Labour MP Graeme Downie has written to First Minister John Swinney to express “deep concern” over recent remarks by a senior Scottish Government minister suggesting public money should not be spent on ammunition or military equipment.
In the strongly worded letter, dated 3 June, Downie criticised the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands for comments made over the weekend, questioning whether her stance reflects official Scottish Government policy.
He also condemned the Scottish Government’s refusal to support a major Rolls-Royce initiative that could have created thousands of skilled welding jobs in Glasgow.
“You will be aware that this issue arose after the disappointing news that the Scottish Government was unwilling to support the creation of thousands of welding jobs by Rolls Royce in Glasgow,” Downie wrote. “I am pleased that while the Scottish Government and its agencies are failing to support these jobs, the UK Labour government will step in and deliver these opportunities.”
The Dunfermline and Dollar MP said the Cabinet Secretary’s comments reveal a “ludicrous” and “inconsistent” position, adding:
“Can I ask if it is the policy of your government that public money should not be spent on ammunition and military equipment to defend our country… and, if so, how would you otherwise suggest this is funded?”
He highlighted concerns from defence industry workers in his constituency, including those at Babcock and QinetiQ, who have reportedly felt neglected by SNP politicians.
“This even extends to a refusal by SNP politicians to publicly meet with them or praise their incredible skill and contribution,” he noted. “A failure to distance yourself from these recent manoeuvres… would, sadly, lead me to the conclusion that you are willing to place outdated SNP dogma regarding the UK armed forces and defence sectors above the security of our country.”
Downie also accused the SNP-led administration of holding contradictory positions, supporting closer ties with the EU on security while opposing a UK-EU defence and trade agreement, and criticising UK budgets while benefiting from record spending increases.
He concluded by urging Swinney to “distance yourself from the comments of the Cabinet Secretary and look for ways in which your government can support our defence industry in devolved areas, including investment and the vital skills agenda.”
CND were and are a tool of the Russian and Chinese states….I’m afraid nationalist, separatist and isolationist political movements are to.
It’s a bit hard to admit if you support one of these, but sadly it’s true.. even if the political or peace movements have a valid point… being right is not always right.
The fact that Russia and China lauded CND and the activists the rest of the sentence doesn’t actually reflect the situation. You are over simpliying many different issues into one. A lot of if not most Scottish antagonism towards nuclear weapons is based on the proximity of the submarine bases and weapon stores to a major population conurbation. This location then tends to sway opinion against nuclear deterrence. Remember that Scotland has a significant war like history. So you cannot conflate your two separate points. Defence is only one part of that argument, important as it is but there are lots of other significant factors supporting Scottish, Welsh and N Irish independence which most of the time take precedence. Politics is about all of these not just one.
You’re very much missing my point it does not matter the wrong or right or the complexity of argument ( as everything in geopolitics is profoundly complex). It does not remove the fact they are all tools for these disruptive foreign powers.. personally I believe CND has a good moral argument.. pragmatically they were being played.. same with the leave vote etc… just because you think something is right does not mean your not being played by a foreign power. You could have a profound belief that Scotland would be better off independent and you may even be correct from your point of view.. it does not mean Russia and China have not been happy supporting that in the background simply because it weakens an enemy.. not because is right or wrong…
I wasn’t arguing about the complexity but your comment re the disruptive foreign powers affects all sides, in different ways depending on the target audience. I was also not arguing about independence, that is a distraction to this thread after all, but pointing out that if people have a grievance, for example whether it is about racial groups exploiting children or loss of key industries then those grievances are perfectly valid and fundamentally you do not solve a grievance by telling people to shut up, and even more so by doubling down on that grievance. Why Scotland is so against nuclear weapons and by extension nuclear power as weapons facilitation, is because of that proximity, and when that has been placed by a group of people 500 miles away from it there is an issue. Yes I agree CND have a very strong moral point but they are also using that wider grievance to support their goals. Unfortunately have an open(ish) society with sort of free speech and a right to protest does mean we are a bit vulnerable, but the only way of countering that is by enforcing compliance with leader’s wishes! Russia and China being classic examples! Our job is to turn what the enemies see as a weakness into a strength.
Indeed it’s important to recognise that it may be valid ( and in my first comment I very clearly stated these parties and organisations can have valid points ) but our enemies will use them..because the right or wrong even the argument itself is irrelevant to someone using something for political warfare purposes..they are simply trying to create disunity and conflict.
The Chinese communist party for instance don’t care a jot about trans rights in the UK..but if they see an opening to create a toxic argument that causes political division and disunity they will have their political warfare operatives working both sided of the argument.
You have three high level choices to counter that:
1) re-enforce chosen dialogue and control.. essentially this is what china does it brainwashes and controls its population through education, monitoring and enforcement.
2) isolation.. this is the North Korean method.. if you control all information flows and stop any dialogue you don’t want getting through then that works.
3) ensuring the argument stays within the bounds of set rules and procedures..this is the western way, essentially the rule of law.
Now it’s not that simple as actually every system uses some of each to a greater or lesser degree.. so even in the west we have re-enforcement dialogue and control..infact social media algorithms are exactly that and some isolation ( this is the least used in the west but it’s there..remember not being able to hear the voices of republicans in NI)..
The issue is separating out and managing the core grievance so it cannot be exploited.. the problem is modern communications allows for the spread of so many grievances so quickly that exploitation by enemies political warfare operations is inevitable.. and the only way we can counter that is to try and get people to understand that sometimes their grievances are not more important that fundamental requirements like the continuation and safety of our society.
Hi Nic Our local SNP apologists. This a defence site please join CND or Russia Today
I’m not arguing party politics, just pointing out illogicalities and inconsistencies. And FYI the reasons for people having an anti-nuclear opinion (not necessarily me) are the basis of the debate and the subsequent impact on defence issues. You cannot ignore an aspect because it may be incoinvenient for a particular stance. Denial of that opinion does not make it go away or change. Akin to sweeping it under the carpet – it is still there and denial entrenches opposition. Defence is not just about weapons and systems, it is about strategy, tactics and consequences as well.
Yes, with the most successful so far being Leave although Reform hope to push Putin’s agenda even further.
And when the bombs fall on Glasgow, the SNP will come running to Britain for support.
If Faslane and Coulport were not there then the likelihood of bombs or fallout in the central belt is reduced! That is the argument! And in any event Scotland is in the UK, pays its taxes to the UK, and is in NATO as part of the UK. Defence being a completely reserved matter it would be entirely appropriate for any affected location in the UK to seek support from the UK government and which it is obliged to provide! So your point is what?