Tuesday, 07 August 2012 07:04
40 Comments
The SNP’s youth wing has voted to oppose moves that would see the party retain membership of NATO.
In a vote taken last night, members of the National Executive Committee decided not to support MP Angus Robertson’s resolution that would see Trident removed from Scotland but the country remain under the NATO umbrella.
In a statement released last night, David Linden, National Convenor of the Young Scots for Independence group said:
“The party’s youth wing has a strong and proud history of consistently campaigning against nuclear weapons. Supporting a u-turn on NATO would, in my opinion, be in congress with our consistent and unambiguous opposition to nuclear weapons.
It is for this reason that the YSI will support, and vote for, the amendment to reaffirm current SNP policy which is sufficient and reflects our longstanding view. Indeed, I hope many YSI members who are attending conference in their own right will do similar.”
Comments
#
2012-08-07 09:16
Kids eh. You can't help but love them but this time they're wrong.
Membership of NATO does not automatically imply support for or a desire to have nuclear weapons. Plenty of other countries have shown that.
Membership of NATO does not automatically imply support for or a desire to have nuclear weapons. Plenty of other countries have shown that.
#
2012-08-07 09:19
Can someone explain the apparent contradiction of YSI and other anti-NATO party members being against full membership while at the same time apparently happy with the present policy of an independent Scotland joining NATO's "Partnership for Peace"? OK, it's not full-blown NATO but it is NATO membership nonetheless; "NATO-lite" if you like.
#
2012-08-07 09:54
The majority of countrys within Nato do not have nuclear weapons, and the removel of nuclear weapons but remaining within Nato would I believe be a win, win solution for an Independent Scotland.
#
2012-08-07 10:48
Hypocrytical in the extreme to demand removal of Trident while wanting to shelter under the umbrella of an alliance which retains the (first strike option) nuclear abomination.
#
2012-08-07 11:25
Quoting cokynutjoe:
Nonsense, their nothing "hypocritical" about it at all, Scotland never got the choice about having nuclear weapons based here, and if with independence we can demand their removel why not, for once it would be our decision.
And as for remaning within NATO, well ensuring your country and its people has an adquate defence strategy is one of the major responsibilitie s of your government. And being under the umbrella of NATO is a very decsive move towards that.
Honestly in life you will meet a big threating bugger at some point, it helps a lot if you have friends standing beside you, and that go's for countrys too.
People want to feel safe, having nuclear weapons in my country does not make me feel safe, having backup as a member of Nato does.
Hypocrytical in the extreme to demand removal of Trident while wanting to shelter under the umbrella of an alliance which retains the (first strike option) nuclear abomination.
Nonsense, their nothing "hypocritical" about it at all, Scotland never got the choice about having nuclear weapons based here, and if with independence we can demand their removel why not, for once it would be our decision.
And as for remaning within NATO, well ensuring your country and its people has an adquate defence strategy is one of the major responsibilitie s of your government. And being under the umbrella of NATO is a very decsive move towards that.
Honestly in life you will meet a big threating bugger at some point, it helps a lot if you have friends standing beside you, and that go's for countrys too.
People want to feel safe, having nuclear weapons in my country does not make me feel safe, having backup as a member of Nato does.
#
2012-08-07 12:59
The SNP by supporting membership of Nato is depriving the Unionists questioning the independent Scotland’s foreign and defence policy. The object is to reassure the Scottish electorate about the stability and continuity when Scotland is independent and removing the objection to Nato membership is part of this reassurance.
#
2012-08-07 13:01
The Youth Wing have made a bad mistake. Plenty of other NATO members do not have nuclear weapons (and some have policies of not accepting nuclear weapons on their soil) while understanding that they belong to an alliance in which some members do have nuclear weapons and might in certain circumstances use them. NATO accepts this.
Any negotiation with England (Wales and NI?) following Scottish independence regarding the removal of Trident from Scottish bases will always be difficult but I suspect could be made easier if Scotland was or was going to be a member of NATO in its own right.
As I said a bad mistake which I very much hope the rest of the party completely ignores and sensibly revises the SNP position on NATO membership in due course.
Any negotiation with England (Wales and NI?) following Scottish independence regarding the removal of Trident from Scottish bases will always be difficult but I suspect could be made easier if Scotland was or was going to be a member of NATO in its own right.
As I said a bad mistake which I very much hope the rest of the party completely ignores and sensibly revises the SNP position on NATO membership in due course.
#
2012-08-07 13:38
If anyone would like to see how Unionists are looking at this debate then take a peek at the Scotsman comments!
Personal insults and name calling abound, with nothing constructive to say to democracy. it is truly shocking the way posters make daily comments.
'34
Buford Van Stomm
Tuesday, August 7, 2012 at 12:50 PM
I expect Salmond to dress as Dr Strangelove for the NATO debate...."gentleman you can't fight during the war debate"'
'36
Buford Van Stomm
Tuesday, August 7, 2012 at 12:53 PM
Looking forward to Rear Admiral Comical Aggie Robertson being photographed up top on a Trident submarine.'
Personal insults and name calling abound, with nothing constructive to say to democracy. it is truly shocking the way posters make daily comments.
'34
Buford Van Stomm
Tuesday, August 7, 2012 at 12:50 PM
I expect Salmond to dress as Dr Strangelove for the NATO debate...."gentleman you can't fight during the war debate"'
'36
Buford Van Stomm
Tuesday, August 7, 2012 at 12:53 PM
Looking forward to Rear Admiral Comical Aggie Robertson being photographed up top on a Trident submarine.'
#
2012-08-07 14:08
I'm not a member of the YSI, but I fail to see how standing by their principles is a bad thing. Being part of NATO is terrible for Scotland. We may not individually have nuclear weapons at that point, but we'd see be a part of one of the biggest warmongering organisations on the planet and the blood would still very much be on our hands.
If anyone can tell me exactly where the threat comes from, who's likely to attack us, and why...then maybe I'll come round. As it is we're in one of the safest locations on the planet, a threat to noone, and have little of interest to the outside world. All NATO would give us is an extra bill to pay, which could be better spent here on the people of Scotland.
If anyone can tell me exactly where the threat comes from, who's likely to attack us, and why...then maybe I'll come round. As it is we're in one of the safest locations on the planet, a threat to noone, and have little of interest to the outside world. All NATO would give us is an extra bill to pay, which could be better spent here on the people of Scotland.
#
2012-08-07 14:25
The threat Mr Stakhanovite, comes from nuclear armed rogue-state sponsored terrorism. While Iran, North Korea and the like are unlikely to either dare or have the means to launch a first strike against the West, they could well employ a terrorist group to act as their proxy.
The knowledge that the superior nuclear fire power retained by NATO could be unleashed on them, either as a first strike to prevent their attack, or in retalliation, is the one sure way of preventing it from happening.
I dont like the damned things any more than the next man but they are out there and in the hands of some pretty unstable dictators. That is the reality which our governments must face when they have the responsibility of protecting their people.
The knowledge that the superior nuclear fire power retained by NATO could be unleashed on them, either as a first strike to prevent their attack, or in retalliation, is the one sure way of preventing it from happening.
I dont like the damned things any more than the next man but they are out there and in the hands of some pretty unstable dictators. That is the reality which our governments must face when they have the responsibility of protecting their people.
#
2012-08-07 14:36
@alasdairmac
'That is the reality which our governments must face when they have the responsibility of protecting their people.'
If said Governments stayed out of the power game and instead managed to spend this money in better ways then that would be 'responsible government'. Instead what they do is ratchet up the game and make countries like ours targets for small terror groups.
'That is the reality which our governments must face when they have the responsibility of protecting their people.'
If said Governments stayed out of the power game and instead managed to spend this money in better ways then that would be 'responsible government'. Instead what they do is ratchet up the game and make countries like ours targets for small terror groups.
#
2012-08-07 16:24
Adrian B. If I may say so, that is a very idealistic world that you live in. As I said, the nukes are there and in the hands of some very dodgy people leading very unstable countries. Only by being able to hit them back can we hope to deter them from starting anything off. The principle worked for 40+ years against the USSR and so I will trust it to work against anyone else tempted to send us some unwanted sunshine.
#
2012-08-07 18:45
@alasdairmac
'If I may say so, that is a very idealistic world that you live in'
Sometimes in life the simplest solutions are the best. Why make life complicated?
I think Stakhanovite pretty well summed up my train of thought on this. The world is a much smaller place these days. Any attack made on any nation would not only be condemned By Nato members, but many non Nato members.
The Warsaw Pact was disbanded in July 1991. The cold war is over and has been consigned to the history books.
We now live in a Global world where communication and travel are letting more of the worlds population broaden their minds. Terrorist attacks are more likely in this day and age. Not because we have 'mines bigger than yours' mindset on WMDs, but because we go into countries to sort out problems that the USA doesn't like.
Strange then that we have bought these WMDs from the USA. You need to ask who benefits from the UK having WMDs and which country wants to sell us the replacement for Trident II that we currently have.
The oldest of the Vanguard class of subs is to retire in 2017. Lets hope that they are removed from this country by this date at the latest.
I agree with your agreement with Davy's posting at the top of the page.
What I do not accept is the spoon fed rubbish for retaining a nuclear so called deterrent. In this day and age it does not stand up to scrutiny. Having Westminster losing it's seat at the top table might well do Humankind a big favour.
If Scotland got hit by one of these things. We would all be dead. It would fall to someone else to retaliate. If Germany was hit, then many in Scotland would die an agonising death. Even the Scottish health Service would not save you or I.
These things are only good for Nuclear weapon salesmen and American jobs in building these things, especially in a time of recession.
Remember the shootings that took place in the US at the premier of the new Bat Man film a couple of weeks ago? All across America, gun sales rose dramatically in the following days. You would think by now they would have enough guns and ammo to prevent such an atrocity. But no apparently not, they need more!
Every time this happens in the US, a nutter with guns does not get 'taken out by' by an American citizen with his or her hand gun. It's always down to the police or army.
US nuclear weapons on our soil are a way of the US state having some sort of WMD presence in Europe. They are not for Europe's protection!
Sorry for the rant.
'If I may say so, that is a very idealistic world that you live in'
Sometimes in life the simplest solutions are the best. Why make life complicated?
I think Stakhanovite pretty well summed up my train of thought on this. The world is a much smaller place these days. Any attack made on any nation would not only be condemned By Nato members, but many non Nato members.
The Warsaw Pact was disbanded in July 1991. The cold war is over and has been consigned to the history books.
We now live in a Global world where communication and travel are letting more of the worlds population broaden their minds. Terrorist attacks are more likely in this day and age. Not because we have 'mines bigger than yours' mindset on WMDs, but because we go into countries to sort out problems that the USA doesn't like.
Strange then that we have bought these WMDs from the USA. You need to ask who benefits from the UK having WMDs and which country wants to sell us the replacement for Trident II that we currently have.
The oldest of the Vanguard class of subs is to retire in 2017. Lets hope that they are removed from this country by this date at the latest.
I agree with your agreement with Davy's posting at the top of the page.
What I do not accept is the spoon fed rubbish for retaining a nuclear so called deterrent. In this day and age it does not stand up to scrutiny. Having Westminster losing it's seat at the top table might well do Humankind a big favour.
If Scotland got hit by one of these things. We would all be dead. It would fall to someone else to retaliate. If Germany was hit, then many in Scotland would die an agonising death. Even the Scottish health Service would not save you or I.
These things are only good for Nuclear weapon salesmen and American jobs in building these things, especially in a time of recession.
Remember the shootings that took place in the US at the premier of the new Bat Man film a couple of weeks ago? All across America, gun sales rose dramatically in the following days. You would think by now they would have enough guns and ammo to prevent such an atrocity. But no apparently not, they need more!
Every time this happens in the US, a nutter with guns does not get 'taken out by' by an American citizen with his or her hand gun. It's always down to the police or army.
US nuclear weapons on our soil are a way of the US state having some sort of WMD presence in Europe. They are not for Europe's protection!
Sorry for the rant.
#
2012-08-07 16:23
If you think either North Korea or Iran care about the world beyond their regions you are deluding yourself, never mind employing a terrorist network to get at Scotland specifically. If they caused a city-wide explosion in Glasgow or Edinburgh, citizens of major powers are likely to be casualties and would react with or without us in NATO. Not to mention they have nukes too meaning NATO will never invade them.
#
2012-08-07 15:07
Rannoch has the answer above: newsnetscotland.com/.../... .. "by supporting membership of Nato is depriving the Unionists questioning the independent Scotland’s foreign and defence policy. The object is to reassure the Scottish electorate about the stability and continuity when Scotland is independent and removing the objection to Nato membership is part of this reassurance."
The biggest threat we face is that of losing the referendum .. Maybe not as instantly damaging as a nuclear strike but over time just as bad IMHO. The end of Scotland, the death of Scots.
The biggest threat we face is that of losing the referendum .. Maybe not as instantly damaging as a nuclear strike but over time just as bad IMHO. The end of Scotland, the death of Scots.
#
2012-08-07 15:18
@xyz
Out of curiosity, how did you create a link to the above comment by Rannoch? It would be handy to share.
Thanks
Out of curiosity, how did you create a link to the above comment by Rannoch? It would be handy to share.
Thanks
#
2012-08-07 15:31
I clicked on the hash symbol next to the comment.
This displays the page with that comment at the top.
Then I copied and pasted the URL from the address bar.
This displays the page with that comment at the top.
Then I copied and pasted the URL from the address bar.
#
2012-08-07 15:40
Thats cool! I like that feature. you learn something new every day.
Thanks again xyz
Thanks again xyz
#
2012-08-09 14:38
Quoting xyz:
Hear hear! Keep your eyes on the prize of winning in 2014. NATO membership is a matter for another day. The fact is that notwithstanding the SNP youth League, the vast majority of Scots would probably prefer to remain in NATO, but remove Trident from our soil, and not allow nuclear weapons to be stationed here.
That's good enough for the likes of Norway, and it's good enough for me.
Anyone who thinks that an independent Scotland can somehow feel insulated from any future threat, and is content to see us effectively disarmed isn't living in the real world.
as others have mentioned, apart from the threat from sundry lunatic fringe nutters in the Iran / North Korea mould, there are plenty of non-state actors who could pose a threat, and possibly for reasons as trivial as publishing funny cartoons in our press!
In addition, any sovereign nation worthy of the name should be prepared to protect its population, resources, airspace and territorial waters. The future isn't ours to see, but it is quite feasible that in future we might need to defend our oil installations, offshore wind farms, fisheries etc. That is much more effectively and cheaply achieved as a NATO member than by trying to go it alone.
Effective armed neutrality is an expensive option as the Swedes found out.
The biggest threat we face is that of losing the referendum .. Maybe not as instantly damaging as a nuclear strike but over time just as bad IMHO. The end of Scotland, the death of Scots.
Hear hear! Keep your eyes on the prize of winning in 2014. NATO membership is a matter for another day. The fact is that notwithstanding the SNP youth League, the vast majority of Scots would probably prefer to remain in NATO, but remove Trident from our soil, and not allow nuclear weapons to be stationed here.
That's good enough for the likes of Norway, and it's good enough for me.
Anyone who thinks that an independent Scotland can somehow feel insulated from any future threat, and is content to see us effectively disarmed isn't living in the real world.
as others have mentioned, apart from the threat from sundry lunatic fringe nutters in the Iran / North Korea mould, there are plenty of non-state actors who could pose a threat, and possibly for reasons as trivial as publishing funny cartoons in our press!
In addition, any sovereign nation worthy of the name should be prepared to protect its population, resources, airspace and territorial waters. The future isn't ours to see, but it is quite feasible that in future we might need to defend our oil installations, offshore wind farms, fisheries etc. That is much more effectively and cheaply achieved as a NATO member than by trying to go it alone.
Effective armed neutrality is an expensive option as the Swedes found out.
#
2012-08-07 14:33
Stakhanovite, we have oil, water, tidal and wind resources. Much more than little of interest to the rest of the world! Any extra bill for belonging to NATO is probably smaller than the extra bill for the defence resources we might think we needed if we didn't belong to NATO
#
2012-08-07 14:57
I'm a bit ambivelant about NATO, although I'd like the warheads gone right enough.
How much US foreign policy does NATO project is my worry, it seems to me the big problem for us these past few years has been US Gov foreign policy and our Gov's blind following of it.
We get rid of that and the nuclear weapons, our foot print in terms of terrorist attack becomes very small indeed.
How much US foreign policy does NATO project is my worry, it seems to me the big problem for us these past few years has been US Gov foreign policy and our Gov's blind following of it.
We get rid of that and the nuclear weapons, our foot print in terms of terrorist attack becomes very small indeed.
#
2012-08-07 16:14
Brian Quail's letter in todays Herald.
It was 67 years ago this week when the first uranium bomb was exploded above Hiroshima with the force of 15,000 tons of TNT.
Tens of thousands were killed by the blast and fireball which engulfed the city. A similar number died of radiation sickness and injuries in the days and months that followed. In total 140,000 died by the end of 1945.. Three days later, Nagasaki was destroyed by a plutoniun bomb.
At that time Japan was devastated and seeking to surrender.
Today in Scotland we have more than 200 atom bombs stored at Coulport, each of which is eight times more powerful than the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima. This is the biggest arsenal of nuclear missiles in Europe. As a weapon of mass destruction Trident is incapable of being used in conformity of the laws of war, which demand respect for the principle of civilian immunity. It is therefore criminal and illegal.
How did we come to this terrible situation? we in Scotland are trapped as victims of the past.
It is precisely because we, as a society, have never acknowledged and repented of Hiroshima,the greatest single-act war crime in history, that we are prepared to repeat it, and unimaginably worse, with Trident. Our only hope lies in a radical change of heart.
Our nuclear mindset is quintessentiall y British. Trident is the ultimate symbol of Britishness, our sancrosanct national fetish. We have Trident because we're British; it really is as simple as that.
Independence is the only way to escape from this nightmare, to free ourselves and our English friends from the insane delusions of nuclear idolatry.
It was 67 years ago this week when the first uranium bomb was exploded above Hiroshima with the force of 15,000 tons of TNT.
Tens of thousands were killed by the blast and fireball which engulfed the city. A similar number died of radiation sickness and injuries in the days and months that followed. In total 140,000 died by the end of 1945.. Three days later, Nagasaki was destroyed by a plutoniun bomb.
At that time Japan was devastated and seeking to surrender.
Today in Scotland we have more than 200 atom bombs stored at Coulport, each of which is eight times more powerful than the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima. This is the biggest arsenal of nuclear missiles in Europe. As a weapon of mass destruction Trident is incapable of being used in conformity of the laws of war, which demand respect for the principle of civilian immunity. It is therefore criminal and illegal.
How did we come to this terrible situation? we in Scotland are trapped as victims of the past.
It is precisely because we, as a society, have never acknowledged and repented of Hiroshima,the greatest single-act war crime in history, that we are prepared to repeat it, and unimaginably worse, with Trident. Our only hope lies in a radical change of heart.
Our nuclear mindset is quintessentiall y British. Trident is the ultimate symbol of Britishness, our sancrosanct national fetish. We have Trident because we're British; it really is as simple as that.
Independence is the only way to escape from this nightmare, to free ourselves and our English friends from the insane delusions of nuclear idolatry.
#
2012-08-07 21:07
You are right 140,000 died in Hiroshima and thousands more in the Nagasaki atomic explosion, but their is more than one side of the story.
The estimated casulties for the invasion of Japan was expected to be five million allied soldiers because of the allies experience fighting the japanese when trying to retake the pacfic islands. So the decision to drop the bomb was thought to be the most expedent way of saving our own forces. And before you call it the "greatest single war-crime in history", I strongly urge you to speak to some of the people who served in that war, they may remind you of the six million jews plus two million others murdered by the Nazi's and their final solution. Or perhaps you could check out the Japanese prisoner of war camps and the thousands of men and women murdered in them.
Another result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the world actually saw the result of atomic power and in doing so, I believe has pulled back from ever using any of those damned things again. It was a hard lesson but hopefully never again. But check your facts before you make accussation's .
The estimated casulties for the invasion of Japan was expected to be five million allied soldiers because of the allies experience fighting the japanese when trying to retake the pacfic islands. So the decision to drop the bomb was thought to be the most expedent way of saving our own forces. And before you call it the "greatest single war-crime in history", I strongly urge you to speak to some of the people who served in that war, they may remind you of the six million jews plus two million others murdered by the Nazi's and their final solution. Or perhaps you could check out the Japanese prisoner of war camps and the thousands of men and women murdered in them.
Another result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the world actually saw the result of atomic power and in doing so, I believe has pulled back from ever using any of those damned things again. It was a hard lesson but hopefully never again. But check your facts before you make accussation's .
#
2012-08-07 23:06
Brian's letter says it was the greatest "single act" war crime, which is completely correct. He was not making any accusations, simply stating facts.
There can be few people in Scotland who have campagned as relentlessly against the nuclear obscenity, or are as knowledgeable on the subject, as Brian Quail.
This weapon is no deterrent to terrorists, it cannot be used without US say so, so is not in any sense independent. Who exactly is it aimed at?
The costs of the planned replacement of Trident are phenomenal, and objecting to its presence while accepting it's OK somewhere else, is a nonsense.
If we are interested in NATO jobs we should at least be honest, and like Johan Lamont,waffle about disarmament while making the case for keeping Trident at Faslane.
There can be few people in Scotland who have campagned as relentlessly against the nuclear obscenity, or are as knowledgeable on the subject, as Brian Quail.
This weapon is no deterrent to terrorists, it cannot be used without US say so, so is not in any sense independent. Who exactly is it aimed at?
The costs of the planned replacement of Trident are phenomenal, and objecting to its presence while accepting it's OK somewhere else, is a nonsense.
If we are interested in NATO jobs we should at least be honest, and like Johan Lamont,waffle about disarmament while making the case for keeping Trident at Faslane.
#
2012-08-08 17:44
It's funny that Japan can attack America without provocation or declaration. Kill millions of Chinese. Torture Allied POWs making them work without food until they die and performing gruesome medical experiments on them.
Yet when the attacked country using their latest advanced weapon to finish off one of the deadliest wars in history, it's a "War Crime".
Japan wanted total war, and total war is what they got.
Perhaps there was a less deadly way to end the war in the Pacific, but maybe their wasn't. I'd like to see you make that call. What can't be doubted though is that the US was well within their rights to drop that bomb.
In the meantime M.A.D. has prevented a world war for since.
Yet when the attacked country using their latest advanced weapon to finish off one of the deadliest wars in history, it's a "War Crime".
Japan wanted total war, and total war is what they got.
Perhaps there was a less deadly way to end the war in the Pacific, but maybe their wasn't. I'd like to see you make that call. What can't be doubted though is that the US was well within their rights to drop that bomb.
In the meantime M.A.D. has prevented a world war for since.
#
2012-08-07 16:50
Ah the idealisim of youth, sorry, like pure comunisim and pure capitalism, pure pasifisim does not an can not work. Standing still and not fighting back just gets you dead. Scotland needs to play its part in the world stage and should be part of NATO in order to help protect our borders air and offshore interests.
#
2012-08-07 17:48
To state that it is necessary to be "under the umbrella" of NATO in order to protect our country is wide of the truth.
If ever Scotland, or any other country in Europe was subject to a nuclear strike; within or outwith NATO, it would lead to outright regional & possibly global war. We are kidding ourselves to think that any protection is provided by being in a club which has access to fewer armaments than those not in the club have!
The kids are all right & I believe that children are the future! ;)
If ever Scotland, or any other country in Europe was subject to a nuclear strike; within or outwith NATO, it would lead to outright regional & possibly global war. We are kidding ourselves to think that any protection is provided by being in a club which has access to fewer armaments than those not in the club have!
The kids are all right & I believe that children are the future! ;)
#
2012-08-07 17:55
I respect the Youth Wings position but I guess they see Nato as purely a Nuclear club.
Scotland is in a key strategic position for the Defence of the North Atlantic and there are many non-Nuclear reasons why membership of Nato conventionally is a win-win for Nato countries and Scotland.
There is also the prospect of contracts that Scotland can participate in which will be out of the question if not in such organisations as Nato or Occar. Even in commercial areas some Scottish business and those of Scottish Nationality could be excluded if we are not a member. I know from first hand experience that even in general procurement, restrictions can apply in certain cases and processes.
Also not being part of Nato we would still have to collaborate and do business with countries who are in Nato, so where do you draw the line?
For me membership of Nato makes sense while continuing to lobby against Nuclear proliferation and weapons in general. I also think having more non nuclear nations within Nato will have greater influence than remaining outside.
Scotland is in a key strategic position for the Defence of the North Atlantic and there are many non-Nuclear reasons why membership of Nato conventionally is a win-win for Nato countries and Scotland.
There is also the prospect of contracts that Scotland can participate in which will be out of the question if not in such organisations as Nato or Occar. Even in commercial areas some Scottish business and those of Scottish Nationality could be excluded if we are not a member. I know from first hand experience that even in general procurement, restrictions can apply in certain cases and processes.
Also not being part of Nato we would still have to collaborate and do business with countries who are in Nato, so where do you draw the line?
For me membership of Nato makes sense while continuing to lobby against Nuclear proliferation and weapons in general. I also think having more non nuclear nations within Nato will have greater influence than remaining outside.
#
2012-08-09 12:39
Quoting Davy:
Its you that needs to check your facts first, this is why;
The Japanese tried to surrender by contacting first the USA then the Russians, the Allies refused to hear them and dropped the bomb anyway. You have to ask yourself why it happened this way, I m sure you ll draw the correct conclusions!
Brian's letter and Cockynutjoe are infact correct, your facts are not complete.
You are right 140,000 died in Hiroshima and thousands more in the Nagasaki atomic explosion, but their is more than one side of the story.
The estimated casulties for the invasion of Japan was expected to be five million allied soldiers because of the allies experience fighting the japanese when trying to retake the pacfic islands. So the decision to drop the bomb was thought to be the most expedent way of saving our own forces. And before you call it the "greatest single war-crime in history", I strongly urge you to speak to some of the people who served in that war, they may remind you of the six million jews plus two million others murdered by the Nazi's and their final solution. Or perhaps you could check out the Japanese prisoner of war camps and the thousands of men and women murdered in them.
Another result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the world actually saw the result of atomic power and in doing so, I believe has pulled back from ever using any of those damned things again. It was a hard lesson but hopefully never again. But check your facts before you make accussation's .
Its you that needs to check your facts first, this is why;
The Japanese tried to surrender by contacting first the USA then the Russians, the Allies refused to hear them and dropped the bomb anyway. You have to ask yourself why it happened this way, I m sure you ll draw the correct conclusions!
Brian's letter and Cockynutjoe are infact correct, your facts are not complete.
#
2012-08-09 13:07
The only option for the Japanese was unconditional surrender; no other terms were acceptable to the Allies, and the requirement was explicitly stated. The Japanese peace overtures prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs were not unconditional.
Seems your "facts" aren't just incomplete, they aren't actually, you know... "facts".
Seems your "facts" aren't just incomplete, they aren't actually, you know... "facts".
#
2012-08-09 13:13
Galen,
The Japanese were not even allowed to ask for surrender, so is that a fact or not?
The Japanese were not even allowed to ask for surrender, so is that a fact or not?
#
2012-08-09 13:45
What's your evidence? If you are going to assert that Japan wasn't allowed to surrender, back it up!
The facts around the Japanese surrender are pretty widely known. Prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs, the only terms of surrender the Japanese were prepared to entertain were based on them retaining not only the Emperor, but their pre War Empire and Imperial system. It was not a therefore a "serious" attempt to surrender, given the puclic stance of the USA, UK and Russia that only unconditional surrender was acceptable for both Germany and Japan.
Six days passed between the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki on 9th August 1945, and the Emperor's radio broadcast on 15th August, during which time an attempted coup (known as the Kyujo Incident 14-15 Aug. 1945) was staged by elements in the Japanese War Office and the Imperial guard to prevent unconditional surrender and continue the war.
To quote Stanley L Falk (former Chief Historian of the US Air Force):
"The myth that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway has been so comprehensively discredited by modern research that it is astonishing some writers continue to give it credence..."
The facts around the Japanese surrender are pretty widely known. Prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs, the only terms of surrender the Japanese were prepared to entertain were based on them retaining not only the Emperor, but their pre War Empire and Imperial system. It was not a therefore a "serious" attempt to surrender, given the puclic stance of the USA, UK and Russia that only unconditional surrender was acceptable for both Germany and Japan.
Six days passed between the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki on 9th August 1945, and the Emperor's radio broadcast on 15th August, during which time an attempted coup (known as the Kyujo Incident 14-15 Aug. 1945) was staged by elements in the Japanese War Office and the Imperial guard to prevent unconditional surrender and continue the war.
To quote Stanley L Falk (former Chief Historian of the US Air Force):
"The myth that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway has been so comprehensively discredited by modern research that it is astonishing some writers continue to give it credence..."
#
2012-08-09 13:56
Galen, I dont have any links, but the information I get is from the World at War series, and the programme about the Bomb.
Now, I m not going to get upset if you present your facts and prove it that I m wrong, nothing wrong with discussions?!
The World at War is probably the most informative a factually correct documentary on WW2. So I cant prove it, can only ask that you view this.
The 'myth' that the Japanese wanted to surrender, is it a 'myth' or the correct type of propaganda to back up the use of the bomb, the arguement could go on.
You prove it to me now, and if you are correct, then I ll acknowledge the 'fact'
Now, I m not going to get upset if you present your facts and prove it that I m wrong, nothing wrong with discussions?!
The World at War is probably the most informative a factually correct documentary on WW2. So I cant prove it, can only ask that you view this.
The 'myth' that the Japanese wanted to surrender, is it a 'myth' or the correct type of propaganda to back up the use of the bomb, the arguement could go on.
You prove it to me now, and if you are correct, then I ll acknowledge the 'fact'
#
2012-08-09 14:21
Discussion is good; we are all entitled to our opinions, granted. The issue is what evidence you have for holding the views expressed, and I'm afraid your sources don't encourage confidence that your statement that the Japanese were not allowed to surrender holds any water.
There is a wealth of scholarship on this issue, much of it accessible in t'interweb; go do!
It is very much a "revisionist" line to take that the USA (and or the UK and Russia) ignored Japanese attempts to surrender because they wanted to use nuclear weapons.
It is a fact that even after the two bombs had been dropped there were elements within Japan who were prepared to fight on to the bitter end. The Russian decision to invade Manchuria after declaring war on Japan (which happened after the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb) was probably more significant to the Japanese leadership.
It is possible that SOME elements of the Japanese regime may have been prepared to surrender on the basis that the person of the Emperor remained inviolate, and accept all the other terms - however given the attempted coup of 14-15 Aug. the Allies had some cause to be sceptical, quite apart that many people at the time wanted Hirohito tried as a war criminal.
I have watched World at War, and however impressive it is as a television documentary, it is no substitute for doing some actual research.
There is a wealth of scholarship on this issue, much of it accessible in t'interweb; go do!
It is very much a "revisionist" line to take that the USA (and or the UK and Russia) ignored Japanese attempts to surrender because they wanted to use nuclear weapons.
It is a fact that even after the two bombs had been dropped there were elements within Japan who were prepared to fight on to the bitter end. The Russian decision to invade Manchuria after declaring war on Japan (which happened after the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb) was probably more significant to the Japanese leadership.
It is possible that SOME elements of the Japanese regime may have been prepared to surrender on the basis that the person of the Emperor remained inviolate, and accept all the other terms - however given the attempted coup of 14-15 Aug. the Allies had some cause to be sceptical, quite apart that many people at the time wanted Hirohito tried as a war criminal.
I have watched World at War, and however impressive it is as a television documentary, it is no substitute for doing some actual research.
#
2012-08-09 14:56
An interesting rejoinder to the "revisionist" case, and explanation of why it doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny is provided here by Robert James Maddox, Professor of History at Penn State:
hnn.us/articles/52502.html
hnn.us/articles/52502.html
#
2012-08-09 14:47
Galen,
I ve read your views and I m going to remain open minded for now, mainly because I know how powerful (and often untrustworthy due to cover up) the propaganda of the UK and USA was and still is.
So thanks for that and I ll look into it when I ve time and make a point of acknowledging what I find, but I will probably be none the wiser, bit of a JFK assasination scenario!?!. Cheers.
I ve read your views and I m going to remain open minded for now, mainly because I know how powerful (and often untrustworthy due to cover up) the propaganda of the UK and USA was and still is.
So thanks for that and I ll look into it when I ve time and make a point of acknowledging what I find, but I will probably be none the wiser, bit of a JFK assasination scenario!?!. Cheers.
#
2012-08-09 14:51
I'm quite happy to be in NATO.
I would like removal of all nuclear weapons from Scottish soil.
However do we focus the debate on nuclear weapons which are unlikely to be used, and if they are, this debate is pointless anyway.
Or
Do we address the many weapoms that are being used such as fuel air bombs / cluster mines / napalm variants / chemical binary systems / mines which select weapon on target signature without a man in the loop / sniper drones / etc.
The AK47 has killed more people than the nuclear bomb.
The debate should be the horrors of war and who profits from them.
I would prefer Scotland to be in the club arguing than the present UK blanket approval approach given to the USA.
I would like removal of all nuclear weapons from Scottish soil.
However do we focus the debate on nuclear weapons which are unlikely to be used, and if they are, this debate is pointless anyway.
Or
Do we address the many weapoms that are being used such as fuel air bombs / cluster mines / napalm variants / chemical binary systems / mines which select weapon on target signature without a man in the loop / sniper drones / etc.
The AK47 has killed more people than the nuclear bomb.
The debate should be the horrors of war and who profits from them.
I would prefer Scotland to be in the club arguing than the present UK blanket approval approach given to the USA.
#
2012-08-09 15:04
Are the unionists losing the economic debate and now fueling the arguement because they want to push a feeling of insecurity on Scotland? Probably as many people want nuetrality as there are who want NATO!? A huge issue that really could have waited till after Independence, but they wont let it go so the answers have to be found.
I m leaning towards nuetrality but still open to be persuaded and I think remaining in NATO, in the mean time is a more persuasive arguement to those who are undecided about Independence.
I m leaning towards nuetrality but still open to be persuaded and I think remaining in NATO, in the mean time is a more persuasive arguement to those who are undecided about Independence.
#
2012-08-09 15:22
If you look on-line at the evidence given to the Scottish Affairs Committee recently, it is striking how much of the written and oral evidence given between May and July 2012 related to the issue of Defence, given that it was really talking about the referendum.
the Committee itself of course has no SNP representation, being chaired by Ian Davidson of ill-fame, and stuffed with a number of English Tories to make up the numbers.
This is the committe of course which purported to find overwhelming evidence that it is in westminsters gift to graciously allow the scottish people to hold a referendum.
Aye, that'll be right....!
the Committee itself of course has no SNP representation, being chaired by Ian Davidson of ill-fame, and stuffed with a number of English Tories to make up the numbers.
This is the committe of course which purported to find overwhelming evidence that it is in westminsters gift to graciously allow the scottish people to hold a referendum.
Aye, that'll be right....!
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Be sure to send this story to the Drum m... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
That's an excellent idea Breeks. The Dev... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Brilliant. - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
I say compile a dossier of facts, commen... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
On the day of the All Energy Conference ... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Good idea - Perhaps NS or one of the mai... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
I also see the BBC is running a story ab... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
The very old news about tuition fees cou... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
It would appear from the article that th... - SNP MSP leads debate on a nati...
Apart from the pinewoods, Scotland's nat... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
What about trying the Elliot Ness approa... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
I also wrote to them today complaining a... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
A few years ago I was doing research on ... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Having seen this... bbc.co.uk/.../... (h... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Why do we not just stop watching ,the BB... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
If the Scottish Government ignore the ad... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Boy, oh, boy Newsnet have you rattled th... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
A couple of years ago I asked the rotten... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
More absurdity from BBC Scotland, they a... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
I pursued BBC Scotland via FOI several y...