SNP will let English keep military bases

AN INDEPENDENT Scotland would allow English military forces to be based north of the border after a UK split, says the Scottish National Party's defense spokesman.

Angus Robertson MP will tell the party conference in Inverness that the two newly separated nations would remain "friends and allies", so it would be "perfectly possible" to "share basing, procurement and training facilities with the rest of the present UK", even after Scotland had become a sovereign state.

The proposals appear to suggest that RAF bases, such as those at Leuchars and Lossiemouth, could be shared between Scottish and English fighter jets. It also opens up the idea of Scottish-based garrisons, such as Redford Barracks in Edinburgh and Fort George in Inverness, containing soldiers from both nations' armies. It may also mean that 45 Commando Royal Marines may be retained at its Arbroath base.

However, Robertson also says that an independent Scotland would reserve the right to "stand aside" from wars to which it was opposed. In recent years, the SNP has refused to support the war in Iraq and the Nato invasion of Kosovo.

He also asserts that an independent Scotland would have the right to remove Trident submarines from Scottish waters.

The plans were described as "complete fantasy" last night by Labour, which said the British government would have little desire to invest in a post-independent Scotland. The Conservatives claimed Robertson's plans had exposed how an independent Scotland would be entirely dependent on English co-operation for survival.

Meanwhile, military experts warned that Scotland would end up having to pay the former UK government to keep its facilities in Scotland.

But the SNP argues that its sharing plan showed that the "supposed disbenefits" of independence for the nation's defense was a "chimera".

Writing in today's paper in advance of giving The Scotland on Sunday Lecture at the SNP conference, Robertson argues: "On the basis of mutual interest, it is perfectly possible to envisage circumstances in which we share basing, procurement and training facilities with the rest of the present UK – our foremost friend and ally under all constitutional arrangements – in exactly the same way as defense co-operation exists across the Scandinavian nations."

Robertson is calling for a specific Scottish Defense Review, to go alongside the British Defense Review, to ensure that the country's defense policy "reflects Scotland's priorities and preferences". The SNP argues that a review would probably conclude that most Scots were opposed to the UK defence policy, including its policy of keeping Trident on the Clyde.

Robertson says that independence would ensure that Scotland would be able "to choose which theatres to be involved in".

Independence would also allow an SNP-led government to remove Trident from Scotland, he continues. "No independent nation of five million has nuclear weapons, and nor should we," he declares.

The SNP's plans for defense come as the party prepares to head to Inverness on Thursday for its annual conference, where it will increase calls for an independence referendum.

In an interview yesterday, First Minister Alex Salmond said his aim for next year's general election was to gain enough MPs to hold the balance of power in what many expect to be a hung parliament.

"There's a vast overwhelming majority of people in Scotland, regardless of political preference, who rather like the idea of the Westminster parliament being hung by a Scottish rope," he said.

Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy last night unveiled Labour's election campaign theme, which will claim that a vote for the SNP helps to install the Conservatives at Westminster. He said: "Labour's campaign – Vote SNP, Get Tory – will put this issue centre stage between now and the general election."

As for Robertson's proposals, military experts said last night that, while it would be feasible to imagine a sharing arrangement post-independence, there would be complications as well.

Colonel Bob Stewart, the former United Nations commander in Bosnia, said: "There would have to be a State of Forces Agreement such as there is between the UK and Germany (where British troops are currently garrisoned). In theory, it is possible for this to happen, but there are complications. Would Scotland be part of Nato, for example?"

He added: "It would all come down to money. If you wanted to keep English troops and bases here, how much would you be prepared to pay? The Germans don't want us to withdraw because British troops there substantially subsidise the local economy."

However, shadow Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell said: "An independent Scotland would have to rely on England's goodwill on defense and security."

He added: "Alex Salmond can't expect to break up Britain and have the rest of the United Kingdom dance to his tune. His defence policy doesn't stack up. It is fooling nobody and would threaten tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland. Alex Salmond needs to get on with his job in the Scottish Parliament, because he just can't cut it on the wider stage."

Meanwhile, a senior Scotland Office official described the proposals as "complete fantasy", claiming that after independence the government south of the border would have no incentive to invest or be sited in a foreign country such as Scotland.

The source said: "Shipbuilding on the Clyde would go – the Royal Navy would not give contracts to a foreign country. This would be another hammer blow to Glasgow from the nationalists. In all, 20,000 defence-related jobs would be at risk. In Morayshire, 2,000 jobs would go – no Trident, no Nimrod, no Kinloss."

As for the plans to scrap Trident, the source added: "In a world in which rogue nations are seeking nuclear weapons, it is madness for the SNP to suggest that Scotland should be defenceless. The majority of Scots have consistently rejected the policies of pacifism and one-sided disarmament set out by Angus Robertson."

So what does this article have to do with Texas? A lot really, by observing the complicated process that other fledgling nations face as they secede we can see what Texas has to face when she leaves the United States. It is of course much easier to join a union than it is to leave one. It is the duty of every Texas Nationalist especially those in leadership watch very closely what other break-away republics do and to note well how they accomplish their goal. Whether Texas would allow the United States to retain bases on Texas soil would be up to the ploiticians but as far as self defense I believe that Texas would be able to hold its own better than most countries and federal troops would not be needed to protect our homeland. God Bless Texas!.

Economy, War, Anger Fuel US Secession

WASHINGTON CITY – Disgruntled by high taxes, wars in far-away countries, bailouts for fat-cat bankers, a growing number of Americans are pushing their states to defy federal laws and some are advocating secession.

"Our government is operated and owned by Wall Street and corporate America,” Thomas Naylor, a retired economics professor who heads the Second Vermont Republic movement, told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Sunday, October 11.

"The empire is going down -- do you want to go down with the Titanic, or seek other options while they are still on the table?"

The US fell into the grip of the worst economic crisis since 1930s in September after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank, and the financial woes of a number of Wall Street giants.

The fallout has developed into a full-fledged recession, threatening personal finances as home prices fall, retirement funds shrink and access to credit and jobs evaporate.

The recession, government growth and the explosion in federal spending are infuriating many Americans.

"The US government has lost its moral authority," says Naylor.

Twenty-five states have passed laws preventing the 2005 Real ID Act, which sets federal standards for identification cards, from being implemented.

Also, 13 states have legalized marijuana for medical use, in defiance of federal anti-drug regulations.

As tensions grow over health care reform, 15 states are pushing laws that would exempt them from federal health care regulations.

Montana and Tennessee have even passed laws exempting weapons and ammunition produced in their states from federal regulations.

Secession
"[Secessionists are] a minority voice whose time has come because of one thing: technology," Labbe insists.
Some argue that secession is the cure for America’s problem.
"There is more talk today about nullification (invalidating federal laws) and secession... than any time since 1865," said Kirkpatrick Sale, who heads the South Carolina-based Middlebury Institute, which studies separatism, secession, and self-determination.

Sale says there are active secessionist groups in at least 10 US states, including Vermont, Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, and the US commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

"Secession is our only answer because our federal government is broken and cannot be repaired in the current political system," agrees Dave Mundy, a spokesman for the Texas Nationalist Movement.

The US is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.

It was founded on July 4, 1776, by thirteen British colonies that defeated Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War.

But Texas was an independent republic from 1836 to 1845, as was Vermont from 1777 to 1791.

Texas last seceded in 1861, when it joined 10 other southern states to form the Confederate States of America.

The Civil War soon broke out, and four years later, the union was restored.

J.R. Labbe, editorial director at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper, doubts secessionists can gain grounds.

"[They are] a minority voice whose time has come because of one thing: technology," she told AFP.

"Digital cameras that can upload images and soundbites -- and 24/7 news channels that are always looking for the most bizarre clip they can find -- have given them a much broader audience than they, or Texas, deserve."

Lyn Spillman, a specialist on nationalism at Notre Dame University, agrees.

"Considered generally, secession movements -- which are quite common in American history -- are extremely unlikely to have significant political consequences."

But Sale contends that a collapse of the dollar and anger over foreign wars, combined with calamitous climate change triggered by global warming, could push communities towards energy, water and food independence.

"A conjunction of events over the next few years might increase the talk about secession."

Who's to say whether an idea deserves or doesn't deserve a broader audience? Only the people do and not some armchair political analyser. To say that Texas doesn't deserve the media exposure that the Texas Nationalists are receiving is wrong. What the world is seeing is a seedling which is beginning to sprout and grow. So Texas Nationalism is extremely unlikely to have any political consequence? That remains to be doesn't it? Even those Texans who are not secessionists are enchanted with the idea of a Texas Republic and once they begin to realize that Texas and her citizens would be better off as a separate naion then they will do what is necessary....go to the polls and vote for independence.