Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Scottish National Party reveals plans for policy switch on NATO, 30 years of having the wrong policy, George Laird right again and ahead of curve!














Dear All

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will know that I am pro independence and also pro NATO.

For 30 years, the Scottish National Party has been wrong in its policy and hostility to the Nato nuclear alliance.

Plain wrong and totally out of touch!

Recently a cybernat claiming to be an SNP party member was questioning my talent.

So, just to refresh:

George Laird proposed the Scottish National Police Force and the Scottish National Fire Service in September 2010 at the SNP National Assembly in Perth.

Also I gave a talk on social media and one of the people there went on to do a presentation to the SNP on social media and was given a job which changed the way party produced media.

And…. a while ago I wrote a report on how the SNP needed to create local ambassadors in the community, and now there are plans for local ambassadors, a variation of my original idea.

And….. to draw the point to a close for the bigots who doubt my talent, I never did a single day on the disastrous Glasgow SNP Campaign to win the city council and never contributed a single idea, the results speak for themselves.

A complete and utter shambles lead by the talentless crew of Team Sturgeon!

Anyway, back to NATO, the alliance isn’t just a military alliance, it stretches beyond that, it is the key cornerstone of Western defence which is just as relevant now as in the Cold War.

The SNP leadership know that there are many obstacles to independence, defence is one; the plan for defence must be credible.

At present there isn’t a plan, beyond saying they will copy others work, this takes no account of what Scottish Foreign policy will be in the future. There is also the mechanics of structure which haven’t been dealt with and also the question of why the majority Scottish soldiers serving in the British Armed forces in a recent unofficial poll said they don’t want to serve in new Scottish army.

Many SNP rank and file members who oppose NATO clearly don’t care for the lives of Scottish servicemen and women, if they did, they would be doing everything to protect them.

In an attempt to get the proposed change through, at the annual conference in Perth, the carrot would be "subject to agreement on withdrawal of Trident from Scotland".

That is nonsense as well, aside from the economic argument for local people; the primary argument is that allowing Faslane to continue as a nuclear base would strengthen Scotland's position as an independent country.

Any problems and the Calvary from the US would be coming over the hill so fast it would make your head spin.

When many people stood up at conference and talk crap on NATO, they painted themselves into a corner, but the end of student politics is now coming to be seen for what it is disastrous.

Scotland must be pro NATO and pro nuclear subs in Faslane.

Where will Scotland get military intelligence from if it isn’t part of NATO?

Clearly no one was thinking about that!

The change of policy if it goes through is about making independence viable on the referendum ballot paper.

But there has to be more, a lot more done.

The resolution for change is being proposed by Angus Robertson, the party's leader at Westminster and its spokesman on defence.

Robertson calls the proposed resolution the party's "first significant defence policy update in 10 years, which at its heart prepares for better defence decision-making in Scotland".

He is by default saying the SNP was using the wrong policy.

George Laird right again……… must be because I have talent.

At present, the SNP’s laughable policy to favour co-operation with international alliances, such as Nato, through the Partnership for Peace programme; a similar position to countries like Sweden and Austria is bollocks.

The leadership's resolution says:

"The SNP wishes Scotland to fulfil its Treaty obligations with Nato”.

That means allowing nuclear weapons to pass through Scotland.

It adds:

"An SNP Government will maintain Nato membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and Nato continues to respect the right of members to only take part in UN-sanctioned operations."

This means not allowing nuclear weapons to pass through Scotland.

Like independence, it’s all or nothing.

Margaret Curran, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, said:

"Today's rushed plans for defending Scotland are confused at best and negligent at worst. Scotland's defence policy should be determined by the facts and evidence, not dreamt up by Angus Robertson on the back of an envelope. This is yet more spin and speculation from the SNP as they struggle to answer questions about Scotland's future. They haven't come up with the answers Scots are looking for, and now they're beginning to realise it."

Sir Menzies Campbell, the former LibDem said:

"For all the time I have been in Parliament, the SNP has been vehemently opposed to membership of Nato. This policy, if approved, does not make sense. It is based on a doubtful assumption Scotland would automatically inherit all of the Treaty obligations entered into by the UK. It's hardly likely that Nato, which acts by unanimity, would accept Scotland on such conditions."

He added:

"An independent Scotland, on these assumptions, would want the shelter of a nuclear umbrella but without the responsibility."

Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, described the Nato resolution as "staggering", coming as it did from a party "so furiously against the concept of nuclear deterrent".

She added:

"Much like its misguided stance on the EU, the SNP seems to think an independent Scotland would be waved through to join Nato automatically if they reverse their decades-long opposition to the Alliance. They are making it up as they go along."

So, in order to be credible, the resolution should be changed to accept everything that goes with being a NATO member.

Anything less is a mixed message which will be seen as pure spinning for independence.

Perhaps the SNP should invite me to speak on NATO and let the membership get put straight.

I don’t think I would be holding back on anything.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

5 comments:

Barbarian of the North said...

Spot on George.

The SNP's policy on Defence in general is shambolic. They appear to behaving like some of the idiots in CND who do not know the difference between unilateral and multilateral (I've met three of them like that).

Some policies of the SNP are competent, others are not, and appear to be an attempt to please the rank and file rather than "the Scottish people".

Perhaps the leadership could drag themselves away from the Cold War image of NATO; an image I feel is firmly stuck in their heads.

Anonymous said...

The SNP will never invite you to speak on anything. This is because you are an embarrassment to the party and hated by all you come into contact with.

This is reflected by you getting only one vote to represent the party.

George Laird said...

Dear Barb

Thank you for the endorsement, unfortunately, the other commentator is just another cybernat hate monger.

It also highlight what I say about about discrimination in the SNP.

And why independence isn't possible, the SNP is run as a poisonous nasty clique. They are so cowardly, they refuse to identify themselves.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Barbarian of the North said...

George, I think Anon is the same on that haunts blogland, looking to pounce on any criticism of the SNP.

THEY are an embarrassment to the party, not those who try to steer the party towards sensible policies.

All parties have such people however. Maybe they could form their own coalition......

Anonymous said...

I disagree with barb, I haven't seen any credible policies from my Party at all. Seems we're going to implement other nation's work in almost everything we do.
As for the poisonous cybernat, I and most members of the Party would like him to identfy himself.
He ain't no William Wallace, although I suspect he watches the movie most nights.