Sturgeon's gran.

Soorploom Sturgeon said something interesting in last night's Question Time that, I think, illustrates nicely the intrinsic conflict between nationalism and socialism:

"My gran was from Sunderland, and that part of England, I'm sure doesn't like Tory governments any more than we do… well, my gran I think, would've if she was still here, would've probably argued that we should include them in the referendum. Anyway that's a different story. We are a nation and we have the opportunity next year to assert that and to be independent and to take our own decisions and that's what it's about. Y'know, I believe passionately in the social, cultural family union we have with the other parts of the UK but I want us to be politically and economically responsible and we only get that if we're independent."

So, let's get this straight... a senior politician who claims to espouse progressive socialist ideals is not interested in anybody else who shares those same ideals, if they're not part of her nation. Solidarity be damned! Clearly, nationalism comes before socialism (and even family!) in her world. Sharing social and cultural stuff with those outside her tribe is fine by her (she says), but she draws the line at politics. Rather ironic for a politician, don't you think?

Seen on a web forum today.

The idea that a decision that will potentially have repercussions for hundreds of years will be based on how browned off the people of Scotland are at the time with the current PM, or at the immediate political "promise" of being £500 a year better off (less than £10 a week) is profoundly depressing - and no doubt a perfect illustration of some of the worse aspects of human nature.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

A Natural State of Affairs?

As the much-heralded SNP manifesto Scottish Government White Paper is due to be launched amid much alarums and excursions tomorrow, Union Jock thought it's time he got back in the blogging saddle and limber up a bit...

So, how about this. According to one of the SNP's Scottish Government's propaganda tracts, independence is a natural state of affairs. But what's so natural, in this internet age of the global village, about carving up (once again) an island such as ours into separate nation states, when there isn't even the usual excuse of ethnicity or religion to justify it?

To me, it seems pretty unnatural to combine a mawkish fixation with a medieval kingdom that ceased to exist more than three centuries ago, with contemporary left-wing political sentiment - especially when the latter is shared by many outside the borders of said former kingdom.

Local decisions for local people?

"The Scottish Government believes that decisions affecting Scotland are best made here, by people with Scotland's vital interests at heart." - Introduction to the Scottish Government Draft Budget 2014-15.

There are a couple of problems with this often heard, yet facile, SNP warcry.

Firstly, quite a lot of decisions affecting Scotland are made here, and have been since 1999.

Secondly, this argument is rather susceptible to reductio ad absurdum. If the decisions affecting Scotland are best made in Scotland, then surely it also follows that the decisions affecting your town are best made in your town, the decisions affecting your neighbourhood are best made in your neighbourhood, the decisions affecting your street are best made in your street, and the decisions affecting your house are best made in your house? Why do we draw the line at a border created by long-dead medieval kings? Apart from the fact that the argument is being made by a political party who intrinsically and explicitly attach themselves to that border?

For instance, shouldn't the decisions affecting Glasgow be made there, and not in that parliament in Edinburgh? After all, Greater Glasgow has a population about the same as that of Estonia, and nobody would say Estonia is not a viable independent country, would they?

Of course, the reality is that there is a balance to be struck between letting everyone get their own way, and collectivism. In return for sharing some aspects of government with the other inhabitants of these islands, we get the manifold benefits of being part of the third biggest country in Europe, a member of the G8, the top-rated country in the world for soft power, and a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Who is Alex Orr?

Regular readers of the letters pages of the Scotsman, Herald, Edinburgh Evening News or Courier (among others) may be familiar with the frequent and numerous pro-separatist missives written by a Mr Alex Orr of Edinburgh. But who is this Mr Orr?

Is he perhaps just an ordinary man-on-the-Bruntsfield-omnibus, writing in a purely personal capacity, who just happens to be a rabid nationalist with too much free time on his hands?

On the other hand, could he be the same Alex Orr who...

• Is the Managing Director of an Edinburgh-based PR company
• Ran the media campaign for Scotland Forward in the 1997 devolution referendum
• Subsequently joined the SNP in 1998
• Stood as an SNP candidate for Edinburgh Council in 1999, and for the Scottish Parliament elections in 2003, 2007 and 2011
• Was a member of the SNP's National Executive Committee in 2011?

But of course, you won't see any of that mentioned on those letters pages!

It has to be said, I'm not the first to point this out. But I think it's worth repeating, especially in light of recent events...

The EU referendum: a no-win situation for Salmond.

Wee Eck's speech in Hawick this week had the theme of the EU, and of course mention was made of the UK "sleepwalking out of the EU" following David Cameron's proposed referendum in 2017. But what if Salmond's scaremongering actually came to pass? If the UK left the EU, where would that leave a newly-separate Scotland in the process of joining the EU? Surely that would throw a sizeable spanner in the works of separation?

One European think-tank head certainly thinks it would at least scupper a Sterling monetary union; in his words “It is difficult to envisage such an arrangement, as a clash between two sets of rules could occur, creating legal uncertainty.”

So, to summarise... if the UK stays in the EU, then there is no need for separation for Scotland to also stay part of it; but if it doesn't, then the very feasibility of separation is called into question.

More defence disingenuity.

This week's Sunday Politics Scotland included an interesting interview with Franklin Miller (around 41 mins into the programme), a former special assistant to Dubya Bush, senior director of the US National Security Council, 20-year veteran of the US Department of Defence, and a member of the NATO nuclear policy committee, in which he poured scorn on the SNP's schizophrenic attitude to NATO ("totally inconsistent" and "illogical").

Of course, the SNP's Field Marshal Robertson was given the chance to respond to Mr Miller. His opening gambit was to cite Norway and Denmark as non-nuclear NATO members. But the only strategic nuclear weapon facilities those countries ever hosted was a US Air Force base in Greenland (established with the tacit approval of the Danes) which was wound down in the 1960s due to US defence policy changes. Quite frankly, there is no precedent within NATO for the eviction of strategic nuclear forces against the will of their owner.

Regardless, he went on to mention US tactical nuclear weapons being withdrawn from Canada and Greece. Perhaps Mr Robertson is unaware of the not-so-subtle difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. Tactical ones are intended for use in battlefield scenarios and do not form part of a nuclear deterrent. They also tend to be smaller and more portable than strategic ones. In Canada's case, most of these were actually located with Canadian forces in West Germany, and the last Canadian nuclear weapons weren't withdrawn until the aircraft that carried them had become obsolete. None of these weapons required facilities on the scale of HMNB Clyde - facilities for which there is no viable alternative, either now, or in the near future.

This fact he then implicitly acknowledged by then suggesting that a separate Scotland would "play its part" in NATO's pledge to work towards nuclear disarmament. But NATO's disarmament strategy is explicitly multilateral; in its own words, "as long as nuclear weapons exist in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance". How would forcing the UK to disarm unilaterally play a part in that, Angus?

In passing he also remarks that "no other country of five million has nuclear weapons". This is true. But who said anything about the UK passing ownership of its nuclear deterrent to a separate Scottish state? That would never be on the cards, for obvious reasons, not least of which is that it would contravene the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What exactly was his point there then?

A shame, then, that Mr Robertson and Mr Franklin weren't given the opportunity to debate directly. I think the results would have been most entertaining.