DAVID Cameron has been urged to hold an inquiry after a serving general reportedly said the Army would “take direct action” if Jeremy Corbyn became Prime Minister.
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie condemned the comments, saying they were the type of views that would be expressed by military figures in a “banana republic”. He added: “The Prime Minister must take action to find out who is responsible for this remark, to find out if this is what he or she truly meant.”
“It seems to be a rather eccentric and un-British remark. It’s not the way the military commanders I’ve met think or operate. It’s more akin to the behaviour of generals in a banana republic – that’s why it’s so critical for the Prime Minister to take action now.”
He added: “The military is there to protect our democratic system, not undermine it.”
Rennie’s outrage was shared by the Scottish Greens. “These are dangerous comments coming from a serving general, and border on threatening a coup,” said the party’s co-convener Patrick Harvie.
“Whoever this person is, they need to be reminded that this is a democracy. The mere existence of such views underlines the need to rein in the UK’s military culture, and ensure that those in power are held democratically accountable.”
The comments were made by an unidentified serving British Army general and reported in a Sunday newspaper.
They came at the end of Corbyn’s turbulent first week as Labour leader, which saw him relentlessly criticised over not singing the national anthem at an event to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain and refusing to say whether he would kneel in front of the Queen when being sworn in as a member of the Privy Council.
Cameron was among the first to lead the attacks when he tweeted last Sunday following Corbyn’s election that the Labour party led by Corbyn was a “threat to our national security, our economic security and your family’s security”.
During the week, Corbyn’s support for withdrawing Britain from Nato, scrapping the renewal of Trident and scaling back the size of the military also came under fire.
However, in a move that will disappoint campaigners against nuclear weapons, it became clear yesterday that he was unlikely to be unable to persuade his party to drop its support for Trident renewal .
On the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, said he could not see the Labour party supporting any move to scrap Trident, or withdraw from Nato.
“My view is that we need to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent. I share with Jeremy the wish to see a world which is free of nuclear weapons, but I don’t believe for one second that if Britain were to give up its deterrent any other of the nuclear states would give theirs up,” said Benn.
“The truth is that we live in a differently dangerous world now and we need a continuous at-sea-deterrent, and we need to do it in the most cost-effective way – that is the view the Labour party conference has taken for many years now.”
The senior serving general, who served in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s, said Corbyn’s victory had been greeted with “wholesale dismay” in the Army. He added: ‘There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny.
“Feelings are running very high within the armed forces. You would see a major break in convention, with senior generals directly and publicly challenging Corbyn over vital important policy decisions such as Trident, pulling out of Nato and any plans to emasculate and shrink the size of the armed forces.
‘The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul, to prevent that. You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security.”
But last night there was condemnation from within the forces that a senior military figure would put forward such views.
RAF veteran Harry Leslie Smith wrote on Twitter: “It’s is incumbent of Chief of the Defence Staff to remove any of his generals who think they are above democracy.” He also said in another Tweet: “If Cameron is so concerned about national security, he best condemn the serving general who advocates army mutiny if Corbyn becomes PM.”
Eammon O’Neill, a lecturer in journalism at Strathclyde University, said the comments were “laughably treasonous” and described the article as remarkable.
He said: “Firstly, in direct quotes – albeit anonymously – it recounts one general’s belief that he and his colleagues, are alarmed at the prospect of Corbyn ever reaching No 10 for reasons of national security. This is virtually unprecedented in terms of a serving soldier agreeing to be reported in this way, even when their identity is protected.
“Secondly, the fact he details how Corbyn might be restricted from a full security briefing is astonishing. If this is intended as a shot across the bows it is arrogant and utterly without precedent.
“Thirdly, and finally, suggesting Corbyn’s election might lead to mutiny laughably treasonous. It is a moral and ethical minefield for the journalist. Was this a ‘what if?’ hypothetical interview? Was the military man fully ‘on the record’?”
Last night a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence declined to comment on the general’s remarks. A spokesperson for UK Labour could not be contacted.
The National View: It’s Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘allies’ that present the biggest risk to the Labour Party’s future
Voters say Jeremy Corbyn's election will not help Labour in Scotland
New leader’s credibility in Scotland depends on keeping his ‘principled position’ on Trident, say SNP
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 here