Rory then addressed issues that are both closer to home and more global when he moved on to highlight the dangers of the nationalism in the current world situation. He argued that in essence the SNP message is an inward-looking message, one of pessimism, of lack of ambition and a denial of the role Scots and Scotland have played on the world stage. The picture painted by the SNP, and Labour, was of a UK punching above its weight; engaging in adventures that were beyond the means of a small, impoverished and declining nation. The siren call of the SNP was of an independent Scotland that would shed all of this baggage, retreat from such pointless global adventures and look after number one first.
The reality couldn’t be more different. The UK, of which Scotland is an integral part, is now—as it was a century ago—one of, but not the, largest economies in the world. The UK, of which Scotland is an integral part, has one of the highest standards of living in the world and a large and advanced economy. Its public finances need to be put back on a sound footing but that does not make it a minor player.
In playing a role on the world stage in partnership with others the UK is not punching above its weight. It is not indulging in folies de grandeur. It is punching precisely in line with its weight rather than below its weight, as the SNP would have it, or at least Scotland, do. The SNP’s ambition for Scotland is to be a second Denmark. In playing a role on the world stage the UK is accepting the responsibilities that come with being one of its leading economies. If the UK and Scotland as part of it will not accept these responsibilities, who will?
Not only is shirking its share of such responsibilities an abdication of Scotland’s duty, it is a dangerous mistake to think that the world has changed to such an extent that it is safe to do so; as events in recent years on Europe’s eastern and southern flanks demonstrate day after day. The UK, whose economy is 30% larger than Russia’s, has a defence budget that is half that of the new master of the Crimea. Russia has embarked on a massive programme to re-equip its military, whilst the Royal Navy is down to 19 frigates and destroyers. The RAF is in an equally parlous state and what is left of the army has little heavy armour. We have spent the last twenty years cutting back and arguing that sophisticated weapon systems are unnecessary in the belief that we would never again face a threat from a power possessing such capabilities. Russia is spending $100 billion a year on defence. It’s not spending it on bows and arrows. It’s building new classes of nuclear submarines. We need to wake up to the challenge that confronts us rather than hoping against hope that it will go away if we turn a blind eye.
During the ensuing discussion, Rory explained how, in his view, part of the problem lay in a wasteful procurement procedure that lacked consistently pursued, clear long-term goals; as the debacle over the design of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers and the choice of the variant of the F35 that will fly off them shows only too clearly. He argued that in part this was because we had failed to educate an officer corps capable of addressing broader geopolitical questions rather than purely military ones. Rory also felt that by pulling back from our engagement with regions where have been present historically we have lost our ability to understand the events that are taking place and the confidence to act quickly and smartly when necessary. This at least is something that could be addressed without the need to spend large sums of money.
In thanking Rory for his kind words of support and thought-provoking talk, John Lamont expressed the hope that by the time Rory came to introduce him to the House of Commons he would have learned where to place the stress on the word Lamont.