WORDS OF WISDOM FROM ROBERTSON, NOBLE OF SOMEWHERE THAT SPEAKS FOREIGN

Writing in the Washington Post and quoted in the Telegraph, Mr Robertson of Port Ellen has warned of the damage Scottish separation would cause to the UK on the world stage. He reminded them, and us, that UKOK was the “United States’ oldest and closest ally”.

So here we have it. Mr Robertson is worried about the standing of the UK on the world stage. 

How Tory and patrician. 

He doesn’t appear to be in the least interested in the future of Scotland. He may be right that Britain is the USA’s oldest ally. He might remember that the very fact that they are two separate countries, and thus able to be allies, is due the fact that the Americans threw the Brits out.  

As for closest ally…well, I don’t know. They are the most useful one, because they will do virtually anything the USA tells them, whereas other allies, like France, Germany, Japan, Korea, etc, tend to have minds of their own and can only be pushed so far.

Robertson said the global balance of power would be “substantially upset”, by a split, especially if the Nationalists pushed ahead with their threat to expel Trident, and the “ripple effects” would not be limited to the UK.

Incidentally, it’s not a threat, as I see it, Mr Robertson; it’s a promise. 

And how would the global balance of power be affected? 

As I see it, Scotland houses, for the UK, a small number of nuclear missiles, tiny by comparison with the West’s overall arsenal. The UK in fact has 225 missiles, with only 160 being active.  The USA has 7,700 with only 2,150 active. This can be measured against Russia’s 8,500 (1,800 active) and China’s couple of hundred. 

The UK’s total arsenal is controlled by the USA. Not only would Britain never dare use them without America’s permission; it actually couldn’t use them, because they employ the American delivery system and thus require the Pentagon to supply the firing coordinates. 

The British stockpile, small as it is, is not independent. It belongs to America in all but name (and expense). 

What difference would it make if Scotland rejected it? If English lives were thought to be too important to risk having thedodgy stuff anywhere near even small English towns, they could be transported to America, which in any case controls them and indeed counts them among its own.

The noble old buffer goes on to say that ‘separatist’ movements in Spain and Belgium might also succeed in breaking away, leading to a more fragmented, more unstable Europe. A continent more likely to produce “strife and dissension”. So independence of a tiny unimportant northern nation might cause world war three?

Does he seriously think that Catalonia and Belgium are dependent upon Scotland to decide what they will do with their futures? 

The Catalans have already announced their referendum. They have massive support. They will almost certainly vote for independence, Scotland or no Scotland.

Belgium, a strange mixture of Dutch speaking Flemings and French speaking Walloons, has never really worked as a state. The country has spent years without any effective government, even longer than the basket case iraq after our interference. It is only a matter of time before something  will have to be done to provide two countries for two very different peoples.

But typical Brit, he thinks that everyone in the world waits to find out what Great Britain will do... He obviously hasn't been talking to the Chinese recently!

Mr Robertson also accused the SNP of offering Scottish voters a “real pig in a poke” because key issues such as EU membership and currency cannot be resolved until after a ‘yes’ vote. 

But that's not true. They can be resolved; but UKOK doesn't want them resolved.

The UK government (the only organisation with the power to do this) won't ask the EU for a ruling on Scotland’s membership, because anyone with any common sense can see that, as Scottish people are currently members, Scots law complies with all the requirements of the EU, and Scotland is rich in oil, water and green power, it would be ridiculous to think that this expansionist organisation would do anything other than jump at the chance of Scotland’s membership. If they asked for a ruling it would almost certainly go against them.

As for the currency situation, we know that although the UKOk government isn’t for negotiating, the governor of the Bank of England, who understands finance, is very eager to talk to the First Minister, as was his predecessor.

 “Britain’s friends around the world need to pay attention. A dangerous historic event might soon be upon us — with few people outside the UK even noticing.” says the Noble one.

Britian's friends? Hmm, well we'll leave that one, because we can't prove much one way or the other, but I doubt they need a calculator to count them. 

But why would it be dangerous Georgie? What’s dangerous about a country with little in common with its neighbours, breaking up with them and running their own business as part of the EU or EEA?  Is it dangerous that Czech Republic and Slovakia are no longer together? Is it dangerous that Hungary is no longer a part of the Austrian Empire? Should we worry that Bulgaria, Poland Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia no longer are part of the USSR’s sphere? It’s not like we are about to declare war? Is England?

The Washington Post has previously warned in an editorial that Scottish independence would weaken America’s foremost ally and create a “less stable world” because Scotland would be too small to “contribute meaningfully” to world security.

I find that interesting. Presumably then the USA requires Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Faeroes to join together. After all surely these countries are far too small to contribute to the USA’s plan for the world. What about the Benelux countries? Probably they should all get together with Germany and Austria so that they are big and powerful. Or is it just countries that do exactly what the White House tells them that should be allowed to be powerful?

I mean, never mind that Scots have to live under a succession of governments implementing policies repugnant to us… as long as we aren’t upsetting America. It’s the least we can do to keep calm and suffer.

 “The United Kingdom has always punched above its weight diplomatically and militarily. A break-up would have a serious effect on its role in the world — all the more so because Britain’s nuclear-deterrent base is in Scotland,” chunters his nobleness.

Perhaps Mr Robertson would like to remember that punching above our weight has cost us dearly. The punching above our weight has involved massive military spending; money which might well have been used to maintain standards of education and health, transport and infrastructure which are well behind those of Western Europe.

But of course, wee George, who got himself a cushy little number in Brussels at an enormous salary together with a handy berth in the British elites’ retirement home, isn’t bothered about that kind of shortcoming. That only affects unimportant little people without titles.

Lord Robertson also challenged the Nationalists’ assertions that a separate Scotland would keep the Queen, the pound and EU membership with the same opt-outs as the UK.

Well, George, she’s Queen of Scots as well as being your English monarch. The Australians keep her too, and the people for Papua New Guinea adn they are not a part of England. 

As it happens, the pound is our currency too. We helped pay for it, and as doubtless, you'll be wanting us to take our share of the monumental debt the London governments have built up, while punching above your weight, perhaps you should think twice about trying to deny it to us.

Of course we could start our own currency and watch your pound fall through a hole in the floor: a heavily indebted country with no industry and no resources. 

As for the UK opt outs… I think you probably already know that these were bought at a price. So no, I don’t expect we can have them… but then we also won't have to pay the price that Mrs Thatcher paid quietly for them. You don't think she got the better of Kohl and Mitterrand, do you?

A spokesman for the pro-UK Better Together UKOK campaign said: "This is an important intervention from the former Nato Secretary General, a man with experience of the realities of international affairs. The SNP idea that everything will change but nothing will change simply isn't credible.”

That’s just too ridiculous to even poke fun at. 

Mr Robertson was a placeman sent to Nato by Tony Blair in his second job as Mr Bush's poodle because Mr Cheney wanted a patsy at Nato; a handyman who would do what he was told. Mr Robertson, somewhat flattered at getting such a highly paid job, well above his reasonable expectations, and a 'freeloader for life' title to go with it, dropped his constituents that only shortly before, he was so proud to serve as MP and dashed to the comforts of world "power" in Brussels.

He's a funny old stick. You’ll remember that he is a baron who recently informed us that we have no culture and no language. It was unfortunate that he said that, because the idiot chose for his aristocratic title, the name Port Ellen on the island of Islay, where a large number of the population speak Gaelic as their first language. 

It's a point that, you'd have thought such a ‘man with experience of the realities of international affairs’ might have thought about before he told us all that their language didn’t exist.

U KOK UP more like!