Why Scotland?
Why Scotland? Why now? Why target Glasgow Airport? Was it purely opportunity: did the perpetrators have access to an adjacent base?
Alternatively, was there a particular motive in selecting Scotland? Was it timed to coincide with the Queen’s visit to open the Scottish Parliament?
Or was Scotland chosen because our new prime minister, Gordon Brown, is himself a Scot? Did the perpetrators imagine that, somehow, they would undermine the PM’s resolve by targeting the land of his birth?
That theory has been advanced by observers – but rebutted by Downing Street who insist that terrorist attacks could happen anywhere in the UK at any time. They say the PM’s origins are irrelevant.
Further, this is emphatically not, repeat NOT, an issue being spotlighted by SNP Ministers in the Scottish Executive.
They say there is no excuse of any kind for terrorism – and that their concern is to bolster security while ensuring that, as far as possible, normal life can resume throughout Scotland and the wider UK.
Perhaps we will learn more about opportunity, if not motive, when the home secretary, Jacqui Smith delivers a statement to the Commons this afternoon.
I'm 
Comments
Why Glasgow? I would suggest, simply, because its a "soft" target, compared with the likes of London, Manchester etc. I don't think the fact Gordon Brown is Scottish puts us at any greater risk than we were already. What I find more worrying is the stories circulating that US intelligence knew two weeks ago that Glasgow was a possible target. Heard anything about this Brian?
I think this had little or no connection to HRH the Queen’s movements or Gordon Brown’s elevation, although I would not seek confirmation of that opinion from Mrs. Blair.
I have said since 9/11 that the obsession of expecting attacks on London and taking steps aimed at protecting the English capital, now referred to as London-centric, were naïve to say the least; as with all areas of heightened security whether it be London or US inbound and internal flights terrorist will continue to look to attack the soft underbelly; Glasgow airport was that soft underbelly on Saturday
The Queen and the Prime Minister are most normally protected with what must be considered as high intensity security; targets such as shopping centres, railway stations, ferry terminals and ferries themselves should now have enhanced security; I do not forward these as an exhaustive list, merely a ‘starter for ten.’
My guess would be to try to take advantage of the pro-independence, anti-Iraq-war sentiment shown at the elections, and make people think "Iraq war = terrorism target - let's go independent and then bring our troops home, and let England worry about the terrorists".
Personally, I'd think such a tactic would have an opposite "we'll not be pushed around" effect...
Why not Scotland? We are as much a target as everywhere else. I would like to add, I'm more heartened that we are part of the Union because Alex Salmond's press conference yesterday outside Glasgow Airport was an appalling reflection of the Scottish people.
Tony Blair was born of a Scots father and Irish mother in Edinburgh where he was educated.Get my point?
Regards
Would * 1 care to expand and explain his commenmts? We may have another who cant believe the Election results and I don't think this is the place or time to score political points.
As Al Murray quotes 'shame on you'
Some people are suggesting that Scotland was targeted because Gordon Brown is a Scot. Am I the only person on the planet who knows that Tony Blair is also a Scot? The media are reporting that Gordon Brown is the first Scot in 70 years to become a UK Prime Minister; that is complete nonsense; Tony Blair's constituancy was in England, but that doesn't make him any less Scot.
#1, sandymac:
Which part of Salmond's press conference was "an appalling reflection"? The worst thing anyone can do when there is an attack on any human life is politicise it and turn it into a cheap dig at an individual. So tell us what was appalling, or let us think of you as indecent and as horrific as the attacks.
Why Scotland? Because they were tryimg to show the breadth of their reach with car bombs in London and Glasgow.
I think its been carried out to see if there will be a different response from a Scottish prime minister. Its as if they are saying
"right...what are YOU going to do about Iraq etc now" Undo what Blair did in bringing about the terrorist attacks owing to him pandering after Bushykins
There is no excuse for terror, be it at Glasgow airport, London or Baghdad!
Scotland is an attachment of the UK. Whilst this remains the case we will be a target for these people. Brown becoming PM gave these people the opportunity to send a message.
Some people call this playing politics with terror, more astute observers call this, stating the obvious. Politics got us into this mess, politics has to get us out of it. It wasn't the army that started the second Gulf war, it was Bush and Blair, supported by Brown. This is the root of the attacks and dissatisfaction with Muslims, whatever their origin, status or occupation. To say 9/11 happened before the second Gulf war is to ignore the seething hostility toward the US for some considerable time on inertia in Palestine and bases in Saudi.
The Labour party has been in collective denial on this. You hear the same lame excuses for both war and continued occupation time and time again on TV and radio. Labour party members have a profound guilt they were duped and went along with the war. Their shame and denial is coupled with a further denial that life in Iraq is getting better and is better than it was under Saddam.
This is a Labour party mess for following a right wing US agenda. Gordon Brown has not just appeared from Mars, he held the purse strings for war. To begin to address this terrorism the UK Labour government needs to own up to its mistake and state an approximate timetable for withdraw from Iraq. If they had listened to us at the SECC we would not be in this mess!
To all those agitating against the SNP, who got you into this mess?
Maggie McRae
Maggie McRae I'm outraged by your comment, It would have mattered not a jot who was in power. To begin to address this terrorism it would seem you're suggesting a narrow worldview of terrorism being a logical process almost preventable. You need to read history books this began much further back in time. You ask, who got you into this mess? What mess?
Maggie McRae makes the point that there is no excuse for terrorism. Is this what outrages Sandymac. Probably not, but he chooses not to similarly condemn terrorism! Too bust condemning nationalists no doubt!
What probably outrages Sandymac is that he is a Labour party member in denial and shame that his party has brought this on both England and Scotland and that Maggie has brought this to his and others' attention. Don’t shoot the messenger!
Scotland should raise it's head above the barrier of the UK and talk to other counties and be full member of the international community. Difficult to do this when there are those amongst us who think we are third class, unable to stand on our own two feet and that our international affairs should be managed by another country.
Who got us into this mess? Answer, Labour party!
#8 Kruger: You would think of me 'as indecent and as horrific as the attacks' because I was appalled with Salmond's press conference, that seems to me to be an exaggerated response on your part. Which part well, it's more a sum of the parts. He overstepped the mark when he took the 'opportunity' to make it an 'us and them' situation making it clear they were not born or bred in Scotland - I don't understand why he highlighted this, perhaps trying to prevent disharmony in our communities, nonetheless I wonder what difference it makes as we are ALL involved. Scotland's experience of this sort of terrorism should not in my opinion be treated arrogantly or jovially, which was my sense of him when watching. I agree with you that now is not the time for politicking or making cheap digs, a bit like your response to my comment?
Why Scotland? Why Bali? Why Madrid? Why New York Why London? Why Istanbul? These are global attacks which will strike anywhere at anytime in places that fundamentalists see people enjoying, as they see it, an unholy way of life. That said the terrorists also deliberately use news events to bring attention to their actions so Saturday with the Queen's visit and Gordon Brown made sense to them from a media point of view, just as the attacks on Madrid coincided with the Spanish election and influenced the result considerably. I wish Nationalists would stop thinking that if we left the UK we would leave the current problems of forgein policy behind.
Regrettabley, the Glasgow airport is a very easy target to approach. My wife and I flew back to the US several weeks ago and both noted how easy it was to find - regardless of some detouring - and how convenient the car park were for returning vehicles. What evidently matters is not per se the internal security, but who can get close to such a site and whether they should be there.
Why Scotland?
Could it be because the London cars had been discovered, because they knew it was only a matter of time before they were located by the police - and because Glasgow airport was the best they could find in a short timescale for their planned fiery exit.
It is possible Scotland was never intended as a target - but was considered a good remote place for a base
Which option would/should worry us more?
Re: Paul C wrote "..It is possible Scotland was never intended as a target - but was considered a good remote place for a base".
I don't think so Paul. How many people do you know carry several gas canisters, at the same time, in their car?
Isn't it a little strange that as soon as there is a threat to the make up of UK in terms of the Nationalists being elected that there is a terrorist attack in Scotland? It's almost as if the child is going out to play away from its mum for the first time and then something bad happens to pull it back in. Don't ever leave my side or something bad will happen to you son!
#14, sandymac
Thank you for your response and highlighting the part you disagreed with. I appreciate that you replied.
I didn't bat an eyelid at that part, thinking he was mentioning as a tip-of-the-hat to muslim community in Scotland and their efforts against radicalism, and probably (as you said) for cohesion. We may all be involved, but native-born extremism is a different beast to imported extremism, with different solutions.
I have to agree with Derek. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, it seemed to neatly occur to remind us that Scotland is part of the UK, as far as the world is concerned, and that even choosing SNP and bringing back Scots from the various wars won't protect us from terroism. It also seemd to leave Alex Salmond doing nothing, while GBrown did all of the responding. (Perhaps this is down to perception since I was abroad at the tim, and Alex Salmond was not seen on TV)