1) Concede the hardline unionist argument that the devolved Scottish Government should stay out of international affairs and get on with the day job.
2) Concede the isolationist argument allegedly put forward by some independence supporters that Scotland should "retreat from the world and just coorie doon in our bonny wee scrap of mountain and moor".
3) Take on an international role by becoming a cheerleader for Keir Starmer's plan to send British troops to Ukraine and vastly increase defence spending.
Farq naturally wants John Swinney to plump for option 3, and who knows, he may even get his way this time. But there is of course a fourth option that Farq conveniently forgets to mention, which is that Scotland could use its voice on international affairs to take an independent line in the best interests of global peace, rather than to parrot Atlanticist dogma and give Starmer political cover for domestic spending cuts, which is presumably the real agenda here.
In the case of Ukraine, what could such an independent line look like? Its starting point would surely be the principle that national self-determination for all peoples, including the Ukrainian people, is of tremendous importance and that the one thing of even greater importance is the avoidance of global nuclear annihilation. There will be no self-determination for Ukraine or for Scotland in a nuclear wasteland, and therefore all decisions taken must be weighed up to ensure that the risk of triggering a nuclear exchange is not unacceptably high (and frankly even a 1 in 100 risk would be unacceptably high when human civilisation is at stake). A second principle is that human life is precious, and while there may be rare circumstances in which it is justified to put professional soldiers and unwilling conscripts in harm's way, it should never be done when the chances of success are zero or so close to zero as makes no difference. Lives shouldn't be thrown away on an industrial scale just to make a symbolic point.
Farq might argue that all of this is academic because Starmer's plan is about policing the peace in Ukraine rather than prolonging the war. Many will be dubious about that, and in any case the sending of troops to Ukraine is only one-half of what Farq wants John Swinney to get behind - with the other half being cuts in Scottish public services to pay for lavish funding of the British military. This in spite of the fact that we know from recent history that such funding is far more likely to facilitate the illegal invasion of other countries than the defence of our own.
Farq mentions almost as an afterthought that the SNP will also have to reverse their policy on rejecting weapons of mass destruction in Scottish waters due to the greater strategic importance of those waters with northern routes opening up as a result of global warming. It's almost as if Farq thinks that everyone accepts the concept of nuclear deterrence as viable and valid, and that Scotland only ever flirted with opting out of it as a self-indulgent luxury that is no longer open to us. In reality, those of us who believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament recognise that "deterrence" is not merely an imperfect defence against nuclear attack, it's no sort of defence at all. The only way the risk of nuclear attack can be reduced is by promoting disarmament - and ultimately that is also the only answer for those who protest about Russian nuclear blackmail influencing strategic decisions in Ukraine.
But if Farq wants to surrender entirely to the Trump doctrine that Europe has to step up defence spending to plug the gap left by the US, why wouldn't that also apply to spending on nuclear weapons? If Trump can't be trusted to protect Europe with conventional forces, there's no way he can be trusted to retaliate against a nuclear attack on Europe's behalf, in which case deterrence is already dead anyway - unless Britain and France increase their nuclear arsenals a hundred-fold to match Russia's. So what's it to be, Farq - a further descent into nuclear madness, or are we going to seek a new paradigm?
* * *
I launched the Scot Goes Pop fundraiser for 2025 last month, and so far the running total stands at £1601, meaning that 24% of the target of £6800 has been raised. If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue with poll analysis and truly independent political commentary for another year, donations are welcome HERE. Direct Paypal donations can also be made - my Paypal email address is: jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk
There is another option, John Swinney might say that for years the UK and its political unionist partners have insisted that we must have nuclear weapons to deter people making war upon us, and we have had them located in Scotland for all of that time and continue to pay for the upgrading of them
ReplyDeleteNone of this has worked then has it, nobody appears to be deterred so can we have our money back and remove your ineffective overpriced useless deterrent nuclear weapons from our back garden
I just keep thinking one less day of Trump and Putin. Mortality is actually quite a good thing.
ReplyDeleteYou may change your mind about that, depending on what comes after Trump and Putin.
DeleteTrump may well be just keeping the seat warm for President Vance.
DeleteDonald hasn't shown much warmth or even awareness of Vance, though. It’s like how he was with Pence: as soon as they were elected, he just looked down at the guy as his Beta.
DeleteElon's his chosen son, for the moment. He’s so rich he must be smart!
Vance just needs someone to stiff the old man, however…
Trump sent Vance to Brussels as his village idiot to speak to a room full of grown-ups. Trump must be livid that Vance (as well as gloriously fulfilling his mission) took the chance to address the Magas at home directly and launch his bid to be president in 2028.
DeleteAs a non-nation state Scotland doesn't have a foreign policy. There is, therefore, no 'international role' for Scotland' political representatives to take at present.
ReplyDeleteIn any event every time John Swinney opens his mouth on overseas affairs he puts his size 12s right in it. Remember how he bad mouthed Trump during the US Presidential Election campaign and then offered his squirming congratulations when The Donald won in the hope that the latter wouldn't penalise us by imposing higher tariffs on our exports?
Full-on John didn't look so clever then. Rather more Fool-on John.
He is, indeed, best to stick to the day job.
By which I don't mean administering Scotland on behalf of Westminster.
I mean restoring our statehood. Then he and his successors can take on an 'international role'.
The NSP will restore our statehood.
DeleteAnon at 1.32. Whoooosh. Realpolitik? No? Grow up.
DeleteIn any event every time John Swinney opens his mouth on overseas affairs he puts his size 12s right in it. Remember how he bad mouthed Trump during the US Presidential Election campaign and then offered his squirming congratulations when The Donald won in the hope that the latter wouldn't penalise us by imposing higher tariffs on our exports?
DeleteNo, I don't remember that. He said he wanted people to vote for Kamala Harris, but when did he bad-mouth Trump?
You confidently write but know little.
DeleteNot only does Scotland have international relations, albeit at a sub state level, it is widely respected by many nations.
There are dignitaries meeting Scots all the time.
Junker
Edogan
As for Trump, Swinney is no outlier among the mainstream European politicians.
DeleteI have no idea why unionists take such a low view of their nation having a worldly outlook. Scotland has and is known in the world. Why should being in a union with England stop it from being so?
"Edogan" - I know him well. An up-and-coming Japanese politician.
DeleteA marvellous man. Formerly married to none other than Celine Gottwald.
DeleteKeaton @ 5.42 & Anon @
DeleteSwinney backed Harris because he thought that Trump was going to lose and that he'd curry favour with the politically correct chumps in Scotland.
He supports British foreign policy in Ukraine because signaling virtues will buy him some votes come election time from the BBC propagandised Scottish elecorate.
Swinney is an embarrassment.
Anon 1.32PM How very British/English of you
DeleteWe've been studying the detailed tables of the last pro-lynx opinion poll and note that 71% support a pre-emptive strike against the Bathtub Admiral.
ReplyDelete"unless Britain and France increase their nuclear arsenals a hundred-fold to match Russia's"
ReplyDeleteSetting aside the absurdity of 100× spending on anything, let alone WMDs, only France could even do this. Their nuclear weapons are independent of the Americans. France uses their own domestically developed and manufactured M51 missiles and their own warheads.
Britain however only leases American Trident missiles from the US Navy, which services the missiles for them, over in Georgia. Britain makes its own warheads, the Mk4A, which parade in the infamous convoys from the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire up to Coulport. But the bombs themselves are quite useless without a missile to launch them anywhere, and the missiles are 100% USA.
Trident's a pile of shite, even if you're into keeping nukes in Scotland.
"only France could even do this"
DeleteTechnically that's not true. In addition to nuclear-armed submarines, Britain also previously had a small nuclear capability via the RAF. There's no bar to that being resumed in the future, although obviously it would be a terrible retrograde step.
Retrograde indeed!
DeleteThe RAF doesn't even have bombers any more. They switched to smaller "multi role combat aircraft", primarily the Eurofighter Typhoon. Good luck fitting those out for making nuclear strikes. And better luck still evading the Russian defences in radar-visible aircraft, the very target their surface to air missile systems, and their jet fighters, were designed for.
They'd be better sending bombs to Russia by post! "FRAGILE. DO NOT SHAKE."
Do the British have access to the codes needed to fire the nuclear arms? Do they need to ask the USA authorities for them?
DeleteThe whole shape and strategy of Britain's armed forces, from top to bottom, is to be America's willing little stooge. The idea of doing anything without them is as disruptive as finding the budget to pay for it.
DeleteThe same problem exists across Europe, too. No one's really equipped to do anything outside of a team effort with the Americans. There's been no need to, and there's always something better to spend all the money on.
Reliance breeds dependency.
@2:53
DeleteSupposedly not. Whenever they're asked about this, the Brits claim the "UK's nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent." "British Trident warheads can be launched by a submarine commander with the support of his crew without any code being transmitted from the chain of command. The system relies on military discipline rather than technological safeguards to prevent unauthorized launches."
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-america-doesnt-control-britains-nuclear-weapons/
If I was the Americans, I'd be tempted to keep the missiles locked anyway, and just promise not to tell the world about it so the needy Brits can save face.
But the reality, in any case, is that the only time those Trident missiles would ever get fired in earnest, there wouldn't be much of a world left to hold an inquest about it. The perfect nuclear deterrent doesn't even need to work, so long as you keep it classified.
Difficult to believe we are still hearing this Independent Nuclear Deterrent nonsense. There is a report on G B nuclear capability in the Westminster library. The independent nuclear deterrent would cease to be effective within a month of the U.S.A withdrawing its supporting technology. That is Great (tee hee) Britain saying so. Not me. Do some research for yourselves. Find it and read it.
DeleteI think it's 6 months, but you're basically right. The UK's deterrent is operationally independent, but replacement and maintenance of the missiles themselves are dependent on Kings Bay, USA. There would be other problems too.
DeleteNobody wants to be in the English racist rapist military and nobody wants to join it either
DeleteFarquharson wants us Jocks to know our place.
ReplyDeleteAnd Feartheart John does.
DeleteFarquharson knows he couldn't make the grade as a journalist outwith the safe zone in which he operates. He projects his inadequacy on to Scotland as a whole, a feature of many British nationalists who are comforted by knowing their place.
DeleteAnon 2. 29 Peter A Bell's the true Brave heart.
DeleteIf Swinney had Bell's heart, we'd be in a much better situation than cooing to ourselves that the 29th mandate is the charm and we'll surely get our section 30.
DeleteSwinney's got to where he is by being the ultimate team player. He should remember which team he's on, though, instead of chumming up with his colleagues in the counties.
Anon 414. If he had Bells heart Bell would be deid. As for your other comments ZZZZ.
DeleteBell’s solution is UDI. Complete nonsense from a well
Deletemeaning but woefully misinformed individual.
Anon @ 5:25 if Swinney had Bell's heart it's unlikely Swinney would last much longer either.
DeleteAnon 5.57. Fortunately for Scotland Swinney doesn't have Bell's brains.
DeleteIt's very easy for chumps like Bell to run their mouth off on the internet knowing that most punters haven't the first clue about politics in the first place
DeleteLike Stuart Campbell, P Bell blurts out crap then reverses it the next day,
Come to think about it, they're just like Trump, big mouthed braggarts boasting and beating their chests like monkeys to the lowest common denominator
UK government says Scotland can't be allowed to represent Scotland because we can't speak English well enough
ReplyDeleteJust think about that statement for a second or two
This entry is about John Swinney. I am confident he will make the right choices.
ReplyDeleteJohn Swinney’s political judgment is defined by experience, pragmatism, and integrity.
His leadership reflects deep understanding, steady decision-making, and a commitment to public service.
Tell the AI to do it in the style of Proclaimers lyrics.
DeleteThe comma before 'and' is the AI giveaway.
DeleteScotch people can't use the Oxford comma.
DeleteRather, old boy!
Deletehttps://x.com/wundt_vil/status/1892582989713830264
Deletejohn swinney died 10 years ago and it took 5 years for people to realise; what you see at holyrood is an animatronic controlled by a wifi dongle behind his ear and linked to an xbox controller which nikki has in her handbag.
Delete- sometimes she confuses the xbox gamepad for her rabbit, and things get a bit funky.
What complete drivel.
DeleteYes national self determination is very important and that would include the Donbass Russians.
ReplyDeleteThey already had their chance to vote No.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukr_Referendum_1991_No.png
Once in a generation, old sport?
Perhaps the experience of themselves and their children being targeted by shelling by their "own" government with thousands dead might have changed their minds old bean?
DeleteScotland only has one large important wild animal. It doesn't qualify to be a colony.
ReplyDeleteWhat large important wild animal does England have? Do you chaps deserve independence either?
DeleteKC , where is it? In Loch Ness?
DeleteGreenock, sometimes in Macedonia.
DeleteAse far as KC is concerned it's Lake Ness.
DeleteWell he's probably an English clone and speaks English right like wot we in Scotland don't apparently
DeleteAccording to the government in Inglind Scotland can't represent itself on the world stage because we can't speak Inglish proply
The second listed option, namely to “Concede the isolationist argument allegedly (that we..) "retreat from the world and just coorie doon in our bonny wee scrap of mountain and moor", is pure straw man rubbish.
ReplyDeleteAn independent Scotland would need to take a position on European conflict since we are geographically part of Europe.
An independent Scotland could be part of a Northern Alliance of small independent countries, with others in waiting. (The real NATO.)
DeleteIreland’s quite smart on Ukraine, and Israel for that matter. I can see Scotland being another voice like them or Norway.
DeleteBetter than no voice at all, as we have now.
If Scotland wee independent I bet we'd win more football matches, proper respect for a country to play for, although it would annoy the rugby Britishers
DeleteThe background to this is that there are still 9 members of NATO that haven't met the 2% of GDP in 2024 agreement made back in 2014, but NATO meets in June 2025 to discuss further increases and there are commentators pushing for 3% of GDP as the next target.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_232975.htm
Russia is pushing to spend 6.3% of GDP in 2025. In monetary terms this would be $145 billion in 2025. Against that the UK alone would be spending even according to the existing budget, around $73 billion, then add the other European NATO members. Admittedly Russia gets a lot more for its generally internally spent Ruble.
As a defence buff, it's a step too far.
We are aware of the latest apparent attack on Wings. Support are on the case.
ReplyDeleteThe rev is in a bit of a flap. Send him more money please.
DeleteGood evening Mr Dyson.
DeleteAs another little note, the Precious Union started back in 1707 partly because England wanted Scotland to pay for England's war debts
ReplyDeleteNothing changes.
The only country unilaterally to give up nuclear weapons was Ukraine which transferred them to Russia. That went well did it not
ReplyDeleteDidn’t realise the U K shared a border with Russia.
DeleteSupposedly Ukraine never had operational control over the nukes, so giving them to Russia via the Budapest agreement in exchange for debt relief and other stuff, seemed like and was a good idea. The warheads from Russia were past their sell-by date anyway.
DeleteI think that S. Africa did the same along with Kazakhstan, etc, etc.
DeleteS Africa never had nukes
DeleteOT. The plot of the next James Bond movie has been leaked. A hackattack immobilises a large online retailer's extensive distribution and delivery system, but 007 delivers the goods in his Minivan.
ReplyDeleteJe ne comprends pas.
DeleteChan eil ' is am
Delete61% ( SURVATION) in favour of reintroduction of lynx in Scotland.
DeleteKeepers greet!
Moron farmers are still shooting red kites and pretending they can attack lambs, a kite could barely lift a lamb chop, they're not called kites for nothing
DeleteGiven the chance they'd shoot Lynx as well and charge the English money for the accidental sport
I reckon I know what I'd shoot given the chance
Ooh I know, Beryl. Makes me see red. It really does.
ReplyDeleteIn which article is that - self evidently false - claim made?
ReplyDeleteGood fun today at FMQs, watching Tess White's facial contortions. She seems to be getting worse, or should that be better? Liam Kerr's usual Shakespearean play poses were pretty silly too. Strange folk.
ReplyDeletethe position of an independent Scotland on international conflicts should be to form a large circle, and everyone shouts
ReplyDeletefight! fight! fight!
and someone runs a book on the winner
Quit moralising - as long as we have our fun, that is all that matters.
SNP activists are passionate about helping the vulnerable and poor.
ReplyDeleteTrouble is Scotland has a great deal of morons and they're mostly on Wings or Scot goes Pop
ReplyDeleteIf you support the SNP use your brains and get out of these sites, they're poison
The case for the reintroduction of lynx to Scotland is a convincing one, based on good science. The case against is mostly from ill informed landowners who see Scotland's wild areas as a playground for their rich clients to shoot overstocked game species.
ReplyDeleteYesIR2 grat when he read folk in Scotland want the lynx back. He thinks its something he rubs under his oxter.
DeleteSome of the bad things said here about the SNP are not true.
ReplyDeleteTake it everyone seen the car crash interview John Swinney gave when asked about same-sex spaces following the NHS Fife employment tribunal?
ReplyDeleteHe had the opportunity to lay the blame for all of that mess on his predecessors and chart a new path forward, but instead it might actually be the issue to bring down yet another First Minister... Bonkers.
Jackie Baillie can even be seen visibly laughing when walking past in the background.
DeleteLet us defend LGBTQ+ rights not attack them.
DeleteOr take the Swinney approach: Say one thing in public whilst your Government argues the opposite in court. Brilliant!
DeleteWhat did he say?
Delete