Western nations’ increasingly aggressive stance is not prompted by any increase in security threats against these countries — rather, it is caused by a desire to bring about regime changes against governments that pose a threat to the hegemony of imperialism, writes PRABHAT PATNAIK
A SIGNIFICANT driver of support for constitutional change in Scotland has been discontent with aspects of Westminster foreign affairs and defence policy. Currently, the Scottish Parliament has little role in international policy. It does however regularly discuss international issues, and votes on motions relating to a wide range of foreign affairs and defence-related matters.
The Scottish government is anti-nuclear but not anti-Nato. There is a widespread view in Scotland that the Parliament should support humanitarian projects and in the Parliament that the current aid cuts are unacceptable. There is no consensus in support of a principled stance against Western military intervention or a broader analysis of the West’s role or focus on the extent to which Scotland might seek to rupture from this settlement.
The Scottish government also has a small international budget. It undertakes work relating to several countries, and on specific issues such as safe water, and women and girls. Unlike the German Lander (states), it does not have the right to enter international treaties. Whatever position the Scottish Parliament or Scottish government takes, they have no direct input into any aspect of foreign policy taken at a UK level.



