Perhaps Mr Salmond could have a quiet word with Mr Putin in Russia, explain how the new plan for stripping Scotland of these key elements of military capability and get him to take Scotland off his list of targets for nukes.
The SNP policy is for Scotland to be effectively demilitiarised in terms of any international capabilty and barely able to defend itself. Moreover it intends to compromise the capabilty of the UK by insisting on the removal of a key asset.
This is a small-minded policy that takes a very simplistic view of world politics.
You really don’t get do you?
It can be a nasty world out there and you have to be prepared for anything. Alliances like NATO are an insurance policy, you have to bring something to the table, it is not a buffet for fussy eaters.
Aspiring to be like the Republic of Ireland is not a good look.
There are many other political parties in the Scotland with a less ostrich-ike perspective on geopolitics. The SNP policy is a one trick pony. At independence I would expect its support to collapse as the practicalities of the policies are revealed to be ill thought out and its strategy full of holes.
The election campaign starts on the 30th of May and the vote is on the 18th September.
Ireland is an excellent role model for a Neutral state. Why should Scotland not choose this- an independent Scotland would not be sub-servient to the Rump UK and would plough its own furrow.
The problem is that you are seeing things from a neo-colonialist perspective- what does Scotland owe to Rump UK, rather than asking what sort of State, Political, Social and Economic do the people of Scotland want. That is what independence is about. Currently the SNP is voted for by 45% of the people of Scotland- a greater plurality than any party in England has had for a century. Additionally many of the rest are LibDem or Labour- traditional parties with large numbers of supporters committed to a less aggressive foreign policy, even if their leanings are to the union.
As I have said above, if independence is voted for, I expect an electoral bounce for the SNP for the first few years.
The NATO negotiations will be interesting. Scotland would want to join, but would not want to shoulder an unreasonable burden of defence, or to host any Nuclear Weapons. Several other NATO countries also have this position.
If NATO was to come over all Dog-in-a-manger about it, Faslane comes into the picture- what is the decommisioning time allowed before it leaves? This gives Scotland quite a bit of leverage- imagine if the timescale were to be one year if Scotland decided to become awkward if refused NATO membership. Real-politic suggests that NATO membership will be open immediately and there will be virtually no public rancour.
Neutrality such as the Irish Republic is not a bad fallback position- it is not as if Ireland or Scotland are going to be invaded initially, and were they threatened it would be in NATO’s interests to safeguard them.
In the same spirit as the above let us consider the Bully Boy threats of the Better Together campaign:
Scotland would not gain EU membership
Consider the position pre and post independence- either EU membership is quickly agreed or it is not. If it is, no problem. If Spain or Rump UK cause a problem, so what. Scotland would be part of the EEA and consequently have full access to European markets so long as it complies with EU regulations. Individually, every Scot would have access to the EU as Scots will retain the right to a full British passport as was the case with all Residents of the Republic of Ireland until 1948.
The Pound Sterling will be forbidden to the Scots.
Consider the position after pre and post independence- the pound sterling is de facto the currency. The Pound Sterling is an internationally traded currency with Notes printed in Scotland under licence from the UK or in the UK. These would remain in circulation and even if denied a seat of the Bank of England board, the Scottish position would be no different ot now- no direct Scottish influence over monetary policy. Enough time for the Euro to rehabilitate itself or another solution to be found.
My view, along with many in Scotland (and many in the Rump UK) is that there is a better way to organise society than the way that has happened over the past 300 years in the Britain/US Hegemony that has resulted in No-conservatism in the US and loss of an effective party of the liberl/left in the UK.
Scotland has a chance to try a different model- why should we not!
There is a bit of that on my part, I can’t deny it. After years dealing with England’s passive-aggressive attitude towards Europe, it would be nice for Europe to leave England instead of the other way around. I’ll gladly take Scotland as a new EU country and let England cross the Atlantic alone
That’s the essential point to me, and it’s the reason why the ‘Yes’ Campaign has so much more potential than the ‘Better Together’ one. They can promise a new world, a new way of doing things, a real change. The unionists may be right about everything, but almost by definition they can’t compete in terms of passion. It’s the same reason why incumbent parties do badly in national elections in times of economic troubles.
Unionism didn’t bring about neo-conservativism, and you’re saying Unionism is responsible for neo-liberalist economics?
But again, you’re making my point of the likes of the SNP and pro-independence camp of constructing a narrative of,
Unionists/Unionism = Conservatives, right wing, neo-liberlists, little englanders.
Pro Independence/SNP = Liberal, left wing, socialist, oppressed minority
Britain can give devolution due to Scotland being part of Britain. That’s the point.
I might add, that due to the SNP withdrawing support from Callaghans government, an election was called which subsequently ushered in Margaret Thatcher, maybe that in part had to do with the reason why it was put off for a generation.
You can’t ignore the reaction of people on both sides of the border if Scotland becomes Independent, remember there are still plenty of Unionists in Scotland as well as England.
:rolleyes:
And I bet good money you’d consider any Scottish Unionist to be a ‘self-hating Scot’ enough of the self loathing.
Not Unionism, but the current Anglosphere political structure which favours neo-conservatism; there are different ways.
It is not for @Britain’ to ‘give’ independence from the UK, it is Scotland’s right to claim it. If Cameron had not agreed to play ball, the SNP would have called its own referendum and probably won it. Scotland is recognised as more of a political entity than many areas claiming independence.
You have the referendum in 1979 the wrong way round- it occurred before the General Election and was one of the reasons the Labour Government fell as Nationalists withdrew their support after Scots voted for Devolution by 52%-48% but were denied by a stupid act of Parliament requiring 40% to vote for devolution.
And you would be wrong. If you read back you will find that I tend toward Independence (and especially the right of the Scottish people to make that decision) but believe a good case can be made for Unionism. I see the argument as academic rather than personal and think that both Unionists and Nationalists have good arguing points (not that Better Together has actually expressed them well.)
You still don’t understand, Scotland is part of Britain, so Britain gave a portion of itself the chance to vote on independence, you’re characterising Scotland as a separate entity from Britain, where as it is an integral part of the Union, just as England is.
I said it ushered Thatcher in '79 because of the SNP withdrawal of support to Callaghan in 78, how exactly did I get it the wrong way round?
I have a problem with your assertion that your pro-independence stance isn’t based on some emotion when you make comments such as;
I think it’s quite understandable to be emotional about it, and I won’t be one to say I am not, I don’t think it’s unusual to feel passionate about something like this regardless of your political stance, but don’t pretend to act like it’s entirely based on an academic perspective.
Um, that’s not really what it’s all about, you know. No wish to “humiliate” the English. Or Welsh, for that matter. Or N.I. We will continue to be neighbours and it tends to be wise to get on well with your neighbours. (Suddenly I am hearing the Small Faces" in my head.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXeRB-3nDR8
If your post can be taken as suggesting that the remaining U.K. or EW&NI might stop to reconsider its fondess for wars and its true place in the world, well, that could be a good thing. The UK often seems still to consider itself as a great power and a world leader, but it isn’t, really, and a lot of money is pent on maintaining that pretence.
May I say that I do like “strangehold”, though? That’s a lovely word. (Not being rude: often typos invent terrific new words)
Whether that is true or not (I was five at the time, so don’t exactly remember it), let’s not forget that the Tories got 31% of the vote in Scotland in 1979 and was still getting a quarter of the vote in 1992. It was only then that support for the Tories started to deteriorate. This idea that all of Scotland is wonderfully socialist (ignoring the fact that the modern Labour party simply isn’t socialist in any way shape or form yet still manages to get more support than the SNP in General Elections) and can’t stand anything Conservative is only a very modern idea, basically due to some stupid policies by the Tories in the late 80s and 90s.
The Tories over the years have enjoyed quite a bit of support in Scotland and there is no reason to assume that it will never return, especially if the Scottish Conservative party ends up being completely decoupled from the one in the rest of the UK.
There is some Tory vote and they have 15 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs).
That doesn’t make me especially happy personally, but all shades of opinion must be represented.
They might have done better than to chose Ruth Davidson as leader: someone who only joined the Conservative Party in 2009, was made candidate for the seat of Glasgow North East (utterly unwinnable, but obviously just so that she could claim some “experience”) also in 2009, and then suddenly was annointed leader in 2011. Nothing against her personally, and it was probably, at least in part, a statement of ‘look, we are modern and more open-minded than you might think we are’ to choose a lesbian woman as leader. Oh, and young too. Still it did rather look like a strange choice.
That’s common kind of statement, generally by people on the left or left/center, but it contains a key assumption which is a matter of opinion, among the key matters of opinion defining left and right to begin with: ie it assumes that more redistributive taxation and other generally more activist government intervention in the economy will benefit middle and lower income people in the long run. That can’t be conclusively disproved (depending which particular policies and degree), but it’s also not obvious. Certain people who’d benefit from more left-oriented economic policies according to the left may quite reasonably doubt they would in fact benefit, taking into account all knock on effects, especially in the longer run. By the same token the definition of conservatives or free marketers as ‘those who want public economic policies which benefit the rich’ is a more naked example of the same biased assumption.
That said, the first part of your sentence is certainly true. If economics drove all politics there wouldn’t be a serious Scottish independence movement, or lots of other political movements of all stripes in other places. In order to make their case politically the separatists have to convince Scottish voters that independence won’t cost a lot in economic terms. They might convince some voters it’s a net economic positive, but those would almost always be voters inclined to vote in favor for other reasons anyway. The movement obviously doesn’t arise out of a discussion of what’s the best possible idea for improving the Scottish economy.
