Is the SNP dancing to the Kremlin's tune?

Watch
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2014/...kremlins-tune/

Of course, what Salmond has proposed is unilateral disarmament, in the tradition of the militant Trotskyites. No wonder the Russians love him.

Given his friendship with Rupert Murdoch and his desire to have a race to the bottom with corporation tax, he's like a confused neoliberal Trotskyite wannabe, a political schizophrenic.
0
reply
Macymace
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Unilateral disarmament is a condition for me to recognize the legitimacy of any government,along with the expropriation of the bourgeoisies's profits. Any ways the Scottish people are being offered two corporate dictators. so there isn't really a choice.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Why is being pro nuclear disarmament Trotskyist?
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Why is being pro nuclear disarmament Trotskyist?
Let me put it another way. The only people who seriously believe in unilateral disarmament are Trots, this is why the Kremlin loved the CND and the militant tendency. It is a position that appealed to people who would have liked to see the Red Army watering its horses at Hendon (and I say this as someone who considers himself a democratic socialist... all shades of serious political opinion since World War 2 have been pro-NATO, as the Labour and Conservative Parties have both been)
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Not the Kremlins tune, but you'll find out that you're hard core nationalist will side with anybody who thy think will benefit them. We saw in Ww2 that they sided with Fascism, I've seen cyberNats advocate allowing Russia and china building a naval base in Scotland just to prove a point and I wouldn't be surprised if we Start seeing some of them siding with North Korea and Argentina to prove a Point.

Basically you have a load of left overs from labour circa 1970 who will just be anti whatever to prove a point. That's why the SNP has done so many u turns on its policies over the recent few years in order to gain more support.

How else do you explain a national socialist ideology advocating tax reductions for big corporations
0
reply
TheBugle
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
umm...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...lmond.23138182

http://www.heraldscotland.com/commen...ation.23133588
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
Let me put it another way. The only people who seriously believe in unilateral disarmament are Trots, this is why the Kremlin loved the CND and the militant tendency. It is a position that appealed to people who would have liked to see the Red Army watering its horses at Hendon (and I say this as someone who considers himself a democratic socialist... all shades of serious political opinion since World War 2 have been pro-NATO, as the Labour and Conservative Parties have both been)
So I take it you would have voted for Thatcher in 1983 and 1987?
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Observatory)
So I take it you would have voted for Thatcher in 1983 and 1987?
I would have voted for the Labour Party, despite fundamentally disagreeing with unilateral disarmament. The two reasons for that are

(1) Labour remained pro-NATO

(2) I don't believe in throwing a tantrum every time my party adopts a policy with which I disagree. It's far better to remain in the party and make that argument there; that position is fundamentally vindicated by the fact that Tony Blair remained in the party, and went onto win three general elections and protect the independent deterrent

It was Labour's policy in '87 particularly to re-invest the savings from Polaris and Trident into conventional forces, and to arm the British Army of the Rhine to the teeth. Not a policy I agree with, but hardly a waving of the white flag either. What would Scotland do? It wants all of the benefits of NATO and none of the responsibility.

The SNP is clearly not pro-NATO if they are planning to undertake action that will undermine the nuclear forces of the alliance, without any counterbalancing additional contribution, and to start a conflict with its neighbour over basing when most other NATO countries willingly accept American nuclear weapons in their territory, or deploy their own.

But I suppose it's a moot point, the NO camp is going to win the referendum, and not just by a bit, but by a landslide.
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Basically you have a load of left overs from labour circa 1970 who will just be anti whatever to prove a point. That's why the SNP has done so many u turns on its policies over the recent few years in order to gain more support.

How else do you explain a national socialist ideology advocating tax reductions for big corporations
Well said. The SNP are a mongrel mix of old Trots, extreme neoliberals, national socialists, white supremacists and hippies.

It's odd that people somehow seem to think that they will become a kind of Scandinavian social democratic paradise, when they propose to massively lower corporation tax, and given Wee Eck's close friendship with Rupert Murdoch.

They've got another thing coming too, if they think we'll permit them to lower their corporation tax significantly and at the same time be permitted a currency union. If a currency union does occur, a fundamental term would be that they set their corporation tax policies in a manner that is consistent with our interests.

Somehow, the loony cybernats appear to believe that we will just allow them to continue to use the pound while they undercut us on corporation tax. Deluded.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
I would have voted for the Labour Party, despite fundamentally disagreeing with unilateral disarmament. The two reasons for that are

(1) Labour remained pro-NATO

It was Labour's policy in '87 particularly to re-invest the savings from Polaris and Trident into conventional forces, and to arm the British Army of the Rhine to the teeth. Not a policy I agree with, but hardly a waving of the white flag either. What would Scotland do? It wants all of the benefits of NATO and none of the responsibility.

The SNP is clearly not pro-NATO if they are planning to undertake action that will undermine the nuclear forces of the alliance, without any counterbalancing additional contribution, and to start a conflict with its neighbour over basing when most other NATO countries willingly accept American nuclear weapons in their territory, or deploy their own.
Salmond states that Scotland will remain in NATO, and while I doubt military spending would be increased - as it wont be in the UK either - he has also said he wouldn't go the Irish route of becoming a disarmed protectorate. So what's the substantive difference between these two policies?

(2) I don't believe in throwing a tantrum every time my party adopts a policy with which I disagree. It's far better to remain in the party and make that argument there; that position is fundamentally vindicated by the fact that Tony Blair remained in the party, and went onto win three general elections and protect the independent deterrent
Granted but you said that this policy amounted to a belief that Britain should be invaded by a foreign power and was material support to bringing that about. That goes a bit beyond an honest difference of opinion over a non-essential policy in my view.

But I suppose it's a moot point, the NO camp is going to win the referendum, and not just by a bit, but by a landslide.
Agree.
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Observatory)
Salmond states that Scotland will remain in NATO, and while I doubt military spending would be increased - as it wont be in the UK either - he has also said he wouldn't go the Irish route of becoming a disarmed protectorate. So what's the substantive difference between these two policies?
First, Labour's policy (and I emphasise again that I fundamentally disagree with it) was nuclear disarmament coupled with strong investments in conventional forces and an ironclad commitment to maintaining tens of thousands of troops in West Germany to defend against any Soviet attack. Hardly running up the white flag.

Salmond has stated that Scotland will "remain" in NATO, but like many things (including EU membership) Salmond either presumes too much or is outright lying to the Scots. NATO has made it quite clear that if there is a dispute over British forces at HMNB Clyde, it is unlikely they will be admitted to the alliance.

Also, Salmond can say all sorts of things about what sort of forces Scotland might have in his fantasy iScotland. The poliical reality is that it will have a military force equivalent to maybe New Zealand's at best, and only slightly more capable than Ireland's at worst. Maintaining serious military capabilities costs money, and it's money that I would wager the Scottish electorate would be unwilling to spend in an iScotland. We will therefore have a vulnerable, poorly defended non-EU state at the northwestern edge of Europe (a state that will probably be highly vulnerable to subversion and manipulation, as it will have no security or intelligence service worthy of the name), that is bad for NATO and for Europe

Granted but you said that this policy amounted to a belief that Britain should be invaded by a foreign power and was material support to bringing that about. That goes a bit beyond an honest difference of opinion over a non-essential policy in my view.
I didn't say that it, in itself, amounted to a belief that Britain should be invaded by a foreign power. Anywhere. Though many of the elements, like the CND and SWP, who pushed for it did believe Britain should be invaded by a foreign power and they cynically pushed total disarmament under the guise of world peace in order to pressure the UK government on behalf of Moscow.

That is completely different to when, for example, a former Chief of the Defence staff comes out in favour of abandoning the independent deterrent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7832365.stm

More importantly, we are living in 2014, not 1983. I wasn't alive then. I don't have to answer for what some elements of the Labour Party decided to do 30 years ago. It's not my dilemma and not my problem.

The fact is that every postwar Labour government has maintained the nuclear arsenal and our alliance with the Anglosphere and NATO. It's also the party that created Britain's independent nuclear deterrent and took us into NATO in the first place.
0
reply
Mechie
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
Well said. The SNP are a mongrel mix of old Trots, extreme neoliberals, national socialists, white supremacists and hippies.
What the...? This is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read on this website. Don't you think your personal dislike of Alex Salmond is getting in the way somewhat?
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
First, Labour's policy (and I emphasise again that I fundamentally disagree with it) was nuclear disarmament coupled with strong investments in conventional forces and an ironclad commitment to maintaining tens of thousands of troops in West Germany to defend against any Soviet attack. Hardly running up the white flag.

Salmond has stated that Scotland will "remain" in NATO, but like many things (including EU membership) Salmond either presumes too much or is outright lying to the Scots. NATO has made it quite clear that if there is a dispute over British forces at HMNB Clyde, it is unlikely they will be admitted to the alliance.

Also, Salmond can say all sorts of things about what sort of forces Scotland might have in his fantasy iScotland. The poliical reality is that it will have a military force equivalent to maybe New Zealand's at best, and only slightly more capable than Ireland's at worst. Maintaining serious military capabilities costs money, and it's money that I would wager the Scottish electorate would be unwilling to spend in an iScotland. We will therefore have a vulnerable, poorly defended non-EU state at the northwestern edge of Europe (a state that will probably be highly vulnerable to subversion and manipulation, as it will have no security or intelligence service worthy of the name), that is bad for NATO and for Europe
You regard Labour's claims as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth while regarding the SNP's equivalent claims with extreme cynicism. I don't see the reason for this.

I think you know, as I do, that conventional forces were basically irrelevant during the Cold War other than as a tripwire, and that Labour's real defence policy was to parasite on the US and French nuclear deterrents, with the reasoning that Britain could not be invaded without causing one or both of those to use their weapons. Similarly, Ireland's defence strategy is to parasite on the protection of Britain, and 'iScotland's defence strategy would probably be to parasite on rUK, with perhaps a bloated frigate navy but only to buy the votes of shipbuilding constituencies. I don't see a substantive difference between the two proposed policies.

I didn't say that it, in itself, amounted to a belief that Britain should be invaded by a foreign power. Anywhere. Though many of the elements, like the CND and SWP, who pushed for it did believe Britain should be invaded by a foreign power and they cynically pushed total disarmament under the guise of world peace in order to pressure the UK government on behalf of Moscow.

That is completely different to when, for example, a former Chief of the Defence staff comes out in favour of abandoning the independent deterrent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7832365.stm

More importantly, we are living in 2014, not 1983. I wasn't alive then. I don't have to answer for what some elements of the Labour Party decided to do 30 years ago. It's not my dilemma and not my problem.

The fact is that every postwar Labour government has maintained the nuclear arsenal and our alliance with the Anglosphere and NATO. It's also the party that created Britain's independent nuclear deterrent and took us into NATO in the first place.
This is what you said:

"The only people who seriously believe in unilateral disarmament are Trots, this is why the Kremlin loved the CND and the militant tendency. It is a position that appealed to people who would have liked to see the Red Army watering its horses at Hendon"

Labour were serious people, and they believed in unilateral disarmament for a period of about a decade. Its appeal, you argued, was to people who believed it would be good if the UK were invaded by the USSR. So it seems that you have to regard Labour in 1983 and 1987 as a Soviet fifth column; whatever else it may have been, however good its other policies were, it is very hard to look past that and justify voting for them.

Now I actually agree with your amended argument that Labour wasn't mostly that. I think the Soviet fifth column did exist, and that they were dominant intellectual forces in the disarmament movement. But I think by far the majority of the supporters of unilateralism in the general public were useful-idiots who genuinely believed that selectively disarming only one side would increase the amount of peace in the world.

Either way, though, the outcome is the same, so if you believe that the nuclear deterrent is very important and that the consequences of losing it would be very bad, it doesn't really matter why Labour opposed it when deciding whether or not to vote for them.
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Observatory)
Either way, though, the outcome is the same, so if you believe that the nuclear deterrent is very important and that the consequences of losing it would be very bad, it doesn't really matter why Labour opposed it when deciding whether or not to vote for them.
As I said, I wasn't alive then. Not my problem what Labour's policy, and it has zero influence on what is the right thing to do now.

There are people who chose to remain in the Conservative party, and vote for them later, despite their revulsion for Thatcher's cynical, demagogic dog-whistle attack on gay people via Section 28. It's called party politics, I'm curious why you seem to be saying "You should feel this way and you should have done that in this counterfactual parrallel universe where you were alive in 1983".

I think your reach has exceeded your grasp on this subject. You're being tediously argumentative and a bit of a bore, I prefer to debate on issues of substance not on what some anonymous internet person claims I should have done in a hypothetical parrallel universe. If you want to discuss substance, happy to debate.
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Observatory)
So it seems that you have to regard Labour in 1983 and 1987 as a Soviet fifth column
All dogs have four legs, my cat has four legs, therefore my cat is a dog.

I'm not trying to be provocative, but do you struggle with logic?
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
As I said, I wasn't alive then. Not my problem what Labour's policy, and it has zero influence on what is the right thing to do now.

There are people who chose to remain in the Conservative party, and vote for them later, despite their revulsion for Thatcher's cynical, demagogic dog-whistle attack on gay people via Section 28. It's called party politics, I'm curious why you seem to be saying "You should feel this way and you should have done that in this counterfactual parrallel universe where you were alive in 1983".

I think your reach has exceeded your grasp on this subject.
Going back to your statement,

"The only people who seriously believe in unilateral disarmament are Trots, this is why the Kremlin loved the CND and the militant tendency. It is a position that appealed to people who would have liked to see the Red Army watering its horses at Hendon"

You're clearly referring to the circumstances of the 1980s: militant tendency, the Red Army, the Kremlin, etc. So it is reasonable to ask if you regard the Labour Party, which contemporaneously supported disarmament, as people who would have liked to have seen the Red Army in Hendon.

If so, it is hard to see why Thatcher's policy on gay rights - even though I agree more with you than her on this - would have been the deciding factor between them and the Tories.
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by Observatory)
So it reasonable to ask if you regard the Labour Party, which contemporaneously supporting disarmament, as people who would have liked to have seen the Red Army in Hendon
It's not reasonable, it's you choosing to be a repetitive bore and trying to pick a fight with someone with whom you are in agreement on the substantive policy issue, on the basis of what that person should have done in a hypothetical parrallel universe. It's self-indulgent and bellicose.

If so, it is hard to see why Thatcher's policy on gay rights - even though I agree more with you than her on this - would have been the deciding factor between them and the Tories.
It has nothing to do with being a deciding factor and everything to do with a matter of principle. It didn't mean that you had to vote Labour, but it did mean that you had to leave the Conservative Party and vote for someone else or abstain, or you were a homophobe. Or worse, a moral coward. At least, that's the argument you were making.
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
It's not reasonable, it's you choosing to be a repetitive bore and trying to pick a fight with someone with whom you are in agreement on the substantive policy issue, on the basis of what that person should have done in a hypothetical parrallel universe. It's self-indulgent and bellicose.
I apologise for the lack of political loyalty, and I mean no offence. I admit I find your slow conversion from socialist True Believer to something approximating a One Nation Tory very intriguing; that first post seemed to be an attempt to re-write history to present unilateral disarmament as a view of only the extreme left, when it wasn't, it was also a view of the mainstream left. Now as a libertarian many people on my side of the floor also favour unilateral disarmament, but I don't deny that.

It has nothing to do with being a deciding factor and everything to do with a matter of principle. It didn't mean that you had to vote Labour, but it did mean that you had to leave the Conservative Party and vote for someone else or abstain, or you were a homophobe. Or worse, a moral coward. At least, that's the argument you were making.
The problem is this, given our agreement on these two issues:

- The Conservatives support a policy that makes young homosexuals feel more isolated. This is bad in itself.

- Labour support a policy that will cripple the defensive capability of the country and are possibly personally hoping that it is invaded and subjugated.

They are both issues on which I oppose that respective party, but they are not issues of equal importance. If the country is still here we can come back to treatment of homosexuality in schools in a few years (or, as I would prefer, denationalise schools). I don't think the two are equivalent - if you really believe that Foot was favourable to a Soviet invasion (and I'm sure some in his party were though I doubt he was personally) then I am not sure what policy would outweigh that. Mass execution of homosexuals perhaps, but not Section 28.
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Observatory)
I admit I find your slow conversion from socialist True Believer to something approximating a One Nation Tory very intriguing
It's nothing of the sort. I am a democratic socialist, I believe in social ownership of some aspects of the means of production (particularly those aspects that are natural monopolies or oligopolies, like rail, energy, education etc).

Equally, however, I have always been pro-NATO, pro-nuclear and a staunch supporter of the UK's special relationship with the Anglosphere (and if the Labour Party in 1983 had proposed to leave NATO and abolish the Special Relationship and Five Eyes arrangement, that would have caused me to leave the party). The reason for that is that I abhor totalitarianism in all its forms, fascist or communist. I have always said that I have more in common with a Conservative than with a Trotskyite. At least Conservatives believe in the rule of law and parliamentary democracy.

The fact that some people would see my domestic and foreign policy views as being divergent is a problem for them, not me. I see my politics in the Healey-ite mould, about halfway between Michael Foot and Tony Blair.

that first post seemed to be an attempt to re-write history to present unilateral disarmament as a view of only the extreme left, when it wasn't, it was also a view of the mainstream left. Now as a libertarian many people on my side of the floor also favour unilateral disarmament, but I don't deny that.
I will concede that. I used rhetoric that went a little bit beyond what was fair. We both agree that there were traitorous elements in Britain who supported unilateral disarmament at Moscow's behest. We both agree that a pro-NATO, pro-nuclear policy is best. In seeking to depict unilateral disarmament as inherently Trotskyite, I went beyond the facts and got a little carried away.

It is true to say that not all unilateralists are Trots; it was Labour policy in the 1980s, it has even been favoured by generals from the Army and the RAF. I think it's the wrong policy, and I think Salmond would leave this island open to subversion, and he would weaken NATO by leaving.

They are both issues on which I oppose that respective party, but they are not issues of equal importance.
But based on that argument, someone in 1983 who was pro-gay and pro-NATO could simply vote SDP instead. The reason many didn't was because, overall, they are more in agreement with Conservative policy than any other. And leaving the party would simply concede ground to your political enemies, both within and outside the party.

I abhor the 1983 manifesto, I think that while Michael Foot was an exemplary parliamentarian and an excellent Leader of the House under Callaghan, he was also an extremely naive man whose behaviour bordered on treason (accepting money from the KGB when working for Tribune). But leaving the Labour Party would not be the answer; if you truly believe in a cause, you fight the good fight. You don't throw your toys out of the pram simply because of a setback.

I'm a member of the Fabian Society, a member of the Labour Party and a UNISON branch secretary. I'm part of the movement, I'm here to stay and I have to make the best of it and do my best to move the party to my point of view. That would have been harder to do in 1983 than it is today, where I generally agree with most policies.

then I am not sure what policy would outweigh that. Mass execution of homosexuals perhaps, but not Section 28.
It's unhelpful to link the two issues, to say that one must come at the expense of the other. I would argue that they should not, and surely if you are truly committed to your policy positions rather than just winning at any cost and tribalism, you would hope to see people fighting for the policies you agree with in the party opposite?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (4)
26.67%
I'm not sure (0)
0%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (4)
26.67%
I have already dropped out (1)
6.67%
I'm not a current university student (6)
40%

Watched Threads

View All