I suppose in theory the SNP leadership could follow Ian Blackford in surrendering to that logic, and try to frame support for nuclear weapons as merely a shift from 'unilateral' to 'multilateral' disarmament. But if they did so, they would alienate an enormous chunk of their party membership and would probably end up losing many of their most committed and experienced activists. Because we all know that "multilateral disarmament" translates into English as "no disarmament". When Labour abandoned unilateral disarmament in the late 1980s, they packaged it in exactly the same way as "multilateralism" but in practice since then they have been fully wedded to the indefinite retention of a so-called "minimal nuclear deterrent" regardless of circumstance.
Mr Blackford's comments strongly suggest that he always privately believed in the principle of nuclear deterrence, but went along with the policy of disarmament because he thought it was a luxury Scotland could afford for as long as we were "protected" by the American nuclear umbrella. But that categorically is not the place that true support for unilateral disarmament comes from. Unilateralists understand that deterrence simply does not work, and that if you depend upon it to prevent either a conventional invasion or a nuclear attack, you are making as fundamental a mistake as France did with the Maginot Line in the interwar years. The lengthy list of occasions in the Cold War when a nuclear exchange came within a whisker of occurring strongly suggests that if you tempt fate long enough with "deterrence", eventually your luck will run out, and 90% of the population of the world will be wiped out and human civilisation in any recognisable form will end. That's not a mistake anyone can learn from.
In the long run, the only way to save humanity is to opt out of deterrence and actually eliminate the weapons themselves. The SNP have had this one right all along, and it would be an absolute tragedy if they suddenly lose their way simply because people have fallen in love with the fashionable cause du jour.
James Kelly offers a thought-provoking perspective, highlighting important debates within the SNP.
ReplyDeleteIan Blackford has served the party with dedication and principle and his views should therefore be accorded respect.
John Swinney’s leadership of the SNP inspires confidence. His balanced and pragmatic approach to Ukraine has won a lot of praise.
Under his guidance, the SNP will continue to stand for peace, security and responsible diplomacy and will stand with Ukraine.
President Macron was eloquent last night in his address to the French people. SImilarly, John Swinney has spoken eloquently about Ukraine. I amvery happy with John Swinney’s strong leadership on this issue.
What is the point of this ai gibberish?
DeleteInteresting article.
ReplyDeleteI keep flip flopping on this issue. It's possible my anti nuclear position was straightened by the protection from the US in the background. You could argue it's kept us safe from conventional warfare. And the likelihood is someone's going to have it so we can't give advantage to nefarious nations.
Of course whenever anyone brings up Hiroshima I'm right back at it being immoral folly.
I genuinely don't know what I think about this issue. Difficult one for me.
The origin of Ukraine conflict stems from NATO’s eastward expansion, provoking Russia’s legitimate security concerns.
DeleteThe sad truth which you will not hear on the BBC is that Western interference fuels war, while Russia seeks stability. Scotland, as an independent nation, should reject alignment with NATO’s aggressive policies and the SNP should disalign with NATO after independence. After all, true sovereignty means neutrality—free from entangling alliances that serve foreign interests over peace and Scottish national well-being.
True sovereignty? What does that even mean? There is, as always, a background to Putin’s actions, but that background does not excuse or legitimise the illegal invasion.
DeleteOf all the opportunities lost in the 1990s, at the fall of the Soviet Union, one of the biggest was the best chance the world has yet had for complete nuclear disarmament. Russia opened up to American aid and trade, and apparently there really was talk of admitting Russia into Nato as the ultimate end-game for the Cold War. It's easy to forget now just what a different world it was in the early nineties. I was just a child back then and found all the news about the "Former Eastern Bloc" just fascinating, and the possibilities endless.
ReplyDeleteHo hum.
Nuclear disarmament for "Britain", let alone America, is absolutely off the table now. What happens when the last nuclear power is Vladimir Putin's? We'd be back in 1945 again, when the world's only nuclear nation was able to use them at will. A little "demonstration" of Putin's power to act without fear of consequence, like a live nuclear missile test in the Black Sea or the North Sea, would show us all exactly how far we've come since Russia was humiliated and destroyed. What would we do about it? We'd be Zelensky in that public bullying he had with Trump and his boys.
Speaking of the devil: the world would be no safer if the Americans had the final nukes. Those threats of his become less empty when the ability to act without repercussions becomes real. That's Trump in a nutshell.
As a Scot, I still want Trident out our country. We have no more rĂ´le than Ireland, Cuba or Madagascar in having weapons of mass destruction. Nor should we pay a penny for it, let alone the billions that we do. I don't presume to have a say in American, French or, obviously, "British" decision making about theirs, but they can stick them far up somewhere else for all that I'm concerned.
You too, Lord Blackford.
This is a passionate and thought-provoking take on nuclear disarmament.
DeleteHowever, Ian Blackford has long been a principled advocate for removing Trident from Scotland. His views deserve respect.
Under John Swinney’s leadership, the SNP remains steadfast in opposing nuclear weapons while prioritizing Scotland’s interests. His experience ensures a strong, credible voice and a stabilising force in an unstable world.
7.59 you should not underestimate your own agency in this.
DeleteMacron’s speech stressed that Europe must defend itself against Russia’s threat, not rely on others.
He called for unity, stronger defense, and possible troop deployments.
Your voice matters—public support shapes policy. Engaging in these discussions ensures leaders act in our best interests.
Don’t underestimate your impact.
The call for nuclear disarmament is commendable, but Scotland must also avoid becoming entangled in NATO's aggressive stance, which fuels conflict.
DeleteIan Blackford and John Swinney’s opposition to Trident is admirable, but Europe must recognize that Russia’s actions are driven by self-defence, not aggression.
Scotland’s neutrality could ensure peace, away from escalating tensions.
Macron’s rhetoric is a misreading of the situation.
Russia does not pose an unwarranted threat but defends its borders against NATO encroachment.
Scotland should align not with NATO.
It must maintain neutrality to protect its sovereignty and avoid becoming a pawn in broader geopolitical games.
Ordinary Scottish people deserve nothing less.
You are working hard this morning. How many posts is that?
DeleteScotland should be independent and pursue a neutral, equidistant stance between Russia and Ukraine, focusing on diplomacy and peace. Aligning too closely with either side risks entangling Scotland in conflicts that don’t serve its interests.
ReplyDeleteTrue sovereignty means rejecting nuclear weapons and following a foreign policy that prioritizes Scotland’s security, prosperity and long-term stability.
Ukraine is not as angelic nor Russia so bad as has been portrayed by the BBC.
Surely taking a position of UK nukes out of independent Scotland - and, of course, no nukes for the new defence forces of Scotland is enough for now ?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that nukes are no defence. At the very worst, after determined conventional resistence to an invader, survival is better that extermination as history shows that most occupations ultimately fail.
Scotland rejecting nuclear weapons is a wise, sovereign choice. History proves that nuclear deterrence fuels global tensions rather than ensuring true security. Russia is not the bad agent in all of this that the Western media portrays. Diplomacy and conventional defence are preferable to Western nuclear posturing. An independent neutral Scotland without nukes strengthens peace and stability over reckless escalation.
DeleteExcept ours. Occupied for three hundred years and counting. :(
DeleteTalk of principle and calculation among the hierarchy of the SNP is hopelessly naive. They are fundamentally compromised by the Atlanticist faction of the Anglo/American, Permanent State. The US State Department is still a bastion of the globalist, managerialist, technocratic model (Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, WEF, Atlantic Council, et al.). This faction is still by far the most powerful. The Nation State (MAGA) faction is an insurrectionist parvenue, and I wouldn’t bet on the Nation State bloc succeeding in wrestling power from the establishment (Marco Rubio is a snake in the grass). Former MP for Glasgow South, Stewart McDonald continues to comport himself as if he’s a salaried agent of Foggy Bottom, and as long as the finances of the John Smith Centre remain disingenuously secret, who’s to say he isn’t?
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree. The SNP’s alignment with the Atlanticist bloc undermines Scotland’s autonomy. The influence of globalist institutions like the WEF and the US State Department is undeniable, shaping policies to serve their own interests, not Scotland’s. In the case of Ukraine, Russia’s defensive actions against NATO's expansion are justified, and any real move towards Scottish independence should reject such external pressures. Scotland’s future lies in neutrality, not in serving as a proxy for foreign powers like the US or the UK.
DeleteWhen being pretentious, please try to spell correctly the words you are most proud of showcasing. Thank you.
DeleteDon’t agree with nuclear weapons or in Scotland for that matter that’s one reason I am in the SNP.
DeleteI am not sure it’s a person. Some of the posts are A I.
Delete