HAVING comprehensively cocked up Brexit, the NHS and Universal Credit, Mrs May’s gormless government is now hard at work on making a dog’s breakfast of UK defence policy. This has nothing to do with Michael Fallon resigning as Defence Secretary over serial allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct. Nor has it to do with his neophyte replacement, Gavin Williamson, who only got the job because he was Theresa May’s campaign manager.

Rather, the Tories (Brexiteers and Remainers) are united in the absurd romantic notion that Britain (i.e. England) is a great imperial nation that has to project power through a massive demonstration of military might. That includes funding two super aircraft carriers, a new submarine nuclear deterrent, up-graded battle tanks designed to fight the Russians, new strategic airlift capacity, 138 American jet fighters, new maritime reconnaissance planes, and God knows what else. Clearly, somebody at the Ministry of Defence has spent too long watching Gary Oldman play Winston Churchill.

There’s only one small problem: cash. To no-one’s surprise, the bill for this lunatic military expansion is beyond what Britain — pre-Brexit or post-Brexit — can afford. Just before Christmas, it became glaring obvious that there was a “black hole” in the Ministry of Defence budget running to at least £30 billion. Some of this is down to the fall in the value of sterling, which has upped the cost of all the imported American kit by roughly a fifth. But the main reason is simply that the Tories (ably supported by Labour’s Blairite wing) are deluded both as to the UK’s place in the world and to its economic capacity to play at being imperialist.

The new Defence Secretary, Gary Oldman ... sorry, Gavin Williamson, has launched a pre-emptive strike against the Treasury, demanding more cash for his military toys. Chancellor Hammond has told Williamson to make defence cuts or get stuffed. Logic says if you buy all this new kit, the only place you can squeeze the MoD budget is by cutting troop numbers and military pay. The Tories have already slashed the British army by over 20,000 troops since 2010 and with only 78,500 left to man all those shiny new tanks, Britain will be hard-pressed to take on Turkey, Syria or Serbia never mind Russia or China.

Alternatively, the UK could shave defence spending by cutting back on some of the new equipment. The Treasury has eyes on reducing the number of imported US Lockheed F-35 jets. Of course, we would then end up with two new aircraft carriers and little or nothing to fly from them. However, another open secret of Britain’s new imperial posture is that the American military-industrial complex has the UK Government over the proverbial barrel. Put simply, the collapse of UK industrial capacity makes the country technologically, as well as politically, dependent on big US defence contractors such as Boeing. There is no way the Trump White House will let Britain renege on buying all that US kit. The French, on the other hand, have not been bamboozled into importing the ridiculously expensive and vastly over-complex F-35 fighter. Instead, they build their own Rafale, which means they support French industry and know-how.

I mention all of this because it has major implications for the future of SNP defence policy, which itself if undergoing a rethink. There is always a trap facing the SNP at Westminster, where these matters are front and centre. Do SNP spokespersons attack the Tories for their inability to frame a coherent defence posture to defend the home islands? That is easy to do, of course. Currently, Britain has to rely on our Nato allies to provide airborne maritime surveillance of our coasts, thanks to Tory incompetence in scrapping the RAF’s Nimrods without having a replacement ready. And has anyone noticed that — despite the UK’s inflated military equipment budget — there are precisely zero plans to create an anti-ballistic missile defence system?

AND yet I wonder: surely the nub of a Scottish defence strategy should start by rejecting the entire premise of UK military thinking — not just the inability of the Conservative Government to get its sums right, or to fund a British army of a sufficient size? Yes, Tory defence cuts mean underpaying soldiers and leaving them with poor living conditions — which the SNP should and does oppose. But our stance must be more than demanding that the Trident replacement is scrapped so cash can be diverted elsewhere in the MoD budget. Even if the Tories find more money for defence, we should oppose them spending it.

Let’s go back to square one and Nato. In 2013, the SNP shifted its policy to supporting Nato membership. I agreed with the decision on the grounds it eliminated an diversionary attack by the anti-independence media during the referendum, and because sometimes it is more practical to fight for progressive Scottish interests inside international organisations rather than sit on the side lines.

However, in 2018 we need to take into account the advent of Donald Trump, a new Cold War in Europe, and the fact that the entire world – not just the UK — is engaged in a gigantic new arms race. After a decade of austerity, the major nations across the globe are upping spending on military programmes on a scale we have not seen since the 1980s. A plethora of politically destabilising new weapons systems, dominated by artificial intelligence, are about to enter service. As for Nato, post-Afghanistan it is shifting back towards a European war-fighting posture. This includes the creation of a new North Atlantic Command, ostensibly to protect sea lines of communications with America, to which (one assumes) Scottish forces might be subordinated.

Neutrality is a difficult option for an independent Scotland. Besides, the 2007 Lisbon Treaty puts an obligation on EU members to support another member state under attack. However, Nato’s new war posture plus the unstable, egomaniac in the White House must give us pause for thought. Certainly, an independent Scotland needs to protect itself and that means major investment in a navy, maritime aircraft and marines. We should source as much of that locally as we can, even if it takes longer to install: self-reliance has its own strategic logic.

But Nato membership for Scotland only works if we feel Scotland can have influence, especially in the new North Atlantic Command. That implies more than just locating the HQ here.

Alternatively, we could look at the Swedish model of being outside formal membership but becoming a so-called “enhanced” Nato partner. This has the advantage of flexibility and the ability to distance Scotland should Trump blunder into an unnecessary war.

Meanwhile, let’s not restrict the SNP’s defence policy to Westminster debates. The Scottish Government should be pro-active in easing political tensions in Europe.

For starters, we need to reanimate a popular, grassroots European Peace movement – on both sides of the Russian border – aimed at removing from the area all tactical nuclear weapons, delivery systems and destabilising missile defence batteries.

Such a popular movement was crucial during the 1980s to the removal of cruise missiles.

The bottom line is that any discussion of SNP defence policy has to be extended to the entire party. New times require new thinking.