Cataclysmic George

I was invited to make a presentation in a debate on Scottish Independence and its implications for the British Isles at Tallinn University last Wednesday evening (April 30th). I'm not going to publish my presentation in its entirety as that is a wee bit too much for one sitting but if you will permit me to I'll address some subjects over the next few days.

Here's the first bit from Tallinn.

Let’s consider George Robertson, SecGen of NATO from 1999 to 2004. In a remarkable speech to the Brookings Institution in Washington DC delivered on April 8^th this year he contended that:

The loudest cheers for the breakup of Britain would be from our adversaries and from our enemies. For the second military power in the West to shatter this year would be cataclysmic in geopolitical terms.

He then goes on to talk about forces of darkness and other such abstract concepts straight out of the playbook favoured by George W. Bush and his loyal servant, Tony Blair.

But let’s look beyond the bluster a little bit.

Now, I’m not going to criticise the UK armed forces in themselves as they are some of the best examples of fighting men and women and equipment anywhere on the face of the earth and a sizeable contingent of that is drawn from Scottish participation and industry. However I am going to criticise the Ministry of Defence and with very good reason.

Which maritime "power" of the north-western European fringe has, 1. scrapped its aircraft carriers with all attendant ability to project air power transnationally, 2. withdrawn cover of meaningful surface vessels to the far southern fringe of its own territory, 3. downsized its early warning capabilities to the extent that it required warning by Twitter that a Russian capital ship was nearing its northern approaches and 4. scrapped all maritime reconnaissance aircraft?

Let's be clear for the sake of Lord Robertson that this is, in fact, the UK.

Now, on the other hand, which government’s white paper sets out a defence policy that would ensure the gaps above are substantially filled with a meaningful surface fleet such as offshore patrol vessels and frigates (page 239) plus reestablishment of an airborne maritime patrol capability (page 242)?

Again for the sake of Lord Robertson that would be the Scottish Government's white paper "Scotland's Future."

It strikes me, as I stand here a mere 200km from the Russian border, that the joined up defence policy belongs to those who would propose to patrol and defend their portion of the North Atlantic (the NA part of NATO milord) as opposed to those who ignore a great part of their Treaty obligations (the T in NATO to be clear) by putting cost-cutting contingencies ahead of their obligations to their partners in the Organisation (and that's the O).

Scottish independence and subsequent enactment of the provisions of the white paper's defence policy will clearly and actively head off the impending cataclysm caused by the UK government's own - don't laugh! - "strategic" defence planning. Strategic defence planning… hmmm.

The stark truth is that creaky old Britannia does NOT rule the waves any longer and successive UK governments have shaped a defence policy that is counter-intuitive to the needs of NATO and hopelessly inadequate for our geographical and geopolitical realities.

In the case of that Russian capital ship, the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, approaching the waters of the Moray Firth the response was to send HMS Defender to shadow the intruder. Defender was dispatched from Portsmouth. To give this room some sense of context that is the seagoing equivalent distance of Tallinn to Hamburg.

Tallinn to Hamburg for God’s sake! How would the good people of Estonia feel if their maritime security would only be guaranteed by vessels which had to sail from Hamburg to investigate any incident?

And it’s not just naval shortcomings. As of this spring that Central European powerhouse the Swiss army overtook the British army in the number of battle tanks that it can field. Or more accurately the British effort contracted due to MoD spending cuts.

September 18 will be the day that Scotland can resolve to avert the cataclysm and not add to it.

That’s the same George Robertson who turned round and argued, on April 17^th with a straight face and no sense of irony that the recent troubles in Ukraine and Crimea should not be a bar against Russian membership of NATO. Russia? In NATO? Really? I am quite prepared to bet that more than one or two people here this evening are rather disturbed by that notion.

As a footnote to George Robertson’s cataclysmic speech, it was self-evident that it was couched in terms to appeal to an American audience as well that in the UK. Exactly NONE of the mainstream US dailies reported the story at all – New York Times, Daily News, Washington Post, New York Post, LA Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Boston Herald. None of them.

Seems that the US mass media can see right through George and the drivel he peddles.