.
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.
37 Responses to “Comment: Independence is denting the SNP’s radicalism”
Anonymous
Repeating the hackneyed old “Scotland too wee, too poor, too incompetent” rubbish above is way out of date. no one buys that line any more.
In full: SNP resolution on Nato The Scotsman
Published on Monday 16 July 2012 16:55
“Scotland is maritime nation with more than 11,000 miles of coastline, including nearly 800 islands, critical under-sea and offshore infrastructure and an area of responsibility extending far into the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean.The SNP recognises our national responsibilities as a northern European nation to work with our neighbours to fulfil current defence and security responsibilities and improve collective regional arrangements. Environmental changes to the High North and Arctic Region raise major regional challenges and responsibilities which Scotland shares.
Scotland will require military capabilities to fulfil these responsibilities. These will be provided by the Scottish defence and peacekeeping services which will be answerable to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. An independent Scottish government led by the SNP will commit to an annual defence and security budget of £2.5bn, an annual increase of more than £500m on recent UK levels of defence spending in Scotland but nearly £1bn less than Scottish taxpayers currently contribute to UK defence spending.
The Scottish armed forces will comprise 15,000 regular and 5,000 reserve personnel, operating under Joint Forces Headquarters based at Faslane, which will be Scotland’s main conventional naval facility. All current bases will be retained to accommodate units, which will be organised into one regular and one reserve Multi Role Brigade (MRB). The air force will operate from Lossiemouth and Leuchars.
Regular ground forces will include current Scottish raised and restored UK regiments, support units as well as Special Forces and Royal Marines, who will retain responsibility for offshore protection”
So:
Your stance is that: the UK and joint assets = England and English assets. Joint property of the Union will be jointly divided on a per capita basis as per international precedent. Some physically, some in financial settlement. Actually better for Scotland. It can buy modern fit for purpose, instead of dated and substandard current UK issue.
Implicit in your argument is the “might is right, we can rip you off and you just have to take it” attitude that has wrecked the Union and will go on to wreck EWNI, once everyone outside the SE wakes up with Scotland’s departure and starts demanding reform.
What is it with Unionists and their doom and gloom predictions? Perhaps extrapolating from their own track record of appalling incompetence ending in the current trillion pound debts? Scottish Social Attitudes survey recent results show 71% of Scots have no trust in Westminster ability to manage Scottish Affairs, but the reverse applies to the SNP Government. Scotland will be well governed, it is small, compact and can adapt faster. The Union is a stuffed duck. Once trust and confidence in your institutions is gone, the institution is dead meat walking. Just look at Libor, the budget stuff up, the Olympics incompetent scandals surfacing. HSBC laundering drug money. UK institutions are now incompetent, criminal, corrupt and falling apart. Who in their right mind wants to be part of a disintegrating state, failing economy and stuffed political system.
You still don’t get it. Scandinavian countries have no obsessions with being a ‘significant player. but do vastly better than the UK. They too have large neighbors – Germany and Russia. Don’t see any ‘getting pushed around” going on. Advancing that drivel as argument insults both our intellegences.
I have ignored the would be patronage, attempted talking down to someone you do not know, the silly jibes and the peurility of the rest of your attempt at a reply.
Try again. You are losing.
Forward
Comment: Independence denting the SNP's radicalism? http://t.co/v9NxM4NN
G.M.
Think the spell-check results should have been checked on this one: Independence is denting the SNP's radicalism http://t.co/oG5inbu1
Elbapo
eds- invisible- invincible?
TristanPriceWilliams
I accept that you are no “dove” and I am no ‘war monger’. Frankly I object to my money being wasted for the greater glory of Cameron …or Brown …or Blair… or Thatcher. And for no other good. I also object to being very much more at risk of terrorist attack because these people wanted to please the American president. I accept you feel differently.
I didn’t say ‘drugs war’. Working with young unemployed people has given me an insight into the need for a programme to get people off heroin and crack. The programme exists, but is woefully inadequate, sometimes taking people 9 months before they an be placed on a programme. I’m not talking here about light drugs. I too would legalise them in the same way that alcohol and tobacco are legalised.
Fair enough. We agree on Labour and it’s position, although Scottish Labour does like to give the impression of being farther to the left than Labour in England. The trouble is that that makes for a credibility gap when the two meet, particularly when Scottish Labour MPs are taking their orders from Ed and MSPs from Ms Lamont.