Monday 6 August 2012

August 6 1945

As I said on another blog, "I have kept quiet about many SNP policies I disagreed with to avoid the Judean's Popular front meltdown, which would be leapt upon by the unionists with glee".

Peter Curran replied to me “There are times when it is wrong to remain silent, Sean. This is one of them.”

Reluctantly, for I know what's coming, I agree with him. Removing the obscenities in Faslane was one of the mainstays of SNP policy. Staying in NATO weakens that position.

And I didn't like price controls on alcohol either...


  1. Entirely agree, Conan, nor would I wish to be subject to have any decision regarding Scotland being dictated by the RUK government.

  2. From my understanding in the NATO "Thing", is they (the Govt in Holyrood) only agreed the possibility of remaining in NATO if NATO agree to nuclear free status for Scotland.
    Yes, this issue is very quickly turning into the Judean's Popular Front Fiasco.

  3. Peter Curran can speak for himself but my interpretation of his writings on this issue is that his complaint is not confined to whether NATO agrees to a nuclear (weapons) free Scotland. If I have read him right, he predicts an increased timescale for removal, if at all. He is being honest enough with himself to acknowledge that political footballs are punted into long grass for a reason - many never again see the light of day.

    Sean disnae like minimum alcohol pricing. I think hereditary monarchism is repugnant and I detest almost everything MacAskill has done since taking office.

    Nevertheless, I would argue that the broader issues are the dearth of individual thought, open debate and democracy within the SNP and wider independence movement. I am a nationalist and I will not hesitate to answer yes to independence if the question ever gets asked. But I'll be fucked if I vote SNP again.

  4. you lot should chill nuclear is good and the bombs have keeps safe and free.............

    I mean we could be ruled by an extremist Nationalist Party like the Nazis but thanks to nuclear we are not
    A Bomb

  5. Hi John. As you are a Weefree Buddhist, I would not expect anything less of you. Nane o' that Harry Krishna stuff on a Sunday mind.

    Hazel, One step backwards may lead to another, horse trading is one thing, but look how well the LibDems have done since they sold their souls for some cabinet posts'.

    Hi Graham. I agree with you about hereditary Monarchy as well, the alcohol thing was to lighten up my unusually serious posting.

    Yet the whole point of my original comment on Peter's blog. We were - I hope we still are - nearest to independence than we ever have been.

    In the words of another supporter of independence;

    "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

  6. Conan

    What am I missing here? The no to NATO was voted on by SNP members some time ago. Is it ok to vote yes for something you believe in but when the same party proposes a debate and a vote, just like the last one, that is suddenly not oK because they may change their vote? Did people join a movement or a single issue protest group?

    Are all previous conference votes now to be set in stone, and never to be changed, because some people in the party may not like it and resign as a consequence?

    The other bit that puzzles me is just where are the anti nuclear lobby going to go? What party are they going to vote for? What other party has any chance of ridding Scotland of nuclear weapons this side of forever?

    I am no lover of NATO, but I am an even bigger hater of nuclear weapons. I would never cut of my NATO nose to spite my nuclear face.

    A long time ago I said to you "that with devaluation we may be allowed to ban air rifles with independence we can ban Trident" Nothings changed since I sent that.

  7. A good point Dubbieside. When Blair spurned the left and the CND to appeal to Essex Man, is this the moment in the SNP?

  8. Conan

    No its not the SNP Blair moment. Clause 4 and CND were threads that ran right through Labour. The only comparison would be if the SNP spurned independence, and that will never happen.

    There is a saying "its hard to remember your objective was to drain the swamp when you are up to your arse in alligators"

    It will be hard to reconcile, if in future years we still have Trident, are surrounded by new nuclear power stations, and are still short changed as a nation, because we lost sight of the only prize worth having, independence, because we spent time throwing our toys out of the pram on something that we could only achieve if we achieved the first and only objective.

    Lets get independence sorted first, anything else only aids our opponents.

  9. I do hope not Dubbieside. I'm either punching smoke or wood here; I can't win on this post.

    I blogged it as a wee warning.

    All supporters of independence take heed.

    1. Serves you right! Taking it easy on the Cochers column is no way to get fit for the fight in 2014. 8)

      I am in the SNP and am not an Essex girl. I find a non-Trident in NATO stance as plausible as being a little bit pregnant.

      The present policy is logical and defensible as well as giving the rUK and NATO problems with the hole that it punches in their defence of the polar and Greenland approaches, i.e. a pink chip for Scotland in the seperation negotiations. I will be voting against any change.

    2. Mea Culpa.
      Slapping down semi-educated BNP knuckle draggers is no way to to get fit for the fight...

  10. The ability and willingness to discuss contentious issues are strengths, whereas repressing differences of opinion, even for fear of how the opposition might exploit them, is a weakness. Surely it is preferable to honestly admit that we do not agree on Y and Z but we still agree on X? The independence movement is a broad church. Most Scottish political blogs would have you believe that the entire Scottish population is crying out for higher taxes and greater government intervention in every aspect of their lives. I read that stuff and I know that's nothing like the Scotland I want. But I agree on independence.

    I have to agree with the point that, in the interests of democracy, a debate and vote should be had if there is demand. But how about some honesty and integrity. Who is driving it and why? Have those now proclaiming the merits of democracy been similarly inclined on other issues? Will the leadership just reverse any decision it doesn't like when nobody's looking, again?

  11. Conan

    "We must, indeed, all hang together,

    I wish you lot were indeed ...sighs!!!

    anyways you and all the other pinko bleeding heart anti nuclear tree hugging liberals are meant to rend yer clothes and wail yer heads off.

    Alex standing on the podium all leaderly like will reap the benefits for standing up to the malcontents in his own party. Thats whats happened to every other party leader who done the same on issues party extremists(thats you) are against but the general non party public are for.

    Alex wants needs a public rammy with the CND brigade to show his steely determination to take the right decision.

    1. That coke is not good for you Niko and you might get busted in the Cayman Isles, that preferred Labour party holiday destination.

  12. As has already been pointed out to Peter Curran the SNP is a democratic political party and if the leadership want a debate and a vote what's the problem? Whatever choice the SNP make it will not mean an independent Scotland follows that policy. Anyone who believes that an SNP government having won an independence referendum will then have an unquestioned mandate to then negotiate whatever exit it desires from the UK is in loony tunes land. And even if that were true which other potential governing party wants to get rid of nuclear weapons much less exit NATO?
    So those who want a nuclear free or NATO free Scotland better join the SNP participate in the debate/vote and then vote Yes. Meantime stop giving ammunition to Unionist ar***oles like Cockers ammunition. And that btw is not suppressing debate!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Isn't that what I was trying to say?

      Now this is coursing down the veins of the SNP, let us hope it get's to the attention of the people who advocated it in the first place.

  13. Yes Conan but only up to a point. No one seems to want to accept that the SNP does not have a mandate to unilaterally negotiate the exit terms from the UK? And I believe that were Eck to say this and endorse the fact that independence does not mean a guaranteed SNP government much less a one party state the chances of winning the Yes vote would surely increase?

  14. Fourfolksache

    This is another bit I just do not get, why would anyone vote for people or a party that had spent the previous two years telling us that we could not run an independent country. The old too wee too stupid etc.

    The other thing about this is, if Scotland votes for a party that opposed independence, could that party then claim to have a mandate to reunite the UK?

  15. That's never happened in all the world Dubbie.

    But I'm sure there are unionist's thinking that is still an option.

    But it's a bit third division.

  16. So it's the leadership that's driving the debate, which is fine. If it was being driven from outwith the leadership would they be malcontents?

    Btw, 'you've nowhere else to go' is a real winner (but don't try this at home). Half of the electorate already chooses not to participate.

  17. Glad I don't have any conflicts over this one. Three propositions for you:

    1) use of the A-bomb on Japan saved more lives (including Japanese ones) than it cost

    2) if you were alive in the 1980s, then you are only alive today because of the existence of nuclear weapons

    3) in the future, increasing numbers of countries are inevitably going to acquire nuclear weapons, irrespective of what happens here. In some cases, this will be a neutral or even good thing; in other cases, action will have to be taken by outside powers to prevent such acquisition or destroy an existing capability.

    Welcome to the 21st century folks. "Kumbaya my Lord" is no longer on the play-list.

  18. Smee

    1) It did not have to be dropped on civilians to make the point, probably the Soviet invasion of Manchuria would have tipped the balance alone.

    2) That's your opinion. Or can you travel to alternate universes to do the research?

    3)If my grandchildren should be incinerated by some power mad bastard, I really wouldn't want the grandparents of his country to mourn theirs as well.

    Do you think that a terrorist nuclear attack should be answered by an all out attack on Iran/Saudi/Afghanistan etcetera, etcetera?

    Did our possession of nukes stop Argentina invading the Falklands?

  19. Conan

    Did our possession of nukes stop Argentina invading the Falklands?

    Er! no but it did stop them invading London....
    he he snigger!!

  20. CTL

    If you haven't read Richard Frank's "Downfall" then do so. Otherwise you aren't really in a position to debate.

    General Anami, Army Minister: "Even though we may have to eat grass, swallow dirt, and lie in the fields, we shall fight on to the bitter end, ever firm in our faith that we shall find life in death"

    Admiral Onishi, Navy Minister: "Let us formulate a plan for certain victory, obtain the Emperor's sanction, and throw ourselves into bringing the plans to realization. If we are prepared to sacrifice 20,000,000 Japanese lives in a special effort, victory will be ours!"

    Both quotes are from AFTER BOTH A-bombs, and the Russian invasion of Manchuria.

    1. Only AFTER Soviet invasion of Manchukuo AND two buckets of instant sunshine...

  21. sm75

    quite right all those Generals making wild delusional threats they could not possibly carry out.

    I for one am glad we did the right thing and incinerated to crisps all those innocent civilians who didn't pose any danger to us

    But then i am a wee bit mental

  22. Yeah, for once I agree with Niko, feck off, Smee, if it came to the real thing you'd run a fecking mile. I know I would have done if I'd had the legs. I fecking hate heroes behind key-boards and I'm trying to be polite here as it's Conan's blog..

    1. I am delighted by your courage at telling me to "feck off" from your keyboard...

    2. Aye, let's all meet up (when Hibs are playing at home for Brownlie)

      In a hostelry in Reekie...

      If anything it would be fun.

  23. Once more for Smee.


  24. I got a number from elsewhere suggesting that the total number of deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was roughly equal to the number of Chinese civilian deaths being inflicted by the Japanese Army every three weeks.

    Why do you hate Chinese people so much?

    1. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

    2. "We’re at war with Japan. We were attacked by Japan. Do you want to kill Japanese, or would you rather have Americans killed? "

      "There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders. "

      "I have tried at all times to slaughter as few civilians as possible. "

  25. Let me put this argument another way.

    The mafia uses nuclear weapons, so our scruples prevent us from joining them. However if they use nukes, but say that we can be 'made men' and we never actually have to have nukes ourselves, then membership of the mafia becomes morally acceptable. Weird stuff, but it's directly analagous to the case that Angus Robertson wishes to make, except that NATO is vastly more destructive than the mafia. You would have to switch off a terribly large number of moral circuits to agree with Angus on this, or know sweet fuck all about what's going on in the world.

    Just as it is clear that membership of the mafia is not acceptable, I would have hoped that membership of NATO was a yet more outrageous proposal, and it has bugger all to do with nukes. NATO, like the mafia, is a criminal organisation. It kills, rapes, robs and desertifies in pursuit of purely fiscal objectives -NATO is just the mafia writ large. They don't care about the people they kill, and they don't even care about the people they send to kill them.

    I can't believe that this debate is possible. It is just so depressing.

    1. "NATO, like the mafia, is a criminal organisation. It kills, rapes, robs and desertifies in pursuit of purely fiscal objectives"

      Ah, this must be some use of the word "argument" with which I was not previously familiar.

    2. "Ah, this must be some use of the word "argument" with which I was not previously familiar."


  26. smee,

    Your remarks are as crass as that of Highland Mighty when he claimed re Iraq "Should I be concerned if thousands of innocents are killed?" I wonder if the remarks are connected?

  27. Sean,

    Can we make it upstairs in the Guildford so I can drop some 'instant sunshine' on Smee's head? I'll send Spook an invitation.

    Incidentally I've just seen a picture of the Group "Fear Factory" - you really are a man of many talents.

  28. It is now the 12th and we are all- of course - bathing in the after glow of a successful , over priced London Olympics.
    I have smiled and cheered like many , I do enjoy seeing healthy youth display its talent and muscle no matter from whence they hail.
    I do not ,however subscribe to the drivel in the press that this is a show of union unity and how we should all gratefully tug forelocks at being " allowed " to participate.
    I had expected our Conan to have moved his blog on to a lampooning of both Davidson and the BBBBC,but then I am greedy for his inspired humour.
    'mon Conan!

  29. The logical conclusion for all those who are using the Team GB issue for the referendum debate should maybe reflect on whether they want it to go to its natural conclusion - the scrapping of the home nations football and rugby teams.

    The Scottish Tory party is not that stupid (I think) to advocate something like that------

    (Saw a letter in The Times on Friday from a London reader demanding this should be brought around)

  30. I'm inclined to take the view that Dubbieside proposes.

    Let's get independence first.

    The SNP stance may not be of any import after independence. Labour seems to be for nuclear, for wmds and for war, if the London based party is anything to go by.

    There may be changes here after 2014, who can tell, but if Labour is the first post independence government and retains its centre-right leanings taken from London, Scotland will remain in NATO and will have WMDs.

    I too think that the minimum price was cack-handed, but when adults can't go out of the house at the weekend for fear of drunks, and when young teenagers are presenting with symptoms of liver damage, and you come across kids of around 12, drunk in the park, something has to be done.

    Yes, there are many other things that we could do, but many of them would involve spending money we don't have, and are not allowed to raise. For example vastly increased policing of pubs and off-licences, and implementation of existing legislation, as proposed by the Tories might be a good start, but we can't afford the manpower.

    Once again, when we can control all our legislation and taxation policies, perhaps we will find a better way of controlling what is undoubtedly a problem. Maybe making people a little less miserable would be a start.