The End of WWII and Nukes Today

The goal for our world is to ensure that
another Hiroshima (left) or Nagasaki (right) never happens again.
Image Credit: George R. Caron and Charles Levy (Public Domain) /
Combination by Binksternet via Wikimedia Commons cc

     Seventy years ago, World War II came to an end with the surrender of Japan, though it was not until September 2nd when the formal documents of surrender were signed aboard the USS Missouri.

     For many – particularly in Europe – it was the end of a nearly six year long ordeal that had begun with the invasion of Poland by Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany on September 1, 1939. In the Pacific, the conflict had its roots in the 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria in China, while for the United States, the war was brought on by the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan on December 7, 1941.

     But regardless of when hostilities started for different parts of the world, when Japan’s surrender was announced, everyone knew that it was all over, and that there was peace once again. The day was marked with euphoric and rapturous celebration, with enormous crowds gathered in New York – where thousands jammed Times Square;London – where the future Queen Elizabeth and her sister joined the masses around Buckingham Palace and Piccadilly Square; Paris – where the people celebrated their liberation from the Nazi regime, and in so many other places (big and small) throughout the world.

     It became known as Victory over Japan (VJ) Day and seventy years later, it remains one of the most iconic and significant moments in history, and the commemorations have rightly honored the fallen who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the world in which we live today. They have also honored the people who made it back home to tell their stories – people whose numbers are dwindling day by day. They have also provided a period of reflection on the war and what it means for us today going forward.

     This particularly includes the way in which the war was ended, for the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force Japan into an unconditional surrender was one of the most controversial aspects of war, which has been hotly debated ad nausuem since they were dropped and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

     Was it necessary? Was there another way to end the war? Were the casualties worth it? Would the world have been safer if not for nuclear weapons?

     I will not discuss these in detail here as they go beyond the scope of this post. However, it should be noted that the dropping of the bombs by the United States likely resulted in a more swift end to the war than had the Allies been forced to resort to other measures, such as a full scale invasion of the Japanese islands, which would have dwarfed the Allied effort on D-Day the year before.

     Mercifully, these were the first and last times that nuclear weapons had been used for warfare in our history. Their immediate destructive power, combined with the long-term health effects, have arguably helped to ensure that there has not been a global conflict on the scale of the Second World War, because everyone knows that such a conflict will likely involve nuclear weapons, which were eventually obtained by the Soviets and other major world powers soon after.

     But it was not just the proliferation of nuclear weapons that became an issue as more countries obtained them; it was also the fact that they were becoming increasingly powerful – like the hydrogen bomb – so that multiple Nagasaki’s could be contained within only one of them. Worse still were the dizzying number of weapons as the Western powers lead by the United States and the Communist powers lead by the USSR gathered vast stockpiles, so that by 1960, there were enough of them to destroy the entire world six times over.

     It was a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (with the appropriately acronym M.A.D.), and Japan’s emperor, Hirohito, alluded to this in his radio address to his people announcing the surrender of the Japanese Empire, when he talked of a “new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage” which would not only destroy Japan, but also “lead to the total extinction of human civilization.”

     Not only was this arms race mad, but it was also terribly expensive – with the cost of building and maintaining these weapons and their massive support systems eating deep into national budgets. At some point, people began asking: “why do we have all these mass-destruction devices”? It became increasingly apparent that there were too many of them and – quite sensibly – that it would be virtually impossible to use all of them anyway.

     And so began the long and gradual draw down of these gravely dangerous weapons. From a high of nearly 70,000 active warheads in the mid-1980’s, as of last year, there were only around 4,000 active and 6,000 inactive warheads – making for a total of just over 10,000 nuclear warheads in the world – with the United States and Russia owning the lions share of these, and in time, it is hoped that the numbers will decline still further.

     For its part, the United Kingdom possesses 225 of these weapons, of which 160 are currently active, and the country exercises its capability in a sea-based capacity via the Trident program of nuclear submarines operated by the Royal Navy based at Faslane along Gare Loch near the River Clyde – about 30 miles from Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city.

     Nuclear weapons in general have been contentious for several decades ever since the development of the Polaris system in the Holy Loch in the 1960’s, and has particularly been used by the SNP as a means to advance their goal of breaking up Britain. Throughout the referendum campaign last year, the pro-independence campaign and its supporters were peddling the idea that with independence, Scotland could get rid of Trident (while still being part of NATO, a nuclear-tipped alliance) and save billions of pounds to be used for purposes such as health and education.

     Scotland voted to keep the Union together, but the SNP has been consistent in their opposition to Trident – with members referring to it as “obscene” and an example of “Wastemonster” spending money on the wrong priorities. Still others object to the Trident submarines and warheads being based in Scotland, and believe that they were placed there so as to be far away from England and London in particular. A common refrain is: “If Westminster likes Trident so much, why don’t they place them along the River Thames?”

Her Majesty's Naval Base, Clyde (HMNB Clyde) at Faslane.
Image Credit: Public Domain

     In truth, Trident’s location has more to do with strategic ability more than anything, for Faslane and the area along the lower Clyde is the best deep-water harbor in Britain facing the Atlantic and is well-suited for the submarines to slip in and out of the Atlantic with a lower possibility of being detected. This has nothing to do with treating Scotland unfairly or putting Scotland in a position to be bombed so that London can be spared, for the reality is that given the UK’s size, a modern nuclear weapon – with long-term health effects included – could wipe out much of the country, including the “protected” capital city, so it matters not where Trident is located in this regard. However, it does matter that it is placed in a location that gives the Royal Navy the best strategic advantage, and that location just happens to be Faslane.

     Furthermore, the much-touted £100 billion cost for the new generation of Trident is to be spread over 30 years, and during that time, a lot of that money will be going to maintenance and paying the employee's – many of them with specialized engineering skills – who earn their keep at Faslane. Over the course of Trident’s lifetime, this will result in tens of billions of pounds being injected into Scotland’s economy, and in particular, the local economy around Faslane as money goes into paying for food, housing, mortgages, transportation, clothing, and other needs and desires. Some of the money is paid toward taxes and eventually finds its way into the coffers of the Scottish Government to fund the activities under its control.

     So when the SNP talks about opposing Trident, they are effectively talking about opposing a critical piece of the economy, and with no concrete plan on what to do with the workers who have been trained in this area.

     Of course, there are some people who will oppose nuclear weapons and Trident in particular no matter what. They point to the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and believe that such weapons – with their destructive potential – have no place in the world at all, and need to be abolished. The SNP in particular wants Britain to unilaterally disarm.

     This is a noble goal, and I for one would love to live in a world without nukes or any weapons of mass destruction. However, unilateral disarmament is unhelpful because there will still be others with the weapons, and so long as that’s the case, Britain should hold on to Trident. It’s not about what Britain can do with the weapons, but rather about the very existence of the weapons and the technology. This sentiment was expressed when General Omar Bradley discussed developing the H-bomb with President Harry S. Truman, and said that he could conceive of no military objectives that could be achieved with it, except for utter death, ruin, and desolation. He further said that these were not weapons, but “instruments of genocide.” However, he advised Truman to go ahead with the bomb because “for the other side to have it, and for us not to have it, would be intolerable.”

     It may seem paradoxical, but the whole point of having the nukes is to prevent from having to use them (and to prevent others from using them against you), which is why it is called a “deterrent” and why there is an argument that full scale global wars have been prevented since 1945 because of this. However, even if nuclear weapons were abolished from the face of the Earth, the technology and know-how will remain, and you can bet that somebody somewhere will want to use these at some point (unless you were to eliminate all nuclear physicists and burn every piece of written reference to nuclear technology).

     The best that we can do is to promote multi-lateral disarmament among all countries that have nuclear weapons, and to prevent other countries from obtaining them altogether. As has been mentioned above, there has already been a massive amount of disarmament in the last thirty years since the height of the Cold War. Perhaps by the end of the 30 year period for the new generation of Trident, the number of warheads will be reduced further to the point that Britain may no longer need a deterrent, or if it does, then it may be a scaled-down and less costly one. The same idea applies to the US, Russia, France, China, and other nuclear powers, so that the threat of nuclear conflict is curbed and so that scarce resources can be put to other uses.

     In the end, no one likes nuclear weapons. I repeat, no one, and I look forward to a world without them. Indeed, perhaps it would be nice to go back in time and prevent their creation. However, we must live with the reality that they are with us, and we have to do our best to ensure that that are never used again for any purpose.

     For Britain itself, the country’s real influence may be more thoroughly expressed through its soft power, though it should always keep its hands close to its tools of hard power – both conventional and unconventional – in case they should ever be needed. In other words, “speak softly, but carry a big stick.”

     A recent example is the recent nuclear deal with Iran, which among other things, proposes to open Iran up to trade with Western powers (including Britain, which helped to negotiate the deal) in the hope that this trade will eventually lift the Iranian economy, foster better relations, and therefore make Iran less likely to pursue nuclear weapons in the first place, and also make nuclear war in general less likely.

     If Iran reneges and fails to hold up its end, then Britain and the other powers may have to reach for the “hard power” options, including the use of nuclear weapons, in order to deal with Iran. If however, the deal succeeds, this will be good for Iran, good for Britain, and good for the world, so that hopefully the horrific events 70 years ago remain unique in the long view of human history and so that a sustained peace can be achieved.

Overdue Scrutiny

     Among the unfortunate aspects about Scotland in recent years has been the apparent stasis in which the country finds itself regarding the politics of the constitution in general, and the fixation on the issue of independence in particular, as opposed to day-to-day issues such as education and health, which are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, which is controlled by the SNP – now in its ninth year in government since coming to power in 2007.

     Since that time, the political spectrum in Scotland has changed dramatically from the traditional Left-Right battles between Labour, the Conservatives, and Liberal Democrats to the new pro-Union and pro-separatist clashes between the SNP and almost everybody else. Thanks to the referendum last year and the residual energies emanating from it, politics in Scotland has become defined by whether you support maintaining the United Kingdom or support Scotland breaking away and ending the Union.

     Thus far, the SNP has been the only party to benefit from this political shift, with its clarion call of “standing up for Scotland” and all but campaigning on the idea that independence will solve all the ills facing Scotland, which is a fanciful notion, but one in which its members and media acolytes believe. Further, as Alex Massie pointed out in The Times, SNP members not only believe that “everything [will] bloom after independence”, but that “it is unreasonable to expect anything to bloom before independence.” One Nationalist with whom I have come in contact personified this thinking when he basically said that Scotland could not go back to Left-Right politics until independence was achieved.

     This somewhat narcissistic comment gives a window into the thinking of many a Nationalist: come what may, nothing gets in the way of the cause of Scottish independence, which effectively means that for some people, critical matters such as education and health are of little relevance in the grand scheme of achieving their ultimate goal. It also means – to the frustration of the opposition parties – that the SNP seems to get a pass on its record as a party of government, despite legitimate criticisms regarding A&E waiting times, mortality rates being 19% higher than in Northeast England, over a third of S2 students not attaining expected numeracy levels, and several ongoing issues with the newly centralized police force which was created by the SNP government.

     Time and time again, the opposition parties at Holyrood – the Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats – have pointed out these deficiencies in the SNP’s record, which under normal circumstances, should see the SNP paying a price at the polls. As of yet however, nothing has stuck as the SNP has become a Telfon party which has propagated the idea that Holyrood needs “more powers” on top of what it already has, as well as the powers already coming into force via the 2012 Scotland Act, and the powers that are on the way via the Scotland Bill currently going through the political processes.

     Eventually, it wants complete separation from the rest of the UK, but until such time, is perfectly content with blaming others for the performance (or lack thereof) of the government under its watch for the past eight years. After all they say, Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom and therefore not in charge of its destiny, and if it’s not in charge of its destiny, then of course, they will continue to lay blame at the UK Government for anything that goes wrong in Scotland (but claim credit for what goes right in Scotland), despite the UK Government not having any direct influence on Scottish policy in several areas.

     However, the blame game is not just reserved toward the UK Government and Parliament at Westminster; it is also used against individuals such as oil baron Algy Cluff, who asked Scottish Government ministers if their moratorium on hydraulic fracturing (“fracking” for short) applied to his plans to extract coal gas from underneath the Firth of Forth and then warned of the “potentially devastating” consequences of the moratorium on his company’s plans for investment in Scotland (to the tune of £250 million). As told by Massie in his column, both the Energy Minister Fergus Ewing and Communities Minister Alex Neil gave Cluff their blessing on the grounds that coal gasification is not the same as fracking. This led to a vilification of Cluff by SNP MP’s and members who accused him of “guilt-tripping” the ministers involved, but apparently sparing criticism against the ministers themselves for making the decision.

     This is but only one instance of the SNP getting a pass from its own members even when it goes against their wishes, but it also shows how the SNP – far from being a party led by committed idealists, come what may – is actually pragmatic when it comes to certain things, such as clearing away a potential obstacle for Cluff to invest in Scotland and therefore create jobs. Indeed, the reason why the SNP came to power was because it positioned itself as a moderate party that would provide competent and pragmatic administration, which Scotland’s middle classes would find acceptable. It talked less about independence and more about bread-and-butter issues facing people every day, and it gained trust along the way, especially as the other (UK-wide) parties lost trust.

     This was especially true of the Labour Party, which dominated Scottish politics before the rise of the SNP, and which was the primary casualty of the SNP’s march to having 56 of Scotland’s 59 MP’s during the General Election in May. A common refrain from some former Labour voters is that the party (despite winning three successive elections and keeping the Tories out of government for 13 years) longer represented them, had abandoned its left-wing principles, became Tory-lite under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and worse – had stood “shoulder-to-shoulder” with the Tories as part of the Better Together campaign to save the Union. Labour in short, had left them, not the other way around. In its place came the SNP, which claimed that it was the true alternative to both the Tories and Labour – offering up a bold anti-austerity platform against the Tories which Labour had failed to make. Not only that, but the SNP was said to be committed to preserving and expanding the welfare state Labour had largely created, against privatization, for increased government spending, and a more robust and activist government.

     The SNP in short, was the bolder and more idealistic version of what Labour was supposed to be, which stood for socialism/social democracy and did not compromise itself for the sake of power, or even it seems, political or economic circumstances.

     But just last week, it was revealed by The Guardian that the Scottish Government was turning toward more (not less) private financing and private control of several high-profile capital projects, including a bypass around Aberdeen, because it had run afoul of EU rules which are designed to measure public spending and prohibit governments from using “private finance and private contracts to avoid putting major public assets on their national accounts, potentially as a backdoor route to cutting government liabilities.” Based on the rules coming from the EU’s statistics agency Eurostat, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) classified a bypass road around Aberdeen – the biggest project at £1.5 billion – as a publicly owned and controlled project ‘due to the Scottish government’s share in the economic rewards.’

     As a result according to The Guardian, Finance Secretary John Swinney was forced to seek “a £300m contingency loan from the UK Treasury and set aside £150m of Scottish government money to cover Holyrood’s potential liabilities until the [Aberdeen] project is moved off the public books”, as well as to launch a review of his government’s overall private financing scheme, known as the Non-Profit Distribution (NDP) model, which allows private contractors to fund large-scale capital projects, but also allows Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) – a public corporation of the Scottish Government – to cap private sector profits and feature lower fixed interest rates. But with the ONS ruling, along with its determination that Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) companies set up by SFT to run and control these projects are not private entities, the “new model will increase overall costs and public-sector debt, and increase private-sector control of the schemes for the lifetime of every project, which can last for 32 years or more.”

     Altogether, this was an embarrassing moment for the SNP – not only because its funding scheme is in tatters for running afoul of EU rules to suit its political interests (i.e., being able to spend more without going to the taxpayer or taking on debt) – but also because it now finds itself actually turning to more private financing and control of big projects – the very thing it had criticized previous Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition governments of doing at Holyrood.

     However, I can imagine that the SNP will simply say that this is just another example of Westminster failing to stand up for Scotland’s interests (never minding the fact that the ONS ruling has similar implications for UK Government projects throughout the country). In this case, it would be Scotland’s interests with regard to the EU (because these are EU rules, after all), the organization which the SNP claims Scots embrace more lovingly than the rest of the UK – so much so, that they have threatened to use the potential withdrawal of the UK from the EU without a majority of Scots as a wedge issue to create an excuse for holding another referendum.

     Meanwhile, many of their supporters likely won’t protest for much of the same reason – Westminster’s fault, not Holyrood’s – as well as for the reason that they probably believe that this is a distraction from their foremost agenda: securing independence. After all, this is a life-long cause for some people, and the cause justifies almost anything, which runs counter to the idea of the SNP being a progressive party of deeply-held left-wing social and economic principles, and shows itself to be like any other party which will make necessary sacrifices to achieve its aims. The membership will forgive the party, so long as they are on the road to independence.

     Indeed, some have become so converted to the cause that they are now upset at the idea that the SNP has to focus (or at least, is seen to be focused) on things other than independence, like governing at Holyrood and having its 56 MP’s at Westminster concentrating on UK-wide matters, especially when they effect Scotland. Former SNP member Delia Forrest told Buzzfeed that she decided not to renew her membership after the party broke its stance on voting on English fox hunting. She complained that it had become a “mainstream UK party even apparently recruiting English memberships”, had too many career politicians, and was “playing a game of one-upmanship with David Cameron and neglecting independence.” For her and others, the SNP is not pro-independence enough, and another person believed that if Nicola Sturgeon fails to offer another referendum on independence in the party’s manifesto going into the Holyrood elections next year, thousands will desert the party and Sturgeon risks splitting the SNP and overall independence movement.

     The reality however – much as it may prove uncomfortable for some people – is that while the SNP may be popular, its landmark policy and raison d’etre is not, or at least not popular enough for Sturgeon to call for a second referendum on it with the realistic expectation that the SNP will win next time around. Most polling since the referendum (providing it can be trusted) has shown either a pro-Union majority or a tie, and with those odds, it is unlikely that Sturgeon will call for another referendum so soon after the last one, which was held less than a year ago. Such a move may prove to be reckless and if the Union wins out in a second referendum within the next five years, it may also prove truly fatal for the independence cause for a generation at least.

     Becoming aggressively fixated on independence also risks taking the SNP back to the days when it was a fringe single-issue organization, not a legitimate party of government, and the leadership of the SNP knows that this will likely lose them votes in Middle Scotland. 

     For now though – whether on coal gasification, the mess of private funding for public projects, or the issue of another referendum – the SNP has thus far proven remarkably effective in keeping its members in line, from MP’s on down. “Internal dissent” claims Massie, “is all but non-existent because dissent might compromise the quest for independence.”

     It is for this same reason that if left-wing MP Jeremy Corbyn is elected to succeed Ed Miliband as leader of the Labour Party, Kenny Farquharson believes that the SNP – having made a career of excoriating Labour for “abandoning” its left-wing and progressive principles – will simply change the narrative to say that Labour is unelectable as a legitimate party of government throughout the United Kingdom. Forget all the rhetoric about “Red Tories” and Labour failing to take a progressive and anti-austerity stance because this would not likely apply under a Corbyn leadership. Instead, they will raise the prospect of perpetual Tory government from Downing Street beyond 2020, and this may prove to be too much to bear for some Scottish Labour voters, who will be greatly seduced into believing that the only way to get away from the wicked Tories is independence.

     It would certainly takes some chutzpah for the SNP to basically forsake and deride a “truly” left-wing Labour Party as having no chance of getting into Downing Street, so as to further their own political ends. But as Massie points out, this is a party that has proven its ability to shape-shift – abandoning inconvenient rhetoric or policies – “without embarrassment once they cease to be the best available means of advancing independence.”

     This is the party that once advocated dropping corporate taxes to encourage business investment to create jobs and spur economic growth, and therefore result in more tax revenue to fund public services – a very “Blairite” idea which they only threw out in time for the election in May to prevent Labour from outflanking it on the issue. This is also a party that laid out a prospectus for independence based on oil being $110+ per barrel, but now has gone all but silent on oil because of the recent collapse in prices. And of course, this is the party that has U-turned on the once in a lifetime, once in a generation referendum.

     It is therefore no wonder that Massie refers to the SNP as a faith-based organization, for it seems that nothing will dent the enthusiasm for the SNP amongst its loyal supporters or the wider electorate, who seem to be prepared to give them a third term in government, despite its less-than-stellar record as a governing party.

     Perhaps there is an impulse on the part of the electorate that says: “Well, we know the SNP aren’t great, but at least they’re better than the other parties and stand up for Scotland.” On this point, there is nothing wrong with giving people and organizations the benefit of the doubt, for it is a natural human impulse to do so, and the SNP’s emotive rhetoric allows for such feelings.

     However, with the stakes being so high for everyone – whether in Scotland or elsewhere throughout Britain – it is imperative that the SNP be challenged on its record of the past eight years, and not be allowed to get away with the standard line of, “well, if only we had powers over (fill in the blank)” or “only with independence can we (fill in the blank).” No, the SNP must be challenged on the basis of what it can do now and what it can do with the powers it will soon have at its disposal, and must face scrutiny for its proposals and policies. They cannot be assumed to be doing what’s best for Scotland, and must be taken to task on that assertion.

     For too long, the SNP has been allowed to run rings around everyone else. They have used issues such as health, education, and poverty as mere talking points for advancing their cause of independence and to beat down and condemn the pro-Union parties collectively as “Westminster” – as if to say that they aren’t really Scottish or don’t have Scotland’s interests at heart. They have accused those who disagree with them of “scaremongering” and “talking Scotland down”, and they have decided that the media is “biased” for having the audacity to ask difficult questions (sometimes aggressively) of the SNP.

     Along the way, they have claimed the mantle of being the national party of Scotland – almost synonymous with Scotland and the Scottish people, and they have arguably avoided, or have been immune to, the kind of scrutiny deserved by a party that has been in government since 2007. 

     The opposition parties need to step up their game in leveling their criticisms against the SNP and also come up with their own polices to present to the electorate. They should do all they can to focus attention on the bread-and-butter issues facing the people of Scotland and explain what they would do with the powers already available and the powers currently on the way to Holyrood. They must boldly tear down the facade of the SNP and explain how after almost nine years, the SNP has failed to improve critical areas of Scottish life, and that blaming Westminster will not do a thing to improve health outcomes, waiting times, reduce the achievement gap, increase educational attainment, or reduce poverty. Force them to not just bang on about poverty, but explain how they will tackle poverty and lift people out of it in the here and now. 

     Above this, the opposition pro-Union parties must develop a confident and compelling narrative of Scotland’s potential as part of the UK, and how they want what’s best for Scotland within the greater context of what’s best for the UK as a whole. These things need not be mutually exclusive, and on the constitution, all parties should commit themselves to holding a UK Constitutional Convention for a long-term governing settlement for the entire country, for the debate on constitutional issues have spread throughout the United Kingdom and have manifested in the folly of EVEL and other short-term political quick-fixes which will not sustain the Union.

     The opposition at Holyrood must explain that independence is not the answer to Scotland’s problems (which are not mutually exclusive to the problems faced by the UK as a whole), and do all they can to avoid discussion of a second referendum, which is nothing more than a distraction from the SNP’s record in government. If they are so trusted, that trust must be tested with greater and more skeptical scrutiny, and they cannot continue to get away with the dubious idea that Scotland has to wait for more powers or independence in order for things to get better. No, Scotland deserves better now, and can do better with the powers currently available – and soon to be available – to Holyrood.

     In short, the opposition parties must boldly head into next year’s elections with a determination to more efficiently and effectively scrutinize the SNP, take it to task on its assertions and rhetoric, and help to move the country forward from constitutional stagnation and the prospect of an economically damaging “neverendum”. Furthermore, the media needs to pay more critical attention to the SNP and to particular aspects of its policies, for in a state of affairs where one political party has become so dominant – and apparently so trusted – the media must perform its role in not so much being hostile for the sake of being hostile, but simply holding the powerful accountable, and the SNP is quite powerful these days as part of the establishment. The Guardian's aforementioned report on private financing of public projects is a good example of this, but more is needed.

     This will be a critical election which may prove to be consequential for the future of Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, and a serious challenge must be mounted against the SNP based on its eight year record in government. If the opposition parties do not do it, and if the media fails to step up on behalf of the electorate, who will?

Union on Edge

Home Nation flags of the United Kingdom.
(Image Credit: Setanta747 via Wikimedia Commons cc)

     In light of the recent row over fox hunting, there appears to be bubbling angst in England with regard to Scotland and its place in the United Kingdom, and they are not good for future of the country.

     Just before the SNP’s decision to have its 56 MP’s vote on the fox hunting legislation which only affects England and Wales (and breaking the party’s “principled” stance on not voting on such issues unless they were related to Scotland), Leo McKinstry of The Express was fuming over the prospect of Scottish First Minister and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon “bossing England” with her insistence on having a say in the crafting of English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) – a process which would see English (or English and Welsh) MP’s having a greater say, if not outright veto, on bills going through the British Parliament at Westminster that are applicable only to England (or England and Wales).

     He went on to claim that because of devolution, “English people are treated as second-class citizens in their own country” because Scottish MP’s still retain full voting rights at Westminster, resulting in a “gross constitutional injustice” (the West Lothian Question) in which Scottish MP’s have a say on all matters south of the Tweed, while MP’s from England and Wales have no reciprocating influence on matters that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood.

     McKinstry also banged on about the “huge funds that English taxpayers have to provide for Scotland”, and believes that Home Rule ought to be given to Scotland, along with Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA), and that England should have its own Parliament in the spirit of the Scottish Constitutional Convention’s declaration of “the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs.”

     On Sunday after David Cameron withdrew the government’s fox hunting legislation that appeared doomed to failure with the SNP’s announcement of voting against it, Simon Heffer wrote for The Telegraph in terms that were similar to McKinstry last week.

     He spoke of a “Scots insurgency” that if not stopped, would result is rising anger and resentment amongst the English, and believes that the original government plans for EVEL were too weak against the “insurgency” because while English MP’s can block amendments during the committee stage, MP’s from throughout the whole UK can vote on the final bill. This, he claims, “amounts to denying the English (and in some cases the Welsh) people democratic rights now enjoyed, at their expense, by the Scots”, with their “quasi-imperial right to interfere as they wish in English affairs while excluding English MPs from theirs.”

     Further, he wants to see a “federal parliament” in which the whole House of Commons sits and decides on issues that affect the whole UK – which he described as “defence policy, foreign policy, security policy, the national lottery, and possibly some parts of the Budget (depending on the extent to which fiscal policy is devolved to the Edinburgh parliament).” However, where issues have been devolved to the representative institutions in Edinburgh, Belfast, and Cardiff, they ought to be decided at Westminster only by the MP’s whose constituents are affected. This, he believes, will mean that “the English question is decisively solved, and the Scots are put on an even footing with everyone else.”

     Both of these opinion articles by McKinstry and Heffer are expressions of frustration by what they as an aggressive Scottish nationalism that is trying to break up the UK, but now has 56 MP’s in the Commons and is trying to “interfere” in the running of Britain, and in particular, England. The fox hunting issue as become just the most recent and highest profile case of the SNP making its mark known throughout the UK, and it has not – at least so far – gone down well with many voters in the rest of the UK.

     These frustrations are understandable, but I am concerned that these views may be indicative of a rise in English nationalism in response to the rise of the SNP and what some people see as the near-constant whining and complaining that seems to have enveloped vast swaths of Scotland, resulting in a culture of grievance and resentment against the rest of the UK and blaming it for Scotland’s problems.

     It is particularly concerning how Scots are increasingly being viewed as though they are foreigners in their own country – the United Kingdom. Simon Heffer’s use of the term “Scots insurgency” is an indication of this, for it appears to describe all Scots as though they are an alien force imposing their will on the rest of the UK. Perhaps he meant to say “SNP insurgency”, and if so, that would have been a more accurate term to describe the situation. However, the fact that he did not use that term speaks to the erroneous conflation of the SNP and Scotland, as if the two are one and the same, when in fact, they are not (though the SNP like perpetuating this myth).

     These days, there are times whenever I hear or see someone use the term “the Scots”, and it is becoming unfortunately synonymous with the SNP (both north and south of the Tweed) and used in a way almost as if to say that Scots are a problem – a troublesome annoyance who need to be dealt with, and this is reflected in Heffer’s piece, when he said of “the Scots”:

“They have also voted for a Nationalist government committed to separatism. They managed not to win the argument last September, and so remain part of the Union. However, they have chosen to conduct their membership of the Union by means of aggression and constitutional offensiveness, like the bullies they were during the referendum campaign, and like the sore losers they have been ever since.”

     At some level, it is not clear if and where he is making a distinction between all Scots and the SNP, but it certainly comes off as describing all Scots as having “chosen to conduct their membership of the Union by means of aggression and constitutional offensiveness.”

     However, the fact remains that despite the SNP winning 56 out of 59 Scottish seats in the Commons, half of Scotland did not vote for it (which makes a case for some sort of proportional representation), and there are many Scots who are just as fed up with the SNP and their antics as people in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Not all Scots approve of the SNP and their separatist agenda, and just wish that the SNP would stop with the constitutional obsessions, saber-rattling, and constant displays of grievance, while there are real issues in Scotland that need addressing, which the SNP can do something about (without banging on for more powers).

     Nevertheless, there are some voices that believe having Scots being full participants of parliamentary processes is tantamount to some form undemocratic tyranny, or in McKinstry’s words, a “gross constitutional injustice” which allows for Nicola Sturgeon to claim a “self-appointed role of trying to dictate how Britain (and particularly England) should be governed.”

     Such emotive language is almost in line with the language used by some people in Scotland to argue for devolution in the 1990's and separation in 2014, with the talk of “democratic deficits” and the English imposing their will on Scotland, with laws passed by the British Parliament with a majority of English MP’s, though not Scottish MP’s, who have – as always since the beginning of the Union – full parliamentary representation like everyone else.

     All this talk of whether English MP’s voted for this, or Scottish MP’s voted for that is irrelevant to the fact that the Palace of Westminster houses the British Parliament, the representative body of all of the people throughout the United Kingdom from Shetland to Land’s End, and whatever is decided by those MP’s is the result of elections by the people throughout the land, and – quite often – the votes break down based on party affiliation, and not on the basis of which part of the UK from which the MP’s came.

     Devolution created an imbalance, but pushing for EVEL creates another imbalance at the heart of British governance by which the MP’s from certain parts of the UK are excluded from some parliamentary processes and votes simply because of their location.

     Yes, there needs to be solution to the West Lothian Question, but there needs to be another way than EVEL. A person who truly believes in the Union – the very concept of Britain, and doesn’t view it in purely transactional terms – would strain every sinew to find and promote a solution to the West Lothian Question without resorting to the crudity of the short-term political – not long-term constitutional – solution of EVEL and telling non-English MP’s when they can and cannot participate in the parliamentary processes and votes at Westminster.

     A more coherent and proper solution will be to create new legislative institutions in England, just as has been done in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales.

     There could be a separate English Parliament, but there is a legitimate concern that it would rival the UK Parliament and that an English First Minister would be as powerful, if not more powerful than a British Prime Minister. Such an arraignment would prove detrimental to the foundations of the Union, whose whole point was to bring the peoples of Britain together into one country – a stronger one which would allow for the merging and sharing of resources, talents, and energies for the benefit and general welfare of all.

     This is why there must be an end to the ad hoc political processes that have brought us to this point, and it is time instead for a constitutional convention for all of the United Kingdom, in order to forge a lasting settlement that everyone can find acceptable, if not entirely satisfactory – in the tradition of the signers of the US Constitution in 1787, all of whom were not 100% happy with the document they had created during the heated constitutional convention that year, but nevertheless came to the conclusion that they could not come to an agreement on something better.

     Such a process, I hope, will retain Westminster as the sovereign body that is representative of the people throughout the entire UK at all times, while confirming or creating new bodies that take on powers similar to those of US or Australian states, Canadian provinces, or the German Länder.

     The outcome would mean that Westminster becomes a true representative federal parliament in an overall federal system, unlike the bastardized form of federalism (EVEL) which was called for by Simon Heffer, with Scottish MP’s active for some things at Westminster, but not others (which is just as bad as the bastardized federalism advocated by some people in the SNP and their supporters).

     Indeed, it appears that some people want easy short-term political answers, rather than hard long-term constitutional solutions befitting the complex nature of the UK. The honest truth is that at this point, there are no easy answers, but a convention where a diverse range of views can lead to a solution to the issues of British governance (including the West Lothian Question) is preferable to just about everything else.

     The United Kingdom does need constitutional convulsions, and have one thing one day, and another thing the next. Piecemeal constitutional tinkering must be replaced by a singular effort to establish a reformed constitutional order (out of the chaos and passions of recent years) that is beneficial to all.

     And if the SNP really wants to foster better relations with the people of the rest of the United Kingdom – as they claim they wish to do by focusing on affairs south of the Tweed – it would participate at such a convention and have the interests of the rest of the UK in mind while also being focused on Scotland, as opposed to the saber-rattling and complaining which will only hasten the introduction of EVEL.

     But despite their protestations about EVEL (which a new study says will be detrimental to Scotland), some will actually welcome it, since they can complain about Westminster treating Scottish MP’s as second-class citizens. They would certainly like to portray it that way, and this will probably give Nicola Sturgeon the “material change” necessary to call for another referendum.

     The issue therefore, is not about Scots, but about the SNP, and instead of biting on the SNP’s bait and dropping the nuke that is EVEL, people such as Heffer, McKinstry, and several others should call for convention in the hope settling these constitutional matters.

     But aside from that, there needs to be a better and more fundamental understanding between everyone throughout the UK. Eye-grabbing headlines and emotive articles from some newspapers, as well as inflammatory speeches and comments don’t help the cause of the Union; rather, they inflame and harden attitudes against it by pitting the people of Britain against each other, such as referring to Scots as “subsidy junkies” and England being portrayed as land of greedy neo-liberal (Thatcher-loving) sociopaths.

     To be quite frank, there needs to be a cooling down of emotions and rhetoric, and with the end of the referendum, I believed that this would happen. Unfortunately, this did not occur, and it sometimes feel as though one errant, insensitive, or ill-thought out comment or action will blow up the Union and end Britain as we know it. (Indeed, when writing my blog posts, I feel as though I have to keep various sensitivities in mind.)

     Instead of coming to the inaccurate conclusion that Scots may have had a change of heart since last September, and dismissing the SNP and its 56 MP’s as a Scottish problem that neither the “English or the Government should be cowed by” as Simon Heffer says, columnists, journalists, politicians, and ordinary people from throughout the UK should actually get out and spend time in Scotland – perhaps on and off for several weeks or months, if not longer.

     They should go to the leafy areas of East Lothian and Renfrewshire, as well as the housing estates in Glasgow and Dundee. Spend time in the Borders and Highlands, as well as the island communities. They should not see Scots as an alien and foreign people, but as their fellow British citizens who have many of the same concerns, fears, anxieties, and aspirations as they do. The problems that they face are the same ones faced by people throughout the UK as a whole, and it would be productive to actually meet with them in their homes and communities, and get to understand and know them better – beyond the preconceived notions and unhelpful stereotypes perpetuated by some corners of the media.

     David Cameron, as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in particular needs to spend more time in the country of his ancestry, as well as the new Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron and whoever will emerge from the Labour leadership election to replace Ed Miliband.

     They should not go up there for one-day stops to “show the flag”, but stay there for days at a time, and become more engaged and focused on what’s going in Scotland, especially with regard to matters that affect the UK as a whole. They should hold meetings in Scotland, and find that there are still volumes of Scots who are supportive of the Union, who do not want to feel like foreigners, and who will appreciate the reaching out by their fellow British citizens from the Prime Minister on down.

     Such people – some of whom are my friends – are trying cope with a deeply divided society, and they need support, especially from their fellow Brits. They want their voices to be heard above and apart from the SNP noise machine, and do not wish to be viewed as troublesome and annoying nuisances, but as beloved countrymen and women.

     But of course, reaching out to those who voted Yes in 2014 and the SNP in 2015 will also be instrumental attempting to lowering the political temperature and smoothing relations throughout the UK and Scotland itself. David Cameron in particular may not be particularly liked in Scotland, but him being there for extended periods of time, meeting people, immersing himself into life up there (and possibly take some heat) – whilst still attending to his duties as Prime Minister – will at least be respected by many Scots.

     Meanwhile, the SNP plans on getting out more into the rest of UK and expanding their scope to matters in places such as Leeds and Manchester, in the hope of championing for – among other things – increased transport links between Scotland and the North of England, as well as increased economic investment, which will be beneficial to Scotland. If this is what they intend to do, it is indeed high time for UK political leaders to spend more time up in Scotland for similar reasons of outreach and fostering better relations.

     This outreach in both directions may even have the effect of fostering better feelings toward maintaining the Union, and rediscovering a common sense of Britishness. This may not be what the SNP wants, but it is certainly a possibility if they are good on their word of taking a more keen interest in matters that affect their fellow citizens in the UK outside of Scotland, which will require them to climb down a bit from their sanctimonious rhetoric about “standing up for Scotland” – as if to say that generations of MP’s from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives didn’t do so, while also working with their colleagues in the rest of the UK and not working toward dissolving the Union.

     Indeed, there is a conceit about the SNP – a smugness, self-satisfaction, and arrogance that uses emotion and a sense of moral superiority that is used in elections and the recent referendum to beat down its opponents, especially pro-Union ones. That conceit has become more apparent following the row over fox hunting, and even some pro-SNP figures are starting to realize it as the party preaches from a moral high ground without actually following up with substantial action – especially at Holyrood, where the SNP has held the reins of government for eight years, and there are real substantive issues on health, education, and policing which need urgent addressing.

     And for all of their preaching on social justice, they are certainly not taking or proposing the sort of radical action (i.e., substantial tax increases) that could scare off the middle class voters that the SNP – like all other parties – needs for victory. In the end, the only real aim they have is independence.

     Will they really be willing to put their money where their mouth is, and actually constructively engage with people in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland – knowing full well that this may prove beneficial to the existence of the Union? Only time will tell. Perhaps greater cross-border interactions and mixing people up throughout the UK to break down preconceived notions about one another can lead to a better and greater understanding between them.

     If nothing else, the rhetoric being used in the current political discourse – with talk of “insurgencies”, “junkies”, and “injustices” – needs to be toned down for everyone's sake.