The furore in the letters pages of Scotland’s newspapers that has predictably followed the revelation that the SNP is to debate the issue of membership (or not) of Nato at its National Council gathering in June is tired, inflated and reactionary.
Accusations of yet another Salmond U-turn are being bandied about as evidence of the SNP’s ability to sway with the wind as long as it brings the party votes in a referendum – but, frankly, it rings a little hollow on this particular issue.
The SNP’s attitude to Nato was formed during its many years in opposition.
Years when it could pick away at the scab of Britishness, years when it could seethe at Scotland not having a seat at the top table [on anything] and years away from getting within sniffing distance of independence.
It was easy to be against something when you weren’t part of it, but the SNP’s opposition to the fundamental principle of Nato as a nuclear alliance was a genuine, heartfelt belief against Trident and was right for its time.
However, seeking to create a real, live independent state is a very different ball game from playing fantasy politics from the back benches; and it is one in which the strategic position of Scotland and the strategic interests of others has to be taken into account.
Surely it is a sign of the maturity of the political journey that the party has taken that it can, as a party of government and one that may lead Scotland into independence, debate as difficult and as sensitive an issue as this one at this point in its career trajectory when a foot wrong could see a referendum lost.
But the musings about Nato membership are not just for internal party consumption or even UK-wide consideration. It is part of the wider global SNP charm offensive by adopting a ‘don’t frighten the horses’ view of constitutional change, and showing that the party doesn’t wish to rock any international community boats.
In fact, Scotland is Nato’s aircraft carrier. The best in the world. From it Nato can intercept any attempt by the Russian Northern Fleet to break into the Atlantic, and threaten the lifeline between the USA and Europe. The Cold War may be over but Putin is now boosting the military power of Russia. Disruption through secession from any part of Nato, especially such a geo-strategic one as Scotland, will make powerful opponents of independence.
How could this opposition be exercised? Not by overt threats from the USA, which Salmond has often had to field, but from blocking measures by Nato’s EU member states.
When the issue of automatic entry to the EU comes up they hold the key to destroying the SNP campaign.
So, on Nato, what is the point in making enemies who can damage the chances of you fulfilling your political goal when it’seasier not to?
Ah, but, the purists say, Nato is pro-nuclear and the SNP is not and that will be what exercises party members in June.
But Alex Salmond’s SNP has been one of enviable discipline; that what Salmond says goes.
While it is true that some supposed changes of party line appear to have been thought of on the hoof with even government ministers taken aback by some of the FM’s more recent proclamations, it remains a common ministerial mantra to say the ‘membership will not be surprised’ when questioned on apparent policy shifts like the continuation of sterling or the position on the Queen.
I am as cynical as the next person as to what this newly created ‘social union’ idea is all about. I have wondered what the point would be of voting for an independence that looks much like the status quo and I have questioned the credibility of a party that views policy change like a pick ‘n’ mix stand depending on the prevailing view, but I don’t see a debate about future membership of Nato in the same category as which bank, currency or royalty we would assume.
There are some beliefs that stand the test of time but there are others that need to be reassessed in the context of time, place and reason. Being part of Nato is one of them.
Having said that, the party’s stance on Nato must not be confused with its long-held antinuclear platform. And if Nato membership would necessitate Trident remaining in the Clyde then I believe that would be too high a price for the party to pay and I would expect dissent.
As recently as last Thursday in the Chamber Salmond was describing the nuclear deterrent as abhorrent, and he was rewarded with uproarious applause from his benches for denouncing it. This places the party in a corner.
So the issue cannot just be membership of Nato when the party is so clearly against nuclear weapons under any circumstances. There is no chance of the USA or France giving up those weapons (leaving aside whether the UK does or not). So, given that Scotland has hosted Trident on the Clyde for 50 years already and it was never going to be manhandled out of the water on the day after Independence Day, maybe the compromise will be this; be a member of Nato, remain against nuclear, but give Trident time to re-locate, meanwhile pocketing a fair rent?
No party can ever stay the same. Priorities and positions have to change with the times. And, as the Liberal Democrats will testify, the public will in the end forgive and understand changes in policy but they will not accept broken promises.
Mandy Rhodes
Mandy Rhodes is Managing Editor of Holyrood Communications. Mandy is editor of the flagship title Holyrood magazine and responsible for the editorial content of all other associated titles and products. Mandy graduated from StirlingUniversity in the early 1980s with a joint Honours degree in Scottish History and Sociology. She trained on a local newspaper in Wester Hailes and completed her journalism training at Napier University. She has worked for nearly 30 years in journalism in Scotland in newsprint, television and radio broadcasting and was part of the launch team of Scotland on Sunday. She has won numerous awards over the years including PPA Magazine Editor of the Year, Feature Writer of the Year and Columnist of the year. She was social...
Joining NATO would not be a sign of political maturity from the SNP but of naivety. Changing its policy would not mean that the retired generals who currently rubbish SNP defence policy will suddenly decide that independence is a good idea, nor will it encourage unionist supporters of the alliance to vote Yes in the referendum. If such a change did go ahead its main effect would be on those who are firm opponents of nuclear weapons and who are willing to let that concern influence how they cast their vote in 2014. Polls show that opposition to nuclear weapons is higher than support for independence.
What is needed is a real debate on potential threats to Scottish security in the future. NATO is a creature of the past and its recent adventures in Afghanistan are a further reason to reject this US-led alliance.
In recent news the MoD will put NEW WMDs on the Clyde – are we all really THAT SURPRISED? Its only been 50 years now and the SNP equates this development to a case of "shock horror". And playing Devil's advocate – anyone with a terchnical understanding of these platforms/systems understands that this is an improvement in terms of mechanism and assembly safety (and yes the SNP (and other parties) arguments regarding safety and expense are well acknowledged) NEVERTHELESS, when is the SNP going to stop devoting so much time to the submarine/missile platform when it has an INDEPENDENCE agenda in front of its nose? Obviously the issue is employed for vote-gathering and persistence, but when will the party begin looking ahead to the country's own security needs – the SNP has npt done so yet. If independence is going to come to fruition the need for considerable research has come to the fore. Whilst …
the independence option is a good thing for Scotland, unfortunately the SNP appears incapable of mending together a coherent and sensible defence policy that not only caters to the needs of Scotland, but the wider security needs of the international community. Perhaps this stems from the lack of military experience within the upper realm of the party itself – which is not uncommon in any political party – anywhere. The Trident/nuclear issue (and obvious Scottish-specific issues) has, for far too long, blinded party leadership of its national security requirements as well as its potential commitments abroad. This being the case, a selfish and self-centred policy has dwelled on its shrinking contributiuons to the UK defence footprint, and its "enslavement" to UK nuclear defence policies. An anti-Trident stance once generated votes – not so much anymore. And the Scottish national economy (to be based primarily on oil rigs yes?) will be left to be defended by who and what security alliance will assist in times of need (environmental/military, etc, crisis)?
And the standard SNP commentary about the regiments and traditional Scottish services left to stand in the wake of independence? And what about Scottish say within the international community – especially if the SNP government intends to work within the international energy sector? Robotics and technology are the future (numerous hints within the INTERNATIONAL media point to unmanned aircraft, UAVs, USVs, UAS, and the Revolution of Military Affairs etc etc), (and where is the Silicon Glenn's place in this?) and still the SNP maintains its insular, backward thinking about Trident, NATO, soldiering, unilateral, bilateral, multilateral strategies etc and disregards the vast technological path forward. I suspect the party's "defence working group" discusses issues surrounding hardware and personnel but fails to consider various other highly important issues: technological, budgetary, intelligence logistical issues, etc.. – perhaps I am wrong – I am concerned….
in that I think I am not. Nevertheless, when will realistic designs for Scottish defence and international cooperation be revealed? A European defence mechanism? Seriously – and Scotland is to be an oil producing nation? (bunnies hate fences until the wolves are loose) What has been considered in regards to the future of Scottish defence policy, rather than the same old drum beat that lost the ears of its electorate many years ago? Scotland is well worthy of the independence option, but while the SNP and its supporters worked so very hard to reach this very special point, it has failed to verify how it will adequately defend its people, sovereignty and economy as well as assist international interests. How familiar is the SNP with the numerous fields of intelligence – does it realize how many categories of "intelligence" there are? How will Scotland collect intelligence if its INTEL resources are minimal (or non-existent) – all while acting as an oil producing nation?…
These intelligence fields directly relate to Scotland and its situation within the international arena. Yes there have been stories of logistical exercises in times of humanitarian assistance (First Minister, respectfully sir, where will you get the C-17s to deliver Scottish food tins (though there is an assumption the RUK will hand over equipment), who will defend these materials as they travel to their appointed destinations (drop zones dont always employ a one off trip), who will supply the fuel for the C-17s, and so on and so on) It is obvious that many respect and encourage the concept and potential for an independent Scotland, but not a Scotland left vulnerable to thoughlessness and external aggresssion. Broad interpretations and minimalist planning do not make for national security, and apologies to the SNP collective, but the organization has not yet demonstarted the capability to lead the nation within an international, or even domenstic military context thus far. It has two years to develop this understanding and time is ticking…. One might also take interest in interest in international law. the NNPT, NATO policies etc beforehand…