Flight Risk
Politics Notebook #33: Should the SNP be able to stop US planes landing at Prestwick Airport?
You know, I could have sworn foreign policy was reserved.
John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, will ‘consider’ banning US military planes from Prestwick Airport if the aircraft in question are involved in the US-Israeli air strikes on the Iranian dictatorship.
Swinney tells the BBC: ‘We’re seeking clarity from the United Kingdom Government about the purpose of American flights that are coming in and out of Prestwick, but we don’t have the ability to scrutinise those flights.’
Pressed on whether he would forbid American military aircraft if it could be established they were participating in Operation Epic Fury, the SNP leader said: ‘I will consider that based on the evidence that’s provided to me.’
Foreign policy is reserved, incidentally, but the Scottish Government owns Prestwick and it can decide who uses it. Pushed on the matter, I suspect ministers would lean on Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act, which says that ‘observing and implementing international obligations, obligations under the Human Rights Convention and obligations under law’ are not reserved.
This isn’t a legal question but a political one: who governs?
Your views on the current operation in the Middle East are immaterial. This is about where and by whom policy choices are made in this country. When it comes to foreign affairs, clarity and coherence are all the more important: a government which doesn’t call the shots over something as basic as allowing an ally access to a state-owned airport will not be taken seriously by allies — or enemies. (Nor does it deserve to be.)
These are the stakes, especially with an American president as mercurial as Donald Trump. It is ludicrous that already strained UK-US relations could be days away from a major blow-up and it will all come down to the decision taken by John Swinney, a man whose only foreign policy experience is managing to find Al-Jazeera on the remote control.
This is not how a credible state is governed, and certainly not a permanent member of the UN Security Council. If Britain wishes to deny the United States use of a British airport, that determination should be made by the British government, not a regional politician in the middle of a re-election campaign.
If we must have a Scottish Government and a Scottish Parliament — must we, really? — their ability to create adverse effects for UK foreign policy should be removed. The simplest way to achieve that would be via an amendment to the Scotland Act to say: ‘Scottish Ministers must avoid all statements and actions that could interfere with the foreign relations or policy-making powers of the UK Government.’
There should be only one government in the cockpit of British foreign policy and that’s Westminster. It’s time they told Holyrood to sit back down and fasten its seat belt. With Captain Starmer at the controls, it’s unlikely to be a smooth flight.
Well beyond their brief.
No, that's Westminster's job...sorry but F policy is NOT theirs.
Excellent as ever Stephen.
Yes quite, although Sweeney and Starmer probably deserve each other.
OT
In any case, I am commenting to say I agree very much with your latest article in the Spectator (on Ian Huntley's demise). I find it appalling that it seems to be a national sport to attack (even physically) some people who, even if their acts are beyond belief, still have the right not to be attacked at the first available opportunity. This is indeed a failure of the prison system, and not the first one either.
Had he identified as a woman, then s/he would have been granted all sorts of privileges. A broken system indeed!
/OT