I keep wondering how much more punishment from Westminster Scots will take before demanding independence. This policy is insane, but if Starmer actually introduces conscription that may be the hair that breaks the camel’s back.
After seeing how the EU (especially Germany) treated Greece, I think we have a clear picture of the dangers the EU would pose to Scotland. As you say - it would be replacing one yoke with another. The greatest threat to true independence after freeing ourselves from Westminster would be to remain within the late-stage capitalist system where large corporations exert their autocratic power.
With the USA at lest threatening to pull out of providing European defence for the first time since 1945 there's a gap in the market for 'militarised Keynesianism'.
Starmer, with his keen eye for the main chance, has noticed. It's a double opportunity to both make money for his military industrial friends whilst his sabre-rattling helps deflect attention away from the domestic disaster that he's presiding over.
It's worthwhile remembering too that Zelensky is, to according former United States Marine Corps intellegence oficer Scott Ritter, in all likelihood MI6's man in Kiev so there is a vested interest for Starmer and the British state in shoring up the former comedian's position.
Finally the anti-Russian rhetoric has been coming out of HM Government for the last quarter century, ever since Londongrad became home to many of the corrupt oligarchs that Putin kicked out of Russia from the beginning of the new millennium.
However, I doubt Starmer will attempt to put any British 'boots on the ground', certainly not in anything other than an advisory role on the front line. The 460 killed in Afghanistan would look like chicken feed compared to the casualties inflected in even a low level war with a well armed and drilled military force.
British Russophobia started with the Crimean War and has never really stopped. Difference is that today the UK is a middling and failing state not a burgeoning empire.
You are right, I was just referring to the latest phase of ramping up the propaganda.
The British (at the height of Empire), French, Prussians and Swedes might have just about prevailed against the Russians in the Crimean War (1853-56) but Napoleon (1812), the British-French backed anti-Communist "White Russians" (1918-21) and Hitler (1941-45) .
If they are serious about deploying troops on the battlefield - which I doubt - Starmer and Macron clearly haven't read history.
I keep wondering how much more punishment from Westminster Scots will take before demanding independence. This policy is insane, but if Starmer actually introduces conscription that may be the hair that breaks the camel’s back.
Scotland should be Independent but does an EU yoke wear differently ?
It would be madness to join the EU. EFTA membership is all Scotland needs.
I agree. That makes much more sense than rejoining the EU.
After seeing how the EU (especially Germany) treated Greece, I think we have a clear picture of the dangers the EU would pose to Scotland. As you say - it would be replacing one yoke with another. The greatest threat to true independence after freeing ourselves from Westminster would be to remain within the late-stage capitalist system where large corporations exert their autocratic power.
No. We need to be independent of the EU and NATO to gain true independence.
With the USA at lest threatening to pull out of providing European defence for the first time since 1945 there's a gap in the market for 'militarised Keynesianism'.
Starmer, with his keen eye for the main chance, has noticed. It's a double opportunity to both make money for his military industrial friends whilst his sabre-rattling helps deflect attention away from the domestic disaster that he's presiding over.
It's worthwhile remembering too that Zelensky is, to according former United States Marine Corps intellegence oficer Scott Ritter, in all likelihood MI6's man in Kiev so there is a vested interest for Starmer and the British state in shoring up the former comedian's position.
Finally the anti-Russian rhetoric has been coming out of HM Government for the last quarter century, ever since Londongrad became home to many of the corrupt oligarchs that Putin kicked out of Russia from the beginning of the new millennium.
However, I doubt Starmer will attempt to put any British 'boots on the ground', certainly not in anything other than an advisory role on the front line. The 460 killed in Afghanistan would look like chicken feed compared to the casualties inflected in even a low level war with a well armed and drilled military force.
Wooton Bassett wouldn't be able to cope.
British Russophobia started with the Crimean War and has never really stopped. Difference is that today the UK is a middling and failing state not a burgeoning empire.
You are right, I was just referring to the latest phase of ramping up the propaganda.
The British (at the height of Empire), French, Prussians and Swedes might have just about prevailed against the Russians in the Crimean War (1853-56) but Napoleon (1812), the British-French backed anti-Communist "White Russians" (1918-21) and Hitler (1941-45) .
If they are serious about deploying troops on the battlefield - which I doubt - Starmer and Macron clearly haven't read history.