TORY leader David Cameron is deliberately acting in a prime ministerial way in order to get the country used to seeing him in that role. With a general election a year or so away, and Labour struggling in the polls, Mr Cameron has been flexing his political muscles.
The Conservatives have an obvious problem in Scotland. They opposed the setting up of a Scottish Parliament and they also campaigned against proportional representation.
They lost the argument over devolution, partly because Margaret Thatcher imposed the deeply unpopular poll tax on a Scotland which was opposed to the new tax, and resented being used as a guinea pig.
With only one Tory MP in Scotland after the Tony Blair revolution, the Conservatives would have had no MSPs in parliament – had it not been for proportional representation, the voting method they had bitterly opposed. Mr Cameron has realised that this is a major problem for him if he needs the Tories to gain seats in Scotland in order to win the election. So on his visit north last week, he apologised for the fact that the Conservatives had not paid enough attention to the desire in Scotland for its own parliament.
Having done that, he moved from being penitent to being prime ministerial and, in an interview with BBC Scotland, he warned Scotland’s first minister that Westminster must be able to decide on the shape of Britain's nuclear deterrent and defence without obstruction by the Scottish Government. The Conservatives back Labour plans to replace the current Trident system. Ministry of Defence sources say the project could cost up to £65billion over 30 years, although the SNP put the cost at more like £100billion.
“Defence is a United Kingdom issue,” Mr Cameron said. “I respect the ability of the Scottish minister and the Scottish Parliament to say, right, on tuition fees, or prescription drugs or whatever, we take a different view. But likewise, if a government in Westminster has a mandate to deliver issues to do with nuclear deterrence or the size of the Army, then it should be able to do that without the Scottish Government trying to obstruct it.”
Relishing the fight, Alex Salmond hit back, arguing that, as first minister, he had every right to fight against a new generation of Trident missiles being housed in Scotland, particularly when polls have shown opposition north of the border to the plans.
The first minister has set up an anti-Trident working group which will examine ways to block the new generation of Scottish-based missiles. He is on the record as saying that he does not want the new system housed at Faslane in the west of Scotland, where this generation of Trident submarines is based. If, as looks likely at the moment, the Conservatives win the next election, the future of Trident will be a major flash point.
There are two issues we need to unravel here. The first is whether or not the Scottish Government should have any say in the matter at all; the second is whether or not a new generation of Trident missiles makes sense. When David Cameron says that Westminster is in charge of defence, he is absolutely right. Under the devolution settlement, the Westminster government holds the constitutional power to make military decisions on behalf of the whole UK.
SNP officials argue that with the Scottish Parliament and Scottish MPs at Westminster opposing a new generation of Trident, there is no mandate for the missiles to be housed in Scotland.
“It is like me saying: ‘Well, I'll tell you what we'll do, we'll go and sink all of Scotland's carbon dioxide in the Thames, but we won't bother consulting David Cameron,'” said Mr Salmond.
Asked if he would roll over on the nuclear issue, the combative Mr Salmond replied: “I am not a rolling over sort of person.”
Mr Salmond may be getting rounder every day, but rolling over is definitely not his style. He’s a shrewd politician, and he sees this battle as a gift. Leading a party which favours Scottish independence, he knows that there is a lot of leverage for the SNP in this argument.
The first minister is not daft. He knows that Mr Cameron is constitutionally correct in his assertion that the replacement of Trident is a decision for London to make, but it’s possible to win the constitutional argument but lose the political one.
So what is the purpose of spending billions of pounds on a new nuclear missile system?
The government’s answer is that replacing Trident is the right thing to do because “in the differently-dangerous world in which we live now, it doesn't make sense for us to give up our nuclear weapons”.
There is a flaw here, though. At a time when President Obama is seeking a reduction of nuclear arms, every country in the world could make the same argument as Britain.
We are lecturing Iran and North Korea, warning them not to develop nuclear weapons. How can we do that with any moral credibility while we are planning to increase our own nuclear capability?
In today’s world, wars are fought against international organisations rather than countries. How do we drop a nuclear bomb on al Qaida?
Another key question is this: how independent is our “independent” nuclear arsenal? Under current agreements, Trident can be used only in the mutual defence of both Britain and America. The computer software for targeting Trident is American.
Independent? Not really.
Ministry of Defence estimates are notoriously unreliable. The one thing we can say with certainty is that the projected £65billion figure will soar even further. At a time when public services are under threat, think how that money could be used.
Two years ago, Tony Blair promised the “fullest possible” public debate on the matter. We are still waiting.
Back to the constitutional argument. If Scotland doesn’t want nuclear submarines in its waters and Westminster insists that it must, we’ll be back in a situation akin to the poll tax struggle which eventually ended up in Mrs Thatcher leaving Downing Street in tears.
Watch this space.