For a list of the current Friends of the Scottish Review, click here
I have been reading and enjoying Scottish Review for some time now – not always agreeing with what its contributors have to say, but glad to be hearing intellectually coherent material. Thus it came as a surprise to see such a flimsy and unconvincing piece as George Robertson’s (24
October) dreary diatribe against the SNP.
George’s logic seems to be that there must be no differences of opinion among any of the member states within NATO. To be a member you must accept absolutely everything and nothing must ever be allowed to change. Citing the example of new states who accepted every condition and demand before being allowed entry only strengthens the anti-democratic line which he appears to be putting forward so approvingly. Defence of democracy? More like Warsaw Pact mentality.
Why would anyone want to be in an alliance that allowed no expression of disagreement, nor tolerated suggestions for change or reform? Where does George think any alteration to NATO policies and practices will come from? The apparent answer is the truth that we all know but George wouldn’t dare express – from the most powerful within the alliance, and that largely means the USA. Depressing reminders of Tony Blair’s cosy relationship with George Bush rise like noxious marsh gas and show George still beholden to the old neo-Tory New Labour tendency.
Finally there is George’s weird logic that the reason that the aforementioned new states would not have nuclear weapons deployed in them was to assure Russia. Is he saying that the wishes of Russia are to be taken more seriously than those of Scotland?
I suppose the saving grace of the article is that it shows the paucity of argument being brought to bear on the case for rejecting Scottish independence based on redundant Cold-Warrior mentalities. If the No campaign is going to offer up limp material such as this, then it’s goodbye UK. I think, however, there are more sturdy intellectual weapons yet to be deployed.
Dr David White
Rarely have I read anything in SR that has made me so creepily uncomfortable as George Robertson’s piece. It’s like something issued by the 1950s Politburo.
…the slogans of unilateralism and neutralism were irrelevant in a world where only multilateral nuclear disarmament would make us safe.
How about we’re brave again, at least one country in the British Isles, and tell NATO (aka America) where to stuff their nuclear deterrent? If England wants to accommodate such WMDs on America’s behalf, then that’s their business and their risk. We really need to move on from this Cold War mentality so adequately outlined and embraced by Lord Robertson. If this is the level of cognitive sophistication employed by the alliance, I would urge Scots to appeal to their government not to join NATO at all, even in a pretendy sort of way. If we have no nuclear armaments, and we’re not invading other countries on dubious pretexts, who is going to nuke us? Some computer operator with number blindness who was really aiming for London, or the Martians, perhaps?
Judith Jaafar
Think not what you can do for NATO but what NATO can do for you. This could well be the mantra of both the SNP – with their shiny new establishment wrong-footing policy – and indeed George Roberston, sorry Lord Robertson of NATO or is it Islay, Port Askaig, Bowmore, Bunahabhain or Bruichladdich.
While not disputing his right to hold a view of what is good for Scotland, it was not entirely clear what the argument was. We were however rewarded with some intense name and implement dropping – Havel and his Gavel.
Has anyone noticed a tendency recently for ex-Labour ministers to launch into anti-SNP diatribes, and nothing wrong with that, but the arguments peter out as the ‘bigging up’ of their own ‘very important work while in office’ takes over the narrative? Could it be that the long-term argument is seen to be lost and it is time to talk about ‘myself’ and my vast experience in this field, possibly touting for a job post 2014 referendum? Think not what you can do for an independent Scotland, but what an independent Scotland can do for you.
Iain Mackenzie
When Lord Robertson said that devolution will kill nationalism stone-dead he kinda nailed his colours to the UK mast. He also, on his life journey, voted for more EU integration and was against a smoking ban. Was for university tuition fees, for introducing ID cards, and a stricter asylum system, but, somehow, apparently couldn’t care less about climate change, a hunting ban, or anti-terrorism laws as he never bothered to vote on any of these issues. It looks like he’s not wholly aligned with the Scottish Government’s road of travel, does it? So, do we really need this guy’s advice about the SNP or the supporters of an independent Scotland, a country which some would say he ill-served?
Ian McTurk
The Cafe is our readers’ forum. Send your contribution to islay@scottishreview.net
website design by Big Blue Dogwebsite development by NSD Web