In many ways, it is the key to the debate around Scottish independence, with a voter’s visceral reaction to this simple poser being a greater predictor of where they would cast their vote than anything around actual policy debate.
At least it was in 2014, with Brexit giving those on my side of the debate the opportunity to say that Scotland could now have both, with the UK withdrawing from the world’s largest single market.
As I pointed out in my previous article, in the security sphere, I broke this down to the ‘carrier conundrum’, whereby some would focus on Scotland’s loss of these hulls would not only provide a metaphor for our lack of global ambition but literally make us less safe – although like much of the case for the Union in 2014, it can be argued that time has not been kind to the argument about carrier strike being the supreme demonstration of ‘Global Britain’ and its status as a UN P5 member.
Written by Martin Docherty-Hughes MP, Member of Parliament for West Dunbartonshire since 2015 and SNP Defence Spokesperson since 2023, this article is part of our series exploring diverse perspectives on defence and security issues. While the opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the stance of the UK Defence Journal, we believe in the importance of presenting a variety of viewpoints. Understanding different perspectives is essential for a comprehensive grasp of complex subjects. For more articles in this series, please click here.
I’ve never taken it personally: it’s a simple fact that the history of international relations is almost entirely written from the perspective of ‘great powers’ or larger states despite the fact that non-large – or as my former SNP MP colleague Stephen Gethins always says, ‘normal’ – states make up the overwhelming majority of UN member states. It was, in many ways, ever thus – “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must” is one of the most-quoted lines from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War.
Where Scotland would sit among the ‘normal’ states is also subject to some conjecture, with the country rejoining the international community from towards the middle of the pack in population terms but towards the top in per-capita economic terms, with a developed market economy, high level of education and a strong international brand.
While even the strongest of independence’s critics would agree that Scotland is certainly not a ‘micro-state’, where it lies on that spectrum towards more established middle powers like the Netherlands, Sweden or Switzerland is open to debate: with even that accepted cohort of middle states being replaced by a growing list of larger, middle-income states that nonetheless exert a strong regional or sectoral pull.
The prominent scholar of the Liberal approach to International Relations, Robert Keohane defined two types of states: ‘system effective’ and ‘system ineffective’, something that worked nicely during the Cold War and through its immediate aftermath – but you’d need to have been living in a cave for the last decade to have missed that these assumptions are now under massive strain. Whether it be in the form of the ‘poly-crisis’ attacking many of the institutions of modernity and globalisation or the shift to what I like to call a ‘polycentric’ global order (after a wise Professor once pointed out to me that ‘multipolar’ doesn’t work given an object can only have two poles), mean that being ‘system effective’ can’t be taken for granted anymore.
Given that we are most often hearing about this in the context of the United States as it moves on from the comfort of its unipolar moment in the post-Cold War era, it almost goes without saying that this applies even more so to the UK if there was indeed anyone who believes that the UK has proven itself to be consistently ‘system effective’ in the last two decades as it has battled the reality of an acceleration in the comparative decline it has faced since the end of WW2.
Strangely enough, I think the recent history of smaller states may provide a handy road map not only for Scotland but for the UK, with or without us. While the asymmetry of international relations means small states can’t rely on getting their way in a straight scrap, that does not mean that many have not developed a sophisticated and sustained strategy of international institutional engagement, which has led to concrete successes.
Indeed, the Professor of Scandinavian Studies at the University of Washington, Christine Ingebritsen, coined the phrase ‘norm entrepreneurship’ in a 2002 paper describing how “a group of militarily weak, economically dependent small states pursues ‘social power’ by acting as a norm entrepreneur in the international community”, citing the creation of a common security institution (OSCE), modern ideas of ‘sustainable development’, and encouragement of cooperation in institutions as the legacy of the Scandinavian states’ foreign policy in the modern era: to which a more up-to-date example must surely added with the Baltic and Nordic states’ strong stances against Russian expansionism that will surely embarrass many more ‘system effective’ states when histories of this period are written.
As I wrote in my last article, an independent Scotland’s core Foreign and Security Policy interests will be clear and understood by both practitioners and the public they will serve, much in the same way we see in the Scandinavian states cited by Ingebritsen: something almost certainly aided by the removal of any need to play a global or ‘system effective’ role and maintain this narrow focus.
And while on all areas of independence policy, opponents have tried to emphasise the uncertainty and risk the enterprise might involve, Scotland is, in fact, lucky to be surrounded by so many states which serve as a vital comparator to the status quo and to hark back to the link between economic and military security highlighted in my first article, these are states which we know unquestionably to be wealthier, more equal, less corrupt and more democratic than the United Kingdom.
Because while a ‘bigger is better’ answer to the question I posed at the start might lead one to recoil from the idea of Scotland ‘going it alone’, there are enough general systemic and country-specific examples pointing towards the opposite being true: in an increasingly anarchic global system, small states have been showing they have what it takes to not only survive but prosper for some time.
In specific terms, it could have been said until Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that there were broadly three models for small states in Scotland’s neighbourhood: Ireland, Sweden / Finland, and Denmark / Norway, with all of these states having their own historical experiences that shaped current policy.
Ireland’s rebirth against the background of the wars of Independence and a bitter Civil War in 1922 with the UK supporting one side meant that NATO membership was always going to be a non-starter, even if, as I previously stated, it has a close but completely opaque security relationship with London today. The Scandinavian states’ experience of wartime defined what they thought about the Washington Treaty: Denmark and Norway, with bitter experiences of invasion, were for it for the same reasons that Sweden’s avoidance of occupation pushed it to stick to its history of neutrality.
The idea of ‘neutrality’ should also be addressed with regard to Scotland. While a state like Ireland officially proclaims its neutrality, no serious scholar of International Relations (including those I’ve met in Ireland) would take that seriously, especially considering Dublin is officially bound by Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty to the military defence of EU allies in a far more stringent manner than NATO’s more famous Article V.
Similarly, while states like Sweden and Finland sought to tread an updated, ‘non-aligned’ path through the Cold War, recent developments have brought this hokey-cokey to a necessary conclusion, and I hope for the better. As a Danish security expert remarked to me once, while Denmark had been officially neutral before the German invasion in 1940, Danes understood that no serious examination of the close cultural and economic ties it had with Allied states meant that Berlin knew this was a convenient fiction.
Similarly, today, a modern Ireland that can boast not only EU membership, a guaranteed annual Oval Office appointment for the Taoiseach and massive flows of US inward investment is in no way neutral or non-aligned: an independent Scotland will not have the historical baggage that leads to this ambiguous reality in Irish security.
In academic parlance, the post-war proliferation of international organisations and institutions has allowed smaller states to seek ‘shelter’ in a more durable manner than had been available to them previously. As a concept, it has come under increasing scrutiny as domestic critics of Pax Americana, in particular, have sought to draw attention to the weak defence spending of European allies, with the related concept of ‘free-riding’ emerging.
And while recent events have combined, through initiatives like NATO’s 2% target, to provide upward pressure on European defence budgets, there was a previously noted trend whereby some states had been motivated by the possibility of the rewards that a more ‘active internationalist’ policy could bring.
This was the choice that Denmark made: a state that had been known for a policy more similar to that of its non-aligned neighbour to Sweden through a series of ‘footnotes’ it made in official NATO communiques to state its opposition to certain positions. The end of the Cold War saw an opportunity for a state like Denmark to pivot towards more robust engagement within both UN and NATO frameworks: not only were Danish forces engaged in one of the few tank battles of the Balkans conflict, it lost more lives per capita in Afghanistan than any other NATO state: an engagement immortalised in Janus Metz’s 2010 documentary Armadillo.
This is a change of perception towards the capabilities and willingness of Northern European states to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security rather than free ride, which culminated in Finland and Sweden’s (almost) simultaneous NATO accession: despite it opening up a 1,340 km border with Russia, there were few serious objections to it, based principally a recent history of close cooperation on a military level, along with the strong and consistent messages both had given around Russian aggression, in contrast to more established NATO states. And, from Scotland’s perspective, it certainly hasn’t hurt to have such avowedly anti-nuclear weapons states – particularly so in the context of Sweden – being welcomed into NATO.
Recent news that Finland had quietly activated procedures to replenish materiel and bring logistics preparedness to an effective ‘pre-war’ stance brought renewed exposure to Finnish concepts of ‘total defence’ which it has developed since its independence in 1919, bringing together all elements of government, industry and society into alignment in a way which many in the UK would be uncomfortable with – along with an incredibly well-developed sense of its own national interest that will be familiar to anyone who has seen the historical drama Shadow Lines, portraying Finnish intelligence agents caught between Moscow and Washington in the post-WW2 period.
The evident examples of states cultivating their own defensive strategies in a way which reflects their interests, both domestically and within the context of wider global security, goes to the heart of the fact that Scotland is an outlier in not having a say in our defence or future. Despite the fact that there are examples within geographical, and ideological, touching distance of states similar to Scotland forging their own interpretation of what a successful defensive strategy looks like, has placed myself, my party and wider independence movement in a frustrating position.
In this climate of geopolitical fragility, we must look not to the states who claim to be front runners in defence but to those who have successfully utilised their resources to contribute to the defensive community. Meanwhile, we must watch while those who still see themselves as the biggest bullies in the playground run around in circles trying to ‘out-defend’ each other, a process we used to call militarism.
Click here to explore the ‘Scotland’s Defence: Perspectives and Possibilities’ series, an exclusive UK Defence Journal series by Martin Docherty-Hughes MP, SNP Defence Spokesperson.
At the heart of the UK Defence Journal’s mission is our commitment to journalistic integrity. Our role is not to dictate opinions but to present information in a fair and balanced manner, allowing our readers to form their own informed views. This series exemplifies our dedication to offering diverse perspectives in the realm of defence and security. Our aim is to ignite discussions and deepen understanding among its readers, irrespective of their stance on Scottish independence. The importance of exploring varied viewpoints in shaping an informed public discourse cannot be overstated.
You can read the rest of the series here.
It’s interesting that you use the fins as an example, that is a small state that has been profoundly scared and changed by the reality of a small state in a large state world..it is very unlikely Finland would have chosen its position and its population have had to make sacrifices that I suspect the Scottish people would not be willing or want to make.
in regards to small states, it’s only a select few that have relatively secure security situations and most of these are dependent on European stability provided by the EU and NATO structures…I would say any nation that is dependent on extra nation structures for its core security is at risk.The history of the world shows that extra national structures are far more fragile and short lived than nation states and a nation state and those that run it need to be considered not just the reality of now but what future generations will live through…The structural risks or strengths we put into our nation now will be the oak trees of our decedents future..you do not plant an oak tree for yourself. What we know is global warming and resource stress will the international systems to the extreme….in this case larger and United is probably better than spilt…
Largely yes, but it demonstrates that it is not necessary to be a large singular sovereign state to contribute to shared defence. Independent Scotland does not mean isolation or withdrawing from those institutions.
Then why do it? For defence see also Foreign policy and International Finance.
Because society has other ramifications. It is all about being able to make own decisions without being forced to go down an unwanted route, which is what happens now. You promote remaining in UK solely for defence reasons? The same arguments apply to foreign policy. International Finance is not relevant in this context, and it is not necessary to be in a large soverign state for any of those factors anyway.
I understand this point well which is why I voted to leave the E.E.C. and then the ‘never-going-to-happen’ United States of Europe 40 years later. Leaving the U.K and placing ‘Alba’ under whose currency and capital controls? You think sentiment counts for something? nothing? Some independence. But just read about what is happening all over western Europe – just not the British media’s version.
You are assuming several things in the future. Firstly Scotland would create its own currency, and secondly capital controls would remain with the new state. The EU ‘controls’ which yoi referred to actually ensured a reasonably level trading playing field. As such were benefifical to most people. The only ones who objected were those seeking some form of personal gain, usually the money launderers wh dictate what Westminster does, The greater majority of the population were not reallt affected as they aren’t also now. If sentiment counts for nothing, then exacty the same comment applies to the post-Brexit mini-empire aspirations of thse currently in charge! In any event it is not a given that an independent Scotland would want to join the EU, that would be another decision at a future date and would be based on the prevailng circumstances then. Either way as far as defence goes it would not change anything, except perhaps to focus the defence spending on our nuclear deterrent to England rather than Scotland! A side benefit of that would be much lower nuclear convoy miles! As far as currency goes, at present Scotland is part of Sterling, post independence that would change so the arguments about Scotland not having its own currency are misplaced if not puerile. As with everything else there would be a transition period. Not forgetting of course that many traders in England think that we already have our own currrency anyway, why else do they reject our notes?
There would be a hew and cry throughout the rest of the union, for removal of defence assets from North of the border. With a demand for total cessation of military orders (ships and anything else) to what would be a foreign country. My voice would be one of them, despite having relatives and many friends north of the border.
Many English already feel aggrieved that Scotland has MP’s in Westminster, yet there is no reciprocity. I’ve even witnessed a Scottish family told to go back home to SNP land. It disgusted me but gave food for thought.
Looking around the world, I realise what we have on these British isles is rare. We serve shoulder to shoulder and are united by so many shared values and traditions. We have achieved great things. Our peoples have intermarried and shared genes. Migration in both directions is freely conducted without a single care. Why risk breaking it apart with petty rivalry and misguided nationalism. I’m all for a greater say in our local politics but not at the expense of breaking up the union. No bloody way!
You do not know what the situation would be so cannot possibly substantiate the statement. NOBODY expects or has stated an expectation that UK military orders would continue. Though you clearly arfe completely unaware that in fact apart from warships UK buys substantial amounts of equipment from other countries. And even forwarships parts, weapons, engines, ammunition, radars and more are sourced from around the world. You also need to educate yourself England has many many more MPs at Westminster than do the devolved nations together. Your zenophobic rant displays a complete misunderstanding of the actual facts. The fact that England doesn’t have its own separate assembly has nothing to do with Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, but down to David Cameron who ducked it in favour of English Votes for English Laws, though you should also note that the SNP do not on principle vote for things that do not affect Scotland. On tp of all that you fail also to realise that UK’s defence is predicated on NATO membership where all members support each other, that situation will not change and in fact the likelihood of a shared British Isles defence pact in addition to NATO is quite high and would be mutually beneficial. Fair enough raise points for discussion around options for the future, but you cannot make assertive definitive statements about what may yet (or not) happen.
Shetland isles have explored the possibility of breaking away from Scotland due to funding cuts , this would undermine the financial economics of the SNP plan . Councillors voted 18 to 2 in favour of the motion ! Also the hard boarder would be a hassle.
I have contacts on Shetland. That sounds very interesting.
Wasn’t that just some councillors trying to make a name for themselves rather than anything else? The Shetlands would be an enclave within the sea borders of a larger Scotland. I’m not sure there are significant reserves within an area 12 miles from the coastline.
Well said.
Yes but one of those Institutions has been NATO. If an independent Scotland were totally committed to NATO and the provision of all the type of Defence which is necessary for a strategic location such as Scotland then surely the Scots might warm to the idea a little more.
Scotland is committed to NATO! So really not sure where on earth you get the basis of your statements. As usual you are inferring non-facts as certainty and making an assertion about something that has yet (if) to happen. Scotland has committed to maintaining suitable defences as well as the ongoing commitment to tnhise of NATO and EU. Remember that Scotland is not the smallest EU economy and all the other similar sized states maintain their contributions as well. You cannot state that Scotland cannot contribute yet at the same state that the other states do! And also remember that everyone in NATO including the UK also relies on the support of the US. While it is in US interests for this to happen, the costs for defending EU without them would be higher and almost certainly mean that UK would need to refocus away from the Far East.
Nick this is an opinion piece and in my opinion the SNP and ALBA should totally commit to NATO in all it’s forms including support for an independent nuclear deterent from these islands. It also needs to accept it’s strategically important position and not only put Scotland’s bases at the disposal of UK and NATO forces but also commit the Scots, as a proud warrior nation, to that defence as well. This ongoing support should be written in tablets of stone and shouted from the rooftops.
SNP and ALBA have committed to NATO, along with the other 30 odd, of whom only 3 have nuclear weapons. Nuclear support for the (31 plus potential 1 more) remains as it always was. Most of the world actually wants rid of these anyway. Having nuclear weapons in UK doesn’t prevent us from suffering the harms of their use, and in fact makes us more of a target for the other nuclear possessing powers. That said we have them and they are there. Where they are sited is immaterial it is the owners who control them. The big question is if one was deployed in say a Baltic State or destroying a fleet of ships somewhere who would initiate the retaliation, is that under NATO control or the possessing states veto? If there was one retaliatory show of defence which of the three would launch, risking escalation. The reality is that no state is safe regardless of possession or otherwise. Still the question is hypothetical and what would happen depends entirely on prevailing circumstances in future. Aside from all of this, the principle reason current anti-nuclear statemens come out from Scotland is because of the close proximity of the Faslane and Coulport to a major population centre, the Central Belt, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Fallout predictions, not counting the potential for contaminatiom from our stored weapons would spread across this whole area. There is a website that produces fallout predictions, quite interesting to play with. That is why Scotland is mainly anti-nuclear. The first strike of an attacker would be the weapons base and store to minimise the likelihood of retaliation. The survivability of the patrol Trident after or even before it has launched is debateable and there wouldn’t be anywhere for it to return to still less reload, which is done on the surface as well.
The UK, US and France having nuclear weapons deters the use of said weapons by the likes of Russia and indeed provides a umbrella for other countries. As you say most of the world does want to get rid of these weapons but on a multi-lateral basis. We want them all gone or we need a deterant. To suggest anything else is in my humble opinion nieve. Do you trust Putin Nick?
Don’t be silly Nick if there is a nuclear attack on any NATO country it would result in a virtual wipeout senario for the entire UK, US and most of Europe including Russia.Safety in Scotland is wishful thinking. Maybe if you moved to Austrialia that might be an option – however I doubt that would save you.
NATO and nuclear deterents have brought about the longest period of world peace since records began probably saving tens (if not hundreds) of millions of lives.
Oh and I’m not sure I would expect any protection from other NATO members especially the US. Americans like everyone to pay their way.
Why on earth are extraplating something I have NOT said and assuming that because I disagree with some elements of the discussion that I AM AN ENEMY, why do you see things as black and white? The UK will retain a nucler weapons regardless of what Scotland does or doesn’t do so what is your point? Yes we need deterrence but as an aside actually are US/UK/France going to retaliate like that if Putin happens to use a nuclear weapon on a state or with overspill to a NATO member? That is the unknown and untestable question. And yes we want rid of them on a multi-lateral basis and sadly Putin’s and Kim’s threats with them mean that is unlikely. Scotland doesn’t really want the weapons stored where they are at present, that is the argument, the problem rests with whoever thought that was an acceptable site in the first place. Had they been far more remote from multiple cities the argument wouldn’t be so strong.
You seem to be suggesting that Scotish Independence will save Scots from death by a fireball and/or radiation.
It is perfectly possible that the US (for example) have drawn a red line on any radiation being a factor when they protect every inch of NATO territory.
Scotland will be on the target list for Russia as long as it is (or is part of) a democracy and Russia is an autocratic dictatorship intent on destroying democratic values.
My view is that we have an effective way to deter aggression that has been that way for over 70 years. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
The UK has been making every effort to give Scotland, Wales and NI control over everything which solely affects that country. For defence (unfortunely) of our islands that means we all have to pull our weight as a joint force. We can’t just suit ourselves.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? You clearly fail to understand that the only states that have the weapons are France, US, and UK. Every other NATO member is at risk of fireball/radiation, as are all other non NATO countries. The fireball is only related to where the burst takes place, and Faslane/Coulport are where that would happen. The risk of fallout remains regardless of where the weapons are sited. Are you sure US would protect every inch of NATO territory, have you not heard Trump’s latest pronouncements on this subject? While any state is potentially on a target list, that does not automatically assume a nuclear strike, and if Trident and warheads are not sited in Scotland, but on the territory of those who control their release then the likelihood of being a nuclear target reduces. And something else you are also clearly not realising is that Faslane and Coulport are sited within serious fallout reach of the majority of Scotland’s population and major industries. That is what underlies scottish concerns about our MAD capability, aside from the general undesirabilty of the weapons.
Nick you appear to be cherry picking arguments left right and centre to try a prop up your flawed position that a weak small country will fair better against Russia simply because Scots will pose no threat. Personally I think that the Scots love a good fight and would rather die than be subjugated by the likes of Putin.
MAD is a dangerous concept I’ll grant you that however it is probably the reason most of us are alive today. Maybe one day it won’t be necessary but not yet.
No I HAVE NOT. You are extraplating some peculiar reasoning frm what I have said (failed to actually think about) and inventing some other statement then accuse me of saying that. Who never mind me said we want to cosy up to Putin? Who never mind me said we would fair better? I used the term MAD because that is what the nuclear strategy is based on, and yes it has seemed to work up to now, but only because we assumed that there would be a reasoned and intelligent person in charge in Moscw. The problem we now have is that Putin and his subordinates have threatened the use including on a tactical scale and readied his nuclear forces. What he thinkshe has to gain or prove is unknown, but he has threatend them and against a non-nuclear country(ies) too. If you read my points without entering into a debate about maintenance of the UK strategic resource, all I pointed out was that the warheads/missiles and platforms are all sited within blast and fallout range or the central belt, a major population centre. So those bases are a first strike target even if it is limited to only a first strike. If the bases were sited somewhere less populous antagonism towards siting them in Scotland would not have risen to this level. Cynically, hundreds of miles away from London and the South East!
Nick you need to consider the message you would be sending the Kremlin if Scotland ever considered any of the bonkers ideas you are talking about. Talk about looking weak …. almost an invitation to get bullied.
MAD hasn’t ‘seemed’ to work up to now – it HAS worked up to now and will probably carry on working for some time to come. Putin knows perfectly well that he loses power if he kills all his people. He might be a nasty piece of work but he is not that daft.
If you think there are no first strike targets dotted around the entire UK other those in Scotland you are kidding yourself. Also if Ukraine is anything to go by Putin seems to like flattening population centres in preference to military targets.
To me your arguments stink of a attempt to wind up Scots with that old “The English are taking advantage of us” nonsense which is becoming rather tiresome. It is also pointless as the Scots aren’t as stupid as you make them out to be.
You obviously don’t read things. How can it be ‘bonkers’ when all but 3 don’t have the deterrent? Or do you think that not housing these weapons in Scotland means that England/Wales have to give them up as well? This is of course not the case, and would be a decision for rUK. We cannot say definitively that MAD has worked, the only way that can be tested is to start a war! Therefore my use of ‘may’ is entirely correct. We can assume it has worked, but that is also the same as saying ‘may’. The problem we have that again you are not considering is that MAD works on the basis of if you destroy me then we will retaliate with at least the same. You also assume that a first strike would be all or nothing. The most likely scenario is a limited single use as a demonstration of intent, and possibly only at a tactical level, which is what Putin has threatened already. Do we initiate a MAD response in that case or not? All hypothetical. Our problem is that we can only respond on a MAD basis and have no answer to tactical/battlefield actions.
And of course if we had extra manpower and equipment for the cost of Trident would that not send a more flexible and useful message, and actually be of some ongoing use? Our forces are sized on the basis of the post cold-war ‘peace’ and limited police actions, anything on a NATO wide scale exposes us significantly.
If the UK had no base the deterent becomes useless. Unless the Scots people are going to build us a new one? You seem to be dreaming up all sorts of benefits of independence and ignoring the potential costs Nick.
Clearly you are missed the point of MAD. MAD deters war of any variety because none of the potential results can be beneficial to either side. Not sure I can put it any simpler.
Anyway this whole discussion is pretty pointless as the likelihood is that voting in Scotland will move away from Nationalists towards parties which are more interested in the day to day welbeing of their citizens.
Did I or anyone else say that the UK would have no base? Why can the base not be elsewhere in rUK other than Scotland? If you think abut what you have said it demonstrates unequivocally that you think the only place to house them is in Scotland, in other words ‘Not In My Backyard! And if Scotland wants them removed then they would be handed back to the US! Why can they not be housed in Wales, or Portsmouth, Pymouth or many other equally suitable places?
I am well aware of what MAD means, and again your response shows nothing other than you have failed to actually read what I have said. Pointing out the consequences of MAD means I know what is involved, and that does not exclude the use of a limited tactical strike. Would leaders initiate full on MAD if there was a such a strike on an uninhabited island or battlefield target?
I am also MUCH better acquainted than you in relation to the costs of independence, which again if instead of following fake news and not thinking you would realise that Scotland pays taxes too, and we generate more taxes than many other similar sized countries can and do, so we are well capable of holding our own economically, especially as we will be spending all our taxes to suit ourselves and not contributing more towards Westminster oligarch driven vanity projects which waste far far more than anything we can and have done.
Location Location Location – plus it is not cheap to kit out these places in the first place. Moving would be seriously expensive. You are clearly obsessed with the prospect of independence regardless of the costs or the risks.
So housing nuclear warheads and delivery systems overrules everything else? Of course it isn’t cheap, but who decided it would be a good idea to site it next to a large urban complex with a significant population? There is NO reason the store and dock facility could not be elsewhere in UK. There was plenty of money on the magic money tree when it suited. Ultimately Scotland cannot be independent because it houses Westminster’s (who control the use) nuclear arsenal and out dated visions of being a pretendy world power?
Nick – The British armed Forces decided it was the best place and they are controlled by the British Government which, like it or not, are the sovereign Government of the British isles & NI. That includes Scotland. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Scots seem far more interested nowadays in having a functioning devolved Government capable of looking after their day to day lives and not being obsessed about indepenence.
Frankly I would prefer Scotland to remain part of a world power than cut ties and drown in a world of expereince like some glorified parish council.
Don’t waffle and evade the point you are arguing. Your preference for Scotland to remain part of the UK is your privilege, but that is all. The point of the argument is your statement that unless Scotland remains in the UK the UK would lose its nuclear weapons. Why should Scotland have to put up with hosting these merely so that UK can stay as it is ? Those weapons can be hosted in a wide range of locations outside of Scotland, if necessary. UK is a world power in name only and hasn’t been in effect since the Second World War, and that mostly on the shirt tails of the US. If we were really a world power we wouldn’t have such a small amount of forces (regular and reserve) and limited resupply, or manufacturing capability. We do not have the equipment to sustain world wide large scale war even on a shared basis. We’ve ramped up ammunition supply by 40% and that is insufficient to keep Ukraine supplied let alone ourselves. We can only operate on a world wide basis in support of small scale police actions like Afghanistan alongside the bigger partner US. The arguments for and against independence for Scotland swings either side of 50/50 so you other point of not likely to change is invalid. It is only because of Westminster’s vested interest in refusing the debate that it hasn’t moved. If Scotland were to be independent then England/Wales/NI can still have its nuclear weapons, possession of which is not predicated on Scotland remaining in the UK. Which is in fact all I am saying!
Nick it will stay there because it is the best place for it and if you don’t like it I suggest you take it up with your MP. We don’t need to explain why it can’t go anywhere else (although I have attempted to do just that as have others) as this is a defence matter. I will bow to your expertise on waffling as you have done nothing but throughout this article and completely ignored the sensible replies you have received. I see little point in continuing this discussion.
Before you make STUPID assumptions about someone else’s knowledge and understanding, take some time out to THINK about what you are saying. Do NOT assume that just because someone else has a different (and prossibly greater) understanding than you that they are some brainless numpty. I do NOT waffle. You are the one making ignoring pertinent points merely because they do not fit with your preconceptions. If you took the time to actually understand the position you would appreciate the concerns expressed by a majority of Scots regarding the weapons and more importantly where they are sited. Since Westminster has dictated where they should be sited they collectively are unlikely to make any changes unless forced to by circumstances, since they do not take any notice of what happens there, just like an exasperated parent treating a recalcitrant teenager, and we know what sort of response that generates! Resorting to crying about going to an MP is the response by those who have lost the moral argument.
You and NOBODY else has explained why they can’t go anywhere else. And a reply that says ‘because we or I have said they must stay there’ is not anywhere like a sensible answer. There is no reason why suitable facilities cannot be rebuilt, (Faslane and Coulport) had to be some time in the past, elsewhere in the UK. Which is also a defence matter. There is no law of geography or physics that says the only place that can and therefore must accept these weapons is near to Glasgow and the Central Belt. In many respects they are in a poor strategic position as to get out into the Atlantic the subs have to travel down Loch Long and the Clyde through a narrow and easily blockaded and mined channel. Block that and the subs are not going anywhere, leaving only one out in the North Atlantic (if it is somewhere). Not much of a mutual destruction capability, and if that was the real reason there would have been a couple of backup locations in existence already. There are Atlantic accessible locations elsewhere in UK and including England.
In any event it is not your sole decision, so you cannot make any certain assumptions about what may or may not happen in the future. The reason Faslane and Coulport was chosen is because of history and a false assumption that they were easy to defend far away from London and the South East and based on the weapons and delivery systems available to an enemy in the late 40s to early 60s.
You haven’t made any argument for why they are or should be there, other than to say they should stay there – in your opinion.
“”And, from Scotland’s perspective, it certainly hasn’t hurt to have such avowedly anti-nuclear weapons states – particularly so in the context of Sweden – being welcomed into NATO.””
I do wish Politicians wouldn’t speak with forked tongues.
Sweden and Finland (especially Finland) as NATO members now have the security of the French, UK and US nuclear umbrella, which mitigates to a huge extents the threats Moscow has made over the years to target non-nuclear states across Europe (Funny enough none have been made at France, UK or the US I wonder why that is?) be it Poland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Romania Moscow has tried to intimidate them with the threat of nuclear strikes if they don’t do as Moscow demand. But hey why quote facts when you peddle misinformation as only a politician can do.
In another quote from the piece.
“It was, in many ways, ever thus – “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must” is one of the most-quoted lines from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War.”
I find it surprising that with the recent nuclear threats from Russia that the SNP (and other assorted hippies) still cling to the idea that we don’t need a comparable big stick to hit back with. In an ideal world we wouldn’t have them but we don’t live in that world unfortunately so we deal with where we are. It seems madness NOT to have a nuclear deterrent, mad (pun intended) as that seems.
Actually Scotland has never said that rUK cannot have or keep its nuclear toys.
A hypothetical indy Scotland could play its part in the nuclear umbrella that keeps us all safe but as it stands would refuse to. To be fair to the SNP, that’s an improved stance on an indy Scotland not being part of NATO and just leave us as ‘another Ireland’ freeloading off the bigger boys.
On the bright side, the SNP are going to get a bumming in the Westminster elections and I’m pretty sure my own constituency will go back to Labour. The less SNP ministers, the less ‘MP tax’ the party gets…. tick tock tick tock….. and its too late to raffle the camper van and jag for funds. Oh dear.
Nice debate until your last pointless sentence, the concepts of which apply to every single political party from time to time, and you are actually only applying your own prejudices to events. Actually in so far as defence is concerned the bigger the better could be extended to every NATO becoming part of the US! Much bigger that way. When NATO started 12 countries joined and 9 of them relied on the three nuclear possessing states. This has now grown to 31 countries with 28 relying on the same nuclear states! Those three nuclear states would be the same even with Sottish Independence. The nuclear threat is used to offset the consequences of reducing conventional defence.
And while talking finance, just consider this. Labour and Conservatives are funded principally by donations from big entities. If they relied, as does SNP and the other small (in UK terms) parties on subscriptions they would not be anywhere near where they are now. The fact that a party can operate as it does almost entirely on its subs should tell a lot about commitment of members, and therefore the extent of the underlying ‘ideology’. People are entitled to their opinions and visions for where they want to be, but the mistake is to assume that an individual view translates to everyone else, especially then only following things that support a particualr viewpoint and rejecting all others. A balanced view always produces a better and acceptable outcome. Which is why saying ‘NO’ without addressing concerns never works out in the long term.
Applying my own prejudices, of course, I can try and filter them out but as this is the internet I find ‘heady debate’ hard to find, its usually a race to the bottom.
Speaking of applying our own prejudices…..
“ If they relied, as does SNP and the other small (in UK terms) parties on subscriptions they would not be anywhere near where they are now. The fact that a party can operate as it does almost entirely on its subs should tell a lot about commitment of members, and therefore the extent of the underlying ‘ideology’.”
Ignoring the fact that the SNP HAVEN’T been operating within their subscriptions (the 600 thousand being the biggest elephant in the room) that’s a bold call mate.
Sadly you’re right. Though I am not applying prejudices (I suppose I should have used personal wishful thinking instead) I am merely trying to point out disparities. The facts are that when the cost per vote is looked at the Conservatives spend much much more than their subscriptions to get a vote than the other parties. This highlights a couple of things: firstly that the vested interests putting up the money are doing so for themselves and not the rest of society, and secondly that the money is used to mislead the public. Johnson’s dead-cat analogy! If a party can generate lots of real popular membership support it says a great deal about the underlying ideology as there is a clear commitment and drive. And a lot of ‘debate’ on this forum is based on misrepresentation, misinterpretation, jumping to conclusions based on fake news, and less on rational and cnsidered analysis.
Nope there was only one Western Nuclear state when NATO was founded in 1949 the USA.
Pedantic! But we and France were working on it. And we were half way there anyway.
Hardly toys surely.
They are not ‘toys’, and have not been since their invention.
Have you not come across the term ‘figure of speech’? Especially in the English language and British penchance of under exagerating extreme events like ‘we are in a bit of bother’….. and so on.
Figure of speech typically used by those who wish to be rid of them.
Only those who want rid of them? Figures of speech are used by those in favour too! And why shouldn’t anyone express a wish to be rid of them? Nobody is allowed to say they want them gone just because some people want to have them?
That is not misinformation. The nuclear umbrella will still exist, is the UK going to scrap it? And Putin has actually threatened the nuclear states already, on numerous occasions.
Either the UK’s system of ‘Union’ changes like in a Canada style federation or Scotland goes its own way to choose to be in a united much larger political \economic union. For example in the Canadian model Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be sovereign and could have a vote/veto against being dragged out of the EU.
A referendum on Brexit just by looking at the shear population in England meant it would determine what happened to the 12 million other people of the UK in the devolved states. A referendum on Brexit should never have been put to the public (this was no small decision) and stronger willed politicians needed to address this and the concerns of the populace. This political will I find severely lacking in a lot of western states.
Either change the political system within the UK or Scotland goes its own way.
“A referendum on Brexit should never have been put to the public (this was no small decision.)”
Funny that referenda to JOIN the EU are always seen as a great idea & have been re-run until they get the desired pro-EU result. Then no more discussion/votes allowed!
It’s exactly that sort of autocratic, we know best-shut up, attitude that slowly eroded my confidence in the European project. Nought to do with immigration or xenophobia/racism, but that’s all the remainers seem to think about.
But yes the UK political system needs tweeking, though I still think for the UK we stand together or fall divided. The SNP hopes/ presumes that they’ll get a majority for independance, but they didn’t last time(“Once in a generation”) & years of SNP rule may have burnt a lot of nationalist currency with Scots.
The point Mickey was making was that despite the devolved nations collectively voting to remain we were all dragged out of the EU solely due to the demographic inequality. UK wide referenda, and indeed general elections do not reflect any differing public wishes. Especially as the FPTP system is based on numbers of elected representatives, and not public opinion. Sadly the voting produces a largest party but not a majority percentage of public opinion. There were more votes against the Conservatives than there were for (and the same would likely apply to Labour next time). But that still gives whoever has those seats the means or justification to do carte blanche what they supporters wish regardless of wider opinion. There needs to be a way of enforcing more compromise solutions that reflect opinion and not seats.
Yep, you read my statement well.
FPTP is just the tyranny of the largest minority. It’s way past its sell by date. I think PR is the way to go & a more collaberative, representative government.
In a democracy the will of the majority prevails. you have to just graciously accept that. I’ve never been represented by a party I’ve voted for in all my 61 years. I’m not going to declare UDI or pull the country apart just because I don’t get my way!
Yep. Though your position on UDI is personal opinion and not a majority! However who in any normal UK politics is promoting UDI? That position may be how Wales can achieve independence, as it is tied to UK in a different manner to England. In Scotland it is actually a treaty, which means that the terms and position can be re-negotiated or annulled. Nowhere in the Act of Union does it state ‘in perpetuity’, other than permanence of Scots Law and the Presbytery and Court of Session.
Spoken like a remainer.
Huh? Context? Nobody allowed to point out negative consequences? Where and how does remainer come into this? Have I actually said one way or the other? Pointing out negative consequences reminds people of things still to be resolved or addressed. Keeping quiet about negative consequences doesn’t make them go away!
Try a calmer approach.
Huh? Context? Nobody allowed to point out negative consequences? Where and how does remainer come into this? Have I actually said one way or the other? Pointing out negative consequences reminds people of things still to be resolved or addressed. Keeping quiet about negative consequences doesn’t make them go away! What is not calm about thoe questions or are you conventiently ignoring the points. That is the attitude that gives rise to grievance politics and calls for separation. The best way of resolving issues is by talking about them not imposing one sides view regardless.
‘Dragged out of the EU’ indicates your position.
And like I say, a calmer approach is usually helpful. Forget those exclamation marks.
Hardly my singular position. FYI Scotland voted to remain in the EU by a huge margin (Unionist arguments in 2014 were that independence would necessitate leaving, and the only way to stay in the EU was to vote NO). As did Northern Ireland, and to a lesser extent Wales. England because of its demographic size ruled and thus everybody who didn’t want to leave was ‘dragged out’, against their wills. Therefore my description was entirely accurate. ALL my comments are calm and measured usually in response to false and wholly inaccurate statements by those arguing against. I don’t mind exclamation marks.
There was a previous referendum on leaving the EU that wasn’t successful. They ran that again until it worked. Then no more votes/discussion allowed, certainly not from the main UK parties. And if you ask ‘Red Wall’ voters, it was 100% to do with immigration, which is ironic because legal immigration is now higher than ever post Brexit.
Didn’t Scotland recently have a ‘Once in a Lifetime Vote’ on Independence a short while ago.
It did but that was a referendum to ‘stay in the UK that was still in the EU’ two years prior to a brexit vote.
It would have been a once in lifetime referendum but then you had a brexit later on.
I’m calling bullshit Mickey, if it wasn’t Brexit there would have been some other catastrophe that would, at least in the SNP’s head have led to another call for an indy vote. All speculation now of course but the Tories handling of covid compared to Wee Jimmy’s (now disgraced) approach or whatever…..
With the SNP all roads lead to independence and everything is fair play to make that happen. Ideologically I don’t have a problem with an indy Scotland but I’ve seen zero from the SNP that would suggest they can competently run a political party never mind a country. You blew it when you guys went with Humza, basically ‘Full Steam Ahead’ instead of changing up the brand and giving Kate Forbes a go, never mind. Tick tock tick tock…… 😎
Evening Andy, I wonder how many seats Labour will take from the SNP during the election…
Hi John, it depends on which polls you choose to believe. Gallup are predicting that the SNP will win about 40 seats. Pretty much all the rest reckon mid 20’s. Now I’ve probably tipped my hat already but which polling company do you think the ‘um… Scottish government’ have paid 5 million to ???
My hope is that we’ll be getting more dirt coming out, the police are still investigating them and the boy falling out of Humza’s brother in law’s flat window that was coincidentally full of drugs is still to go to court. After years of the SNP having fantastic discipline, its everyone for themselves at the moment. Pleasing. 😀
No it wasn’t. Look at the agreement. It was a figure of speech. And that short while ago was actually 10 years – two General Election lifetimes! Since then significant changes have occurred and since it is the lifetime norm to check public opinion every 5 years anyway, why should it not be tested again?
The public are never going to be asked their opinion on any serious topic ever again. The shock to the elites was nearly terminal. A vote on the Union would break it up overnight.
They are afraid of losing control. The more these elites stand in the way of change the worse the eventual outcome for them. Far better to have an amicable and agreed separation than one based on rancour.
The enire point behind the long history of Scottish Nationalist politics is rancour. No rancour and the party falls apart without a reason to exist. This is not politics; it is Freudian analysis.
An analysis that merely promotes an out of context and wrong hypothesis is not valid. Rancour only occurs when aspirations are not met, and large groups of people are continually denied their own voice, grievance builds on grievance, and when majority decisions at an identifiable local level (ie at Holyrood) are overturned by some singular uber-meister that doesn’t help achieve anyone’s goals. The way to avoid rancour is to take account of and accommodate those other aspirations instead of doubling down on the causes! There is an unfortunate parallel in the eastern Mediterranean at present illustrating an extreme version. An amicable separation can be productive and beneficial. Nationalism in Scotland existed long before the Treaty of Union, and note that the Treaty was not predicated on perpetuity! And FYI Independence is not a singular SNP concept, it is an ideology and as Israel will find out an ideology is not defeated by force or denial. It certainly does not go away by changing the rules of engagement or even removing those leading the presentation of that ideology. It merely morphs into a possibly different name with different leaders. You don’t win hearts and minds by force!
The reality is that having a referendum to split up a stable nations is a very very unusual thing to do….most nations would simply refuse at best or undertake military/paramilitary action…the United States would very likely take the latter action. infact there have only ever been fifty referendum on independence in the history of humanity…and a good proportion of those have led to civil war and death..the first was infact a referendum by the confederacy on ceding from the USA and we all know how that went. Infact half of all independence referendum happened due to the fall of the USSR…….and this splitting up of the eastern block.
So for a nation to constantly check if the winds of popularism call for it to be slit up is quite frankly insane…a nation could fall on economic instability or even china undertaking a massive political warfare campaign ( which they are). Referendum should be profoundly rare events…and a referendum on independence should be a once in a lifetime event..unless you wish to see chaos and political hatred.
I’m with Clement Attlee
“I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum, which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism.”
You should only use them as a last resort for a desperately important question and then put them away.
You clearly do not realise that the relationships between Scotland and rUK is based on treaty entered into by two states. You conflate the concept of independence by thinking of it in the way that say that Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumbria and Northumbria could seek independence.
Another artless side step. Say what you mean by ‘separation’. It is enmity; hostility and friction. Think Balkans. think the Korean Peninsular. The psychic dimension behind nationalism is everywhere and always the same.
It is not treaty it’s not like Europe..we become one nation the act of Union ended the sovereignty of each individual state. You clearly need to read your history man.
No I suggest you read the treaty! You need to read all pertinent facts man. And in any event if a sufficient group of identifiable people wish they can redefine a treaty, agreement, contract, marriage, partnership whatever.
The treaty and the act are two different bits that many people who do not study constitutional history and law mix up..the treaty of the Union was an agreement between two nations on how they would become a single nation..the two sovereign parliaments agreed the treaty of Union at that point they had a treaty in which both states agreed to enact a set of laws that would dismantle the two sovereign states and create a new state…these two separate sovereign entities agreed via the treaty to enact the treaty which was essentially to end themselves and create a new sovereign entity both parliaments then enacted individual “acts” of Union these two acts essentially removed sovereignty from those nations and creates a new nation..at that point the treaty become nothing more than history as its purpose had been enacted and the two sovereign states that signed the treaty simply no longer existed…so the treaty of Union is not an active treaty that can be changes or ended..even then two individual acts of Union ended the sovereign bodies that created them and cannot be changed or modified because of this…
it’s fantasy to say that Scotland and England are two separate sovereign entities bound by treaty that could be ended….they are not. The sovereign entities of England and Scotland ended at the point the two acts of Union were enacted….Scottish independence would create an entirely new sovereign entry…the UK would create an act that stated Scotland was no longer part of the United Kingdom and then Scotland would have to go through what ever constitutional process it so wished to decide how it would be governed.
Whuch means that the Treaty can be amended, or annulled! There is nothing in the treaty to say that cannot happen. The identifiable individual states remain as such. The Union was about sharing a single parliament.
The two nations that created the treaty no longer exist…it cannot be amended because the sovereign nations that created no longer exist to amend it. Hence why it simply became a piece of history at the point the two acts of Union came into force and the sovereign nations of England and Scotland no longer existed. It’s essential a contract between to dead entities.
The nations still exist. They are identifiable and retain the boundaries as existed at the time. That is why the Scots Church and Scots Law remains. That is why we refer to the Home Nations. The treaty is mutable. It is only the regime of the Unionist parties that keep their heads in the sand. And regardless of these niceties if an identifiable group of people wish to seek self determination then that is an internationally recognised legitimate aim.
the treaty is utterly and completely irrelevant, it was a treaty between two sovereign bodies that stopped existing therefore it cannot be renegotiated, its been irrelevant since the point of Union..which was what the treaty was designed to facilitate…on 1707…the treaty was essentially redundant and fixed in history by 1708…since the act of Union was passed sovereignty within the UK is managed by acts of the UK parliament. English and Scottish sovereignty stopped existing after the two acts of Union. Only an act of the UK parliament can change that.
international recognition is essentially irrelevant to self determination as its is always decided by the sovereign state involved. Sometimes they use such things as referendum at other times they do not.
The majority of sovereign states put restrictions on discussions around self determination…the U.S. would very clearly go to war if one of its core states tried Seceding ( it would be against its constitutional construct unless all states agreed) , at the same time it organised and accepted the result of the referendum for Micronesia …Spain will not accept any discussions around seceding and there would be civil war if a part of Spain tried seceding. The UK follows a process of using a referendum in rare cases. It also looks at modifying how sovereignty occurs.. using rare referendum.
This country does not need more divisive referendum on a regular basis…being a bit petty, if we do have another referendum around the union splitting then England and wales and northern island need to have their goes next before Scotland gets yet another go….
as is what we do need is a good look at our constitutional framework using a number of constitutional conventions to look if the present construction which is 20c model needs a re look. My personal view is that the UK needs to move to a federal model, but that’s a complex question that cannot be answered in some stupid yes no referendum based on popularism and opportunistic politicians.
EVERY single group of people have a right of self determination (see UN charter). A treaty is no more than an agreement between two or more parties and regardless of those in denial is re-negotiable and modifiable by those taking part. That treaty may well have created a sngle state from the two but that does not mean that it cannot be changed. Your arguments are wrong on several counts. If one group of people expresses a wish to go their own way then it is not up to the other party to deny that. Two sovereign states can become one, one sovereign state can become two. It is not up to one to deny the other. That is not democratic and amounts to colonisation and a dictatorship! Unless of course you subscribe to the Putin style view of statehood.
im sorry Nick but that is just rubbish…I did not say it could not change and Scotland could not become independent..but there are and need to be limits set…..I cannot form a self determination for my county and secede from the UK…and us in the south west have our own identity..you cannot ask everyone every year…it would be chaos and lead to a breakdown of society….you have to have reasonableness and that is decided by the specific sovereign government of the nation state itself..anything else is just so much hot air….Scotland had a once in a generation vote and decided to stay part of the Uk…it was not based on and if a and b occurs then we will have another go questions…..but by all means ask the next generation in a decade.
Democracy is not complete freedom…it is a measured way to manage social pressure and create a society with more engagement…..so I agree Scotland should have another referendum…but that is for the next generation…so not before 2034 as a generation is defined by almost everyone as 20-30 years.
I didn’t say you had the power to stop independence. You hit the nail on the head though with reasonableness. I also did not say that referenda should be held every year. We hold general elections on a 5 year basis, which means the public are asked their opinion on at least that timescale already and the purpose if such elections is to reaffirm the direction the nations wishes for the next period. And since the word has significantly changed since 2014, along with unfulfilled promises and in fact interference in devolved matters that were only going to affect the respective hime nations, the test of reasonableness has been passed. Reasonableness is not defined by one party and imposed on the other against their devolved wishes. All governments get their authority based on their publics views, and preventing one identifiable section of society from pursuing a different direction is contrary to the right of self determination. You have no argument against seeking independence, and in fact cannot justify that other than saying ‘tough you can’t we won’t let you’.
We vote every five years for our representatives not to completely change the constitutional structure of our nation….your conflating two different things and the simple truth is that poling and opinion in Scotland is not in favour of another referendum now…it’s an agenda pushed by the minority…yes a large minority but still a minority…
Yes we vote to elect representatives and this includes any modifications within the presented mandates to our way of society. I suggest you look at the figures, they are currently over 50%, and have hovered around 50% since 2014. So the outcome is not clear cut and then neither is the opinion. Given it is roughly 50/50 it is perfectly reasnable and valid to revist. And in any event need for changes to society occurs based on prevailing circumstances. FYI the world, EU, security, the environment have all changed substantially since then so it is in fact good practice to review the decision and options. The unionists are actually frightened of the potential outcome so are denying the other 50%. If you are so sure of your position then you have nothing to lose by testing the opinion! Ignoring and dismissing the demands for change does NOT make them go away, in fact it reinforces them! If there is something you want and someone keeps preventing you from it what do you do? What substantial reason is there to resist change?
Quite right, and what about the north of england?
Repeatedly until you get the result you want I assume?
To suggest one every five (or even 10) years is quite simply laughable.
I can see by one singular comment in the article the subjective contempt this author has for the UK and that for me is enough to ignore him and his future articles.
In the interests of journalist fairness I await a series of articles outlining a counter viewpoint.
So why do we have general elections every five years? Do we not test public opinion on that basis? Why shouldn’t people be allowed to reconsider where they want to go in future? While there may only have been a handful of such referenda, how many more breakups have happened through violence? A referendum actually reduces the risk of conflict, denying them leads to more! In any event the refusal to allow public opinion says more about the leaders looking to exert control in support of their status than reflecting on what their people want or even need.
Exactly and well put. The S.N.P. are a minority. Most Scots I knew voted S.N.P. to save Scotland from Thatcherism that laid waste to industry. Subsequent governments threw much more cash at Scotland than the English regions and to one who travelled throughout the country half a century ago, has transformed Scotlands fortunes. Now, let us snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
Transformed Scotland’s fortune’s? You need to take your rosy-tinted spectacles off! Quite a lot of us on here have travelled extensively across the whole of the UK and more recently than you! Thatcherism was finished long ago, and by the time she left the destruction had been largely completed, and the consequences are still with usl Only nowadays it is called Austerity and Tax Cuts. All political parties including Conservatives are in a minority. They have never since Gordon Brown and indeed long before have never had a majority of the public vote for them. All the parties have had more votes against than for in Westminster. The only truly representative administrations are those of Scotland, Wales and NI which uses proportional representation f one form or another to ensure that compromise politics rules. Westminster does not. A majority of seats is not a majority of public support. In 2019 Johnson only achieved 43.6% of the vote, and before that May got 42.3%, and Cameron got 36.8% and before that he got 36.1%. But these minorities allowed because of the way the seat boundaries worked to give each of them the impression they could do whatever they wanted, and did!
Why not repeatedly? World, social, economic and environmental circumstances change and evolve. Checking whether or not a particular arrangement remains fit for purpose is perfectly valid. Undertaken by all parliaments, businesses and other organisations on an ongoing basis.
Several.
‘… like Canada …‘ We are not. We are what we are. The British Isles would vanish in the Canadian Lakes!
It would be better to move to an Australian style federation rather than Canadian. The Canadian upper house is a waste of time. However the Australian style would mean England being broken up to some of its old historic kingdoms (likely 4, with 1 being London). This gives a useful elected upper house. It also stops London dictating to everyone else (in the Australian system, each state gets 12 elected upper house members, regardless of the size (population) of the state).
Not going to happen. But the current system does not work because the political system is unbalanced. First past the post does not help.
Senate reform in Canada has been a very hotly debated issue followed by first past the post system.
Many parties that come to power say they will reform these two systems but quickly realize the constitutional and the shear amount of work required to change all of it.
Same applies to UK. However many countries have managed to bring in new constitutions. The best approach seems to be write a new one & have a referendum on it (preferably with the entire parliament behind it). Trying to change an existing one sometimes ends up like the US. The amendments can end up being longer than the original. Australia had the advantage of Canada going first.
Constitutional changes of that scale are doable, but yes, not easy. But if you don’t start, you will never finish.
Would this be the same Ireland which depends on the RAF to protect its skies (Deal signed between London and Dublin in 1952 and revised a number of times since) and the Royal Navy to do like wise as witnessed the other month when the RN was sent off Cork to chase away a Russian sub.
Here’s a suggestion, after the next election and if Humza loses office how about giving him the defence ministers job, I mean he’s did really well as:
Europe minister
Transport Minister
Justice Minister
Health Minister
First Minister
With all that experience under his belt, he’s a shoe in for Defence Minister , why he could even bring along SNP MP Anum Qaisar to help him on his many trips abroad such as visiting Gaza, Turkey and Pakistan
Actually the Irish hide under UK protection largely because of the international air traffic model. The Irish model actually relies on ‘neutrality’ and it is very much in UK’s interest to defend out across the Atlantic. Something that the Irish have recognised and are starting to do something about.
Actually that is Olympic class evasion on your part. If matters lie as they do then why would staunch Republican Southern Ireland sign up with the hated British? Ireland’s ‘neutrality’ was and still is a pantomime because that is all they can afford.
? Your comment makes no sense. Where has Ireland signed up with the British in that context? Yes we know Ireland’s position is flawed, and it is all they can afford because of the way they structure their economy. If another country provides that air defence for nothing why not from their perspective? If they really felt the need to do more they would. Their problem is they are starting from a very low point, which is probably much the same as ours given the peace dividend defence cuts. It is more about Ireland relying on proximity and within NATO’s collective border than anything else. And it is in UK’s interest to cover all the eastern Atlantic area which happens to include Ireland.
Refusing to see plain facts is no argument. The R.A.F. has the permission to monitor the Republic of Ireland’s air space; the topic was well covered by U.K.D.J., as always. Incidentally, how happy are all Scots at paying for Republican air defence? Don’t even go there..
I don’t really understand exactly what it is you are arguing about? This is about Scotland’s contribution to defence of the British Isles. While UK does indeed monitor Ireland’s airspace it is in our interests to do so. Ireland getting a free lunch is to their benefit, but also significantly ours, otherwise we would be at the mercy of a seperate Irish Air territory, and could not otherwise be able to engage effectively over the Eastern Atlantic!
The usual issue that any iScotland is unlikely to have the conditions, politics or restrictions that shaped Irish foreign and defence policy. Its a strawman to use it as the only example of what Scottish policies would be.
It looks like that deal with NATO got revamped last week for Ireland. That 1952 agreement may have been updated along with that.
Details seem to be assistance with intel sharing, cyber security, naval infrastructure and air domain security.
Interesting how the subject of conscription (soldiering on the cheap) hasn’t been mentioned and would the SNP if they gained independence bring such a policy into force. so which countries in NATO conscript their own to serve
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Netherlands
Austria
Estonia
Lithuania
Facts taken from forces news (17/1712/10/22)
Which countries still have conscription?
Infact any very small nation with any threat pretty much has to use conscription and make massive sacrifices to ensure its security…
Yes, and that is why CDS has floated the idea for the UK! UK is small in terms of its actual manpower and equipment holdings. As has been noted and bemoaned by many on this forum over the years. If anything other than a localised police action were to break out we would need to impose conscription rather quickly. Those states that do have it are able to maintain a larger proportion of their population with military experience than us. Our figures are declining, not even staying stable.
Conscription was mentioned ina speech and rapidly disowned as you know. Scotland could however adopt a defence policy from one of the Danish parties: a tape plying ‘We surrender’ over and over again.
Pointless and ridiculous comment. Denmark are in and support NATO.
Lert me make it plain to you. As a United Kingdom we have some clout inside N.A.T.O. an organisation we set up after fascist Europe was pacified by the Anglo-Americans. ‘Alba’ will have no such influence. Get out your tape recorder and practice your Russian.
You need to be plain, if you applied a modicum of thought into your blinkered rant you would realise where you are going wrong. An independent Scotland would have as much clout as any other member, and more than some others given our geographical position. Why would Scotland not have any influence? The UK as a whole or remaining part would continue to have the clout it always had. NATO is composed of many sovereign states. And what you also appear to fail to understand is that Westminster decides what Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland do, based on the overwhelmingly disproportionate demographics. So currently Scotland has no clout and importantly in this context is not able to determine its own future, but if independent would have far more clout than at present.
I’m amazed at the nature of arguments and predefined fixed mindsets which fail to reflect facts inventing or extrapolating things that don’t exist or have not been said merely pushing some misreprented propaganda view. Nowhere has there ever been any form of argued rebuttal of the numerous papers, documents and analyses produced supporting Independence. If instead of saying No there were everyone would be better informed. The art of debate and indeed analysis is to examine all options and given that we cannot predict future circumstances bear the full range of options (not just those that conform with the prejudged preference) in mind when making pronouncements.
I’d like you to answer me a couple of questions if you don’t mind.
Not really, there is no state other than another nuclear state that can actually destroy or subjugate the UK, without using nuclear weapons and suffering destruction itself. Russia could not no continent power could. We don’t need a large army as we are an island, our last line of defence is our airforce and navy…of which both are adequate.
The wider issue is actually about the geopolitical primacy of the western powers and for that we and other nations need to invest in greater capabilities but also ensure we have more robust supply chain and we do not fall for the politics of disunity.
Who would defend the coast line on land, where are our air and anti missile defences? Could the Navy actually patrol the coasts? Yes the big moat that surrounds us would work for a while. Our current defences are inadequate. The likelihood of invasion is low of course. Missiles that can travel hundreds of miles and at supersonic speeds mean that the moat is nwhere big enough. Our defence forces are sized based on David Cameron’s threat assessment from 2010, and the need to provide tax cuts, meaning it has declined further. They did not factor in Russia’s actions and instead of focussing on the ability to send an aircraft carrier to the North Pacific (and potentially lost with one missile) we should have done more in our European locality. Lets also not forget noises coming from the Moscow hawks about a war with NATO! While we can send a division to the Baltics, we couldn’t undertake another Dunkirk style rescue from there. Still less have an effective local defence.
It should be noted that swimmers have repeatedly managed to swim across this moat. As moats go, it could do with a few crocodiles.
Ah but, were those handful of swimmers carrying anything other than a grease coated skin and wet suit? Even the boat people are not carrying much beyond their inadequate clothes. Sadly crocodiles are not a match for steel skinned ships and certainly not aircraft!
Jonathan you must stop thinking Nationalists are ‘rational actors’. It was Scots a long time ago who taught this lesson to me. The S.N.P. rose to power because of Thatcherism. Scotland is much less class conscious than England; it has disposition towards identity that the English have lost. Scotland does not need Independence. It is Independent. It rose to international status as a culture precisely because of the Union. This can be traced back through numerous biographies and industrial concerns.
The problem with your statement is that you are asking a hypothetical question and then assuming an answer. Scotland does not do conscription as neither does UK. The situation may well change (and at short notice) depending on future geopolitics. Until then nobody can say whether or not conscription would be imposed, still less saying that it wouldn’t happen based on current and historic situations. If it were decided that England needed to start it up again then the likelihood would be that Scotland Wales and possibly the whole of Ireland would also.
Its not likely that it would be politically viable for any of Ireland to consider Conscription.
Good Morning Mark. I hope you are well
Why? On what basis do you assume that, do you have a short cut to Ireland’s political decision making process? If there was a threat to their country they would consider such action in exactly the same way we or any other country would. Of course it is not politically tenable at the present time, as for us and many other countries.
I’m Irish, and while I don’t chat to him other than in passing much actually have one of the Cabinet as a neighbour, actually held the defence post for a while not that it counts for much. Anyway, the very idea of Conscription is and has been totally toxic since it was one of the rallying cries against the UK in WW1, any political party that suggests it for anything would sign its political death note. Not too mention the very basic reality that there is no capacity for “conscription” in the Irish defence system, any world event that would require such mobilisation will be over one way or another long before any conscription could happen
Yes extremely toxic, which is why politicians tip-toe around it. As you say starting to conscript after something has kicked off would never work, at best it would end up being ad-hoc guerilla groups. The idea is kick start the process in advance. Most contributors on here (regardless of political persuasion) I suspect are ex-military so have some understanding. The problem we have is that numbers are too low and therefore not as affective a deterrent as they would be. This has the converse effect of making conscription more likely than not. A counter argument is also that having a large military means that some politicians take the view that because it is costing so much it might be worth actually using them in some foreign adventure. The core of this argument is as many of us have been saying for years if not decades that our forces are probably too low to serve as an effective deterrent, especially against someone intent on going out with some form of legacy of ‘greatness’, and a weak looking country is ripe for the taking. What do we really do if Putin decides to roll over the Baltic States? He could do that before we even mobilised let alone fight them to a standstill. Do we rely on the nuclear umbrella to get him to withdraw? In reality unless a madman (sorry person) actually uses them they just sit in the background, which means we need a much more credible conventional capability, which means numbers. We need both not one or the other.
You are correct the UK does not have conscription. But I responded to the authors gravitation towards how the Scandinavians run things regards defence, He cites, Denmark, Sweden , Norway and Finland (He also cited Ireland but technically Ireland isn’t part of Scandinavia) as the examples to follow for Scotland regards defence. In fact, he gushes over how Denmark lost more men per capita than anybody else in Afghanistan (Only a f-ing idiot with no real-life experience who has never had to worry about the men/women under him (Or even had to write their Sjars) expresses such a crass statement) and he ends with:
“”we must look not to the states who claim to be front runners in defence but to those who have successfully utilised their resources to contribute to the defensive community. Meanwhile, we must watch while those who still see themselves as the biggest bullies in the playground run around in circles trying to ‘out-defend’ each other, a process we used to call militarism.””
I don’t know about you but all I saw there. Sorry “assumed” that he is surreptitiously having a dig at the Uk whilst bigging up Noggin the Nog and Thor Nogson . Yet all the countries in Scandinavia and the Baltics subscribe to conscription (I checked Latvia restarted on the 1st of Jan 2024) So if the Scottish defence minister subscribes to the view that the best direction for an independent Scotland is to go down the path the Norsemen has gone down regards defence, then why hasn’t he mentioned conscription seeing as that is the cornerstone for each and every country he admires and wants Scotland to emulate.
I asked a personally reasonable question, which should have been mentioned and answered in his article. He didn’t and its not a question which people should assume doesn’t require answering, because as you make very clear it does
You are interpreting the article to suit your own preferences. The article was abot discussing options and pointing out what other countries do. He was not stating that Scotland must follow those examples exactly. He didn’t ‘gush’, but again pointed out some things that are not in common knowledge. Of course he was discussing things from an Independence perspective. Why should he mention conscription specifically as that model (as I have covered elsewhere) depends entirely on future circumstances? It may or may not be necessary. It is in fact the only way of maintaining some military experience at a consistent level, given our declining numbers and hence declining pool of ex servicepeople. Someone who has done some national service can be brought up to speed much quicker than starting from scratch in some rapidly unfolding emergency. Perhaps you need to write to the author explicitly, instead of making assumptions about intent. He was talking in generality whereas you are coming from a specific position and ascribing your own interpretations on what was written.
You are interpreting the article to suit your own preferences.
What a novel idea. Have you tired it yourself?
Not tired at all! Actually I look at and read, and importantyl analyse. I do not read things without thinking things through and certainly do not jump to conclusions especially fanciful extrapolations and certainty about things that cannot be predicted. I look at options.
Nick wrote:
I responded to a segment of the above article where the Scottish defence secretary promotes the line that Scotland should look at the Scandinavian model of defence rather than that of the British model If that is the model he is presenting to the Scottish public, then he is somewhat remiss in ignoring the elephant in the room. (conscription which is in force in each and every Nation he mentions bar Ireland) and not only is it a elephant, it’s a mammoth of one
And it is somewhat disgenerious for you to accuse me of “” interpreting the article to suit your own preferences.” When I have gone out of my way to substantiate all my posts with actual facts, which the last I looked outweigh your very own polarised opinions. Finally, I didn’t come across this post until just now, because I decided I would be the adult in the room and not reply to your previous one, simply in which to keep the peace. The object of a debate is to find some common ground or agree to disagree. Every post I have knocked out you have arrived at an interpretation of not what I wrote, but what you think I did. That tells me one thing, you are not prepared to listen to anybody else. That you are right and the rest of the world is wrong, well good luck with that. Now you can reply all you want to me on this thread, I’m ending my replies to you on this thread, that’s not me running away from an argument, its me wanting to keep things from getting out of hand, which is what I feel is the direction you want to go down.
I would note that the Scandinavian nations generally have military that would make the SNP blink. Denmark have 5 frigates. Sweden have 95 modern jet fighters & 120 Leopard 2 tanks. Norway currently has 4 frigates (was 5). Both Norway & Sweden have submarines. Finland has the largest artillery capability in Western Europe. Scandinavia is the last place SNP should want to compare Scotland to.
Throughout this debate there has been no mention of what assets Scotland would expect from the UK! It’s ok saying 10% or so but as a defence ‘spokesman’ he should be able to give us a list of what they would want. Also all the countries MrCole has been harping on about already have Armed Forces unlike Scotland that would be starting from scratch with all the costs that would entail.
Well, for a start, the Boomers are off limits. Nuclear weapons to the side, 10% is what? Single one offs don’t work (as in a single SSN or T45). So at best, 3 x underarmed T31 frigates?
And what is wrong with that reference? It is a model, and was produced to get peope to think about options. It is a valid choice, which has NOT been made or stated, but something to be considered. An analysis cannot be at all effective or valid if it excludes other ideas. That was the point of the article, and it was not stating that is the only thing being taken forward. Ever heard of ‘Devil’s Advocacy’? The point of which is to ensure that full account is taken of all possible opinions and options. Excluding one means an inability to deal with it if the unlikely happens. You like many on here are making assumptions about future unpublished and unstated intent. It isn’t as if you have actually produced a valid argument against the concept, which would not be up to you to determine in the event of a future choice anyway. Not forgetting that the scenario depends on what the world is like sometime in the future.
If the author had spent 5 mins doing a search he would have found that the EU has a different view for the likes of Ireland: I quote from the European council of foreign relations website (it has a EU address) on the very subject:
Article 42.7: An explainer
What does it require member states to do?
At the simplest level, member states are required to provide aid and assistance, although the provisions don’t apply equally to all countries. The article contains the provision that it:
This means that countries with long-standing traditions of neutrality, like Ireland or Sweden, are not required to break these.
Be careful that you are not assuming future aspirations, which nobody not even you, can ascribe to other parties. Scotland has never said it would remain neutral. In an ideal world we all would be of course, that is aspirational after all. However the world situation is such that neutrality cannot be confirmed, and current proposals are to maintain if not increase NATO and Eu defence commitments in the event of independence. So nobody can state that Scotland would in fact declare neutrality, so do not assume it will.
As the offspring of Migrants , I personally don’t have an axe to grind for either side. If Scotland votes to leave, then that is their choice and theirs alone. Yes I categorise myself as English, but that is down simply due to been born in England, If I had been born elsewhere in the Uk, I would refer myself as belonging to that geographical area. (Its why I see myself as a Yorky first) As I stated, I don’t have an axe to grind for either side,
So regards me assuming Scotland’s defence posture in the post you replied to , the author stated that for Ireland EU Article 42.7 is more stringent than NATOS article 5 is for NATO members
I pointed out with actual facts, that it isn’t, and that Ireland has a cop-out meaning it isn’t as stringent . Note Ireland and not Scotland. Now what was it you had to say about been careful about assuming something.
Aid and assistance, it does not specifically mandate military, however there is also an expectation that states would defend themselves. Which Ireland are now realising they cannot effectively do. But if they contribute to wider EU support then it is a quid pro quo arrangement. I wasn’t trying to weigh up the differences beween Art 5 or Art 42. And not forgetting that many arguments on here try and extrapolate with absolute certainty future actions or events based on current circumstances. Which leads them down rabbit holes of ill-informed decisions. Who knows what the world will be like in several years time, and who knows what public opinion or acceptabiliy would be then?
I have not had time to read the article but as an avowed Unionist I have always maintained that Scotland could certainly be an Independent Nation and the people of Scotland have every right to support or reject that idea but why should it seek to break from the UK when it could have the best of both worlds by staying?. In addition I agree that the constitutional structure of the UK is in dire need of overhauling and the current setup is full of many absurdities the biggest Elephant in the room being the fact that the largest component, England, does not have its own House!! Westminster cannot be a Parliament for the United Kingdom and an ad hoc assembly for England. A Canada style set up would be a move in the right direction. The decision to leave the EU was hugely damaging to the Union because of the big majorities in Scotland and NI in favour of remaining. I remain on the fence with regard to the whole Brexit saga and while I hope the UK prospers as an independent nation there is no doubt that some benefits accrued to Britannia from being in the EU-in essence, negotiating a better deal might have produced a far less damaging result all round. In particular, because of my NI connection, there is no doubt that with both sides of the Irish border in the EU, normalized relations were vastly improved. The British Union was well secure with little need to look at reunification particularly with the ease of travel and safety checks in the Good Friday deal. Add to this, the fading of religion in general and the decline of dogma on both sides, RC and conservative Presbyterianism and you had a way forward in which all peoples on that Island could have a normal relationship in the context of different traditions.
Reading it is advised, it is considered and argues points. Not every one will understand them and in fact it also puts UK defence into context. Being an avowed Unionist (or traditionalist) is fine but that has to be based on context and fact. Sticking to one’s preferences or prejudices does not always mean that the best solution or better alternative is the right one! It is valid to question beliefs to make sure they remain valid. The big point about lack of an English parliament is extremely pertinent, and gives rise to all the complaints, valid or otherwise. The tax funding model needs to change too, with the devolved nations bearing full fiscal responsibility, and a precept for UK wide costs to be remitted to the centre, as was actually done for the EU (without extending that argument).
Scotland was never not an Independent Nation. It has a Crown, national church, own laws and much else. Scotland has exercised enormous influence over the Union through towering figures since the beginning. Look at the historical record.To hide this plain fact from the people has been one of the greater successes of the Nationalists.
Hi Geoff, I was born and bred in Galloway but raised, lived and worked in Derby for most of my life. Being from a tiny village within 25 miles of Northern Ireland and in site of the South does give an interesting perspective.
Like most of my Kinfolk I am a Scot, a Unionist, British and European in that order, I voted to leave the EU because I just didn’t like the direction they were taking. I was up in Whithorn a few weeks ago and it was pretty interesting talking to my family. They all said the same thing about local long term SNP supporters being either very subdued, no longer being openly supportive or jumping ship to Labour.
If it is as bad for the SNP as most believe it will, I just hope the next UK Government starts a National debate about the future of the how we as a Union modernise and progress together (Gordon Brown has some interesting ideas).
As for the article it’s very well argued and thought provoking, but really is pretty irrelevant right now, but underlines a fundamental need for structural Political change in the UK.
Unless something very serious happens the SNP is about to get walloped at the next GE by Labour so it’s just a moot point.
The one question I’d ask him is given the subsequent loss of the Settlement revenue, having to take on a proportion of the National debt and the effects of U.K. defence personnel and equipment orders raising unemployment.
How are you going to fund any Defence whatsoever unless you cut funding elsewhere ?
He mentions Ireland, Norway, Denmark and Finland as possible role models, the difference is they all have much more resilient economies than Scotland post independence will have.
Yes of course Scotland can be a reasonably prosperous Independent Country but it will take decades and major sacrifices to get there.
Bottom line is it just isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
Good Morning Rodney. Thanks for interesting post. I was born in London 1949 and brought up there and in County Antrim, so similar influences as yours. One point made by Nick with which I disagree-my Unionism is not based on context nor fact but purely on emotion and identity. I have never been a religious bigot but when you have watched the Orange parades as a six year old in the Shankill and similarly had Reach for the Sky and the Dambusters back in London followed by a spell in the last bits of the British Empire in Africa, what else could you be but British?
I enjoy the chat-thanks to all Cheers
ps-most of my ancestors are from Dumfries-Black, Biggar,Caruth, Johnston, Houston. You can see Port Patrick from my cousins house in Donaghadee
Another excellent analysis. Having wide ranging alliances is at the heart of UK defence strategy and has been since the formation of NATO and since then in addition a contribution to EU defence. Such alliances do not need to be composed of overarching sovereign superiority and an Independent Scotland can continue to play its full part in defence. Indeed being landlocked with a larger southern neighbour it remains in both sides interests to engage in mutual and beneficial cooperation. Much of that focusses on Scotland’s geographic position which could relieve that element of burden from England, especially given their predilection for engaging in distant world wide affairs. It could be argued that this position renders UK’s contribution to local regional defence less than it could be. Scottish Independence does not even preclude maintaining a close relationship in addition to or replacing that of EU and NATO in defence of the geographic British Isles, which does include Ireland. However, given the current state of world affairs serious consideration needs to be given to going well beyond the meagre 2% of GDP for defence, as well as viewing with concern Donald Trump’s suggestion that he may scale back US contributions to NATO, even though that is not in their actual interest.
The complete – and very telling – exposition of all that underlies this perpetual argumentation.
Indeed being landlocked with a larger southern neighbour it remains in both sides interests to engage in mutual and beneficial cooperation.
The last few centuries just happend to some other country? Who are these sides by-the-way? You and who else?
‘… especially given their predilection for engaging in distant world wide affairs.‘
Note the language. Forget the significance contribution to the extension of that ‘predilection’ made by Scots of drive and talent.
It is quite nicely written as these things go, but much of Mr Cole’s words mask something I feel he needs to get off his chest. That is what I want to read.
Mutual and beneficial co-operation is not predicated on being subservient to another sovereign entity. Get off my chest? Perhaps you are interpreting too narrowly and not actually looking at what I have been saying? Not sure what you want to read.
The truth that lies behind nationalism everywhere and always. Drop the pseudo analysis and tell what really drives this ambition to break up the Union that gave the world so much – because it did, and Scots had a big hand in achieving that.
Yes the Scots did have a hand in the mess the world is now in! That is another reason why many of us do not want to carry on with the same. I do not do pseudo analysis. I am not stating things with certainty (unlike many on here) and if you read I always have a considered response. There is no certainty about any of the statements people have made against independence, and most of which are not at all well-founded. Is not BrEngland nationalist? Did not Brexit occur because of nationalism? Did not any of the states that have achieved independence start from a locally defined sense of self-identity i.e. nationalism? Can nationalism only apply to other countries and not within them?
Where Scotland would sit among the ‘normal’ states is also subject to some conjecture, with the country rejoining the international community from towards the middle of the pack in population terms but towards the top in per-capita economic terms, with a developed market economy, high level of education and a strong international brand.
I would not call it conjecture more a call for a much needed dose of reality. The problem with all this conversation – much of it weirdly insouciant: Who does the author think has defended the whole of western Europe since 1945? – we are never given a reason for these musings apart from fantasy politics and above all economics.The disparity between an English economy and a Scottish one would be huge. The magnet of England would, like it did on ‘Free State’ Ireland when a third of population moved to live and work in England after 1922. Why ‘break away’ apart from the endless psycho-dramatic possibilities of re-running history intent on changing its outcomes? Comparison around the world with countries that broke up are not favourable. The Balkans ring any bells? Sectarianism is the large pachyderm in the room. Union sublimated this lightening rod in Scottish history. Somehow this unpromising turf is foundation for an ‘independent Scottish foreign policy’ when two non aligned countries viewed through tartan eye peices have slung in the fiction and joined N.A.T.O. However, I do know what it is to be in a minority; most of my fellow countrymen and women in England are heartily fed up with financing ingratitude and would break away tomorrow. I think they, like this day dreaming article, are wrong.
We seam to be getting a lot of articles from the SMP on this site…. any chance of some balance.
Also if England is in a Union with Scotland how come only Scotland gets to voteon the future of that union? Shortly both sides should have a say…..
Out of the last 100 articles on the website, two have been written by this SNP MP. Some balance?
I assume he is asking regards a counter viewpoint to the content in this particular article.
I haven’t gone back to check all articles but if the other 98 are concerning specific defence issues- such as the QE Class carriers for example- I don’t think a valid comparison, and its a fair ask regards balance.
If there are then fair enough as I say I havent checked , I’m just offering what I feel is some context to that comment.
I am fine with it. The defence implications and ramifications for the U.K. and western Europe justify examination. An echo chamber soon palls.
Absolutely agree Barry. Scottish Nationalism is a perfectly valid political viewpoint(one with which I strongly oppose) but should be allowed a voice, particularly inasmuch as it touches on Defence, the core subject of the UKDJ.
I agree. It’s good to read the weak arguments these people invent to break up the greatest union of people the world has seen. It’s certainly not perfect by any means. But I’d rather they worked just as hard to improve things rather than destroy.
There is still so much to do at home and abroad. Seeking energy independence – fully utilising our native natural resources. Developing safe nuclear reactors for the future. Repairing damaged British habitats. Building stronger trade and defence links with the greater Anglosphere. Improving living standards and eliminating poverty for the British etc etc. It’s a long list.
Hi George It’s a tricky one, most subjects have readily identifiable people who could provide a counter article to give a balanced point of view.
But this is a really tricky one because Future Defence Policy of an Independent Scotland is a Hypothetical and very narrow subject matter. I’d struggle to think of any Scottish MP or MSP who would have the SME and opposing view to write a counter Article.
GOOD LUCK 🤔
I may think the guy talks tosh, but I enjoy reading his stuff. First it challenges my prejudices. I only wish it challenged them a little bit better. The idea that we should deliberately diminish from being a global power and take our place in the trailing pack is an interesting one. I don’t find the argument well presented, but it’s rare to find it presented at all. I think I’d like to see a proper analysis of the advantages Britain gains from sitting at the top table (and no matter what other say, we really do). What would be the advantages of giving that up?
I’m glad this series is being published.
I guess I am just uncomfortable about MPs using sites like this as a political platform. Whatever party they are from. I would not like to see this sire become about politics and not defence. But that is just me. You other readers may not have a problem with it.
Rob my friend I appreciate your point. As George said, it has only been two articles. (from a man who according to his profile page has never served.) Full pseudo academic jargon to obscure out the true intention. But look on the bright side. It has given the rest of us an opportunity to vociferously express our objection to breaking up the United Kingdom of Great Britain. That which we swore to serve and give our lives to protect if required. Some of us take defending it very seriously. Not all threats are external or solvable by the liberal use of high explosives.
The UK of GB is held as the yardstick against which other nations are measured. People need to ask themselves why that is?
Defending it is not simply the duty of every British subject, it’s a pleasure.
A notionally independent Scotland would be militarily helpless, and the UK would have to step in to protect Scotland from the Russian vessels and aircraft which would encroach on Scottish waters and airspace. The likes of Putin, or Xi Jinping, will not be deterred by a few small countries tying to band together to exert diplomatic leverage. The whole article is elaborate, fantasist, nationalist nonsense. Scottish secession will not happen, and defence is one of the many issues on which it founders.
Unfortunately for the Scots, from what I have read down the years is that they could not afford to be independent. So anything around contributing much to NATO becomes a mute point sometime in the future (Presuming Scots would get some of the present UK forces). If the Scots want independence, go for it but how has SNP done so far?
“after a wise Professor once pointed out to me that ‘multipolar’ doesn’t work given an object can only have two poles”
Clearly a professor of politics. Two minutes on Wikipedia would have told your professor why he was totally wrong. Even a twelve year old knows the difference between the axial (geodetic) poles and the magnetic poles, making four. Then there are the celestial poles, the grid poles and the solar poles. There are probably more (isn’t there a pole of inaccessibilty?) but that’s ten for a start.
Of course folksy wisdom appeals to politicians as it requires no education and no evidence.
Martin Docherty-Hughes, sir. Your nationalist tendency is commendable but grievously misplaced. If British history can teach us anything it is united we stand or divided we fall. When we British were fighting amongst ourselves playing pass the parcel with Berwick upon Tweed and cross border reiving for sport. None of us achieved anything of note. Other than a few cattle here and there. While in real terms we collectively lost great swaths of land in France etc. However, when we united as one, roughly 25% of the world population and landmass eventually came under our powerful control. What am I trying to say?
You may be Scottish by birth but your are British by the grace of God and our shared monarchy. For the home nations, it is clear from recent events our short term future lies with our kin folk on these islands. For what we have built here and the freedoms we share are rare. Our long term future lies in the greater anglosphere. Between us, we already span the shrinking world and have five vigilant eyes fixed on the global stage. Our reach and influence is therefore unparalleled. There are no better foundations on which to build.
You will have noticed that your unconvincing words have caused some unrest in this forum. I’m not as diplomatic as others on here. So, if you can’t see the logic in standing together as one inseparable entity. You are free to leave and see what it is like around europe, Africa, the middle east, CCP controlled China. Your family will not want to settle there.
Some would respectfully suggest you consider emigrating and don’t let the door hit you in the derrière on the way out. Depositing your British passport in the box provided. – Wishing you Hwyl fawr, slàn leibh and aingidh in our native tongues – good bye. But not me.
You mentioned Finland. They have just joined NATO for good reason. I’m told it is nice there this time of year, with the promise of an imminent heat wave blowing in from Russia.
Hello George,
In the last four months you have made three open calls for a military coup if Labour win the next election, and what I concider to be one more coded one. Is that still your wish?
Before people bother answering your posts they have the right to know you are a traitor.
consider(sic)
Your hatred is noted.
What a load of gammon flavoured gibberish. The UK is a joke, mainly due to 🤡 dregs like you. It will dissolve, just like your much vaunted “Empire”, with a whimper, as gracelessly as it began.
Oh dear, more angry froth down the front of your tank top. Wipe up, dry up an grow up.
Note anti-British hate speech is the only type permitted these days. Even on this alleged UK defending site. This is what happens when weeds are granted protected status and not pulled out by the roots.
Like others on here, I am happy to be Scots, British and European.
I am not a nationalist supporter, either the Scottish version or the Farage-Brexity English one, as i believe that we all benefit from the Union and made a serious mistake leaving the EU. (The latter is a particularly strong sentiment in Scotland, where Leave got a pretty big thumbs down).
But if the Scots wish to be independent, so be it, 1707 was a long time ago, things change and people change their minds accordingly. The one thing we should do is amend our creaky, outdated and rather feudal ‘constitution’ in respect of referenda.
Whether a company, a sports club, a local organisation, a chariy, a political party etc, changing the constitution always requires a two-thirds majority. This to prevent annual narrow changes to the corporate bible by agitating and warring factions.
A vote to leave the Union – and likewise to rejoin the EU, or any other constitutional matters, such as House of Lords reform, switching to a PR system, etc – should in law require a two-thirds majority. This to make sure that a plurality of the nation supports the measure, not just a temporary narrow majority swayed by manufactured prejudice, false claims on the side of a bus or whatever PR ploy..
I rather doubt that 2/3rds of the Scots Northern Irish or Welsh would vote for seccession, but if they did, these nations are entitled to go their own way and good luck to them.
On defence, the Scots make a disproportionately large contribution in numbers to the British forces across all arms and services.
Looking at the infantry alone, they provide 5 battalions, including 1 Scots Guards and 1 Rangers, from a population of 5.2m. Yorkshire (5.7m) manages only 2, West Midlands (5.8m) just one, North-West (7.4m), again just one. The Scots are not the backsliders here.
Being 1/13th of the UK population, an independent Scotland would only require 1 frigate, 1 submarine, 12 fighter aircraft and two infantry battalions to mirror current, depleted UK numbers. I am sure they would do rather better than that and also play their full part in NATO.
The Irish Republic is fractionally larger than Scotland in population, 5.5m, why English commentators should be expecting.them to be able to field fighter jet numbers, MR/ASW aircraft, frigates etc is beyond me. Yes, it would be nice if they were a NATO member and sought to match Denmark’s small military capability, but the sense of grievance shown by some on this side of the Irish Sea is out of all proportion to the small military contributions involved.
Excellent post 👍🏾
Nope.
Under a crop of mushroom clouds from one of our enemies or from imported antagonists determined to take what we have worked for. Take your pick.