Oh my. Did that fellow get a thrashing in the press afterwards?
Lianachan wrote:I neither know nor care much about Obama either way, so will bow to your greater knowledge of him.
Oh, I don't know that I have all that much insight to his mind, but I have been cruising the inter webs gathering references about acts of terrorism authorised by him or his predecessor. And I recently came across the statement by Greenwald.
Lianachan wrote:At the back of his mind, he might have had the fact that there are US nuclear weapons in Scotland which he might quite like to keep there - David Cameron certainly would - and which will be relocated to England with independence.
Well that's interesting, one suspects that might figure into the attitudes of some of your southern neighbours.
But, this independence (should it occur) appears to be happening (at least so far) in a somewhat more orderly fashion than that of Ukraine from the Soviet Union. One might recall that the December 1994 agreement for the removal of nuclear weapons from Ukrainian territory included an agreement by a number of countries, including Russia, to respect the existing boundaries of Ukraine. As that is now being violated, one wonders whether they can get the weapons back. (I suspect not.)
But, maybe I should be cautious. I did have recollection of this agreement, but went to Wikipedia for confirmation, and the page on nuclear weapons in the Ukraine begins with
Ukraine was a member state of the Soviet Union from World War II to the end of the Cold War. When the Soviet Union ceased to exist Ukraine wanted their independence from Russia and to become a sovereign nation.
Lianachan wrote:They and the submarines that carry them are apparently too dangerous to keep in the south of England, so they are based 30 miles from Scotland's biggest city, nowhere near anybody who matters.
Is the perceived danger that there might be some accidental contamination/detonation, or that they might be attacked?