Born Under a Union Flag: Rangers, Britain and Scottish Independence

[Scott7 5,130]

That programme is no longer viewable on iplayer and even if it were, the person being interviewed is not the SNP defense spokesman. If you have a link to a viewable programme or a transcript, I'd be grateful for it.

 

Robertson was SNP Defence spokesman in Parliament at the time. There could not be many Wardrooms or Officers Messes that he did not set foot in.

I can't provide any link to the programme other than BBC archive so you just have to accept that the account I give is accurate. The interview covered more than defence but when they got round to that subject Neil asked why Scotland would need any defence forces other than Fishery Protection, SAR and a few troops to aid the civil power. Robertson replied that Scotland would want to play a full part in International missions which would include maintaining a battalion in Afghanistan and providing troops for any other crisis that might arise. Robertson used the in Sudan as an example.

Bear in mind that SNP defence policy has always been laughably fluid. Non-nuclear minimalist on red Clydeside, armed to the teeth elsewhere such as Robertson's own constituency with two RAF airfields and a TA RE Squadron.

More than this I cannot give you, RPB. You just have to accept the account of a trained observer or awa an' speir at the mannie himsel'. He'll have cleared his memory bank. Neil gave him a torrid time. Big English bully, so he was ..... Oh, wait.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Robertson was SNP Defence spokesman in Parliament at the time. There could not be many Wardrooms or Officers Messes that he did not set foot in.

I can't provide any link to the programme other than BBC archive so you just have to accept that the account I give is accurate. The interview covered more than defence but when they got round to that subject Neil asked why Scotland would need any defence forces other than Fishery Protection, SAR and a few troops to aid the civil power. Robertson replied that Scotland would want to play a full part in International missions which would include maintaining a battalion in Afghanistan and providing troops for any other crisis that might arise. Robertson used the in Sudan as an example.

Bear in mind that SNP defence policy has always been laughably fluid. Non-nuclear minimalist on red Clydeside, armed to the teeth elsewhere such as Robertson's own constituency with two RAF airfields and a TA RE Squadron.

More than this I cannot give you, RPB. You just have to accept the account of a trained observer or awa an' speir at the mannie himsel'. He'll have cleared his memory bank. Neil gave him a torrid time. Big English bully, so he was ..... Oh, wait.

 

I rather suspect what's happened here is that while your heart is in the right place, I don't think your ears are. Robertson may have given examples of Afghanistan and Sudan as instances where an Independent Scotland might become involved as part of a wider multinational effort and you have portrayed this as being a committment to send troops to those places. Very different things altogether. Moreover, refusing to have nuclear weapons whilst having conventional forces is not "laughably fluid" - it's simple common sense.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

And it makes sense to have national exhibitions whereever they get the highest footfall. What would the alternative be? Splitting the collections up regionally by proportional value? Having them constantly on tour? I'm not saying their aren't examples of London unreasonably hogging resources that could be cited, but that's not one of them - it's completely trivial.

 

And that's it in a nutshell. You think that the concentration of poltical power and culture in London is fine because that's where the highest numbers are and that the marginalisation of your own country's access to it is 'completely trivial'. Did you ever stop to wonder *why* the numbers are flocking to London? It's in part because of the fantastic cultural offerings that you won't find anywhere else in the UK.

[Thinker 851]

And that's it in a nutshell. You think that the concentration of poltical power and culture in London is fine because that's where the highest numbers are and that the marginalisation of your own country's access to it is 'completely trivial'. Did you ever stop to wonder *why* the numbers are flocking to London? It's in part because of the fantastic cultural offerings that you won't find anywhere else in the UK.

 

 

Don't be ridiculous - you must know that's not what I think. I'm pro devolution, and in favour of the dispersal of decision-making power around the UK - not just to Scotland BTW. But we're talking about museums here - tourist attractions that you'd probably only visit a handful of times in your lifetime even if they were right on your doorstep. And whether you like it or not, London is the capital. Where's the National Museum of Norway? Oslo, funnily enough. Where's the National Museum of Denmark? Take a guess. And don't ever go to Washington - you'd be fizzing!

 

Like I said, I'm sure there are examples of London-centricity that you could be righteously indignant about and that I would agree need to be fixed, but this is argument is just silly. It seems like your pissed off with the concept of capital cities.

[Scott7 5,130]

RPB, I suspect you may be a politician of some sort. First it never happened. Then Robertson is not defence spokesman. Then maybe it did happen but I got it wrong.

 

Robertson's words eg: "....Scotland would want to play a full part in international missions ...." and " .... maintain a battalion in Afghanistan...." are not a commitment but they are a clear expression of intent.

 

I did not say a non-nuclear policy was laughable. I disagree with it but it is a valid contention. I'm in favour of walking quietly but carrying a big stick.

 

It is the fluidity of their policy that is laughable. No sending our boys off on foreign ventures on the one hand and on the other retain almost every defence establishment in the country and re-form disbanded regiments. What on earth for? Who is peace loving free Scotland going to fight? FP, SAR and aid to the civil power is all that's needed, surely.

[neutralscot 0]

The military is an issue where it pays to be hawkish for the yes campaign. As long as the independence movement doesn't rock the boat with radical ideas concerning unilateral disarmament, military bases or the like, America will largely continue to sit on the sidelines.

Having recently chatted with military officers from the US navy, their attitude is very much 'well we kicked them out - you guys go ahead if you want.'

You sense the SNP are desperate to keep the lid on anything radical from their membership before the vote.

IMO, I would have expected the UK gov to have appealed directly to Washington to make an announcement supporting the union. I expect Barack Obama will on the week of the vote.

I've found the No campaign a little negative, but expect it to win. I do agree with a previous poster. Imagine if the British war museum, or natural history museum was based in Dundee, or Inverness etc. Tourism and the economic spin offs would be very welcome. If Westminster was alternated with Hollyrood every year, I'd feel happier. We are meant to be a union of equals. My feeling is that the current government is just a bit Londoncentric, and we are seeing none of the boom but still plenty of the bust up north.

[Scott7 5,130]

Aberdeen is doing fine. Free Grampian!

[buster. 4,808]

A wee aside.

 

Just looked at the board and the thread immediately above this one, 'A statement to the stock exchange'.

 

It had 1314 views with 'Time4_Change' beside it as last poster on thread..........weird !!!

 

[Waltersgotstyle 297]

I think we're probably in agreement with regards to fossl fuels and their danger to the planet: less so on the nuclear issue - but lets leave that to another day and focus on the issue of independence, and in particular your final line in which you say that the figures pushed out by Westminster "show" that Scotland has a higher level of public expenditure per head of population; except that they don't. In reality it is we who subsidise the rUK and have done for a generation.

 

We account for 8.9% of the UK population but contribute 9.6% of tax revenue to HMG. The Westminster figures show an identifiable expenditure of 9.3% in Scotland. So, in short we contribute much more than we should and get less back than we contribute - even if we only look at identifiable expenditure. And for this, we are called welfare junkies and scroungers.

 

The reason I highlight identifiable expenditure is because Westminster doesn't. Put simply, identifiable expenditure is what each country/region spends on its own services etc. Non-identiable expenditure is expenditure which is deemed to be for the good of the Uk as a whole; stuff like the civil service, defence, the BBC, interest on debt repayments etc.

 

Conveniently enough, the vast bulk of this non-identifiable expenditure, and I'm talking in the region of 97% is spent in England and in particular in the SE and London. Have a wee look around on Google and find out how much of the 9 % of its income the BBC spends in Scotland (spoiler alert; it"s a number between 2 and 4%); then have a look at how much of defense expenditure takes place in Scotland, then look at the expenditure for 'national' museums, culture etc etc etc.

 

If memory serves, NIPS accounts for somewhere in the region of 30% of all expenditure - so the Westminster figures are doubly agregious. They claim,when in fact the opposite is true, that they are subsidising us and use IPS to "prove' this, conveniently omitting to show how much we contribute in the first place something like 7% more than we receive - even forgetting NIPS. If we were to include NIPS then our subsidy TO rUK would be well into double figures.

 

Arguments like this push me towards the YES vote.

[Frankie 8,145]

I was lucky enough to receive my review copy earlier today and so far I'm greatly enjoying the book.

 

Like others I wasn't overly sure about the subject matter and there's parts of the book that will frustrate us all but, so far at least, the content has bee very well written and argued.

 

I should have a full review next week with a bit of luck.