Posted on 10/18/2012 2:06:21 AM PDT by markomalley
An independent Scotland would be refused to entry to Nato regardless of whether SNP members vote tomorrow to reverse the party’s long-standing opposition to the nuclear alliance, the Ministry of Defence has suggested.
In evidence to a Commons inquiry, defence chiefs indicated that a separate Scotland’s allowing Trident nuclear submarines to remain in its waters would be the critical factor in whether it would be admitted to Nato.
Alex Salmond is hoping to fight off a rebellion at the SNP conference, which starts today, and push through the change in party policy. He fears opposition to Nato will severely undermine his defence credentials in the forthcoming independence referendum campaign.
But the motion being debated by members in Perth makes clear that a separate Scotland would only become a Nato member subject to a deal that it “will not host nuclear weapons”.
The MoD submission to the Commons defence committee suggests this is extremely unlikely to be accepted by Nato, with the alliance agreeing at a conference in May that it will “remain a nuclear alliance for as long as nuclear weapons exist.”
Its Strategic Concept states that the nuclear arsenals of the UK, US and France represented the “supreme guarantee” of Nato’s security. This includes the Trident submarines, which are based on the Clyde.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Scotland will be the fattest country on earth. The remaing UK will be the most conservative country in Europe. Pray for the skirt wearing commies to be this stupid.
Divide and conquer. Isolate socialism whenever and wherever possible.
“Fried Mars Bars!”
Running after the bullets they fire in order to reuse them cuz they is too cheap to buy new ones make Scots lousy soldiers anyway (don’t believe me? I saw it on Bugs Bunny, buddy!).
Contrary to the stereotype, I’ve generally found the Scots to be very generous people, perhaps more so, on the whole, than my fellow Englishmen and women. My sister, who works for the Scottish NHS, has also found this to be the case.
They still hack me off about the whole voting for the SNP and having Scottish MPs voting on English matters which are devolved issues in Scotland, however...
The Scots are a useless excrescence. What a fall.
Generally speaking, most anybody with any get up and go, got up and left about 400 years ago.
sfw
The elite’s ideal of Globalism with it’s ideal of distant rule of large, centralized governments like the EU and efforts at National cultural cleansing, has to go. It’s Chi-com dreams on a global scale.
Americans are a useless excrescence, fat, violent, stupid cowards.
Offended?. Good.
Just remember that there are Scots like myself and Americans who are proud of their Scottish roots who post here. Dont be so rude.
BTW, the vote in 2014 will go AGAINST the nationalists. Scotland will be staying in the UK and NATO.
i guess my family was lazy and only left 70 years ago. It is sad that the only group of people that the Roman’s were afraid to fight have become idiotic pacifists.
The Romans were happy to fight them and did so on various occasions, usually quite successfully.
The Romans did the cost/benefit analysis and decided it was more efficient to station troops in Dacia than in the Lowlands, because Dacia was simply a much richer territory and the troops there were easier to supply.
Cheaper to build a wall.
this my people’s story, i have the right to tell it how i see it!! The wall was built to keep people in just as much as to keep the enemy out. It was more of a control on local populace and the flow of goods and taxes than for actual protection. The actual fear that the Romans had was the fear that the new Romans would return to their non-Roman, tribal ways by consorting with the people’s to the north.
As they say, you are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
It is a matter of historical record that the Romans were not afraid to fight the Scottish tribes. They fought them often. They won most of the time. They held Scottish territory for generations. They pulled their garrisons from Scotland when they needed troops elsewhere in the Empire.
The wall was built to keep people in just as much as to keep the enemy out.
Completely incorrect. The walls were built for neither purpose. People from the north of the wall and the south of the wall could freely move in either direction. The wall was a series of fortifications to prevent mass armed intrusions into the south.
It was more of a control on local populace and the flow of goods and taxes than for actual protection.
It had nothing to do with controlling the local populace, but it did have plenty to do with facilitating trade. Taxes were not collected directly by the Roman state, they were farmed out.
The actual fear that the Romans had was the fear that the new Romans would return to their non-Roman, tribal ways by consorting with the people’s to the north.
Rome could have cared less whether non-Romans adopted Roman ways or not. What they were interested in was commerce and the public peace that fosters commerce.
Romans had no desire to convert non-Romans into Romans. Being Roman was not a religion or an ideology. Romans had a very simple approach to non-Romans in their empire: "Behave and you can trade with us. Misbehave and we will crush you."
The Romans generally acted through proxies - negotiating the compliance of subject peoples through their leaders.
While not a historian, I am an archaeologist with an emphasis on the archaeology of the British Isles. The only thing we know for sure was that the wall was built as a “line in the sand.” Beyond the line, Rome did not desire to maintain its influence. Within the line it was Rome. Yes people and goods could easily come and go but it was still controlled. The notion that “Rome” or “Romanitas” was not an ideology is ridiculous. It was the concept of Rome that held the empire together when language and bloodlines were absent.
In the sense of a fortification, sure.
Beyond the line, Rome did not desire to maintain its influence. Within the line it was Rome.
Agreed.
Yes people and goods could easily come and go but it was still controlled.
Traffic was monitored, not controlled. In other words, the sentries were likely paying close attention to whom came and went, but unless someone was a "person of interest" in the eyes of the state, traffic was not controlled.
The notion that “Rome” or “Romanitas” was not an ideology is ridiculous.
It was, of course, never an ideology.
The very word Romanitas was unknown to the Romans - it was a concept invented after the decline of Imperial Rome by a non-Roman who wanted to mock non-Romans who aspired to being like Romans.
Was there a Roman culture? Absolutely. But there was no Roman "program" to Romanize non-Romans. This was not like Christianity, with Christians looking to convert non-Christians to their way of life. Nor was this like the Gallicization of revolutionary France, where linguistic and ethnic minorities were forced to adopt French language and culture.
The Romans were not ideological. Their policy, repeated everywhere they went, was simple: We are in charge. Abide by our laws or be punished. Speak your language, worship your gods, run your lives however you like. But make sure you pay your taxes and do not break the law.
Actually both of you are both right and wrong.
Wideawake, whilst you are correct that the Romans did fight the ‘Scots’ (to use the modern parlance for want of a better name), and did win (Mons Grampius most famously), the tribes in the north (modern day Scotland) did inflict defeat and death on the Romans.
Firstly, they held only parts of Scotland. And the Romans did struggle greatly at times to pacify even the Scots they occupied within their Roman Scotland. The idea that the Briton tribes south of the Antonine Wall were completely pacified is not true. As a historian, a Scot, and an Ayrshireman, I can tell you its not. There is written and physical evidence of periodic risings in the south of Scotland across long periods of time.
For example, I used to live very close to Loudoun Hill, one of the major Roman forts in the south of Scotland, and there is evidence of attack against it.
Secondly, we have the famous fact that the Romans couldnt conquer the north, the land of the Picts. Despite victories like Mons Grampius. In fact, the Romans controlled less than half of Scotland even at their peak.
That struggle at least clearly partly influenced their decision to vacate what Scottish land they held (which by that time was getting smaller and more tenuous).
And we have the famous story of the 9th, which IF true,and some modern historians believe it did, and some recent evidence suggests it did, saw a legion destroyed in Southern Scotland.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.