Here lies problem with by passing @theSNP members in creating policy. The Clyde will dry up before SNP members abandon our support for unilateral nuclear disarmament in favour of a New Labour multilateral policy.
— Christopher McEleny (@ChrisMcEleny) November 23, 2020
Defence policy is set by SNP party members, not by British MP’s. pic.twitter.com/EJfLBrpCZt
Did you read the submission? pic.twitter.com/Fbab6ZWp9S
— Roddy (@roddymcglynn) November 23, 2020
Here is the relevant sentence, which in fact has been paraphrased accurately - "If we are to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, it is imperative that HM Government and its international partners commit wholeheartedly to multilateral nuclear disarmament."
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020
It is plainly inconsistent with the SNP's longstanding belief in *unilateral* nuclear disarmament to call upon the UK Government to commit to multilateral disarmament, which implies *the retention of nuclear weapons* for as long as other countries are unwilling to disarm.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020
It's pretty obvious that a couple of high-profile SNP Westminster parliamentarians honestly think they are "modernising" party policy with an increasingly full-throated commitment to NATO, but multilateral disarmament is not the hill to die on.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020
If they can't bring themselves to retract that sentence, they should at least 'clarify' that they are calling for the UK to disarm unilaterally.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020
I also have concerns about the way that paper bangs on at such length about Russian interference - those sections could have been written by David Leask himself. Are the SNP defence team preoccupied with the things they really ought to be preoccupied with?
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020
Read the report Marcus.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020
"If we are to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, it is imperative that HM Government and its international partners commit wholeheartedly to *multilateral* nuclear disarmament."
That's not a commitment to "scrapping Trident". It's a policy that gives the UK government our blessing to retain Trident until such time as France or China are interested in disarming: in other words, sometime never.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020
Marcus we can control our own words and call upon them to do what we actually want them to do. I want them to disarm without condition. What do you want them to do?
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020
Very similar to the "negotiated two-state solution" in Palestine. Never gonna happen, but a reasonable-sounding excuse to allow the current apartheid to continue to obtain.
ReplyDeleteVery similar to the "negotiated two-state solution" in Palestine. Never gonna happen, but a reasonable-sounding excuse to allow the current apartheid to continue to obtain.
ReplyDeleteIf the SNP leadership are serious about the indy referendum next year (as Ian Blackford promised), why would SNP call the Westminster HM Gov to do anything? The only policy SNP needs to have is what the SG's position regarding the nuclear weapons during the union dissolution negotiations is going to be.
ReplyDelete"why would SNP call the Westminster HM Gov to do anything?"
DeleteFor much the same reason that anyone who actually opposes nuclear weapons would call for all nine nuclear weapons states to disarm without delay. This is about ridding the world of inhuman weapons, it's not about "dissolving the union" tactics (and I wish to God people would stop using that contrived phrase).
What CND are asking for was already given in 2017. Why bring it up again the s.N.P. are not writing the manifesto for the 2021 election.
DeleteAren't you confusing the SNP and SG with a NGO now? iScotland should be against the nuclear weapons in the world in general (as Norway is for example - although they're a NATO member as well) and work towards that in the UN and other bodies, but I don't see why the SNP and SG would be against nuclear weapons in one specific foreign country only if those weapons have nothing to do with Scotland.
DeleteYes, Scotland should be against any country having nuclear weapons. Picking out England would be, well, rather 'anti-English', particularly in the case of Scottish independence.
DeleteSigh. No I'm not "confusing the SNP and SG with a NGO", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. And we're specifically talking about the SNP here - their defence policy seems to be set in Westminster by Stewart McDonald and Alyn Smith, not by Scottish Government ministers.
DeleteWell... How relevant is the SNP's defence policy in Westminster if they are serious about the referendum next year? The only relevant defence policy is then one set by SG (and I assume SNP will have a majority in Holyrood to form it alone in 2021 - which would mean that SNP's defence policy will become SG's defence policy).
DeleteNGO comment - NGOs can obviously have different priorities. A government of an independent country obviously can't have a policy that it wants only one specific country not to have nuclear weapons (unless that country's something like North Korea - and England or rUK or whatever you want to call it isn't really that far yet although they're doing their best).
We cannot "dissolve" the Union.
ReplyDeleteBut we can quite legally withdraw from it.
Getting the terminology right will prevent ridicule and unnecessary explanations @ Indyref2.
The Treaty of Union 1707 is a bipartite union between Scotland and England - if either party no longer wants to be in this union then the union is terminated - one party cannot be in a Union with itself.
DeleteIf a member of the EU wants to leave that union then the union will continue because it is not a bipartite union. In this type of Union the party is leaving a Union as the union continues to exist.
Isn't that a tomahto tomayto problem - as ISS wrote - if there are only two parties in a union and one party legally withdraws from the said union then the union is dissolved and no longer exists. It's just semantics in the end.
DeleteAs I pointed out the other day, the legal successor to the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament (ie. the Scottish party to the Treaty of Union) is the UK Parliament, not a devolved Scottish Parliament which draws its domestic legal authority from a Westminster statute. So when people talk about the Scottish Parliament dissolving the union or withdrawing from the union, what they really mean is UDI. Which is fine, but we should always be clear about what we mean.
DeleteJames, your first sentence is correct but your second sentence is not correct because the sovereign nation of Scotland was not extinguished by the Treaty of Union so by definition Scotland cannot UDI.
DeleteIf the people of Scotland, for example, vote to return Scotland to the previous status prior to the Treaty of Union then that ends the Treaty and it is not UDI. The Treaty did not remove Scotland, its legal system or its constitution.
How can Scotland and England not exist as countries, yet go to the Euro finals?
DeleteAsking for some European friends.
"If the people of Scotland, for example, vote to return Scotland to the previous status prior to the Treaty of Union then that ends the Treaty and it is not UDI."
DeleteI'm sorry, but that is complete and utter gibberish with no legal foundation whatsoever. What you're describing is *exactly* UDI. And as I said before, that's fine, but if people are proposing UDI they need to be honest with themselves about that.
"Dissolving the union" or "withdrawing from the union" without the legal authority to do so is UDI. End of story.
USA is probably the most famous example of UDI, as portrayed in a popular Mel Gibson film.
DeleteIn Europe, Belgium, Ireland, Greece, Slovenia and Croatia all became legally independent this way.
James, 'the UK etc' is a result of the Anglo-Irish treaty from the 1920's. It's strange that people get obsessed by an ancient treaty that has been superseded, twice.
DeleteYes, the UK is younger than some of its residents. Scottish independence would end the updated treaty you talk about, which changed the UKoGB&I to the UKoGB&NI.
DeleteA new UKoBNI might follow, but more likely a UKoB (England + Wales) only. Mind you, even the Welsh might have second thoughts if it was just them being ruled by England.
James, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree. The legal authority is the people of Scotland voting in an election or referendum. The people of Scotland are sovereign and that is a legal and constitutional right.
DeleteAs the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. What I've presented to you are facts, what you've replied with are denials of those facts. What you call legal authority is in fact moral authority. And moral authority is certainly vitally important if UDI is to be attempted, which is unquestionably what you are talking about, whether you realise it or not.
DeleteJames, the claim of right was confirmed in a court case in the 1950's and more recently in the House of Commons. Scots law and the rights of the people of Scotland are law not morals and that's a fact.
DeleteAll you've done with that reply is demonstrate your own ignorance (either that or your intellectual dishonesty - it's one or the other). For example, you ought to be aware that the Commons vote you're referring to had no legal force - it was non-binding, which is the only reason it was allowed to pass.
DeleteI'd hope that the SNP continue to support both British unilateral/UK union multilateral(?) and world multilateral disarmament.
ReplyDeleteGetting other countries to disarm is just as important as getting rid of trident asap. We can't unilaterally disarm (e.g. through independence) then rest on our laurels certainly.
The nuclear lobby twist the word multilateral with the 'we won't unless they will' qualification. As it stands, it does simply mean more than 3 countries / government disarming at roughly the same time in some sort of coordinated way. It doesn't require and formal agreement, nor specify the details of this.
Scottish indy could lead to bilateral (Scotland-rUK) disarmament. Irish reunification at the same time would make it multilateral. Definitely would be if Wales became an independent country too.
Technically, if we consider the UK as a 'free will' (ahem) democratic union, then if it disarms through majority agreement between the home nations, that is multilateral disarmament. Even if it's argued that defense is reserved, if majorities of MPs from a majority of home nations agree on the disarmament, then it's multilateral.
I guess it's unfair to talk about Scotland pressuring England / the other nations of the UK to disarm without calling that multilateral. We cannae have our 'we are a country with our own government' cake and eat it. Remember, we are off to the Euro's next year! So it's multilateral in not just our eyes...
But yes, I would not be happy at all if the SNP started the whole 'we won't unless they will' shit. However, they can only make the decision for Scotland, and pressure others. Once independent, Scotland certainly cannot berate the rUK more than other countries with weapons as we give up a say in what happens in the rUK with indy.
I've been a member of Scottish CND for over 20 years and getting rid of Trident is obviously top of the list of priorities. But all Scotland needs to do is make clear that after independence we will no longer host these weapons. What the rUK chooses to do with them is not up to us. One short term option would be to move them to the US Trident base in Kings Bay Georgia as they are basically US weapons and some of us are sceptical they could be used without US permission.
ReplyDeleteIf the rUK was determined to keep them then it might have to build a base in its territory.
It is not up to Scotland to decide rUK defence policy and it's fairly clear there is no majority in England for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
The issue for Scotland is, what is a credible and sensible defence plan for a small European country which does not want nuclear weapons? Ireland is neutral and thus not a full member of NATO but has a mutual defence pact with the UK. Sweden is also neutral. Other small European nations like the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway are full NATO members which means they occasionally host nuclear armed vessels and aircraft from nuclear armed allies.
The SNP seems to be flirting with NATO and I am worried that pressure is being brought to bear on the SNP to allow the rUK to go on basing Trident in Scotland under some sort of "enclave" deal.
So I think it is realistic to rid Scotland of these weapons but it will take determination. Such a move will provoke a debate in rUK about how useful Trident really is, but unilaterally disarming England is beyond Scotland's reach and will only harm the independence cause.
"The SNP seems to be flirting with NATO"
DeleteThey're committed to joining. Bit mild to call that "flirting with".
Point being that plenty of small non nuclear countries are NATO members, so the commitment to join is uncontroversial. What seems to be happening now though is the SNP softening its opposition to Trident, which may indicate horse trading behind the scenes. That's what I meant by "flirting".
DeleteSuch horse trading would be expected ahead of Scotland becoming an independent country. If that wasn't a very real and imminent possibility, there would be no horse trading of this type.
DeleteI have always accepted that if Scotland leaves the UK, there will be a period of trident relocation or disarmament. In fact Scots might even vote to rent the base to England for a while. It will be the decision of the electorate what happens in the longer term. Our politicians will have policies on the subject and we will vote on these. What happens isn't really up to the SNP; they can only say what they'd do if elected.
Due to the international non-proliferation treaty,obviously a new independent State wouldn't be allowed atom bombs, so that's a non-sequitur and is a wast if breath even speaking about.
ReplyDeleteBut the conditions attached to NATO membership are unequivocal on no unilateral disarmament, ever. You can't have one and the other. Ever.
So, the SNP membership voted against unilateral nuclear disarmament, basically forever.
That's it as far as the SNP goes. So get used to it.
The UK is a union, so disarmament agreed between its nations, such as in response to the union ending, would be multilateral.
DeleteEngland can't win the world cup and not be a country at the same time. No having your union jack cake and eating your St. George's cross one.
Semantics vs. the destruction of the world?
DeleteIf the UK breaks up and disarms, that would be bilateral or multilateral disarmament. It's just the factual case, not semantics.
DeleteThe UK is a sovereign state that has Nucular weapons. Upon independence Scotland would form a new successor state. The the rest of the UK would continue to be a sovereign state with Nucular state weapons. There would be no disarmament.
DeleteThis is NOT an issue that is related to independence except that ir is yet another policy that the SNP has triangulated as being the "least scary" to the electorate and no voters in particular.
ReplyDeleteThis won't stop me voting SNP and promoting and canvassing for the SNP, but it IS one of the reasons why I won't be a member of the SNP after independence. After independence, no government which allows Faslane to continue being a bullseye for incoming nukes will last more than five minutes.
This just another " hold your nose" issue that we have to put up with until we are independent. After that ....... nuclear free, land reform, growth stimulus packages..... the SNP (unless it changes radically) will become irrelevant.
Why on earth was Ian Blackford picked as Westminster leader over someone like (say) Alison Thewliss? Is there a rule that the post has to be filled by an overweight, pompous, middle-aged guy who keeps screwing up?
ReplyDeleteBlackford is a big disappointment as WM SNP Leader.
ReplyDeleteWhat gets me is the repetition. No nuancing of Scotland's case from Blackford.
Alison Thewliss is one of several top MP's that would do a better job and maybe influence soft NOs.
Angus Robertson had the ability to ask a killer question at PMs questions, and his logical successor for me would be Joanna Cherry with her legal knowledge. Mind you if yer face disnae fit..
Rats, sinking ship etc.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55062789
MSP Michelle Ballantyne quits Scottish Tories
US-Ireland 'special relationship' in action.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55066703
US doesn't want guarded border on Ireland - Biden
President-elect Joe Biden has said America does not want a "guarded border" between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland following Brexit.
He said it had taken a lot of hard work to reach a settlement on the island of Ireland, ending decades of conflict.
The UK government has threatened to overrule the Brexit withdrawal agreement which committed it to keeping the border open.
Mr Biden has previously said Brexit must not endanger the peace process.
The SNP has gone astray. It's very uncertain that the membership can pull them back on course. The greater Yes movement must think hard, work hard and work fast. I still believe this can be done, because it *must* be done.
ReplyDeleteYougov UK Scottish subsample:
ReplyDelete55% SNP
18% Con
18% Lab
4% Green
3% Lib
Scottish covid case numbers are currently falling as rapidly as they are in the rUK, demonstrating that the Scottish government's local, targeted approach with efficient contract tracing has been as effective as England's full lockdown in controlling the outbreak.
ReplyDeleteFull lockdown effects without the full lockdown.
Good SNP Figures, But also good figures for Mark Drakeford's Welsh Labour for their fight against the Power Grab.
ReplyDeleteLabour in Scotland meanwhile do nothing to defend Holyrood's powers from the Tories attacks.
They've become LINO - Labour in name only, and the Tories are walking all over them.
You read it here first!
Another letter from Swinney to Fabiani dated 24/11/2020 has been released by the Harrassment Committee.
ReplyDeleteNot a word about releasing the legal advice and not a word about why Sturgeons Principal Private Secretary (Somers) met twice with a complainer during the drafting of the new process. More importantly, why have these meetings been kept secret until recently.
Confidential legal advice given to governments cannot be made public without the explicit consent of the legal officers that gave said advice.
DeleteIt's just like if I give you advice in confidence; you can't tell people what I said unless I agreed to that. Make my advice public without my consent and I will be able to successfully sue you in court. And that's before any implications for the High Court case which could end up in charges for contempt.
It's only unionists pretending that it's a simple matter of just handing it over.
I quote Wings on the matter:
https://wingsoverscotland.com/some-eu-ado-too/
The well-established principle of maintaining confidentiality over advice to ministers is a sensible and honourable one, followed by all governments of all parties in all parts of the UK. The practice extends to revealing whether advice exists, as well as what it is, except where overwhelming public interest is ruled.
John Somers is not Sturgeon's secretary, he's Principal Private Secretary to the office of the FM. If Ruth was FM, he'd still be PPS, just like Evans would still be in her position.
DeleteHe is first and foremost the deputy director of the whitehall civil service in Scotland.
Been making his way up through the whitehall N. British ranks long before Sturgeon got herself elected into the top ministerial office.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/john-somers-96247784
'And not a word about why the deputy director of the Whitehall civil service in Scotland (Somers) met twice with a complainer during...'
DeleteIs how an independence supporter would correctly describe the situation.
Skier, why did Swinney keep the meetings hidden and has still not provided details of who called the meeting, its purpose, agenda, minutes.
DeleteThe Scotgov tried to keep details hidden from the judicial review.
The Scotgov tried to and are still trying to keep hidden details from the Scot parliament Inquiry. Two years on from the Inquiry being called the Scotgov are still trying to keep info hidden.
The best Skier can come up with is that all these Civil Servants are not being controlled by Sturgeon/Swinney even the ones appointed by Sturgeon. So if that is the case why do Sturgeon/Swinney not say so - the reason is that if you are a minister you are responsible for the actions of your Government not the Civil Servant.
SS - so you are saying Linda Fabiani SNP MSP is not an independence supporter as in her letter to John Somers dated 29th October 2020 she refers to him as Principal Private Secretary to the First Minister.
DeleteSS - any lawyer will tell you that the lawyer cannot reveal advice given to a client but the client is at liberty to reveal the advice given if they so wish.
DeleteThe Scotgov has already revealed its legal advice on three previous occasions eg the Edinburgh trams problems.
The Scotgov is disrespecting the Scottish parliament and the people of Scotland.