Thursday, May 2, 2013

House of Commons report confirms that Scottish independence would be a force for good in the world - and that Duncan Hothersall is wrong, again

It's rare that a report by Westminster's Foreign Affairs Committee paints such an inspiring picture of the benefits that independence would bring not just to Scotland, but to the wider world as well. Here are just a few of the highlights -

1. The UK might lose its veto-wielding power in the UN Security Council.

This of course would be a GOOD THING. Britain's special perks at the UN are relics of imperialism that ought to have been stripped away decades ago. Countries in the developing world are rightly furious that a nation on the fringes of Europe, with less than 1% of the global population, has the permanent, in-built power to protect its own selfish interests by vetoing resolutions that would otherwise have the full force of international law.

2. The UK might not retain its nuclear weapons, because of the difficulty of moving them from Scotland.

This of course would be a GOOD THING. The fewer countries in the world that have weapons capable of wiping out millions of people within seconds, the less chance there is of human civilisation coming to an end in the near future. On the whole, I'm rather in favour of human civilisation.

This also confirms that Duncan Hothersall is wrong in his claims that the unilateralism of independence supporters is a sham, and that we'd simply be voting to move the weapons elsewhere rather than eliminate them. In fact, if the Commons report is correct, the only meaningful chance any UK citizens will have to eliminate nuclear weapons will be by voting for Scottish independence.

3. Confusingly at variance with highlight no 2, Scotland might be "forced" to continue hosting nuclear weapons for decades if we want the UK's support for our applications to join international organisations.

This is of course a GOOD THING, or at least it is if you read between the lines and spot the implicit recognition that the Trident issue is Scotland's bargaining chip from heaven, which can potentially be used to counter London's immature intransigence on a whole range of other issues as well.

4. A truly independent Scottish foreign policy is a misnomer, because in practice we'd be forced to go along with whatever the UK wanted.

Well, this would probably be a bad thing on the whole, but I can only assume that the committee itself regards it as a GOOD THING. After all, it would mean following in the finest traditions of British foreign policy, which is to do whatever the Americans instruct us to do.

* * *

On a vaguely related theme, this poll from YouGov caught my eye, because it was conducted across seven different European countries...

How serious a threat do you think North Korea poses to your country?


Serious threat 15%
Minor threat/Not a threat 74%


Serious threat 19%
Minor threat/Not a threat 68%


Serious threat 26%
Minor threat/Not a threat 62%


Serious threat 4%
Minor threat/Not a threat 90%


Serious threat 3%
Minor threat/Not a threat 90%


Serious threat 3%
Minor threat/Not a threat 90%


Serious threat 6%
Minor threat/Not a threat 85%

So, unsurprisingly, the majority in all seven countries are wise enough to realise that David Cameron's claims that Europe is under threat from North Korea are a load of old twaddle. But what I find particularly interesting is that the populations of the four small independent nations (none of which have an 'independent nuclear deterrent', and two of which are not even NATO members) feel under considerably LESS threat of nuclear annihilation at the hands of Kim Jong-un than the populations of the three much larger countries (two of which do have an 'independent nuclear deterrent').

Shurely shome mishtake, David?

* * *

I have it on reasonably good authority that a full-scale YouGov poll on referendum voting intentions is on its way. It will be the first such poll by the company this year, and therefore also the first YouGov poll to use - after a fashion - the finalised, Electoral Commission-approved question. I say "after a fashion" because Kellner's mob have by all accounts persisted with their indefensible practice of using a biased preamble to 'explain' the question to their respondents, who they apparently think are too stupid to understand the meaning of the words "Should Scotland be an independent country?".

Rest assured that I have my customary "YouGov credibility in tatters" headline ready to go when the moment arrives.


  1. Your findings on the 'report' echo mine.
    More anti independence scare stories.
    Linked to your post ta.
    Do you have a link to the actual report ?

  2. The committee's page is here -