The Scotsman delights today in bringing us the news of Jim Sillars' 'bombshell' that the former deputy leader of the party believes the SNP should have policies to keep Trident and join NATO.
I don't know where certain individuals stand in the supposed fundamentalist vs gradualist struggle (particularly as I barely register on either score), but it sounds a bit like Jim is letting his impatient fundamentalist nature cloud his better thinking.
On Trident he says:
"The retention for the UK of the Trident base, for a limited time, under lease, should not be an earth-shattering compromise to make for the sake of gaining a clear way to independence."
To be fair, it is merely a compromise and hardly an about turn on the current policy. It also bears hallmarks of the policy suggested by Angus Robertson where Scottish army bases could be leased out to rUK.
However, opposition to Trident is one of the SNP's strongest cards and muddying the water over the issue would surely dilute the Nationalist's core appeal. The public are in favour of scrapping Trident and even a majority of Scottish MPs and MSPs are in favour of scrapping Trident. It also keeps the SNP separate from Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems in one eminently sensible step.
I don't envisage Canada being happy to hold nuclear weapons for the USA or Sweden being happy to hold them for France, Scotland shouldn't be happy to hold Trident for rUK.
As for NATO Jim says,
"The SNP membership has to ask itself whether adherence to a policy forged in the depths of the Cold War is worth holding on to in a world that is now fundamentally different, if it arouses too much international opposition and thereby undermines the main objective of gaining votes for independence."
Sillars has a stronger argument here and although the SNP still needs to communicate its policy to a public that perhaps doesn't yet appreciate the reasons for it, it is not necessarily the correct move to sign up to NATO just because it's easier to do so and makes other countries happy.
It is easy to forget that Ireland, Sweden and Finland are not members of NATO and there is no public clamour for these peaceful nations to go joining the club soon.
Indeed, according to Noam Chomsky, the globally respected political campaigner, the aims and political use of NATO are questionable at least.
From a recent Guardian interview:
The veteran activist has described the US invasion of Afghanistan as "one of the most immoral acts in modern history", which united the jihadist movement around al-Qaida, sharply increased the level of terrorism and was "perfectly irrational – unless the security of the population is not the main priority". Which, of course, Chomsky believes, it is not. "States are not moral agents," he says, and believes that now that Obama is escalating the war, it has become even clearer that the occupation is about the credibility of Nato and US global power.
It is easier to just sign up to NATO and go along with Trident so as not to step on anyone's toes but both are the wrong moves.
Aiming for an independent Scotland that is merely an extension of what the UK is and stands for is surely a massive tactical error. It's only if the public feel there is a genuine choice on offer, a radical, preferable alternative that they will feel motivated to get out and vote for a better constitutional setup.
There's a touch of defeatism in Sillars' argument but I suspect Salmond and Sturgeon are made of stronger stuff and will keep the policies of NATO and Trident in place for now and beyond.
Salmond vs Trump
53 seconds ago
20 comments:
"Aiming for an independent Scotland that is merely an extension of what the UK is and stands for is surely a massive tactical error. It's only if the public feel there is a genuine choice on offer, a radical, preferable alternative that they will feel motivated to get out and vote for a better constitutional setup".
Absolutely agree. How interesting that these - and other core policy issues (such as "let's drop the Referendum Bill plans" Jeff) are emerging immediately after the GNE result. Now is the time to retain the distinctiveness and powerful arguments for independence and what it could mean for a very different (non-nuclear) Scotland.
Dilution is not the solution.
I agree entirely.
I can understand Angus Robertson saying that the UK could lease some bases, that's a fair enough stance, and is internationally "normal" - but Trident is just a step too far for me. As Trident was one of the reasons I signed up to the SNP, I really would have to have a long and difficult think about my membership.
As for NATO, I think Sillars isn't wide off the mark, but I do think he's over egging it slightly. I don't really think the rest of the planet CARES if Scotland is in or out of NATO - I certainly don't see our opposition to membership as being big enough to have any effect on the regaining of our sovereignty or not!
'Dilution is not the solution'. Cracking line there Cruachan and yes, the media certainly thinks it smells blood.
. I do think there's a subtle difference in terms of the referendum and the policies though.
Having the right policies is like sitting oneself in the fanciest, fastest, most appealing car one can. Going all out for any referendum could be tantamount to driving said car at top speed into a brick wall.
"I don't know where certain individuals stand in the supposed fundamentalist vs gradualist struggle (particularly as I barely register on either score), but it sounds a bit like Jim is letting his impatient fundamentalist nature cloud his better thinking."
But I suppose he's being gradualist in that his strategy would compromise the type of independence sought.
I don't take Sillars' comments as being defeatist or even mischief-making.
They are to me an expression of Realpolitik, albeit from someone no longer at the wheel of the SNP.
They seem like the various signals in various confrontations or crisis points where their object is test the water and signal that a solution could always be possible, given the other side moving too.
I disagree Stuart. Compromising principles just to bring about independence faster sounds rather fundamentalist to me.
Seeing independence as the be all and end all is surely not the answer if you lose sight of what an independent Scotland would actually stand for.
Not sure Jim Sillars is right on Trident, but I see his point. In the short term where is the rump UK to base its subs?....its not just a matter of sailing them down to Plymouth.
On NATO, I think Sillars is spot on. The policy is 70s baggage when NATO was an altogether different beast. Leaving NATO would send out all the wrong signal and would be a political and economic disaster at the very time Scotland needed international friends. And a vote loser for no apparent reason. Get independence, decide later - just like the monarchy!
No real comparrison with Ireland, Finland etc - they never were in NATO so did not have to leave. But if you want to look at Ireland, look what the Free State signed up to in 1922
I think the SNP will adopt a pragmatic position on NATO. If an independent Scotland can remain a member of NATO while maintaining a non-nuclear stance then we should consider that.
As regards the Trident argument. Jim Sillars is howling at the moon there. There is no chance of the SNP changing its position on that and neither should we.
indy
I too agree the SNP in reality is likely to adopt a pragmatic approach on NATO. I just dont fully understand why its polcy doesnt say this. In a referendum the current policy will lose votes and friends - and in a tight contest could make all the difference. Why have a policy no one really belives in - even SNP members?
A vote loser?
Have you ever met a voter who has said "Oh yeah, I'm all for independence, but not outside of NATO!" - because I haven't!
A post-independence Scotland would have to consciously apply to join any international organisation, such as the EU, the UN or NATO, it's not a fact of leaving, it's a fact of deciding who we join. And on the international stage, it's here where the recognition-as-a-state makes the key role.
Between this story, the Jerusalem Post and the UK vetoing the CotI post in Edinburgh though, the Unionist press is certainly grasping at straws to discredit the idea of Scotland playing any game on the international stage.
Grogipher - this NATO story was put their by the well known unionist Jim Sillars!
There are NATO bases in Scotland, lots of them and Scotland forms a huge part of NATO's communication and comand network - we would have to leave, make a concious decision.
I just dont see the point of tying this up with an independence referendum.
And it would be a vote loser - people would rightly fear international isolation, and it would lose Scotland lots of potential internation allies, allies we will need during and after any indendence referendum - and turn agnostics into opponents.
And in campaigning terms the unionists would rip us apart becuse intellectually and politically the policy is all over the place - ask nat MSP, they explain it a dozen different ways. The unionists would focus on this, make it an issue and have the media allies to do it. They just aint had to test us hard on this one yet
Dump this baggage before it does real damage.
It doesn't matter who said it - was it suggested at our National Council/Conference/Assembly, or was it the Unionist Press blowing things out of all proportion when it's just one man's opinions.
If that's the correct response, then why isn't the same thing done when the Labour MSPs who have been CND all of their lives, suddenly vote to retain Trident?
Are Sweden and Ireland international pariah states now? Cut off from International negotiations in everything? Unable to take part in anything on the world stage? No. NATO membership does not equate to that in the modern world. I agree that NATO is not what it was in the '70s, but that doesn't mean we should run towards it with open, unquestioning arms.
If we can make some cash from letting NATO use our country, then grand - but that's not really directly related to our membership status.
I don't understand the argument that we should shy away from the harder parts of independence because it's "too much hassle" - it's a load of nonsense. If we were to regain our statehood, then there would be hassle yes - currently it's the UK, not Scotland, that's a member of NATO, and thus the UK's army that's at the core of NATO operations - not "Scotland's" army. If we were to be members or not, all of this would have to be renegotiated as part of the settlement between the rUK and Scotland - what military infrastructure would Scotland retain and what would it give up?
I would agree though, that Defence is our weakest policy area. In many areas we're just a mess - I mean, complaining about any MOD job losses, when we know we're never going to have an army that big when we're independent, for example, is a nonsense.
As for the Fundy/Grad argument, I agree with Jeff; I would put JS into the 'fundy' camp as he wants independence at any cost, while the grads (of which I count myself as one) would rather take the longer road if it means we stick to our principles (such as refusal to have Trident on our soil/in our waters).
I guess what's really worrying is the fact that real honest discussion, about highly charged issues, only come from politicians who are in semi retirement. The current lot are too interested in how they are portrayed in the media.
Sillars, McLeish, Steele, etc..., talk openly and honestly about issues which our current politicians can only talk about behind closed doors.
Grogipher
I dont agree this is about shying away from the difficult bits of statehood, but rather about the best way to win it in the first place.
You mention Sweden and Ireland, but what about Belgium of The Czech republic, indeed the vast majority of Europeamn countries. They are in NATO, but that doesnt mean they aint independent states.
I also stand by my view that leaving NATO and never being in it are two different situations. And leaving NATO for a brand new state, and one that has historically been a big part of the NATO infrastructure a big change - and one that is just being unecessarily tagged onto the indpendence debate, due to current SNP policy.
Under SNP policy, we'd stay in the EU, the UN, The Commonweath and dozens of other important international organisations,( under the Law of Sucessor States), we'd even keep the monarchy in the interests of continuity. But on NATO alone we'd leave as part of the independence package.
It just makes no sense. And Im no fan of NATO - if it were down to me we'd leave tomorrow. But I dont see the point of linking this personal viewpoint to the case for Scottish independence. Indeed I can see all the dangers.
"So President Obama/Sarkosy/Merkle, what is your view on the forthcoming Scottish Independence vote?......
Maybe Castro would reply positively!
"They are in NATO, but that doesnt mean they aint independent states."
Sorry mate, I don't get what you mean?
And as for the successor state comment, I'm not so sure... From the legal stuff I've looked into, I think Scotland would have to apply to the EU, the UN, the Commonwealth...
I don't think most voters give a hoot about our specific policy on NATO. I just think it would make things easier politically if people did not have that rod to beat us with. It can be used to make us look isolationist - even pacifist - and most voters would be a bit wary of that.
The core of our policy is non nuclear - we don't want nuclear weapons in our land, sea or air space, whether they are ours or anyone else's. That was the reason for not being a member of NATO because it was a nuclear alliance. That is not so clear cut now. There are non-nuclear members. Therefore we should be pragmatic about the extent to which we are prepared to cooperate while retaining our principled stand on nuclear weapons, which has widespread public support.
Re retired politicians making statements on policy. That is fine. They are retired. However current politicians cannot do that - it's called making policy on the hoof and is generally frowned on! In the SNP at least policy is still decided by the party's democratic bodies not by individual politicians.
Re the fundy/grad Sillars position.
I am not sure we really have fundy/grad wings now.
However the people I think would be most likely to be regarded as fundies will be the people most horrified by Jim Sillars' suggestions.
So if he was ever a fundy he sure ain't one now!
Cracking article Jeff. Jim makes an extremely sensible point which you can extend to more prosaic matters. When Scotland gains its independence do we run tandem agencies like DVLA for a while (business as usual) until we are geared up to creating our own bureaucracies. Or is a 'big bang' more desirable? (Excuse the un-intended nuclear pun.)
We'll routinely be letting Royal Navy ships pass thru our waters, so why can't we continue to lease out our facilities and expertise for as long as they have value and until our principles become practical..?
I think you're all missing the point of Jim Sillars' essay.
Namely that the SNP in governance has got to think and lay the groundwork for Scotland as a State in its battle for independence from Westminster.
I believe his position on the desirability of Scotland being part of EFTA as opposed to plunging into the democratically deficient EU is wise. Not a clever move if it can be avoided, especially for a country just re-establishing its identity.
The NATO and Trident questions are in many ways tied in with each other. And, once the UK vanity position is removed from the equation a pragmatic response by the Scottish Government could both allow time for the removal and appraisal of Scotland's role, if any, within NATO.
My opposition to NATO in its present form is fundamentally down to it being a cheap outpost for the Pentagon neo-cons.
On another front re the GNE results.
If Labour truly believe it is a breakthrough, I fear their suffering the delusion of the desperate.
This is only my opinion, but apart from the name Labour being part of the DNA of the inhabitants of sink estates, it's also synonymous with the 'working man' syndrome. A syndrome that has since the late 70's morphed into the 'benefits-man'. In short they vote for Labour because they believe their benefits will be safe.
It may be easy to despise this despair by disfranchisement though I more inclined to despise those who having created it, do nothing about it other than exploit it.
It would be be just as "honourable" for the SNP to go to the hustings on a platform of declaring unilateral independence and promising to raise pensions and benefits by £50 per week. Then, after they'd won by a landslide, said, we can't afford it.
So argue for principles by all means, but without the base to implement and apply them they're void of substance. And to those existing in penury, even if, and its a big 'if', they're heard they have little appeal and less value.
Jeff,
I have a post on this over at Joan McAlpine's blog (under 'execute' - hopefully, not me!):
http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/2009/11/the-scotsman-report-details-today-of-a-new-pamphlet-by-former-snp-deputy-leader-jim-sillars-which-says-the-party-should-ditch.html
Post a Comment