A question of independence: Nato policy gives SNP a dilemma

JUST as Scottish nationalism is capable of arousing deep emotions amongst its believers, the presence of weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde is a subject which stirs heartfelt passions within the breasts of the SNP rank-and-file. The antipathy towards nuclear weapons that runs through the heart of the SNP is secondary only to independence when it comes to the things that bind SNP activists together.

No wonder then that a certain frisson accompanied the SNP leadership’s announcement last week that it wants to reverse the party’s long-standing opposition to Nato, the nuclear alliance with almost pariah status among some of the membership.

With the SNP’s date with destiny moving ever closer, Alex Salmond and his defence spokesman Angus Robertson have teed up the most almighty internal struggle as they prepare for the 2014 independence referendum.

Should Salmond persuade his party to embrace Nato, it will be the culmination of an astonishing U-turn for a man whose own relationship with the military alliance has been decidedly chequered. It was 13 years ago that Salmond denounced Nato’s bombing to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo as an “unpardonable folly”.

But the pragmatist in Salmond has realised for some time that opposition to Nato, while it chimed with the SNP grassroots, has been an Achilles heel that has damaged his party’s credibility with the public at large.

So now he faces a battle with the party that has supported him with slavish loyalty, raised funds for the cause and knocked countless doors on his behalf. Defeat for Salmond would be disastrous. But he can take heart from Scotland on Sunday’s poll today, which shows widespread support for the change of position amongst the public.

Crucial to Salmond winning the argument with his party is his insistence that an independent Scotland can become ­nuclear-free even if it is to remain in Nato. Salmond’s gamble is that such a stance will bring his people round to his way of thinking – whatever the likelihood or otherwise of such a position being ­accepted by a nuclear alliance.

Another encouraging sign for Salmond is research published earlier this year by Professor James Mitchell of Strathclyde University suggesting that slightly more than half of the SNP’s membership agree with signing up to Nato.

The most worrying aspect of picking a fight with the party barely two years from a referendum is that the battle comes at a time when Salmond’s relationship with his activists is at its most fraught. The Nato volte-face is just one of a series of U-turns that are causing turmoil within the party.

Salmond may have delivered two Scottish election victories and an unexpected majority, but many ordinary members are deeply unhappy about backsliding on ­policies such as Nato, retaining the monarchy, and the suspicion that he wants to hedge his bets on the constitution by ­favouring a two-question referendum.

The economic storm battering Europe has also seen the SNP change its currency policy, with John Swinney saying that an independent Scotland would continue using sterling and would not enter the euro for at least a decade. While post-independence, the Bank of England will continue to control monetary policy in Scotland.

“Every day there seems to be some sort of change that upsets the members,” one prominent SNP politician told Scotland on Sunday last week. “The MSPs feel totally isolated from the process, which is not exactly the best way of doing things.”

But just as Neil Kinnock had to ditch Labour’s unilateral disarmament policy in the 1980s and Tony Blair had his Clause Four moment, the SNP leadership believes the party has to be faced down on Nato to achieve success at the polls. ­Salmond, however, has the difficulty that it is not just Nato. About-turns on these other key SNP policies have been coming thick and fast.

“I believe that the SNP is in the process of selling its soul,” says Campbell Martin, a former SNP MSP who has since left the party. “When you string together the ­retention of the monarchy, we can still call ourselves British, we will keep the pound and the Bank of England will take care of monetary policy.

“Now they are saying, ‘Well, we can be members of Nato and get rid of nuclear weapons’. But when the time comes they will maybe find that they have got a treaty obligation not to diminish Nato’s nuclear strike capability. You are edging towards the scenario where under the SNP’s vision of independence, you are basically saying ‘what’s the point?’  ”

According to Martin, the same applies to the strong signs that Salmond wants to present a two-question ballot with a Devo Max option in addition to full independence.

“The SNP is ditching its principles,” complains Martin. “We all know that the undefined Devo Max is the fall-back position in case an insufficient number of people vote for independence. We all know that, but the SNP should have the courage of its convictions and stand on the mandate of independence and put that to the people and ask them to vote on it.”

With a referendum in the offing it is easy to see why Salmond wants to appeal to as many people as possible, but betrayal of principles does not sit well with the party faithful.

“You can understand the point of view that this is a move aimed at placating undecided voters. To say that independence is a natural step and there will be very little change, this is what the SNP is trying to do – playing to these undecided voters,” says Martin. “But as far as I am concerned, politicians should hold views, policies and opinions. They should be prepared to articulate those views and opinions and ask people to support them. You can’t be all things to all men and all women and that is what the SNP appears to be trying to do. There are members of the SNP who joined the SNP because of its strong anti-nuclear position. These are people who are just being discarded. They are being told that we are moving away from that position and you have to come with us.”

Unsurprisingly, Salmond’s opponents do not believe in drawing comparisons between Nato and Blair’s fight to drop Clause Four, Labour’s 77-year commitment to nationalisation.

“Labour did not suddenly wake up one day and announce that a fundamental ­belief had changed,” a Labour source said. “The decision to change the party’s constitution reflected the reality of what had been our economic policy for decades prior. Here, the Nationalists are trying to change an unpopular policy – just like they wobble on the Queen, the currency and bank regulation. Anything unpopular is brushed aside in a desperate attempt to win votes. It is a case of “if you don’t like our principles, we have others”.

MSPs with misgivings are holding back from direct criticism of the leadership at this stage, but are firm that there needs to be an examination of the linkage between the Nato issue and the Trident issue. When Jean Urquhart, the SNP MSP for the Highlands, was asked if an independent Scotland should join Nato, she was reluctant to answer the question directly. “I have campaigned for a long number of years against nuclear weaponry and ­Trident is the big issue for me and whatever it takes – that’s what I’m interested in,” she said. “Scotland has a huge opportunity to be a world first showing that we don’t need this and if anything endangers that, I wouldn’t be supporting that.”

Others within the party are more relaxed about the Nato issue.

Another of the SNP’s new intake, Jim Eadie, the MSP for Edinburgh Southern, said: “I think it is entirely sensible that 30 years on from a conference resolution which was fashioned at the height of the Cold War, we should look again at this issue. People like me are willing to consider Nato membership. There are others who take a more principled position who don’t think the anti-nuclear stance is compatible with Nato membership. They are entitled to that view, but there are other members of Nato who don’t have nuclear weapons.”

Denmark and Norway are the countries continually cited by Robertson as models for Scotland in that they are Nato members, but have no nuclear weapons.

The SNP’s opponents, however, question whether the SNP’s position is a ­realistic one. “This is a cynical exercise to get rid of another electoral albatross,” said Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the former Nato Secretary General and Labour ­Defence Secretary, last week.

Robertson suggested that Trident would have to remain in the Clyde for Scotland to be accepted by Nato arguing that alliance members were bound by its Strategic Concept, which states that the “supreme guarantee” of their security are the nuclear deterrents of the UK, US and France.

“Membership of Nato involves accepting Nato’s Strategic Concept which ­clearly sets out a position and policy on ­nuclear defence. Countries in Nato will greet this approach with derision,” Robertson ­added.

The SNP leadership’s critics inside and outside the SNP believe this is yet another example of Salmond’s party making up policy on the hoof – an approach that harmed the party recently.

Nicola Sturgeon’s recent pronouncement that Scotland would be granted a seat on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee has been laughed out of court. And the Scottish Government’s refusal to disclose whether or not it holds ­legal advice on the status of an independent Scotland within the EU has only ­added to the impression that the SNP is making it up as it goes along.

Come the SNP conference in October, delegates will be confronted with a ­motion on Nato that many of them will find unpalatable. No doubt there will be consternation that the issue has been foisted on them, annoyance at the way it has been handled by a dominant leadership and deep concern that it could jeopardise the SNP’s anti-nuclear position.

Despite their other worries about the direction of the party, in all likelihood delegates will do their leader’s bidding. There will be sound and fury, but, like Salmond, they will come to the conclusion that change is required in the interests of maximising a “Yes” vote in the independence referendum.

Above all, delegates know that a defeat for Salmond would do nothing but harm to his and the party’s reputation as the referendum edges ever closer. But how much longer can Salmond continue to stake his reputation on policy changes that are unpopular with his party?

“They will get the Nato thing through because it will come down to a test of ­loyalty for the leadership,” said one prominent SNP politician. “The great man has spoken, therefore it becomes a leadership issue. But there are only so many times that you can play that card.” «