The long trailed, looming decision by the SNP to reverse its policy regarding NATO in favour of Scottish membership has deprived many a unionist of one of its last remaining sticks with which to beat the Nationalists. The disappointment is palpable and no more so in the weekend’s Scotland on Sunday where Salmond’s supposed ‘NATO and nukes dilemma’ was splashed across the front page.
The argument, from Professor Malcolm Chalmers(?), seems to be that NATO won’t let an independent Scotland join its club if Scotland cleared nuclear weapons from its military bases.
The main article, and the accompanying editorial, involve telling Scots that you can’t be free of nuclear weapons and be a member of NATO in the short to medium term in an independent Scotland, and trying to make it the SNP’s problem at the same time. One initial oddity of this positioning is that opposition to nuclear weapons and membership of NATO are solid, historic Labour policies, and if there was one party that should be motivated to find a solution here it would be Labour. A solution over and above ‘let’s just stay in the UK shall we’. Lord George Robertson, former MP for Hamilton South, was recently the NATO Secretary General after all. Couldn’t he be expected to find a solution to this supposed impasse in the interests of Scotland?
Anyway, the article is difficult to take too seriously for separate reasons.
Post independence, on the one side, we would have a centre-right Government keen to ensure that rUK’s place in the geopolitical game remains strong and that the ‘special relationship’ with America stays tight. Underpinning each of these objectives is the requirement to retain a permanent seat at the United Nations. In order to ensure this, rUK needs to be a nuclear power. On the other side we have Scotland, a new country whose citizens have historically been opposed to holding nuclear weapons and led by a centre-left party (or parties) that have no appetite for paying for or holding nuclear weapons within their budgets or borders.
rUK wants nuclear weapons, Scotland doesn’t. There is no problem here. There may be an issue surrounding the timing of the physical move of nuclear weapons from Scotland to rUK but the weapons will always be operable and available to NATO if the simply unimaginable becomes reality.
Furthermore, it is not in rUK’s, or the USA’s, or France’s, or Russia’s interests for Scotland to have control over nuclear weapons. The smaller that club is, the better. There are good reasons after all why the many countries across Europe that successfully researched such weapons never actually created any.
I have always believed it is inconceivable that England, Wales or Northern Ireland cannot have a base for nuclear weapons ready in a matter of years, if it isn’t ready now. If this is indeed true then it is a dereliction of duty on the part of Westminster to have kept such supposedly strategically important weapons in a nation that (1) might leave the UK, (2) has never wanted the weapons in the first place and (3) should have been covered by a back-up location via a disaster recovery contingency plan.
So why this is all Scotland’s problem is beyond me. Indeed, it sounds more like an opportunity. Scotland could command a large price for keeping Trident where it is, and that doesn’t sound like bad news for Alex Salmond or an argument against independence to me.
The alternative of course is to simply scrap Trident, a decision that the coalition baulked at during this Parliamentary term. There is simply no conceivable scenario when these bombs would be fired, no country or state in the world that would deserve such horrors to be rained down upon it. So why keep holding these weapons? If they have served their purpose strategically, and run out of options geographically, let’s just put the whole thing to bed and save ourselves billions that we can build schools with, no?
Well, if it wasn’t for the permanent seat at the UN and that sordid special relationship, we might just manage to do that. Again, it’s not Scotland that wants to cling onto a seat at the big boy’s table, so why are people making it an issue for the Scottish independence referendum?
Experts can be dug up to provide front page exclusives and national newspapers can wring their hands in their editorials, but imagining problems that don’t exist or turning opportunities into issues for partisan reasons is not going to get Scotland anywhere.
#1 by R Pollock on April 10, 2012 - 3:42 pm
I think the issue of nuclear weapons and nato membership are reasonable topics for conversation. However, you’re right I see no reason why they’re detrimental to the prospect of independence or a problem for the SNP party.
Prof. Chalmer’s article was full of conjecture without really basing it on anything the reader could verify its credibility. He just ‘hit out’ with £2 billion as what post-independence Scotland would budget for defence. Then claiming that is much inferior to our scandinavian neighbours and would mean a cut in jobs. It was him that proffered this figure! Anybody can pick a number out of the sky to substantiate a point! He didn’t say why he picked that figure; he should do so.
His article was full of inconsistencies. In one part he highlighted that we would have to build an entirely new armed unit. Clearly, judging that an independent Scotland is breaking away and has no right to any of the armed forces asset base.
Then later on, he claims that Scotland would be a ‘successor state’ and this would justify a sharing of responsibilities for past problems.
The man wants it both ways. A share of UK problems but no share of UK assets. It cannot be both. His whole article was to cast as negative a light as possible on the whole affair regardless of consistency of argument.
#2 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 5:03 pm
A pretty solid takedown Ross; good point about making up a figure and then explaining why it is too low!
My impression was that he was comparing BAU (£2bn) defence budgets with independence start-up costs (building planes, if need be), ignoring (as you say) the assets and settlement package that we’d be given as part of negotiations.
The Scotsman and SoS is falling short in its important role to facilitate a fair debate on these issues.
#3 by Iain Menzies on April 10, 2012 - 5:28 pm
What makes you think that Scotland would be given any defence assets?
There is nothing, at all, to stop HMG saying to Salmond if the ref is a yes, that actually no you cant have any of our shiny new Typhoons.
Granted one would assume that Scotland gets 9% (ish) of UK assets, but that doesn’t, by holy law, mean that we get 10, for example, Typhoons.
I mean you couldnt expect to get 9% of the Imperial State Crown (produced in the late thirties).
#4 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 5:45 pm
We wouldn’t necessarily need (or get) any typhoons but one would think that a cash equivalent would mean that we wouldn’t have to pay for new aircraft out of annual budgets but could start from scratch.
Starting with a clean slate sounds good to me anyway.
#5 by Iain Menzies on April 10, 2012 - 6:42 pm
I aint no expert, just someone who takes (too much) interest in defence issues.
I think an Independent Scotland would be better off with less in the way of kit. The problem with that is you then may well find yourself in the position of needing a capability and not being able to provide it yourself.
Then you have to get someone else to do it for you. at least in the short term.
Which may not be that straight forward. For example, say you decide you need an air defence capability. But you dont get the typhoons. DO you ask rUK to do it? Say you do, and they say no, which as it happens if i was rUK defence sec i would. Who do you ask then? If Scotland was to be a NATO member you could go the Baltic route, of looking for NATO to take on the responsibility with individual members taking turns to provide the capability.
Problem with that is would an indy Scotland be a member of NATO. Or would policy be to move away from NATO.
In or out, if out is on account of would have to apply from start rather than be a successor state (which is a possibility) then if you want the capability in place from indy day 1, can the SG as it is negotiate, legally, a treaty with foreign powers and or treaty organisations.
I aint pro indy. I think that scottish defence capability would be a joke for the better part of a decade post indy, and i dont think it would be up to much after that. But i dont think any of that is a (good) reason to vote no to indy. That being said, the SNP have no sensible defence policy for an independent Scotland.
#6 by Don McC on April 11, 2012 - 7:03 am
Yep, we’ll end up doing silly things like building aircraft carriers with no planes to put on them.
Oh, no wait, we’re doing that already!!
#7 by Angus McLellan on April 10, 2012 - 6:30 pm
That’s ok, the money would be fine. Better in fact. UK defence hardware isn’t the sort of things you’d put on your shopping list.
Chalmers suggestion that the rUK might deign to give Scotland a River Class patrol boat would be an awful lot more credible if the boats weren’t leased from BAE. And if you can find 101 uses for a Challenger 2 tank you should look for a book deal. Worked for dead cats.
#8 by Iain Menzies on April 10, 2012 - 6:50 pm
On the Rivers….thats perfectly credible, you could transfer the lease….so long as payments are made, BAE doesnt give a hoot.
and as for UK kit not being on anyones shopping list, well the UK is one of the worlds largest arms exporters, so someone things our stuff is worth buying.
The Chally 2 might not have sold much abroad, but it is one of the best tanks in the world, and there are plenty of people who still want to buy tanks.
#9 by R Pollock on April 10, 2012 - 6:38 pm
You’re quite correct. There is nothing to stop a particular defence moveable, tangible asset not going Scotland’s way or the UK’s way. I didn’t suggest it; and neither have the expertise of valuing Defence items or even know what they are to do what I would imagine to be a fair division!
However, I think that a division it shall come. The argument cannot be we are a “successor state” when it suits and a breakaway region when it suits. Everyone, regardless of what side of the fence you sit, agree we will take on our share of the national debt. Anybody, thinking fairly, wouldn’t suggest then that you get no share of the assets for doing so. How the assets will be made up is anyone’s guess. It’s a negotiation. We’re not just a debt dumping ground. However, Prof. Chalmer’s suggestion that we would be building an entirely new force disregarding any negotiations does not make sense and is actually inconsistent with his own arguments in his descriptions of what type of breakaway it would be.
Assets (of whatever type) would be used to offset Defence spending.
#10 by James on April 10, 2012 - 9:42 pm
This is pure common sense.
#11 by Phil Hunt on April 11, 2012 - 10:53 am
What makes you think that Scotland would be given any defence assets?
Maybe Scotland could hold on to the nukes until fUK gives it a reasonable settlement.
After all, after the UK is dissolved, there’s no reason in principle that fUK has to be the nuclear successor state as opposed to Scotland.
#12 by David Smillie on April 11, 2012 - 2:22 pm
How could Scotland hold onto the nukes? Not through some kind of force, I would have thought.
We can’t keep them by force and we can’t get rid of them by force either. I guess some fudge will be arrived at the will satisfy nobody but keep us all speaking to each other.
#13 by Phil Hunt on April 12, 2012 - 5:13 pm
How could Scotland hold onto the nukes?
They are based in Scotland so it would be the default.
Not through some kind of force, I would have thought.
Of course not. Having said that, if a non-nuclear fUK wanted to start a war against a nuclear Scotland, they’d be well and truly fUKed.
#14 by David Smillie on April 13, 2012 - 10:51 am
A fudge like a long lease of the trident facilities to rUK might be more likely. Personally I’d prefer them out of Scotland sooner rather than later.
#15 by Doug Daniel on April 10, 2012 - 4:22 pm
If ever there was an example of boys toys and the immaturity of leaders in big countries, it’s nuclear weapons. They are relics of the Cold War, and each country that has them only has them because another country has them. It’s tit-for-tat at it’s worst, and it would be almost funny if the things weren’t so bloody destructive. And of course, like so many of the world’s ills, nuclear blackmail is completely the fault of the USA.
The USA developed them to be able to obliterate anyone that disagreed with them, which was stupid in the first place. The Soviets developed them because they disagreed with the USA and knew fine it was their only way of stopping the USA from nuking them to end communism. For similar reasons, China, France and the UK got involved as well, since all three were sucking up to one of the two Cold War combatants. The Sino-Indian war meant that if China had nukes, India had to have them as well. But then this meant Pakistan had to have them too. How dull.
Now of course, no one is really all that worried about any of those countries nuking us (except perhaps China, even though they’re doing a far better job of taking over the West by buying up our assets, suggesting communism will indeed have the last laugh against capitalism). The countries everyone is worried about are North Korea and Iran. People seem to think these countries want to start World War 3, hence why North Korea has them and why Iran is clearly trying to develop them.
But let’s think about it: the whole world knows the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon on another country (USA) wants to obliterate you. In Iran’s case, you also have Israel wanting to obliterate you, and we all know Israel has nukes. So, what do you do? Answer: you get your own nukes.
North Korea and Iran have no more interest in destroying Scotland than they have in destroying Norway, Switzerland or the Pitcairn Islands. We have no reason to fear these countries. Like most other nuclear states, they seek only to go “don’t mess with us, we’ve got nukes”. The only two countries who are remotely likely to actually use their nukes are the USA (again) and Israel, and we’re far enough away from those countries, and their targets, to not fear nuclear attack.
So indeed Jeff, Scotland has no problem with nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no argument: get them off our soil. We don’t want them, we don’t need them, and their existence merely holds the world back. And if the UK is intent on carrying on trying to play with explosive toys, it’s up to Scotland to force them out of the game.
#16 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 4:51 pm
“The Soviets developed them because they disagreed with the USA and knew fine it was their only way of stopping the USA from nuking them to end communism.”
As Medvedev might say, that ‘smells of Hollywood’. Not sure I agree with the belligerent “it’s up to Scotland to force them out of the game” either.
#17 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2012 - 8:54 am
Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying all these countries that have nuclear weapons are innocents who only got them to protect themselves from America. But the whole arms race is similar to America’s view on ownership of handguns – “my neighbour might shoot me, so I need one too.”
And my extreme bias against American foreign policy leads me to conclude that the only country that would actually be stupid enough to use a nuke is the one country which was stupid enough to use one already (and possibly its best friend in the Middle East). As a result, it’s hard for me to condemn countries on their hitlist as much as I condemn them.
But one thing is for sure, neither the UK nor France are under any threat of nuclear attack, mainly because both have long ceased to be superpowers. In both cases, continuing with nuclear weapons programmes is nothing more than a folly, empty posturing by leaders who see nuclear missiles as replacements for their own appendages. If only both countries would admit that the age of empires is long gone, and act accordingly, we would be two steps closer to making the world a safer place.
If Scotland is able to force the rUK hand, then I see it as our responsibility as members of the global community to do so. We certainly can’t rely on any UK Prime Minister to make that call.
#18 by Hugh Jarse on April 10, 2012 - 4:48 pm
Another pro Nat spin on a story – oh that will be Better Nation then. I’ve never been asked do I want nuclear weapons or do I think leaving NATO is a good idea.You seem to have assumed the Gnat view is ‘Scotland view’ – maybe once we put the Separation Referendum to bed we can get back to serious debate and politics – mean time same old, same old. How many hoops do you want me to jump through Eck – that will do nicely. Succulent lamb all round.
#19 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 4:58 pm
Was tempted to delete this comment for needlessly negative tone, ‘Gnat’ section and ‘succulent lamb’ bit (?).
Where have I assumed that the Nat view is Scotland’s view? Indeed, I made sure the post didn’t come over that way as one of my points was that the fate of nuclear weapons is for the centre-left Government to decide, be that Labour, SNP, and/or whoever. I think we can rule out the Tories being a part of it so I think we can conclude even now that the parties will be anti-nuclear.
The SNP view is converging to Scotland’s view, that’s kind of the point of Salmond’s clever softly, softly approach to the referendum.
Anyway, if you want to try again David and actually, you know, debate the substance then by all means feel free.
#20 by John Whyte on April 10, 2012 - 5:20 pm
I have read Better Nation, since its inception and have always enjoyed the thoughts provoked by the writing team. I am aware that it is primarily a nationalist blog (although not necessarily a SNP policy mirror) so, while I don’t like the term, I will state that I’m a unionist who comes in peace.
While I disagree with his (I’m assuming it is a he) tone, I think that ‘Hugh’ makes one valid point. The SNP have done an excellent job of convincing the electorate that their view is Scotland’s view. This however, is not my experience when I talk to my colleagues or my friends, although I do not claim this to be in any way definitive. The SNP are a very slick electoral outfit, but, to me at least, I fear that they are promising a lot of things to a lot of different people. The Liberal Democrats used to do this and it may catch up with the SNP at some point.
I am not in favour of independence, although I am willing to be persuaded. As yet, however, I have seen little to make me vote ‘yes’ to independence in 2014. I just wish that both sides would be more civil to each other. Not every nationalist is a ‘cybergnat’ and not every argument in favour of the union is a stick with which to beat nationalists.
As for NATO/Trident, I am in principle against nuclear weapons being held by anybody, but if I may be permitted a cliche, it is difficult to put the genie back into the bottle. I feel that wide-scale nuclear disarmament by ‘western’ powers may not be wise in the current geopolitical climate.
#21 by James on April 10, 2012 - 5:26 pm
John, thanks for your kind words. It’s a common misconception that this is a nationalist blog, though. Two of the four current editors are, as far as I know, paid-up Labour members, and I am not a nationalist either, although I support independence. Is Jeff a nationalist? That’s one I’ll leave for him.
#22 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 5:45 pm
I actually don’t know the difference between being a Nationalist and someone who support independence.
There, I’ve said it.
#23 by James on April 10, 2012 - 6:36 pm
I’ll do you a whole post on it, how about that?
#24 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 6:43 pm
Deal.
#25 by Iain Menzies on April 10, 2012 - 6:51 pm
oh please lord no….
#26 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2012 - 8:57 am
YES!!!
#27 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 5:42 pm
I think that’s a valid general point John, but I wouldn’t say it’s applicable here as I think it’s fair to say that:
(1) most Scots are anti Trident, and
(2) most Scots would prefer an independent Scotland to be part of NATO
I do agree that it’s a concern that the SNP might be over-promising; I remain hugely sceptical that paying for tuition fees will be manageable, on top of increasing NHS budgets, while Osborne swings his spending axe without overhaul of income or local taxes.
Until (if) it all blows up in the SNP’s face, then there’s not much one can say though really and one can hardly say that Swinney isn’t doing an excellent job balancing tight budgets. And hey, a majority at Holyrood kind of speaks for itself in the meantime, wouldn’t you say?
Anyway, back on topic, you have opted for quite vague wording there about “the current geopolitical climate” and genies back in bottles, but, as I said in the post, in what realistic scenario could you ever envisage the UK, or any Western power, actually firing one of these weapons?
That aside, the number of nuclear weapons that the UK has relative to US and Russia is tiny. It wouldn’t make much of a dent in global nuclear weapons arsenals if we just put ours to bed and saved ourselves a lot of money. I don’t see the ‘geopolitical climate’ changing much if we did either.
Also, I don’t think any of us would consider this a Nationalist blog, but if that’s what we’re putting out there then I guess we can’t complain about it.
#28 by Iain Menzies on April 10, 2012 - 7:15 pm
Your probably right on number one, but that doesnt mean that most scots are in favour of unilateral disarmament.
#29 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 7:51 pm
I don’t see what the downside of unilaterla disarmament is relative to general disarmament when the likelihood of any of these weapons ever being fired is practically nil and when the sheer cost of them is the main bone of contention.
I am going on a couple of pretty old polls on this so, fair enough, opinion may well have changed.
#30 by Iain Menzies on April 10, 2012 - 9:20 pm
could you link the polls?
Id be interested to see the details of them, but i dont think you should read too much into them. for two reasons, one, there hasnt been any real debate about them thats went much beyond a wouldnt you like a new school more and two, id really like to see what the question is….for question is all important as im sure you will agree 😉
#31 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 9:49 pm
Here’s one of them at least – http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2007/10/22111017
#32 by Iain Menzies on April 10, 2012 - 10:14 pm
Any idea who the polling firm was?
#33 by Gerard on April 10, 2012 - 11:54 pm
Jeff. I thought you would have known that Swinney has an obligation (possibly a legal one) to balance the budget. What he is doing while balancing his budgets is not excellent by any stretch of the imagination.
If holding a gun to the heads of local authorities is excellent, or slashing FE budgets to the extent he has, or the housing budget, or the capital spending budget, etc etc then your definition of ‘excellent’ is not one I am familiar with.
On the nationalist blog thing – I think you have to play to your audience and the topics that get the greatest interest are often those which reference separation and those which mention something to do with Labour and our failures in transmitting a clear progressive message.
I think you try to put up posts that show the site as a progressive site and not a nationalist blog however there is something wrong in the thinking here. With the exception of Aidan/Kirsty it looks as though you may believe, and many who comment here also share this view I feel, that to break away from rUK is the progressive thing to do. That it is the gateway to create a truly progressive society in Scotland and part of the natural progression of a nation.
My problem with that view is that it is incompatible with truly progressive politics. The argument that Scotland is a nation of progressives that is held back by our neighbours is just wrong – there are regressives and conservatives in Scotland just as there are progressives across the UK. Co-operation is one of the cornerstones of left-of-centre ideology. We co-operate with the rUK to build a stronger society for everyone. Yes there comes a time when the baddies get their hands on power and try to destroy what we’ve built together but that should only make us more determined to succeed – we should not give up on our mission especially when we give it up for a progressive myth.
If the SNP are true progressives they wouldn’t be balancing their budgets as ‘excellently’ as they have done. If they were truly competent they wouldn’t have spent the almost £1bn put aside by Labour but rather would have added to it (just think, if they had added just a little to it in their first budget in 2008 we may have had enough to fill the gap made by the cuts) now wouldn’t that have been excellent?
#34 by Daniel J on April 10, 2012 - 5:34 pm
Keeping Trident where it is in exchange for concessions? Oh I’m enthused now.
#35 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 5:47 pm
It’s a pretty logical, if entirely ignored, conclusion from the Scotland on Sunday piece if you ask me. Doesn’t sound too bad either, does it?
#36 by Chris on April 10, 2012 - 6:28 pm
Jeff
100% agree. Salmond will offer the rUK the option of retaining Trident in Scotland in exchange for the cost of Scotland’s share of UK infrastructure such as taxation etc – the higher the better from his point of view – and ongoing NATO membership. Instant kudos with the USA and he can “show” he has driven a hard bargain at the independence negotiation table: I personally believe that while Scots are more anti-nuclear than the whole of the UK, they are pragmatists and will accept something that is a “good deal”.
I suspect that the rUK will reluctantly agree with this because of the financial cost of a new facility and the political cost of trying to find some constituency willing to take it.
#37 by R Pollock on April 10, 2012 - 6:49 pm
I totally agree too. Scotland’s Trident card appears to be a strong one to the untrained eye. I also, like you Jeff, think it is a dereliction of duty of the UK Government not to have contingencies in hand for their Nuclear stock. Not only is it a dereliction of duty but surely a total blunder to admit as much with negotiations upcoming. I wonder how credible this revelation really is.
I think that Prof. Chalmer’s article overall is really poor. I don’t mind a reasoned point being made and the independence campaign being challenged but with a bit more rigour. There were a few decent points about Defence capability ‘on demand’ which were decent.
However, the £2bn estimate got my goat. It was backed up by some waffle about uncertainty. Very unconvincing.
#38 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 7:44 pm
I’d go along with that Chris. Do you think there is a risk that the more fundamental wing of the SNP, which is arguably a majority, would be displeased with nuclear weapons being used as a bargaining chip in this way? I’d personally have no problem with it, it’s a pragmatic and profitable alternative to simply shutting everything down, but it could be a stretch for Salmond to pull off.
#39 by Indy on April 10, 2012 - 8:29 pm
Everyone knows that Trident can’t be removed the day after independence. It has to be done safely and securely. It may well be that the rUK decides not to proceed with Trident replacement in the event of independence. But if they do then I am sure the Scottish Government – whoever they are – will be reasonable about the timescale for removal and decommissioning of the existing warheads.
#40 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 8:35 pm
Spot on Indy. That doesn’t make for such a great front page story though.
#41 by John Whyte on April 10, 2012 - 5:40 pm
Apologies, James; my terminology is not what it should be. I meant nationalist as in somebody who supports independence i.e that would cover the Scottish Greens and SSP.
I feel that the Greens are incorrectly being marginalized as part of the ‘SNP view is Scotland’s view’ positioning of the SNP. While, so far, I am against independence, I do feel that the Greens have a more coherent political vision for a post-independence Scotland than the SNP who, at times (and sorry if I have this wrong) do come across as being independence above all. Because of this, I hope that the Greens support does not get swallowed-up by the SNP (as some are predicting) or indeed any other party at the council elections.
#42 by MartinB on April 10, 2012 - 6:04 pm
The SNP come across as being independence above all else? Crivens! I’d never have got that oan ma ain.
If the SNP *isn’t* independence above all else then they’re acting ultra vires, surely.
I think it’d do us Scotland a power of good in accelerating the post Independence political realignment if the SNP disbanded on Independence Day (or the 1st day of the 1st post-Independence government), retiring as perhaps the only undefeatedly successful political organisation. Even if only to spit in Enoch Powell’s eye.
Otherwise we end up with a political landscape in 100 years time still re-arguing the independence debate, and whose grandma was on which side, just like in Ireland, rather than matters of substance.
#43 by James on April 10, 2012 - 6:36 pm
Or we end up with a Scottish ANC, descending (to go back to your analogy) further into Haugheyism.
#44 by MartinB on April 10, 2012 - 7:08 pm
Fortunately, I think we’ve enough of a diversity of political views and – once various UK-wide parties have thrown off the shackles of their London masters – parties to avoid the “party that liberated us is forever ascendent” model.
[[sidebar
Of course, one party states (outwith the more repressive dictatorships) still have the same politics, but within the single party, rather than between them, exaggerating the “party as a coalition” model that happens already.]]
Politics will inevitably realign, and the talent in currently Unionist parties will stop thinking that the only place worth working is London. I’d like to think that we’ll get new groupings in different places on the map to the current ones, but probably only as current tribalists on all sides move into retirement.
#45 by James on April 10, 2012 - 9:38 pm
I think that’s a good possibility, and it’s what I hope for.
#46 by R Pollock on April 10, 2012 - 7:03 pm
I agree with this post; up to a point.
My forecast is this: If the SNP go into the independence referendum as the main voice in the campaign we’ll lose.
This referendum cannot be seen as being the “SNP referendum”. The “SNP aim to win the referendum”. “Questions for SNP in independence referendum”.
A political party – especially in Government – with all its policy styles cannot appease enough people in itself to win a majority in most cases. Certainly not on one issue. There is always something that will annoy enough people to dislike any one party.
The SNP are the main instigators; no question about it. However, the YES campaign needs to start to become the YES campaign and not the SNP campaign. Unless it does so the YES camp will not win.
However, this means that the Greens, SSP and others need to start getting out there too. I think they have been too quiet so far and need to nail their colours to the mast.
Alex Salmond is a clever man and knows how to lead this campaign. I’m sure he recognises the need for a broad approach.
#47 by Don McC on April 10, 2012 - 8:32 pm
Last year’s referendum on proportional representation is a perfect example of this. People used it to voice a judgement against the Lib Dems just as much as to voice their opinion on proportional representation.
And while agreeing with you on Salmond, even he may struggle to stop the MSM referring to it as the SNP’s referendum.
#48 by James on April 10, 2012 - 9:40 pm
We had a referendum on pr? How did I miss that with all the non-excitement about AV?
#49 by John Whyte on April 10, 2012 - 6:03 pm
Thanks for the reply Jeff. I would agree that I was a bit vague, but I was trying to ease in with my first comment on the site and, to be fair, I did ask if I could use a cliche first 😀
What I was getting at is that, at the risk of sounding alarmist – I really don’t mean to be – the world appears, to me, to be at a significant turning point. While I don’t believe that the following is likely, I do see it as possible and as such one reason why I would be reluctant to remove nuclear capabilities from the UK, or indeed from an independent Scotland.
Asia’s economic rise, assuming nothing derails it, will place huge strains on the more recent economic powers of Europe and North America. For perhaps the first time in over a century, people born in the west today will not have the general guarantee that their parents/grandparents had. That is, by going to school/university and by getting a job at which you work 9 to 5 then, most years, you will earn more money and that your standard of living will go up. There is reason why this has to continue and Asia’s huge population of educated, hard-working and young people will test those in Europe and America with competition that we are, in my opinion, unprepared for.
Due to this and the shift in industrial and technological production to Asia, I believe that a significant decrease in the standard of living of developed nations in the 21st century is possible. This would cause significant tension among countries that would otherwise be considered allies. In such a possible future, a nuclear threat still held by some countries could/would be used as part of bully-diplomacy to gain access to trade or resources. Europe does not have a great history of peace, I think that it would hubristic of us to assume that things will always be as good as they are for us here.
I should point out, perhaps that I don’t see Asia’s rise as a bad thing. With the correct administration here, it provides a huge opportunity for Bristish/Scottish people. I simply worry that we are not well-placed to take advantage of the changing world.
#50 by Tock Jamson on April 10, 2012 - 6:14 pm
“One initial oddity of this positioning is that opposition to nuclear weapons and membership of NATO are solid, historic Labour policies”
No they aren’t. Ernest Bevin, a Labour Foreign Secretary, signed the North Atlantic Treaty and no Labour government ever moved to disarm the UK of it’s nuclear weapons. The Labour Party was officially in favour of nuclear disarmament for one year in 1960 and then for the 1980s when they suffered two of their biggest election defeats in history. For the vast majority of the history of the Labour Party they have been in favour of the UKs nuclear deterrent.
#51 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2012 - 9:19 am
I think Jeff is perhaps meaning more that opposition to nuclear weapons is a stance that is more prevalent in Labour than, for example, the Tory party, rather than being an actual long-standing manifesto commitment. There is a Labour CND section of the CND, for example, but no Conservative CND or Lib Dem CND. Also, when it came to voting for the replacement of Trident, 161 Labour MPs voted against it, which is a fairly sizeable number.
If you live in England and you’re against nuclear weapons, you’re more likely to join the Labour party than the other two (although these days it is probably more a case of joining the Green Party). In Scotland, however, you’re spoilt for choice with the SNP, SSP and Greens all including nuclear disarmament as party policy, and in fact Labour are just about the last party you’d join.
#52 by Ben Achie on April 10, 2012 - 6:20 pm
The irrefutable issue with our being a base for nuclear weapons is that if any got fired by the US, whether they admitted to it or not, then we would be a target for retaliation as a dispensable proxy. And, of course, the UK cannot fire its “independent” nuclear deterrent anyway without American consent.
The reason for NATO being nuclear is a hangover of the Cold War, as tactical nukes were the only way of stopping the Warsaw Pact advancing over the plains of central Europe given their superiority in numbers (and tanks). There was never much justification for anything bigger, except that “the other side” had them.
One very good reason for going for independence is that it removes us from the UK government’s foreign (/defence) policy which is basically one word, “ditto” whatever the US says and does. And, as far as the Middle East goes, US policy is that whatever Israel does must be right!
Democracy is a precious thing, and that’s what the Iranians – an advanced country with a well-educated population – really need. It’s not our fault or theirs that they have bampot leadership. Whether Obama wins or loses, Netanyahoo (my spelling!) is still on track to get what he and his crazy supporters want.
And what will the UK’s part be in that? (Never mind the stance being taken currently, Uncle Sam will soon pull us into line!). Having the UK’s nuclear deterrent based in Scotland is insane, and the sooner it is out of here the better. Neither we, nor rUK can afford it anyway!
#53 by MartinB on April 10, 2012 - 7:11 pm
Um John… we don’t have that now. I’ve 2 degrees, a pretty good job (and if you want to believe my appraisals, I’m pretty damned good at it), and yet my real terms income has fallen every year in the last 12. And I’m still at work at 19:10.
#54 by Barbarian on April 10, 2012 - 7:42 pm
Type your comment here
I think you are being grossly unfair. If you want a “pro-Nat” spin there are one or two other websites that provide that service.
I’m probably the most cynical person around, and I like this site because it allows all viewpoints without sucking up to the SNP.
On topic, I wonder what has forced the change in policy over NATO. Will there be a similar one over Europe next? Starting to play around with policies is not the best of ideas.
#55 by Jeff on April 10, 2012 - 7:49 pm
Thanks Barbarian. There was me thinking that I was being unduly harsh on the SNP all week last week (not that I wrote today’s post to compensate; that SoS article genuinely rubbed me up the wrong way, and I am strongly anti-Trident).
For me, the change in policy on Nato is surely simply polling, or at least a sense that there is no need to make Nato an issue when it’s pretty far removed from the underlying issue of independence. It was basically a stick for unionists to beat the SNP with, so why not remove that option? And no-one will remember this u-turn when it comes to 2014, now is the time to get the position the SNP wants to hold for the next ~30 months.
I don’t see the position on Europe changing; an independent Scotland with its own seat at the European Union is one of the SNP’s strongest cards.
#56 by Barbarian on April 10, 2012 - 10:51 pm
Can’t agree on Europe, not while Spain is about to drop the whole lot in the proverbial.
On the u-turn, it is political, since it would be unpopular – ie vote loser. It won’t be remembered, but I still think the SNP have difficultly with defence issues, and find it hard to come across as confident on these matters.
#57 by Tock Jamson on April 10, 2012 - 7:52 pm
If Scotland becomes independent and moves nuclear weapons to somewhere in Cumbria or Northern England, Scotland would still suffer the fallout (in both senses of the word) of a nuclear attack on the UK. Even then it’s a slightly twisted argument- essentially the end of humanity as we know it, millions dead and we in Scotland are supposed to sit here calibrating the impact of this in relation to how it would’ve been pre-indy? If Scotland was devasted by a nuclear attack will the Labour Party campaign against Alex Salmond for promising a Three Mile Island but delivering a Chernobyl? Couldn’t be worse than their last campaign.
“One very good reason for going for independence is that it removes us from the UK government’s foreign (/defence) policy which is basically one word, “ditto” whatever the US says and does. And, as far as the Middle East goes, US policy is that whatever Israel does must be right!”
I have to say I don’t find this line of thinking a convincing argument for independence. If you take your opinion on UK/NATO policy as it is then what is independence for Scotland going to change? Essentially this position is pessimistic egotism – the thrust of the argument isn’t to change politics in the Middle East, it’s to ensure that whatever happens we in Scotland can take the moral high ground, to be distinct from ‘Uncle Sam’ and the ‘sordid special relationship’. If I vote Yes in 2014 I can sit and watch any unfolding calamity in the MIddle East safe in the knowledge that I, Tock Jamson, am not directly implicated by my government. How comforting for the Iranians, Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians or Lebanese who will die.
Much of the frenzied rhetoric heard in the last ten years is like this – ‘not in my name’, no ‘illegal’ war. These don’t oppose foreign policy decisions or military engagement on points of political principle, they are self-centred attempts to assert moral virtue.
If I vote Yes it certainly won’t be to erect a morality firewall between me and a potential Operation Iranian Freedom.
#58 by Indy on April 10, 2012 - 10:32 pm
Of course Scotland would be at risk, so would Ireland and – depending on which way the wind was blowing so could a number of other countries be,
But that’s not a reason to do nothing.
The most basic reason for getting rid of nuclear weapons are that they are evil. Spin it any way you like, any weapon with the capacity to kill thousands in seconds and pollute the environment for decades to come is evil. The deterrence argument only takes you so far and is, in the end, a coward’s argument.
But the second reason is more pragmatic. Why on earth should we voluntarily spend money on this? What good does it do us? It does us no good at all. It is a horrendous waste of cash and at this time in particular we can’t afford it. Simple as that.
#59 by Angus McLellan on April 10, 2012 - 7:57 pm
By any measure, £2.5 billion – the number given in Jennifer Dempsie’s article in the Scotsman – is a lot of money to spend on defence. It would be quite simply impossible to spend that sort of sum on minding your own bloody business. That’s true no matter how broadly defence spending was defined. And NATO adds a mechanism to make that interference much easier to sell. It’s not just us, after all, it’s the International Community.
So the rule of Chekhov’s Gun applies here. If substantial “expeditionary” defence forces existed, along with a framework within which they could be used, then it would be a very big surprise if they did not get used to intervene somewhere before the curtain came down. It happened in Denmark, whose defence policy from 1864 to 1992 or so can summarised as mostly fatalistic resignation and apathy with a sprinkling of pacifism, so it would probably happen here too.
So if you want to keep on minding others’ business, joining NATO and arguing for a defence budget of £2.5 billion is certainly a good start. If not …
#60 by Ben Achie on April 10, 2012 - 8:47 pm
#39
There’s nothing “frenzied” about my comments, Tock, and to suggest there is no alternative to simply following US policy is nonesense. You’re the person who referred to the “sordid special relationship”, not me! If rUk still wants and can possibly afford a “nuclear deterrent” then let it go on the south coast of England, and preferrably not too far from London. I wonder how long it will be kept then?
#61 by Iain Menzies on April 10, 2012 - 9:33 pm
What does it matter where it is?
In 50 years the UK has not had a serious nuclear accident involving Trident/Polaris or the V-Force.
If there is an attack on the UK using nukes, it makes more sense to hit London than Faslane.
#62 by Indy on April 10, 2012 - 10:36 pm
It matters because it’s our country and we should decide what is allowed in it.
We’ll have a vote.
I think we all know how that vote will turn out don’t you?
You would find it extraordinarily difficult to come up with any convincing arguments why an independent Scotland should have nuclear weapons. It’s a crazy argument frankly. It’s pretty crazy in the UK context and would be even madder in the context of a nation of 5 million.
#63 by Angus McLellan on April 11, 2012 - 1:12 am
I agree that an accident with Trident is much less likely that it was with 50s/60s vintage air-dropped nukes – the UK came very close to an accidental nuclear explosion when a USAF B-47 crashed at RAF Lakenheath in 1957. But that doesn’t mean we should be complacent. And driving nuclear weapons through Glasgow is a damn poor idea.
Anyway, never happened yet isn’t an argument that’s accepted by the Chalmerses and Murphys and Robertsons and Reids of the world unless it suits them. After all, anyone 63 or younger wasn’t born yet the last time an RAF fighter officially shot down an enemy aircraft. And yet the RAF still has a lot of expensive aircraft whose main purpose is to shoot down hostile aircraft. Funny old world, no?
#64 by Iain Menzies on April 11, 2012 - 1:20 pm
I dont know if driving a nuke through Glasgow is a good idea or not (tempted to say which part of Glasgow).
I dont know what condition those weapons are in, I’m more familiar with the designs of the V-force nukes. I dont know if the detonators are attached during transport, if they arent, your not doing much more than shifting some uranium.
As for your second para, well one is tempted to suggest that nuclear deterrence played a part in that, of course more to the point your only right because you make such a narrow point. There hasnt been a year since the end of the cold war, never mind before, when RAF air defence assets havent been scrambled to intercept an intruder into British air space (usually russian), but then you are only talking about the RAF. There was that little thing called the falklands war you know. Harriers, ‘Sharky’ Ward, you know all that stuff?
#65 by Angus McLellan on April 11, 2012 - 6:52 pm
Since UK Trident warheads could be significantly different from the US W76 device that AWE started with I think the answer is “no idea” on most details. Fused or not, modern nuclear weapons are designed to survive fires and compression in an accident without serious – apart from the not-so-trivial matter of the HEU being spread about – which is indeed a lot more than could be said for 50s RAF nuclear weapons (certainly anything with a Green Grass “physics package”) where the consequences of an accident could have included some instant sunshine and a very deep hole in the ground. But safer-than is not safe and I would just as soon not have have to take a dosimeter with me when I go to the office.
As for my factoid, it may be narrow but it’s true all the same. Remind me, how many fighters do the Navy have these days anyway? The same as the number of maritime patrol aircraft the RAF have isn’t it?
#66 by Don Francisco on April 10, 2012 - 8:49 pm
I didn’t think Prof Chalmers article was bad. By concentrating on the figure of £2bn, I think we miss the point – even if we spent twice as much on defence, an independant Scotland would need to make some difficult decisons. It’s economics not politics, you cut your cloth accordingly. I hardly see his point as being ‘pro-unionist’ or ‘anti-nationalist’.
As for his points about Trident or NATO – my general impression is that he’s trying to indicate that these issues make ‘seperation’ complicated. NATO is certain to have expectations in regards the nuclear deterrent. An independant Scotland may have to expect a little give and take, but that’s the nature of alliances. If Scotland ‘plays ball’ with Trident to rUK & NATO, then it’s sure to get something in return.
With this in mind I’m not surprised the SNP are giving their position re NATO second thought. Taking out principles, making a bold stand on issue doesn’t result in any gain for them.
#67 by Grahamski on April 11, 2012 - 7:51 am
It always depresses me a little when I read folk on the left claim how much more democratic, left-leaning, fairer, peace-loving etc etc the Scots are to the rest of the UK.
It’s always struck me as a dangerous combination of ‘wha’s like us’ arrogance and intellectual complacency.
For example, how many Scots support getting rid of all our nukes in the face of countries like Iran tooling up? I suspect there wouldn’t be a huge majority in favour of that option.
It’s easy to get a healthy majority to say they are against Trident. When I worked for CND I helped conduct opinion polls which gave huge percentages of Scots against Trident.
What we could never get however was anything like as big a majority who were for total nuclear disarmament.
As I’m sure folk know if the UK abandons Trident it pretty much abandons its nuclear capability, I’m not convinced that those who say they oppose Trident are aware of this.
#68 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2012 - 9:31 am
“For example, how many Scots support getting rid of all our nukes in the face of countries like Iran tooling up?”
Iran’s quarrel is with Israel and America. They don’t give a toss about us. Think about it – Iran nuking the UK would be like a man with a single bullet in his gun having two enemies pointing fully-loaded guns at his head, and opting to shoot one of their cheerleaders instead. Ahmadinejad is mad, not stupid.
“As I’m sure folk know if the UK abandons Trident it pretty much abandons its nuclear capability, I’m not convinced that those who say they oppose Trident are aware of this.”
I’m completely aware of this. It’s why I support the abandonment of Trident.
#69 by rullko on April 11, 2012 - 12:26 pm
As I’m sure folk know if the UK abandons Trident it pretty much abandons its nuclear capability, I’m not convinced that those who say they oppose Trident are aware of this.
I’d be surprised if there were many who thought there was any distinction between the two at all.
It’s also probably also worth mentioning that a majority of MSPS and Scottish MPs voted against Trident renewal. Seems likely they had some idea of the ramifications.
#70 by rullko on April 11, 2012 - 12:28 pm
Oopsie. Buggered up the second link. Here it is.
#71 by Grahamski on April 11, 2012 - 1:22 pm
MSPs voted against Trident?
They don’t have the democratic mandate to make decisions on reserved matters.
#72 by Jeff on April 11, 2012 - 2:23 pm
Who said anything about making decisions?
They can still vote on such things, have an opinion:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6752089.stm
#73 by Grahamski on April 11, 2012 - 2:40 pm
They certainly can have an opinion.
I wonder if you would be quite so sanguine if MPs decided to trespass so flagrantly on devolved issues?
#74 by rullko on April 11, 2012 - 2:35 pm
Indeed. You’ll have noticed Trident renewal is going ahead regardless.
#75 by Indy on April 12, 2012 - 8:08 am
But there is a huge majority Grahamski, that is recorded in opinion poll after opinion poll.
Your logic is that of a ned – if the other side are tooling up we need to be tooled up as well.
That’s the mentality of people who carry a knife just in case – the kind of person I seem to recall you wanted to send to jail!
#76 by Grahamski on April 12, 2012 - 11:33 am
I think you may have misread my post.
I support unilateral disarmament.
I was merely commenting on the difference between those who want Trident scrapped and those who would be comfortable with total nuclear disarmament.
I have still to be convinced that most folk realise scrapping Trident means scrapping our entire nuclear capability.
#77 by Grahamski on April 11, 2012 - 10:35 am
Mr Daniel
“Iran’s quarrel is with Israel and America.”
I think you’ll find Iran’s quarrel is with Western notions of democracy and freedom.
“I’m completely aware of this.”
I’m sure you are, however, I’m not sure the majority of folk in Scotland are equally aware.
I am a supporter of unilateral nuclear disarmament.
However, I am not a supporter of the kind of posturing so beloved of some on the left regarding nuclear weapons.
For example, we had the cynically dishonest claims from the SNP and their Trotskyist fellow-travellers in the last election that a way through the current financial crisis was to cancel Trident immediately – a policy which would have cost MORE than letting the current generation of Trident run its course.
We need to to convince the people of the UK that nuclear weapons are a useless obscenity which endangers them rather than protects them.
The kind of arrogant nonsense spouted about how Scots are more decent and peace-loving than the rest of the UK may well advance the separatist agenda.
However, it does nothing buthighlights the essentially parochial nature of arguing about nuclear weapons through a ‘Scottish’ perspective rather than a UK one.
#78 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2012 - 2:28 pm
“Iran’s quarrel is with Western notions of democracy and freedom”
Urgh, pass the sick bag please. Come on, that’s just arrant nonsense spouted by the USA and her allies to soften us up for the impending war with Iran. Look a bit deeper (preferably by utilising more neutral news sources) and you’ll see the prevailing notion that Iran wants to blow up the western world is nothing but a sham.
Here’s an article in on Azerbaijan news site with Ahmadinejad calling Western Democracy a big lie. It’s not exactly all that far from things critics of American foreign policy come out with all the time. You’ll never see the media covering Noam Chomsky calmly explaining why the Americanised neo-liberalist world-view we see is a complete sham, because it wouldn’t do to highlight esteemed academics criticising Western “democracy”, but when it’s the leader of a nation that has oil that we want to exploit, it’s easy to twist his words to make him sound like some evil warmonger.
A few choice quotes from the article:
– “Western democracy is a humiliation to humanity, but of benefit to capitalists.”
– “Nothing is changing, and nobody is happy. People have to look around and see that it is impossible to deal with world’s status quo”
– “Around 7 bln people live in the world, 3 bln of which are hungry, and 1,2 bln cannot even have a decent meal once a day,” Ahmadinejad said. “Cruelty is everywhere as well as aggression and corruption, and there is no security, or justice”.
– “Africa is the place of God given wealth. Now all has been taken away by European and American companies, and people live in poverty there”
– “Heaviest dominance by the arrogant powers has been imposed on the nations today. Imperialist powers have never before humiliated humanity to this extend”
I find it very difficult to pick a fault in the stuff he says there. He sounds like any other critic of western neo-liberalism, and that last bit about imperialism sounds like someone wanting to defend his nation from foreign occupation, rather than someone wanting to occupy other nations. It’s quite startling that you so readily take the “Iran wants to destroy the west” argument at face value, and yet talk of parochialism in the nuclear debate in Scotland.
#79 by Grahamski on April 11, 2012 - 2:38 pm
Ahmadinejad said. “Cruelty is everywhere as well as aggression and corruption, and there is no security, or justice”.
I take it he is describing Iran when he said that.
This from the contents page of Amnesty’s most recent report on Iran:
1. Discrimination in the field of employment on grounds of ethnic or religious identity, or
gender ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
Article 8: right to form independent trade unions and to function freely…………………………6
2. Ban on forming independent trade unions ……………………………………………………….6
3. Draft reform of Labour Code further undermines the right to form independent trade
unions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
4. Persecution of labour rights activists………………………………………………………………7
5. Reprisals for striking ………………………………………………………………………………….8
Articles 10 and 2: Right of everyone to enter marriage with free consent ……………………….8
6. Very low and discriminatory minimum ages of marriage and forced and early marriage ..8
Article 11 and 2: Right to adequate housing …………………………………………………………..9
7. Discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to adequate housing ………………………….9
Articles 13 and 2: Right of everyone to education without discrimination of any kind ………11
8. Discriminatory limits placed on access to higher education based on gender …………..11
9. Limits placed on higher education based on political activities ……………………………12
10. Limits placed on higher education based on membership of the Baha’i faith…………13
11. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity: Article 2 ……..14
#80 by Jeff on April 11, 2012 - 2:49 pm
OK, I might draw a line under this one here.
Doug is pointing out (quite reasonably) that Iran is not so bad that it deserves to be nuked into submission or bombed to bits by the US and its acolyte coalition.
Graham is pointing out (again quite reasonably) that Iran has a long way to go to be on the right side of Amnesty International.
There, a score draw, I suspect I’ve saved you both about ten rounds of going in circles.
#81 by Doug Daniel on April 11, 2012 - 11:10 pm
Spoilsport!
Can I just point out that Graham is utilising the ad hominem logical fallacy, as Iran’s poor human rights record (which hardly places them in isolation in the Middle East) does not make what Ahmadinejad says about western democracy any less relevant…?
#82 by Indy on April 12, 2012 - 8:05 am
There is one other point I would like to make on the whole Iran thing. Dislike them as much as people may do but we still ought to try and see things from their point of view, just so we can understand what might be driving them.
And you just have to look at Iran on a map to understand some of it – Iraq to one side, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the other. There is little point in people saying to Iran come on, play nice, give up your weapons of mass destruction and America will leave you alone. Iraq did that but America did not leave them alone did they?
Ahmadinejad might be every kind of crazy but he is not wrong in feeling under threat is he? And possibly there is some method underlying his madness because if complying with UN resolutions can’t stop you from being invaded maybe appearing to be completely mental might be enough to put people off? He may of course be genuinely completely mental but if he isn’t I could see some underlying logic in the act.
#83 by Doug Daniel on April 12, 2012 - 9:02 am
Exactly!
It troubles me that people fall for the line given to them by journalists so readily. More worrying still is the fact that these journalists seem to believe their own hype. When I was in a band, we had a song with the line “let’s protect our children by teaching Chomsky in our schools”, and I do think we would be a better society if more people read Manufacturing Consent so they properly understood media bias and how to identify it.
There’s a great clip on YouTube of Noam Chomksy being interviewed by Andrew Marr and making a complete fool of him, showing up just how clueless most journalists are and how they don’t even realise the part they play in censoring what we see and read. It happens all over the place, but it’s particularly prevalent when reporting on places like Iran and Cuba. We always hear of people who hate the Cuban regime, as if there aren’t people in western “democracies” that utterly despise their own governments, and never hear of the ways Cuba is superior to much of the western world in terms of health and education. These kind of reports are always done in a way that would make you think life was perfect under “our” way, which it just isn’t.
There are countries that ban people from protesting, but in a way that’s far more honest than what we see here, where people are allowed to protest but are completely ignored. What good has the freedom to protest done against a Tory government hell-bent on destroying the fabric of society? What good is a free press if it censors itself and is a slave to big business? And what’s the point of having elections if you get the same government, regardless of which party you vote for?
There’s a difference between being free and being comfortable.
#84 by Grahamski on April 12, 2012 - 10:58 am
I really wish I hadn’t said Iran.
I feel like that guy in ‘The Life Of Brian’ who said his halibut was good enough for Jehovah!
The point I wanted to make but obviously failed miserably in doing so should have been a simple one: Total nuclear disarmament is a more difficult sell to folk if they perceive a nuclear threat from abroad.
I am somewhat puzzled by those who presumably would describe themselves as progressive falling over themselves to defend the right of a totalitarian governments to subjugate its citizens.
The topsy-turvey morality of the self-righteous ‘left’ never fails to give me the dry boak….
#85 by rullko on April 11, 2012 - 12:31 pm
Underpinning each of these objectives is the requirement to retain a permanent seat at the United Nations. In order to ensure this, rUK needs to be a nuclear power.
This claim is often made, but what’s the justification for it? Don’t all permanent UNSC members have a veto over alterations to that membership? If so, how can any be booted out against their will?
#86 by Chris Fyfe on April 11, 2012 - 1:18 pm
I wonder if a lot of the opposition to Trident is in fact opposition to having Trident here: NIMBYism if you like. It is not always a rejection of nuclear weapons. The ‘send them to England’ argument one often hears seems to endorse that.
I would be worried about any moves to keep Trident in Scotland in return for cash. That is pretty sordid.
Now I don’t favour independence, but getting rid of Trident, particularly if it could not be redeployed to elsewhere in the UK is one of the attractions of independence.
#87 by Indy on April 12, 2012 - 7:55 am
No it’s not. I am a member of CND but to a certain extent I think that’s a bit pointless. I don’t feel I have to go about arguing that nuclear weapons are wrong and a massive waste of money because pretty much everyone I meet in real life – as opposed to the internet – already believes that.
Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the nuclear warheads are actually here, they are in our backyard. But if that’s the case maybe us saying no would be exactly the shot in the arm CND south of the border might need? Because having them in your back yard might concentrate minds and make people think do we really want or need these things.
#88 by Grahamski on April 12, 2012 - 11:03 am
If nuclear warheads are based anywhere within the UK they are in our backyard.
That is the nature of nuclear weaponry.
And that, for me, is why it requires a UK solution.
Pingback: Non-nationalists for independence « Better Nation
#89 by Chris Fyfe on April 12, 2012 - 2:15 pm
Although cruise missiles were all over the South of England for years and there is still AWE in Aldermarston, Berkshire, where the Trident warheads are maintained.