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!

ALEX'S ANSWER TO THE WASHINGTON POST

With a decency unlikely to be accorded to him by any of the British newspapers when they have printed disparaging articles about Scotland's independence, The Washington Post has printed the following, in reply to an editorial which appeared in their pages. As usual with no rancour Salmond wipes away all the crud that is talked about the world coming to an end because one small nation of 5 million (normally governed by people it did not elect) wants self determination and democracy.

When the United Nations was formed at the end of World War II, its membership comprised barely 50 independent countries. Today that number has grown to almost 200 — a sure sign that the right to democratic self-determination has been among the foremost prevailing factors in the world as we have moved into the 21st century.

And the voice of the United States has often been instrumental in that process.

As first minister of Scotland, I lead a country that once was independent and aspires to that status again. In autumn 2014, we will offer the people of Scotland the opportunity to vote to reclaim that independence.

As part of the debate in the run-up to that referendum, it is important that the facts are laid out as clearly as possible, and that is why The Post’s Oct. 31 editorial [“If Europe crumbles; An independent Scotland would be bad for the West”] was so disappointing.

To begin with, the assertion that an independent Scotland would “withdraw from NATO” is quite wrong. The Scottish National Party voted this year for an independent Scotland to continue in NATO membership. Independence will certainly mean an end to the stationing of nuclear weapons in Scotland, that is true, but this will merely put Scotland in the same non-nuclear category as 25 of the alliance’s current 28 members.

The claim that an independent Scotland would be “unable to contribute meaningfully to global security” also is untrue. Would the same be said of European nations such as Norway, smaller than Scotland, or Denmark, almost identical in size? As it happens, these two countries combined flew more air sorties in the internationally sanctioned action in Libya than did the United Kingdom.

Further, the assertion that London might veto independent Scottish membership of the European Union and its use of the pound as a currency is not borne out by the facts. The recent Edinburgh Agreement, signed by myself and U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, commits both our governments to respect the referendum and to implement the outcome, whatever the result.

And it is likely that any London government would be keen to see an independent Scotland continue to use the pound, given the large sums that Scottish sources — not least North Sea oil and gas, the vast majority of which lies in our territorial waters — make to that currency’s balance of payments.

Scotland and the United States share close ties stretching back centuries. Many U.S. presidents trace their ancestry to Scotland, while the Declaration of Arbroath, the 14th-century document asserting Scotland’s status as an independent nation, has been held by a U.S. Senate resolution as a direct influence on the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

The long-standing ties between our two countries will only be strengthened once Scotland regains its place as an equal member of the global family of nations. After all, the Republic of Ireland gained its independence in the 20th century and enjoys the warmest of relationships with the United States. Does anyone in the United States seriously consider that this relationship would be improved by seeing Dublin return to rule from London?

Former president Bill Clinton recently recognized that it is increasingly important for national identities to be accommodated along with the need to make common cause to tackle global problems. Independence in an interdependent world means that the 21st century can see just such a global partnership evolve hand in hand with the political self-determination of which the United States has so often been such a vociferous champion.

Indeed, in considering the true interests of the United States, perhaps The Post would do well to reflect that democracy and self-determination must by their nature represent the real interest of America, because they are the core principles on which the country was founded.

There is something else worth reflecting on in the Scottish civic debate. In a process of self-government that has taken the best part of the last century, not one person has ever died arguing for or against Scottish independence.

The national movement in Scotland is peaceful, democratic and civic in its nature — something perhaps, in this troubled world, to be encouraged as in the true interests of both the United States and of Scotland.

SNP RESIGNATIONS OVER NATO ...

Two MSPs have resigned from the SNP as a result of the conference vote to join NATO.

John Finney and Jean Urquhart, who are both Highland Region list members, announced their decision this morning.

They don't intend to stand down as list members and will continue to support the government as independents.

Needless to say the news makes the headlines of both the Scotsman and the Herald. The Record makes it their second story.


It will not change the situation in parliament. The two new Independent MSPs have indicated to Alex Salmond that they support the rest of the government's programme and will continue to vote with them on matters other than Nato. They will, of course, continue to support the YES Scotland campaign.

Some will suggest that they should stand down and I can understand that, but I can also see why they hae deided to stay. They stood on the platform of a non-Nato Scotland. It is is SNP which, democratically, (vote of 426 - 332) changed its policy. There was bound to be fall out, and there may yet be more.

Whilst I'm sorry that the pair have felt it necessary to resign, I respect their position. Conscience is something that is sadly lacking in so many politicians. It is hard to be critical of it when is does show itself. 

Should members of other parties not consider their position?

There are, I am sure, on the Labour benches, many who take strong issue with Mrs Lamont's assertion that Scotland is a "something for nothing" country and with her move to the right, so welcomed by the Conservative group. Thus far none has had the guts to do what John and Jean have done.

Equally, when the Conservative Party leadership elections took place last year Murdo Fraser stood on a platform of drastic change, removing their connection to the English Tories and renaming them in an attempt to bury the Thatcherite past. He had a number of supporters on the Tory benches, and indeed came second in the contest. When, by fair means or otherwise, David Cameron's preferred choice, Ruth Davidson, won, thus ensuring totally loyalty to the English party, Murdo meekly accepted a junior role in the parliamentary party. There were no resignations from the party.

Murdo and his supporters were proposing a new right of centre party because the old one was no longer fit for purpose. Where, I ask, are the principles of these people?

In light of the SNP resignations, the parliamentary arithmetic still gives the SNP a majority, but one that is far slimmer than the one that they started with.

Tricia Marwick's election to presiding officer obliged her to stand down from the party, and Bill Walker left the party following the disclosure of his lack of disclosure in respect of his past domestic life. 

WILL THERE BE A COMPROMISE ON DEFENCE SPENDING?

There’s one way to guarantee absolutely that defence spending will be protected, and that’s for America to hint that the special relationship would be affected.

And so Mr Fox, describing himself as a “hawk” on defence, has been "swift" (no pun intended) to assure the Americans that, no matter what, Britain will continue to play its part in NATO. As that part has always been to punch well above our weight, then it seems that there may be some re-calculations going on in No 11.

One word from President Obama and Mrs Clinton and you can bet that George Osborne has been sent homeward, "tae think again" about his figures! And it wouldn’t have made any difference if Mr Brown had still been in the driving seat. What must not happen is that there should be any rupture in the so-called “special relationship”.

The Telegraph reports the the American intervention is likely to increase tensions over the scale of the cuts to be announced next week.

Britain is one of a handful of European NATO members that meets the 2% (of GDP) standard, although much of it is wasted on expensive projects that run years late and double in price. Defence spending is predicted to fall as low as 1.7% of GDP.

George Osborne has been pressing for a 10% cut in the defence budget, which Fox has been resisting fiercely. It is thought now that a “midpoint” compromise of around 6% could be reached. That would represent a political victory for Fox but would still leave the Services facing painful losses. (Of course that would have knock-on effects for other services which would simply have to be cut by more.)

Fox and the Defence chiefs have been fighting this batter, leaking letters and letting retired officers speak to the press for months with no result, but one word from America and the budget is changed.

The special relationship of course, is all about Britain retaining a place at the top table. If America no longer feels it can depend completely and totally upon us, then that could well be in jeopardy. After all, with all the up and coming nations in the world, isn’t it slightly ridiculous that the UN Security Council includes the UK and France?

And why is Britain in the G8 when quite clearly we are not one of the richest nations on Earth.

Our “leaders” will do what it takes to ensure that they are still invited to the White House. It would be embarrassing if Brazil, India or Germany were to replace us. And it would leave the British politicians with nothing better to do that involve themselves in the boring issues of running Britain. Yawn

Now....I wonder if Mr Obama would care to intervene over some other issues.

BUFF HOON THE GOON GETS THE BOOT FROM NATO COMMITTEE

Well, poor old Geoff Hoon has cooked his goose well and truly this time.

It seems that he has been dismissed from a high level group of NATO personnel chaired by ex-Secretary of State Madeline Albright and tasked with studying new strategic concepts for the alliance (whatever that may be, and indeed whatever use he would have been to them).

He was caught on camera for a Channel Four Despatches programme bragging that a recent tax-payer funded trip to Washington DC, had involved “three days work for NATO followed by ‘a couple of days of Hoon work’”. He shouted his mouth off about the role that “provided him with commercially lucrative insights which could be useful to the arms industry”. He now wanted to turn his contacts and into “something that, bluntly, makes money”. Nice one Buster, we pay for you to go there (first class, I have no doubt, and pay for your hotel and food and you spend the time working for your greedy little self to make money in the arms trade. What kind of pond life are you?)

Anyway, his butt must be well sore because as a result of this piece of bragging to a young female journalist posing as a businesswoman, he has been tossed out of the Labour party and had his ass sacked from the NATO job that he was getting all these contacts from.

As my dear friend Spook would have said if he were writing this.....”wee shame”.

It appears that Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the secretary-general of NATO, asked him to leave when Gordon Brown made clear that he did not wish the former chief whip to remain a member of the committee.

So there you go you wee tube....... That’s what you get for trying to impress the ladies that despite your thinning hair, double chin and lined face you are still a force to be reckoned with. A word to the wise..... It’s probably best to remember that if a young lady is showing interest in you of any sort at all, there’s probably an ulterior motive, so watch out for the hidden camera, and mic, and keep your silly fat gob shut.

To think we once entrusted the lives of our troops to this fool.


Pictured: NATO summit and The Right Dishonourable Geoff Hoon, MP

.......................................................