Banner

By G.A.Ponsonby

It took a while but the No campaign has finally revealed the positive case for remaining in the Union – war.

Yesterday David Cameron and his loyal sidekick William Hague were like excited puppy dogs as they looked forward to launching cruise missiles at some Johnny Foreigner types.  Syria is the latest Middle East crisis needing some Western cleansing and the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems are readying themselves.

Listening to the radio yesterday I was struck by the number of crisp public school accents telling us just how important it was that we intervene.  One so called 'military expert', on hearing concerns about the indiscriminate nature of cruise missiles, sought to reassure listeners by telling them that we could hit a target to within one metre – of course, he added, anyone in the vicinity would be killed.

So that’s alright then.

Westminster politicians crave the days of empire when they had real military influence, and any opportunity to relive the glorious days of the past are seized on.  Only the other week Spain was apparently being threatened and a destroyer was sent to Gibraltar.

Conflict is in the blood of the Unionist as the rhetoric demonstrates with repeated references to 'punching above our weight'.  Look at the arguments currently being put forward against independence and war runs through them like a cancer.

Warships will no longer be built on the Clyde, thousands of jobs rely on Trident and NATO will expel an independent Scotland.

Meanwhile, UK Armed Forces Day is to be held in Stirling next year at the same time as commemorations are being held as part of the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn event.  Jets will scream overhead and troops will march through the city as fundamental Unionism bares its teeth.

Amid a spectacle of fun and themed medieval battles, staged to entertain Scots and tourists alike, will be a demonstration of 'Union Power' as UK Defence Minister Philip Hammond called it.  It's a symbolic invasion.

Added to the jingoistic nonsense is the sickening 'Olympic Style' cultural celebrations planned by London to coincide with the anniversary of the start of World War One.  The ultimate irony is that it was this war that witnessed the development of chemical weapons and the industrialised slaughter of the working classes, far too many of them Scots.

Who knows, perhaps if they hurry then we can commemorate the first anniversary of the flattening of Syria at the same time … just before the independence referendum.

How many Syrians are about to die?  How many Iraqis died when they were ‘saved’?  Who cares, just so long as the glorious Union continues to ‘punch above its weight’.

Vote No and vote war.  Better Together indeed.

 

[Newsnet Scotland relies heavily on the generosity of its readers in order to exist. We are grateful for each and every donation and would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have placed their trust in us. We would encourage those who can to please donate in order to ensure we continue to provide an alternative news service that is now enjoyed by over 100,000 people each and every month.]

Comments  

 
# Jamie Black 2013-08-27 22:36
Vote YES in 2014 to let them die anyway. Vote YES to stand by and do nothing when all diplomatic efforts have failed. Vote YES if you think the world is this wee cosy place where bad does not exist.

Vote YES if you think we should stand by and do nothing for as long as possible like in Bosnia.

Where is your postive solution GA Ponsonby because i can't see it on the page?
 
 
# snowthistle 2013-08-27 23:10
Bad things happen Jamie.

They happened in Rwanda, they happened in Chad and Darfur and Sierra Leon, in the DR Congo and Somalia, in Eritrea. The list goes on and on.

How do you choose Jamie? How do you decide which ones to intervene in?
 
 
# Jake62 2013-08-28 15:40
That's what the UN is supposed to be for, isn't it - to decide? To stop individual countries taking things into their own hands and interfering in other countries for profit or personal reasons.

Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us that stepping in to other countries wars doesn't work. It's supposedly done in the name of saving civilians but really doesn't. Civilian casualties in both those countries were horrific and still continue as fall-out form the conflicts.
 
 
# bringiton 2013-08-27 23:50
You don't have to look much further than Labour in Scotland to realise that BAD absolutely exists.
We need to start at home before we lecture others about their shortcomings.
 
 
# Breeks 2013-08-28 03:12
Is it too much to ask that Scotland decides which wars we become embroiled with?

War is 'business as usual' for Westminster, and its embarrassing frankly how quickly they want to be involved. When Britain and the US have such scant regard for UN resolutions before launching all out attacks, nobody is doing more to discredit and render obsolete the UN organisation than Britain and the US.
It exposes the hypocrisy behind their prized status as permanent members of the UN Security Council when they can't be bothered to secure the resolve of their own council.
International Law is there to defend us. Had Britain observed that Law, we would not have disgraced ourselves with the illegal war in Iraq quoting fictional weapons of mass destruction as the excuse, and I mean excuse.
We demand the world respects the 'global policeman' which doesn't bother with evidence, proof, or warrants before condemning people to death whether guilty or not.
 
 
# Macart 2013-08-28 04:58
Having the choice to commit your people to direct action or diplomacy is a benefit of independence. Working with the international community in consensus is also a benefit of independence. There will always be dictators, corrupt and vile regimes, abuses of power and of the weak and defenceless. You can also choose to add to the misery of a nation or alleviate that misery. It may be that the UN will take direct action upon proofs discovered of any use of chemical weapons. To suggest that an independent Scotland would sit back and do nothing whilst others suffer shows a surprising lack of confidence in our electorate.

Whether sending our people to war or sending our diplomatic envoys and troops to facilitate humanitarian aid, if we have the capability to help, I have no doubt that we would. International rule of law, working with nations to contain conflict and alleviate its effects.

That is the benefit of a YES vote. You choose how you contribute to the world.
 
 
# Leader of the Pack 2013-08-28 06:55
Where do you start with people like you?
Are you honestly pushing the line that Westminster controls some benevolent world police force? That it bases its foreign policy on some crusading world peace program?
You don't see US Israelli influence and pressure being used to manipulate the West yet again to intervene in yet another Islamic state? Or you don't want to see? or you don't care to see?
The world is full of despotic dictatorships that require full intervention many of them fully supported or ignored by Westminster and Washington. Their is a very sinister agenda at work here at it doesn't involve saving anybody from anybody. Scotland is being controlled & manipulated by these sinister forces via Westminster and only by freeing ourselves from Westminster do we free ourselves from these dark influences as well.
 
 
# Leader of the Pack 2013-08-28 10:41
Military intervention in Syria? For what purpose? Stability? save lives? remove despot? Or to satisfy outside influences and pressures on our "elected" Government? Which do you really think it is? So stability? How stable is Iraq? How stable is Afganistan? How about Libya? Clearly its no stability then is it? Save lives? How many lives saved in Iraq? How many in Afganistan? Clearly its no going to save lives either then is it? How about removing despot? So who to replace him with? a selection of puppet regimes the good people of Syria can choose from in a "democratic" election? Clearly no going to deal with the despotism then is it? So whats left? Oh right outside sinister influences with their own agendas. And you want Scotland to be part of that? Well thankfully the vast majority of Scots don't.
 
 
# Jamieson 2013-08-28 12:03
@jamie black
I don't see ANY good in your mumbo jingo rhetoric. So your positive solution is to bomb Syria, with the usual 'accidental collateral' damage, aka, 1000s of dead Syrian people.
 
 
# Henderson 2013-08-27 22:36
Vote No and be Braver Together ... but not 'brave enough' to announce where are Glasgow BT Launch is going to be except to our own side (top secret)as we dont want the general public to be there to ask awkward questions on topics such as this disaster in waiting. No only our own supporters and the invited loyalist unionist press.
Remember we are Braver Together (?)with scots knowing their place supporting westminster decisions.
 
 
# clootie 2013-08-27 22:51
Well Mr. Ponsonby that about covers it - I couldn't agree more with your assessment.
 
 
# bringiton 2013-08-27 22:53
Getting rid of 300 years of British imperialism is not going to be easy.
Cameron has stated that Scottish independence is a matter for the people of Scotland to decide.
Lie.
The Westminster establishment and their media pack are going to do everything in their power to ensure that democracy does not prevail in Scotland.
Do we wish to be ruled by England for ever and ever ?
That is the question.
 
 
# Katie Beardie 2013-08-27 23:33
Since joining the Union we have been dragged into 120 wars by our neighbours. en.wikipedia.org/.../...
 
 
# frankly francophone 2013-08-27 23:40
The present-day purpose of the anglo-union? To make it possible for Blighty to do its job in the world, that being to help Uncle Sam do his job, which, as the comedian George Carlin put it, is "bombing brown people":

youtu.be/SC_wjQtfhZQ

How this might improve anything on the ground no one can explain. Of course, the people on the ground don't matter so much as making whatever point the Anglo-American masters of the universe feel they have to be making at a given point in time? Russia says no, of course, pointing out that these points might better be made by effectively concerted rational diplomacy as distinct from posturing for the folks back home, while the German government scratches its head and worries about consequences.

How refreshing. A government that is more concerned about the consequences of aggression than national prestige.
 
 
# call me dave 2013-08-28 00:06
Uncle Sam and John Bull clearing the decks:
-----------------------------------

Iran warns west against military intervention in Syria

Tehran threat comes as John Kerry says US would respond to 'undeniable' use of chemical weapons by Assad regime

theguardian.com/.../...
--------------------------------
 
 
# macscot 2013-08-28 00:21
Vietnam gas by the barrel load agent orange,nerve gas,nukes the list of western manufactured weaponery is endless ww1,2 etc all attacks on the working class
 
 
# BRL 2013-08-28 00:47
How can Scotland extricate from this 'war' madness?

Do you believe the BBC? The Syrian Foreign Minister is reported as saying on BBC and ITV that 'they' have not used chemical weapons, if so who has used them? He has said show us proof that we have used them.

The problem is the BBC are now totally devalued as a credible reporting source, which is a national (UK) scandal. We simply do not know who to believe!
 
 
# Hirta 2013-08-28 06:19
Al-Qaeda infiltrates in Syria is one assumption on who used the chem weapons.

Indeed AQ v Hezbollah is now very much and we should let them get on with it. It has nothing to do with us.
 
 
# moonbucket 2013-08-28 02:41
Great.

So this is were we indulge Westminster's imperialist "important on the world stage" pretensions in pinging £500,000 each missiles at a country that is already in dire straits, no doubt killing friend and foe alike, on the pretence of the country having used dodgy weapons, all to protect the US dollar/OPEC monopoly.

Pissing off Russia & China in the process and inviting terrorist reprisals upon us.

I've heard this before somewhere.

No thanks.
 
 
# gus1940 2013-08-28 05:58
By definition military intervention means killing people.

If The US & UK attack Syria who exactly do they intend killing and what will it solve?

Not forgetting that some of our own forces will almost certainly lose their lives
 
 
# jdman 2013-08-28 06:39
According to a sun poll, 50% of people polled were against involvement in Syria
I wonder if the Sun ran that pol solely in Scotland what the outcome would be? just asking s'all
 
 
# Mad Jock McMad 2013-08-28 07:41
This is a war funded by the USA and Russia, via their current proxies, about access to Middle East oil reserves the impact on the people of Syria is not part of their considerations.

Cameron's dash to war is the dying, limping, half baked, burst at the seams British Imperial Lion that does not get it is dead on its feet and needs putting down.

It looks like it will be up to the Scottish electorate to put it out of its misery next September. Yet again Scotland will have to do England's dirty work and be scapegoated for doing so when the English economy goes down the pan.
 
 
# Jamieson 2013-08-28 12:19
I'll bet you the don't knows are another 30% giving 20% FOR this upcoming fiasco.(This is a reply to jdman)
 
 
# Jamieson 2013-08-28 14:08
Quote:
Yet again Scotland will have to do England's dirty work and be scapegoated for doing so when the English economy goes down the pan.

Scapegoated by whom? And if by rUK who cares?
 
 
# Sulzer27 2013-08-28 08:51
Is the Ministry of Defence the most inaccurately named department of the uK Govt?

Lets cut the crap and go back to the old name - Ministry of War.
 
 
# tartanfever 2013-08-28 08:56
Last year's Olympics have faded but the Tories have been lucky that some sporting achievements this year have apparently boosted national morale. However now they're running out of distractions.

The BBC have played their part, running as many WW2 stories as possible, British history programming and the like ('I love my country' anyone ? )

But a war would prove the ultimate 'booster' for Westminster, anything to keep away the reality of economic meltdown, financial armageddon and the threat of Scottish Independence.

The BBC lunchtime news yesterday had an 8 min report. Of that not one question was asked about the evidence of chemical attacks in Syria and which side was using these weapons.
 
 
# hiorta 2013-08-28 09:09
It seems to be a Westminster thing - when a self-made problem arises, kill something.
Have these club-brandishing neanderthals never heard of the qualification for casting first, and successive, stones?
It is Scotland's right to opt out of madness.
 
 
# kenneth_clark336 2013-08-28 09:18
My late dad used to reverse situations in an effort to clarify his thoughts, rather in the manner of looking in a mirror to give a fresh perspective. Using this approach, the mirror image would involve an Arab force, uninvited and unwanted, intervening in a Bosnia type conflict in mainland Europe. I can well imagine what Cameron and co would think of that. The situation in Syria is indeed terrible, but as snowthistle has pointed out, we/they do seem very selective in their choices when it comes to interventions. As for Britain these days, I always think of Bill Bailey's assessment. We/they are the little kid hiding behind the school bully in the playground, shouting, "Yea-a-h-h, come on!!" In case anyone questions my use of "we/they", it is an attempt to reconcile that although we are part of the UK, we have no power to alter the actions of an increasingly alien Westminster establishment.
 
 
# Breeks 2013-08-28 12:31
That resonates with my upbringing too. There isn't one continent untouched by European Empire builders, and utterly dominated in large part. From the Romans, through the Crusades, missionary work, right up to the industrial revolution, foreign cultures have been compelled to deal with European expansionism or go under. Every history book written teaches kids'They' have every right to suspect our 'noble' intentions.
But what if that wasn't the case? Imagine a world where the US, Canada & Australia all spoke Arabic or Chinese, and routinely parked their aircraft carriers in the North Sea to protect 'our' oil and keep a wary eye on our disgruntled factions.
We might complain about low flying fast jets making a noise, but we know they are ours, and no munitions are inbound. Wouldn't it concern you to have Iranian drones overhead threatening our right to free assembly?
Aye, take a moment to look through the looking glass.
 
 
# Henderson 2013-08-28 11:40
Jamie Black 2013-08-27 23:36

Where is your postive solution GA Ponsonby because i can't see it on the page?

Hark back to 'Our Empire' - Battleships off shore expeditionary forces ahhh the glory of Blighty. Err No- Remote guided missiles, bombing campaigns, sticking your 'bloody nose' in where it doesn't belong yet again. More people will die through this but it will solve nothing. It is not the Business of US or UK (poodles)
Positive solution - like Iraq, Afghanistan ? all sorted then? Dont forget the friendly fire losses.They will happen again.
There is no more 'empire' anymore to justify such reckless intervention. The Syrian people will have to sort this out themselves sadly through negotiation at the end of the day.
Lets play follow the leader blindly yet again(Tony had his time; now its our chance David). Mass sabre rattles and shouts of hussar !!!
Good god has westminster learned nothing.
 
 
# colin8652 2013-08-28 11:44
Quick guide to USA/London Foreign policy,
1. quietly supply weapons to johnny foreigner who has lots of money.

2. Sit back while johnny foreigner falls out with his neighbor/own people.

3. get involved when your own public opinion is shocked at whats going on.

4. a) supply johnny foreigner with more bombs
b) intervene with your own bombs/Men/Ships

5.Gain influence in that countries internal affairs after it is all over.

6.Ensure your own mega rich multi- nationals get the contracts to rebuild the country you have just destroyed.

7. Make billions for yourself in that process.

8. use your own tax payers money to facilitate 1-7
 
 
# reiver 2013-08-28 12:11
Not often that NewsnetScotland and Nigel Farage are aligned on an issue. Saw him being interviewed on BBC News Channel this morning on this issue - for once he appears to be talking sense !
 
 
# Skip_NC 2013-08-28 12:18
I do not always agree with G A Ponsonby's articles. Sometimes it comes across as anger for the sake of it. However, this piece is brilliant and deserves a wider audience. I hope arrangements can be made for it to be published more widely.
 
 
# balbeggie 2013-08-28 12:32
Today's news has further car bombs in Bagdad killing over 50 people. In July over 1,000 people killed. What exactly did the invasion of Iraq achieve apart from the deposing of Saddam Hussien?

bbc.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# Roll_On_2011 2013-08-28 12:38
Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?

independent.co.uk/.../...

“ If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords. “
.
 
 
# colin8652 2013-08-28 12:48
o.t.
Apparently Scotsman sales figures are down 17% ;-)
 
 
# Seagetagrip 2013-08-28 12:49
Just sent above to James Naughtie sub titled "Further Education".
We cannot have the man arriving here entirely ignorant.
 
 
# proudscot 2013-08-28 13:00
Jamie Black, How about this for an alternative to your anti-independence supporters rant - vote Yes for Scotland to be able to choose if and when to commit its troops to UN-approved military operations. Vote Yes for Scotland's foreign policy not to be driven by a Westminster style mantra of "punching above our weight".

How about simply, vote Yes in order to stand proudly on our own feet as an independent nation, as opposed to cringing on our knees waiting to be told what to do by Westminster?
 
 
# fittie 2013-08-28 13:07
Jamie Black 2013-08-27 23:36
Vote YES in 2014 to let them die anyway. Vote YES to stand by and do nothing when all diplomatic efforts have failed. Vote YES if you think the world is this wee cosy place where bad does not exist.
================
vote yes to get the choice
 
 
# Roll_On_2011 2013-08-28 13:13
Declassified CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran.

foreignpolicy.com/.../...

“ The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. “
.
 
 
# Jamie Black 2013-08-28 13:27
Many words, lots of anger and self loathing, but no real alternative but to stand back and watch.

I ask Mr Ponsonby again - what is your positive answer to this crisis?
 
 
# cynicalHighlander 2013-08-28 13:43
Stop the real civilian killers by voting Yes.: spookterror.blogspot.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# Jo Bloggs 2013-08-28 14:11
Self-loathing??? Where?
 
 
# Boris Broon 2013-08-28 15:09
I think you need to read the article again. It is not advocating any 'solution' to matters in Syria. It is merely illustrating that UK foreign policy, and indeed the UK mindset, is driven by aggression and the need to dominate others.
 
 
# Joker 2013-08-28 15:12
How many times does the West need to eff up the Middle East before you will see it for the self-interested and damaging interference that it is?

The alternative is to stay the HELL out of the area and mind our own damned business.
 
 
# RTP 2013-08-28 15:17
Three Remploy factories to close Remploy closures follow recommendations by an independent review
Three remaining Remploy factories are to close, leaving 160 disabled workers facing redundancy.

Cameron and Hague are willing to spend a fortune going to war but our own disabled are thrown out of work.
Oh how I hate the Empire of Westminster.
 
 
# josepy wallace 2013-08-28 15:32
How long does it tak a post to appear on this im stumped at to where mine is i posted it this morning so where is it
 
 
# Abulhaq 2013-08-28 16:26
Inflicting more hurt on the people of Syria is evil. Bashar al-Assad is a good deal more popular in the region than Western governments are prepared to admit. He is seen as the only barrier against the total meltdown that would occur were his Government to be overthrown. By the way what is this Al Qa'eda? A name for disparate islamic and anti-American militants coined by the state department. It is the modern equivalent of the Yellow Peril led by Fu Man Chu. The reality is far more complex. But complexity is just too much for the Camerons and Hagues of this world.
 
 
# proudscot 2013-08-28 16:33
Jamie Black, perhaps one "solution" to the Syrian insurgency, would be if Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi stopped supplying the anti-government rebels with weaponry.

Perhaps another solution would be if Turkey stopped allowing free passage across their border into Syria of Islamist "foreign fighters" the likes of Chechens, Yemenis, Egyptians, Al Quaida Pakistanis and Afghans, Somalis, etc.

Incidentally Jamie, which of these fundamentalist Islamist groups do you think the US/UK/French coalition would prefer to replace Assad?
 
 
# Will C 2013-08-28 16:39
Spot on Mr. Ponsonby. This has all the makings of a very serious and possibly nuclear war in the Middle East and perhaps beyond. There are many reasons for voting YES next year, staying out of other people's wars is just one of them!
 
 
# Corm 2013-08-28 16:57
Lets put it another way. If this was happening in Scotland would the Syrians step in, would they even care?
 
 
# Tinyzeitgeist 2013-08-28 17:25
If you don't think this whole mess has already been planned then I suggest you watch this;
www.youtube.com/.../
 
 
# Leader of the Pack 2013-08-28 17:50
Tinyzeitgeist

Giving that video credence would have me wondering if the entire uprising wasn't instigated by the US/UK with Israelli help. Its a classic old time ploy to first destabilise a region before planned invasion. The whole Islamic uprising is beginning to look like a massive conspiracy of destabilisation and new world order with the UK slap bang in the middle of it following the US Israelli lead.
We really do need to break up the UK and do the whole world a favour not just Scotland.
 
 
# cirsium 2013-08-28 21:24
Leader of the Pack - have a read of this article and wonder no more Western Military Intervention in Syria: A Desperate Deception in a War of Lies
ragingbullshit.com/.../...

thanks for the link Tinyzeitgeist.
 
 
# Muz 2013-08-28 18:43
A positive step in this unfolding tragedy would be for:

1. The United Kingdom to stop selling weapons (£12 billion worth) to countries it condemns for human rights violations.

2. The United Kingdom to increase chemical export checks and controls to those same countries.
 
 
# NorthBrit 2013-08-28 19:57
@Jamie Black

"Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

What interests of the UK are served by attacking Syria?

What crisis is the UK enduring as a result of the conflict in Syria that requires a "positive response"?

I could equally ask Mr Ponsonby to furnish me with a positive answer to the problem of wilfully stupid unionist trolls. But there are some evils for which there is no simple remedy.
 
 
# jdman 2013-08-28 20:46
while I understand Alex Salmonds softly softly approach to the referendum campaign,
I think its time he grew a pair and stated categorically NOT IN OUR NAME to Cameron, who is on his own little foray into world statesmanship,
he cannot be allowed any semblance of pretense the country is foursquare behind him in this latest foolish attempt to imagine Britain is a serious player in world politics,
you might have a submarine that can fire a cruise missile through Assads front window but that is not an answer to the troubles plaguing the middle east,
butt out Cameron ITS NOT OUR BUISNESS
 
 
# Breeks 2013-08-29 04:10
Alex Salmond did. When NATO was about to start bombing people in Kosovo with no explicit resolution or clear idea of who they were bombing and the real risk of mission creep dragging the UN into a civil war with the same factional dispute which contributed to the start of WW1, Mr Salmond called the action unpardonable folly.
He was widely castigated at the time by the media, but absolutely correct. It wasn't the bombing, it was overstepping the UN mandate to bomb which was the folly. When 'the West' turns a blind eye to the numerous UN resolutions against Israel but goes barreling ahead of UN resolutions to attack other States, it does incalculable damage to the UN's reputation and standing. The US and UK prize their permanent seats on the Security Council but their reckless unilateral actions are destroying the UN's standing and influence. That remains unpardonable folly.
 
 
# Willow 2013-08-29 08:45
While Cameron & the leaders of the other political parties at Westminster were all talking about rushing in to military action in Syria yesterday, Alex Salmond released a statement stating that the "case for military intervention had not been made"

STV published it at 1.08pm

bit.ly/15wGI8T
 
 
# gus1940 2013-08-29 09:01
O/T

Good news about the circulation of The Scotsman - see Douglas Fraser's column in on-line BBC Scotland.

The circulation is now below 30k but they are claiming 120k on-line readers every day - a figure which I find difficult to believe.
 
 
# Breeks 2013-08-29 14:33
Quoting gus1940:
O/T

...- a figure which I find difficult to believe.


Douglas Fraser? Me too.
 
 
# gus1940 2013-09-01 06:17
O/T
Since Friday there has been a problem at scotsman.com which is stopping their alleged 120,000 daily readers from signing in.

They apologised in an item in yesterday's Scotsman, said that their techies (Plural?) were working on the problem, and that it would be solved by Monday.

In other words Scotsman Publications is such a cash strapped shoestring operation that they can't or won't pay their techy(ies) to work at the weekend to sort the problem.
 
 
# call me dave 2013-08-29 10:58
Warplanes and military transporters” have reportedly been moved to Britain’s Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus in the latest sign of the allied forces’ preparations for a military strike on Syria amid bellicose rhetoric against the Syrian government.

Two commercial pilots who regularly fly from Larnaca, Cyprus, claim to have spotted C-130 transport planes from their own aircraft and small formations of possibly European fighter jets from their radar screens, according to the Guardian.

Akrotiri airbase is less than 100 miles from Syria, making it a likely hub for a bombing campaign.
rt.com/.../...

---------------------
The planes are for the defence of the base according to a BBC statement (via MOD)
UN investigators leave Saturday so any time after that then.
 
 
# josepy wallace 2013-08-29 11:02
The newspapers are lying and they know why its not because people can or wont read it is because people are tired of the lies and bile against Scotlands Independance being spouted in the front cover of thier news paper people of Scotland i feel are starting to wake up to what is going on the proof is in the pudding Independance for Scotland
 
 
# Nautilus 2013-08-29 11:07
‘….any opportunity to relive the glorious days of the past are seized on’. Hits the nail on the head. Public school boys and lead soldiers in country piles comes to mind. Do they think that war is a noble contest between courageous men fighting with swords, bows and muskets?
They obviously haven’t woken up to the fact that war is now the industrialised killing of human beings, men, women and children, whether done by cluster bombs, cruise missiles, napalm, or incendiary bombs. Chemical and biological weapons are just another method – no better, no worse. This has been so since the WWI. We can now do it using wimps at play stations operating drones loaded with the most horrific armaments who don’t even witness the slaughter and anguish they cause. Glorious days?
So it doesn’t matter whether we do it or Saddam or Assad, the result is the same, probably less if we let them get on with it, Jamie.
 
 
# call me dave 2013-08-29 20:38
It seems that Mr Darling's view is not a given.
--------------------------------------

As Others See Us: The View from Ireland (2)

heraldscotland.com/.../...
 
 
# Langspoon 2013-08-31 14:40
The trouble with punching above your weight is that you keep needing to prove it by finding someone to punch.
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Banner
Banner

Latest Comments