.
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”
Munguin
I don’t think there is any danger of the English and in particular the south east telling us to “take it or leave it” otherwise that is surely what the Tories would have done by now. David Cameron has lots to gain politically from losing Scotland as someone said the loss of 40 labour seats and the chance to rule without the Lib Dems in the land of never ending conservatism, no need to worry about the awkward squad. But he does not do that. Instead he is desperate to get the Scots to vote “No” on the promise of something undefined later on down the line (but vote no first). That does not sound like “take it or leave it” to me.
So what are the ties that bind? Do DC and his chums get all dewy eyed at night fretting about the loss of the dear Scots and an end to the most successful union in history bar none? Nobody is so stupid as to believe that. The elephant in the room is all that lovely oil that they keep finding off Scotland’s coast. Another hundred years worth at last count wasn’t it? And the revenue from which they most certainly do not want to see not going into HM Treasury to pay for M25s, channel tunnels, Welfare budgets while they implement their loony agendas, illegal wars, nuclear weapons and so on. If the oil were off England the Scots would have been dumped as a bunch of moaning subsidy junkies long ago.
Anonymous
Well, Portugal’s results are solid enough when it comes to drugs I really do strongly advocate using their model wholesale.
Aberdonian Exile
I can criticise your naivety on these issues because I have spent over 40 years working in this particular field and you clearly have little real understanding of the wider implications of the policies you so carelessly advocate. You are making a lot of assumptions about what you would like to happen without any certainty they actually will, which is at best a serious gamble. For example you are clearly assuming that all Scots currently serving in HM Forces will happily transfer to serve in a minor defence force in a very minor country. Some will, many won’t because they don’t want to spend their career on guard duty in Fort George and peacekeeping in Lebanon. They joined because they wanted to belong to serious armed forces. Why should they curtail their careers to keep you happy? There is no way that an independent Scotland can ensure they transfer back home and a great may simply will not. If the UK retains the Royal Regiment of Scotland where does that leave you? So the reality will be one of generating new forces from scratch.
The future Scottish defence budget at just 1/16th of the UK budget (for about 1/11th of the total population) will just not allow the operation of aircraft like Typhoon or the acquisition of advanced equipment like submarines. In real terms a lot more will be needed to match the SNP blurb you have cut and pasted above. What are you expecting – that the UK will hand over 1 nuclear sub, 1.5 frigates, 30 tanks, 10 Typhoons etc (that is about the correct ratio)? Given the small size of the UK armed forces Scotland would not actually receive a lot even if it were divied up and that would imply some serious capital spending by the newly independent country. The Scandinavia countries typically spend about 50-60% more in real terms than the experts in the SNP are advocating. Even with that their military clout is very limited and despite your view to the contrary it is clear they count for little in serious international negotiations. Big boys’ game, big boys’ rules.
I haven’t lost any argument – you have simply failed to make a serious and realistic case because you are pandering to your emotional prejudices instead of conducting a serious analysis of the realities of the national security. Sure Scotland can have its own armed forces but they will be a pretty Mickey Mouse affair, just like the Irish Defence Force. Never mind, if it all goes wrong the UK will still be there to rescue you.
Aberdonian Exile
Yes, a very interesting link. So Scotland wants to be protected by the US, UK and French nuclear deterrents in NATO, but is not prepared to accept nuclear weapons on its territory… free riding? Hypocrisy? Self delusion? Why join a nuclear alliance and then start imposing conditions? This means for example that no US Navy ship will ever dock in Scotland, because the Americans as policy always refuse to confirm or deny the carriage of nuclear weapons aboard. And what is the SNP policy on nuclear powered vessels incidentally?
Just why do the SNP think the rest of the UK will be prepared to accept joint procurement, training, etc? There is nothing in this for the UK, so why bother to assist the needy Scots?
This proposal has all the signs of a political fudge, but desperately lacks any semblance of reality. Sad and a bit pathetic.
Thank you for drawing attention to the link.
Anonymous
All the wrong assumptions are in your comments above.
you assume the UK continues. It does not. Two successor states emerge from the de-merged Union. Scotland and EWNI. Look up Lord Tebbitt in The Telegraph on the subject.
No asset split – reality – an asset split matching a debts split – no share of assets equals no share of debts. Assets still out-value debts, though the current incompetents are rapidly narrowing the gap.
No division of military assets – reality – division of physical assets where appropriate to Scotland and financial compensation for the ones EWNI can keep eg Scottish share of nukes.
No return of military personnel. The forced transfer from the former UK for service personnel to EWNI personnel is just as problematic as the transfer from UK to Scotland. It will come down to individual choice to transfer or not. The assumption that all Scots will stay in what becomes the English, Welsh and NI Army /AF/Navy is absurd. Some will transfer, some will not. It will help with further EWNI downsizing. The more ambitious and competent will transfer, better career prospects. The hidden discrimination ‘the chief always has to be English’ will hurry the process.
The assumption that recruits will continue to flow south from Scotland is also wrong. The flow is already drying up. The ‘Scots’ regiment remnants in the current services are under-recruited from Scotland.
Your assumption that there will be no ‘action’ to attract recruits is equally wrong. The SNP policy is participation in UN backed NATO actions. Note the conditional – not achievable for Scotland within a UK straitjacket.
The ludicrous comments on the size of the Scottish Forces and budget is another assumption of false ‘superiority’. Internet search will show that like Denmark and Norway, the 5m Scottish population can get much higher defence value for their money than in the bloated over-bureaucratised incompetent UK. Scottish Forces will be in proportion to population and needs.
Take a Finnish comparison the military in Scotland has been cut by some 60% in the last decade and given that the MOD has had an underspend of 5 billion in the last 4-5 alone in Scotland. Finland currently spends around 3.5 -3.7 billion dollars on defence.
Finland’s navy has eight offshore patrol vessels, seven hovercraft and 81 coastal patrol boats (coast guard) along with a ASW craft and minehunters and layers with 3,000 people.
We do not need 81 coastal patrol ships, Finland has a much bigger coast. We will need as minimum around 6 corvettes 2-3 ASW/GP frigates around 8-10 patrol ships with some logistic/replenishment ships as well as mine sweepers and such and some small inshore craft a good balanced fleet that packs a punch when armed properly unlike the RN with its ‘fitted for but not with’ stupidity where the RN ships are dangerously under armed. Who won the Cod Wars is a useful sobering thought for you re appropriate vessels for purpose.
Finland’s army has 27.000 people with 109 MBTs, 392 IFVs ,417 APCs (tracked) ,424 APCs (wheeled 2,058 mortars , 684 artillery pieces (towed), 90 artillery pieces (self-propelled),58 artillery pieces (rocket)
28 Helicopters & 11 UAVs
Scotland will be perfectly adequately defensively provided, with capability to play a commensurate role in UN/NATO interventions. No less, no more.
You assume the ‘superiority’ of UK defence provision. In reality it is woeful. Scotland would also be able to equip the SDF without having to enter into decades-long deals with UK arms and military equipment manufacturers – deals that result in inflexibility and ultimately – deaths and injuries.
Scotland could buy the best from Europe and the world, suitable for it’s needs – the Panhard (French) VBL Series of light vehicles, LAV25’s from Canada, the Fuchs APC/AIFV and Fennek MPC Recce vehicles from Germany …..
Unlike vehicles supplied by UK providers, the above and many others are flexible, multi-purpose/multi role vehicles that will suit an integrated single Defence Force, and that’s something the MOD doesn’t really like for some reason. They usually go for a single vehicle for a single purpose (the UK could have had HMS Ocean, and similar, decades ago). Silo thinking from an organisation riddled with and paralysed by internal politics.
Certain aspects of sharing come with the NATO membership territory. Your assumption that the EWNI would cut off its nose to spite its face and not share future arrangements with Scotland, would seriously weaken defence of the whole island – for both parties. Total stupidity. Not even I think they are that daft.
Norway is a staunch NATO member and has no nukes. Scotland can and will agree to NATO on similar terms. You shoot down your would-be stance of self-proclaimed ‘expert’ when you talk about changing NATO conditions after the event. Scotland will agree on entry – not later.
Come off the high horse stance, face reality. You have been looking at the issues through the wrong end of the telescope. The view from Whitehall is narrow, limited and blinded by mental attitudes from the late 1940’s. No wonder the current UK defence farce has come about.