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Regardless, he went on to mention US tactical nuclear weapons being withdrawn from Canada and Greece.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most of these were actually located with Canadian forces in West Germany, and the last Canadian nuclear weapons weren't withdrawn until the aircraft that carried them had become obsolete.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.

Separation anxiety.

So Pete Wishart today told us that the word "separate" (adj., being or standing apart; distant or dispersed; existing or maintained independently) is, as far he is concerned, "silly" and "pejorative". I know the SNP tend to be a touchy lot, but this is just ridiculous. Perhaps someone from the SNP would like to clarify which words they deem to be sufficiently politically correct to describe a hypothetical independent Scotland. Here's a few to consider:

• abstracted
• apart
• apportioned
• asunder
• cut apart
• cut in two
• detached
• disassociated
• discrete
• disembodied
• disjointed
• distant
• distributed
• disunited
• divergent
• divided
• divorced
• far between
• free
• in halves
• independent
• isolated
• loose
• marked
• parted
• partitioned
• put asunder
• removed
• scattered
• set apart
• set asunder
• severed
• sovereign
• sundered
• unattached
• unconnected

I'm guessing "free" and "sovereign" might be okay by them; "divorced, "set asunder" or "severed", probably less so.

Timetable for a ghost train

The SNPland Government published another thinly-disguised propaganda tract today, grandly entitled Scotland’s Future: from the Referendum to Independence and a Written Constitution. Following their current strategy of implying that separation is a forgone conclusion, it consists of two sections, one extolling the virtues of an independent country with a written constitution, the other, a risible attempt to justify their March 2016 deadline for a declaration of independence.

In the first section it's asserted that an independent Scottish Government will be better able to sustain a stable economy ... and ensure that all of the people of Scotland have the chance to reach their full potential. So a small country of five million would be better at sustaining a stable economy than one of 63 million? And how exactly would turning the rest of the UK into a foreign country enable Scots to reach their full potential?

Independence is the natural state of affairs for countries across the world. An odd assertion, even for the nationalists. Surely to be independent, you need something to be independent from first?

Another good one: Many countries around the world place constitutional controls on the use of military power. That'll be the ones that had their constitution imposed on them after losing a war. You know, like Germany or Japan...

Moving on to the second half of this magnum opus, we have an interesting factoid presented to us: Of new states which have become UN members since 1945, 30 became independent following a referendum on independent statehood with the average length of time between the referendum and independence day being approximately 15 months.

As the BBC have helpfully reported, those 30 countries are largely third-world former colonies, places like the Central African Republic, Niger, Chad, Upper Volta, Tuvalu, Kiribati and South Sudan. So that's the kind of countries the SNP are going to model their independent state on. Somehow I doubt their independence process involved dealing with quite the same amount of infrastructure and bureaucracy as the formation of a new European state in the 21st century would.

In addition to discussions with the UK, negotiations will be required in advance of independence with the European Union to agree the terms of an independent Scotland’s continuing membership. They may be required in advance if an independent Scotland isn't to spend several years outside of the EU, but will the EU agree to negotiate with a government that does not yet represent an independent state? I'm not sure Mr Barosso would affirm that assertion.

The second half of the paper talks a lot about a "constitutional platform" and the need to have one in place before the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. This appears to be an attempt to bundle various legal matters not currently devolved in Scotland into a nice neat package - a country to go, ready to hit the ground running in March 2016. If only it were that simple. There's no mention of defence and national security, foreign relations, regulatory bodies, provision of social security, or scientific research funding, to name but a few. Obviously all that tedious bureaucracy will take only a matter of months to have sorted out. But there will at least be a Scottish Treasury, even if there will be no central bank or lender of last resort.

And, naturally, there's no mention at all of how much this "platform" is going to cost and how many civil servants will be needed to work on it.

Of course, the real reason for the self-imposed March 2016 deadline is to prevent the Scottish Parliament elections in that year becoming a second independence referendum and a last-minute chance to stop the juggernaut. Clearly, the nationalists would want things to be well beyond the point of no return before then.

Your Scotland, Not Your Referendum.

So, King Eck's Prime Minister has taken it upon herself to inform European foreign ministers that SNPland would like to distance itself from those nasty English Tory Europhobes. Apart from the sheer chutzpah of it, yet again the nationalists are showing their true colours by extolling the virtues of one union, while ignoring the same virtues in the other.

Following Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech on Wednesday I would like to make the position of the Scottish Government clear as regards the European Union and Scotland’s place in it.

As you know, a referendum will be held in Scotland in the latter part of 2014 on the question of independence for Scotland.  The Edinburgh Agreement signed by the First Minister and the Prime Minister on 15 October last year sets out an agreed path towards that referendum which will be adhered to by both the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments.  That agreement is important in the European context as it provides reassurance to Member States that the outcome of the referendum will be respected by both sides and that in the event of a vote in favour of independence the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments will work together constructively to implement the democratic will of the Scottish people.

Actually, your so-called "Edinburgh Agreement" (no, not that one) says that the two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps La Sturgeon needs reminding that the Scottish Government also promised to work constructively after the democratic will of the Scottish people has rejected independence?

Like all other nations in the EU, Scotland benefits greatly from the peace and security provided by membership. Our citizens enjoy freedom of movement and the right to work and study in other Member States. The ability to trade within a single market of 500 million citizens is a central aspect of our strategy to stimulate growth by increasing international trade.  The European Union continues to be Scotland’s top overseas export destination, our exports to the EU are up by around 15 per cent to over £11 billion according to figures released this week.

And of course, Scotland also benefits from the peace and security provided by its membership of the UK.  Our citizens have even more freedoms and rights in the other countries of the UK.  And the rest of the UK is Scotland's top export destination, full stop. In fact, more than twice as much as the rest of the world put together.

However we understand that those reform ambitions can only be achieved through dialogue with Member States from within the EU.  That is why we do not support the holding of an in/out referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership.  We have no intention of leaving the European Union.  On the contrary we will seek to be a constructive member of the Union working with other Member States to maximise the benefits we have enjoyed as members for over 40 years.

Is Cameron not trying to reform the EU through dialogue with Member States from within the EU before having his referendum? Would we enjoy the same benefits as the 20th largest and newest EU Member State as we have done as the third largest and one of the oldest? And how about seeking to be a constructive member of that other Union, working with other member countries to maximise the benefits we have enjoyed as members for over 300 years?

I sincerely hope that if the Prime Minister comes to hold an in/out referendum, by that time Scotland will be an independent Member State and will be playing its part as a valued and active partner within European Union.

"The people who live in Scotland are the best people to make decisions about Scotland's future." That's what the Scottish Government said in Your Scotland, Your Referendum.  But obviously Scotland's future in the EU is a matter reserved to party ideology, so we won't be needing a referendum on that.

Guess who?

In an economic crisis millions of people suddenly decided to turn to an unconventional leader they thought had "charisma" because he connected with their fears, hopes and latent desire to blame others for their predicament.

Who are they talking about?

Alex Salmond?

No... Adolf Hitler.

(Told you there'd be Nazi references...)

Wishful thinking and the EU

So, after everyone else has offered their tuppenceworth on the debacle of the SNP's arrant wishful thinking on European Union membership, Union Jock has felt obliged to offer his.

In the lamentable absence of any real attempt by the SNP to determine the issues and obstacles facing an independent Scotland and EU membership, the nationalists have been clutching at any passing straws. They have naturally latched on to Graham Avery's written evidence on the foreign policy implications of, and for, a separate Scotland to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. But his is only one of 14 submissions to the committee, some of which directly contradict his views. And even Avery admits that Scotland would be unlikely to be able to negotiate opt-outs from obligations such as the Schengen Agreement, something the nats haven't been trumpeting quite so much.

Avery appears to be in part using the common nationalist argument about Scots being existing EU citizens and how it would be unthinkable to deny them this citizenship against their will. But those of us in Scotland who are British (and hence EU) citizens could (if we wished) surely remain so, until and unless our UK citizenship was withdrawn from us - and that could only be done by an act of the UK parliament. A Scottish declaration of independence would not in itself change our citizenship. As a historical precedent, after Irish independence in 1922, Irish citizens remained (as far as the UK was concerned) British subjects until after the British Nationality Act of 1948 was passed, and even then existing British passport holders, anomg others, continued to hold their British status.

The SNP still seem to be clinging to their dubious assertion that both Scotland and the rest of the UK would be considered successor states by the EU and other international organisations. Nationalists like to point to the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, which decrees that states which result from "separation of parts of a state" are to be considered equal inheritors of the treaty rights and obligations of the original state. But that's not an EU convention, and it hasn't even been adopted widely internationally. In fact, only four EU countries (Czech Republic, Cyprus, Slovakia and Slovenia) have ratified it.

Precedents for multiple successor state are rather thin on the ground - as today's article in The Economist point out, in the cases of the UK and Ireland, India and Pakistan, the Soviet Union, Ethiopia and Eritrea and Sudan and South Sudan, there was only one successor state recognised internationally. In the rather more symmetrical case of the break-up of Czechoslovakia, neither the Czech Republic nor Slovakia were considered successor states by the UN. Certainly, the recent statements by prominent European figures such as Barroso, Garcia-Margallo and Reding give no indication that they are entertaining the possibility.

Same old tunes on the Ross Bandstand.

Saturday's March of the McGlashans saw the usual uneasy alliance of Wee Eck, Margo, Patrick and Foxy, plus assorted hangers-on, all proclaiming their very different ideas of a separatist Scotland to a small and motley band of historical re-enactment enthusiasts, Basques, Venetians, Flemish, CND members, 32-county Irish republicans, Tommy Sheridan groupies and pot-smokers (sorry, the Legalise Cannabis Campaign). But the rhetoric was entirely predicable.

El Presidente opened with “Let’s think of some of the things Westminster chooses. Why should they choose austerity when we want to choose investment? We choose a different way to protect the people of Scotland and we want the right to choose whether our people should be sent into illegal wars and we want the right to choose to remove weapons of mass destruction from the shores of Scotland.”

Well, it's not just Westminster who chose austerity. Our neighbours in Eck's infamous "arc of prosperity" chose austerity too, and much more severe than ours. Though, being the small and vulnerable nation that it is, it was probably more of a necessity than a choice in Ireland's case.

As for "sending our people into illegal wars", well it may be news to Eck, but National Service ended 50 years ago. Our armed forces now consist of people who volunteered of their own free will to serve the UK. Anyone who joins up, especially in the last decade or so, does so in the full knowledge, or even expectation, or, dare I say it, even hope, that they will see active service, with all the risks to life and limb that that entails. This is amply illustrated by the fact that recruitment into HM Forces from, of all places, the Republic of Ireland, has increased in recent years. Scotland separating from the UK wouldn't stop those Scots who wanted to join the UK military from doing so, just as they do now.

And the right to choose to remove weapons of mass destruction? As Dr Michael Williams of Royal Holloway College pointed out this month, the UK's nuclear deterrent ain't going anywhere anytime soon; “Due to the sheer impossibility of relocating the assets at Faslane in the near term (if ever) a condition of Scottish independence will need to be long-term basing rights of the UK fleet in Faslane.”

Of course Eck claimed the recent British Social Attitudes survey "showed that independence was now the most popular option". Well, that 43% response that the nationalists have seized on with glee actually required a weasel-worded question which made no mention at all of the I-word. The more explicit question only resulted in 32% in favour of independence. Which just goes to prove how important it is for the referendum question to be clear and honest.

As for the supporting acts, Aamer Anwar made the embarrassing confession that he had been “inspired” by the film Braveheart. A film once described by John O'Farrell as being so historically inaccurate that it could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a plasticine dog had been inserted in the film and the title changed to William Wallace and Gromit. Anwar went on: "The soul of Scotland, long suppressed, is finally finding its voice." Oops. Obviously didn't get the memo from Wee Eck earlier this year that "Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated". Colin Fox announced “This is the beginning of the Scottish spring”. Sorry Colin, Gorgeous George got there first with his "Bradford Spring". Although to be fair, Foxy probably beats him for sheer ludicrousness by a nose.