LIBERAL-DEMOCRACY – peace, order, good government, human rights and the rule of law – are moral ideals. In a world where fallen nature corrupts all things, the Russian invasion of Ukraine reminds us that such ideals cannot be realised by words alone.
Sometimes – when greed, ambition or paranoia drives rulers into aggression, when the lie that they are “only defending their own borders” is exposed by seizing the territory of others, when sovereign countries are carved up and swallowed – our freedom must be bought at a sacrificial price.
This is not a call for further escalation, merely a recognition that Ukraine has “skin in the game” on the front line of the fight for freedom, and that we betray our own freedom – and our own values – if we betray their cause.
The only acceptable response to threats against the “free and civic way of life” cherished by all democratic nations is steadfast solidarity – a defiant, disciplined, courageous unity, standing in unbroken line, hand-in-hand and shoulder-to-shoulder, from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
READ MORE: Russian invasion a ‘permanent stain’ on Vladimir Putin’s reputation, says Angus Robertson
After the Second World War, the precious freedom so grievously lost and dearly restored had to be defended by a new international order. This brought together Western democratic countries in a firm alliance based not only upon shared interests, but upon shared values, a shared repudiation of the horrors of totalitarianism which had so nearly obliterated the freedom of European nations.
After the Soviet Empire fell, the newly liberated half of Europe rushed to join the Western alliance – not out of any compulsion, but because they too embraced the values of liberal-democracy and realised, in the words of an old song, “in each loss or triumph, lose or triumph all”.
Do not be deceived. Nato does not exist to threaten Russia, but to keep democracy safe from threats.
Some commentators have suggested that these resurgent threats to freedom weaken the case for Scottish independence – that the world is too dangerous a place for an independent Scotland to survive. Not at all.
The threat posed by international aggression merely reinforces the need for an independent Scotland to be a strong, resilient and dependable state, which is willing and able to fully shoulder its share of the collective burden of keeping the West free. We must reassure domestic and international audiences that Scotland will be a good neighbour and a strong, reliable ally.
One of the first tasks of a post-independence Scottish Government will be to conduct a Strategic Defence Review, based on a frank, hard-headed, reckoning of threats and capabilities, priorities, risks and costs, in order to set the shape of the Scottish armed forces in the decade to come.
However, there is useful preparatory work to be done now.
We should start with a better informed, more engaged, public debate on the options for defence and foreign policy after independence. This will better enable us to prepare for negotiations with London on the initial distribution of defence assets, the use of bases, and the transfer of personnel, and will help to build the necessary cross-party and public consensus for longer term foreign policy, defence and procurement decisions.
We are still some way from having that conversation. The SNP has worked hard to gain confidence and credibility on defence, but a deeply ingrained anti-military sentiment – forged by justified moral outrage at nuclear weapons and opposition to the Iraq war, persists on the left wing of the wider Yes movement.
Meanwhile, those who do think seriously about defence are, for the most part, either staunchly Unionist or deeply ignorant of Scottish affairs. That leaves a gap in our public discourse.
It is necessary to consider Scottish defence in the widest sense, and in its broadest relationship with the whole “grand strategic” orientation of the state.
READ MORE: Scottish Government HQ raises Ukrainian flag as FM praises 'awe-inspiring' citizens
In a harmonious and stable state, there has to be congruence, at the most fundamental levels, between the nature of the state itself, its economic system, its foreign policy, and its defence policy. In other words, defence policy is an instrument of foreign policy, and foreign policy is an instrument of domestic and economic policy, and all of these stem from the character and principles of the state itself, expressed in its constitution.
This is where the UK is weak. Building a bigger navy is well and good, but the UK’s credibility in the defence of Western values is strained by the rottenness of its internal politics.
It is hard to resist the arrogance of bullies, oligarchs, populists and authoritarians when Boris Johnson is your Prime Minister, when the governing party is awash in illicit roubles, when several bills crippling democracy are being rammed through parliament, and when you do not have a solid constitutional foundation to rely upon.
Scotland can do better. We need a strong defence capability firmly rooted in liberal-democratic constitutional foundations, so that we can defend freedom with the strength that comes only from moral integrity.
Ivan McKee MSP is next week’s guest on the TNT show. Join us on IndyLive at 7pm on Wednesday
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel