SNP party supporters and the NATO question – the comment themes

One recent comment perhaps sums up the nature of the opposition to my arguments against NATO membership and the SNP’s handling of it.

“Peter it is becoming increasingly clear that you would like to see a public debate with the SNP exercising no control or management of this issue - just as any organisation never mind a political party would do and has done throughout history?”

That captures almost exactly what I would like to see, and what the SNP and my critics seem determined not to have – an open debate involving the people of Scotland, as the SNP has been having with the big conversation, the referendum consultation, the same sex marriage consultation, etc. all in the name of open and transparent government.

But in the SNP’s scale of priorities, it matters more to find out what the people think about same sex marriage than whether a party that presents itself as a party of principle and adamantly anti-nuclear should do a volte face on its long-standing opposition to membership of a nuclear alliance, totally committed to the principle of nuclear deterrence and the possession and use of WMDs.

Why is this? Simply because the SNP, with entirely honourable motives, recognised that same sex marriage was a political hot potato, and if they intended to pursue legislation (as to their credit they have committed to do) they had to get a real idea of the view of the people.

But this clear and principled vision deserts them when it comes to something infinitely more important, the membership of a nuclear alliance in which an independent Scotland will be utterly powerless but jointly culpable when nuclear Armageddon is triggered by the big Three.

Instead, they try to stay low key on their true intentions for an extended period, stonewall the media, then slip out an announcement at the tail end of the Parliamentary term, with the firm intention of keeping the whole thing in house and under wraps until Conference in October.

Was there anything signalled in advance of the media statement to SNP branches and party members about the Robertson/MacNeil paper? Was there any suggestion to branches that they should make a point of debating this important question? Were the arguments for and against made available so that members could reached a balanced conclusion?

Any objective observer considering how these events have unfolded would come to the conclusion that the Party leadership and party managers want this paper to come to conference with the minimum of publicity, with the minimum of open debate, to then have a ‘debate’ in which the party leaders will throw their weight decisively behind the proposal - accompanied by ringing reaffirmation of the anti-nuclear policy - then secure a ratification of the U-turn. Cynicism? No, realism …

But let’s hear more of the pro-party position and pro-NATO comments – and they are not always the same the same group. Some who are opposed to NATO membership nonetheless defend the Party managers’ approach to the management of the issue and the vote.

THE COMMENTS

“I know you are pissed off that conference will probably endorse a policy with which you disagree but with which I suspect the majority of Scots will agree but you cannot seriously suggest that telling the members not to give succour to the enemy prematurely is undemocratic?”

“… it looks like the matter will be decided at the conference. … But that's the disadvantage of democracy. Sometimes the other side wins. And we do believe in democracy, right?”

“I am fairly rabidly anti-WMD, but I suppose I disagree with you in this. This IS something that should be debated and debated before the referendum campaign. It is the SNP's strength, not its weakness, that it can look at policies and bring them before their conference for open debate.”

“Peter, can you tell me why we can't be in NATO and still get rid of nuclear weapons? …. As far as I am concerned the vote at conference will be support NATO and ban nuclear weapons.”

“Nuclear weapons are of course an abomination but they are not going to go away. How can we as a small nation influence the defence(?) policy of such great powers as the USA, China, etc.? Let's face it, CND has lost the war.

Unfortunately, an independent Scotland will require military treaties. As a start, I believe a pragmatic alliance with NATO, within definitions that we, as far as possible, have determined to represent the view of the Scottish people is a good start. ….. If Scotland were to decide not to join NATO and go it alone, I wonder how long the removal and decommissioning of these foreign powers' weapons would take, if ever."

“I've kept more or less silent on the SNP policies that I have disagreed with Peter, just to avoid this kind of thing; the Judean Popular Front meltdown that will be leapt upon by the unionists.”

“I think Salmond was between a rock and a hard place on this one. Can he really afford to have the US actively fighting against Scottish independence? And the US has a long history of interfering in situations like this. Do you think they wouldn't if US interest are at risk? I think there is a substantial possibility that there is good reason for this decision. You get where I'm going with that, I am sure.

I don't like this and I don't like WMD in Scotland but as has been pointed out many times, Norway is in NATO and still remains nuclear-free. I see no reason why Scotland couldn't do the same.”

“I don't care much for NATO either way but sympathise with the SNP's Realpolitik situation. For independence to stand a chance, the SNP has to signal to the International Community, i.e. America that they can be relied upon as an ally. Otherwise independence would not happen due to tacit disapproval.”

“I hate saying this stuff because it sounds paranoid but the history of the CIA and the US government interfering in the internal affairs of foreign nations, including independence campaigns, is public record. … There is a clear history of US government interference to protect US interests. I am not at all sure this may not have influenced the SNP position.

I won't mention Norway after this, Peter, but I am not at all sure you have made your case that Scotland would be totally difference post-independence. …”

“I must say I'm completely at the other end of the spectrum on this. Although I'm a SNP member (a quite recent one in fact) I've always been a little cagey on their defence policy, and to me this is a welcome dose of pragmatism, or realism or whatever one wants to call it. Although I wouldn't want Scotland to be a holder of nuclear weapons - I think we should take our lead from a country like Norway (to use a well worn comparison) I've never been in favour of unilateral disarmament either. Honouring our treaty obligations whilst remaining a member of NATO, at least for the present, poses no difficulties for me.”

THE THREADS IN THE COMMENTS

In the above, and many other comments, including on YouTube and in private correspondence that I cannot quote, I tease out the following common points -

Don’t rock the independence boat by making your policy disagreement public.

Accept the result of the democratic vote of Conference – don’t resign because a policy you disagree with is passed.

The SNP is adamantly anti-nuclear therefore it can safely be a member of NATO without compromising that principle.

An independent Scotland must be a member of a defensive alliance.

As a member, Scotland can positively influence NATO.

If we don’t join, America and NATO will intimidate us and threaten independence and the anti-nuclear policy.

We can be anti-nuclear and still be against unilateral nuclear disarmament and in favour of the deterrent until multi-lateral disarmament happens.

A majority of the Scottish electorate favour NATO membership, so joining will help a YES vote to independence.

Norway can manage to be anti-nuclear and yet be a NATO member – so can an independent Scotland.

This policy change is a matter for SNP internal party democracy and no one else.

RESPONSE

Since I have set out my arguments against an independent Scotland being a NATO member at considerable length - more than most media and online commentators - I really must rest my case unless new evidence or events lead me to add to it. I do reserve to right to revisit it and reiterate it constantly in the lead-up to the Perth October debate and vote. All of the above points I believe I have rebutted by argument, but them I would say that, wouldn’t I?

I have no evidence that I have changed a single opinion by my arguments, but I have evidence that I have offered a useful structuring of the arguments against NATO - and reference point to them - to those who were already against it – Professor Mitchell’s 22% of the SNP by 2007 sample. I hope that number has grown, but it may well have shrunk in the five years since the sample.

However, in my replies to various correspondents recently I made some new responses which I think might be relevant -

“There is a democratic world out there beyond the SNP called the Scottish electorate, or if you like, the people of Scotland, which the SNP Government says they want a dialogue with in the spirit of open government - except when it is a hot potato like this one.

This vital issue is not one to have kept within the confines of the party, and the party has not behaved well over this. So far there has been no debate of any kind on this at my branch, nor has there been any level or forum SNP forum in which I (also an SNP member - for the moment) have been able to debate it so far. However, there is a forum, the NO to NATO Coalition, and I will be saying my piece there.”

“The Party brought this on themselves - they were less than honest in their lead up to this, they have tried to avoid discussing it, and have displayed a lack of openness and transparency on the issue in the hope of sliding it through painlessly at conference, which has been self-defeating, as it inevitably was going to be. I cannot accept that issues of this importance should be suppressed in the interests of closing ranks. The responsibility for 'playing into the hands of the unionists' lies squarely with the party managers.

There is something called democratic accountability to the electorate. The SNP governs for all the people of Scotland, not just SNP party members, who are a tiny proportion, and party delegates, who are a tinier proportion.

This is not open government as I understand it, it is rather sordid and manipulative party politics of a type I had hoped the SNP was above, and on a fundamental issue. The fact that most party members don't seem to regard NATO membership as a fundamental issue I find deeply depressing.

In the event of a YES vote in 2014  - if we now get one after this misconceived initiative - negotiations will be either completed or close to completion before the 2016 Holyrood election. What the present devolved SNP Government wants is endorsement of their negotiating position for those negotiations intended to lead to full independence. The idea that any non-SNP government or SNP/Labour Coalition after 2016 can unwind such a key concession is naive.”

“The matter will be decided at the October conference. There is little reason to think that the majority are opposed - all the polls and my own, albeit limited range of respondees would indicate the reverse.

There are those in the Parliamentary Party who are opposed, but some of them have effectively been muted, and are strangely - and perhaps contemptibly - silent.

I believe in democracy. I also believe that I have a perfect right not to belong to a political party that espouses something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong - and dangerous. Being a party member and supporting a party electorally and financially on a least worst option at the ballot box are very different things, however.

Since I believe that citizens must vote, I have throughout my life supported parties that I was not fully in tune with as the least worst option, e.g. the Labour Party.

For five years I have supported the SNP as a best option, a party that fulfilled all my fundamental beliefs. I regret that is no longer true (short of a miraculous revolt against NATO policy in October!)

But I will still vote SNP at by-elections until the referendum outcome is known. Come 2015 general election (UK) and 2016 (Holyrood election), perhaps for a newly independent Scotland - who knows?”

“Undoubtedly it should be debated - and it will be. Whether it can be categorised as open is another matter. It's backed by the party's strategist and defence spokesman, Angus Robertson. It's backed by Alex Salmond, the party's Superman. Dissenting voices are few, and muted (or being muted!) The party leadership simply can't afford to lose this vote, and they won't.

The party is in "Let's avoid dissent on everything until after independence - then everything will be alright" mood. But it won't be. There is a growing blandness in the party's approach and what they risk is not the loss of core activists campaigning and voting for YES (like me, in or out of party), but the increasing body of the uncommitted saying "So if so little will be different after independence, why not stay in the UK?" Without their votes, there will be no independence.

If the party votes to join/stay in NATO, I might see independence in my lifetime, but I will never see a nuclear-free Scotland. Trident decommissioning and removal will be at least 10 years away, perhaps 20 - and that means never – it will disappear into very long, polluted NATO/rUK grass.

I will be looking for a realignment on the Scottish Left (there is no such party - yet ...)”

“The SNP is a democratic party, with a branch structure and nomination and voting procedures. I have little doubt that the majority of active members, including apparently most MSPs and ministers, are either in support of their NATO posture, or apathetic. For those who oppose it and are silent, I have only contempt to offer.

I am one voter, one party member and one voice, nothing more. I am against NATO membership, and I can never be a member of a political party that supports membership, however tortuous and self-serving - and maybe self-deluding - the justifications offered.

Come a YES vote to NATO in October and I'm out.”

“Trying to curry favour by offering to stay in NATO if the UK removes Trident is hardly going to work. Offering to stay in NATO then delaying the decommissioning of Trident indefinitely might work, but then the SNP would be as bad as what Scots are trying to rid themselves of.

I have never tried to make a case that Scotland would be totally different after independence. Most Scots want to preserve its traditions, its values, its relationship with the other nations that currently comprise the UK, its unique culture, its tolerance and the proud traditions of its regiments and fighting forces.”

“Will the devo max option cause those who would vote indy on single question to bottle it and settle for devo max and those who would reject indy vote devo max.?

It all depends on how the questions and the ballot paper(s) are structured. I've been over this in depth in blogs, but nobody seems to want to do the hard thinking, and much utter nonsense has been talked about the questions, the voting outcomes, etc.

The critical element will be the likely high turnout vs normal election - anywhere from an 80-90% turnout with more than 50% of the total turnout being people who don't usually vote - the silent group that everyone wants to claim as their own.”

The lead-up to the NATO debacle ...

When I launched my little lonely boat under the name Anti-NATO, it was a comparatively calm sea. Since then it has become a turbulent one. I had been uneasy for some time about just how firm the SNP’s anti-NATO stance was. Professor William Walker, in an article in the Scotsman early in January of this year, fanned my little flame of doubt into something more alarming by this statement -

Desiring to appear reasonable, the SNP might adopt a stance that would allow the present Trident system to operate out of Scotland during its remaining lifetime but refuse to house its replacement. It would commit Scotland to a phase-out rather than sudden closure. This would provide England with ample time, the argument might go, to develop other sites and systems and would give fair notice to Nato member states. But such a stance would not change the fundamentals. Without alternative sites, phasing out the current system would entail phasing out the UK’s deterrent. As the first boat is expected to retire in the late 2020s, it also implies that Trident would remain in Scotland for decades rather than years to come. This would be a hard sell, especially within the SNP.

(The highlighting and emphasis is mine.)

Then we had another Professor on the scene, James Mitchell of Strathclyde University who, with his co-authors, published the first full results of a survey originally conducted in 2007/2008 of 7,112 SNP members which revealed that 52.7% believed Nato membership was in Scotland's strategic interests, compared with only 22% who still believed in an independent Scotland the alliance, with the remainder being more or less apathetic.

Various sectors of the media then began to speculate, putting flesh on rumours that the SNP strategic leaders were actively considering a U-turn on NATO membership. and perhaps worse, while continuing to issue robust statements of a totally anti-nuclear, anti-Trident policy to reassure the faithful, who are not given to thinking very deeply on such matters. And of course, the Mitchell finding emboldened the pro-NATO group.

I began to tweet cautiously, hoping to tease out a clear-cut statement, only to be the object of a barrage of tweets from SNP supporters and bloggers indignantly claiming that no such thing was contemplated, it was all being got up by the villainous unionist media, led by the arch-villain, BBC Scotland. It was suggested bluntly that I was giving aid and comfort to an unsubstantiated rumour. This metamorphosed gradually into a “Well, yes, some misguided party member might just submit a resolution to Conference, and there will be a token debate, and it will be voted down”.

At no point in this phoney war period did the SNP communications department or any senior figure make a clear-cut statement of intent, but the language very tentatively began to firm up. There probably would be a resolution – originator unspecified – and it would be debated, the new theme being “Well, after all, we are a democratic party, and we periodically review policy” etcetera, etcetera.

One blogger/tweeter still pursued the “It’s all a unionist lie, being promulgated by the wicked media” with me, in such aggressive style that I reluctantly had to block them on Twitter. But something was clearly at work, since quite a number of correspondents (blog comment, Twitter, YouTube comments) now felt emboldened enough to defend a “possible NATO policy change”, moving gradually from “it might not be a bad thing, really” to enthusiastic statements of support, confirming Professor Mitchell’s survey findings.

The tone and style of comments directed at me changed to “This is entirely a matter for the Party’s internal democracy, not for the general public, and you are harming the cause of independence and nuclear disarmament by your position.” I had rather brought this on myself by making it clear that if the Party approved a policy change on NATO, I would resign.

But then the nuclear NATO cat jumped out of the bag. all aglow, with the release of the defence paper by its co-signatories, Angus Robertson MP and Angus MacNeil MP, and at last the party was prepared to speak openly about its position. Even after this, some of my correspondents were trying to maintain the risible position that there was no evidence that the First Minister endorsed the recommendation, despite the spectacularly obvious point that it would never have seen the light of day without his prior approval and support.

Parliament went on its summer vacation shortly afterwards. The timing is of course entirely coincidental. My long series of blogs on NATO more or less track these events, as do my YouTube videos. Meanwhile, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee inquiry into the minutiae of independence – uncontroversially titled The Referendum on Separation for Scotland went merrily on with its McCarthyite attempts to get sundry witnesses, expert and otherwise, to say what an expensive, job-destroying, incompetent disaster it would all be, threatening not only national security and world order, but also the jobs and pension of Scottish soldiers.

Despite the absence of any SNP representative on this Labour-dominated committee (the SNP official reasons being the alleged insult to Eilidh Whiteford and the use of the word Separation in the title: real reason probably that they would have had nothing of substance to say at that point) the Committee were unsuccessful in many instances in getting the M.O.D. representatives and other experts to respond appropriately to their negative and increasingly desperate prompts, feeds and leading questions.

I’ll try to cover the comment themes tomorrow sometime.

CORRECTION

In a recent blog I wrote on how NATO would launch a nuclear strike, and on what authority -

(At the moment NATO effectively has been given a political blank cheque by the USA, France and the UK to launch a nuclear strike instantly on the strategic judgement of its command structure, without reference to any of their three elected decision-making bodies – e.g. the House of Commons -  but with the token endorsement of their heads – the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of France and the Prime Minister of the UK.)

Once again, I am indebted to my invaluable Danish contact for correcting me on this, as follows -

In the case of France, it is not the prime minister who has power over the military, it is the President of the Republic who is commander-in-chief in a literal sense, in particular in regard to nuclear weapons; it is only the President who can order a nuclear strike, specifically because only he/she has the launch codes for them.

When France elected a new president in May, you might have seen the hand-over ceremony reported on. While that had a lot of ritual and formality to it, there was one rather practical bit. When Hollande talked with Sarkozy in private, that was when he was given the launch codes for France's nuclear weapons.

Of course, NATO and Hollande won’t launch a nuclear war without the permission of Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson - not to mention Angus MacNeil - when we’re happily members of this nuclear alliance, and have a promise that Trident will be gone some time in the next 20 years or so.. After all, the SNP is anti-nuclear – and there’s the Auld Alliance and a’ that …

That naughty, nasty NATO thang …

The Scotsman has one undoubted talent – it can recognise an SNP Achilles Heel when it sees one, and aims its arrows accordingly. It’s a pity the SNP didn’t spot its own vulnerability on the NATO membership question, but there’s a reason for that – it is often described in the media as a disciplined party, as indeed it has been. But there is a fine line between a disciplined party with a clear vision presenting a unified front to a hostile world and one that is suppressing – or ignoring – dissenting voices within its own ranks.

The latter approach runs the risk of creating a climate in which dissent is perceived as disloyalty, and bland conformity to the party line being seen as a virtue. This danger becomes greater when a party that has had to struggle against enormous adversity to gain a foothold in the political life of the nation suddenly, and rather unexpectedly, finds itself with an unchallengeable majority under a charismatic, powerful leader. It is further compounded by the presence of a large number of new members in a Parliament who are equally surprised and delighted, but anxious to please the established power structure. Tony Blair posing with his new intake of Blair’s Babes in 1997 comes to mind.

I’ve been trying without success to track down a quote, which I hazily recall as being in Aldous Huxley’s collection of essays Ends and Means. The idea within it is that at the heart of every major religion exists a core of powerful people who believe exactly the opposite in key doctrines and dogma to the version promulgated to the faithful. This is almost certainly true in politics, and within political parties. It’s sometime called realpolitik, although this doesn’t exactly capture it. An additional factor is that a political party can be a very convenient vehicle for a powerful man or woman at a point in time, even when they do not share its core philosophy, ideals and values.

Again Blair comes to mind. Some believe – and I am one of them – that Tony Blair, an Old Fettesian who was nonetheless of humble origins and and certainly not ‘one of us’, in Maggie’s phrase, and not part of any Establishment power networks, simply looked around -from a position of no real values of any kind - for the political vehicle most likely to allow him to rise to power. As a young lawyer, he found it in the most unlikely of places for one of his class and background, in the mining communities of Durham, and aided by Joe Mills, Regional Secretary of the T&GWU, found his constituency in Sedgefield and his power base in Trimdon village. (I knew Joe Mills very well indeed for ten years or so, and I know Trimdon village, Sedgefield and Durham equally intimately.) The rest is history, a history that brought great wealth and influence to Blair but misery, death and devastation to Iraq  and Afghanistan, terrorism to Britain, and the transformation of the Labour Party into a thing utterly alien to its roots and values.

Now let me be clear – I do not believe that Alex Salmond or any of his key ministers are cut from the Blair cloth. Leaving aside my judgement of them from their actions and statements, their intellect and huge political talents mean that the fastest route to power and influence for any one them would have been through a unionist party to Westminster. They are driven, not by personal ambition, but by personal conviction and a belief in the independence of Scotland. (For example, no objective commentator doubts that Alex Salmond has all the qualities of a world statesman and could have had a glittering career in UK, European and world politics.)

However, the SNP - like any political party – contains men and women of lesser talent who are content to play on a smaller stage, and are realistic enough to constrain their ambitions within their modest abilities. Among that group, it is likely there there are some – I hope only a few -  who hold personal and political views contrary to the SNP’s social democratic, anti-nuclear beliefs which they are willing to subordinate to their career interests.

And the top group may contain some who do not quite burn with a gem-like flame in their belief in a non-nuclear Scotland, and whose key focus is economic and social.

We now know that ministerial group most certainly contains perhaps a majority who believe in an independent Scotland being a member of NATO, a military alliance firmly committed to the possession and use of nuclear weapons.

I also believe that this group contains some who are prepared to see the nuclear disarmament of Scotland and the removal of Trident take a very long time indeed if realpolitik demands it, and are prepared to accept constraints and a radical dilution of the pure vision of speedy removal of WMDs from our land.

All of this is mirrored in the party membership as a whole and in the SNP-supporting electorate who are not party members. Such is democracy, and we must recognise the reality of it, but argue for our own beliefs within that democratic framework.

THE ERIK GEDDES MEMO

I expressed the view recently that the SNP was either muzzling internal criticism of the NATO U-turn or those who opposed it were self-censoring. This produced cries of outraged denial from some party members. The Scotsman today believes it has evidence of suppression of open debate, based on a leaked memo from Erik Geddes, an SNP Group Communications Officer. (I have reason to be grateful for Erik’s many informative press releases.) Here is the memo -

I understand some of you may be getting calls about defence policy. Please ask them to e-mail you any questions and respond with the following:

“We are looking forward to an excellent debate within the SNP on Nato, which will be democratically decided at party conference in October – the SNP’s clear policy is for Trident nuclear weapons to be removed from Scotland, and independence is the only constitutional option which enables this to be achieved.”

Thanks – Erik Geddes, SNP Group Communications Officer

The most likely interpretation of this email is that Erik is simply doing what any communications department in any political party does – advising its parliamentary members how best to respond to media and external queries in a way that protects consistency of response and accurately reflects policy. However, it is rather oddly worded and sequenced -

I understand some of you may be getting calls about defence policy.

Please ask them to e-mail you any questions

and respond with the following:

That suggests the following sequence of events and action -

1. MSP receives a telephone call asking for information about defence matters, and specifically the Party’s NATO policy.

2. MSP requests that questions be emailed to him/her.

3. MSP does not answer specific questions but responds with the bland pro-forma message.

If the above is an accurate interpretation of the memo – and that is exactly what it says, even if it may not have been intended that way, then it essentially is an instruction, not a suggestion, to MSPs not to answer questions, not to offer their own views – bear in mind that in our democracy MSPs and MPs are elected as individuals, not party drones – but in effect to say “Bugger off, this is a party matter for Conference, and we’ll tell you in our own time what we decide.”

That might just be acceptable if the SNP were not the governing party of Scotland, but to me, it is unacceptable from the party of government to  a free media in a country that aspires to open government.

This would be bad enough if it only applied to media and external queries, but if it applies to voters and specifically also to party members and constituents, it just ain’t on …

If a matter as fundamental – and it is fundamental – to the Government of Scotland’s anti-nuclear policy and to NATO membership is open for debate in the confines of a venue in Perth in October, it sure as hell should be open for debate in the media and among the electorate of Scotland.

A voice from a Scot in Spain …

This is an extended comment from an Edinburgh Scot who has been a long-time resident in Spain but has a deep and committed interest in Scotland and its future, Paco el escocés. He has been a regular contributor to blog comments in the past, but, as he says, he didn’t want to rock the boat – and one or two things have been happening in Spain to occupy his full attention recently!

MORIDURA reply to recent blog comment: “There are times when it is wrong to remain silent, Sean. This is one of them.”

Right then. I’ve been silent for some time now, at least as regards this blog, that is. I certainly hope you haven’t taken it personally, Peter.

When I was about 6 or 7 I had a kind of epiphany; my first “cultural” experience, so to speak. I’m referring to being able to appreciate a statement, an affirmation, and understand that it can be extrapolated and applied to other situations.

My big sister had taken me to see Bambi, and when Thumper said, “If you can't say something nice... don't say nothing at all”, I thought to my wee self, “Fair enough. I can relate to that”.

Several decades on (actually, quite a few!), it still seems to make sense. However, as you point out in your answer to a correspondent, there have to be times when it doesn’t apply.

I’ve been growing disenchanted with both the style and substance of the leadership of the SNP for some time now, but if I haven’t written to Moridura to make this public, it has been from a sense of “not wanting to rock the boat”. The return to sovereignty for our country is, as you know, a subject very near to my heart. It has appeared that the SNP, with Salmond at the helm, were going to be the best chance for this to happen in my lifetime.

Now, I’m beginning to ask, “but, at what price?”.

Or, even worse, “but, what for?”.

To keep up with the anthropomorphic metaphors, there is a Spanish expression for when one is obliged to do something, if not against one’s will, at least against one’s better judgement; tragar sapos. To swallow toads (and thole it!).

Hereby followeth the story of the three toads:

Toad #1 - The monarchy

I’ve been a republican for as long as I can remember. Not through any kind of sectarian-tinged inheritance, simply because ever since I started to think about such things objectively (as far as this is possible), the idea of certain persons being born superior to others has seemed to me to be an aberration. Worse still, not only are they superior by definition, they are born obscenely wealthy, owning whole shires, rivers, mountains, coasts and unbelievably: FOLK!

I had always assumed that the citizens of a newly independent Scotland would not be subjects to anyone, or anything, other than the democratically-expressed political will of the people.

I know there is an important republican undercurrent within the SNP, but they were all uncharacteristically silent when “oor Leader” proclaimed that Herself would automatically be the Head of State of a born-again Scotland.

I was not aware of any debate within the Party to this regard, neither a priori nor subsequent to this pronouncement.

Bitterly disappointed, I bit my tongue telling myself that the issue was potentially divisive and that it was better left for discussion in an independent Scotland.

Toad #2- Max. headroom

Or “independence lite” or “devo supreme”, or whatever the effing invention has finally been denominated.

This is to say; that Scotland will regain control of all economic and fiscal affairs, but remain under the tutelage of Westminster in matters of Foreign Policy and “Defence”.

This is complete madness. Imagine the scenario whereby the government of a maximally-devolved Scotland applies Keynsian, social-democratic, left-wing (choose the adjective which appeals most) policies and manages to weather the economic storm without sending the lower echelons of society to the poorhouse. A decent education, healthcare and access to a dignified dwelling-place are guaranteed for all. Not by waving some Celtic Twilight wand, but simply by a fair distribution of the country’s resources and assets, and by insisting that that those individuals and companies who can pay more, do so.

Then the “Mother of Parliaments” is led by the nose (as Blair did in the case of the invasion and occupation of Iraq) or bullied by their transatlantic puppet-masters into yet another imperial adventure. Scottish troops are sent off to subjugate recalcitrant Johnny Foreigner, reluctant, as ever, to surrender his own resources and give free access to his markets. Furthermore, the Scottish government will be obliged to stump up a large percentage of the cost of the raping and pillaging.

What will happen then to the carefully budgeted social progress?

Independence, nothing less. It’s not original, but it’s the only way which makes sense.

Toad #3 - NATO

Or the last straw?

I am totally opposed to Scottish membership of NATO. Not only because this would call into question the dismantling of the nuclear base at Faslane but, following on from the last point, I would have no interest in independence for Scotland if it were to mean being subservient to the foreign policy interests of the USA. Which is to say; safeguarding the interests of Corporate Fascism.

Many seem to look to Norway for some kind of example of finding a way of one’s own. I would look closer to home. Ireland has been a neutral country since regaining statehood last century. They are non-nuclear and do not belong to NATO. They have an army and have contributed often, over the years, to peace-keeping missions as Blue Berets of the UN. By so doing they have earned international respect. Indeed, in many places where a British passport is viewed with suspicion, an Irish one evokes a more positive response.

To sum up, I don’t like what Salmond has been saying latterly, and I don’t like the way he has been saying it. Rather than opinions he appears to issue edicts.

Lastly, if this rant has come out as a long-winded negatively-charged sermon, … it’s because I’ve been saving it up!

I still have faith in the collective will of the people to want to make Scotland a better place.

Saor Alba.

Paco el escocés

The SNP, NATO and the end of a dream of a nuclear-free Scotland

I thought this comment and my reply warranted being pulled out on to the blog. The comment, from someone I respect, resident in America, whose commitment to a vote for independence and a nuclear-free Scotland is unquestionable, gives me the opportunity to crystallise my present position.

BLOG COMMENT AND REPLY

J. R. TomlinSaturday, July 21, 2012

I am fairly rabidly anti-WMD, but I suppose I disagree with you in this. This IS something that should be debated and debated before the referendum campaign.
It is the SNP's strength, not its weakness, that it can look at policies and bring them before their conference for open debate.

 

MoriduraSaturday, July 21, 2012

Undoubtedly it should be debated, Jeanne - and it will be. Whether it can be categorised as open is another matter. It's backed by the party's strategist and defence spokesman, Angus Robertson. It's backed by Alex Salmond, the party's Superman. Dissenting voices are few, and muted (or being muted!) The party leadership simply can't afford to lose this vote, and they won't.

The party is in "Let's avoid dissent on everything until after independence - then everything will be alright" mood. But it won't be. There is a growing blandness in the party's approach and what they risk is not the loss of core activists campaigning and voting for YES (like me, in or out of party), but the increasing body of the uncommitted saying "So if so little will be different after independence, why not stay in the UK?" Without their votes, there will be no independence.

If the party votes to join/stay in NATO, I might see independence in my lifetime, but I will never see a nuclear-free Scotland. Trident decommissioning and removal will be at least 10 years away, perhaps 20 - and that means never – it will disappear into very long, polluted NATO/rUK grass.

Sorry to see you on the wrong side in this Jeanne, but at least you've got loads of company. I will be looking for a realignment on the Scottish Left (there is no such party - yet ...)

regards,
    Peter

Scotland’s NATO membership – a deeply flawed concept and a retreat from principle

Five key facts -

1. NATO is firmly committed to nuclear weapons and the concept of nuclear deterrence, and only a unanimous vote by all 28 member states can change that policy (29 member states if rUK remains a member and Scotland becomes a member after independence.) In other words, the three nuclear member states can veto any attempt to abandon nuclear weapons.

2. From NATO site: "Whilst the North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the ultimate authority within NATO, the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) which meets annually in Defence Ministers format is the ultimate authority within NATO with regard to nuclear policy issues."

3. A democratic vote or consent to use nuclear weapons by the member states is not required to launch a nuclear strike. (The authorisation of the Kosovo bombing provides a salutary example of how things might work. Effectively, the USA military decides, supported by UK and France)

4. The situation of Scotland is fundamentally different from that of any other member state - it hosts the UK nuclear deterrent, and if it insists on the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland, rUK cannot host them and will cease to be a nuclear power. This poses a threat to NATO's nuclear stance that is posed by no other member state.

Although Scotland will reiterate its non-nuclear policy after independence, it must negotiate the manner and timescale of the removal of Trident and nuclear-armed submarines from Scottish waters.

5. The 25 non-nuclear member states are members of a defence alliance that can - and would - launch a nuclear strike in their name without their authority.  The 25 non-nuclear states cannot vote to remove nuclear weapons from NATO or make any changes to its policy because of the veto power of the three nuclear states.

What is the SNP proposing on NATO membership and why?

I posted the full Newsnight Scotland interview between Angus Robertson MP and Isabel Fraser, incl. the short but useful analysis that preceded it. In total it lasted 6m 40 secs, with the interview section being only 5m 10 secs. (For that edition of Newsnight Scotland, the producers clearly though same sex marriage was a much bigger topic than membership of a nuclear alliance that has the capacity to exterminate millions. But I believe they have a longer, more in-depth analysis planned of the SNP’s defence policy. God knows, such a programme is overdue – and vital.)

However, I have split the vital content up in edits to point up the individual contribution. Nothing has been edited out of these sections. Here is Angus Robertson’s full contribution – 3m 45 secs -  minus Isabel Fraser.

Here is Isabel Fraser asking all of her five questions -

Here are the five questions individually -

Angus Robertson answered none of them to my satisfaction. His approach was what I call the torrent of words approach – a kind of mini-filibuster style adopted by politicians when they don’t want to be pinned down. It was partially effective, and perhaps understandable, given the ridiculously short time available, but to me it was consistent with the half-truths and evasions that have characterised the lead-up to this revelation of the SNP leadership’s real intentions on NATO membership.

But the questions still hang there, waiting for an answer.

Since Angus Robertson’s contribution did not fully answer my question above - What is the SNP proposing on NATO membership and why? – I must try to fill the gaps myself.

WHAT IS THE SNP PROPOSING?

“Scotland will inherit its international treaty obligations including those with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and will remain a member, subject to agreement on withdrawal of Trident from Scotland.”

“With agreement on the withdrawal of Trident and retaining the important role of the UN, Scotland can continue working with neighbours and allies within NATO.”

“ … An SNP Government will maintain NATO membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and NATO continues to respect the right of members only to take part in UN-sanctioned operations. In the absence of such an agreement, Scotland will work with NATO as a member of the Partnership for Peace programme, like Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland. …”

The Faslane base will remain, as Joint Forces Headquarters, and will be central to the SNP’s defence structure.

I believe that summarises the essence of the SNP’s NATO position – the full defence paper contains a great deal more than this about other aspect of Scotland’s defence plans.

Before looking at why the SNP are doing this (and I believe that they are being disingenuous about at least some of their reasons for abandoning a long-held anti-NATO policy) let’s examine the feasibility of them achieving membership of NATO while removing Trident and maintaining a non-nuclear policy.

“Scotland will inherit its international treaty obligations including those with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)”

Well, will it? On what is this assumption based? One would assume that it is legal advice based on examination of international law on newly independent countries.

I’m no lawyer, but the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties must be relevant here, however it is a deeply controversial document in its relevant clauses. (I am indebted to a Danish contact, Troels, for much information. Troels is interested in Scottish affairs but does not take a position on them, feeling that it is Scotland’s business.)

Article 16 states that newly independent states receive a "clean slate", whereas article 34(1) states that all other new states remain bound by the treaty obligations of the state from which they separated. Moreover, article 17 states that newly independent states may join multilateral treaties to which their former colonizers were a party without the consent of the other parties in most circumstances, whereas article 9 states that all other new states may only join multilateral treaties to which their predecessor states were a part with the consent of the other parties.

Scotland, in separating from the UK, would seem to come under article 34(1) and article 9. Among the many perceptions of this must be the possibility that Scotland would be bound to NATO obligations under article 34(1) but could be turfed out under article 9. If so, they presumably cease to be bound by NATO obligations.

Let’s look at what Lord (George) Robertson, a former general secretary of NATO says in today’s Herald. Under the headline Nationalists’ Nato policy shift branded a ‘cynical’ ploy the noble Lord of Islay is quoted as follows -

Lord Robertson, former secretary-general of Nato, was contemptuous of the SNP leadership's planned policy shift, saying: "This is a cynical exercise to get rid of another electoral albatross. Membership of Nato involves accepting its Strategic Concept, which clearly sets out a position and policy on nuclear defence, so countries in Nato will greet the Nationalist approach with derision."

Angus MacNeil, the co-signatory of the SNP NATO proposal has today reminded George Robertson of his  remarks during a speech to the Moscow State Institute of Foreign Relations in 2001 - "In the Founding Act, NATO committed itself to the famous three nuclear "no's" - no intention, no plan and no reason to establish nuclear weapon storage sites on the territory of the new members - a commitment still valid."

I think, Angus, that the wee Lord of Islay will speedily invoke the Vienna convention relevant articles (above) to refute that one – but we’ll see …

NATO’s strategic concept includes the possession and use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and any member state signs up to that, even if they are non-nuclear. They cannot amend that, nor can they veto their use. NATO is not a democracy – it is  a military alliance dominated by three nuclear states.

A real question exists over whether NATO could demand that Scotland honour aspect of  its treaty obligations, e.g. provision of safe havens to nuclear-armed NATO submarines, while refusing to allow an independent Scotland to join or remain in  NATO. (Angus Robertson conspicuously avoided answering Isabel Fraser’s question on that topic.)

“An SNP Government will maintain NATO membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and NATO continues to respect the right of members only to take part in UN-sanctioned operations.”

I can see no problem with the second half of that, the right of Scotland to refuse to take part in non UN-sanctioned operations, but the first part – the key part – sure as hell does pose problems. The difficult question to address is the negotiating dynamics of such a negotiating objective – for that is what it is.

Put bluntly, the SNP leadership want to maintain their nuclear virginity by getting rid of Trident while joining a nuclear alliance committed to retaining and using it without Scotland’s permission, or that of the other 25 non-nuclear member countries. Bear in mind that if Scotland is successful in removing Trident, the high probability is that the rUK would cease to be a nuclear power. Angus Robertson stated on Newsnight Scotland, “nuclear weapons being stationed in another country is a matter of bi-lateral arrangements between the two countries concerned – it doesn’t involve NATO at all, and in this case, that would be the relationship between Scotland and the United Kingdom – it’s not a matter for NATO at all …”

That is either naive or disingenuous. The idea that NATO would not have a significant influence on the rUK Ministry of Defence, and on any negotiations over Scotland’s NATO membership and Trident doesn’t stand up for a moment – in my view.

In essence, if we take the SNP’s negotiating stance at face value (I don’t) they will be saying to NATO – “Let us remain under the NATO defence umbrella and in return we will destroy rUK’s status as a nuclear power and remove at a stroke a major part of NATO European nuclear strike capacity.”

That is how it is being presented to the membership – it is how it will be presented at conference on October – a nice, clean-cut offer – or take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum, depending on your viewpoint. And from my Twitter exchanges, that is exactly the simplistic interpretation placed on it by many SNP supporters – Trident out and we’re in NATO – say no, and Trident goes anyway and Scotland joins Partnership for Peace (an organisation founded by NATO, incidentally).

My belief is that the SNP strategists’ position is far more complex than that – if it was not, they would be eaten alive in the negotiations. What I believe it really is disturbs me deeply, but whether it is or isn’t right now, here is my scenario of where we will wind up if we do go down this deeply misconceived route.

We will wind up in NATO, with at best, a token disarming of Trident warheads - something that can happen quickly and be reversed just as quickly – a commitment to a long period of theoretical decommissioning of ten to twenty years, and will be committed provide ‘safe haven’ to NATO nuclear-armed submarines. The high likelihood is that if a deeply unstable world survives 10/20 years without a nuclear war,  the vaporisation of Faslane and a large part of the West of Scotland and permanent pollution of the rest of it, the decommissioning will never happen, and Scotland will remain home to WMDs and Trident.

It is believed by many commentators that the SNP is going down this route solely because they believe that it will play well with a sector of the electorate for a YES vote in the referendum, and those opposed to NATO membership but supporting independence (like me) will still vote yes. They are right on the second assumption but perhaps not on the first. While I believe the referendum vote is part of the SNP’s rationale, I don’t believe it is anything like the prime reason. If I did, I would resign right now at such cynical expediency.

There is a lot more I could do – and may well do – on examining the negotiating strategy on defence, but for the moment I’ll wind up.

Here is the total Angus Robertson/Isabel Fraser interview -

Truth and transparency in politics – unrealisable ideals or practical necessities?

JESUS: To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

PONTIUS PILATE: What is truth?

I am an atheist, and do not recognise the Bible as the word of God, nor as an objective historical account, but I do recognise it, in its many translations, especially the King James version, as a great work of literature, of poetry, one containing deep insights into human nature and behaviour.

Like most men, I lost my idealised view of  politics and politicians early in life, recognising that the ‘art of the possible’ involved compromise, and compromise sometimes involves avoiding tight definitions if the agreement is to hold across divergent viewpoints.

For example, in diplomacy and in negotiation, ambiguity is sometimes necessary; indeed on occasion – say, in collective agreements between management and union - it is the essence of an agreement clause that it be subject to more than one interpretation, which is the antithesis of legally drafted agreements. This is sometime called the “agree fuzzy now, fight detail later if necessary …” approach. So like Pontius Pilate, politicians only ask the question What is Truth? rhetorically, and don’t expect an answer.

The first duty of a politician is to gain power, the pre-requisite of any political programme, however high-minded. But in a democracy, a politician with any real values must constantly test expedient actions against two fundamental questions -

Does the greatest good for the greatest number outweigh the rights of the few or the individual?

Does the end justify the means?

Professors of ethics will tease you with many ethical dilemmas relating to these questions. Suffice to say, there is no absolute answer to either of them. To both, I say sometimes the answer is yes, dependent on circumstances and sometime the answer is an absolute no – for me, anyway.

The possession and use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction provides my absolutes and I say that to possess them is absolutely wrong and to contemplate their use or to use them is absolutely wrong. I also say that it is at best naive, and at worst hypocritical to suggest that they can be possessed with no intent to use them, and without taking appalling, unacceptable risks.

There are sharply divided views on whether the United States of America and Harry Truman were right in their decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, or whether it was a crime against humanity, indefensible against any ethical standards. (I say ethical and not religious standards, because many ministers of religion then and now have defended the use of nuclear weapons.)

Their use then was justified by America by saying YES to both of the questions above. The only mitigation I can suggest for Truman is that it was the first use of nuclear weapons, no one knew for certain what their destructive power really was until that moment, no other country had them, so a nuclear exchange leading to Armageddon could not have resulted, and the destructive power, awesome and terrible though it was, was as nothing to what can be delivered today by a single Trident submarine.

Scotland will soon be facing great choices in its march towards what I hope will be its independence as a nation – a non-nuclear nation. If that great goal is achieved, the credit will be substantially the SNP’s – the great progress towards it could not have been achieved achieved without them, and without the belief, commitment and unremitting hard work over decades of many people with a great ideal. The campaign for independence is now being led by the SNP but with the involvement of  many other groups and parties, and groupings within the three major parties.

But there is now a worm in the SNP apple and that worm is NATO. NATO is a nuclear alliance, committed to the possession and use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and the dominant countries within it will brook no interference from the member countries within NATO with non-nuclear policies.

When the critical decision must be made on the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945, NATO will not seek the permission of the member countries in a democratic vote, nor will they seek the endorsement of the people or the UN. The dominant nuclear powers in NATO will act militarily and unilaterally to unleash the whirlwind – that is the stark, realpolitik.

If a nuclear strike is launched, every member of NATO will be culpable, whether they endorsed it or not.

For an independent Scotland to seek membership – or a continuation of present UK membership – of NATO is wrong and dangerous. Attempting to hide behind Norway’s stance and that of other non-nuclear NATO members is wrong because they are wrong to be members, and because membership of a nuclear alliance is incompatible, any way you slice it, with a non-nuclear stance. The current status of Scotland as the home of the UK’s nuclear deterrent is also fundamentally different from any other NATO member country.

In recent months, the SNP has failed in transparency over their defence policy and failed in transparency over the intentions of the leadership in relation to NATO. They have allowed speculation to rage unchecked from their opponents, and they have not only failed to inform their supporters of their true intentions, they have actively misled them by pretending that no game was afoot, leaving many members – not me – defending the indefensible.

I intend to blog in detail on this, with facts and detail, but today, I had to say this to get it off my chest. But maybe all is not lost …

A nuclear letter over three years ago …

My letter to the Herald of 21st February 2009 letter in full - it was edited in some aspects in the Letters page of the Herald. It was prompted by an Alf Young article, who then and now opposes Scotland’s independence and supports nuclear power. (Where he stands on the nuclear deterrent I don’t know.)

Since that letter, over three years ago, we have a majority SNP government, an independence referendum scheduled, and the continued implacable opposition of the SNP to nuclear weapons in Scotland, an opposition that I hope continues to include an equally implacable opposition to an independent Scotland being a member of NATO, a nuclear alliance, implacably committed to the possession and use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Letter to the Herald of 21st February 2009

Dear Sir,

Alf Young (20th Feb) advances the case for nuclear power in Scotland, and criticises the SNP’s implacable opposition to nuclear. I am one of the very large number of Scots who, in 2007, abandoned my previous political allegiance (Labour) and transferred my vote and my commitment to the SNP. A major factor in that decision was precisely the fact of the SNP’s implacable opposition to nuclear weapons and nuclear power. In spite of my strong commitment to an independent Scotland for many other reasons, I would resign my membership of the party instantly if that commitment ever wavered, however, I am sure that will not happen.

I will not rehearse the arguments against nuclear power generation versus alternative sources of energy in relation to the global warming priorities, for the simple reason that I would rather accept the energy deficit and all that goes with it – although I do not believe that this will happen – because of the link between the civil nuclear power and the nuclear arms industry. Every advocate of civil nuclear power generation I have read, heard, or met personally is either an advocate of nuclear weapons, nuclear defence policies and the so-called ‘nuclear deterrent’, or, frankly, must be naive, and unaware or badly informed about this insidious linking of the civil and military aspects.

The facts are these, and in setting them out, I would remind readers of the famous quote by American senator, Daniel Patrick Moynahan – “You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts ...”

Any country that has nuclear power has the undeniable potential to make nuclear weapons. This is why the West is making such a fuss over Iran’s nuclear programme, and was the ostensible reason for invading Iraq. The UK is a massive exporter of nuclear technology and uranium enrichment processes, and this is at the core (forgive me) of nuclear weapons production. If the UK abandoned this deadly trade and never built another nuclear power station it would be taking a major step towards reducing international tension, nuclear proliferation and creating a safer planet.

The International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA) is charged with investigating the regular, and sinister, transfer of nuclear material between civil and military stockpiles, but its powers are limited, and by the UK government’s own admission, its acceptance of inspection was not intended to provide an assurance that such material would not be used for defence purposes. In any case, the notorious ‘national security reasons’, the final refuge of totalitarian, militaristic governments everywhere, can be used to stop the inspections at any time.

In America, in Britain and in France, where one might assume that there were safe and secure procedure, unaccountable and unexplained discrepancies exist on plutonium. It is not just Russia that has problems of the theft and smuggling of nuclear material, not to mention inadequate and permeable storage arrangements.

I am a grandfather, and this status provides a special focus, a special viewpoint. I may not live long enough to experience the appalling consequences of our present nuclear obsession, but my children may, and my granddaughter almost certainly will. I was born in the 1930s, the decade of an unprecedented rise in militarism, and the lead-up to war. I sat in 1945 in the Park Cinema in Glasgow (formerly The Marne Cinema) as I watched with fascinated horror the dropping of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb and its appalling aftermath. I grew up in the 1950s with the spectre of nuclear annihilation hanging over my world. I followed with apprehension the Cuban missile crisis in the 1960s, when that threat became real and immediate. I don’t want my beloved granddaughter to have to live her life under this radioactive cloud.

The nuclear power industry and the nuclear arms industry are conjoined twins, locked forever in a deadly embrace, and cannot be separated. You can’t have one without the other.

Until homo sapiens evolves into a greater maturity, the world can afford neither nuclear power generation nor nuclear arms. We owe it to ourselves, our children and our grandchildren to reject these deadly twins. Alf Young used the word ‘meltdown’ in the title of his article. I hope it does not prove prophetic in a context other than the one he intended.

The Bomb is back on the agenda – with a vengeance: Trident and the SNP

Great fault lines run through each of the three main UK Unionist parties – their San Andreas faults, so to speak, waiting to tear the parties apart.

With the Tories, it’s Europe – the Great EU Fault.

With Labour, it’s the Great Blair/Iraq Fault, with the party heading for polarisation behind Ed Miliband and the trades unions at one pole, and the right-wing, big money, shadowy interests represented by the Blair/Sainsbury supporters, now called, of all things, Progress. (This abuse of the language goes hand in hand with peace envoys and faith foundations)Unions fight Labour's Blairite faction 'in struggle for party's soul'

The LibDem fault line is the fact that the party is a deeply unstable, cobbled-together artefact (1981) of left and right, represented by the Orange Book right-wingers -Tories in all but name - and the old-fashioned liberal left. This is now compounded by the appalling mistake of the Coalition. What can we call this thing? It is really just one big fault line, so let’s name it the Great LibDem Fault and leave it at that.

Up to this point, the SNP haven’t had a major fault line. They have, of course, the kind of differences that exist in every party: some are monarchists, some are republicans, some lean to the left, some lean to the right, and views vary on the nature of Britishness.

But the great unifying factors in the SNP has been the party’s unswerving commitment to full independence for Scotland, to an anti-nuclear Scotland and to the removal of WMDs (Trident) from Scottish waters after independence, and to a social democratic vision for the nation.

It was inevitable that once the party secured a clear mandate to govern for a second term  and to call a referendum on independence - with independence now within its grasp, but with a mountain to climb to shift the perceptions of the Scottish electorate towards a decisive YES vote - that the pressures of a YES campaign would shine an unforgiving, roving spotlight on every policy.

Within the party faithful - and among crucial ranks of those supporting independence who were not SNP – the question increasingly became – independence, but what kind of independence? This in turn led to two conflicting pressures: the party strategists needed to maintain a disciplined consistency of approach in a unified message  to the whole electorate, one that would reassure those who feared change, and who clung to the familiar, the traditional, but it also needed to keep the faithful on board, because they were the foot soldiers of the independence movement and of the YES campaign.

I believe the party has made a number of assumptions in doing this that are dangerous, and that it urgently needs to revisit them before the autumn, when the psychologically important two year lead time to the referendum really starts.

1. In trying to flatten out different perceptions of change in the minds of the wider electorate, e.g. monarchy, currency, Britishness, NATO, etc. it has focused the attention of at least a minority of committed nationalists on exactly these differences, causing them to probe what looked initially like a minor fault line and question if it was symptomatic of something deeper. (In tyre manufacturing, a hairline crack in the sidewall revealed at the final inspection stage usually results in testing the tyre to destruction by sawing it apart in sections, since hairline cracks can be the beginning of major faults.)

2. The party has assumed that the crucial defence issue – the quiescent elephant in the room for so long – could safely be kept quiet by resounding, crowd-pleasing conference statements about unswerving commitment to an anti-nuclear policy, and the detail could be quietly ignored, with membership concerns being fobbed off by anodyne statements and reassurances. The elephant is no longer quiet, in fact it’s out of the room and rampaging around, causing mayhem and confusion on all fronts.

3. The party has badly underrated the nature of its nascent support from the non-SNP left, including the Greens, the minority socialist parties, the Scottish Labour Party and the trades union movement by failing to understand the deeply-held economic and social views that underpin the Left, and the wider forces that motivate them.

4. The constitutional monarchy issue, although it was a bullet some republicans found hard to bite on, would not in itself have been a problem (in my view, as a republican) but when allied to concepts of Britishness and the questions of the Union of the Crowns and flags, began to sit more and more uneasily with some nationalists.

It was probably inevitable that the party would look at the Obama campaign and draw lessons from it. But one lesson it appears to have misunderstood is from where it should draw its professional support.

Scotland has some of the finest intellects in the world in every professional disciplines, including psychology and political science. It would not have been hard to find a combination of these skills to advise the Party on the psychological aspects of its YES campaign messages and the presentation of policy.

Faced with this abundance of intellectual riches, the SNP chose to go here for its support – RED Co. It is not a choice I would have made, for a whole range of reasons, but since my focus at the moment is on the crucial issue of defence, I won’t go there for the moment. Today’s Sunday Herald has an article on this – Don’t Mention Independence by Paul Hutcheon and Tom Gordon. I can’t find a link to it at the moment – buy the paper, it has loads of excellent stuff today.

DEFENCE

I had planned to start the day with a blog covering in detail the deliberations of the so-called Referendum on Separation for Scotland Select Committee defence enquiries. (Before the BBC bashers rush in, let me say that was the title given to it by the Labour-dominated committee, and the BBC were at pains to point this out regularly on the strapline during the channel 81 broadcast of the 13th June meeting.)

However, two stories this morning changed my agenda for the rest of the day -

The Sunday Herald front page – Goodbye Trident – a blueprint for a nuclear-free Scotland two years after independence, a report by Scottish CND ‘welcomed by the Scottish Government’.

The Sunday Telegraph with Go-ahead for new nuclear weapons by Robert Watts and Patrick Hennessy

Nowhere in the story, nor in the Telegraph Leader article on page 25 - Trident is an essential part of our armoury – is Scotland’s independence mentioned, nor the fact that the UK’s entire plans depend on the referendum outcome.

They have their heads in the sand and a nuke up their arse – not the most comfortable position to adopt …

The Telegraph Leader is instructive, in that every line of it effortlessly demonstrates exactly why we should not have nuclear weapons – not quite the leader writer’s intentions. But read it  -and shudder …

For your further entertainment, I offer my unedited clips (in three parts) of the Referendum on Separation for Scotland Select Committee, where the unionist Coalition of Labour, Tories and LibDems aimed at keeping Scotland and the UK resolutely WMD-mad, and opposed to the independence of Scotland, plough their contemptible furrows, acting as straight men with feed lines for the representatives of the Coalition and the monumentally incompetent MOD.

To the credit of Nick Harvey and Peter Luff, they did not always give the Committee the answers they clearly craved. I will analyse, edit and clip these when I get time – meanwhile, eat it raw, and prepare to vomit …

Thoughts for Scots–the SNP and the Left

PREAMBLE

A question – to whom am I addressing these thoughts and ideas, and with what objective? The SNP strategists? The independence-supporting Left? The Scottish Parliament? The electorate?

It is at this point that a blogger feels faintly ridiculous. Who gives a damn what I say? If anybody does, are there enough to matter?

A commentator – even a letter writer – in a national newspaper knows that he or she has a potential readership of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, even though the reality is almost certainly that a minority of readers will actually consume that particular piece. And publication in a newspaper confers a kind of validity – an imprimatur – that a blog doesn’t. Somebody in authority has looked at the piece and decided it was worthy of inclusion. But a blog is a unilateral, highly prejudiced decision to publish – by the author.

In moments like these, I fall back on the old concept of the pamphleteer in the 17th century, and hang on grimly to my positioning of myself as no more – and no less – than a Scottish voter with a voice, and an absolute right to speak – and to be ignored …

THOUGHTS FOR SCOTS

These ideas and observations come in the immediate aftermath of the local elections and at the launch of the official referendum campaign by the SNP. They are aimed at Scottish voters, i.e. those eligible to vote in the referendum, whatever their ethnic and national identity. They are targeted principally at supporters of an independent Scotland of whatever party – or no party – and are focused on the SNP, as the party and the Government and therefore the prime mover and main force for independence.

I have framed them as assertions, without resort to complex argument, although I must take some time to at least set out the background to them at length, and they therefore run the risk of being dismissed as mere opinion, with no underpinning of fact, logic and argument. This is done in the hope of keeping the message clear and not burying it a mass of statistics and justifications, because clear messages are urgently required at this critical time.

It represents what one voter thinks – I claim no constituency or silent majority. It is my opinion, because I have no other. I hope it is nonetheless an informed opinion, not arrived at lightly or without long reflection.

I realise that as the referendum campaign detail unfolds, it may be that the party is way ahead of me in all of this, and I will be delighted if they are.

THE SNP – MOMENTUM AND IDENTITY

The SNP must always remain acutely aware of the danger of losing its momentum and its core identity as a great movement for Scotland’s independence, appealing to both the heart and the head as it attempts to broaden the appeal of the party to secure a YES vote. In its attempts to reassure the doubters, it is runs the risk of alienating some core supporters and reducing their motivation.

In narrowing the perceived difference between the status quo – the Union – and full independence, it runs the even greater risk of converting a mood of Why not go for independence and radical change? to Why bother, if so little will change?

Key aspects in this are the party’s acceptance of a constitutional monarchy, acceptance of the continuation of sterling as the currency and The Bank of England as the central bank, and possible acceptance of NATO membership. (If Professor William Walker has accurate insider information, some in the party hierarchy are actively considering using delaying the removal of Trident as a bargaining chip in the independence negotiations.)

A less fundamental, but still relevant aspect is the emphasis on common identity and traditions as a part of the social union concept.

The monarchy, for many republican nationalists, is acceptable not  on a basis of conviction but on the basis that it is a price worth paying to secure the independence vote – the ‘hold our noses position’ . Those who take this view are divided into those who will reluctantly accept that such a constitutional arrangement, once agreed, must endure for many years, perhaps for the foreseeable future (my position) and those who would speedily call a referendum after independence with the hope of ending the monarchy., which in my view betrays a cynicism and opportunism that is alien.

There is another group of nationalists that believes that the commitment to a constitutional  monarchy must be repudiated by  party policy vote before independence. They believe that the monarchy is the cement that holds the conspiracy of wealth, power, privilege and militarism together, and that any compromise with it is unacceptable. I understand that view, and am wavering a bit on it myself.

The currency and central bank issues are more of an irritant than of hard opposition – the idea of a Scottish currency – or the euro - and a Scottish Central Bank is reluctantly postponed because of the stark reality of current European economic instability and uncertainty make them both ideals for another day.

NATO membership sharply divides the party, but not evenly – the majority are either indifferent or in favour, but the opposition of a minority is deep rooted and a fundamental matter of principles. (I am one of that minority.) For the latter group, a deep suspicion exists that, intentionally or inadvertently, NATO membership could lead to delaying - or even abandoning - the idea of a non-nuclear Scotland and the removal of Trident from Scotland’s waters. Since the NATO and the nuclear deterrent are synonymous, despite the non-nuclear majority in the alliance, and since nuclear weapons have a symbiotic relationship to nuclear power generation -anyone who claims they are not need only look at NATO’s deep concern and suspicions over Iran’s civil nuclear power programme - membership of NATO would weaken Scotland’s opposition to nuclear power. This would strengthen an already highly vocal and organised lobby for nuclear power.

The shared values and culture position is reassuring and realistic to many, but to some romantic nationalists, it is a blurring of Scottish identity, a loss of the concept of a unique national character – the Here’s tae us, wha’s like us? idea.  Among the group that regards it as realistic, given the long shared traditions and links of family, friendship and shared identity, there are some who nevertheless worry that it can be seen as embracing Britishness, an idea will be ruthlessly exploited by defenders of the Union. (I am of this latter group.)

THE NON-SNP LEFT

The non-SNP left in Scottish politics can be divided into the independence-supporting left and the Union-supporting left. Organisationally, that divide is represented by the Greens and the small socialist parties supporting independence and the Labour Party supporting the Union, with the STUC and the trades unions in an increasingly ambivalent position. This is rendered even more complex by the existence of a strong body of support for independence among rank and file Labour Party membership. I have excluded the Tory and LibDem parties from the non-SNP left - the Tories for obvious reasons, and the LibDems because of the lurch to the right in that benighted hybrid party, and because as political parties, both are now almost irrelevant in Scotland.

The SNP Government and the SNP independence campaign strategists rightly see the question of Scotland’s independence as broader than the Scottish National Party – the Government because it must represent all of the people, and the party because of strategic realities – it cannot deliver a YES vote without converting the non-SNP voting electorate to the idea of independence. (In fact there is almost certainly an SNP-voting group not yet committed to independence.) The non-SNP Left are obviously fundamental because, as social democrats in the main, they have the greatest common policy ground with the SNP, and after independence would represent either the main opposition party, perhaps be part of a coalition - or indeed form the government.

The non-SNP Left, whether independence supporting or not, has some heavyweight commentators articulating a vision for Scotland and trenchant criticisms of the SNP. The Scottish Left Review carries much of their work, as does the mainstream press, and they are well represented on television and radio.  The (Jimmy) Reid Foundation after a slow start, is beginning to make its influence felt. Robin McAlpine Many of these commentators, notably Gerry Hassan, have a vision of a social democratic Scotland that differs in fundamental ways from what they see as the economic policy of Alex Salmond and the SNP, and they are not slow to criticise.

The Limits of Modernisation: Blair, Cameron and Salmond, Gerry Hassan’s May 12th article in The Scotsman compares Alex Salmond to Blair and Cameron in what Gerry sees as the SNP’s espousal of the doctrine of ‘modernisation’, and there can be little doubt that, despite the jobs, jobs, jobs rationale - which I support totally - many in and out of the SNP were deeply disturbed by the First Minister’s relationship with Rupert Murdoch – and Donald Trump at an earlier point.

This attitude can all too easily be dismissed as old left academic theorising about the nature of Western capitalism and an instinctive distaste for wealth and power – until one remembers that wealth, global commerce and banking have brought the world to its knees and the edge of the abyss.

The long-forecast crisis of capitalism by the Left has actually arrived, and neither the Left - nor anyone else - foresaw its imminence and the depth of it, nor was anyone prepared for it. It can reasonably argued that old economic and social models have failed, and if there was ever a time for radical new thinking and recasting of old, but never tried ideas, it is now.

THE WILD, WILD WEST

What does the local election result in Glasgow and the west tell us? Maybe not a lot – local elections have different dynamics and different implications from the national, just as by-elections are different from general elections, and general elections are different from Holyrood elections. As for voters sending messages to central government and parties by their votes at by-elections and local elections, I tend to the Samuel Goldwyn position – “If you want to send a message, use Western Union …”

But some things can safely be said. Maintaining the movie analogy, The Way the West will be Won must be a vital element in the referendum campaign strategy, and it won’t be the way that let Glasgow Labour back with an overall majority on May 3rd.

I am not usually one to duck saying the unsayable, but there are aspects of West of Scotland politics that one must tread very carefully in articulating too bluntly, among them the religious aspect, religious extremism allied to football extremism, and the nature of certain organisations that exhibit the volatile mix of partisan politics and religion, and have loyalties that in part go beyond Scotland.

There is a polluted well of extreme – and deeply immature - political/religious views in the West that have forgotten nothing and learned nothing, with little concept of the fundamental values of a liberal social democracy. The Tammany Hall politics of the West have drunk from this poisoned fount for well over a century, and some of our most prominent politicians, past and present -not to mention a few Lords of the Realm - sprang from it.

The SNP have an unenviable task in trying to come to grips with this while retaining their fundamental principles and without a cynical abandonment of them to realpolitik. At least one senior member of the the SNP Government has a deep understanding of this complex culture – the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon.

Although she was born in Irvine, Ayrshire, Nicola, an honours graduate in law from Glasgow University, has operated at the sharpest end of Glasgow politics, both as a solicitor for the Drumchapel  Law Centre, and politically in Shettleston and Govan, two constituencies that almost epitomise the city. And at the risk of sounding sexist, perhaps only a woman can truly understand the macho male politics of Glasgow, and see them clearly. (I think Johann Lamont also understands them better than her predecessor, Iain Gray. She would certainly never have sought refuge in a sandwich bar …) And there are others in the Parliamentary Party who have similar depth of understanding, e.g. Derek Mackay.

POSTSCRIPT: A NATIONALIST VOTER’ S VIEW

What I have said in blogs or what I have to say must always be seen against the background that I am a relatively new party member – four years or so – and that I come from a long, Labour/Left tradition. I have made a negligible contribution to my branch, in terms of attendance and active campaigning (stuffed a few local leaflets) and compared to the lifelong dedication of the active members of my branch, I have made a negligible contribution to the party and the independence movement.

I won’t offer reasons or excuses for this, except to say that it probably makes me not untypical of the majority of party members. I could draw similar parallels with trade union membership, or membership of a professional association, and I have been members of both over the years, with varying levels of involvement.

Anything I therefore say has to be seen against this background, and I readily accept that others with a higher level of commitment and activism have a least an equal right to speak, and arguably a greater right.