davidsberry

I’m a follower of Burdzeyeview because said Burd has a deft habit of spearing keys issues of the day with insightful comment—thereby roping in a fair number of informed people to comment on them and generally advance the issue, even where it is not resolved. Despite it being Easter, this week was no exception. While I was merrily bouncing round the Bass showing visitors our spectacular wildlife, the Burd asked why Professor Malcolm Chalmers piece in SoS had flushed so little comment out of the usually vocal ‘cybernats’.

The question is a fair one: I’m game. For years, SNP party policy has been against any NATO membership for Scotland. The basis has always been a fundamental refusal to accept nuclear weapons on Scottish soil. I can well believe (as the article claims) that a majority of SNP members would consider NATO membership of some sort as a necessary component of a Scottish defence posture—not least because I am one of them. But I am no happier with Trident than anyone else in the SNP.

What the good professor seems to overlook is that, of the 28 existing members of the NATO alliance, only three are nuclear (USA, Britain, France). The rest have kaleidescopic involvement in the alliance that is tailored to their capacities and political realities: nobody expects landlocked Hungary to field much of a navy nor tiny Luxembourg to field much of anything. Yet they are members. The habitually stroppy French won’t even agree on its name and insist on “Organisation de Traité d’Atlantique du Nord” (=OTAN).

Despite an independent Scotland not offering serious global military clout, along with Iceland, it is superbly positioned to watch NATO’s northern flank. It offers facilities for commando training in the Angus glens, infantry and low-level flying ranges in D&G, plus the most accessible and ideal joint-services exercise area around Cape Wrath. To think that NATO top brass in Brussels would not prefer to have Scotland as a member—even IF it joined with some caveats—is to underestimate their pragmatism.

The caveat of not stationing nuclear weapons on our soil may not be seen as ideal. But it is neither unique, nor is it a dealbreaker. Especially as any Scottish armed forces would be ex-UK armed forces and already fully trained in NATO practice.

The second key point Professor Chalmers appears to make is that Scotland could not afford a decent defence posture—citing £2bn as our budget and £100m as the cost of a single strike fighter. Both are indeed reasonable figures and it would indeed cost us a year’s budget to equip a squadron with state-of-the-art fighters. But any independent Scotland will have paid for 9% of the present UK forces and would be entitled to that share upon independence.

That share may not sound like much, but a balanced defence force for Scotland would not include the most expensive equipment currently deployed by the UK, most especially the 4-strong Trident fleet, either of the aircraft carriers now building, any of the 400 Challenger MBTs (cost £4m each) or overseas deployment & bases & support required for them.

As a result, a couple of frigates, some light craft, a hundred or so IFVs and light recon vehicles, a share of REME gear, two squadrons of helicopters (recon & attack) and the same of fighters (plus some Hawk and Tutor trainers) would do us nicely and not break the 9% bank. Some heavy lift like Hercules would be necessary until we replace long-range maritime recon aircraft that the MoD scrapped.

Two months ago, an article here described what a Scottish Army might look like. Its exact nature would be up to those better qualified than I and the agreement of those involved that they wished to serve in it. But the key point is that—like ALL smaller NATO nations—we would not be going to war by ourselves and—unlike the UK—would have no ambition to throw our weight around in any repetition of Falklands/Iraq/Afghanistan.

Where Prof Chalmers is probably correct is that Scotland may not wish to deploy any of the Astute class nuclear-powered (but NOT nuclear-armed) attack submarines, nor any of the Type 26 frigates due in service after 2020. That is because 2-3 older frigates from the existing RN fleet would suffice for ocean patrolling; attack subs are intended to take on a major blue-water navy. Scotland would be crazy to do that by itself and, with only a small surface fleet, would have no need to defend major targets like aircraft carriers from such a threat.

It is clear to most in the SNP that, if Scotland were to scale its forces to the country’s needs, the £2bn defence budget would be adequate to provide adequate forces. It would also be barely HALF of what we currently spend to support the £40bn UK defence budget. But Prof. Chalmers final assumption—that none of the ships the RN would continue to need would be built in Scotland—seems flawed.

Scotland would have no interest in anything but good, close relations with its southern neighbour. That would be exhibited in a willingness to extend the life of Faslane while the RN found a new home for their nukes (including the five hulks mouldering at Rosyth) and also continue building carriers and frigates for their more global military ambitions at competitive pricing the MoD would find hard to refuse.

The SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson has recently said the party is “looking at the policy options” on the Nato treaty. Since NATO has diplomatically accommodated its smaller, non-nuclear members to date, it seems time for us to consider such options.

No, not the Beatles track (that one was actually 45 years ago now) but, in displaying my anorak tendencies in spades, I fess up  to having just spent a housework day half-watching BBC Parliament’s 12-hour-long  marathon rebroadcast of the 1992 General Election. Despite it being history, its relevance as a reference point to politics today was striking.

The initial problem was to get past the ‘time warp’ aspect of big hair and big glasses, women’s blouses and colourful floral ties that date it so much. That and John Snow’s semi-mechanical ‘swingometer’ still in early stages of development. People you thought were always part of the establishment popped up as new boys—like David (‘two brains’) Willets, Mandy (complete with dodgy ‘tache) and Eric Pickles, who already looks like he couldn’t possibly get much fatter. Emma Nicholson, re-elected in Devon gushed about Major and convincing him to get more women elected (just 3 years before she defected to the Lib-Dems, citing Westminster Tory ‘old boy’ networks). Though it seems piffling now, much was made of an increase to 59 women MPs, 20 of them Tories. Out of 650!

The raft of familiar faces shown were startling in their youthfulness, including Ashdown and Kennedy, Redwood and Portillo, Gordon Brown & Brian Wilson. All were quizzed by compere David Dimbleby at the helm, but with a deference that today would seem Victorian in its politeness.

Fresh-faced Iain MacWhirter, anchoring in Scotland spoke of “everyone eating large amounts of humble pie” after Tories—against all expectations—held their 9 Scottish seats and added two. He interviewed an equally youthful Galloway who (alone) predicted Kinnock would stand down and argued Labour must extend a hand of friendship to SNP to use the Constitutional Convention as Tories were laughing at the disunity among their opponents over any constitutional change.

Canon Kenyon Wright claimed “the will of the Scottish people contined to be massively thwarted” while David Steel, interviewed in his Ettrickbridge fastness, felt Jim Sillars, having persuaded the SNP to stay away from the Constitutional Convention, might have less influence now his “Free by ’93” had proved such a damp squib and himself had lost the hard-won Govan seat. Sillars’ interview showed him more moderate and measured than either his reputation or his more recent utterances.

Alex did a statesmanlike job in his acceptance speech. 20 years younger, he delivered with the same impressive balance he exhibits today a claim that the people of Scotland would not long stand being ruled by those for whom they did not vote. But most convincing of all in Scotland was a nebbish but poised Donald Dewar who, while dismissing civic disobedience as a tactic flatly stated that the Tories had no mandate to rule in Scotland and that they would come to regret it if they ignored that fact.

Long ago as it was, the sheer surprise to all (including Tories, though the senior ones denied it) that Labour didn’t win and that Major was back in with a working majority of 21. But, seen from today’s perspective, he did less well and Kinnock did much better than the story of the day. Both polls and papers had been predicting a Labour win and the anti-Thatcher, anti-poll tax sentiments were still running high.

But this was also the era of the ‘loony left’ and Labour were still on the long journey back from 1983’s electoral oblivion when they punted what Gerald Kaufman waspishly observed to be “The Longest Suicide Note in History” as their manifesto. Kinnock, although he had brought them back from the brink, had indulged in some odious triumphalism in Sheffield (“Well, all right!” repeated from the podium to rapturous applause— to no discernable purpose). Within 24 hours of the result Kinnock stood down.

As this was the era when Middle Britain emerged from the class war, many started to expect more from politicians than left/right doggerel and cant. Blair and Brown were MPs but it would take the interregnum of the decent John Smith to lay foundations for what became the immensely electable New Labour who cottoned on to such things and effectively stole the Tories traditional clothes.

So while Labour did make serious progress—actually their 2nd-best improvement up to then, they won only 44 of the 94 seats required to form a government and which all agreed they were on-track to achieve. Polls and newspapers had much to answer for. In the event, not only did the Tories scrape home in many target seats but they sustained their 43% share of vote and, watching the Lib-Dems slide from 23% to 18% and slip back by 2 seats, could argue they won even bigger against them than against Labour.

Paddy Ashdown made a brave face of it but was miles off in predictions, seeing his own policies as realities and claiming “There is now a real question whether Labour can ever challenge for government”. Dennis “The Beast of Bolsover” Skinner would have no truck with this and was quite clear that, with no concession to Lib-Dems or their PR but with a strong dash of old-time class warfare, “Labour could win the next election hands down”.

The Lib-Dems would actually make good use of time but not at Westminster. Sally Magnusson down at the Yeovil Liberal Club found them somewhere between miffed and defiant. But through the nineties and noughties, they made a strong play in the North and West of England from grass roots, electing hundreds of councillors to city halls from Liverpool to Doncaster. This platform became one from which they could make their strongest showing to date in 2010.

But if the English and Welsh were baffled how Major pulled this out of his hat, there was a right scunner among the Scots. Although 49 Labour MPs were elected (along with 11 Tories and 9 Lib-Dems) no-one had a sense of progress, nor of being protected from either Thatcherism or nukes on the Clyde. The ‘standing-still’ of the SNP at 3 seats concealed a huge rise in their vote, doubling to over 690,000 and putting them in striking distance of the three further seats In five years, losing them began a long dark Tory night.

In 1992 Scotland still registered as just a region of Britain—albeit a quirky one. Dimbleby referred to Berwick as “the northernmost constituency in Britain” and proceeded to show a picture of Alnwick Castle. What was equally amusing was the obvious spin and blind party loyalty indulged in by everyone when discussing results: spin was not a Blairite invention—he & Mandy simply perfected it.

But it is only with 20/20 hindsight that the events of the last few years—let alone the Scottish Parliament itself—could have been predicted from the events of that night in 1992. Nobody (with honourable exceptions from Dewar and Galloway) seemed to have a clue what even the next five years might bring. Altogether, it was a lesson in how little even the best informed and those paid to anticipate can predict our future.

How unfortunate that such empathetic insight as displayed by the Rev Beeb in Forster’s “A Room with a View” is not echoed by the mighty Auntie Beeb when it comes to allowing democratic voice to its Scottish license-payers. As outlined in the excellent “A Sair Fecht” blog (and shamefully stolen for this one), censorship of debate has been exercised here which is not the case anywhere else within the Britain that unionists never tire of telling us is so good for us Scots.

But consider the following:

BBC Scotland: Political Editor – Brian Taylor: Comments NOT allowed.
BBC Scotland: Business Editor – Douglas Fraser: Comments NOT allowed.
BBC Wales: Political Editor – Betsan Powys: Comments allowed.
BBC Wales: Parliamentary Correspondent – David Cornock: Comments allowed.
BBC Northern Ireland: Political Editor – Mark Devenport: Comments allowed.

In England:
BBC North East & Cumbria: Political Editor – Richard Moss: Comments allowed.
BBC Yorkshire & Lincolnshire: Political Editor – Tim Iredale: Comments allowed.
BBC Midlands: Political Editor – Patrick Burns: Comments allowed.
BBC East Midlands: Political Editor – John Hess: Comments allowed.
BBC West of England: Political Editor – Paul Barltrop: Comments allowed.
BBC East of England: Political Editor – Deborah McGurran: Comments allowed.
BBC South East: Political Editor – Louise Stewart: Comments allowed.
BBC South of England: Political Editor – Peter Henley: Comments allowed.

And the reasons given? Daniel Maxwell, BBC Scotland’s news online editor, when given the task of defending the indefensible, said.

“We believe that by determining which particular issues might best be explored by the inclusion of public comment online, we will allow a more flexible and adaptable approach to be taken to how we cover the main issues in Scotland.”

Aye, right: I’m with the Rev—not Auntie—Beeb.

Hard of the heels of our discussions on both advisability of the UK attempting to build new aircraft carriers for a global role it can’t afford (see Macho White Heffalumps from March 26th) and the hubris of empire over islands at the far end of the world that we British thought we could hold easily (see Those Who Don’t Learn from History in November 2011), we find ourselves at the 30th anniversary of the short, sharp Falklands War (Guerra de las Malvinas to those on the other side). From media coverage, the lessons hard learned then do not yet appear to have been learned.

In 1982, despite the Empire being just a memory to people over 40, Britian still aspired to a global rôle. So when, on April 2nd, Lieutenant Commander Guillermo Sanchez-Sabarots’ Amphibious Commandos Group, landed and rolled up Major Norman’s handful of Royal Marines, it was all over in a day. This should not have come as a total surprise to the MoD. Two weeks earlier, a non-military Argentinian occupation of the abandoned whaling station on South Georgia had resulted in them dispatching two nuclear submarines (HMS Splendid & HMS Spartan) along with RFA Fort Austin to support the only RN ship in the area, the survey ship HMS Endurance.

Carrington’s resignation and Thatcher’s doughty dispatch of a task force to re-take the islands is well documented. The resolute, brave and professional exploits of all three services will, deservedly, receive much media coverage over the next two months, up to June 14th, the 30th anniversary of the Argentine surrender in Port Stanley. Epic though those exploits were, it was, as Wellington phrased it at Waterloo; “a damn close-run thing”. Not only could it have been a disaster but any modern equivalent would almost certainly be. This is because a series of major pieces of luck all fell our way:

1. The ‘Argies’ didn’t expect a response. Even the US thought the UK crazy to try to take islands 7,000 miles from home and over 2,000 from their nearest base on Ascension. As a result, the garrison of partly conscripts weren’t expected to have to fight.
2. Casper Weinburger was an anglophile. In deference to his latino population and diplomacy in Latin America, President Reagan resolutely declared the US to be neutral but his Secretary of Defense persuaded him to supply badly needed satellite intelligence and sidewinder missiles, without which the British would have lost.
3. The Argentinians had few Exocets. French-built and carried by a Dassault Super-Etendard strike fighters, these were weapons for which the Task Force had no real answer (Phalanx gatling guns came later). Launched from below the horizon, two of these destroyed HMS Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyor (with 6 Chinook heavy-lift helicopters). The lucky part is that the second target was meant to be HMS Invincible, the loss of which would have ended the operation.
4. Although operating outside the British-declared exclusion zone around the Falklands, the WWII-vintage cruiser Belgrano was sunk by a single torpedo from HMS Conqueror, triggering a dispute as to the legitimacy of the action. However, this did remove any surface threat to the Task Force and allowed it to concentrate on the occupying land forces and incoming air attacks.
5. Despite their phenomenal bravery flying at extreme range with ‘iron’ bombs, Argentinian Air Force pilots destroyed few of the sitting-duck-target ships in San Carlos Water after the landing. They hit plenty but at least three out of four bombs did not explode because they were released so low, the fuses had no time to arm.
6. Operation ‘Black Buck‘ was a success. Due for scrapping that year, the RAF still had a number of Vulcan delta-wing bombers on strength. By scraping together a dozen air tankers and refueling single Vulcans, one reached the Falklands from Ascension to strew 21 1,000lb bombs across the runway at Port Stanley, rendering the airfield unusable to all but light aircraft. This denied the Argentinians air superiority.
7. Goose Green was held mainly by conscripts. After the landing, 2 Para was sent to clear this flank of the advance on Port Stanley. Across bare ground, with little artillery and no armour support, this was an almost suicidal mission,. But, carried out with such bravery and determination, it psyched out the defenders who surrendered, but not before Col. H. Jones lost his life leading the attack. News of this undermined the remaining Argentine defenders’ morale.

Had any one of the seven items not happened, the outcome would have been in serious doubt; had several of them happened, the operation certainly would have been a disaster and the Falklands probably have become the Malvinas and part of Argentina. But the present exploration for oil in the waters around keeps the question of sovereignty alive.

Nowadays, with no aircraft carriers, no long-range bombers, no STOL Harriers, fewer ships, fewer aircraft and ‘operational stretch’ of forces being fully committed (overcommitted?) in Afghanistan and elsewhere, a similar occupation—in the Falklands or even anywhere else up to and including North Sea oil rigs and Channel Islands—could not be repulsed, let alone ejected, by the UK’s present forces, even if an equivalent seven lucky breaks to the above could be guaranteed.

For a country with the third highest defence budget in the world (£40bn), we have an execrable deal. It’s one about which serious questions need to be asked—as well as what the UK thinks it is doing in the 21st century, not just in Afghanistan, but in the fourteen ‘pink bits’ on which the sun still never sets, any of which have the ability to entangle us in a Falklands-type war. The difference being that, now, there’d be little chance of winning.

Seldom have I seen so many politicos in a tizz, so many journos wrong-footed or so many people who should know better vacillating between doing the headless chicken and venting their spleen over the thumping victory “Gorgeous” George Galloway achieved in Bradford West. Unlike his rabbit-out-of-a-hat job at Bethnal Green in 2005 where he squeezed past a bemused (and rather undeservedly) dejected-looking Oona King by 500 votes, this was the real deal; here, he cleaned the floor with his opposition.

His opposition—quite apart from the usual 3-digit fringe parties—was actually the three major UK parties. George likened them to three buttocks on the same arse and certainly had skelped them all by the time the night was over. Their usual henchpersons were out explaining away why they had neither seen it coming nor had convincing explanations for what happened. What happened is as close to a landslide as elections ever get, viz:

1. George Galloway (Respect) 18,341 (55.89%, +52.83%)
2. Imran Hussain (Lab) 8,201 (24.99%, -20.36%)
3. Jackie Whiteley (Con) 2,746 (8.37%, -22.78%)
4. Jeanette Sunderland (Lib-Dem) 1,505 (4.59%, -7.08%)
5. Sonja McNally (UKIP) 1,085 (3.31%, +1.31%)
6. Dawud Islam (Green) 481 (1.47%, -0.85%)
7. Neil Craig (D Nats) 344 (1.05%)
8. Howling Laud Hope (Monster Raving Loony) 111 (0.34%)

While a cuffing for parties of Government and the low vote for minority/unheard-of parties were both on the cards, this was a Labour seat with a 5,000+ majority in the Labour heartlands of the ex-industrial North of England caused by nothing more sinister than the retirement of a sitting MP for reasons of ill-health. With the Coalition having their worst week so far and Labour’s new leader of six months itching to make his mark, this result ought to have been a foregone conclusion.

As close as the day before, Labour thought it was, reporting that Galloway was making a strong challenge but that Imran Hussein, a Muslim from the area, would be the winner. Indeed, it is almost unprecedented for the opposition party of the day to lose a by-election—as rare as three times in the last 40 years, including this one. And it wasn’t just Labour: the ConDem parties and just about everyone else but George and his troops had written this off as a Labour romp.

Since the result was announced, party spin machines have been in a lather of damage limitation with Harriet Harman most to the fore, declaring “we need to learn the lessons” on five occasions in 24 hours and “we need to deepen connection with voters” on three. If this smacks of Johann Lamont’s recent sackcloth and ashes script, it’s probably no coincidence; Labour—especially New Labour—is not geared to doing ‘humble and repentant’; it’s not in their DNA. Labour leadership is now suffering criticism that they were too focussed on maligning the Tories nationally even while campaigning in Bradford West—and there is much truth in this.

Two Eds are Better than One When the Pasty Tax Bites at Greggs

But Labour was still out there working the streets; they had a plausible candidate and a long history of steady support. What went wrong?

First of all, Bradford West is an unusual constituency. It is unusual in the same way that Bethnal Green is: the two have the largest percentages of Muslim voters in Britain. This played to George’s Respect Party’s strengths, which are anti-war and pro-Muslim. Many people may have forgotten the Iraq war, even if they have not forgotten Afghanistan. But, as Diane Abbott MP has pointed out, those who have not lie outside the political classes and provided an unrecognised undertow of opinion.

Secondly, there is George himself. It’s hard to name a British politician as flamboyant, as self-believing, as shamelessly self-promoting or—among politicos at least—less popular. No-one who is anyone likes him and many claim his 2010 squirmingly unpalatable Big Brother appearance contributed much to his win. This is simplistic. George is actually not only politically astute but clearly understood the people of Bradford West far better than any other candidate/party.

More than simply campaigning on an anti-war footing, he threw out conventional campaigning and addressed an unprecedentedly sectarian letter appealling to Muslims to search their hearts for they know ‘instinctively’ who is a Muslim and who is not. It is bracketed with the customary Muslim greeting as no previous party election literature.

A Catholic himself, he flatters them divine discernment—what they know ‘instinctively’ is what Allah knows perfectly. He declares: “God KNOWS who is a Muslim and he KNOWS who is not” and he goes on to list his Islamic virtues: “I, George Galloway, do not drink alcohol and never have… I, George Galloway have fought for Muslims at home and abroad, all of my life… I, George Galloway, tell the truth…I, George Galloway, hold Pakistan’s highest civil awards…I, George Galloway, came to the side of the people of Palestine in their agony…’. He also says he will give his remaining days in service of all the people of Bradford West “if God wills it”.

It is as brazen and clever an appeal as anyone could come up with—and that is the third vital element in this. More than anything, it underscores just how vital speaking directly to local voters is. That involves not just bombarding them with literature and messages but working out what kind of community you are dealing with, what their concerns are and speaking to them in a language that resonates. That used to be the case for all parties. But in this day of central offices, large staffs and bright young things fresh from university, that seems to have been lost. With a weak local presence and scant hope of winning, such a mistake being made by the Tories or Lib-Dems is understandable. But that Labour should make it on a home patch is reprehensible.

The bottom line is that this massive victory was no fluke. It was caused by one—certainly flamboyant—candidate knowing how to speak to people while the ‘professionals’ gagged it, big-style. Wounded by his 2010 loss of Bethnal Green, written off after his risible showing on the Glasgow MSP list last year, Georgeous Gorge is back with a vengeance, stunning his old party and ca’ing the legs out from under Milliband’s leadership, just when he thought (rightly) he had the Tories on the run.

As even those marginally interested will know, watching the House of Commons is hardly comparable to watching the Bourne trilogy for entertaining action. Love him or hate him, now that GG’s back, that will change.