Ian Davidson backs independence
We were intrigued to notice a small piece in today’s Herald in which Ian Davidson MP made the claim that a Yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum could lead to the unilateral nuclear disarmament of the UK.
Mr Davidson’s assertion may well be correct. Both CND and senior figures in the UK military have suggested that while finding a replacement dock for the nation’s Trident submarines if they’re expelled from Faslane would be a relatively straightforward task, replacing the vital weapons facility at Coulport would be a much more difficult proposition, and could easily take ten years to come to fruition. In practice, it would be close to impossible to maintain the Trident force in such circumstances.
What’s slightly puzzling, however, is that the tone of the senior Labour MP’s comment appears to indicate that it’s intended as a warning, rather than a celebration.
In March 2010, the UK Parliament held a vote on whether the Trident fleet should be replaced with a new system. The vote passed comfortably with a majority of over 230, despite a majority of Scottish MPs (31 out of 59) voting against it. The intriguing thing is that one of the 15 Scottish Labour rebels who defied the party whip to oppose the renewal motion was Ian Davidson, then as now the MP for Glasgow South West.
Given that Mr Davidson is opposed to retaining Britain’s nuclear “deterrent”, and given his declaration this week that Scottish independence is the only means of bringing about the abolition of the UK’s nuclear weapons, we can only conclude that Mr Davidson has become a convert to the Yes campaign. We welcome his change of heart, but urge the campaign’s director not to appoint him as a spokesman.
Mr Davidson is doing an excellent job as an undercover agent for the yes campaign. First he ensures the SNP are off the Scotland committee, then he runs around shouting that Westminster/the Tories have moral/legal authority over Scotland’s future, before launching some classic brutish pro-union verbal attacks on one of the most respected and impartial journalists live on the tellybox. Now this.
The man’s skills are truly second to none. He should be honoured come independence day for all he has done for the cause. It must be hard for him to pretend day in a day out to love the union, always having to take great care lest he let the mask slip.
The poor guy’s head must be spinning at a 100 miles an hour. As SS says, first he attacks the SNP, then he backs the Tories, next he takes aim at the BBC interviewer, now he claims unilateral nuclear disarmament if Scotland votes YES. I wonder what will be the next big thing to cause his head to continue spinning.
Just a wee thought on Davidson’s spinning top. If his head keeps up spinning at the high speed for much longer will his head actually fall off? :LOL:
There has to be an ‘ouch’ moment for Labour Party supporters at some stage in this pantomime.
At what stage will their voters realise that these people are only interested in the gravy train, and that they are completely unprincipled and appear – if Terry Kelly is anything to go by – to detest their own voters?
I could see the Labour Party falling apart, not over independence as such, but over the issues surrounding it.
I don’t know anyone, from the right to the left of the Scottish political spectrum that is not at the very least uneasy about having nuclear weapons on the Clyde.
And not just our own. If Private Eye is to be believed Westminster is now letting the French Force de Frappe send their version of Trident to visit. Le Triomphant has arrived at Faslane.
Just saying.
“There has to be an ‘ouch’ moment for Labour Party supporters at some stage in this pantomime.”
What got moderated out of your comment on this story in the Herald today, Doug?
link to heraldscotland.com
Aye I think your right DC. Not only are you right but that moment of FINAL and TOTAL obliteration of what once was the Scottish Labour party is coming nearer every passing day. It would not surprise me in the slightest to see, before Autumn 2014, the Scottish Labour party split into two ,or more factions. :LOL:
We already have one faction in the Labour for Independence Facebook site. How many more are still to come? In my view there could be quite a few!
I’ve said numerous times that Labour will fragment before the referendum, especially if it looks like a YES vote. They will jump ship to look after number 1. Labour for independence is just the start.
If it looks likely that Holyrood is the only show in town they will all know that between Edinburgh and London there wont be enough seats/career slots left when the British National Anthem stops playing……Especially the young ones.
In an independent Scotland we could see Tom Harris working at the Barras selling carpets or reading tea leaves…If as I suspect he isn’t nimble enough to get himself a slot.
Loving the “Scotsman-like” headline…
I think you’re possibly missing a key element of Mr Davidson’s statement Stu.
He’s quoted as saying:
“There are also of course huge cost implications of making such a transition.”
He hates the Nats with a passion and will want to put the frighteners on people through the use of potentials.
I would imagine that the unignorable potential here is the cost of relocation. Guaranteed those costs will be laid squarely at the door of any potentially new independent Scottish government’s head.
Could be hard to square with Nato any other way – assuming the party accepts the new proposition to embrace rather than oppose Nato membership.
“I would imagine that the unignorable potential here is the cost of relocation. Guaranteed those costs will be laid squarely at the door of any potentially new independent Scottish government’s head.”
They might get laid at the door, but they’ll be left there unheeded, getting wet in the rain. Trident is UK Government property. Finding somewhere else to put it is their problem, not ours.
Absolutely right Stu. When the Baltic states split from the former USSR it was Russia that picked up the tab for relocating their nukes. I expect that exactly the same thing will happen here. Oh sure the Bitter camp will scream from the roof tops about the cost but in the end they will have no choice but to relocate their “toys” at THEIR expense.
As far a NATO is concerned I don’t think, could be wrong here, that they would try to force an Independent country like Scotland to retain rUK’s nukes if we didn’t want them. After all there are only 3 countries out of the 28 NATO members who actually have nukes. It would be madness on NATO’s part to try and enforce an, in my view, almost unenforceable decision upon Scotland.
“They might get laid at the door, but they’ll be left there unheeded, getting wet in the rain.”
Can’t imagine that being the case given that we would still have residual liabilities from our days as integral part of UK.
Any links or ministerial comments as to why we wouldn’t have to pick up at least part of the “huge costs”?
“Can’t imagine that being the case given that we would still have residual liabilities from our days as integral part of UK.”
There are no such things. If we’re not in the UK any more, the rUK’s nuclear submarines are the rUK’s problem. What’s Westminster’s leverage here?
“We desperately want to keep these submarines as they’re central to our standing on the world stage.”
– “Okay, they’re all yours, we want nothing to do with them. Good luck!”
“Wait, we’ve got nowhere to put them. Give us £10bn to build a new munitions handling facility.”
– “Fuck off.”
“What? Then in that case we’re just going to LEAVE THEM IN YOUR COUNTRY!”
– “Unauthorised military forces in someone else’s country is called an invasion. Are you declaring war? Because if so, we’ve got your nukes. We’d take cover sharpish if we were you.”
“Bugger.”
@Prophet_Peden
As I understand it ‘fixed’ assets on Scottish soil would be ours (e.g. Coulport itself). However, the UK’s mobile (e.g. nuclear subs and the warheads themselves) and other assets (and liabilities) would be distributed on a population percentage basis – so there would be room for horse-trading there.
The rUK’s problem will be that they can have the subs and warheads in rUK waters but will have nowhere suitable ashore to store or service them (the warheads that is), unless they get building, sharpish.
On that basis, why would Scotland be expected to pay for the rUK to develop its own facilities to take the things that Scotland doesn’t want?
Is there not a potential case for Scotland just walking away from all the residual liabilities of the UK as a successor state anyway ? If there is then that in the background would be a pretty big elephant in the room during any negotiations ?
“What? Then in that case we’re just going to LEAVE THEM IN YOUR COUNTRY!”
Fine just you go ahead and do that. You’ll be able to buy them back on E-BAY which is where we’re going to start selling them next week!
Any links or ministerial comments as to why we wouldn’t have to pick up at least part of the “huge costs”?
If you could provide an example of where one country has paid for the nuclear deterrent of another, I’d be very interested.
Note there aren’t any major costs concerning removal of the deterrent – the valuable warheads just go back to the manufacturer where the very expensive enriched uranium is recycled. The big cost is moving the whole lot (base etc) somewhere else.
If the rUK decides it wants to have nuclear weapons, it would not be an independent Scotland paying for it. That would be a bit like the rUK government asking an independent Scotland to help pay for demolition of the millenium dome, or india asking the UK for cash to remove an old stretch of railway built during colonial times.
The UK government is very intelligent/sensible. They of course must have contingency plans that were put together way back when missiles were first placed in Scotland, just in case the 1920’s treaty of union came to an end. After all, the SNP vote climbed to 30% back in the 70’s with Scotland voting for devolution 1979; so even back then it was obvious that the union could potentially come to an end at some point. In 1997 they were talking about devolution leading to independence, so at least by that point they must have had concrete plans for what to do with their WMDs when that happened.
RevStu @2:06pm,
A reference to this site. They appear not to like links.
Just because Ian Davidson voted against renewing Trident doesn’t mean that he actually meant it.
A lot of the time it’s just gesture politics. Ian Davidson showed off his Labour street-cred by voting against Trident in the full knowledge that there were going to be enough votes on the yes side to ensure it was renewed.
However the cold, hard fact that independence will genuinely mean a nuclear free Scotland and possibly a nuclear free rUK has given given him the heeby-jeebies.
It’s when gesture politics hit reality.
Steady on there SS. I was with you all the way until you said this:
“The UK government is very intelligent/sensible.”
I’m sorry there is NO way on this earth I can agree with you on this point.
The U.K. government is made up of the biggest bunch of Muppets since the Muppet Show!
“I’m sorry there is NO way on this earth I can agree with you on this point”
There’s just the slimmest chance he was being sarcastic…
Oops looks like I had a “Labour” moment there Stu.
“There are no such things.”
If there were no such things then why would Alex Salmond accept liability for our share of the UK’s current debt deficit proportional with population? Different topic but same principle when it comes to costs.
Thanks Major Blloodnok. The assets thing doesn’t seem that clear cut, but I’ll take your word on it. Only really started thinking about those things after seeing Asset Scotland on Twitter.
“If there were no such things then why would Alex Salmond accept liability for our share of the UK’s current debt deficit proportional with population”
Because we’d be keeping the stuff that that money paid for. We wouldn’t be keeping any part of Trident.
Coulport’s such a strong bargaining chip that access to it could of course mean that Scotland ends up with no net share of the UK’s liabilities at all… (I mean, how much might a 10 year lease of the facility with navigation rights for the RN be worth, for example). I have no doubt that these things are being discussed at governmental level already, whatever Davidson thinks.
Just thinking aloud here.
The UK wants nukes because it makes you one of the ‘big boys’.
What if we keep the nukes, and become one of the ‘big boys’?
We could offer to put forward rUK’s thoughts at any big boy meetings we attend.
Only joking!
“Just thinking aloud here.
The UK wants nukes because it makes you one of the ‘big boys’.
What if we keep the nukes, and become one of the ‘big boys’?
We could offer to put forward rUK’s thoughts at any big boy meetings we attend.”
That’s genius. I’m sure the UK would be delighted to have Scotland speak for it on the world stage, right?
Aye, and if we can get Ian Davidson to be our frontman on the world stage with some nukes in his back pocket, so much the better.
Or maybe not.
We could put in a good word for rUK if any provincial items that might affect them were on the agenda. After all, we’re all in this together, right?
RS. There’s just the slimmest chance he was being sarcastic…
Me? Never….
juteman What if we keep the nukes, and become one of the ‘big boys’?
We could offer to put forward rUK’s thoughts at any big boy meetings we attend
Ha ha. Quality.
I guess we could consider granting them a section 30 re a referendum on Europe. If they’re nice and well behaved anyway.
“Because we’d be keeping the stuff that that money paid for. We wouldn’t be keeping any part of Trident.”
I’m not meaning to be irritating here, but why would that mean we get all of Coulport, which presumably rUK paid the lion’s share on, but have no liability on Trident. I thought our money had part paid for Trident as well?
I’d quite like us to get our percentage of Trident money back and tell rUK they can have their percentage of Coulport to do with what they want, so long as it isn’t for any nuclear shenanigans.
Major Bloodnok
I like the idea of them having to lease it back even though they paid for the majority of it in the first place
@Prophet_Peden
A country gets the fixed assets that are on its soil upon independence. The bits of the base that can’t realistically be moved would not be moved. The submarines and WMDs can be shifted, so if Scotland does not want them, the rUK can take them if it likes. Otherwise it can all go on e-bay.
If the rUK wanted to argue it could keep the base, Scotland could in turn ask for a section of the channel tunnel, a bit of the olympic village, a ten mile stretch of the M25….
Everyone in the UK paid for these things after all, not ‘they’.