago
      If public disorder was the reason for banning them, you would have to ban a lot of others. starting with Celtic Rangers Games, Pubs, Discos etc. 27 arrests were made in Kelvingrove Park when people were celebrating the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. Broken noses black eyes and assorted fractures were all the rage as ambulances and the constabulary commissioned to restore order. as casualties mounted, talking of ‘mounted’ even some of the big Polis horses finished up at the vets. The revelers were mostly of the opinion that it was ‘a great party’ and opined that ‘it would be fine when they got the stitches oot and the stookies aff’.

      It is my understanding that the Orange Order are a ‘bona fide’ part of bonnie Scotland’s national Church, The Church of Scotland, how would you overcome that?.

      And a nice lie at the end. The OO has never been part of the CofS. A more perfect representative of labour in Scotland doesn’t exist. Racist, bigot, Scotophobe and happy to get support from anybody no matter how vile as long as he keeps his job.

    110. Ken500 says:

      The US were against the Falklands War. Doubt if they would have let the mad witch nuke Argentina. The US still want a negotiated settlement.

    111. Banock1314 says:

      Sorry O/T

      But on rant mode
      Brian taylor talking about orange order, and better together not wanting to be associated – Fair enough
      But then a seamless transition into Snp intimidation
      Honestly you can’t make it up anymore

    112. Ken500 says:

      Jim, the Church of Scotland Minister gave the Orange Lodge a stern sermon on BBC (Louise White) this morning. A good telling off.

    113. CameronB Brodie says:

      Hugh Wallace
      I can’t comment on the bulk of what you’ve said, but I think you are wrong on drones. Btw, the USA has been refurbishing B61s as they are a means of circumventing non-proliferation. They already exist. They are also a lot cheaper than a Tomahawk missile.

      Nukes are NOT deployed on drones by anyone (a ‘drone’ large enough to carry such a weapon is too big to be a drone and no country is mad enough to allow an unmanned vehicle to wander the skies armed with WMDs –

    114. Triangular Ears says:

      Was it not Polaris, rather than Trident, that was in operation at the time of the Falkland’s war?

      I know there were similar claims made as regards Polaris not being independently launchable by the UK too…

    115. Ken500 says:

      The Drum is a legal journal. Or Fleece & Co., assisted by Kerrchin & Kerrchin.

      Tommy’s ‘conviction’ will quoshed and he should get compensation. Blair’s £5Million show trial in support of the reptile.

    116. Ian Mor says:

      For all queries about ‘Defence’ issues, may I point you all to

      If you are not starting your research there you are working from the wrong end.

      The “Royal Unit Services Institute” is a surprisingly candid site, with a wealth of information and independent research,, exploring everything from defence cuts and the permanent job losses in the sector to the future of the UK’s Nuclear Submarine fleet.

      There is enough here for an article a day. Try their “Analysis on Scotlands defence and security and the implications of Scottish independence” to start with.

    117. Spansco says:

      We should remember that Trident is a first strike weapon. That is something we should not have in Scotland and only a madman or woman would say otherwise. Do we have to wait until another mad Tory despot like Thatcher comes again?

    118. Tom Platt says:

      The UK doesn’t have an independent nuclear deterrent.
      The UK pays for some of the USA’s missiles to float near here and lets them play at being big and important. They cannot fire them without Washington approval.

      The original article referred to the previous UK nuclear deterrent…Polaris. This was less dependent on US approval..although I don’t suppose that Thatcher nuclear bombing Argentina would have made even her very popular in Washington.

    119. msean says:

      I can’t think of any save the Americans,can’t think of anyone else in particular who would have stopped it happening. Just shows why no one should have these things.

    120. Ian Mor says:

      “Royal United Services Institute”

      My fingers are too fat for this phone – Homer Simpson

    121. Fireproofjim says:

      Chic Mcgregor.
      Good points. Was it Churchill who said that democracy is not necessarily the best system, but at the moment it is the least bad?
      Monarchy has not got a lot going for it either,but at least it keeps the position of head of state out of the (grubby) hands of politicians

    122. crazycat says:

      Re Lockheed Martin and who is associated with it – Dick Cheney and his nearest and dearest have been closely connected with the company for some time. This report ( mentions some of them.

      LM also ran the English and Welsh sections of the 2011 census, since they dabble in data collection too.

    123. crazycat says:

      Ah, didn’t remove enough to make the link work – try again:

    124. crazycat says:

      Still wrong. I’m sure anyone interested enough will manage to read it.

    125. JWil says:

      Cameron might have used a better choice of words regarding the impending investigation into paedophiles in high office and missing files. He said he was determined to get to the bottom of it.

    126. CameronB Brodie says:

      I forgot to say that is only an opinion though. I have posted some twaddle from the Drum, so only to be taken after critical thinking.

    127. Krackerman says:

      She was bluffing – Polaris and Trident are both US missile systems. They cannot be launched without reference and agreement of the US military….

      They would not have EVER agreed to doing this.

    128. YESGUY says:

      Regarding Charlie — DEFLECTION.

      The most common tactic used by BT/NT or whatever.

      As for the nukes at Faslane. Tick tock …

      Sept 19th and all the scares and smeears will amount to nothing.
      Keep positive and remember WE ARE WINNING

    129. YESGUY says:

      Regarding the “bomber”

      Do we honestly believe that they cannot get his pic on CCTV?

      Absolute bollocks . More “project fear”.

    130. Dick Gaughan says:

      Fireproofjim says:
      “Was it Churchill who said that democracy is not necessarily the best system, but at the moment it is the least bad?”

      There was once a great cartoon by David Low which had Churchill explaining his concept of Democracy. The caption was “Government of the People, for the People, by well-meaning ruling-class chaps like me.”

    131. Paula Rose says:

      I thought it was – “democracy, the worst possible system, apart from all the rest”.

    132. Clootie says:

      The debate over nuclear weapons is pointless. The weapons are pointless.

      The MAD concept even worse
      “Everybody having nuclear weapons makes the world as safe as if none existed”

      Billions upon Billions of pounds going into unsuable weapons and the worlds population starves.

      How many have died by the AK47.

      Old Empire thinking just keeps on rolling along.

    133. heedtracker says:

      Krackerman says:
      7 July, 2014 at 7:26 pm
      She was bluffing – Polaris and Trident are both US missile systems. They cannot be launched without reference and agreement of the US military….

      They would not have EVER agreed to doing this.

      So why does Scotland/UK need to have Trident then, seeing as the US not only has lots of Trident nukes or their own and full control of teamGB Trident. Berk.

    134. donald anderson says:

      I can’t remember which President said when he was outvoted. “Gentlemen,the people have spoken. The bastards”.

    135. Iain Gray's Subway Lament says:

      Nob Orders on Dispatches right now. Only a few months late but better than nothing.

    136. Paula Rose says:

      Have they decided which borders to get rid of?

    137. kininvie says:


      1) Elective Monarchy. The job ends with death (or abdication). Then we choose a new one.

      2) No one elected to parliament can serve more than two terms (ever – to stop Putin types)

      3) If you have a second chamber, no one who is, or has been, a member of a political party, may stand for election to it.

    138. Krackerman says:


      “So why does Scotland/UK need to have Trident then, seeing as the US not only has lots of Trident nukes or their own and full control of teamGB Trident. Berk.”

      Err whoever said it did? I was pointing out that she was clearly bluffing. Jeez You’re a bit of a loony ain’t cha…

    139. Thepnr says:

      O/T Maybe another nail in the Project Fear coffin, like yesterdays news on the oil from Sir Duncan Mackay. Tonight brings this:

      Law professor says independent Scotland’s EU membership ‘assured’

    140. Bugger (the Panda) says:


      It is a ticket to the high table of american neoliberal economic “prosperity”

      The cost is in the blood of our young, the poverty of our old and the servitude of our asults.

    141. heedtracker says:

      Nob orders get a lovely mention, woohoo, but absolutely nothing about our appalling biased rancid etc media. Wonder why Pacific Quay giant half a billion quid glass box of ukok grot wasn’t on their lovely shots of bonny Scotland. Corrupt lying gits one and all

    142. Brian Mchugh says:

      Dispatches… utter propaganda. The London establishment must be getting very jittery. I’m looking forward to Stu’s analysis of Channel 4’s entry into the debate.

    143. gordoz says:

      O/T With another grose ‘Establishment’ endemic cover up emerging at Westminster with the potential to be even more damaging than the ‘Cash for Questions or ‘MP Expenses’ scandals; can Scottish voters seriously continue to consider that our best interest’s remain in pooling and sharing the fallout of such a corrupt and disreputable institution.

      As I often ask the NO campaign; just exactly what is so Great about GB and what is supposed to be ‘Better’ about remote control governance from such an embarrassing system which appears to have protected child abusers from prosecution and justice.

      Finally appears that this issue is being addressed after being surpressed for so long.

      Honestly you have to ask …. ‘Better Together’ really ??

    144. heedtracker says:

      Dispatch wonk sits in front of the Citadel Aberdeen, calls 50 companies, 5 say they have had SNP Scots gov vote yes pressure but no proof and 5 out of 50 makes a whole Channel 4 doc now. If C4 hadn’t bought the Big Bang Theory they’d be bust and no wonder.

    145. Brian Mchugh says:

      Gordoz… the ‘Great’ in Great Britain is because it is the largest or Greatest in size of the British Islands.

      This referendum is about the UK, not Great Britain.

    146. john king says:

      “Britain had a tactical nuclear deterrant capability which would have been delivered by bombers. Aircraft designated for this role were the V-bombers, Canberra, Jaguar and Buccaneer (”

      None of those planes were V bombers Decanmore,
      the clue is in the letter V
      the V bombers were Victors Valiants and Vulcans

    147. Morag Graham Kerr says:

      Brian, not quite. It’s because it’s bigger than Brittany – “Less Britain”.

    148. Brian Mchugh says:

      Sorry phone hung and multiple posts appeared.

    149. gordoz says:

      @Brian Mchugh

      Don’t give a shit either way bud, but would prefer Westminster and all it represents ‘British’ or ‘UK’ to piss off and keep out of Scottish affairs fair enough ?

    150. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      John King

      They were always just known as V Bombers to me.

      Victor, Valiant and Vulcan.

      I had the matchbox versions.

      Anyway, what has Mrs Spock and Port Stanley Airport in common?

      They have both been Ferkd bu Vulcans.

      Actually the bombs went hopelessly wide but hey, it was all good propaganda at the time.

    151. Minty says:

      Choice of viewing at 9pm: Peston on #indyref or Lance Armstrong doco. Which will contain fewer lies?

    152. Papadox says:

      Dispatches Please note Alex Salmond is not the leader of the yes campaign. That just shows the lack of research and bias that was evident in your establishment PROPAGANDA. You really are the pits.

    153. gordoz says:

      Guys – On missing posts (appeared on last thread)

      The post’s that are vanishing is quite a simple issue(its happening to everyone at times) because of ‘Akismet software’ dealing with massive ammount of posts and spam junk emails.
      (does not like certain statements too )

      As Stu has said – please read ‘new readers section’ again and submit probs issues via contact section ‘generic email’ at top of screen. He will get back to tell you what was wrong ith the post (if anything)

      If you are making a point on a bigger post then best to save it somewhere first just if in case dissappears.

      ‘Hope this helps’

    154. gordoz says:


      The ‘Lance Armstrong Doc’ will make you think about media and state manipulation to affect an end or protest an agenda. (Serious Smoke screen and mirrors went on) It really is worth a watch.

    155. john king says:

      think your wrong there BtP Im sure a couple of bombs disabled the runway to the extent only short take of and landing Pucaras could get in and out. the runway was useless for their Super Etendards which was why they had to fly from Punta Arenas.

    156. jim arnott says:

      That photo of Hiroshima brings back memories of the most profound experience of my life.

      I have stood in the Peace Park in Hiroshima at the epicentre of the blast.

      It has always been my contention that before any politician pontificates about nuclear weapons, they should stand at that very spot in Hiroshima and reflect on their views on nuclear warfare. They should see what devastation an atomic bomb can afflict. Today’s nuclear bombs are many, many times more destructive than the one dropped on Hiroshima.

    157. Liquid Lenny says:

      Bugger (the Panda)

      No they didn’t all go wide, the plan was to straddle the runway in the hope that one would get near, which actually happened, it caused damage to the main runway which was repaired not long after the Vulcan returned to Accension Island.

      It was nothing more than sabre rattling, basically telling the Argies we can hit Stanley with good old British bombs so we can hit BA as well. (No Yanks to ask permission first.)

    158. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      I surrender.


    159. Lesley-Anne says:

      Sorry if this has already been mentioned folks but Robert Peston is doing his *ahem* let’s save the union bit on BBC 2 just now! 😛

    160. seanair says:

      The woman’s mad! How dare she say this when Andrew Marr (European Expert and jack of all trades) says it is impossible.

    161. john king says:

      “Does this mean we should be nicer to him? Is it real?”

      That will be shining bright.

    162. BrianW says:

      @ Lesley-Anne

      I’d rather have a nuclear bomb come through my ceiling than watch that BBC funded Better Together Party Political Broadcast by Mr Peston… (don’t need to watch it to know that)

      Is there anyone there.. give us a sign in you can here us… (hears a handbag being rummaged)..

      Maggie.. If you can hear us.. PUSH THE BUTTON..

    163. Conan_the_Librarian says:


      So did the Argies. Gnight.

    164. Ken500 says:

      Preston in denial

      No mention of Thatcher’s secret Oil revenue grab or the secret slash of the Scottish budget. One of her Minister’s resigned. Just the ‘mysterious’ industrial decline.

    165. Robert Peffers says:

      When I was involved in working in Rosyth Dockyard’s RADIAC, (RadioActivityDetectionIndicationAndComputation), Lab the work was new to everyone.

      We were developing the type of work as we went along. Often designing and building our own test equipments as we went along. This was a problem as the tests and methods of calibration had to be strictly controlled and standardised. This meant we laid down the methods and equipments and submitted them for standardisation.

      Then had to go on a course and pass an exam in order to legally use the equipments we had designed and built. We also needed to take courses and pass tests on such things as Quantum Physics.

      On one of the courses on using a proceedure and equipment I had been involved in developing, to get the relevant certificate, I found myself in a class that contained quite a few Iranian military officers, mainly naval.

      A more elitest and self opinionated bunch I have never come across. Now just imagine their faces when the civilian worker they had vilified and verbaly abused came top in the exam that they had been bragging they would pass with honours.

      Thing is what the hell were the Admiralty doing training up Iranial naval officers?

      Yep! You got it The UK was selling them ships with hi-tech weapons syatems.

    166. Another Union Dividend says:

      David Cameron Memo to Robert Peston

      Thanks for another hour of peak viewing time Better Together political propaganda.

    167. Jill P says:

      Peston is driving me mad. I want to throw things at the TV.

    168. Flowercleaner says:

      Well said, Morag.

    169. ronnie anderson says:

      Anybody know the timetable of the Big Red Bus, mibbe’s Jim would like to see the Wings Banner.

    170. msean says:

      I could possibly mibbee almost might be depressed after watching this. How can you not find positive views in Scotland and the auld Bawbee has another turn on the merry go round lol.

    171. Bawheid Bragg says:

      Has anyone else noticed that this article has no ‘likes’? I clicked the appropriate button – it changed to ‘liked’ for about a millisecond, then reverted to the default. Strange.

    172. Morag Graham Kerr says:

      673 right now. Though I never noticed that button till now.

    173. ronnie anderson says:

      Cat amongst the pidgions time Mr Salmond.Its your dept Westminster we did’nt ask for it .We did’nt benifit from it,now fkin pay for it Yourselves.

    174. John grant says:

      Murphy was in burn bank hamilton today talking to labour Councillors an activist , and quite a few of us blackshitrted thick as shite neo fascist nazi yes campaigners , and a few ordinary voters who were giving him laldy very very funny , but hilarity aside there talking to themselves , kidding themselves on

    175. JLT says:

      Deceivement and lies from peston and the BBC. Absolutely appalling. What about No currency union but still using the pound? What about a share of the assets as well as the debt? Nah!!!better not talk about those things ….eh BBC ?????

    176. Lesley-Anne says:

      Well folks did we all enjoy the even handed reporting by Robert Peston in his wee BBC2 programme then?

      After all the tweets I put up to him I’m thinking I might, just might mind you, be off his Christmas card list. 😛

    177. Free at 63! says:

      Peston: bias by omission. 1980s de-industrialisation; our own currency pegged to the pound; no share of assets which possibly may cancel out the debt; higher public spending but no mention of higher tax revenues; and others. Use also of IFS and OBR.

      Did you note the sneer when he said Alex Salmond’s Cabinet met in a church hall when PM was in BP’s HQ? They just don’t ‘get it’ that the FM is accessible to the public.

      On a positive note: the scenery was magnificent and there were 2 shots of the indy march last September and quite a few Saltires in the first 20 minutes or so.

      Actually it was a bit better than I expected. But then I wasn’t expecting much.

      Only watched it in case someone asks me about it when I am on the Women for Indy stall on Saturday.

    178. Andy smith says:

      O/T watching coverage of the tour de France ,live from Essex! England seemingly do it better than France,. Only problem they had was that the ” king of the mountains ” has had to be renamed ” king of the speed bumps “.

    179. Lesley-Anne says:

      To be fair Andy some of the speed bumps in Essex can be quite high so I guess they’d qualify as *ahem* mountains. I know cause having lived in London and travelling to Essex for work on occasions I think I’ve *ahem* flown over quite a few of these Essex *cough* mountains. 😛

    180. Morag Graham Kerr says:

      I worked in Essex one summer. Someone showed me a village called Hambledon-on-the-Hill or something, and said it was the the only hill for miles around. I remarked, I wouldn’t need to get off my bike. And I get off and push at the slightest incline.

    181. Robert Peffers says:

      @john king says: 7 July, 2014 at 8:40 pm

      “Britain had a tactical nuclear deterrant capability which would have been delivered by bombers. Aircraft designated for this role were the V-bombers, Canberra, Jaguar and Buccaneer.”


      There is no such animal as a Nuclear deterrant capability of, BRITAIN

      Britain is an archipelago that contains four United Kingdom Countries, (two kingdoms) and four non-UK countries composed of a republic and three non-UK crown dependencies.

      Stop doing the Better Together’s propaganda for them.

    182. Flower of Scotland says:

      I definitely had absolutely No intention of watching R Prestons programme or channel 4 s programme! I can’t take it any more! The deliberate lies and innuendos to make the YES campaign seem dishonourable! I knew you kind people here would watch and dissect for me! I know that’s bad, but for us with a frail constitution Stu reads, dissects and comes up with the TRUTH every day! Thank God for Stu! The British state is prostituting itself and I hope they end up in the garbage bin!

    183. Robert Peffers says:

      @Morag Graham Kerr says: 7 July, 2014 at 8:41 pm

      “Brian, not quite. It’s because it’s bigger than Brittany – “Less Britain”.

      Not so, Morag. Great or greater, even less or lesser, are geographic terms. There are many such place names in the British Archipelago. For example there are two Isles of Cumbrae in the Firth of Clyde. The Larger of which is titled, “Great Cumbrae”.

      Here is a page in the Gazateer of the UK of places begining with, “Great”.

    184. Morag Graham Kerr says:

      I thought that was exactly what I said.

    185. Michael McCabe says:

      The devil has kicked Maggie Thatcher out of Hell. Why did you throw her out Nick ? Why. Because She has only been here 15 Months and She has shut down 8 Furnaces. Vote Yes

    186. Paula Rose says:

      @ Darling CameronB Brodie, I just so love your lovely new gravatar thingy – you are a lovely man xxxxx

    187. Robert Peffers says:

      @Morag Graham Kerr says: 7 July, 2014 at 11:04 pm

      “I thought that was exactly what I said”.

      Well no you didn’t. Great, (or bigger), Britain is the largest island of the British Archepelago.
      It contains Scotland, Wales & England.

      All Ireland is a country that has two independent legislations but is still the country of Ireland.

      This is why the title of the bipartite United Kingdom is, “The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland”, but that is the Title of the Kingdom and the Kingdom is composed of four countries.

      Brittany has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
      Just one more Red Herring not supported by evidence.

      Brittany is a cultural region in the north-west of France. Covering the western part of Armorica, as it was known during the period of Roman occupation, Brittany subsequently became an independent kingdom and then a duchy before being united to the Kingdom of France in 1532 as a province.

      It was never a part of the country of Britain, (as these islands were known before and during, the Roman invasion), and never part of the Kingdom of England formed by the Angles after the Romans left. Which last led to not only the formation of England but the area the Romans named Caledonia, Hail Caledonia!

    188. CameronB Brodie says:

      Paula, your too modest. Do you not remember our wee chat? Not that I’m disagreeing. 😉

    189. Paula Rose says:

      @ CameronB Brodie XXXXX

    190. Morag Graham Kerr says:

      Robert, there is no other area of land known as Lesser Britain or Less Britain, other than Brittany. It’s anomalous, as it’s not an island, but there it is.

      I know where the Lesser Cumbrae is. Where’s Lesser Britain?

    191. Paula Rose says:

      I live in Scotland.

    192. Chic McGregor says:

      “1) Elective Monarchy. The job ends with death (or abdication). Then we choose a new one.

      2) No one elected to parliament can serve more than two terms (ever – to stop Putin types)

      3) If you have a second chamber, no one who is, or has been, a member of a political party, may stand for election to it.”

      Well if we are talking about ideal scenarios, mine would be something very radical like:

      1. A department of economic science, where the functioning of the economy is put on a proper scientific basis. The Treasury and investment functions of National strategic scope would be largely controlled there using the expertise of technologists, scientists, investment analysts, health, safety and environmental experts, educationalists and workforce representatives.

      The remit of that department, would be to optimise the aims of the economy in a balanced and sustainable fashion.

      I am a capitalist because that, when it is optimised, works best. To work best, it requires genuine reward for effort and innovation – to a reasonable degree. It does NOT mean a free market. You cannot have an economy with a totally ‘free market’ which can call itself genuinely capitalist. True capitalism is where everyone is on a level playing field and those who put more effort in or who are the most innovative are rewarded for that.
      Adam Smith takes much of the flak for a misinterpretation of his ‘free market’ to mean unfettered, without government intervention. In fact he would be spinning in his grave at the existence of monopolies, cartels and the like and would be insisting on intervention to prevent such things and so would I.

      Economics is laughingly called the ‘Queen of Sciences’ but in reality it is roughly where real science was in the middle ages with shamens, shysters and charlatans being given as much credence as those who have a genuinely scientific approach.

      In practice, I would envisage more interventions would be required for enhancing genuine capitalism than for other reasons.

      2. A constitution to define the role and scope of government. Extension of the concept of perjury being one item but also covering basic human rights and many other non party specifics.

      3. Legislature.
      3.1 Elected representatives. No other interests allowed. No payments or gifts of kind acceptable outwith their salary. Purpose, to serve constituents and participate in the proposing and development of legislation.
      3.2 No second House. Scrutiny of draft legislation would be by a far ranging committee of experts operating only on a basis of public service, no remuneration, who were peer group nominated and appointed and for limited duration. All comment by experts would be permanently attached to legislation for future perusal.
      3.3 Tertiary examination of all legislation would take place after a period of operation in the field. Legislation which did not work would be amended or scrapped. Legislation which did would be given final ratification as statute.
      3.4 Scope of legislature would still include broad economic matters such as redistribution. Tax levels basically.

      4 Fiscal Democracy. Everyone, whether taxpayers or not, would have a basic amount which they could aportion to the various government departments as they wish. In addition, taxpayers would have an extra percentage of their tax to which this would also apply. This, of course, further erodes fiscal control as enjoyed by the legislature but also would act as a check and balance on the new economic science department. But it is more democratic in the realist of terms and furthermore obliges the various government departments to make their case directly to the public. Hopefully leading to a much better informed population. It also, therefore, further erodes the party system itself. Of course, many folk, who might not be interested, would probably just tick the ‘default government recommendation’ box.

    193. Tom B says:

      They did use the Vulcan bombers to drop a lone conventional-explosive bomb, just missing the runway at Stanley Airport, causing minimal damage and wakening some people up. Of the two, I think, Vulcans that set out one turned back early on. The distances involved even including using Ascension Island as a hop/stop were phenomenal and at the limits of both human and machine endurance. The single Vulcan needed frequent mid-air re-fuelling for both outgoing and return flights and was close to ditching in the sea several times when re-fuelling went off schedule, fuel supply was so marginal for supporting a single plane that if the other had not aborted en-route, it is probable both might have been lost in the sea, thousands of miles short of the Falklands. The operation involved a dozen or more support planes, fuel-tanker planes themselves at points being refuelled mid-air. The courage of the pilots and crews involved stands starkly contrasted with the cowardice and malice of the Westminster political elite, to whom they were expendable means to deliver a vicious threat.

      Delivering a single conventional bomb in that region was at the absolute limit, indeed stretched the limits of what was possible. Confirmation of the depths of Maggie’s depravity suggest this token bomb dropped, at great peril, and in such a reckless shambolic operation, was a demonstration, with a politcial rather than a military intent, a sinister indication that a nastier payload could just as “easily” be delivered. It was an unpleasant last hurrah of empire, as soon after the aging sixties Vulcans would be taken out of commision and almost all scrapped.

    194. donald anderson says:

      Brittany was promised Independence during the French Revolution,like lots of promises during that period it was dishonoured.

      There are two Independence parties in Brittany. One left wing and one right wing. Like all Independence movements they are watching Scotland very closely and can’t believe Scotland has been offered it on a plate and that many are too fainthearted to take it.

    195. donald anderson says:

      Many Britons fled to Wales, Cymru and Lesser Wales, Kernow, Cornwall. Many fled to Brittany in Celtic Gaul. Edward the First promised the Welsh a non English speaking Prince and held his new born son above the parapets, proclaiming him Prince of Wales. He of course, being an infant, spoke no languages. The Prince of Wales title is an affront to Welsh Nationalists and Republicans.

      Brittany, Brieze, was promised Independence if it supported the French Revolution and was betrayed. There are two Breton Welsh Nationalist Movements: one left wing and one right wing.

    196. donald anderson says:

      Welsh was a Saxon word for gibberish, or foreign speaking. Many English people still have that attitude and are not just racist to black, brown, red, yellow and pink people but to other Europeans, especially the Celts, whom many consider to be inferior. The Scots are “mean”. The Irish are “thick” and the Welsh speak “gibberish”. The North British are akin to native collaborators anywhere: full of self hating, self loathing and self racism to those whom they consider inferior to themselves and their masters. The post in Dover House, London, England, is treated as insignificant and not taken seriously by either side and is the ultimate in native collaboration and invisibility

      Have you ever heard of the Englishman with an inferiority complex? He thought he was equal to everyone else.

      Lenin spoke of the nationalism of the oppressed and the nationalism of the oppressor. The Scots, Irish and Welsh do not consider themselves better than any other, nor do they wish to rule anyone else. That is is the difference between Celtic and Anglo-British Nationalism.

    197. Haggis Hunter says:

      Thatcher could have destroyed the lives of 100s of 1000s of innocent civilions, including children. Arrogant in the extreme, infact evil. She hated the Scots because we couldnt be controlled by her, she wanted all our institutions destroyed.

    198. ian foulds says:

      ‘bookie from hell says:

      7 July, 2014 at 3:41 pm

      check this out for bias LOL’

      Bit of a conundrum?

      The gentleman picks a location which, according to a number of surveys, appears to be more pro-better together than other parts of the Country.

      I hate to think what the content would be like, if the unfortunate couple were to settle in some of the less fortunate areas

    199. tigertiger says:

      I’m just surprised missiles have codes with which they can be disabled. Is that really a thing?

    200. Bugger (the Panda) says:

      @ Donald Anderson

      Alexis de Tocqueville

      The French want no-one to be their superior. The English want inferiors. The Frenchman constantly raises his eyes above him with anxiety. The Englishman lowers his beneath him with satisfaction.

      Alexis de Tocqueville

      Born 29 July 1805 Paris, France
      Died 16 April 1859 (aged 53)Cannes, France

      Note the dates.

      Nothing much has changed.

      “God who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet”

    201. Bugger (the Panda) says:


      Logically they would have abort code for in trajectory destruction?

    202. Morag says:

      I don’t really know why Ireland isn’t Less Britain. It’s something that’s always puzzled me. It’s the logical thing that would accord with how that naming terminology is used in other situations.

      But it isn’t. Less Britain is Brittany. In both French and English. I think it goes back at least to Roman times. Maybe something to do with both land masses being occupied by Celtic peoples? There may be a clever explanation somewhere, but if there is, I haven’t seen it.

    203. tigertiger says:

      Mr Bugger, I could understand that for things like ICBMs where a mistake could have serious consequences, but the Exocet is a fire-and-forget weapon designed to be used on a battlefield at long but not extreme ranges. Its whole purpose is to hit a target very soon after it’s launched without any further input. Having a secret destruct code seems pointless. Not only would it require additional hardware to receive such a thing, it’s a vulnerability an enemy could exploit.

      Also, if we’re to believe they had this information they then failed to use it because several other ships were hit afterwards.

      Perhaps what they got from the French was the source code, rather than a Bond-esque destruct sequence.

    204. Brian Mchugh says:

      I thought there was £918,000 from Edwin Morgan and a second million from the Weirs?

      Maybe I’m missing something?

    205. Tom Foyle says:

      Charlie Murphy:
      How odd…Only last week, unaware of this story, I warned yes campaigners to watch out for false flags…

    206. Brotyboy says:

      Wot? No Andrew?

    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top