Kenny Farquharson: SNP heading for Nato U-turn in referendum battle plans
HERE’S a wee prediction for you. By the time we get to the referendum on Scottish independence, the SNP will have ditched its iconic policy on pulling out of Nato. How do I know this? By paying attention and reading the runes.
By my reckoning, at least three SNP Cabinet secretaries are opposed to the party’s manifesto promise to opt out of the world’s most powerful military alliance. Westminster hacks are currently speculating about the identity of the three Tory cabinet ministers who, it’s claimed, disagree with the UK government’s NHS reforms. Here in Scotland we have no such problem. The position of the SNP’s Nato refuseniks is a matter of record.
Let’s name names. When Mike Russell was standing for the SNP leadership in July 2004, he gave this view of the party’s get-out-of-Nato stance: “This is a policy which was born out of the Cold War and has never been substantially revisited. We are in a different world and one in which most of the new nations of Europe have been clamouring to be part of Nato. As long as we can be a non-nuclear member, as Canada and Norway – and indeed most other countries – are, this will not only give our defence policy relevance but ensure we can explain our stance, which is hard to do at present.”
Mike is not alone in this heretical view. Kenny MacAskill echoed his Cabinet colleague’s sentiments in a newspaper article in June 2005. A change of course on Nato, he argued, was essential if an independent Scotland was to be a good neighbour and ally. “We must recognise the security requirements of our near neighbours. If England is not assured of that, they will be reluctant to see us part.
“We owe it to others – whether our friends in Norway or our kinfolk in Canada – to assuage any fears they may have about the security implications for them. That means being prepared to maintain our security commitments. At present, they are served through Nato.”
The debate called for by these two senior Nationalists never materialised. Why? Because the last time the SNP looked seriously at its defence policy it resulted in a humiliating rebuke for the party’s leader at the time, John Swinney.
On taking control in September 2000, he made it known that the Nato policy needed to be revisited. It was due to be debated at the SNP conference in September 2001, but in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks it was withdrawn from the agenda. Cynics – who, moi? – speculated this was largely because the leadership was going to get kicked all around the conference hall for merely suggesting such blasphemy. Instead, a review was set up under Roseanna Cunningham, which eventually restated and reinforced the party’s hard-line anti-Nato stance.
That, however, was then. As we report in our news pages today, a new book by Professor James Mitchell of Strathclyde University paints a surprising picture of what SNP activists think. By a margin of more than two to one they think Nato membership would be in an independent Scotland’s best interest. This is an extraordinary finding that won’t have gone unnoticed by the party hierarchy – Mitchell is an old friend of many senior figures in the SNP, including Salmond himself.
My prediction of a U-turn is also based on what I’ve been hearing about the travels of senior SNP figures in Scandinavia. Word has it that Angus Robertson, the defence spokesman and referendum campaign chief, has been spending a lot of time in Norway and Denmark, which are full Nato members. I hear that Robertson recently visited the Danish defence ministry and a Danish navy base, as well as a Norwegian navy base. Was he there to lecture the Danes and Norwegians on the error of their ways in being part of the evil Nato empire? Or was he investigating how small independent European nations can operate within Nato’s formidable and still-growing family? The latter, I’ll wager.
The current SNP policy on Nato is a complete mis-match with the party’s entire approach to the referendum. The strategy is all about reassurance. Don’t worry, say SNP leaders, you’ll hardly notice the difference if we’re independent. We’ll still have the Queen. We’ll still have the pound. We’ll still have Britain’s Got Talent on the telly. We’ll actually still be British, if that floats your boat. We’ll just have independent control of our own future. Ripping an independent Scotland out of Nato, with all the geo-political tension and argy-bargy it would undoubtedly cause, entirely mitigates against this strategy. And that’s why it will be jettisoned.
Once the Nato policy is history, the SNP can add yet another layer of emollient reassurance to the case it will put to the Scottish people. Worry about independence in the big bad world? No need, when we’ll be safe under the umbrella of the world’s most powerful fighting force. As an extra bonus, Scotland will have done the responsible thing, and honoured its obligations and commitments as a good neighbour and a sound ally.
Here’s a second prediction. The SNP will conduct this U-turn without too much internal fuss. The party has changed. Its core membership always contained a committed cadre of left-wingers for whom Trident and Nato were articles of faith. But, as Mitchell shows, these are now in a minority. These days the SNP boasts a far bigger membership of well over 20,000 – the tally grew by a full 8 per cent in the three weeks following last month’s announcement of the referendum date.
It’s probably fair to say these are primarily people who have been caught up in the excitement surrounding the referendum and want to be part of a historic moment. They’re not interested in protecting ancient SNP shibboleths. They will do what Salmond tells them. And that includes the historic decision to embrace Nato. Remember where you heard it first.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 29 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
bieldmaster
Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 05:13 AMRunning with hare while hunting with the hounds is a classic,ambiguouse S.N.P.politicaly entrenched fact of life. another way of putting it ,may be their propensity to wear a "Janus" mask as a symbol of a capability, not only to exploit the art of" U" turning they have brought completion of 180 degree face "this way or that way"to such a pitch,as to be seen more and more frequently,not entirely sure themselves regarding many of their policies. Total independance was the bedrock upon which all else rested;that has long since passed it's sell by date;the watered down version that is being presented as "the real Mcoy" would, if whisky were the product they were serving up, close their premises down for misrepresentation ,leading not all that long in historical terminology to being locked up in the jail on Calton hill. To end on a somewhat differant tack.With the American Presedential election fast approaching;it will be interesting to note S.N.P.stance on Faslane when the heavyweights of global security make it VERY plain that they will not be at all happy with any reduction to overall world wide security plans are jepordised with S.N.P. political grandstanding.
douglas-home rule
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 04:51 PM"how do I know this"----did he read the Sunday papers, or what???
Ricardo88
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 09:24 PMIf Scotland does remain part of Nato, it would be as a fairly junior member. If on the other hand, it left Nato, it would probably collaborate closely with it on matters of common interest. In other words, it's really not a massive deal.
Danielrober2
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 08:04 PM# Dr. James Wilkie .................. Now I must object. If your knowledge on international affairs, which actually only have a simple [lowly] view of, is as your knowledge of Renewable Energy, then we have a problem. Machines break, poor machines after they fall over can be replaced by better machines, which even work. Yet international relations can be damaged easily by a poor show and badly researched ideas. ..................... NATO is the top deal to gain. Not some wacko plan born of too many nights in a pub, and surfing online to produce a cut and paste policy.
Danielrober2
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 07:58 PMI think when given the choice of NATO or SDA militia groups, Alec.S and the NSP will be nuts not to chose NATO. Besides Alec.S loves to be at big tables and therefore not matter what his stance and promises on elections are to get votes, he will stay in NATO.
Dr. James Wilkie
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 07:07 PM#21: I could not go into all the ramifications of international law in the available space, but you will see a succinct and authoritative explanation of State Succession to treaties on the SDA website. Click on Constitution and then on Independence.
samcoldstream
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 02:46 PMIceland has never had a standing army only a small defence reserve. However, as the Royal Navy found to its cost during the Cod Wars, it was not afraid to get stuck into far superior naval forces! The Icelandic Air Force deals mainly with Fishery Protection. However, Iceland is a strategic part of NATO with an air base at Keflavik and early warning radar stations on its territory along with huge stores of NATO arms and equipment. NATO also uses Iceland's naval bases. NATO pays the Icelandic government an undisclosed sum for the use of its facilities believed to be in the region of $250 million annually. In 1941, when Iceland declared Independence from Denmark, for selfish strategic reasons, the USA was the first country to recognise the new nation. (History of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation)
Angus McLellan
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 01:32 PMIf all you knew was what Kenny tells you here you'd be left with the impression that NATO was just a club and membership was no big deal. That'd be wrong of course. NATO membership costs money. Not the trivial contributions towards the club's running costs. I mean the cost of meeting the expectations - demands really - of membership. The overall cost of membership of NATO cannot be calculated precisely, but it is a reasonable guess that the difference between say New Zealand's or Ireland's defence budget and that which would be required for Scotland to be tolerated as a NATO member is well over half a billion pounds, perhaps nearer one billion, annually. It is an expensive club.
MacDunoon
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 12:03 PMDr Wilkie - "On independence Scotland will start with a clean sheet as regards all its international relations, and anyone, including the SNP leadership, who asserts the contrary does not know what heshe is talking about. " Well part from being able to point to all those other countries who became independent and inherited international treaties on nuclear proliferation, WMD etc etc and that the rest of the world didn't object to them inheriting. Unless your suggesting we should have an anarchic situation in state succession?
Dr. James Wilkie
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:50 AMSorry about the typo in Par 3 for "substitute". The JP website should really have a correction - and of course a paragraph - facility like most others nowadays.
Dr. James Wilkie
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:41 AMOn independence Scotland will start with a clean sheet as regards all its international relations, and anyone, including the SNP leadership, who asserts the contrary does not know what heshe is talking about. The SNP is presently putting up an astonishingly good performance on devolved domestic issues, but when it gets onto international affairs its dilettante status becomes all too obvious. Defence is not even the worst example; its European policy is pathetic and shows up the SNP's lack of diplomatic expertise. …………………………………………………………………………………. This is not so much a criticism of the SNP, but rather evidence of how Scotland has suffered from being cut off from the world for so long. It is going to take time to overcome this handicap, but overcome it must be if Scotland is to take its place in a world environment that has changed out of all recognition over the past couple of decades. We now live in an age of global interdependence and we cannot afford government that is bounded by the UK or even Europe. A distinct geographical, economic, social and cultural entity like Scotland, with its own distinct needs and interests, must have direct access to the global institutions if those interests are to be adequately protected. ……………………………………………………………………………… Regarding security and defence, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (diplomatic) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (military) are the world's largest institutions of their kind, and there is no substitutive for Scottish membership of both in order to obtain cast-iron guarantees of Scotland's security and territorial integrity. The OSCE is also a Chapter VIII regional organisation under the United Nations Charter and reports on Europe to the UN Security Council. ………………………………………………………………………………. This is all set out in the Scottish Democratic Alliance's policy on Security and Defence, which I note is increasingly being downloaded and quoted by more and more SNP members from the SDA website. The ground principle of the SDA policy is that security and defence are now global issues and must be approached from a global standpoint. ………………………………………………………………………………. The nature of the national and international threats that have to be countered, and the risks that have to be managed, has changed considerably within recent years, and policies have to change to accommodate them. Most of these threats and risks are no longer susceptible to military solutions. This is the message that the SDA, with its global connections, has been trying to put across, and it will have to be heeded if Scotland's future security is to be assured.
Gaisgeach
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:29 AMThis is hardly news. The SNP is a highly democratic party which involves its branches and consituency organisations, National Assemblies and National Conferences in discussung and voting on policies. I have been a member of the party since 1965 and have always disagreed with the policy on NATO membership. I have, however, accepted that the majority of members support it as part of our consistent anti-nuclear stance. I tend to agree with Mike Russel that we should review this but this is a minor amendment to policy not a major U-turn. The Unionist controlled media are always looking for splits in the party - remember the stories about traditionalist vs reformists in the 80s and 90s. These never existed as warring factions but simply as differences of opinion which the SNP resolve by discussion, debate and voting. I, for example, also tend towards the replacement of the monarcy by an elected Head of State but again accept the majority view that this is essentially irrelevant and too divisive. The concept of democracy seems increasingly incomprehensible to Unionists and the media. I have remained an SNP member for 47 years not because I have agreed with all its policies all the time but because I both support independence and am allowed to express my views openly and freely without pressure or intimidation by minders or hierarchies cf Glasgow Labour.
billalba
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:28 AM#12 I'm an ordinary member of the SNP and for your information the next conference is in March where if enough branches put forward a proposal to join Nato and then a majority of delegates vote for that proposal that will then be the policy of the SNP That's how its done in a democratic party....
The Harder They Come
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 11:06 AM"How do I know this? By paying attention and reading the runes." - Thanks Kenny, your paid to be a journalist not a witch doctor or is that quack doctor.
Intervention
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 10:59 AMWhen will the supine Scottish press and BBC tackle Johann Lamont and her involvement in Labour's meltdown in Glasgow?......................Four of the Labour rebels deselected by London were in Lamont's heartland of Pollock and her husband is the Deputy leader of Glasgow Council....................... Where are the revelations about Councillor Davidson's previous bullying and sexist stories..................... Are there no serious journalists left in Scotland .............or do they just print Paul Sinclair's Labour briefings?
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.