Britain's international reputation – and its nuclear deterrent – are two of the concerns raised by members of Parliament , should Scotland vote for independence next year.
Isn't it annoying when you find some gobbet of unalloyed ignorance in a publication that purports to be authoritative and you can't put the idiots right because they don't allow comments? Here's a fine example from the formerly reputable Christian Science Monitor.
The article itself is just standard regurgitated unionist claptrap. The interesting bit is the picture at the top. And I don't mean the fact that it refers to some long-dead aristocrat and an acient battle, neither of which can have any real relevance to Scotland's constitutional debate. According to the caption on the picture,
"British Prime Minister David Cameron said Scotland should hold an independence referendum as early as next year, clashing with the Scottish National Party (SNP) which wants more time to rally support for a break from the United Kingdom."
A personal eye-witness account of the Battle of Bannockburn complete with smartphone video would have had a better claim to authenticity. Here in the real world, where the CSM doesn't appear to have a correspondent, we know that the SNP had the referendum slated for 2014 while David Cameron still entertained ambitions of preventing it ever happening at all.
I wonder if CSM takes the same kind of liberties with its reporting of US domestic politics. Thank goodness for Al Jazeera and Russian TV!