Mike Small (Fife, Bella Caledonia): I recently engaged Angus Macleod, Scottish Political Editor of the Times about why they still referred to the "Scottish Executive" when no such body existed. Nobody, not the Tories, not even the British Government, refer to the SNP administration as anything other than "the Scottish Government." In a give-away line that anarchists would love he explained: "The reason why the term Government might not be appropriate is that the devolved body does not possess all the powers of a government e.g. declaring war (I'm not being entirely flippant - that is a government's defining responsibility)."
Alex Salmond claimed last week that Britain's involvement in the war in Iraq was "the most disastrous foreign policy decision of recent times." He should put his convictions to the test. Scotland, with 8% of the UK population but 11% of the UK war dead in Iraq is following an ancient tradition of disproportionate representation in the British Armed Forces. It's time for us to pull our troops out.<!--more-->
On the fifth anniversary of the US-led invasion, Mr Salmond told BBC Scotland: "I don't believe, incidentally, the views of the Scots squaddies are any different from the Scots population. They do their job because they are professionals and they do it bravely and completely." He then said: "They get kicked in the teeth when they are in Iraq by their regiments being wound up. They get treated disgracefully by the government - across a range of ways - which has broken the military covenant."
None of which is really debatable. What was telling though was the response. Salmond's getting "too big for his boots" they argued.
Far from it. Salmond should take the next step and explore how to bring our troops home. One of the lasting legacies of this (Scottish) government may be that the big con of Scottish soldiers involvement in British State activities may be about to be broken. Whilst many have thought that the Scottish Governments refusal to be part of plans for Trident 2 might be the apogee of symbolic opposition, another more powerful tactic might pack more punch. Scottish troops have been cannon fodder for British Imperial folly for centuries. Enough is enough. It's time for the military to be devolved as part of the withdrawal of consent for the British State's nightmarish escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If Britain won't withdraw its troops, Scotland should withdraw our own - offering legal protection and showing true moral leadership. The past week or so has been packed with ageing once-Leftists eulogising about how 1968 empowered a generation by 'stopping a war' and having a real impact on society. The danger with this current generation is that it has the opposite impact - those who took part in "the biggest demonstration ever" have noted how the Blair-Brown govt treated their views with absolute contempt. As Seamus Milne wrote last week Blair told Parliament on the eve of this horror that Hussein would be "responsible for many more deaths even in one year than we will be in any conflict." Amnesty put civilian deaths under Hussein in the low hundreds. The Lancet estimates 600,000 people were killed in the first three years alone.
Salmond should back up his denunciation of the illegal wars and call on Scottish troops to leave the leave the army. Macleod's argument is that governments wage wars. Can they wage peace too?
This is a edited version of Mike Small's article. You can read the full version on Bella Caledonia here.
Comments
Man in a Shed - you are of course right. there would be no need for scotland to have a big military presence. We would need to find transferable skills for people to be usefully re-deployed.
I think within devolution you are right this is a red herring. I was making a moral and cultural point.
I'm not sure why in a post-Cold war era we should expect there to be a massive military presence. this is pork-barrel politics.
Can you conceive of a country that doesn't employ thousands of people in the military. If not, why not?
I would also take issue with your idea of a volunteer force. Given the class breakdown of out military any decent sociologist would beg to differ. I beg to differ. Post-devolution. Post-Gordon Gentle, this is no longer credible nor defensible.
I used the word "terrorism" in inverted commas, because the way some journalists and broadcasters talk, this is an exclusively Muslim phenomenon. Of course, people in the UK should know better, as they know all about the IRA. Seems the Brits have amnesia about their recent past.
"Only David Cairns insists on calling it an Executive, and widely mocked he is for it to."
It's become something of a shibboleth. Even Scottish Labour is not against the renaming - they just didn't have the guts to do it themselves.
@Ray Bell
Terrorism in inverted commas? Is there a crossover between nats and truthers?
Ask the dog on the street, a Labour MSP, a Tory candidate or a Daily Record reading unionist what the name of the current SNP administration is and they will say the unreservedly the Scottish Government. The poster above is entirely correct
"It’s just that it’s [executive] not called that any more - by anybody."
Only David Cairns insists on calling it an Executive, and widely mocked he is for it to.
"The body that doesn’t exist is “The Scottish Government”. The term “Government” is not appropriate because it is innaccurate."
No, it's not. It governs. We talk of "local government" and even "church government", so there is no reason for it to be particularly inapplicable here. Why call it an "Executive"? "Executive" may be the original name, but it calls up all the seediness that overused words such as "executive", "luxury", "designer" and "gourmet" do.
"His continuing attempts to tap into prejudice at every opportunity"
Like getting the first Muslim MSP elected perhaps?
I'm sure keeping Scottish soldiers out of Afghanistan would go down well in New York.
What a bigot that Alex Salmond is - he's only going round saying the English should have a parliament too... What a rotter!
I take it you are referring to 11/9.
I'm afraid to say that Afghanistan and British intrigues there long predate that event. Both the British and the Americans have an interest in Afghanistan because of oil pipelines, and also because it is geopolitically important for containing Russia. It is just one square on the chessboard - the game was the same in the day of the north west frontier, when the Soviets fought against the Mujahadeen, and now, when Russia is reasserting its influence over central Asia.
Anyone who believes it is purely because of "terrorism", is as naive as those who thought Iraq was because of WMD.
The argument is political and cultural rather than technical though Matt.
I happily agree that given a tight legal definition of the body it's the 'Scottish Executive'. It's just that it's not called that any more - by anybody.
Do you still eat Marathon bars?
Spot on. I think we need our own Alex Salmond who speaks this kind of sense south of the border. What a showdown if he went for anything like this though. He'd have the support of the majority of the population for his aims but would provoke the outrage of the entire political establishment. Now there's a fight I'd like to see!
I genuinely think Alex Salmond is one of the greatest national leaders of modern times.
Macleod is right on this one, Mike. He should just have skewered you with the facts, rather than getting enraged - Alex S is not worth it.
The body that doesn't exist is "The Scottish Government". The term "Government" is not appropriate because it is innaccurate.
Mr S can put up all the signs, wave all the placards, make all the speeches and change all the letterheads he likes.
It is the "Scottish Executive". Go and read the Act of Parliament. Or the first paragraph of "Scottish Government" on Wikipedia.
End of argument.
I'd agree that much of the argument is political and cultural, but I'd see Salmonds tactics as both unprincipled and underhand - following on from a democratic vote when the independence agenda was decisively defeated.
I take strongly against Salmond because he's attempting to achieve by manipulation what he was unable to achieve by argument. His continuing attempts to tap into prejudice at every opportunity make the whole exercise contemptible. Tony Blair would be jealous.
>Do you still eat Marathon bars?
No, but I still live in the United Kingdom.
Do you eat Snickers and think they are chocolate?
Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary describes government as :"the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it "
Whatever it may have been described as in the act Government is what it is.
Hi Matt, you write: 'His continuing attempts to tap into prejudice at every opportunity'.
Could you offer an example?
Matt says - "following on from a democratic vote when the independence agenda was decisively defeated."
Sorry Matt when did this occur, I fear I may have missed it! If you are referring to last May's Scottish elections I think you might find that that was in effect a multi-issue referendum (if you'll excuse the use of the term) on who should lead the Scottish Executive, later re-branded Scottish Government.
As has already been highlighted the term 'government' can be applied at local level and in a variety of contexts. The Scottish Parliament governs therefore it has governance and is a government. To be honest though it's all purely semantics, let's just call a spade a spade and be done with it.
Mike - I think you need to be realistic.
A devolved Scottish forced structure would look like Ireland's - great for providing target practice in Lebanon under some half backed UN scheme, but as useful as a chocolate fire guard for anything serrious.
There would be no effective Scottish air force or Navy and the Scottish army would need to be vastly slashed in numbers.
Almost all the airbases and other military sites would need to close. ( All the good servicemen would try to get reposted to the UK/English forces as who wants to be in a pretend army/ non existent airforce/ fishing protection club ? )
It should also be remembered that the UK's armed forces are a volunteer force. Each service man or woman joined of their own choice to serve the Queen whose authority is exercised by the UK government.
There is no moral, legal or even practical case for what you propose - within a devolved government structure - other than narrow SNP self interest.
(Independence is of course another matter - I'm happy for Scotland to have its independence if its wanted. It would certainly be good for England, but lets be honest about what's involved.)
There is a difference between Government and government.
Post new comment