ANDREW Marr has been accused of showing a “disappointing lack of awareness” of Trident’s unpopularity after claiming opposition to nuclear war could damage the SNP and undermine the case for indyref2.
He was accused of attempting to make a “safety in Britain” argument over a piece in the New Statesman in which he argued the war in Ukraine may turn voters off independence and the SNP.
The former BBC journalist said both the party’s anti-nuclear stance and its historical opposition to Nato - a position changed ten years ago - could make it harder to convince voters to back Yes while Russia is at war in Europe.
Marr, now the political editor of the New Statesman, wrote a feature in the magazine which questions whether a second independence referendum will happen according to Nicola Sturgeon’s timetable.
And he claimed the SNP might welcome a court defeat on whether the Scottish Government could hold a referendum, claiming: “It would be a rhetorical win against bully-boy London for nationalism, at a time when winning the referendum itself would be hard.”
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon banned from Russia as Putin retaliates against the UK
The SNP only reversed its hostile Nato position in 2012, Marr noted and argued independence could reopen the debate, given the Scottish Greens opposition to the organisation.
He wrote: “It isn’t a big surprise that, at a time when a nuclear-armed Russia has launched a territorial war of conquest in Europe and is openly threatening the West with its latest generation of nuclear weapons, these are not the first issues the SNP wants to discuss.
“Indeed, Trident could be the issue that makes winning an independence referendum next year impossible.”
He argued defence would “bleed into every other aspect of independence politics” and claimed the UK Government could use the SNP’s opposition to Trident as grounds to refuse a second vote.
But his claims were rubbished by veteran anti-bomb campaigner and SNP MSP Bill Kidd (below) who said: “The SNP has always had, and continues to have nuclear disarmament to the fore of policy statements and would never hide this fact.”
He told The National: “It’s disappointing, though not at all surprising, that Andrew Marr should show a lack of awareness of how unpopular Trident being based only 30 miles from Glasgow continues to be.
“The fact that Russia is threatening to flex its nuclear muscles should be a matter of concern for us all, but it surely doesn’t make anybody wish to have a target painted on their back in the way that Faslane/Coulport does with us.
“Mr Marr is running scared of IndyRef2 and desperately conjuring up a ‘safety in Britain’ argument. Nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place, no matter who has them.”
While Marr said the First Minister had told him it would be “absurd and outrageous” for the question of whether Scottish ministers could hold a referendum to end up in court, he asked: “Would it not now quite suit the SNP to be prevented by un-elected judges from allowing Scotland to vote on national self-determination?”
READ MORE: Scottish CND defends MP who said he'd be 'happy' if Russia sabotaged Trident
Marr went on to claim that losing another independence referendum could prove fatal for the Scottish nationalist movement, pointing to the example of Canada’s Parti Québécois.
He added: “The SNP would not suddenly vanish or lose its appeal. But it would lose its vivifying melodrama, its Braveheart chops.”
Marr ended his 16-year career at the BBC in March and now hosts a talk show on LBC as well as his work at the New Statesman.
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