Former SNP MP's critique of UK defence review was a missed opportunity
At the Royal United Services Institute members' briefing on the defence review, which I attended, it was pretty clear that many saw the review as an uncosted shopping list, a pick and mix of wares on offer from the UK's defence industries that the government could buy into, or not, depending what, at a future date, the Treasury thought could or could not be afforded.
READ MORE: Skye power line approved despite council and resident objections
New, more relevant threats were referenced, of course. Though how the existing products on offer from the UK's defence industry will square with actual future security needs, rather than the Russian Bogey, is not clear. Indeed, even on the day of publication the chief of the defence staff did point out that the actual lacklustre performance of Russian forces in Ukraine should be factored into future thinking.
Martin's article was rather a useful comment on what Dominic Cummings thought of the modus operandi of the MoD. A critique of the review and its relevance for the future – particularly that of an independent Scotland's security future – it was not.
Scotland and SNP policy got one sentence, in an article of more than 800 words. What he didn't do was offer a strategy of how the dog's breakfast of the review could be used as an opportunity to promote current SNP defence policy and develop it further in the future.
READ MORE: Scotland's top doctor warns of greatest threat to health this century
His mention of the clapped-out Vanguards was tangential and treated as a symptom of poor long-term planning, rather than a critique of Britain's reliance on Donald Trump.
Mark Felton's widely viewed 'Rented Missiles & Worn Out Submarines' YouTube presentation of two months ago, now with more than 600,000 views, is rather more relevant contains within it some positive points of real electoral salience for the SNP.
After all, positive, salient aspects of defence and security should be the drivers of SNP defence policy rather than the thicket of weeds that act as cover to a broken defence policy of a broken Britain.
Bill Ramsay
Convener, SNP CND
THE independence movement is at a tipping point, and deepening despondency must reign in the long-stifled rank-and-file of the SNP. In perpetual deference to their high heid yins, they have permitted culture-war distractions, personality cults and parasitic alliances to obscure their core vision of a better life for citizens and their children in a new post-Union, post-colonial reality.
They have seen their hard work and contributions, financial and otherwise, railroaded and dissipated by a recent leadership characterised by indolent complacency or cowardice of conviction.
READ MORE: What's going wrong inside the SNP? Activists share all
The cause of Scottish emancipation from colonial exploitation is not a vainglorious, ill-thought-out enterprise but rather an internationally acknowledged 'glorious revolution' in British politics whose wellsprings are popular sovereignty and direct democracy. The SNP 'strategists' have at best presented an anaemic dilution of these noble principles or collaborated consciously or unconsciously with Westminster politicians of every stripe to undermine them.
Who but a reunited popular and political movement in Scotland can save our fellow citizens from the warmongering, corporate-captured, Lino (Labour In Name Only) party that consort and acquiesce to globalist elites rather than their own people? Who can blame decent Scottish and English brothers and sisters from seeking hope from the ultimately false prophets of Reform UK rather than 'Remove UK'? In Scotland, who is going to champion these folk?
It is clear to me that a cohesion-seeking independence convention is required as a matter of national urgency where the SNP, Alba, all the factions of the independence movement and importantly all the as-yet-unconvinced but open-minded can meet eyeball to eyeball to form a national vision for our children and grandchildren. The first step must be for SNP grassroot members to signal their 'brotherhood' with the Alba party and non-aligned comrades rather than their effete and sadly incompetent erstwhile leaders, regardless of how 'steady' or 'safe' they may have appeared.
Dr Andrew Docherty
Selkirk
AMAZINGLY, 10 MONTHS on from the Westminster government's announcement to withdraw the Winter Fuel Payment, Scottish Questions and Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons were dominated by this issue once again. The Labour government at Westminster has given some snail-paced hint of a U-turn on the withdrawal, but no firm commitment as yet. This would be very welcome. However, pensioners here in Scotland already have an assurance from the Scottish Government they will receive the WFP and will not be left out in the cold this winter awaiting the Labour government's decision.
Catriona C Clark
Falkirk
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
29 minutes ago
- The National
It's not enough for SNP to occasionally say ‘independence'
Moving from local to national, there was a call for a constitutional convention from Councillor Murray in The National on Saturday. On the same day in the same paper, Gordon Macintyre-Kemp (Believe in Scotland) called for a new national conversation through a citizens convention. Independence Forum Scotland's Summer Convention on Scotland's Future will take place in Perth this Saturday. It will be their second this year. The grassroots took root, sheltered immediately after 2014, and the movement well continued. And thank (supply your own deity or whatever) for that. It's still the same message from across that movement: independence. It's sad, then, that political parties such as the SNP haven't moved on in tandem with us. The independence message has been diluted, and looking at the most recent rejection last week, it's more a case that the message was missing, again. John Swinney is quoted after the latest failure as saying: 'I thought the SNP was best placed to see off Reform because of the scale of collapse in the Labour vote.' Is it too much to believe (as I have done til now) that the SNP would see off Reform and the other pro-Unionist parties not by asking for a vote just to keep someone else out, but with their laid-out vision for independence? It is their raison d'etre after all. Not heart before head, but by taking the abstract notion of independence and translating that into the positive. It's not enough for the SNP to occasionally say 'independence' like some now tired mantra. Or expect me to click my heels and wish, Dorothy-like. Where is the plan, the strategy, the tactics? Where, when are we reminded of the changes to date that have had a positive impact? The likes of additional child payments, free bus passes, achieved through our government, our parliament, albeit hamstrung via the clever trap that is devolution. Where, when is the current highway robbery situation explained, as energy flows out of Scotland only to be returned at an increased cost to households? Westminster seems to have imposed a tariff on Scotland, having robbed us first! I think even Trump would be impressed with that one! There's no room to say that as this was a local election, indy shouldn't feature. These are all 'local' issues across the 'nation'; indy should always feature. Then to all politicians who say they believe in independence: you need to be connected with the grassroots movement, you have to heed what we say, see what we're doing, realise the strength, the numbers. You need to be prepared to tell folks if it's change you want, then change you'll get with independence, and here's how, here's the plan. The clock is ticking down to 2026. Selma Rahman Edinburgh WHY oh why can't we have simple literature telling the general public that with INDEPENDENCE we will be THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS and THIS better off and rid of THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS and THIS from Westminster that is making us worse off? Ken McCartney Hawick
North Wales Chronicle
38 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Spending review is ‘settled', says Downing Street
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects on Wednesday, as she shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. 'The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change.' The Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development. Last week the Chancellor admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, amid the Whitehall spending wrangling. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that Wednesday's announcement will include no new funding or projects for London. The mayor had been looking to secure extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line on the Underground, along with the power to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. A source close to the mayor said on Monday that ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'
North Wales Chronicle
38 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Labour MPs in call for benefits U-turn after change to winter fuel payment cut
Ms Reeves' £1.25 billion plan unveiled on Monday will see automatic payments worth up to £300 given to pensioners with an income less than £35,000 a year. It followed last year's decision to strip pensioners of the previously universal scheme, unless they claimed certain benefits, such as pension credit. Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, warned ministers they risked making a 'similar mistake' if they tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments, known as Pip. Leeds East MP Richard Burgon called on pensions minister Torsten Bell to 'listen now' so that backbenchers can help the Government 'get it right'. In her warning, Ms Whittome said she was not asking Mr Bell 'to keep the status quo or not to support people into work' and added: 'I'm simply asking him not to cut disabled people's benefits.' The pensions minister, who works in both the Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions, replied that the numbers of people receiving Pip is set to 'continue to grow every single year in the years ahead, after the changes set out by this Government'. In its Pathways to Work green paper, the Government proposed a new eligibility requirement, so Pip claimants must score a minimum of four points on one daily living activity, such as preparing food, washing and bathing, using the toilet or reading, to receive the daily living element of the benefit. 'This means that people who only score the lowest points on each of the Pip daily living activities will lose their entitlement in future,' the document noted. Mr Burgon told the Commons: 'As a Labour MP who voted against the winter fuel payment cuts, I very much welcome this change in position, but can I urge the minister and the Government to learn the lessons of this and one of the lessons is, listen to backbenchers? 'If the minister and the Government listen to backbenchers, that can help the Government get it right, help the Government avoid getting it wrong, and so what we don't want is to be here in a year or two's time with a minister sent to the despatch box after not listening to backbenchers on disability benefit cuts, making another U-turn again.' Mr Bell replied that it was 'important to listen to backbenchers, to frontbenchers'. Opposition MPs cheered when the minister added: 'It's even important to listen to members opposite on occasion.' Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin warned that 'judging by the questions from his own backbenchers, it seems that we're going to have further U-turns on Pip and on the two-child benefit cap'. The Tunbridge Wells MP asked Mr Bell: 'To save his colleagues anguish, will he let us know now when those U-turns are coming?' The minister replied: 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Labour Government bringing down child poverty, and that's what we're going to do 'What Labour MPs want to see is a Government that can take the responsible decisions, including difficult ones on tax and on means testing the winter fuel payment so that we can invest in public services and turn around the disgrace that has become Britain's public realm for far too long.' Conservative former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey had earlier asked whether the Chancellor, 'now that she and the Government have got a taste for climbdowns', would 'reverse the equally ridiculous national insurance contribution (Nic) rises, which is destroying jobs, and the inheritance tax changes, which is destroying farms and family businesses'. Mr Bell said: 'This is a party opposite that has learned no lessons whatsoever, that thinks it can come to this chamber, call for more spending, oppose every tax rise and expect to ever be taken seriously again – they will not.' Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey pressed the Government to make changes to the two-child benefit cap, which means most parents cannot claim for more than two children. 'It's the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty, and I'm sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it's right to lift children out of poverty,' the Salford MP told the Commons. 'So can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?' Mr Bell replied: 'All levers to reduce child poverty are on the table. 'The child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn.' He added: 'If we look at who is struggling most, having to turn off their heating, it is actually younger families with children that are struggling with that. 'So she's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this Government, we cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty.'
