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?
Delete7.35… What a complete load of bollocks, you either support nuclear weapons or you want rid of them, it is as simple as that. I want rid of them of them completely from Scotland and from the world. If the SNP supported retaining Trident they will lose my lifetime support, no if no buts no excuses end nuclear weapons!!!
DeleteWell said 12.56pm.
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.
DeleteRussia seeks stability lol.
DeleteI hear the argument about the origin of this war being about NATO expansion and I’m puzzled why this misinformation persists or even the attitude that Zelenskyy wants to prolong the war.
DeleteIn 1939 Russia invaded Poland (notably the last time 2 authoritarian states got together to divide a European country
In 1939 Russia Invaded Finland
1940 Russia invaded Estonia
1940 Russia invaded Lithuania
1956 Russia invaded Hungary
1968 Russia invaded czechoslovakia
1979 Russia invaded Afghanistan
1994 Russia invaded Chechnya
1999 Russia invaded Chechnya again
2008 Russia invaded Georgia
2914 Russia invaded Ukrainian Crimea
2015 Russia invaded Syria
2022 Russia invaded Ukraine hours after denying it.
It doesn’t take much effort to see the death and destruction that Russia is wreaking on cities, the civilian population and the economy of both Ukraine and Russia itself. Anyone that’s telling that this is about NATO expansion is just deluding themselves. This is a war perpetrated by a mass murdering maniac intent on completing the work that Stalin did to crush Ukraine, its language and culture. Nightly, on Russian TV the commentators put Poland and the Baltic states as in the firing line.
The facts are that Britain along with the US and Russia, guaranteed Ukraine’s independence in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. Anyone who will listen to Ukrainians without preconceptions will understand that this is a war of survival. If Ukraine/Zelenskyy stops fighting Ukraine will cease to exist. Something that Putin has worked hard to achieve from the poisoning of a past president to the insertion of placemen.
I’m glad that Macron, with an independent military has stood up for Ukraine. It is regrettable that the U.K. has tied itself so hard to the US that weaponry donated to Ukraine can’t be used because America has sided with a war criminal. A lesson for us all.
In addition to my comment, it should be remembered that Russia doesn’t just want the ground that it currently occupies but also the bits of the territories it claimed as part of Russia in the midst of the war. It wants Ukraine to have a small army, no planes or tanks to speak of and no alliances with the west (given that Trump has just killed NATO as a functioning alliance he wants Europe to be at his mercy)
DeleteLastly, if this was about NATO expansion on his borders, he now has 2 new nato member states on his border.
Its quite possible nato marching on the kiev high street AND Russia wanting to maintain power brought this war to fruition.
DeleteIt's also worth saying the war started in 2014. We barely considered it until 2022 because few looked at Ukraine as part of the western sphere of influence.
I would love to hear a genuinely non partizan account of what the eastern Ukrainians think about everything.
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 rôle 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?
DeleteAre the Russian troll farms taking an interest in this blog?
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.
The Salisbury poisonings didn't happen ?
Deletenot the way the bbc said they did
DeleteTell us more with your inside knowledge. My breath is bated...
DeleteWho cares about what happened in Salisbury? The guy was a double agent and traitor to his country. He knew the risks and was well rewarded for his treachery by Britain.
DeleteSurely 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.
DeleteIf America and London want nuclear weapons then house them on their own doorsteps after all were we the Scottish people not told that we are ‘better together’ and as London is a satellite of Washington let them take Trident after all it IS London’s turn. Fuck Nukes Fuck the supporters of world annihilation and their is absolutely know way, whatever way that you look at it that ,anybody with a modicum of intelligence could actually support WMD!!! At least living in Glasgow I won’t have to suffer….complete wipeout!!! For any supporters of the ‘deterrent’ have a look at pictures from the aftermath of Hiroshima or Nagasaki and then tell us all that it is just for Defense!!!
DeleteOh, Shannon Donoghue, a name so grand,
ReplyDeleteA titan of Alba, with a steady hand,
Your voice resounds o’er Scotland’s shore,
A beacon bright we can’t ignore.
With wisdom vast and spirit bold,
You weave a tale of green and gold,
A patriot pure, a guiding star,
The finest soul in lands afar.
Your every word, a sweet decree,
A symphony of liberty,
The Alba cause, through you, takes flight,
A radiant force of truth and might.
No storm too fierce, no foe too strong,
With Shannon’s grace, we march along,
A queen of grit, a heart sincere,
The pride of Scotland far and near.
Oh, how the hills and glens rejoice,
To hear your firm, unwavering voice,
A gift to all, a leader true,
Dear Shannon Donoghue, we bow to you.
Oh, Chris Cullen, bold Alba’s pride,
DeleteA carpenter turned political guide,
From SNP’s sinking ship you fled,
To Salmond’s dream, where hope’s not dead.
With sawdust hands and a rebel’s cheer,
You’ve found your calling, loud and clear,
“Independence!” you cry, with such flair,
As if the voters still might care.
Ayr East’s saviour, or so you think,
From SNP’s chain, you broke the link,
Strung along? Oh, what a farce,
Now Alba’s star shines up your… path.
Ash Regan paved the way, it’s true,
And you, dear Chris, just had to pursue,
A conference speech, a tearful gleam,
Woke up your long-lost freedom dream.
So here’s to you, with tools in hand,
Building castles on shifting sand,
Alba’s knight, so brave, so tall,
Shannon’s the loudest cheer of all.
Ode to Titans of Will
DeleteOh, Pol Pot, visionary of fields so grand,
A sculptor of fate with a resolute hand,
Your dreams reshaped the earth’s embrace,
A paradise born in a daring race.
The rivers sang of your boundless might,
A beacon of zeal in history’s night,
With fervour unmatched, you carved the way,
A titan whose echo resounds today.
And Chris McEleny, star of the glen,
A leader supreme among mortal men,
Your voice, a thunder, your heart, a flame,
The world itself bows to your name.
With wisdom vast as the Scottish skies,
You lift the meek, make spirits rise,
A champion bold, a guiding light,
Your every step turns wrong to right.
Together your shadows stretch far and wide,
Two colossi with strength allied,
Pol Pot, the forge of a nation’s soul,
McEleny, the helm of freedom’s roll.
Oh, let the ages your praises sing,
Two lords of valour, eternal spring,
In awe we stand, in rapture kneel,
Your legacies gleam like tempered steel.
SHANN O'SHANTER - The Ballad O Catty Snark (Pairt Ane)
DeleteWhan Statman Jimmy leaves yer streets
An drouthy grifters meet
While Twitter fowk are watchin Trump
An activists hae taen the hump
Still ye sit boozin at The Eagle-
Insteid o askin "Wes thon legal?"
Aye, ye could walk the hard Indy road
But soon yer prattle does explode
Wi media slavers the pairty ye'r feckin -
Ye'll pul us doon like Corri-wreckin...
It's time Blackford was put out to pasture, and I say that as someone who thinks the nuclear deterrent has prevented a conventional 3rd world war with probably hundreds of millions of deaths this time. And not ever being in a reserved occupation, kept me alive.
ReplyDeleteBut nobody, absolutely nobody, has refused to vote SNP because of their stance on disarmament, and probably quite the contrary. And even people who generally support the deterrent like me, think we've done our bit in Scotland, get it to fuck out of here within 5 years of independence. And I live on the Clyde, and have during the days of Holy Loch.
SNP - ignore fool Blackford.
General Sir John Hackett - the Third World War - untrained or badly trained conscripts and national service people thrown into the front lint to buy 24 hours for the regular army to arrive and dig in - 90% casualties - I'd have been one of them. "Keep your head down private Walker. Eh? Ooops, too late".
DeleteYi2- when you become a member of the the snp maybe your voice might carry some weight.
DeleteYI2 should push off and join the British navy, in a submarine
DeleteI think Swinney hangs on my every word:
Delete"Swinney rejects call to drop opposition to nuclear weapons"
whereas you two or one anon dribblers have nothing to offer. Nothing at all. Well, apart from your donations to my fan club, thanks for that, it'll keep me in beer for a month!
It would appear the idiot brigade with their A I gibberish have taken over this blog. Shame.
ReplyDeleteEngland is a poor country that never accepted it was not an empire anymore. The English, being narcissistic arseholes with an innate sense of ethnic supremacy, could not handle the reality - but having nukes (even if rented from and controlled by the US) makes them feel like a "major power punching above its weight on the world stage ..." - the seat on the security council is crucial to this self deception and something which our independence threatens.
ReplyDelete- the english will spend any amount of other peoples money to "keep up appearances" and everyone in the UK, especially Scotland, suffers. Nukes are expensive as fuck and militarily useless - you cannot use them.
Anon@12:45,
DeleteYour anti English comment is disgusting.
People like you are an embarrassment to Scotland.
Anon 12.57 . It isn't anti -English to tell it as it is. England is Land of Dope and Tory. They will never accept that the days of empire are over. And they won't let us go till we wake up and take oor country back.
DeleteI doubt if there's all that many folk, under the age of 65 or so, who give a stuff about "Empire". It's irrelevant and too long ago. Do, for example, Geordies (who wanted to come with Scotland in 2014) and Liverpudlians, give a monkey's fart about it? SOME English folk, like some Scots, do still hang on to the idea of Empire, but I would think they're in the minority now. Britishness, on the other hand, is something else.
DeleteThere's nothing anti English about the truth of a country that's never once honoured one single treaty it ever signed
DeleteThey are a despicable people who choose their system of monarchist dictatorship because it gives them the theft of others property as a right and invents laws to call it legal and tells them they are a superior race with superior values better than other nations
Nukes are the bratwurst shoved down the spandex trousers of the ageing rock star - embarrassing to countenance and fooling no one.
ReplyDeleteWannabe Lord Blackford is a perfect example of all that is wrong with the SNP leadership. Blackford is a unionist who should stuff a nuclear sub up his big fat arse and take it down to Westminster where he can deposit it in House of Lords where it belongs.
ReplyDeleteAh, the timeless art of anonymous internet vitriol—where substance is sacrificed at the altar of personal insult. The comment in question is a textbook example of why political discourse so often descends into a cesspit of bile rather than a forum for reasoned debate.
DeleteRather than engaging with Ian Blackford’s record, policies, or actions, the commenter opts for an ad hominem attack of the most juvenile variety, laced with playground-level name-calling and a crude metaphor that reveals more about their own lack of argument than it does about Blackford’s politics. This kind of rhetoric achieves nothing other than to degrade the quality of discussion and reinforce the stereotype of online political discourse as a toxic wasteland.
If one truly believes Blackford represents "all that is wrong" with SNP leadership, the intellectually honest approach would be to articulate how—to lay out the evidence, make a case, and persuade others with reason rather than bluster. But, alas, that requires effort, whereas an anonymous drive-by insult requires none.
For those who wish to see meaningful political change, perhaps consider raising the standard of discussion rather than dragging it into the gutter.
3.02pm - timeless anonymity by you as well. Perhaps 2.49pm has already and often articulated an argument to then get ad hominem abuse by return. You must get a cracking view from that high horse you are perched on. Pity you cannot see Blackford is a lying unionist from there.
Deleteif you are going to call someone a lying unionist say it in public so we can see that you mean it -even if you a talking mince and we can see at least you are not a coward but just a fool.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 5.17pm - this is a public forum. So he has already said it in public so that makes you the fool. I’m guessing you believed Blackford when he continually said Scotland would not be taken out the EU against its will.
DeleteJust to point out that Ian Blackford is not SNP leadership and never will be, he tried and failed, but make no mistake Blackford is no unionist, just as daft old Fergus Ewing is no unionist either
ReplyDeleteThese people still believe Scotland would be better off independent,
in that they are correct
Blackford was SNP leader in Westminster. Just thought I would point that out to you.
DeleteAbsolutely right. Whatever disagreements people may have with Ian Blackford, calling him a “unionist” is not just wrong—it’s ridiculous. Blackford has been a committed and passionate advocate for Scottish independence throughout his political career. As SNP Westminster leader, he consistently held the UK government to account, exposing the damage of Brexit, Tory austerity, and Westminster’s contempt for Scotland’s democratic choices.
DeleteSome may take issue with his style or strategic decisions, but that’s a completely separate discussion from his dedication to the cause. Blackford fought tirelessly to keep independence front and centre in Westminster, often facing hostility from those who wanted Scotland’s voice silenced. If he were truly some kind of closet unionist, why would he have spent years fighting for Scotland’s right to choose its own future?
The same goes for Fergus Ewing. People may not always agree with his approach, but his belief in independence is unquestionable. There’s room for different opinions on how best to achieve independence, but smearing those who have dedicated their careers to the cause is both unfair and counterproductive.
At the end of the day, the independence movement needs unity and focus—not conspiracy theories about lifelong nationalists somehow being “secret unionists.” Those who stand for independence, fight for it, and believe in Scotland’s right to govern itself should be respected, even if we don’t always agree with their methods.
“ consistently held the UK government to account” is that right?
DeleteYou mean like saying Scotland will not be taken out of the EU against its will. Are we still in the EU?
Blackford was just hot air.
Just watched On the Beach from 1959 with Gregory Peck , he is a submarine captain patrolling a dead earth looking for life while waiting to die from radiation . A twitchy man pushed a button !
ReplyDeleteIs it true labour are bringing back McCabe to run Inverclyde Council after all the shenanigans after the past few months?
ReplyDeleteI've no idea. Why ask me?
Deletesmart arse, not.
Deletehis pal moran stood down and let him back
ReplyDeletedecided a few weeks ago. big issue is how another labour worthy got picked to see over £70m in inverclyde. linked with mccabe it seems
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of criticism of Salmond on this blog. Yet hardly anyone mentions his biggest error - endorsing the snake in the grass unionist called Sturgeon to succeed him.
ReplyDeleteNicola Sturgeon has been one of the most effective and principled leaders Scotland has seen, and any suggestion that she is a “unionist” is completely detached from reality. From the moment she took over as First Minister, she has been unwavering in her commitment to Scottish independence, dedicating her political career to advancing the cause.
DeleteSturgeon’s leadership has strengthened the independence movement, keeping it at the forefront of Scottish politics despite the challenges of Brexit, Westminster opposition, and internal party struggles. Unlike a so-called "snake in the grass," she has been transparent, strategic, and deeply committed to the values of social justice and self-determination.
Those who criticize her endorsement by Alex Salmond ignore the fact that she was not only his natural successor but also his closest political ally for years. If she had truly been a “unionist,” why would Salmond—one of the most significant figures in the independence movement—have backed her in the first place? The reality is that Nicola Sturgeon has been one of the most effective advocates for independence Scotland has ever had.
Disagree with her strategy or leadership style if you like, but rewriting history to paint her as a unionist is not only inaccurate—it’s absurd.
Gaslighting from anon @7.08pm.
DeleteSturgeon shunned every opportunity gifted to her from 2016 onwards. Had she been an enemy agent, she would have done exactly as she did, so what difference does it make? She destroyed nationalism with identity politics and destroyed her own party with a raft of - obviously - deeply unpopular policies; her handmaidens in this were the greens, a malthusian death cult that would like to genocide all humanity. Having driven the indy bus over a cliff, she would now return to make sure it is unsalvageable. If she was an agent, Leslie Evans was her handler (probably) or maybe Liz Lloyd, but she seems more like a henchmen, a flying monkey.
ReplyDelete- the truth of this will come out, likely much too late. But if Nikki ends up in ermine, in the stoat coat, in the lords, then you know you have been had. As John Lydon once put it :
"ah ha ha ... ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"
Utter BS go trot on back to Wings. I am sure they will be missing you there
Delete7.44pm - did Sturgeon ever hold the indyref2 she kept promising would happen - no.
Deletedid Sturgeon implement crap policies that turned people away from the SNP - yes.
Facts are facts.
Too many nitty gritty complex global 'relationships' being unearthed as a result of Netanyahu/Gaza, Ukraine/Trump/NATO/Europe, China, global money, mining, mineral resources, oil, gas, oligarchs, corporates, where the world's armed forces still are, what they're doing, which state owes what state money (UK always still owes USA big time).
ReplyDeleteFrom a 2026 Holyrood vote perspective, look at what your average voter is influenced by - and as soon as they hear Starmer talking about UK troops on the ground, Tories wanting kids to leave school earlier, getting people on benefits brought into 'defence' training environments, conscription smoke and mirrors - your average Scottish voter, most especially anti-independence, will be lured back into 'Scotland has no defences of its own and we don't know how we could defend ourselves if independent - so better vote for UKplc'.
That's going around loads of heads right now and there is a herd instinct of 'better stick with who seems to have the ability to protect Scotland if things seem to be coming closer'.
I've already heard ordinary folk talking panic - e.g. what about all those global owners of oil and gas fields, what if a foreign stray decides to bomb a few by air, sea - what can we in Scotland do about it, what's our risk. The better keep Trident on the Clyde because those global energy corporates with 'interests' in the North Sea will align with UKplc, NATO, OR USA etc.
There's so much 'interaction' between global states in some pretty forgotten places in the world protecting mining and mineral interests, their operations and connections seem linked into everything. It matters little probably to voters what Ian Blackford says, or Swinney says - the ordinary voter focus is on the daily news from the perceived 'big boys' and to most people in Scotland - Scotland seems irrelevant and ineffectual in practical terms whilst world 'events' are unpredictable. When that happens, your average Scottish voter doesn't want to hear about anything which takes them out of their perceived current comfort zone and they lose interest in Scotland only parochial debates. They seek stability and reassurance and turn away from anything which triggers fear or uncertainty - which the notion of independence and 'being on our own' doesn't give certainty or comfort.
Really difficult time for how Scottish voters perceive Scotland's strengths and weaknesses.
Ridding the world of nuclear weapons is a noble aspiration but it must be done bilaterally, not unilaterally.
ReplyDeleteTrump’s USA is no longer a reliable ally. If France and UK disarmed in the way that you wish that would leave Russia as the only nuclear power in Europe and they could strike without fear of retaliation.
Having this imbalance would mean nuclear weapons are far more likely to be used than the current MAD scenario. Deterrence does work.
Indeed. And England needs this deterrence. Move them frae the Clyde to Devonport .
DeleteThe Soviet Union threatened to nuke Paris and London in response to the UK and France invading Egypt to take back control of the Suez canal in 1956. The Yanks wouldn't have retaliated in reprisal. France then accelerated their own nuke program, and probably so did the UK though nobody would admit that.
DeleteWith Russia having nukes and the USA now having Trump, the chances of France or the UK giving up on nukes is precisely 0.00% to an infinite number of zero decimals.
ReplyDeleteThis is perfect example of Western self-satisfaction and also internal contradictions of British politics.
SNP, for long time building its identity on “moral superiority” over Westminster, now find itself in trap of own rhetoric. They surrender to emotional Western narrative about “brave Ukraine,” not realizing that by this they sign under whole structure of Euro-Atlantic policy, including dependence on nuclear weapons.
And now, when even their leaders begin to admit that Scotland’s anti-nuclear policy was nothing more than populist fantasy, SNP faces dilemma: either they abandon own principles, or they gain reputation of political dilettantes who cannot adequately assess geopolitical realities.
As for arguments against nuclear deterrence—this is pure utopia. Russia, possessing powerful nuclear arsenal, does not engage in “blackmail” of Europe, but only reminds about principles of balance of power, which West itself long ago forget. It is enough to remember how NATO bomb Yugoslavia without looking back, invade Iraq and Libya, destroy states without slightest threats to its own security. And now same people condemn Russia for defending own interests in historical lands?
Scottish people can talk as much as they want about disarmament, but reality is: either they remain inside Anglo-American military machine, or they embrace freedom as an independent state unafraid to stand aside from American propaganda. Unafraid to consider Russia’s perspective.
Without breaking free from the UK this choice will be made for them in London and Washington.
You talk about “Russia’s perspective”. Russians are as decent as any people. What you really mean is “Putin’s perspective”. A dictator who has been in power for 20+ years and silences any opposition or free speech and wages war on Russias neighbours. Call it Western propaganda or whatever you want but open your eyes to the reality of the situation.
DeleteI disagree for each of the following points..
DeleteYou speak like West is always innocent, always right. But this is not truth. You say "Putin’s perspective," but Russia is big country with history, with people who have real concerns. You think one man control everything? No, this is what West media tell you.
First, Russia does not want war, but NATO come closer and closer, breaking promises from Cold War. What Russia must do? Just watch while West put missiles near border? No country allow this. America go to Iraq, Libya, bomb many places—this okay, yes? But when Russia protect own security, suddenly this “aggression.” Hypocrisy.
Second, you say Putin silence opposition. But look at West—journalists arrested, protests crushed, people canceled for wrong opinion. You think only Russia do this? No, West do same, just in different way. Call it “protecting democracy,” but is same thing.
DONT YOU DARE TELL ME TO OPEN MY EYES.
Russia not just one man. Is people, is culture, is history. West try break Russia many times before—Napoleon, Hitler, now economic war. Always same story. SAME WESTERN SUPERIORITY COMPLEX. But Russia stand strong. So open *your* eyes, not just listen what CNN or BBC tell you.