The twist in the tale
We haven’t bothered covering the latest confected anti-independence scare from a clearly bored political media before now, because it’s such a weak effort that in the interests of at least a vague impression of balanced journalism they haven’t been able to avoid undermining it themselves, without needing our help.
But hey, there’s not much happening this afternoon.
The Guardian’s latest attempt at giving its Scottish correspondents something to write about while the Parliaments are on holiday (that ISN’T our Panelbase survey of Scottish opinion, of course) is one of many in chiefly English-based newspapers reporting the claim that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be allowed to join NATO if it stuck to the SNP’s pledge to remove Trident nuclear submarines from Scottish waters.
Yet so flimsy is the allegation, which starts by admitting that the “warnings” from NATO officials were “coded” (ie not actually said by anyone), that by the end of the story the military expert quoted by the newspaper – Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute – has made the unambiguous comment that “I can’t see a scenario with Scotland being a problem for NATO, provided it had sorted out any bilateral problems with England.”
The paper adds of Prof. Chalmers’ analysis that “He said no-one in NATO wanted to see Scotland being left outside the alliance” (our emphasis). We could have told you that at the start and saved the Guardian’s readers 900 words of preceding waffle and padding from the likes of Lord George Robertson, spouting a load of bizarre and irrelevant nonsense about Transylvania.
A Scotland outside NATO would be a full-on waking-up-in-a-cold-sweat nightmare for the alliance, and the UK’s Trident missiles are a near-total irrelevance to its military strategy, comprising less than 2% of its nuclear arsenal. The chances of NATO allowing anything so trivial to prevent Scotland joining its numbers are zero, and the Guardian knows it as well as we do.
That it left admitting that fairly crucial fact until the very last paragraph of its article probably tells you everything you need to know.
.
I was actually looking forward to your post tearing the article down and I wasn’t disappointed.
As I said on an earlier thread, if Scotland would not be allowed in because we were in conflict or open disagreemet (my words) with another member of Nato, would that not mean that FUKRS would have to withdraw from Nato.
Silly I know bearing in mind Greece and Turkey but, they started it.
The Guardian’s take is positively benign compared to the frothing lunacy in the Telegraph:
link to telegraph.co.uk
Since the actual content of the talks remain private, journos are forced to get their briefing from Westminster. And as we know from the ‘Faslane incident’, the MoD’s nuclear warriors have a vested interest in rubbishing anything which might prove a threat to their toys. Again, as the Faslane incident proves, sections of the MoD are clearly outside no 10’s control when it comes to sounding off to the press.
It would of course be to much to hope that a journalist might wonder what the MoD tells him/her is actually True.
It’s yet another ‘block’ or ‘problem’ for an independent Scotland that basically boils down to something that will need to be negotiated. As an American teenager would say: ‘Du’ uh …’
We’re back to Wee Willie’s paperwork again. ‘Ach, it’s going to be so-o boring and it’ll take ages. Could we just not bother?’
Stu that’s not the latest shoite that Severin has spouted. He also has one out today:
Alex Salmond accused of misleading voters over Trident base promises.
I put 2 comments onto the article, one disappeared into the cyber-net the other got modded even thought they were both rather innocuous and just showing Severin the error of his ways.
Guess the guy does not like constructive criticism.
is that the George Robertson that was involed with dunblane and tony blair and his D notice
George Robertson is a prime example of one of those many Labour day-before-yesterday’s men, forgotten but not gone.
Heard the radio Scotland news tonight refer to “the SNP delegation” that had visited NATO.
I take it they have the names of this SNP delegation.
You are right that the Guardian massively exaggerates their point, but it is true that Scotland would have a lot of challenges being a NATO member if it truly wanted to be nuke-free.
For reference, see NATO’s recent DDPR – and as a comparison, the problems that Germany has had – it wants to remove US nuclear weapons from its territory, but is unable to do so because of its position in NATO.
I wonder how all those “intellectuals” pushing the “Scotland refused entry into NATO” story line will feel when they have read this:
link to thetarge.co.uk
I’m thinking this might, just might you understand, yet ANOTHER torpedo hit below the water line of R.M.S. Titanic Better Together!
Yes, as Roll_on_2014 noted, the latest Guardian article on the topic is hideous, much worse than the previous one, exclaiming “Salmond Accused of misleading” in the title.
Ben
None negotiable.
@Ben
the problem isn’t complexity, it’s that any complexity is assumed to mean “The Salmond Creature” (as I’ve no doubt they would like to call him) is lying/misleading/scoffing children.
Complexity does not mean Alex Salmond is a liar. Except to our media.
Of course the Scottish Government are in negotiations with NATO. Same for the UK Government, BoE…same for the EU etc.
We shall hear the basics of what’s been agreed before we vote. What we won’t be given is a running commentary for very obvious reasons. We get to hear what’s been agreed when all is agreed.
Scotland voting for independence – and defacto independent it will be if it says yes in a free and fair referendum – would be utterly nuts; a potential nightmare for the UK government, markets, businesses, NATO itself…
You only negotiate after independence if guns, tanks, bombs and stuff were needed for you to secure it.
I dont see a problem NOT being in NATO, doesnt NATO play a significant part in the war in Afghanistan, and isnt that a step in the wrong direction for an independent Scotland to move in.
The Scrap Trident Coalition, staged a march a while back against Trident and NATO,
do we REALLY need NATO,or is it just public opinion pushing Scotland towards it
O/T happy independence day India, fancy coming back? no? didn’t think so.
Jesus, theres now a third guardian article smearing the SNP, this time claiming that Nicola Sturgeon’s response has changed SNP policy. The only purpose of the article appears to be to allow Moore to lie.
We really shouldn’t spend too much time or energy debating NATO, Trident, nuclear power or anything else that really is not on the radar of few other than political activists. Yes, that is almost everyone reading this blog and posting here.
All these issues, which I’ll admit are important to a lot of people only serves to distract us from our real goal and that is to persuade your family, neighbors and colleagues of why they should vote YES. Their priorities are the same as ours, welfare, health, jobs, the economy, equality etc. etc.
So let’s not be too distracted and try to focus on the priorities that mean a lot to the majority of our people. In my view we should leave the debate on what I would call “lower priority items” until after the YES vote succeeds. Without YES all the rest is just wishful thinking, the “man in the street” isn’t concerned with these things right now, he is much more concerned about what might come after 2015.
No surprise that wee Willie Rennie’s incompetent lib dem spinners are trying to push this NATO nonsense story.
link to libdemvoice.org
All the more revolting considering how many decent lib dems want nothing to do with Trident and have left their party because of Clegg and Rennie’s yellow tory tendency.
Andy-B – who knows why the position on NATO has really been changed. I got the impression that Angus Robertson had been discussing joint defence initiatives with Nordic countries and they basically said it would be a good idea for Scotland to remain in NATO, but that’s pure speculation. It’s interesting to note that Sweden has recently been making noises about leaving the Partnership For Peace programme and joining up NATO proper instead, so maybe it was just about pre-empting that.
We obviously need to play our part in some sort of supranational defence programme, but it doesn’t have to be NATO. Other programmes exist.
Great to see BBC Scotchland News taking a pounding on their own facebook page
Just read 50 or so notices (40 complaints about bias and no cobverage of panelbase poll)
keep it up folks !!!
NATO will be begging us to join !
The largest submarine battle playground in Europe, the largest all military training grounds in Europe, the main sea passage route through to Northern Europe. Scotland, both land sea territory, is of vital strategic importance as the gateway to Europe.
Mind you, after all the rendition flights to the USA that have been secretly landing at remote Scottish airports I think we should tell them to piss off.
Appears that Severin over at the Guardian has been very busy today with another article:
Alex Salmond told nuclear ban out of line with being in NATO
Now he is pushing Michael Moore’s shoite up the hill.
Someone put up the link to a satelite photo of Scotland with her maritime borders in connection with something else. I wish i could find it again as it shews why NATO wants Scotland in. Who’d want a shield with a hole that large in it?
Yes Severin has been a busy Unionist lacky hasn’t he. Are there any real political journalists left? Ones that actually critically analyse the shit they are fed from their briefing sources?
Doug:
Partnership for Peace – it’s a bit like devolution. No say at the top table, but with lots of expectations that you play a part. If we are flirting with NATO, it should be full membership. Nothing else gives us a say (and remember it’s run on a consensus basis. There are no votes)
We’d have to sign up to the fact that it is – in the last resort – a nuclear alliance. This may stick in many people’s craw, but it would be worth asking yourself whether an alliance working by consensus & containing Norway, Denmark etc. would ever agree to nuclear weapon use unless the situation were truly without alternative (and zombie or space monster invasion are about the only situations I can imagine)
We’d also quite probably have to apply to join. Shouldn’t be a problem. (And avoids the German ‘problem’ in allowing us to make our position clear from the outset.
Everything else – nuclear weapons on soil, visiting US ships etc. is negotiable, and, quite frankly, I doubt the US, Germany or France would give a shit about Scotland’s moral qualms or veto us because we had some.
It’s only really the MoD that cannot bear the thought of what is going to happen – and as I’ve often said, I doubt that it’s Faslane that gives them nightmares. It’s what we may find when Coulport is open to scrutiny….
Meanwhile, they will brief defence correspondents with scare stories until they are blue in the face
@Doug Daniel
Who knows why the decision on NATO has changed
I understand where you coming from, but do we need to play our part in a defence programme, linked to invasions in foreign lands, and illigitimate murders of civilians, didnt Scotland get by before NATO was formed.
it seem hypocritical to want to be or remain part of NATO, a pro nuclear weaponary organization, shouldnt we start out the way we mean to go and remain neutral, on these matters, and set an example to other nations.
@Handclapping – Someone put up the link to a satelite photo of Scotland with her maritime borders in connection with something else. I wish i could find it again as it shews why NATO wants Scotland in. Who’d want a shield with a hole that large in it?
Precisely. I’ve already tried pointing this out previously; it’s a simple matter of the way the Nuclear deterrent works in the world as it really is. It has to be either based in, or have access to the North Atlantic around Scotland to have any chance of being effective. The East Coast of the UK is problematic as it puts them in range of Russian Tu-145s to track them and the Tu-160 to destroy them with stand off cruise missiles (they already cruise up there before taking the Arctic track over to the US coast). The West Coast is largely blockaded by Ireland, and the fishing industries moving about inbetween; meaning they are an obvious target for nuclear strikes on the sea there where any British Submarine is likely to be stuck slowly cruising for some time….
Honestly this really isn’t something you can debate; in World War 2 Churchill, that inveterate warmonger, was preparing an invasion of Ireland to take back by force the Treaty Ports on the West Coast. And this was when the main threat was from U-Boats that had already made it to the West from Germany, and an occupation of Ireland would have tied down more troops than having the ports could have helped. Now, if you have a strong stomach for it, plot most modern warhead’s damage against your local city;
link to nuclearsecrecy.com
The standard Topol SS-25 in the Russian arsenal (Which is currently single warhead, the next generation will be MIRV) ruins everything from Bristol to Swansea for me. Now drop one in the Irish Ocean. It doesn’t have to destroy the Trident carrier totally, but the electromagnetic pulse and radioactive distortion may make it impossible to launch one in retaliation if you can just set off a bomb close enough. Thus it’s a question of pragmatics for NATO. They need to be able to get the submarine quickly into wide, open waters as far from Russia as they can. Somewhere with space to hide. The only other spot in the rest of the UK that’s even likely for that geographically is Lands End. Belfast too possibly, although that may just be kicking the Independence can further down the road… Gibralter right now is absolutely right out of course.
This is really what the story is about. It’s not about insulting Scotland. It’s not about manipulating the Independence debate. It’s a not so subtle remainder to those who have to make military plans, in Scotland and elsewhere, that this is something NATO absolutely WILL insist is solved, and as fast as possible. And they’re going to fight you on that hard, because it’s something with it’s own military practicalities.
You can probably tell from the above link that I’m not exactly pro-Nuclear weapons. I consider it a sign of our collective insanity. But, considering both the US and the UK is absolutely committed to having them somewhere in the UK… they’re going to squabble to the last over that issue. Scotland may, possibly be allowed into NATO if it abandons hosting the weapons. But I’m stating for a fact, here and now, that they won’t get in without secretly allowing Trident submarines to cruise in Scottish waters. Or rather… North Atlantic waters. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is rather defined by that sort of thinking, and the rUK doesn’t have a deterrent unless it does.
If you don’t want that, and I believe people here when they say honestly they don’t, you need to be pushing for a No to NATO policy as well. Scotland can still contribute to the United Nations and the European Union… but really, truly, NATO isn’t quite the same thing. It’s a Cold War relic with Cold War strategical goals and structures.
Severin Carell NATO story, day 15:
Jackie Chan blow to Salmond solar plexus
First minister faces questions over being shit at war and being too fat to play golf
Jackie Chan has warned Alex Salmond that Daniel O’Donnell has warned Alex Salmond that Rula Lenska has warned Alex Salmond that Bruce Forsyth has warned Alex Salmond that Ken Dodd has warned Alex Salmond that Jim Murphy has warned Alex Salmond that Willie Rennie has warned Alex Salmond that Ruth Davidson has warned Alex Salmond that Michael Moore has warned Alex Salmond that it would be “more than impossible” for an independent Scotland to join Nato at the same time as John Swinney was playing up front for Scotland on his own.
Jackie Chan said that Daniel O’Donnell said that Rula Lenska said that Bruce Forsyth said that Ken Dodd said that Jim Murphy said that Willie Rennie said that Ruth Davidson said that Michael Moore had confirmed disclosures by the Guardian that senior Nato officials raised massive concerns about Scotland’s striking options and the implications of Scottish government plans to force the ethnic cleansing of English Trident nuclear weapons from the Clyde soon after independence in a meeting with Scottish civil servants.
Acknowledging that UK civil servants facilitated the fact-finding talks between Scottish and Nato officials last month, Jackie Chan said that Daniel O’Donnell said that Rula Lenska said that Bruce Forsyth said that Ken Dodd said that Jim Murphy said that Willie Rennie said that Ruth Davidson said that Michael Moore said: “Thanks for printing the original story, Sev. You’re much quicker than Eddie Barnes. It takes him hours to cut and paste our emails. As for the footy, I’d stick with Kenny Miller. Swinney lacks pace. Mind and put in a bit about Salmond too fat to play golf.”
Johann Lamont attends John McTernan knitting classes on Fridays and was unavailable for comment.
@G. Campbell
I thought it was quote weaving she was doing.
O/T Sorry, but tonight the BBC have claimed that Scotland is the second fattest country in the world. Their show seemed keen to demonstrate, although not state outright, that Scots are also stupid (finding people who couldn’t identify a pineapple, while drunk on their way to the football). I can’t find any breakdown within the UK, but here’s the latest list of obese countries:
link to ca.shine.yahoo.com
Titler
Did I not read somewhere that even the Americans are telling Cameron not to renew the nuclear deterrent as we can’t afford it , they would prefer we spent the money on conventional forces .
The SNP voted to remain in NATO conditional on nuclear weapons being removed from Scotland. That remains the case.
Severin Carrell owes me money from the time he stayed at my hotel during the Holy Loch clean up. His cheque bounced and when I sent it to the Scotsman (where he then worked)they sent it back to me. I thought you’d all like to know that
Twin pronged attack being mounted by Hootsmon and the state broadcaster on Scotland being worlds 2nd fattest country. The Hootsmon article seems to be based on some mens magazines survey and seems quite unscientific (being charitable) while I am struggling to find definitive evidence for the state broadcasters assertions. Quick scan says Mexico then USA then NZ, Chile………
I’ve complained to the BBC about it. There is no evidence that Scotland is the 2nd fattest country in the world, and the latest UN data (July 2013) lists them as bunter states, above. In addition to their uncited claim, I complained about their portrayal of Scots as stupid by interviewing a few people on their way to a football match, some of which had obviously been drinking, who couldn’t identify some items of fruit and veg. I expect either no response, or a standard oo-do-you-fink-yoo-are? one.
link to blogs.spectator.co.uk
do the Americans want UK to abandon Trident?
@ Silvertay
Aye its here:
Europe’s shrinking military budgets stirs concern
As I posted on CIF this morning:
Lord Robertson….
That’s all you need to know. Next up special forces liberate pandas from Edinburgh zoo.
The worst two articles in at least oh a fortnight on the Guardian. A load of old pants start to finish.
To those concerned about whether we’ll be in or out of NATO:
Vote NO and someone else decides whether Scotland is in or out of NATO.
Vote YES and the people of Scotland can decide whether Scotland is in or out of NATO.
link to express.co.uk
51% back independence in poll in express…thoughts Rev?
Other than it’s still disgusting they haven’t discussed the
Panelbase one…
Check the date on the article. I don’t think the Express has a TARDIS.
“Blow to Carrell as he is told by 99% of BTL comments re his latest article that his perpetual Salmond-basing and piss-poor IndyRef reporting is embarrassing himself and the Guardian”
My comment,
The continued personalisation (i.e. “Salmond’isation) of this and other (anti) Scottish independence related issues is beginning to look like systematic propaganda, the like of which I never thought I would see in the Guardian about any country, never mind my own. Is it looking and feeling similar to the smearing and vilification the imperialist British Empire press dished out to Ghandi in the 1940s.
Maybe ex-Scotsman hack Carrell just cares about the short-term and not breaking ranks. Or reaction: these 3 piss-poor articles about NATO and Trident are certainly click-bait for some (they got me back on here after a long absence/boycott) – but the longer term damage his propagandist reporting is doing to the reputation of the Guardian is something Guardian Towers should be concerned about, both for longer term sales/subscriptions in Scotland and its international standing in the left-of-centre journalistic world.
Last time I looked at a map Scotland was smack bang in the middle of the NATO zone. They don’t want us out.
Jeesh.
@ Geoff, is that article not dated way back 2012?
Yes. It’s over 18 months old.
Of course, it’s worth keeping to hand for when they say that Yes has never commanded a majority.
Newsnicht debating NATO but the SNP couldn’t provide anyone to debate. And we have to listen to tosser Rennie. We would be undermining RUK!
Evolution will kill tribalism stone dead.
@Lianachan
Yes managed to stomach half of the bloody awful ‘Scotland the Fat’. The man being asked and asked and asked about the pineapple was probably pissed, or was taking the piss ……he did ask if it was rings or chunks.
Breathtakingly crap programme. Someone else at some point said that …shock/horror… some people in Scotland have never eaten a kiwi fruit, wtf?
Undoubtedly there are real issues but this really was carry on patronising TV.
R.E. Newsnight and NATO.
That was not what I would call a debate.
link to newsnetscotland.com
P.S. O/T but anyone catch the “Tomorrow’s Headlines” bit of Newsnight – “English students cash boost for Scottish uni’s” or something along those lines. Just twenty mins ago STV highlighted the record numbers of Scottish students who have been accepted to Scottish uni.
Blurgh.
Great to see BBC Scotchland News taking a pounding on their own facebook page
Just read 50 or so notices (40 complaints about bias and no coverage of panelbase poll)
keep it up folks !!!
@Lianachan
A quick search throws this up from 2007, same headline seems to be based on a Scottish study, could this be their source I wonder.
link to telegraph.co.uk
Thursday’s Herald had an opinion piece about post independence Scotland. it made mention of a recent IPSOS opinion poll, but made no mention of your poll. I often comment on their pieces, but this time my two attempts were blocked, I think because I asked why no mention had been made of the Panelbase poll which was highly relevant to the article.
Letters to Iain Macwhirter, who is unusually fairly pro-independence, have also gone unanswered. I’m now signing up to a conspiracy theory which is very worrying.
the few brief mentions I’ve seen of your poll have not mentioned WOS.
I asked McWhirter today at book festival. He couldn’t comment. Not in control of editorial etc
lots of what he said was crap but he’s one of the best of a bad bunch
Iain MacWhirter is a gut-level unionist who may vote Yes because his head tells him it’s the rational thing to do. He’s also quite often wrong. Never forget either of these things.
I just ignore all their psh and state a more interesting choice to people – one is not even slightly interested in their guff anymore and neither are voters.
But thanks for debunking yet another one of their crap attacks – good to see the analysis
the few brief mentions I’ve seen of your poll have not mentioned WOS.
Exactly – can’t have the ‘natives’ finding out the truth or the No Scotland campaign is toast.
Why does no one ever ask if rUK would still be permitted in NATO if they lose their nuclear weapons capability. They say Scotland wouldn’t be permitted w/o them?
Titler,
this is not an anti nuclear site.
This is a pro independence site of a country that has continually shown, through it’s elected politicians and civic institutions, that it’s electorate leans toward an anti nuclear stance.
This democratic voice is currently stifled, through a systematic lack of democratic accountability to the electorate of Scotland, which is an inherent feature of the UK’s constitutional ‘settlement’ as it currently operates.
We are campaigning for independence in order to change that ‘settlement’ and have the electorate of Scotland’s democratic voice heard. It’s whole voice.
This will result in an anti nuclear leaning government, if the electorate of Scotland decide to vote for one. I will abide by the democratic will of the electorate of my country, but always reserve the right to campaign for change against any political parties or policies I do not agree with.
In summary Titler, It’s simply basic democracy that is our aim at the moment.
see 15 August, 2013 at 10:41 am
@Morag
Agree re Iain MacWhirter: is a gut-level unionist who may vote Yes because his head tells him it’s the rational thing to do.
“Titler:
But I’m stating for a fact, here and now, that they won’t get in without secretly allowing Trident submarines to cruise in Scottish waters.”
“Cruising in Scottish waters” is, of course, a very different proposition to “permanently sited at a Scottish base a few miles from our biggest population centre”.
If the Russians (or space monsters, who Scots actually consider a bigger threat) want to nuke the sea 100 miles off the Mull Of Kintyre, well, I’m not thrilled about it but nor am I really all that bothered. Certainly not compared to them taking out Helensburgh.
It must be a first in NATO’s history – they BLINKED first.
Scotland, Too Wee, Too Stupid and Too Poor, made big, all powerful NATO blink. WOW, WOW and WOW!
Not even the Soviet Union could do that in its heyday.
Two things:
1. It’s the Unitarists that are the problem, not those for real Union like me.
2. Trident has always been a non-issue that would die a defunct relics death as the next generation – if any – will be based at sea all the time. [Perhaps by converting a spare/redundant carrier into an ocean going sub dock on the move: the sub-surface variant of ship to ship re-fuelling & re-supply.]
Rock & Roll – Roll & Rock!
NATO is essentially the military wing of American oil boardrooms. It’s not a defence organisation, but a criminal gang expropriating other people’s assets. The nuclear weapon issue is neither here nor there, we should have utterly nothing to do with this mob on purely ethical grounds. If the ethical considerations don’t bother you (and I’m sad to say that seems to apply to a lot of folk here) then you might want to consider the cost – membership is going to blow a very big hole in those plans for a more sanely priced “defence” policy. This from Lobster Magazine:
NATO and Eastern Europe
Who wrote the following?
‘Nato is now a device to exert control and extract cash. Those who resist, like Belarus, are punished… All eastern European states are required to sell off their national economic assets to foreigners, and close down their agriculture by accepting the dumping of subsidised EU food imports. This creates massive social disruption and unemployment. In addition, they must spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence, preferably on arms made in the US.
Consequently, a small country like Lithuania, whose economy has collapsed so catastrophically, has just announced the purchase of $34 million worth of Stinger missiles, made by the Raytheon Corporation of Tucson, Arizona. When Tanzania announced it was spending $40 million on a new civilian air traffic control system, there was an outcry; but Lithu-ania, whose official GDP is not much larger than Tanzania’s, will have to spend $240m on arms every year as the price for Nato membership. And Lithuania is just one of seven new member states, all of which are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on arms.’
Someone on the left? Paul Foot? Greg Palast? John Pilger? None of the above. (None of the above would use the word foreigners….) They were written by John Laughland, generally presented and perceived as an anti-EU right-winger. But take out the word ‘foreigners’……
Its the extreme pleasure they take in thinking they have proven Scotland to feeble/weak/poor for the rest of the world to take interest in, that really makes me angry. The story is then proven to be nothing at all what they were talking about. They simply shrug their shoulders, smirk and carry on looking for something else to latch on to. We simply cannot allow these intellectual pygmies to win. The damage they are doing to Scotlands image across the world if they win, does not bear thinking about.