Scotland needs to think carefully about whether NATO is a military alliance for us


George Kerevan’s provocative article yesterday lives up to his usual high standards by spurring the wider Yes movement to debate, both within itself and with the people of Scotland, what kind of position Scotland should take in multilateral defense given its unique geopolitical place in north-eastern Europe.

It must be said that some conservative voices, basically within the current leadership of the SNP, see such a debate as a loaded weapon that could kill the cause of independence by frightening the Anglo-American political establishment. In doing so, they carefully overlook the fact that during the recent Western disengagement from Afghanistan, the UK was seen as such an important player that it seemed to be the last to know the disastrous strategy of withdrawing suddenly.

The Alba party is absolutely right to have the widest possible debate on whether an independent Scotland should be part of NATO or not. Scotia Future is clear that the flexibility of the Partnership for Peace is the best defense option for an independent Scotland rather than NATO membership, mainly because it allows cooperation with established neutral nations such as Ireland. , Malta, Finland, Austria and Sweden, excluding Scotland. being strictly under the direction of Washington DC.

The casual belief that responsible countries must be part of a military alliance also does not stand up to historical scrutiny – for example, it was the conflicting military alliances straddling Europe in 1914 that led to the conflagration of the Great War. And during the Cold War, it was only thanks to the trick of Harold Wilson that the UK and Scotland were not drawn into the Vietnam War.
Councilor Andy Doig
Future of Nova Scotia

I will admit that as a former “I believe in the Union” voter turned (fanatic) independence supporter, I think we are failing. We fail because our government does not take the time to correct anti-Scottish biases or inaccuracies when they are reported, and when they object to something, it’s like in the movie Oliver: “If he please sir, can I have more? or “Please sir, can you reconsider Cambo?” Courtesy is one thing, abjection is another.

We are also not protesting the harm Brexit has done for Scotland. Brexit is not old history, it is now! It affects our farmers, our fishing industry, our Scottish exporters, hospitality and potentially Christmas dinners and gifts for our children. We all see empty shelves in supermarkets now, why doesn’t our government at least say its hands are tied because of Westminster, which it has done to mitigate the damage Brexit has done for us and , more importantly, how he would react to it if we were independent.

Seems to me Westminster would probably do better by telling the PM to hold the referendum in November – there will be less time for Boris Johnson to harm their cause, less time for the independence movement to unite, mobilize , against Fear 2 and sell independence. Westminster has already laid the groundwork and if they win they won’t have to spend so much of that promised Scottish leveling money because the ‘Scottish problem’ will be gone again and then they will suck and spit us out.

This is why we need our leaders to rise up and lead.

That is why we must stop fighting for policies and start fighting the opposition.

That is why we must persuade our neighbors by listening to them and talking.

That is why we need answers to the “sticky” questions repeated to nausea by our leaders.

That is why we need to spread, even ad nauseum, the positives about what Scotland has and is doing.
Shirley
Peebles

KAIRIN van Sweeden’s article in yesterday’s National is helpful in clearing up much of the misunderstanding about the role money and the national debt play in the political debate in Scotland. Unionists and their media constantly refer to the national debt, for which the Scottish people are responsible, and the steps we need to take to pay it off.

It is the central plank of the Unionist Project Fear campaign and it is based on lies and false statements. Unfortunately, despite all its lack of substance, it is believed by many Scots, especially among us older people, and it makes real understanding of real economic values ​​difficult for people to see and understand.

In 1776, Adam Smith, perhaps the best recognized economist who ever lived, told us that money has no intrinsic value. It acquires its “exchange value” from market goods and services that have real intrinsic value.

It is difficult for us, who are so used to handling money and estimating value in terms of money, to accept that money itself has no value, but it is true. If you were shipwrecked on an uninhabited island and had the choice of having a large trunk full of cash or one full of old tools and equipment, what would you take? Yes, the tools, because you couldn’t exchange the money and therefore it would revert to its intrinsic value, which is nothing.

Money or currency is something that we in Scotland could make on our own, to serve our economy, as and when we need it, as Kairin says, we don’t need it. ‘borrow or repay it. Scotland’s wealth lies in its natural resources and people, not in paper money.

Once we understand this, we can see that those who try to tell us that we have a national debt to pay off are trying to cheat us, and that includes not only trade unionists and their media, but also people like Andrew Wilson who suggest that we Scots should contribute to the British Treasury after independence as a gesture of goodwill.

Scotland cannot be independent if it does not have its own currency and on this point Kairin is absolutely right, any economist worth his salt knows this, if he knows the subject. So those who oppose it oppose the independence of Scotland and should be honest and say so.
Andy Anderson
By email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*