I’m a bit outraged at The Herald’s headline this morning - as apparently Scotland is “on the frontline” if there’s a conflict with Russia. Faslane, Lossiemouth the first to be hit. Convenient timing, eh? Geneva goes our way, and suddenly Westminster wants us all picturing mushroom clouds over the Clyde. I have thoughts… 1. Geography doesn’t change with flags. Those bases are strategic because of where they are, not because of which parliament they answer to. Independent or not, they matter to NATO. 2. NATO membership doesn’t disappear with independence. An attack on Scotland would be an attack on all NATO members. Collective defence still applies. 3. “Scotland first, England safe” is fantasy. If Russia ever struck the UK, they wouldn’t politely stop at the border. London, Portsmouth, Devonport, Brize Norton… all are high-value targets too. The whole island is in it together. 4. Nuclear deterrent works both ways. Everyone knows that hitting Faslane would trigger a NATO response. That’s why these “you’d be first” scare stories are political theatre, not military reality. 5. While this one’s purely speculative - why are we being encouraged to keep Trident in our waters, if that makes us a target?? Funny that… it almost feels like a set up, a contingency plan… is Westminster in cahoots with Putin? Should we gain our independence, Russia is all of a sudden taking an interest? Randomly? I doubt it. I think the truth is more like: Westminster isn’t worried about Russia. They’re worried about us. Because if Scotland stands tall on the world stage, their last line of defence is fear. We’ve outgrown their bogeyman stories. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19XnDeRcti/?mibextid=wwXIfr