Monday, September 17, 2012

Leading defence expert Dr. Phillips O’Brien and old gym buddy of George Laird speaks out on SNP nuclear and NATO problems, small world isn’t it!

Dear All


It seems an old friend of mine from my Glasgow University days has been looking at the Scottish National Party’s problem.

Dr Phillips O'Brien claims nuclear weapons would be staying on the Clyde in an independent Scotland.

Phillips is an American, and does a bit of summer teaching down in Oxford when not in Glasgow doing his thing.

When I was at Glasgow, many people knew me at allsorts of levels as I was a prominent fitness coach.

Dr Phillips O'Brien from the Scottish Centre for War Studies at Glasgow University is pretty much a straight arrow; he has also taken the time to appear before the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee.

There is no SNP representation on the committee due to a dispute between Ian ‘the deerhunter’ Davidson and a member of Salmond’s middle class clique who made unfounded allegations and had no witnesses.

The door for her return has been left open, if she so decides to return to front line politics and fight for SNP interests.

When asked by Commons Scottish Affairs Committee if being in Nato would make it more likely nuclear weapons would stay in Scotland longer.

Phillips replied:

"I would say yes. I would say if Scotland were to go independent and leave Nato, both the domestic pressures within Scotland to get them out and the strategic need of the rest of the UK to rebase them would be raised."

Dr O'Brien suggested Nato membership was central to the independence debate.

At this point, I would like to declare an interest; George Laird is pro NATO and pro Faslane.

Of course the scenario of an independent Scotland is looking less likely, Phillips appearance is much more of a ‘what if’ expedition discovery by MPs.

Phillips also:

"It would be easier for the rest of the UK to negotiate the security arrangement if Scotland remained in Nato - If Scotland is outside Nato, a lot of bets are off. That's why no-one in the US State Department and Defence Department will go on the record about this. They are very worried about a non-Nato Scotland."

The SNP stance on being anti NATO is a policy that was completely wrong for over 30 years.

During this time, the SNP never grew up as a political party should have, it is now facing the reality of what being independent means.

It means adopting a world view.

Alex Salmond is facing a growing revolt over his plans to drop the SNP's historic opposition to Nato.

Ironically or maybe not, the rebels picked the wrong issue to rebel against, Scotland is a key strategic location; there are good reasons why the deep water fleet is based at Faslane.

The NATO issues should have been dealt with decades ago, but a strong republican anti British movement exists in the SNP, with links to CND, funny little people with no world vision.

No NATO means No independence, the acceptance will not in itself win independence but is a key plank in removing some of the increasing doubts. As to the Angus Robertson proposition, that is a half way house, in NATO but still against nuclear weapons.

If you are going to do appeasement then read the works of Neville Chamberlain, it didn’t work out too well for him.

As to Dr Phillips O'Brien, he needed to do more speed work on bench press by using a lighter weight to build up deeper conditioning, but a very likely guy, one of the decent ones at Glasgow University, but his defence analysis is pretty good, someone Salmond should have review his 'cut and paste' SNP defence plans.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

1 comment:

Hamish said...

Dear George Laird,
You write "At this point, I would like to declare an interest; George Laird is pro NATO and pro Faslane."
That is not to declare an interest; it is simply to declare a position.
You would declare an interest if you said I am pro these things BECAUSE. for example, I hold shares in arms companies or I'm going out with someone who works at Faslane. I'm not suggesting that either of those scenarios is factual.