The Westminster disease
We’re finding it hard to get worked up about the media’s latest shock-horror revelations with regard to the SNP’s policy on NATO membership. All that’s been proposed is that the party debates its position at its annual conference, and if a party’s members agree – or not – on an alteration to a policy then that’s what the party’s policy should be. It’s an exercise of the most fundamental principle of democracy, and we can’t even really be bothered pointing out the laughable hypocrisy of it being criticised by a party that refuses to tell us its policy on just about anything, including defence.
That said, we were still deeply dismayed by Angus Robertson’s performance on last night’s Newsnight Scotland. Highly-rated by most political commentators, Robertson may be a whiz at actually drawing up policy and strategy but he’s hopeless at presenting it. While SNP figures like Nicola Sturgeon, Stewart Hosie, John Swinney and the First Minister himself have provided a breath of fresh air with direct and honest answers in interviews since coming to power, Robertson seems stuck in the mindset of Westminster, and his needlessly vague, waffling and evasive responses to Isobel Fraser’s perfectly legitimate and not especially challenging questions were like stepping back in time a decade, or watching Johann Lamont now.
To be honest, we don’t really care whether an independent Scotland is in NATO or not, so long as nuclear weapons are removed permanently from Scottish waters. We struggle to see how it would affect the day-to-day life of Scottish people, and we’re not the least bit convinced it’s a matter of pressing importance to the average voter. But what we DO regard as a danger for the SNP and by extension the independence movement is if it comes increasingly to be seen as just like all the discredited and widely-loathed Westminster parties, rather than the genuinely different alternative to the neoliberal consensus that it actually is.
Appearances like Robertson’s last night will damage the SNP far more than an entirely reasonable debate about policy at conference, which is after all the very thing party conferences are supposed to be for. We hope someone takes him aside and points out that if we wanted useless Westminster politicians, we could just stay in the Union.
Pretty much agree with the substance of what you say on NATO. Line in the sand for me would be nuclear weapons, there must be a commitment and a plan for their removal from Scotland. We presume (aye right) that this is a view shared by Lamont, a long time opponent of Trident but now completely dumbstruck on the issue.
Actually thought Robertson was OK last night. Isobel Fraser was pumped up on the “betrayal” angle, hoping to quickly draw blood in the few pitiful minutes the topic was given. Robertson got his line out rather than engage in trading punches.
I Concur. I spotted some time ago, an element of complacency from certain people within the SNP.
As regards NATO, it is indeed, of little importance to most people, and the forthcoming decision by the SNP will be about party policy. That fact however, will not stop the biased BBC and associated anti independence media, attempting to conflate the SNP policy on NATO with independence. With independence will come an election, and Scots will be free to choose the type of government that truly represents what they want, it may be SNP, it might not.
As things stand, we are currently in NATO, so if we are still in NATO when independent, it matters very little to me. The important point of independence, is that for the first time ever, Scotland will able to decide if it really wants to be part of NATO, but more importantly, Scotland will be free to get rid of the unwanted nuclear weapons of mass destruction located just a few miles from Scotland’s highest density population centre, Glasgow.
“Robertson got his line out”
That’s exactly what I mean, though. He dodged answering any questions directly, and just kept repeating what was clearly a pre-prepared soundbite about “friends, neighbours and allies” or something, like Ed Miliband did in the infamous “strikes” interview. In other words, just like A.N. Other Westminster politician.
Wow, I missed it, but I’ll have to catch up at lunchtime. This sounds totally unlike Angus Robertson – the last time I saw him on Scotland Tonight debating defence, he seemed completely on top of his brief. Maybe it was made easier coming after (or was it before? I forget) General Mike “Shamone” Jackson, with his British imperialist mindset and his 20th century approach to 21st century defence issues.
As to the resolution itself, I think it’s inspired. Personally, I’m not overly concerned about NATO membership, although my preference is for joining the PfP programme with Finland, Ireland and Sweden etc. But I’ve seen even independence supporters calling for the SNP to drop opposition to NATO in order to provide a credible position on defence, so it’s not like this is purely a case of the no campaign trying to pick at holes that aren’t there in the independence argument.
If membership of NATO can be continued with the concessions stated in the resolution – namely allowing Scotland to remove Trident from our shores and only participate in UN-backed missions – then opposition to NATO will look increasingly idealistic, rather than a practical response. Nuclear weapons can be opposed on both idealistic (nuclear weapons are wrong) and practical stances (harbouring nuclear weapons in Scotland makes us a target; they are expensive and will never be used and thus serve no practical purpose). If NATO membership does not force us to keep those weapons, nor force us to take part in non-UN sanctioned missions, then what are the practical objections to it?
That’s not to say there is something inherently wrong with being opposed to something for idealistic reasons, but as the mainstream party of independence – and the current Scottish Government – I think people expect the SNP to propose a practical vision of independence, leaving the idealistic ones to other parties. Those parties may criticise the SNP for not offering a radical enough view of independence, but the simple fact is if what these parties consider to be the winning arguments were truly in tune with what people want, they wouldn’t be “radical” at all. And they’d be in government…
In short, I think there is more to be won from this than to be lost. After all, just like the monarchy and other questions, the alternative (remaining in the union) brings those opposed to NATO membership not one step closer to realising their goal, and would be the textbook definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face.
The Westminster style of yah-boo politics turns ordinary folk off politics. I firmly believe that is the result that Westminster wants. They don’t want folk coming into politics with a fresh approach that will upset their cozy apple cart.
You can see the same approach with the Unionist partys at Holyrood, despite a valiant attempt by other partys to have ‘grown up’ politics. The Unionist partys want Joe McPublic to think all politicians are the same, and turn them off from the decision making process.
Sirrah
You have a point.
I believe that the Westminster influence on the SNP does make them sound like any other party.
I have watched First Minister’s Questions on iPlayer and can only conclude that that is the way Alex Salmond likes it. It’s frustrating to seem him fail to answer questions as this gives his enemies ammunition to use against him.
There doesn’t seem much new on offer. Though Alex Salmond has my sympathy over NATO.
My short period of membership when I lived in Scotland was dedicated to opposition of NATO and Trident.
I want rid of nuclear and want no part in illegal wars.
Membership of NATO – is a pre-requisite if Independence stands a chance. They’ll probably have to lease Trident at its present locations also – but hopefully not permanently.
It’s why I’m for joining the Greens. For me it’s a compromise too far.
“I want rid of nuclear and want no part in illegal wars.”
So do the SNP, and that’s precisely why the resolution specifically says we would only continue membership of NATO on the proviso that a) Scotland not be prevented from removing Trident from our shores and b) we would only participate in UN-sanctioned military action. If those two goals prove to be at odds with membership of NATO, then Scotland would join the Partnership for Peace programme instead.
That’s why I think this is an inspired compromise, because in practical terms, there are no compromises. It’s not saying “if you let us stay in then I suppose we can be relaxed about this”, it’s saying “we’ll only stay in if we can do it on our terms”.
Pragmatic approach from the SNP. The crucial point is that nuclear weapons in Scotland are non-negotiable.
Strategically for the referendum, The NATO stance needed to be clarified early in the campaign. Lets see what happens in the upcoming debate.
Also I’m not realy sure what the problems with Robertsons delivery on Newsnight was? Personally I though he articulated the position well. Hey ho…
I just dipped into the Herald article on this….the comments are depressing. I see the mad bad Terry Kelly is now a regular commentator, between him and the West Midlands correspondent they have a comedy duo going.
Normally I concur with Stu’s analysis, but I couldn’t disagree more about this.
I actually thought Angus Roberston’s delivery was fine last night. He dodged the question about whether other countries’ nuclear subs would be permitted in Scottish waters, but other than that he appeared fluent and confident. He was certainly no worse than John Swinney’s robotic comments about the LIBOR scandal. Both are able politicians, but not in the same league as Salmond or Sturgeon.
My objection is to his idea of Scotland being a NATO member, and I don’t believe it’s a non-issue at all. Of course WMD is the main concern, but I would rather not see Scottish citizens sent abroad to fight in oil/trade wars.
I find Doug’s talk of “we would only participate in UN-sanctioned military action” a bit of a red herring. Scots shouldn’t have been involved in Iraq, but equally they shouldn’t have been involved in Afghanistan or Libya, both of which were fully sanctioned by the UN.
The UN is no stamp of moral authority these days. It’s current purpose seems more about lending moral legitimacy to the process of destabilising Arab countries, so that Western interests may install themselves in the aftermath. The UN would be sanctioning regime change in Syria too, if Russia and China hadn’t exercised their vetos.
“He dodged the question about whether other countries’ nuclear subs would be permitted in Scottish waters”
That’s a pretty big dodge.
In a way this is a large non-issue.It will be a debate and the party will decide one way or the other-thats bad?unionist press hysteria.Seems very sound to me although I oppose NATO and membership thereof.Still,if this seems an impediment to Independence then a little pragmatism doesnt hurt yet,buyer beware.its also part of the Westminster malaise to promise the Earth then,on election,water down or abandon altogether every commitment in the manifesto.Promises,so many promises, and then the appearance of what is known in scientific circles as “cleggarity” ruins all and once more the public are disillusioned and the number actually voting declines further(much to the glee of our “rulers”)Still,whats in a debate to be worried about?Its not as if the Labore Party are strangers to such events eh?Aahh well………………