Is the SNP now pro-nuke?

At the rate he’s going, the SNP’s hawkish spokesperson on defence, the MP Stewart McDonald, will soon be talking about an independent Scotland having a weekly armed forces day where citizens don camouflage and wargame defending the nation.

McDonald is tasked with making the SNP sound sensible when it comes to defence and western collective security. His latest manoeuvre appears to be to turn his party’s long-standing anti-nuclear weapons position on its head. This would move the SNP on from merely pretending it wants to be a part of Nato to credibly backing an independent Scotland’s membership of the alliance.

When asked in an interview with the BBC if an independent Scotland would ban any nuclear weapons including, for example, a visiting US nuclear-armed submarine, McDonald would only say that an independent Scotland would not ‘permanently host nuclear weapons from other states.’

This is very different from the SNP’s previous intransigent position on nuclear weapons. Up until now the party has been unequivocal in its insistence that an independent Scotland would ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), otherwise known as ‘the ban treaty’.

TPNW is a UN treaty that came into force in January last year. Nicola Sturgeon said at the time that an independent Scotland would be ‘a keen signatory’, adding: ‘The Scottish government thanks and congratulates all the states which have ratified the treaty.’

The treaty is clear on what it requires of its signatories. It states:

“‘The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) includes a comprehensive set of prohibitions on participating in any nuclear weapon activities. These include undertakings not to develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. The Treaty also prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons on national territory and the provision of assistance to any State in the conduct of prohibited activities. States parties will be obliged to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited under the TPNW undertaken by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control.’

It’s worth noting that this is very different to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which came into force in 1970, and which aimed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Britain is already a signatory of the NPT. But if it signed up to the new treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which Nicola Sturgeon has praised, Britain would have to unilaterally disarm its nuclear capability.

The TPNW not only prohibits a state from hosting nuclear weapons but from assisting a nuclear ally in its pursuit of any nuclear weapons activities. It should therefore not come as a surprise that no Nato member has signed up to it. It is also notable that Finland and Sweden, which are applying for Nato membership now, have similarly failed to ratify it.

The TPNW is obviously incompatible with Nato membership – and clearly incompatible with a US nuclear-armed sub using Scotland as a base. Nato’s opposition to the treaty could not be clearer, as evidenced by the statement it issued when the treaty came into force, which said:

“‘Nato is a defensive alliance. The fundamental purpose of Nato’s nuclear capability is to preserve peace, prevent coercion, and deter aggression. A world where the states that challenge the international rules-based order have nuclear weapons, but Nato does not, is not a safer world. As long as nuclear weapons exist, Nato will remain a nuclear alliance. Allies are determined to ensure that Nato’s nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective, and reject any attempt to delegitimise nuclear deterrence. We do not accept any argument that the ban treaty reflects or in any way contributes to the development of customary international law. The ban treaty will not change the legal obligations of our countries with respect to nuclear weapons.’

So, does Nicola Sturgeon’s party no longer support TPNW, as per the McDonald interview? This is, after all, a first minister who has boasted about being a member of CND before she joined the SNP. It is a critical question at a time when collective western security is being reformulated and strengthened.

No doubt the SNP will, as in so many other areas, try to be all things to all people. An independent Scotland will be a member of Nato but will also be the alliance’s only member to ratify TPNW. In the same way an independent Scotland will cut itself off from its central bank and currency base and crystalise a near double-digit deficit, but will also be anti-austerity. It will be at the forefront of net zero but will still exploit oil and gas.

But it might be more difficult for the SNP to triangulate an answer when it comes to the nuclear question. The anti-nuclear weapons members of the SNP at least should demand a clear answer.