The Nat paper on foreign affairs - weasel words and unintentional hilarity

Mike "Michael" Russell

A weasel

I was astonished to read in the SoS that our precious Nat devolved Executive planned to put out papers on issues including Europe and foreign affairs, and defence.

My immediate reaction was "Great - this is going to be hilarious."

His Immensity and his troupe of poltroons merrily charging off into all the policy areas which will show them up as naive and incompetent. Brilliant.

And the paper on Europe and foreign affairs, put out by the inimitably pompous Mike Russell, has not disappointed me.

There are bits of this document that have had me laughing more than I've done in ages.

Let's have a look at a few of the gems.

"2.22. ... Mechanisms exist for Scottish interests to be fed into the decision making process, directly and via the UK. However these are often lost or diluted during their incorporation into the UK negotiating line, even where Scotland's carry a disproportionate share of the UK's interests."

[Sic.]

Apart from the dodgy grammar, this is asinine drivel and a frankly offensive attempt to mislead.

Exactly how "often" are Scottish interests "lost or diluted"? Can we have some specific examples? Around, say, six ought to be enough. Oh, we can't.

"5.4. A Scottish Foreign Service and embassy network could and should look very different from the FCO model."

It certainly would. As discussed previously, it would be a lot smaller, less effective and would cost more, pro rata, than the existing UK network of embassies and consulates does. Who wants that?

"5.6. Under current arrangements, Scottish Government officials working on Scottish Affairs are accredited with UK diplomatic status and work alongside, or within, UK representations overseas. That reflects the fact that in many policy areas Scottish and UK interests coincide. Independence would not change that and there is no reason why close co-operation on policy and representation, up to and including shared services, should not continue"

Quite. So if in many areas Scottish and UK interests coincide, why do these morons want to secede? And if "independence would not change that", then what exactly is the point?

I'm glad they realise that "close co-operation and policy and representation, up to and including shared services" is a good thing.

What they don't seem to realise is that we already do a lot of "close co-operation" and "shared services". We have this "Union" thing, see - the UK has one of the largest networks of embassies and consulates in the world, they represent us just as much as the rest of the UK, and we only have to pick up 8.5% of the cost. OK?

(Continuing on these lines, the Nats provide an Annex A which gives comparisons of the costs of foreign ministries & embassies, as well as UN, Commonwealth, World Bank etc memberships.

Hilariously, when you do the maths, you find that 8.5% of the UK's costs always comes to quite a lot less than the costs incurred by the likes of Norway, Denmark and so on. So the Nats have actually gone and provided us with the evidence that "independence" would actually cost us quite a bit more in duplication and loss of shared economies of scale. Well done, Agent Russell, the Union thanks you for your help.)

"5.7. An independent Scotland would be recognised as a state in its own right by the international community... ...it would be able to develop its own foreign policy to promote Scotland's interests internationally, and engage with other states as an equal partner."

"Equal"? About as equal as Iceland, Malta, Upper Volta, Laos and so on. In other words, ignored, just as they are.

"5.8. Small countries can and do take lead roles in international organisations and policy development. Key positions within the United Nations including that of Secretary-General are often filled by individuals from smaller nations."

The Hootsmon led on the prospect of Fatso becoming UN Sec-Gen. Laugh? I nearly became incontinent.

How can I begin to respond to this dross?

Power at the UN resides with the Security Council. As part of the UK, Scotland has influence over the UK's permanent membership of that body - which carries a permanent veto.

The job of Sec-Gen, however, is a powerless sinecure. That's why the big, powerful countries are happy to see it go to people from small, puny countries. They don't care.

For comparison, look at the treatment of posts like the top jobs at the World Bank and the IMF. They matter. They are split between the US and the big countries in Europe.

"Small countries ... have all made significant global contributions to security, peace and reconciliation initiatives. New Zealand, for example, hosted a major conference on cluster munitions"

The mirth continues. Wow, the Kiwis hosted a conference! Clearly a massive contribution to global security and world peace. On that basis, the Hilton Hotels Group must count as the world's leading superpower, since it must host more conferences than anyone else.

Now here's the real corker:

"5.17. An independent Scotland would continue membership of the European Union, fulfilling the responsibilities which membership brings."

WEASEL ALERT! WEASEL ALERT!

Note the pathetic attempt to slide and whitewash past the fact that there is a huge amount of controversy and uncertainty over this one.

I've covered some of this before, but let's do it again.

There are no precedents for a secession from an existing EU Member State.

There is, however, a precedent for a secession from an existing member of the League of Nations. That happened when the Irish Free State left the UK. And in that case, the UK carried on happily as a member, while the IFS had to apply to join.

But the precedents are irrelevant, as is the fine detail of the UK's internal constitutional legislation. The EU writes its own membership rules. If the other Member States wanted to treat Scotland as "inheriting" the UK's membership, they could. If they wanted to treat it as a fresh applicant, they could do that too.

Which would they choose?

Whichever suited their own interests, of course.

Now, let's recall that the UK isn't just any EU Member. It has a special status in a number of areas, most notably the Budget Rebate secured by the Blessed Margaret when she said "I want my money back" in 1984.

The rest of the EU don't like this special status. It costs them money. They keep trying to find ways of ending it.

So in the event of a Scottish secession, the rest of the EU could choose between two options:

A) recognise both Scotland and the UK as inheriting the UK's previous membership. Both would inherit their respective shares of the budget rebate. The total cost of the rebate to the rest of the EU would stay the same.

B) decline to recognise Scotland as inheriting the UK's previous membership, and insist instead that it make a fresh application. Scotland would, then, not inherit its share of the UK rebate. The total cost to the rest of the EU would go down, by about 8.5%.

Add to this the political factor, that various countries like Spain, Belgium, Italy and so on are likely to feel a certain inclination towards not "rewarding secessionism", in case one day it's turned against them.

So let's think about it. I'm an EU State, I might not feel too disposed to reward secessionism, and I can choose between reducing my costs or leaving them the same. Hey, I'm going to go for B. Trebles all round!

But not for us, of course. Incredibly, the Nats provide an analysis of all this in Annex B. (I'm starting to think that the Annexes are actually the output of a Unionist mole. Cracking stuff, whoever you are.)

Here we are:

"Depending on the treatment of North Sea GDP in the analysis, Scotland is estimated to have made an illustrative contribution of between €742 and €991 million before accounting for the UK rebate in 2007. When a population share of the UK rebate is included, Scotland is estimated to have made an illustrative contribution to the EU of between €263 million and €512 million in 2007."

But there would not be a "population share of the UK rebate", as we have established above, so one immediate consequence of "independence" would be to cost us €479m, or £328m.

Christ on a bike, that's getting on for 10% of the entire devolved Scottish budget, and nearly 6% of total Scottish public spending.

Yikes.

And on top of that, we have to add the extra costs of the new "independent" foreign ministry and membership of international bodies. I'm not doing the detailed sums now, but it has to be heading for £500m.

Once again, let me propose a vote of thanks to Agent Russell - Codename "Weasel" - for doing such a good job at exposing one of the immediate, bottom-line costs of "independence".

Well done.