Independence will bring Voldemort back claims Lord Robertson

[NickB]

.
In a truly apocalyptic speech given in the United States former defence secretary and Nato chief Lord Robertson claimed that Voldemort would rise again if Scotland becomes independent. Citing “forces of darkness” and “cataclysmic” effects Lord Robertson warned that life as we know it would end if the union between England and Scotland is rent asunder.

“It will be Hell!” he roared at a stunned audience. “Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together…mass hysteria!”

Pausing only to wipe some of the froth from his mouth Lord Robertson continued.

“Voldemort will rise again! Some may say that this is alarmist but it is a fact and one that needs to be discussed out in the open in a calm, rational manner. Voldemort will return plus, my extensive research into the consequences of a yes vote in the referendum has led me to conclude, if Scotland becomes independent it will be always winter but never, absolutely never, Christmas!”

He added that “the triple-breasted whore of Babylon shall be drunk with the blood of the saints” before being gently led backstage for a cup of tea and a nice lie down.

Afterwards witness Rachel Cross summed up the feelings of many of the audience when she said: “I kind of liked Lord Robertson’s speech. To be honest it made more sense than claiming that a united England and Scotland is all that stands between democracy and some Russian or fundamentalist Islamic takeover of the world. Now that really would’ve been mad.”

[Innes Newton]

Are you Catholic?

[NickB]

Are you Catholic?

Are you familiar with the concept of satire?

[Innes Newton]

You make fun of a very serious matter. You have no comprehension of the strategic shift that occurs if Scotland becomes independent. It Scotland rejects nuclear weapons and UK forces on its soil it dramatically changes the defence of the British Isles and Europe. It will severely weaken NATO.

And despite Salmond's promises that rUK will buy its warships from Scotland.....that really is just his latest piece of fantasy. I tell you, you are being led into a Fool's Paradise if you believe everything Salmond says.

[NickB]

You have no comprehension of the strategic shift that occurs if Scotland becomes independent.

With all due respect, neither do you.

NATO will adapt as it has adapted before to changing political systems and members throughout its history.

Do I need to remind you yet again that only three Nato members are nuclear-weapon states, and 20 of the 28 member states neither possess nor host nuclear weapons ?

Removing Trident will be inconvenient for rUK and will no doubt upset one or two senior military figures in NATO - but it will not bring about the end of the world as you and your silly pal George Robertson seem to think. Upsetting a few of NATO's 'top brass' is not a valid reason to deny Scotland the right to command its own destiny, and neither will it jeopardise the admission of an independent Scotland to NATO.

Next daft scare story please. Which one is it this week, currency or Europe?

[NickB]

.
Oh, and while we are on the subject . . . HM forces aren't doing a particularly great job of protecting Scotland from the foreign menace at the moment, are they. In fact there are no RN surface vessels currently in Scottish waters.

Thank god for Twitter. And of course it only takes 24+ hours for a vessel to steam here from Portsmouth, so nothing to worry about eh?

[NickB]

.
Also on the same subject, the flying visit of Defence secretary Phillip Hammond to Scotland yesterday doesn't seem to have impressed the media overly :





Another spectacular own goal for Better Together. Keep 'em coming folks.

[Innes Newton]

Face up to reality. You may not like the way the message is delivered, but it is important you understand it.

[NickB]

Face up to reality. You may not like the way the message is delivered, but it is important you understand it.

Oh, right.

Please explain what Mr. Hammond meant by 'threats from space'.

I want to understand.

[Innes Newton]

It's obvious what the threat from space is.

They are cybernats

I'm sure the press will jump on anything, and twist and take out of context where it suits them. But we should accept there are greater minds than ours that know things we don't. There are threats from space. What defence does Scotland have from an asteroid hitting the central belt and destroying Glasgow through to Edinburgh? You probably know we have observed large asteroids and comets coming relatively close to earth. Some countries are actually working to find ways to defend earth from such events. And in our everyday lives we become increasingly dependent on satellites to support the technology that increasingly creeps into all aspects of our lives (OK Seil is a little behind the curve). Destroy satellites and you can chop an arm or a foot off an enemy (metaphorically). So war between nations in the future will involve war in space. And satellites will become weapons platforms (perhaps already are) with a variety of capabilities.

Electronic and cyber warfare are the weapons of the future (and already used to some degree). If an enemy can shut down your internet it can target your power systems and cut off your supplies for electricity, gas, oil. They can shut down industry, shut down everything dependent on electricity. They can neutralise defence systems. They can probably even stop a car from running from space. They can prevent food supplies from getting to the shops, stop banking systems so no cash at the machines, they can shut down all communications. They can bring a country to its knees in a day or two without firing a shot.

OK this might not be possible yet, but we don't know, but you can take it as fact that they are working on it. Yet the Yes Campaign think such a suggestion is preposterous. It just shows their naiivity. Scotland has been able to take its defence for over 300 years for granted. The Yes Campaign white paper bit part on defence just shows how utterly, utterly real is the Fool's Paradise Alex Salmond is urging you to follow him in to.

[Bill McDicken]

Innes, Really!! " Greater minds than ours" ( Cameron/Osborne/Gove???). " An asteroid hitting the central belt" ( If we vote "No" an UK Superman will fly up and deflect it, Aye right!!). This is like a script from the "X-Files" absolute fantasy.
We do not live in World that will be utterly destroyed if the scots vote "Yes". No rational mind can come up with the scenarios that the "NO" Brigade are pelting us with.
Go and have a lie down and a nice cup of tea, and think of the damage that all this nonsense is doing YOUR cause.
Keep up the good work.

[Tim Bowles]

Given that the UK currently does not have, and is unlikely ever to have, any means of preventing an asteroid from striking the Central Belt I fail to see what relevance this has to the referendum question. Scotland alone or Scotland in the UK we are defenceless.

Innes has got me worried about satellite warfare though. Scotland alone cannot defend itself from the menace from space, that much is clear. Unfortunately the UK does not have any defence either or the capability to develop any. The EU does, of course, have a space program and launch facilities so some defence might be developed, but the UK is quite likely to leave after Dave's referendum, leaving us vulnerable to all kinds of extraterrestrial unpleasantness. It looks as if Scotland's only hope is to remain in the EU, and our only chance of this is divorced from the UK separatists.

Come on, Innes. Enough of the scare stories, what next? An independent Scotland will lose the Gulf Steam?

I do not believe the economic and strategic arguments against independence carry much weight with the people here. Most people I know firmly believe an independent Scotland would be economically viable and secure from external threats. Most don't think they will be significantly better or worse off financially. None believe we will be in any military danger. For most of us don't knows, at least the ones I talk to, the question is one of culture, really. Do we want to remain as we are, to a large extent culturally homogenous with the rest of the UK (with important differences which I think enrich everyone in the UK as it stands) or do we want to plough our own furrow, create a society which builds on our distinctive character? This seems to be the issue which causes most uncertainty.

I will tell you one thing which the No campaign consistently forgets. One of the characteristics on which all British people pride themselves, Scots most definitely included, is subbornness and independence of thought. The more people tell us what we cannot do, what we are incabable of doing, the more we are likely to say, right then, just you watch. They used to call it the Blitz spirit. Well the constant drip feed of scare stories, almost of contempt for Scotland's capabilities, are very likely to cause the NO campaign to fail. If Scotland votes Yes in September, it will be at least as much the failure of the No campaign as the success of the Yes. Each absurd new threat causes a rise in the Yes figures in the polls.

If you want to sway the don't knows, you need to change your tactics. Where's all the love Cameron promised us? When are you going to tell us how great the UK is (now, not in the 19th century BTW), rather than how scary independence will be? Don't tell us why we need you (because most of us don't necessarily think we do), tell us why you don't want to lose us, why we don't want to lose you. Give us a reason to stay, not a reason not to go. You could even try asking us nicely.

Long rambling post, hopefully equally irritating to both camps.

[Innes Newton]

Tim, if you could divert an asteroid from hitting earth would you not wish to do it and protect mankind from natural disaster in much the same way you take steps to prevent flooding, global warming, disease, drought, starvation, etc, etc? The reality is that people are working on ways to defend against harmful objects in space like asteroids. And I have no doubt that in time they will find a means to do this.

And you mix up Britain's involvement in the European Space Agency with military weapon development as part of NATO and the UK contributing to its strategic strength with one of the biggest arms industries in the world.

The things I talk about are not pie in the sky. Cyber weapons are the next ultimate weapon, and they already are using technology way beyond what could be imagined even 20 years ago. You sound like you have fallen off the curve as some Americans would say.

Imagine if you could have threatened Russia with being shut down 'electronically' you could stop a war, stop an incursion into Ukraine, without firing a shot. That's what many defence industries are already working on, and for Scotland as part of the UK it gets the benefit of being part of a programme to protect against all threats, whether they come from space or weapons in space.....or cyber warfare. No one is suggesting an asteroid will strike because you vote Yes. That's just the Yes Campaign putting a negative twist on what was said.

But it seems you and the Yes Campaign are completely ignorant a natural or cyber warfare threat even exists. For a government to put its people at risk is unforgivable but that is all part of the Fool's Paradise you want without understanding the facts.

I have no intention of trying to woo the Yes Campaigners. As you say they are an obstinant group who do not care about the views of the outside world and truculantly making demands with a "me, me, me" attitude.

[NickB]

I have no intention of trying to woo the Yes Campaigners. As you say they are an obstinant group who do not care about the views of the outside world and truculantly making demands with a "me, me, me" attitude.

Why not just shut up then?

Why this constant bleating?

Am I the only one who is beginning to find it nauseating?

[Innes Newton]

Nick, the reality is that the majority in Scotland might disagree with YOU on everything YOU say. They may well find what you say is nauseating.

I don't shut up because I feel strongly enough about the subject to refuse to sit by idly and allow the future of my country to be irreversibly torn apart by a minority of whinging, negative minded people who are blindly following a path that I feel will ruin my country. And I will fight them every step of the way. So shut up and stop your negativity to everything I say. we're supposed to being having a conversation, a debate.

[NickB]

Nick, the reality is that the majority in Scotland might disagree with YOU on everything YOU say. They may well find what you say is nauseating.

I don't shut up because I feel strongly enough about the subject to refuse to sit by idly and allow the future of my country to be irreversibly torn apart by a minority of whinging, negative minded people who are blindly following a path that I feel will ruin my country. And I will fight them every step of the way. So shut up and stop your negativity to everything I say. we're supposed to being having a conversation, a debate.

What you have indulged yourself in is a childish tirade.

You have not attempted to debate at all with any of the other posters on here. In fact, I do not think you understand what the word 'debate' means.

You evade questions every time, preferring to vomit another load of meaningless far right thatcherite b/s onto our screens.

The game's a bogey, you and your oppos are twigged.

Look out for the space monsters.

[Innes Newton]

You have not attempted to debate at all with any of the other posters on here. In fact, I do not think you understand what the word 'debate' means.

You evade questions every time, preferring to vomit another load of meaningless far right thatcherite b/s onto our screens

Nick, take a minute (no more like an hour or two) and just sift back through your responses over the last couple of years, and see how many questions you choose not to answer, how many points you ignore because they are right, and how many times you try to shout people down?

I don't have all the answers, but I do know what I honestly believe. If I continue to

vomit another load of meaningless far right thatcherite b/s onto our screens

it is only because your responses have failed to convince me I am wrong. We are clearly from political opposites but much as you may detest my views, I despise yours. The silent majority probably lie somewhere in between both camps. But with no difference of views you can have no debate.

Since you use the terms, do you not see that an rUK is likely to become more thatcherite and independent Scotland is going to become very socialist. Remember I asked you to name a successful socialist country. Did you answer that question? Check back. Remember I made the analogy Cuba v USA, North Korea v South Korea, East Germany v West Germany.... ? Socialist independent Scotland will not compete with 'thatcherite' rUK. You will need to re-build Hadrian's wall to keep Scots from escaping.

And by the way, I never ever mentioned space monsters. Once again you poo-pooed a serious point I was making without answering it or debating it.

[Peter Connelly]

‘I do know what I honestly believe’. This does not mean that what you know is true, or that what you honestly believe is true.

You propose that Scotland will become very socialist, then proceed from there to ask what socialist countries have been successful. Your assertion that Scotland will likely become ‘very socialist’ is simply what you know you believe, as you well know, yet you seek to hide that belief and present it as a fact by quickly moving on to the question of what socialist countries have been successful. The question treats your unsupported assertion as fact, when it is only your belief, and seeks to upgrade that belief to one of fact.

[Innes Newton]

What? Everything I say is my honest opinion, and what I believe. But I have a nasty habit of being right, according to others, so I rarely state things as fact unless I believe they are. Of course that doesn't mean I am always right. I accept that fact. But it is also a fact that I'm not always wrong (as some here would suggest I am).

Perhaps my definition of 'socialist' is a bit strong for some, but can we agree that the Conservative party are unlikely to get a majority in Holyrood any time soon? And in a fairer more equal society is it not the intention to use socialist policies to create greater distribution of wealth, through increased taxation, to take off the 'rich' and give to the poor?

[Peter Connelly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtX9ZZAi3k