.
Since its establishment in 1934 the SNP has had as its raison d’etre the pursuit of an independent Scotland, a nation able to exercise self-determination free from the “dead hand of Westminster” which, ministers at Holyrood would argue, is stifling growth and holding Scotland back from fulfilling its potential.
By anyone’s standards, it’s a radical vision.
Having done what no party was supposed to have done last year, namely win an outright majority of its own in elections to the Scottish Parliament, the SNP and Alex Salmond seemed invisible.
Against weak opposition and with the public having given him and his party a thumping mandate suddenly nothing seemed impossible. Indeed, as recently as the beginning of this year, polling suggested a majority of Scots favoured independence.
Fast forward to today and one wonders if the mounting reality of what independence would mean is starting to dampen the radical vision for independence so often espoused by senior SNP politicians.
Firstly, under plans drawn up by the SNP, an independent Scotland would retain the pound as its currency with the London based Bank of England remaining its central bank. Is this really “independence”?
Now we have the first minister and his allies scuttling around promoting the idea that the option known as “Devo Max” under which Scotland would gain control of everything apart from foreign, defence and certain limited tax and economic powers should also be on the ballot paper.
Putting aside the fact that being able to set your own foreign and defence policy is at the very heart of the notion of national sovereignty, the first minister is now striking a lonely figure in this regard, attacked as he has been in equal measure by pro-independence campaigners Margo MacDonald, Patrick Harvie, comedian Elanie Smith and former SNP leader Gordon Wilson, all of whom have recognised and argued forcefully that the inclusion of a second question would be a “co-op” and suggest Salmond is looking for a face-saving way out of a defeat of his long held dreams of independence.
And now, in the latest sign of the impact the prospect of independence is having on the SNP we hear the party is preparing to debate at its annual conference in October its historic opposition to NATO membership, an event likely to cause substantial ruptures within the party.
• Salmond’s Yes to Independence campaign splits. Again 9 Jul 2012
• Salmond must stop moving the goalposts on Scottish independence referendum 4 Jul 2012
• Do the SNP see England as a foreign country already? 2 Jul 2012
• Salmond’s independence campaign lurches from one problem to another 19 Jun 2012
• Time for slippery Salmond to answer for his “toe-curling fawning over Rupert Murdoch” 11 Jun 2012
Emphasising the systemic shift this would be in SNP policy, the Herald’s editorial this morning concludes:
“A generation ago it would have been unthinkable for the fiercely anti-nuclear Scottish National Party to propose that an independent Scotland should join Nato.
“Yet, the party’s autumn conference will consider a motion that Scotland should remove nuclear weapons but join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, whose ultimate deterrent in nuclear weaponry.
“Since it is to be put forward by Angus Robertson, the SNP’s Westminster leader and defence spokesman, this can be taken as the preferred policy option of the leadership. If it is agreed, it will breach a shibboleth for many of the party’s most faithful foot soldiers.
“For 30 years the SNP’s stance has been anti-Nato because the party is opposed to nuclear weapons and, as Nato is a nuclear alliance, an independent Scotland would not apply for membership. For many grassroots members and activists, especially on the left of the party, this was a point of principle and the reason for joining the SNP rather than Labour.
“Expelling Trident from Faslane and Coulport but remaining a member of Nato is a compromise solution that would leave the SNP vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. While the party can claim it remains committed to the earliest possible withdrawal of Trident from Scotland, some experts say that removal could take up to 20 years.
“At the autumn conference, two years away from the referendum on independence, Alex Salmond and his key lieutenants will be looking beyond their membership to the wider electorate. Seeking Nato membership is a bold move on the part of Mr Salmond, in keeping with his reputation as a politician who likes to take risks. The aim will be to convince waverers that Scotland’s security will be guaranteed under independence.”
Meanwhile, comparing his situation with that of Neil Kinnock, Trevor Salmon, an emeritus professor at the University of Aberdeen, writes this morning in the Scotsman:
“This will cause enormous ructions within the SNP, as there are people within the party who think that Nato is immoral in that it has a strategy that’s dependent on nuclear weapons.
“The situation facing Alex Salmond is the one that faced Neil Kinnock in the late 1980s. Labour realised two-thirds of UK voters quite liked the nuclear deterrent.
“Although it was very hard for Kinnock to change Labour’s policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament, he realised that if the bulk of the population disagreed with you, you either change that position or stay in opposition Alex Salmond may take a similar view on the SNP’s position, but he will face stiff opposition within his own party.”
He continues:
“If there is a real prospect of Alex Salmond being defeated at this autumn’s party conference, then it is possible that he will withdraw the proposal. Of course, given this would be the second time he had done this, then that would be the end of any attempt to change the policy before the 2014 independence referendum.
“But it would be a very brave person who would attempt to take on Alex Salmond within the SNP. He is probably the only person who could bring about this change within the party.”
U-turn if you want to? The first minister is definitely for turning.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
37 Responses to “Comment: Independence is denting the SNP’s radicalism”
TristanPriceWilliams
Yes. I know that the English largely dislike Scotland. They have been taught that we are a nation of scroungers, who flit from pub to betting shop. The right wing press and Boris Johnston are largely at fault here.
The figures are always skewed in the unionist press. All the problems, and of course the problems are going to be there, are discussed, but World Bank Figures that show that Scotland would be around 7th richest country per capita in the world are missed. Comparisons with Iceland at the height of its crisis are cited, but no one in the main stream ever talks about another small country with the same population, less oil, yet a massively higher standard of living and a £500 billion dollar oil fund….Norway.
Some say that if Scotland left the UK and the pound, the pound would founder, because Scotland would take most of the Oil. That is economists, not me. I can’t argue. But it seems that the idea of the pound staying may well have been from London, rather than Edinburgh.
It is only war ships that are built on the Clyde. most other stuff is built in the far East, where it can be sourced far more cheaply. The state of the British economy suggests that there will be no more war ships built in the foreseeable future. So I wouldn’t anticipate much if I were in one of the towns you mention.
Of course, it seems that everyone thinks that ordinary people just love the fact that the British Prime Minister is one of the most important people on the planet, and what he says counts. Most of us don’t give a stuff. Britain continues to play a role because to most intents they do everything that America tells them to do.
Mr Osborne’s own words …we are broke. How can Britain really play a part? even the WMDs that Britain houses on the Clyde are not an independent deterrent like those of the French. They are controlled by America.
Of course Scotland would play a tiny part in NATO, in Europe, in the world… Just like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Greenland, Iceland… If you have travelled to any or some of these countries you will know that the standard of living is high, the difference between rich and poor is small, the place is clean, the roads are good, where there are trains they are modern and well run…. The people polite and multi-lingual… and no one thinks it is important to run the world. They think it more important to concentrate on their own country…and run it.
Who benefits from Britain being in every war America decides to have, legal or not? Us? No. The prime minister? Yes.
He gets dinner at the White House. He is allowed to feel immensely important. That’s nice for him. It doesn’t stop pensions in the UK being the lowest in the developed world when compared with wages, the railways being a disaster, roads falling to pieces, and half the army awaiting an attempt form one of many terrorist organisations to further disrupt their Olympics.
Being small gives you real pride in your country. not something that has to be enforced with the waving of flags, expensive jubilees, rich people getting married and having children, which will undoubtedly happen close to the referendum. Loyalty to a totally distant parliament where our members are outweighed 10-1 by others and where despite voting Labour, we got a Tory government, is not terribly evident.
We shall see what we shall see.
I don’t want devo max at any cost.
TristanPriceWilliams
Yes, it probably should be…although devolution was not, strangely.
My problem with it is that we would end up paying for WMDs, with no vote on getting rid of them, and we would continue to send people to die in illegal wars, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people on the whim of a mad American neo-con Vice president.
Clearly a federal set up is one that I would object to for the same reason. if the UK could be like a federal Germany or Switzerland and be low key in nose poking I might not mind it. But the amount of money the UK spends on “defence” is eye watering, and so badly spent when one considers the poverty in the UK.
(If we spent the money that they will spend renewing Trident on getting people off drugs and tightening how drugs get in here, just imagine how much misery could be avoided, particulate among the under privileged.)
Not sure what you meant by the timing issue. Would you not agree that Labour has changed its values greatly over the years… I think it reasonable that it should. Just as I think it reasonable that the SNP would.
As you say, modern Labour is…different.
Anonymous
Taking the points made in turn:
English views of “Put up with crap – or shove off” is excellent. It will stiffen the backbone of nervous nellies favoring Devolution. Come a hard choice between more Toryism from UK Labour or UK Conservatives, self government will increasingly be seen as the safe, sane option.
Again all this emotional blackmail about: “England will be vindictive and uncooperative” on negotiations, asset and debt split, sharing a currency, social union or whatever is a) scaremongering b) setting up a ‘tough’ negotiating stance to hang on to us much ill-gotten goods as possible and c) hot air argument that will dissipate when the Yes vote comes in and the campaign rhetoric disappears faster than snow off a dyke. All of a sudden it will be all charm and smarm from Cameron and crew, to try and weasel the best deal they can. UK is in dire financial straits and needs Scottish foreign currency earnings from higher per capita exports, oil, reserves underwriting sterling, etc etc. Current discussion ignores realities like the US, IMF and EU leaning on the UK to avoid crisis and sort out a fair deal.
What you doubt and what is international precedent on asset and liability sharing and therefore defence resource split are poles apart. On a per capita basis Scotland will take a slice of each and all categories of defence resources, including IT, intelligence and communications systems. Read The Scotsman yesterday for the text of the SNP conference resolution setting out the resources, costs and basic deployment details of the Scottish Defence Force.
The issues you raise about the EU do not arise. Scotland is already in the UK. Both countries will be successor states. The EU does not expel members, it recruits them. The obstacles you cite are theoretical and not real. In any case the better solution may be for Scotland to go for EFTA links as do Norway and Switzerland. It will be up to the Scottish electorate to decide in the referendum folowing the return to self government.
Faslane is not a trump card ( In any case you are talking about Faslane and Coulport)
it is an obscenity – to be removed. Glad to hear that there are alternatives that can speed departure. We need the facilities and the construction capabilities for building quality naval vessels and maintaining them.
The NATO ‘talking shop’ launched international mini-wars in recent years. Not keeping up with current affairs are we? The UK will welcome Scotland being in NATO, if that is the wish and decision of the Scottish Parliament. A choice we do not have at present. The reason being that the UK at present is woefully inadequate in failing to guard the north right now. Big hole where maritime reconnaissance used to be. Scotland asset stripped of bases and personnel. Sending a naval vessel a day’s journey away (twice) to see what the Russian Navy was doing off the Moray Firth by the oilfields; aircraft carriers without planes, billions in waste and incompetence – leaving an army at Crimean War size – oh yes, the UK needs a neighboring NATO ally with clean, lean, mean and efficient fighting forces in an integrated Scottish Defence Force. (Not three warring tribes of wasteful competitors as in the RAF, RN and Brit Army)
Scotland is sick of the farcical, costly and ridiculous UK pretendy “major world force, striding the world stage” posturing and sycophancy as a very third rate hanger on to the USA. The world has grown up and moved on. The UK is now a bit player and a third string in Europe to France and Germany. But the UK is unable and unwilling to get real and adapt. Unlike southern frantic efforts to cling to the shreds of past imperial glory, the Scottish electorate are realists. They know there are no current or likely major defence threats, other than a risk of terrorism (exacerbated by UK imperialist adventures) They also, increasingly see the Scandinavian model of having your own strong defence forces, industries and employment as preferential to paying a high tax contribution to see it squandered by Westminster and Whitehall.
Scotland leaving will cost Labour seats, but only at Westminster. The track record since the war is that UK governments are always of the party chosen by English electors. Scotland rarely gets the government it supported in a given GE. Yet another democratic deficit of the Union. But you assume that all those seats would be held if Scotland stayed in the Union. Last time they got voted in as a tactical vote to try to prevent a Tory Government. Did not work. Next time, the SNP would be the recipient of a much larger vote share if still in the Union. There is a persistent Unionist delusion that somehow, if they can only defeat the SNP, it will just evaporate. as if!! What Unionists fail to see is that the forces creating the SNP will just go right on demanding more power and the SNP are the credible organisation that is to hand to harvest those votes. Win or lose the 2014 vote (and my prediction is another ‘ surprise’ vote like 2011) the SNP will be there fighting Scotland’s corner and gaining and exercising more power and control to banish the poverty, social problems and misery that are the legacy of a sick Union. We may go straight to self government, or waste time detouring via DevoMax, but self government is the launch pad for renewal for Scotland and get there we will.
Anonymous
Okay, several separate issues there.
1. Defence. I’m no dove, and we’re not going to agree, so let’s move on.
2. Drugs War. Er, what? No, a common sense approach would be instead of throwing billions at a neoprohibitionist approach which demonstrably doesn’t work would to adopt a far, far cheaper and more sensible harm-minimisation approach such as Portugal’s.
3. Labour. Well sure, they’re centralist paternalists and can’t credibly be claimed to be of the left anymore
45 Apples
RT @leftfootfwd: Comment: Independence is denting the SNP's radicalism, writes @EdJacobs1985: http://t.co/rxFz4mfb #NewsClub