SCOTLAND is safer as part of the United Kingdom than it would be if it separated, the man who until recently headed the British Army has claimed.Terrorism is always going to be a problem. But let us not imagine that MI5 or the MOD has Scotland at the forefront of its mind (unless of course there is a nuclear interest).
General Sir Mike Jackson, who led Britain's armed forces into Iraq, made his claim on a programme marking ten years of devolution by BBC's Panorama last night.
His view was that a collective British force was more cost- effective and better able to defend the British Isles than if the UK was broken up.
So, whom should the home guard worry about? I think that we can rule out the Russians. North Korea, Iran and Iraq are probably too far away and, anyway, why would they bother?
My bet is on the Danes and the Norwegians. They have always wanted Shetland back and I worry about the loyalties of that Tavish Scott. So then, prepare to repel the vikings ...
4 comments:
I used to haunt Denmark and still have many contacts there.
One visit I was at a dinner party in Copenhagen, everyone spoke, even to each other at the table in English because I spoke no Danish!
Anyway one person at the table was a history Prof and told me that in the National Danish Archives they had uncovered an original of the marriage contract cocerning the Maid of Norway and Scotland.
As she had died before consummation the contract was null and void so they, not sure if were Norwegians or Danes wanted it back.
Nice folks though, even though we screwed them many centuries ago.
"Terrorism is always going to be a problem. But let us not imagine that MI5 or the MOD has Scotland at the forefront of its mind"
Why not? An attack on Edinburgh at Hogmanay or during the Festival would be as spectacular as one on London, and probably a lot easier too.
Frankly I would prefer to remain under the aegis of MI5 than any putative "Scottish Secret Service" - would they be getting any special access to US resources and info? I think not.
"So, whom should the home guard worry about?"
Why just the "home guard"?
"I think that we can rule out the Russians."
Pardon???
Suppose their are incidents in any of the Baltic State involving their large Russian minorities,and Ivan decides he's going over the border to "help".
We are obliged by treaty to defend the Baltics - they are in NATO.
Lots of other possible scenarios.
"North Korea, Iran and Iraq are probably too far away and, anyway, why would they bother?"
Because in the case of NK and Iran, they are run by nutters. And as for being far away, that's why they're building missiles.
And you seem to have omitted to mention that these decisions have to look 50 years ahead or more.
For example, consider Saudi Arabia.
In 50 years, can you tell me whether it will be:
a) an absolute monarchy with a (mostly) pro-Western ruling class, as at present;
b) a peaceful, liberal democracy;
c) a nuclear-armed Sunni Islam theocracy intent on forging more anti-Western credentials than its Shia rival in Iran?
No answers, are there?
I would worry about Iceland. Global warning threatens them with national drowning so they man the boats and invade Scotland. Where else would they get good fish?
"Why not? An attack on Edinburgh at Hogmanay or during the Festival would be as spectacular as one on London, and probably a lot easier too."
So if terrorists suddenly decide to attack Edinburgh will we just fire a couple o Trident misiles at them. Yeah that should sort it. LMAO
The idea that Scotland is 'too wee' tae dae anything for itself is no doubt typical of the cringeworthness of being a Scottish (HA!) Unionist
Post a Comment