Well if the CFE scheme is chosen I’ll be very happy indeed, an unusual scheme and one that looks ‘fighterish’ whilst still being accurate.

Out of interest, does anyone know why this rebuild has had to be done? If I remember rightly she was rolled out of one major overhaul, flown for a couple of weeks, and then sent off to DX for the current job.

No, the principles were indeed the perfect stance for Thatch. to be a great leader of the day. But, the threat of the UK losing “Easy” access to it’s bit of the Antarctic…or the bit we think is ours in accordance with the 1959 Antarctic treaty….and the vast reserves of Oil, Gas, Gold, probably diamonds and and and and was a very serious consideration.

Well whatever the oil/gas/diamond situation (from all I’ve read, I think you may be overstating things a bit), the war was still largely about principle and the rights of people to live peacefully without threat of invasion.

Of course there is much more of a connection there with any British aircraft – there’s a very good chance some of the scientists, designers, and engineers involved in the production of aircraft (and other technologies) were Scottish, so it will always be of special significance. We had a part in it.

But I doubt if many Scots would describe themselves as being British – it’s just something that was foisted on us after Culloden…

I can’t help seeing that as an odd way of putting it. It’s very true that scottish engineers and inventors etc have played a big part in British engineering over the years, but surely the whole point is that it’s British engineering??? It’s something we achieved together, something to be proud of and surely something worth carrying forward?

I asked you about your work on the Hunter specifically because I see the aviation heritage sector as a very odd one for an anti-British Scot to be involved with. Again I’m not Scot bashing, it’s just that if you look at all the great British aircraft of the last 100 years they are all ours, not yours and mine seperately. You work on something that was built in a united Britain, and yet you decide to single out the Scottish element. Why???

As a further thought, if Scotland were to go it alone then I wonder if there would be a general rejection and lack of interest in aviation museums in Scotland? Would Scots bother to go and admire a Bucc or a Hunter when they represent the old UK? Countries with borders re-invented in modern times frequently decide to lose inconvenient bits of thier history, and I can’t help feeling that Scottish aviation and industrial etc museums might do badly because of the connection with England.

In a sense, yes it is Scotland’s risk to take, however in another very big way it isn’t. As things stand, we are in things more or less together, financially, militarily etc. That means that whatever one party does has an affect on the others. Is it right for Scotland to ‘inflict’ changes on the other members of the UK, and is it really worth it? It relates back to the question of ‘stolen’ identity.

I can understand wholeheartedly that London seems a million miles from Clydebank, for example, and one thing I do dislike is the idea of other regions of the UK being treated as lesser members. I would like to see the UK remain united, with devolved government if necessary, but I would like to see a UK that treats the various parties more equally. I live in London alot of the time and it often strikes me as a God-foresaken place, a nation that abided by London’s every whim would be a frightening place to live in! The nation is better off for the character brought to it by places like Derby, Dundee, Hexham, Glasgow etc etc.

As a slight aside, it has crossed my mind that Scottish independence could potentially cheapen Scottishness. As things stand, the Scottish character is alive and well, an example to the reserved English of what a proud nation is supposed to look like. Scotland is all the greater for existing so strongly despite being part of a union, Scottishness is something that doesn’t need a national badge.

Good points, but I’d already thought about them 😀 .

The Falklands conflict of 1982 was about principles, at the time there was little or no talk about possible oil and gas reserves and the islands had a very small economy. The war had to be fought in order that similar actions were not given the green light in the rest of the world, aswell as restoring British authority in the Falklands. Argentina acted as an aggressor, Britian as defender and liberator. Whatever Argentina’s feelings about the ‘Malvinas’, invasion was not the way to go about it, especially when someone like Galtieri and his henchmen were in power. In the end, the status quo was restored in the Falklands, and Galtieri’s government collapsed as a kind of bonus.

As for war between the dis-United Kingdom and an independent Scotland, I agree the chances are remote. I didn’t just mean peace in terms of warfare, I meant peace in general daily life and peace in a nation’s economy. Independence is always a bit of a gamble, and in this case we need to ask whether it’s worth it.

Ok, thanks Al, I was just curious.

It’s just that I have trouble getting my head around the concept of restoring a British aircraft without having more of a feeling of connection for it than a Starfighter. My mind boggles slightly that you’ll be painting roundels on it that you don’t believe in, especially as the aircraft is located at a place that isn’t a million miles from where so many of them saw service.

Reading the above, I realise it could be read as being a bit glib, but I don’t mean it in any ‘clever’ or point scoring way. I’m just curious.

All well-and-good but the Falkland Islanders don’t want to be Argentine…

…and the Scots (maybe) don’t want to be British!

What matters is what the people want, democratically.

I take your point on board, but what people want now isn’t necessarily what’s best in the grand scheme of things. The point I was trying to make is that the current position in both places is pretty good, and most importantly peaceful.

I’m hoping that people will have the wisdom to leave well alone in both cases.

Al, am I right in thinking you’re currently restoring a Hawker Hunter? If so, can I ask you what you’re doing it for?

Well I hope the mods don’t mind, but I’ve gone over to a red font for just this one post because I feel so strongly on this issue. I’d be glad if all of you, whether north or south of the border, would take the time to read it.

There is in fact a common thread running both through this discussion and the one on the Falklands, and there is in fact a similar solution to both.

I would like to state categorically that I was born British. I was born in London and have lived in England all my life, but I have never seen Scotland as something seperate or lesser than England. I love the United Kingdom, we are an example to the world of what can be done when brother nations pull together. All very high and mighty talk I know, but think about it.

I’m not a ‘Scots basher’, and frankly in 31 years of living south of the border I’ve never met any. I sincerely wish that English (and Welsh and NI) people would publicly express thier upset at what is being proposed, and would publicly declare thier affection for Scotland. I think in a reserved English way we’re pretty torn up about it.

Why do things really need to change?? What we have presently is a group of nations that live harmoniously, and we have peace and shared wealth etc. Why do political barriers have to be put up? Surely all it does is make life more difficult for ordinary people, and create stronger feelings of seperation.

I sincerely believe that the move toward Scottish independence is causing far more hurt than is realised, and that many feel that thier nationality would be stolen from them by a Scottish vote for independance.

How does this tie in with the Falklands? Well, the Falklands has a tangled history with regard to claims over sovreignty and we could frankly be here for a fortnight discussing whether the islands are rightfully Spanish, French, American, British or Argentinian (all have had claims on the islands in the past.) The best thing to my mind would be for the international community to focus on what the islands are now, ie. a colony made up of decent people making an honest living, and living in peace. Whether or not they are British is irrelevant to an extent, the fact is that they are there now and what is the point of disturbing global peace for the sake of an ancient territorial claim? The people are there now, and as it happens they would like to remain British. What happenned to the concept of protecting ordinary peace-loving people?

So, in short, my feelings on both are that what currently exists isn’t all that bad and that changes could lead to further animosity. I sincerely feel that ‘stirring things up’ in either case is extremely unhelpful, and that we are all better off together.