davidsberry

Guest column by Lt. Col. S. W. Crawford (retd.), late 4th Royal Tank Regiment

With support for Scottish independence at a seemingly all time high and next year’s Holyrood elections – Covid 19 permitting – in the offing, it’s little surprise that the debate on Scotland’s future constitutional status is once again in the news. There are a number of major issues here, membership of the EU, currency, and the economy to name but three. But the topic of how an independent Scotland might organise its own defence forces always seems to crop up, this despite the fact that defence is a Westminster retained competency and really nothing to do with the Scottish Parliamentary elections.

Be that as it may, I have been writing about this particular topic for at least that last 20 years or so – until I’m blue in the face, if you’ll excuse the rather obvious pun, me being an independenista and all that. For anyone who has the time and inclination, the main thrust of my thinking is in a 2012 RUSI publication entitled A’ the Blue Bonnets: Defending an Independent Scotland[1], and the Scottish Centre on European Relations published Defending an Independent Scotland Post-Brexit[2]. These should be read consecutively to get a real sense of how thinking has developed.

Whilst many observers are happy to examine in detail how many ships, aircraft, and battalions a Scottish Defence Force (SDF) might field and what the budget might be, all of which has its place, the elephant always in the room is the UK’s Trident-carrying SSBNs (submarine/submersible, ballistic missile armed, nuclear powered) based at Her Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde, commonly referred to as Faslane (although it encompasses the weapons storage facility at Coulport as well). When it comes to talking about iScotland defence all roads lead eventually to Faslane.

Perhaps I should outline my personal position on the UK’s nuclear weapons before going further. Firstly, I believe that from a moral and ethical standpoint it is so indiscriminate as a weapon – sophisticated targeting systems notwithstanding, it is so powerful that huge collateral damage to people and property is unavoidable – that no civilised country would ever use it.

Next, I don’t believe it is truly independent in that I cannot imagine the UK ever employing it without at least the tacit approval of the US (although I also understand that technically it can be used independently), nor do I think it is a universal deterrent – it didn’t deter the Argentinians in 1982, nor the Iraqis in 1990, nor the Taliban and/or Al Qua’eda. Nor do I truly believe there exists a credible nuclear threat to UK interests from so-called rogue states like Iran or North Korea. (It may stop the UK being bullied by Russia in the final analysis but I’m not convinced of this).

What I do firmly believe is that Trident is essentially a political weapon, not a military weapon, whose main function is to maintain the UK in the front rank of global powers and guarantee continuing national membership of the UN Security Council, NATO etc etc, a posture supported by successive Westminster governments over the past 50 years plus.  Furthermore, its maintenance, and eventual replacement, places an enormous burden on the MoD’s budget and soaks up vast funds which would be far better spent on the UK’s conventional forces – more ships for the RN, better equipment for the army, better pay and conditions, and better provision for ex-service personnel when they leave the armed forces. Or, indeed, on other things like education and the NHS.

In summary, I think Trident is in fact a weapons system which has no conceivable use and which is far too costly when other priorities should prevail.  Therefore I do not think it should be replaced when it comes to the end of its lifespan by anything similar.  The best thing that could happen here is that the Vanguard class SSBNs should soldier (sailor?) on until they are obsolete and then not be replaced by the Dreadnought class, which should be cancelled forthwith.

Against that personal background, let’s look at the options for the UK’s nuclear deterrent post Scottish independence. The prevailing orthodoxy in the broader independence movement seems still to be that Trident would be removed from the Clyde almost immediately after Scotland seceded from the UK. This is the stuff of fantasy for a number of reasons. First and foremost of these is the fact that there is nowhere else for it to go, not in the short to medium term anyway. For example, Barrow on Furness is tidal, Milford Haven is already home to a major oil terminal and therefore doubly vulnerable, the traditional ports on the south coast of England don’t offer the required immediate access to deep water, and nowhere has the close proximity of weapons and submarines that Faslane/Coulport offers.

Nationalists are wont to say that “this is no’ our problem”, an easy get out, but actually it is. Because a newly independent Scotland and its anti-nuclear weapons campaigners are only two of the players in this particular debate, and two of the smaller ones at that. The rest of the UK (rUK) will have something to say, as will NATO, and perhaps most influential of all, the USA will want its penny’s worth. I have been advised on pretty good authority that if an iScotland demands early removal of Trident then its accession to NATO would be blocked by the US. And iScotland would want to be part of NATO, believe me.

It is unlikely to come to this, however, for wiser heads must surely prevail. As an academic chum asked the other day, why would an iScotland make the process more difficult than it need be? Why would any government let its policies be driven by, let alone be in thrall to, small, but well-intentioned, vocal pressure groups which are only one or two of the players in a multi-participant debate?

There is a danger of prioritising process over purpose here. The purpose is to remove nuclear weapons from the Clyde; the process by which that is done should be a matter of negotiation. It seems to me that the best way of approaching this is to acknowledge that there are difficulties in relocating the SSBNs and their missiles and accept that a measured withdrawal of them from the Clyde is most likely, perhaps whilst other arrangements are made in the rUK. Most observers seem to agree on a timeframe for this of between 10-20 years.

I think even the SNP is coming round to this. The party has never put a firm timeframe on de-nuclearisation, and has tried to keep all the footsoldiers on board with the weasel-worded (and I paraphrase) “as soon as safe and practicable”, which can mean all things to all men. What is certain is that the removal of the Trident submarines, along with presumably the rest of the UK’s submarine fleet and at least some of the mine counter measures and offshore patrol vessels – ie those not inherited by the independent state – will leave a huge economic hole in the west of Scotland that the SNP’s plan to put the Joint HQ of the SDF there in its place cannot hope to fill.

In the interim period between Scottish independence and the withdrawal of the Trident fleet, however, there might be a little good news. The SSBNs presence at Faslane is, as I have said oftentimes before, the biggest bargaining chip an iScotland is likely to have. Allowing them to remain temporarily can be traded for either payment of an annual lease, which I have suggested (conservatively) might be in the order of £200 million per annum, or to defray part of iScotland’s share on the UK National Debt, another emotive topic, or indeed for anything else that the government of the day might decide. The chip should be spent wisely.

© Stuart Crawford 2020

Stuart Crawford is a former British army officer and regular commentator on military affairs in the print and broadcast media. He has a special interest in how an independent Scotland might design its defence policy and armed forces.

[1] A’ the Blue Bonnets: Defending an Independent Scotland | RUSI

[2] Defending an Independent Scotland Post-Brexit – Scottish Centre on European Relations (scer.scot)

So, the media have called it for Joe. The US 2020 Election is all over, bar the shouting. Unfortunately, there may be considerable amounts of shouting. Although Trump is clearly trumped at the ballot box,  decades of being able to bully his will onto those around him means that Donald J. will not “go gently into that good night”.

Despite accusations of unpredictability, it is not hard to anticipate Trump’s actions in a adversity. He is always right. If advisers dare to contradict him, they get the “my way or the highway” treatment. If his message is not adopted as if the word of God, it can only be because it has not been said loudly/often enough. Even though born into billions, he has known hardship and frustration—but only in business, that was always the other man’s fault and an army of lawyers could prove it. His first divorce was Ivanka’s fault; the billion-dollar bust of the Taj Mahal casino was the bankers’ fault.

Why circle the wagons when you can buy off the Indians?

Given the posse of ossified grandees and Beltway Bandits who have controlled Washington since Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex got their fingers in the federal till, it has not been hard to look like a political outsider. However, without support from the institutionalised two-party-plus-electoral-college, consigned even well known aspirants like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot to oblivion before a vote was cast. But none combined all three of the profile, the funds and planetary ego that Donald alone offered.

For once, Republicans, bruised by this week’s result, and finally embarrassed after a quarter-century obstructing anything Democrats proposed, have received an almighty shove to change their  direction. Since Newt Gingrich started a pathological opposition to Clinton in the 1990’s, there has been little evidence of what the American political nerds call “bi-partisanship”. So venal and entrenched did this become that shibboleths like tax cuts took priority over balancing budgets, simply because the Democrats wanted to raise taxes to pay for social programs like ‘Obamacare’ (universal medical coverage).

Only when Trump barnstormed to the nomination, leaving political corpses of standard-issue ‘haircut-and-suit’ hopefuls like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio in the dirt did the Grand Old Party ditch what principles it had left and hitch its future to Trump’s erratic star. And, for four years, they swallowed the consequences of his jumping jack policies, despite a drubbing in the 2018 mid-terms, because he brought in tax cuts for the rich, ditched business regulation, talked tough abroad and brought on board a swathe of blue-collar white folk, disillusioned with Democrat dithering.

Now that Trump today became yesterday’s man, what’s a good Republican to do? The gun-toters, the evangelists, the pinko-haters, the anti-abortionists, the right-wing conspiracy junkies that make up a good slice of Trump’s ‘base’ some may stay with him, swallow his story the election was ‘stolen’, and hope for his comeback in 2024. But listen to moderate Republicans like ex-Senator Jeff Flake or Georgia Governor Brian Kemp. You hear the sound of footsteps distancing themselves. Indeed, if the bulk of Republican politicians don’t want to find their jailit on a shoogly nail, they  should follow their lead and disinter GOP integrity from where they buried it in 2016 and go public with their disquiet at the mess Trump has made of government credibility and eroding America’s status on the world stage. They will be joined by a ‘payroll’ who survive by understanding their bread and who is doing the buttering. This will include people like black TV evangelists like Pastor Mark Burns, Fox News and an army of shock jocks who were fed flammable material in many of Trump’s antics.

But Trump’s hard-core support will not desert him. This includes not just his family and blinkered hired-gun believers like Rudy Giuliani, but a number of now-docile White House staff, and most of the Trump Organisation management because they have had years of knowing what is good for their collective careers. This coterie will provide more than enough of a cushion against reality to support Trump’s on-going conviction that hi actions in office were genius, that he made America great, that the media is fake, that he really did win the election, etc.

And that’s where the trouble begins. Despite four days of delay after a super-intense campaign, street demonstrations have been lively but non-violent. Despite media love of unrest as a story line, Americans have again proved to be reasonable people, with a belief in the goodness of their country that would shame most Europeans. That does not include Tump, nor his coterie. They may not get violent, but they will fight.

This fight will involve his usual tactics of obstruction, disinformation and copious legal actions. The four actions already brought in the swing states this week are just the start. Though two were thrown out unceremoniously, others will follow—many others. There are recounts in Wisconsin and Georgia. Witnesses will be dragged out of obscurity to testify that Joe Frazier voted in Philadelphia, although he’s been dead five years. Every effort will be made to question the result in any state where Biden is barely ahead. They will attempt to draw the process out beyond the December date by which all 50 states must certify results for the Electoral College. He will make no concession speech, There will be an inertia about vacating the White House up to (but not including) forcible eviction.

Most Americans are simply relieved to hear a result. Any smooth transition of power, as conducted by all retiring presidents, is unlikely. Any gracious congratulatory speech to the winner by the losing candidate is a convention that will be absent. Trump never follows convention because the unexpected gives him the edge over hidebound opponents. He could teach Sun Tzu or Machiavelli a thing or two. He won’t meekly this most humiliating defeat that is font-page news around the world. Neither ‘big-hearted’, nor ‘forgiving’ are found in his vocabulary.

His tactics of revenge? Well, he has two more months of full presidential powers. He may not cancel Thanksgiving, nor re-introduce Prohibition, nor unleash the Sixth Fleet on some unsuspecting island (c.f. Grenada, 1983). It won’t be that scatter-gun. It will be targeted and venomous because Donald is a man who bears precise grudges. That means he will try to make someone pay.

But, once the two months are up and he has found some high-profile way to vacate te White House, what then? The smart money thinks he will negotiate a deal whereby he vacates the WHote House peaceably, on condition tat the immunity gainst prosecution for his questionable business practices will be extended indefinitely when he is a private citizen.

Significant numbers of the 70m who voted for him believe in Trumpism, which should not be confused with Republicanism. He is too smart to think he can form a third political party. But there is money to be made from his fans. A Trump TV channel that out-Foxed Fox would be a gold mine. And he would need the money to derail litigation against his murkier dealings, like not placing the Trump Organisation in any trust fund while he was in office.

Celebrate as people might at the end of hs presidency, Donald Trump is not disappearing from the public eye any time soon.

By now, we are all fed up with our lives being dominated by wall-to-wall coverage of Covid-19 and the indefinite nature of plans to contain it. Even those still able to work need a distraction, since holidays, socialising, nights out, and even a quiet drink with a good friend, are all off-limits. We need an entertaining distraction to take our minds off the resulting drabs. Thankfully, our considerate American cousins have supplied it.Normally, US Presidential Elections are of tangential interest to us. They are ritual affairs, involving perfectly coiffed grand-dads in suits, with a lot of red, white & blue razzmatazz thrown in. But not this year. We have an extraordinary vaudeville show that is entertaining half the planet. Say what you like about Donald Trump, but he has transformed the 2020 contest into a riiveting reality-TV show that makes Big Brother or Jerry Springer look bland.

Amidst all the tut-tutting and sucking in of breath from ‘serious’ commentators like the NY Times and the Washington Post about the damage Trump is doing to the US political establishment at home and the image of America abroad, The Donald is actually doing the world—not just 334,000,000 Americans—a big favour.

Because it was time for the boisterous teenager that was America to grow up.

That may seem a disparaging, if not insulting, comment to make about the country that has been ‘the leader of the free world’ and by far the richest economy for half a century. Indeed, it has shed benefits beyond its borders:

• the New Deal that ended the Depression
• the Arsenal of Democracy that out-produced the Fascists
• the Marshall Plan that rebuilt shattered countries
• the United Nations
• the space program
• the electronics second industrial revolution.

No other country—including China and the Soviet Union—had the resources, the can-do chutzpah and diverse talent, drawn from around the world to achieve all that. But the resulting hegemony had to end sometime.

In the aftermath of WW2, no country but the Soviet Union could have challenged America’s economic dominance. And forty years of trying left it in the dust, giving a end-of-Cold-War windfall to spread prosperity much wider than America itself. Because their main idealogical foe had crumbled, American enduring faith in the superiority of their culture over all others was reinforced.

Few Americans alive can recall the Depression. What older citizens remember are halcyon days of the fifties and sixties when gas, white goods, cars and even houses were cheap, land seemed infinite, resources were plentiful and even blue collar work paid handsomely. Thousands of factories, created to re-arm the country, turned out consumer goods and everyone had the money to snap them up.

There was a dark side to all this. The growth of what Eisenhower decried as the “military-industrial complex” and covert operations by the CIA, both justified by the perceived Communist threat, led to America assuming the role of ‘The World’s Policeman”. Despite public protestation of “protecting our ftrrdoms” this led to a series of misjudgements. Those driving these decisions lacked experience of other cultures and justified actions with the simplistic morality of Hollywood war films since John Wayne stormed the Sands of Iwo Jima. This led to major miscalculations like the Vietnam War and minor ones like Bay of Pigs, Nicaragua, Lebanon and Somalia. Given the present state of both countries, the ‘victories’ in Iraq and Afghanistan now seem no such thing.

The resentment this caused across the globe has had little effect in chaning America’s geopolitical stance. The primary reason why the USA has not is that both President and Congress pander to a public disinterested in foreign affairs. Political focus is internal, sometimes even local and parochial. No country is entirely free of this. But small countries like Singapore and Switzerland are so dependent on foreign relations that it looms large in their politics. Even important economies like Germany and Japan rely heavily on exports for their prosperity, and act accordingly. The USA has neverr operated under any such constraint.

So, while all politicians play to a domestic gallery, no country does it on the scale of the USA, nor with such international impact. In 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Act was signed into law by President Hoover, slapping tariffs on thousands of goods entering the country ‘to protect American business’. The result was the Great Depression.

It is not hard to find the spirit of Smoot-Hawley alive and well in most of Trump’s actions, especially those affecting international relations. His success in 2016 and his resilient popularity even today is grounded in shameless pandering to that large section of the American public (mostly, but not entirely, Republican) who have never been abroad and regard the Constitution as holier than the Bible. They don’t just see America as the greatest country in the world, but that benighted foeignes all aspire to be American. To them, there is no reason why halcyon days of the sixties cannot return.

This attitude derives from the country being so huge, with abroad being seen as irrelevant; it is because education focuses on teaching America’s greatness and unconditional loyalty to it. It is not brainwashing They simply have no other countrry with which to compare themselves, as the Dutch must deal with Germans or the Dames with Sweden. Without that, a fertile field of jingoism can be harvested by simplistic sound bites, in which Tump has shown himself to be fluent.

So far, the case being made is negative: that another Trump term will further blind American ambition with platitudes rooted in the past. Such inertia will permit Asia to eat their economic lunch. But why should Americans vote for the ‘B’ team of Biden? The man is old, uninspiring, slurs his words, has no more dynamic policies than Trump does. Is he the best they could find to challenge Trump’s planetary ego?

Because Biden will not be running the show the way Trump does. Reagan is fondly remembered as President. His tenure 1980-1988 was a time of prosperity, of recovery of global profile after Vietnam and of telling Gorbachev where to get off. How was this achieved, when Reagan was just an affable ‘B’ movie actor who was the same age as Biden? Indeed, Reagan wasn’t smart enough to do the job. But he was smart enough to know he wasn’t smart enough—so he gathered a Cabinet around him who were.

Quite apart from it running counter to his nature, Tump wasn’t smart enough to do that. But Biden will. He will staff the wreckage left by Tump among the departments of state with something other than a revolving door of yes-men. And, given the deep resentment among thousands of civil servants trying to be professional amidst chaos, he will be given a fair wind to do so.

Sadly—and perhaps more importantly—Biden may not last his term. POTUS is a tough job. If he wins, Biden would be 81 at the end of his term. Given his somewhat shaky performances to date, he may not last the term. And if he didn’t…

…Kamala Harris would become America’s 47^th and first female President, sill in her fifties. She does not carry the ‘Washington insider’ baggage that scuppered Hilary Clinton’s bid. Harris gives every indication that she is smart enough to know not just who to include in her Cabinet, but also how to mend fences abroad that Trump has taken delight in wrecking to achieve political advantage at home.

Biden is Old School and so unlikely to even try to nudge America into a more collegiate role in the world . But Harris would revive the more thoughtful, statesmanlike approach followed by Obama.  Harris may be the one to de-fang gun-toting retrogrades among Trump’s followers and chart a less overbearingly macho course for the 21^st century.

The big question is: can Biden secure a wide enough margin of victory, such that Trump’s blatant plan to cast doubt on results beforehand, so he can challenge them if they are close, will come to nothing? But, if the result is clear by Wednesday November 4th, America may finally outgrow the teenage tantrums of the last four years.

Many Indy supporters are whooping for joy and loudly quoting a Survation poll in the Sunday Herald (October 11^th) that documents eroding unionist conviction. One third of those voted NO six years ago have changed their minds.

“…the No vote has effectively collapsed. The Survation poll of 2,093 respondents found that almost one third of 2014 NO voters would now vote YES. Nearly twice as many NO voters have moved to YES than have in the opposite direction…” —Bella Caldona blog

 However, before those joyful independistas break out the bubbly and speculate who is best suited to become the first ambassador to Bermuda, first consider four bucketfuls of rain dampening your parade:

1. While winning two NO voters over to YES for each one going the other way, that shows a softness in support for either side. Not only does this raise an alarm because  voters have a record of turning feart in the polling booth. Even if the stats were true, this still does not provide a support at the “well over 60%” that pundits regard as necessary for a decisive win.
2. Even if the SNP win big in May on an Indy manifesto, Boris will say ‘NO’. This may be called unjust, undemocratic, etc., but examine quasi-dictatorial moves Trump has got away with for four years—against a written constitution. Boris will enjoy support in this from Labour & Lib-Dems, as well as his own normally stroppy backwoodsmen Tories.
3. An earlier blog, revealing despair among arch-unionists from Scotland at The Spectator, is encouraging, but not conclusive. The thrust of that blog was that informed commentators like that have never despaired to that extent before. Douglas Ross may be out of a similar mould to Jackson Carlaw, one of Young Farmers & County Balls, rather than douce suburbs & golf clubs, but Ruth is their best street fighter. If they have any sense, they’ll put her in charge.
4. Much of this new support comes from people appalled by inept Westminster handling of the pandemic.  Nicola, on the other hand, has shown more effective leadership. She’s front and centre daily and even admits to mistakes. Why this should have more than compensated for repeated dithering by her Cabinet and the absence of palpable progress in Education, Health, Social Care, Economy, etc., mystifies most observers—including this one.

In other words, Indy has an appreciable way to go. This journey does not just involve overcoming Westminster intransigence, much less baffled incomprehension across the Establishment how anyone could be so foolish as to abandon the heaven that is England. This last is important, because it does not occur to the pukka people of Tunbridge Wells, Chiping Norton et al that ‘England’ and ‘Britain’ are not synonymous, except when humouring the Celtic fringe.

In fact, this conflation is the Achilles heel of the Union. No matter the strength of  economic argument that Scotland is “too poor; too weak; too wee” to go it alone; No matter emotional, historic ties that “we faced down Fascism together”; No matter the North of England suffers even more than the Scots from neglect—the imperial capital, the source of all power, all wealth, all culture suffers cultural myopia. And this is the petard by which Unionism will be hoist. Centralised self-belief by which Westminster lives will be the downfall of Unionism. Even the Scottish Tory leader realises this:

“The case for separation is now being made more effectively in London than it ever could in Edinburgh.” Douglas Ross MP, speech to Conservative conference, October 3^rd 2020

For an example of why this is so, roll time back 140 years and settle into the politics of 1880. Britain was at its peak of influence and prosperity, yet the hubris shown by Disraeli and his Tories resulted in Gladstone’s Liberals sweeping to power, helped by a massive batch of 80 Irish MPs under Parnell. Anglo-Irish landlords, endemic poverty and decimating potato famine made Ireland a sullen embarrassment to imperial pride. But, try as he might, Gladstone made no progress to assuage Irish feelings in the teeth of unionism, English jingoism and a House of Lords stuffed with land-owning Tory peers, intolerant of upstart nonsense like Irish Home Rule. Even George V’s acceptance that it would be better to let Ireland go peaceably could not move them.

This festered inconclusively on until it exploded into the Easter Rising of 1916, merciless executions, making martyrs of its leaders, three years of post-war repression by the Black and Tans, followed by Lloyd-George’s sleight of hand in retaining the Six Counties while grudgingly granting Eire its independence.

Did the English National Party (a.k.a. the Conservative & Unionist Party) learn nothing from its history of colonial arrogance? Even post-WW2, Mau-Mau in Kenya; Eoka in Cyprus; Communists in Malaya, all dared question London’s right to rule—and paid with many lives.

It is a matter of proud record that no-one has been killed, or even seriously hurt, in the cause of Scottish independence. There is no sense of a Scots rising occupying the old Post Office building at Waverley—not least because it’s now HQ for Lothian NHS. But there is no need for such rough-housing, not least because the Scots have a much more positive attitude to the English now than the Irish had a century ago. what goes around comes around; a century after, polls in another ‘home’ country of the Union point to this history repeating itself, if more peaceably.

It is this uber-English assurance, posing as unionism, that will do for the likes of Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg et al. While yeoman backwoodsmen of the Tory party recognise them as standard bearers of joint ambition, Scots will be equally convinced they could do better. Why be ruled for another 300 years by attitudes gleaned from public school and grouse moor when Ireland or Norway show how much better your future can become if you let go of nurse and find the courage to believe in yourself