Angus Robertson’s meeting with the Deputy Israeli Ambassador last month was a fitting reminder of the Atlanticist instincts which prevail in the SNP hierarchy. While the party’s domination of the Scottish political landscape is now breaking down, the anti-war movement in Scotland continues to organise around a dual challenge of relating to two national frameworks – the Scottish and the British – within the context of the global state system.
In order to do this, we require a clear sighted analysis of the politics of the SNP as a whole, and its relationship with the independence movement since 2014. Having captured much of the radical energy which had existed in the independence campaign, the SNP leadership pursued its integration with the liberal establishment without serious ideological opposition. This process was supercharged after the Brexit referendum, which allowed the Sturgeon leadership to attract new constituencies. By counterposing itself to the political crisis engulfing Westminster, the party solicited support from the institutions of European capitalism.
In this context, and as NATO troops prepared to leave Afghanistan at the close of a twenty year war, Nicola Sturgeon called for the occupation to continue in the name of humanitarianism and women’s rights. As one period of international conflict transitioned into another, and Atlantism peaked at the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Sturgeon publicly called for a NATO-imposed no-fly-zone, a move that would have brought the two nuclear powers into direct confrontation.
This was the logical conclusion of an earlier development in which the SNP overturned their historic opposition to NATO membership in 2012, two years prior to the referendum. The party’s stated goal of seeking membership of the nuclear alliance intertwined with an independence strategy which sought support from the institutions of military and economic power – and US endorsement – for the project of statehood. Despite the party’s best efforts, this support failed to materialise. In fact, Barack Obama, then US President, spoke out against Scottish independence during the campaign.
But geopolitical developments have since entrenched this strategy. The SNP’s support for the nuclear alliance should be viewed as part of a long-term trend of Western states aligning more closely with the imperial interests of the United States. As the relationship with China grew more terse throughout the 2010s, American foreign policy began shifting its military focus from the Middle East to the South China sea. At the same time, the war in Ukraine signalled the start of a new era of inter-imperial competition, accelerating this realignment. Historically neutral states, such as Sweden and Finland, joined NATO. Meanwhile, the US pressured EU countries to increase military spending and sever economic and energy ties with Russia.
The Scottish Government’s position, as an aspiring state reflected, and to some extent anticipated, these developments. Although rooted in these broader shifts, the Scottish political class has its own ideological dimensions around matters of foreign policy. Writing in the New Statesman in 2022, Nicola Sturgeon drew parallels between Scotland’s struggle for independence and Ukraine’s struggle against Russian domination. A progressive Ukrainian state was situated next to the aspirant Scottish state. And counterposing Scotland’s desire to be a part of the EU after Brexit, it was claimed to be a more responsible partner than Britain in the fight against the Kremlin.
In the fevered political climate, only determined anti-war activists in Scotland called for the British Government to initiate peace talks and de-escalation. The SNP on the other hand, called for the British Government to take harder action on several occasions. Whilst the anti-war argument has been challenging across the UK, the Scottish Government’s progressive image, coupled with the SNP’s traditional association with the peace movement—especially in contrast to the right-wing Conservative government in London—created an additional intellectual barrier for the peace movement.
Palestine
Palestine solidarity in Scotland has long had roots in the broader national movement, among the trade unions and in wider parts of Scottish civic life. It was this tradition that Sturgeon’s successor, Humza Yousaf, drew on when he called for a ceasefire ahead of other Western leaders, distinguishing himself from the policy and orientation of the British state. The SNP’s ceasefire motion last February opened up serious fissures, and created splits over the question in the Labour Party, the de facto government in waiting. This demonstrated that distinctive positions, if taken up by the SNP, can have significant impact on the British political context.
Yet Atlanticism remains the dominant ideology. With Yousaf now sidelined, the party’s once vocal opposition to the genocide in Gaza has profoundly diminished. As stated, Angus Robertson’s meeting—initiated by the new First Minister, John Swinney—reflected the leadership’s continued pro-American instincts. Now, the party is grappling with the challenge of balancing these commitments with pressure from below. In response to a backlash from the movement and many SNP members, the Scottish Government was forced to declare that it would suspend all meetings with Israeli diplomats henceforth.
Challenges ahead
The Scottish anti-war movement sits alongside the anti-war movement in the rest of the UK and, on one level, opposes the same fundamental adversary: the British state. To state the obvious, it is the British Government, not the Scottish Government, that is the crucial actor in relation to foreign policy. In the short term, Israeli actions in Lebanon are drawing Britain closer into a broader regional conflict in the Middle East. At the same time, confrontation between nuclear powers in Eastern Europe continues to escalate. The threat of wider, and massive, war looms on two fronts.
Against this backdrop, a major challenge for the Scottish anti-war movement is that while Holyrood is the most immediate centre of power, it has limited sway over questions of war and peace. This does not mean much more cannot be demanded of the Scottish Government and Parliament. For instance, the Scottish Government continues to allocate public funds to arms manufacturers through Scottish Enterprise.
During the Sturgeon era, the national question served to artificially sharpen differences between the interests of the Scottish and British political classes. In essence, they aligned almost completely in relation to key foreign policy positions. As it becomes increasingly clear that independence is off the table, the SNP also faces greater scrutiny. In Scotland, specific structural and political challenges have beset the post-referendum terrain. As we enter a new era of militarism and inter-imperial crisis, the task in Scotland is to fortify the institutions that can advance anti-imperialist politics, to be able to conduct such a campaign in relation to both the Scottish and British political class.
