> Russia and friends would seem to have an interest in Scottish independence as it undermines the UK.
But so do Scottish people.
But so do Scottish people.
1. https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Internal_Ind...
[1] https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/docume...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_in...
The National certainly is.
DOI: Scotsman not in favour of independence.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Herald_(Glasgow)#Political...
For Scottish independence- well Adam Smith, David Hume et al set up the modern world. There's a definite Scottish identity. For others in Scotland it's a UK identity and they still identify as Scottish.
[0] - https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/locations-and-operations/bases-...
Sure. But the point is they don't. Moving nuclear weapons (and building a new submarine base) is difficult, disruptive and expensive. (Having a non-nuclear power on the same landmass as a geopolitical competitor is also nice. If there is an underlined vision of this millenium shared by the world's great and regional powers, it's that nuclear sovereignty trumps the conventional kind.)
Do you want a nuclear weapons site 20 miles from your largest city?
If you’re nuking a submarine port you’re nuking other port infrastructure. And if the UK is under strategic nuclear fire, any population center is going to be leveled.
(I understand the NIMBY argument. I don’t want to live next to nuclear weapons more due to accident risk than targeting.) And I understand the non-proliferation one when it worked.)
eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme)
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astraea_(nuclear_warhead)
There are / have been other nuclear warheads and bombs in the UK of both UK and US origin.
After all it certainly doesn't make economic sense.
That's not really true, it was a union agreed by both sides - hence the name.
Your analogy is very, very stretched. One can definitely say that suppression of Highlanders after the defeat of the last Jacobite Uprising was somewhat similar to other British military actions, including those in India, but that was the standard of the day in the 18th century.
Scotland was in no meaningful way "colonized". The local elite kept their power, their property, and got adequate representation in the common British Parliament, which meant real influence over the legislative process and formation of governments.
Can you name any Indian MPs sitting in the Westminster back then and co-determining the next budget and the next Prime Minister? No.
Jade Helm, Obama's tan suit, etc.
most don't stick, which means you need to hammer "real" issues, even if they're only real to 10% of the population or less, e.g. "wedge issues" etc.