Saturday, October 25, 2014

A date with Concorde

I don't know if you're aware, dear reader, but I like airplanes. I am interested in makes and models of airplanes, and seeing them up close is always fascinating for me.
So when my wife proposed a day out at Brooklands Museum, I agreed. In addition to being the site of the world's first motor circuit in 1907, British airplanes, such as the Vickers range of aircraft, were built here from the 1940s right through to the 1970s. In fact, a BAC 1-11 and Vickers VC-10 are displayed on site. They are both huge planes, definitely comparable in size to an A340 and B747 respectively, with massive "whale fluke" T-tails. Check out the tail from the VC-10:

 photo VickerstailIII.jpg

The VC-10 is second only to Concorde in having achieved the fastest transatlantic flight time.
The really big draw to Brooklands is the supersonic Concorde herself. Specifically, the G-BBDG, the first production type for the British model Concorde aircraft, used to test the design before the aircraft was certified for passenger service. G-BBDG debuted in February 1974 and was retired on Christmas Eve 1981, having notched up 1,282 hours flight time in total, and has been at Brooklands since 2003.
Squirrel has a real soft spot for Concorde and I was keen to visit her too. She is, after all, a legend.  This was the plane that, from 1976 to 2003, travelled at twice the speed of sound, achieved a maximum height of 53,500 feet (over 10 miles high) and got you from London or Paris to New York in three hours.
The thing you hear about Concorde is that she is "diminutive". She is quite graceful, and admittedly on the small side as far as commercial aircraft go. Having said that, she is much larger than most people anticipate before seeing her in person. She drew my breath away upon first sight. I don't think diminutive is an accurate way to describe Concorde at all.

 photo ConcordeI.jpg

The Concorde Experience at Brooklands allows you to enter the aircraft and take a seat for a 10-minute flight simulation. Squirrel and I were both honored to have claimed some space, even for a short time, on this beautiful bird.

 photo MonConcorde.jpg

As you have probably guessed, given that this aircraft achieved a speed of Mach 2, the cockpit is a cluster of superfine gadgetry:

 photo Conccockpit.jpg

And there you go, our date with lady Concorde!
 
 photo SquwithConcI.jpg

Friday, October 10, 2014

I made it out—and out I'm staying

During the past fourteen years that I have been living in the U.K., I have often been asked by people if I miss "the States".
I used to answer, "no offense, but yes."
But now, I would answer an unequivocal "no." Does that no longer make me a patriot?
Readers who know me well, especially those who remember my days on Diaryland, would acknowledge that I was so blisteringly angry about the anti-Iraq War—and, by proxy, anti-American—fervor taking place throughout the world ten years ago that I seriously considered joining up (I was 34 at the time). Only a long conversation with my father, a former Marine, held me back and convinced me not to do so.
What heady days those were. I was a pro-pot, pro-Bush neocon with a love of language, especially if it was salty. Above all, at all times, I considered myself a true patriot. One of the memes I had at the end of every entry announced "America For True Americans!"
I missed Boston. I missed the Charles River parkway. I missed the Watertown Stop & Shop supermarket. Of course, I especially missed my family. I longed for everything that defined my life from the '70s right up to 2000, when I moved here for good. And I did not have cause to think twice about boarding a Boeing 747 bound for the American east coast whenever I could afford such a flight.
Fast forward to November 2008. I thought the America I knew and loved was over when Barack Obama got elected to the highest office in the land that year. The rot had, in fact, started much earlier, during the Clinton adminstration. It was only with hindsight that I eventually realized this. After all, only a nation of TV-addicted mushheads could discount the bombshell that was Gennifer Flowers.
Mr. Obama ran his first term as a somewhat accountable politico, although there were signs of what was in the works that the usual asleep-at-the-wheels electorate failed to notice, or failed to care about. To use just one example, his fellow Democrats in Congress began to complain that he wasn't engaged enough with them, that he showed no desire to roll up his sleeves and engage in politics. Bill Clinton talked, held discussions, scrapped with the opposition, made deals, the whole lot, to get things accomplished. From the beginning, Obama was spookily disengaged from the whole process.
In his second term, Obama not only totally unleashed his pit-bull attorney general Eric Holder, he blamed Republicans for a government shutdown—during a time when John Bonehead ... er, Boehner, showed something resembling a spine (an illusion, obviously)—blamed TWPs (Typical White People) for the deaths of Trayvon Martin and "Big" Mike Brown, picked up the pace of covering up Benghazi and Fast & Furious, supported the so-called Arab Spring, better known as the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and used executive orders to launch not only wars on Libya, Syria and ISIS-controlled Iraq, but to enact the full-scale invasion of the United States by illegal aliens through a concept that liberals adore: amnesty.
We now have a president that will not, in any conceivable way, protect our borders. Muslim terrorists can stroll in. Central American "children" can skip in, bringing "Enterovirus"—otherwise known as polio—with them, not to mention MS-13 gang culture. And, now, the mother of all controversies: As Thomas Eric Duncan proved, Ebola victims are making it in with no questions being asked other than, "Have you got any tobacco or alcohol?"
Obama has given up on the job of POTUS. He's the Golfer-in-Chief.
For anyone paying attention, or not being brainwashed by the international liberal media elite, it seems foolish to ask me if I'm still homesick.
For all the bullshit that Prime Minister David Cameron may be full of, he is much more of a true leader of a nation than Barack Obama could ever hope to be. And for all its faults and its own political correctness—which, for instance, made the child grooming scandal in Rotherham possible—Britain is a place I absolutely prefer to stay put in.
Yes, the 2011 riots were frightening and indicates a serious problem with young people, especially minorities, in this country. But similar riots in France and Sweden during the past decade shows that at least we're not alone.
Over here, I don't have to watch some EBT layabout with an MS-13 tattoo at the checkout lane at the supermarket. I don't have to worry about polio starting to run rampant throughout U.K. schools, carried by Central American yout's with no right to be here, infecting my neighbors' children. God willing, I don't have to worry about Ebola as British immigration agents appear to be taking it seriously. Mr. Cameron doesn't constantly lecture me or any other denzien of Albion about race or how valuable Muslims are to our society.
Furthermore, if massacres like at Ford Hood or Moore, Oklahoma ever occur here, I can feel confident that they would be classified for what they are: terrorist incidents. Not "workplace violence." If some bitter Chechen immigrants bombed the London Marathon, I have enough faith in this country's leadership that it would be classified as TERRORISM. Not a "man-made disaster".
The difference between the way the U.K. and the U.S. want treat jihadists who so happen to be citizens of their respective nations that they travelled to Iraq or Syria from could not be starker. David Cameron has proposed to strip British ISIS fighters of their U.K. citizenship. Even though he might run into trouble with the usual suspects—human rights judges—he is trying his best, as the country's leader, to define what it means to be British and that it surely does not involve embracing terrorism.
Compare this with what FBI director James Comey said with regard to Americans who fought with ISIS returning to the homeland: "Ultimately, an American citizen, unless their passport's revoked, is entitled to come back. So, someone who's fought with ISIL, with an American passport wants to come back, we will track them very carefully." Let me parse this for you: So, someone with an American passport who has fought with ISIL will be let back into the country. They're entitled to it. God forbid we should strip an American of their U.S. citizenship for committing treason. But don't worry, we will monitor them.
Golly gee, isn't that enough to make the average American living in America feel safe? What more do you want, what more could you need? The FBI has assured us that those who feel that others should die for not worshipping the moon will be tracked. American citizenship is so sacrosanct, it can't possibly be taken away from anyone without their blessing!
I have to admit, this is consistent.  If we're going to bestow American citizenship on millions of people who have done nothing for the country but break the law by sneaking in, then why take citizenship away from another class of criminals?  Although I would argue that committing treason goes beyond mere criminality, that's just me.  I'm just a native-born American citizen who believes in following the law (a strike against the illegals) and live-and-let-live (a strike against jihadists).  What do I know? 
The only laudable thing about contemporary American life is that guns are still available. People have been purchasing them in a veritable flurry, convinced that they will be necessary to ward off swarthy illegals or jihadists coming at them with a scimitar. More power to them.  In Britain, we can't even have pepper spray. 
However, if you do manage to combat your assailant in a way that guarantees no future recidivist activities on his part while on American soil, you will be hounded relentlessly by the media for shooting an aggrieved member of society, a valuable person we failed to understand and embrace because we are, y'know, racist.  Just ask Mark Vaughan who equalized the "workplace violence" committed by Alton Nolen, a.k.a Jah'Keem Yisrael.  (Strange name for an Islamofascist, isn't it?  That's Isreal with a "y".)

My home country has a totally open southern border and a Federal Bureau of Investigation that has just given the green light for further terrorist atrocities in on American soil.
Now, seriously, ask me if I wish I was still living in the U.S., especially the "sanctuary state" of Massachusetts run by that Obama rumpswab Deval Patrick.
If you have even a half-decent working brain, you won't bother.
I'm in Great Britain, and I'm staying put.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Denying the jihadists, or why I don't want to know Ben Affleck

I apologize in advance for the intemperate language, dear reader. Ben Affleck is a pussy. There, I said it.
The worst thing about being from Boston is knowing that this bozo hails from the same stomping ground. In case you missed it, Mssr. Affleck appeared on a recent episode of Bill Maher's "Real Time" program. Maher and his guest Sam Harris, the New Athiest author of the book Waking Up, were discussing the threat posed by radical Islamists and the varying degrees to which Muslims worldwide support, at least in theory, ideas anathema to the liberal Western way of life. Affleck was incapable of distinguishing between the moderate Muslims which Mr. Harris correctly pointed out are the people in the Islamic world that we need to support and encourage with the hope that they, not the jihadists, Islamists or fundamentalists, become the face of Islam globally and the Islamofascists and those who agree with or remain silent on them.
Comparing Maher's and Harris's points to calling someone a "shifty Jew," Affleck threw a hissy fit. He spoke in a tone of voice that nearly reached the ultrasonic register. He addressed Mr. Harris with a combative, "So, are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam?" (To which Harris replied, "I'm actually well-educated on this topic.") I wish Harris had shot back, "Are you, Ben?" 
At one point, while former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele spoke, Affleck can be seen rubbing his temples and running a finger across his stubbly upper lip. You would have a hard time arguing that he didn't look like a schoolboy who'd just been admonished by his teacher. Poor little mite was just so distressed. All this Islamophobia emanating from his fellow progressives! Oh me, oh my!
Bill Maher may be a punk—that will never change if his disparaging comments about the Boston bombing are any indication—but at least he gets it with regard to the threat posed by radical Islam. He is not like other Lefties in denying it. He does not think that Christians are the monsters. There are far worse liberals in the media than Bill Maher.
That said, you still have to be pretty damn far to the Left to disagree with him from a liberal point of view. Affleck doesn't want to hear that there are bad Muslims in the world—that, out of the four concentric circles of Islamic belief and practice that Mr. Harris explained, only one represents the reformers, the good Muslims. It's just so discriminatory!
Ben Affleck, you are a disgrace. But, though I disown you as a fellow Beantowner, the difference between a Westerner like me, who agrees with and will defend basic liberal values such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the majority of the practitioners of "the doctrine of Islam" is this: I don't want to kill you. I'm happy for you to be alive, to wake up each morning to a brand new day (which is more than can be said for animals you shoot on some of these mornings).
However, this is a point I don't expect you to comprehend.
 

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Don't let the door hit you in your person's behind, Mr. Holder

There is a saying: "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't". I wonder if that observation will ring true given the announced resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder.
It is difficult to imagine a worse attorney general than Holder. It is noted in a BBC news piece that Obama "praised his prosecution of terrorism suspects and his protection of voting rights".
Let's break this down, shall we? (Especially since "breakin' it down" is a favorite pasttime of "Holder's people"):
Prosecution of terror suspects:
Holder opposed waterboarding which has been proven to be a very effective but non-life-threatening way to obtain information from suspects, wanted to give Guantanamo suspects federal civilian trials in New York, and supported the exchange of five "high-risk" Guantanamo inmates for Sargeant Bowe Bergdahl, a deserter "who cost soldiers' lives" according to fellow soldiers.
Protection of voting rights:
Holder did not prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters in Philadelphia in 2008. When questioned about this during a House appropriations subcommittee hearing, Holder said that the threatening of white voters at the polling station did not compare to "what people endured in the South in the '60s" and that making a big deal out of it disgraced the legacy of the "people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people".
My people. Can you imagine a white assistant to the assistant to the sheriff of East Bumhump saying this sort of thing, never mind a white attorney general? And, regarding the South in the 1960s, Mr. Holder? You weren't there. You were attending junior high and high school in New York City while the struggle for equality raged in Alabama and Mississippi. Yet, he talked as if he personally witnessed one moment of it for himself. But then, that's the sort of honesty and "transparency" we have come to expect from Obama and Company.
Like nearly everything else in this squalid executive office, ultimately, it was all about race. Holder treated both the Zimmerman case and the incident in Ferguson, Missouri with such compelling intensity and urgency that it was almost like Alger Hiss redux. Yet what everyone knows but won't say is that if Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown had been shot by another black person, officer or not, neither case would have come close to garnering national attention.
Then we have the infamous 2009/10 Fast and Furious fiasco, in which the ATF in Arizona oversaw a sting operation to sell firearms to Mexican drug cartel leaders in the hopes that it would lead to their arrests but has, if you'll pardon the expression, backfired. Holder was held in contempt of Congress in 2012 for refusing to release Department of Justice documents related to the operation. Fortunately, a U.S. District Court judge has recently denied further executive privilege to continue stonewalling on the release of a list of Fast and Furious documents, so we will eventually get to the truth. Some pundits have theorized that Holder is getting out while the gettin' is good.
Holder will also be remembered for increasing the levels and powers of the surveillance state.  Under his tenure, the National Security Agency has analyzed and stored an increasing collection of the public's electronic communications—thank you for blowing the whistle, Edward Snowden—while the Internal Revenue Service subjected conservative groups to stringent, over-the-top scrutiny.
Can Holder's replacement be any worse? I cannot imagine how the Attorney General's office could get any lower, but the Obama administration, as with life, knows no limits on levels with which to free-fall. The point-of-view of whomever occupies the position is not likely to change. Sources say that possible replacements include a Hispanic (to assist with enacting amnesty for illegals), a woman (to fight the "war on women") and an openly gay U.S. attorney (a gift to the LGBT community who idolize Holder).
I am gladdened by Holder's departure and the door can't swing shut on him fast enough for me.  I also know that conservatives, including myself, will not be happy with whoever ends up in the AG's chair. That would be expecting the impossible. I just pray that Holder's legacy will not prove to be lightweight compared to that of his successor.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Dogs today, humans tomorrow?

Recently, according to accusations, a 15-year-old boy torched the Manchester Dogs' Home, a canine rehoming charity. Over 50 dogs died as a consequence of the blaze.  It is thought that the teenager committed this act of arson because he was previously bitten by a dog.
Some locals risked their lives in saving some of the animals. Area residents Jason Dyer and Dean Rostock charged into the burning kennel, sparing 20 dogs from death.
In the wake of the fire, the boy, who was later bailed after his arrest, was the recipient of many angry missives, including death threats. One Twitter user wrote that the adolescent arsonist "doesn't deserve protection. He deserves a very painful punishment".
Does that go a little too far, dear reader? Yes, he is fifteen and perhaps he can be rehabilitated, if he did cause the fire.
But, if it was him, then this was an act of pure evil. Please don't give me this "he only killed some dogs" claptrap.
Here's the kicker: Would this kid torch an old-age home if he clashed with a senior citizen? You have to wonder. 
Psychopaths and animal cruelty are definitively linked. Time and time again, killers from Ian Brady to the Boston Strangler, Dunblane shooter Thomas Hamilton to Mary Bell, have displayed cruelty to animals as children. Prison cells in every nation contain murderers who worked their bloodlust out on animals first.
Dr Alan R. Felthous, Professor and Director of Forensic Psychiatry at Saint Louis University School of Medicine, held studies in the 1980s that demonstrated a strong link between animal cruelty early in life to aggression against humans later on. The result of Felthous's study "showed that those men with a high rate of recurrent and serious aggression had histories of a larger number of episodes of animal cruelty in childhood in comparison with those who were non-aggressive, based on independent ratings."
The public felt intense sadness, anger and disgust at the death of innocent pets by a deliberate act of destruction.  The outpouring of support for the dogs' home was so large that police were reportedly overwhelmed by it.
It makes the threatening messages aimed at the boy easier to understand, doesn't it? We know where this might lead.  On a certain level, the abuse the boy has been receiving can be seen a subconscious way of protecting ourselves from a possibly deranged individual who could become the next Raul Moat, a crazed killer.
Although the family of the teenaged boy initially refused to move, they were eventually convinced by police to be rehoused. Is there going to be a thorough psychiatric evalution of this kid with the police involved every step of the way? Or is he just going to serve a little time in a juvenile detention home and walk back out into the world with a new identity?
Are we going to heed the danger signals, the same ones that have been a constant for the whole of human history? Or are we just going to say that he paid the price and leave him to possibly slaughter an innocent person in the future? If this kid eventually goes beserk (again), we can't say we weren't warned.
But, then, we never seem to learn from history, do we?

Friday, September 26, 2014

News round-up: Invasion from Calais, Labour's proposal for labor, and Hitler teaches Israel

If you think the United States faces an illegal alien crisis and has trouble controlling its borders—which, I think we can say without the slightest hint of conjecture, it does—just know that the situation in Britain is often not much better.
It's not bad enough that the U.K. has to accept a certain number of migrants, set by Brussels and not Westminster, from every single new addition to the European Community, which now includes Bulgaria and Romania, which in turn constitutes the rich (but unsavory) strain of Roma communities that run throughout the populations of both countries. We also have potential migrants from elsewhere lining up along the northern shore of France, the city of Calais in particular, looking to sneak into the U.K. any way they can.
Earlier this month, up to one-hundred migrants attempted to rush aboard a P&O tourist ferry that was preparing to return to England. They had jumped barbed wire barriers and outfoxed security to get to the ferry boarding area. The illegals were only successfully turned away when water cannons were fired at them.
This rabble consists of the usual suspects: Middle Easterners and Africans. All men. All between 18 and 45 years old.
A truck driver who was interviewed said that he sees "migrants all grouped together trying to get on to the trucks" every time he's in Calais.
Just as with the U.S., the U.K. is seen as a soft touch which is why so many migrants don't want to stay in France, or go elsewhere like Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany or Sweden. In Britain, they know they can tap into an easily abused welfare system and work in the black market that flourishes here.
Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart has threatened the British with a total blockade of the city's port if the country does not help to control the situation, which she has described as "unmanageable". She has every right to do this if the government will not act on this crisis.
* * *
It would appear that the Labour party has either learned nothing from its last time in charge of the country or it does not care. It has moved further Left from its policies—or at least the policies it trotted out for the public's perusal—under Tony Blair, a process started by Gordon Brown and now endorsed by Ed Miliband.
Stating that Britain remains obsessed with class, and promotes people on that basis, shadow equalities minister—drink that one in, dear reader, equalities minister—Gloria De Piero cited an "inequality of opportunity" that is set into the framework of many professions and she wants to "smash the glass ceiling" that exists in British workplace environments.
What De Piero is proposing is that public sector organizations will be required to monitor the social backgrounds of staff members.
Referring to what it means to be Labour, De Piero noted, "We believe all of us have the right to live in dignity, free from discrimination". Except, of course, if you're middle class. Then all your dignity can be chucked out the window.
Unfortunately, this is not just one moonbat speaking. Alan Milburn, the social mobility adviser—drink that one in, dear ... aw, fuck it—endorses a policy by which companies will have to declare the social background of their workforces. Has this party truly learned nothing about the unfairness of affirmative action, or "positive discrimination" as they call it here?
I suppose they would say it was "for the children".
* * *
Speaking of Labour—and it would be unfair to attribute this sort of imprudence solely to them as loose screws who have earned their places in the annals of dumb-assery also exist among the Tories and Lib Dems—let me introduce you to candidate for MP Vicki Kirby.
On her Twitter account, Kirby referred to Israel as "evil" and said that the "Zionist God" might be Adolf Hitler. Kirby wrote that, in her version of history, Israel was "invented" when saving Jews from Hitler, who "seems to be their teacher". Also, she "will make sure my kids teach their children how evil Israel is".
Labour leader Ed Miliband, a man of Jewish heritage himself, responded to this bile, declaring that "we do and we will resolutely oppose the isolation of Israel" through a boycott of Israeli products which Kirby supports. Labour has suspended her, nulling her campaign.
Not to be outdone by Kirby, another Labour candidate, Jed Sullivan, wrote on Twitter that he was all in favor of adoption by gays, adding that gay fathers would "know where all the best parks are". He also opined that women missed International Women's Day because "they took too long to get ready."
Probably not the best idea to post jokes like these, which admittedly are funny as long as you're not a politically correct robot, if you're running for a seat in the Commons. Sullivan has since apologized for causing any offense.
* * *
But, lo and behold, it's not all insensitivity and anti-Semitism in this news smörgåsbord. Manchester police have collaborated with the Community Security Trust, an organization which looks after the Jewish community in Britain, to protect Jewish citizens attending synagogue and events over the High Holy Days, including Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and the Jewish New Year.
Mobile police stations will be set up at four locations throughout the Greater Manchester area with additional patrols to cover routes to and from synagogues.
The Greater Manchester area has seen a spike in anti-Semitic incidents, mostly whipped up by the furor of rabble-rousers protesting violence in Gaza.  These "protestors" have made such a nuisance of themselves, day after day after day, that Manchester City Council had to declare an end to their demonstrations on King Street and reign them in, limiting their scope for subsequent protests. (I know, it's hard to believe that Gaza demonstrators don't have jobs to attend on a daily basis, eh?)
The Community Security Trust has released figures showing 52 anti-Semitic attacks across the Manchester metropolitan region in July. This constitutes a 300 percent rise on July 2013 when 13 incidents were recorded. There were 96 incidents in the whole of the previous six months.
It is definitely encouraging that the police are working to help secure a safe environment for the Jewish community. Given the contemporary political and social environment in which it seems that only Muslims get all the comforts and conveniences, it is refreshing that something is being done for another religious and cultural group of citizens.
We need more of this and on a much more frequent scale. Nonetheless, this is a good starting point.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

The 'No' vote in Scotland was a yes for common sense

So, dear reader, was the Scottish vote rejecting total independence from the United Kingdom a disaster or a relief?  I harbor no doubts whatsoever that it's the latter.
What you need to know, before any other argument you care to put forth, is that a "yes" vote would have given power to a mega-socialist, Putin-admiring, anti-American bully. His name is Alex Salmond, who was the First Minister for Scotland—until, to give him a gentleman's credit, he resigned following the No campaign's victory.
Scotland has its own cabinet and its own government. It won devolved powers via referendum in 1997, along with Wales and Northern Ireland, courtesy of Tony Blair's Labour government. Current Prime Minister David Cameron has said that, in the wake of the independence referendum, more powers, including tax decisions, will be handed to Scotland.
The United Kingdom isn't broken. It works fine as it is. Think of the separate countries of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England as separate states. But they are all part of the larger whole known as Great Britain. In this day and age, does it make sense to break up a major Western power? That's what the success of a "yes" vote would have done.
I am not an apologist for past British Empire wrongs, especially with regard to Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain now; there can be no going back. You cannot force British families living there, whose ancestry in that area goes back centuries, to be paid in euros when they're happy with the pound. You cannot force them into the Irish health care system when they're satisfied with the NHS.
Salmond's far-Left style does appeal to Celtic peoples for who-knows-what reasons. Scotland is no different than Wales—or the IRA—in embracing radical politics. (They make great conservatives when they emigrate to America, though, especially the Irish.) Perhaps if they stopped painting themselves as victims of an imperialist state, the revolutionary politics they embrace would melt away.
An independent Scotland, led by Alex Salmond, would have been antagonistic toward America. Salmond's government let Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi be free to return to Libya in August 2009, citing his terminal illness as an excuse. He lived for three years after being set free.
Salmond praises Putin as a great leader and refuses to apologize for this admiration for the Russian president. The Putin government was not only disappointed but furious that the No campaign succeeded. Salmond would have removed all nuclear missiles in Scotland, an end-game possibility that had the Russians salivating.  Now that Scotland has voted to remain part of the U.K., the missiles will remain.
I'm fairly certain that if the Yes campaign had won, Alex Salmond would have soon patched up differences with Barack Obama, who encouraged a No vote. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and Obama judged this one correctly. How long, though, would it have taken until Salmond and the Dear Leader coöperated and collaborated on ways to completely screw the American people and their way of life? Believe me, these two would have seen eye-to-eye in no time.
An independent Scotland would have re-joined the EU as a separate nation and, once accepted, signed the Schengen agreement which allows for open borders between all European nations that are part of it. The UK is not a signatory to this agreement.  Therefore, England would have had to build a fence all along its border with Scotland to prevent all the swarthy ruffians that Salmond would have welcomed with open arms from leaking into its territory. As if the UK doesn't currently have enough problems with immigration.
Futhermore, they let 16- and 17-year-olds vote. That was an obvious move to try to fluff up a victory in favor of independence. Letting under-18s vote, uninformed, misinformed and ill-informed as they usually are, was a cynical way of propping up the Yes campaign. They knew only too well that people that young could be manipulated into embracing independence because they would not think about the deeper issues.
For my American readers, don't be fooled into thinking that just because America broke away from Great Britain that any attempt by another entity to do so is reason to blindly embrace it. It is not. You need to research the people behind such an attempt, their political persuasion, the cynicism with which they are operating their campaign and whether or not it will benefit the U.S. if their secession is successful.  It also helps if you know whether or not the independence campaign is being spearheaded by a tin-pot dictator à la Alex Salmond.
I suggest that the British Government wait 20 or 30 years and then allow another independence referendum in Scotland. This time, let the Scottish government give its people a solid plan for independence instead of operating it like Obamacare, in the style of "just vote for it now, and we'll figure out the details later".  See if the young 'uns who voted "yes" now still feel the same then.  And hold the campaign like most normal countries do and allow only 18s-and-over to vote. At least then we can say the campaign was truly fair and the people of Scotland knew what they were voting for.
The nightdragon congratulates the people of Scotland for seeing through the manipulations and desperate shenanigans of the Yes campaign and voting by a majority of 55.3 percent against it.