I SUPPORT Alyn Smith’s “no surprises” stance in relation to the SNP approach to international relations. It is a pity that regarding nuclear weapons Alyn appears to take a different stance.
At a recent online SNP CND event Alyn said that he felt that there was no need for the SNP to put a timescale on SNP CND’s Trident removal strategy that was passed unanimously at the SNP spring conference in 2019.
Of course, in matters regarding nuclear weapons, all involved agree, though for different reasons, that the factor of surprise in matters nuclear is the last thing we need. Yet by eschewing a timescale for removal of Trident from the Clyde, Alyn would do just that, introduce a factor of uncertainty.
READ MORE: SNP 'Project No Surprises' seeks to reassure EU about Scottish independence
It’s agreed within the military and security community that the Royal Navy, indeed all professional navies, always do contingency planning in relation to the alternative basing of assets. Why Alyn appears relaxed about this important matter I find puzzling.
In the political sphere I would not realistically expect a UK Government, of any hue, to engage in an open public discourse in relation to alternative basing contingencies. This was confirmed to me in a question I put when I recently attended a policy-focused seminar organised by the Royal United Services Institutes, the UK premier military think tank.
To give Alyn his due though, he did say that the issue of having a timescale or not will no doubt be addressed when the membership of the SNP is afforded an opportunity to do so at a future conference where proper debate would be possible.
Certainly, SNP CND will, as soon as the party deems practicable, ensure that branches will have access to a draft motion on a timescale that they can amend as they see fit. Indeed, such a draft can be found in the news section of the SNP CND website. It suggests a three-year period from the morning after the night before when the indyref2 polls close. Moreover, readers of The National might recall an article supporting a five-year timescale by Bill Kidd MSP, a co-president of the global Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.
Lack of clarity is best avoided but sometimes in life, even in politics, it cannot be. However, lack of clarity in relation to matters of nuclear weapons has the potential to be deadly on an unimaginable scale.
Bill Ramsay
Convener SNP CND
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel