Would an independent Scotland gain access to NATO

[RagnarRocks]

As with all things National Security is a major concern for small countries surrounded by larger better armed neighbours. Whilst at the moment all is peace and quiet in the Northern European front, history tells us this area is prone to frequent flare ups so can we be assured that an Independant Scotland would automatically gain access to NATO or as seems more likely have nothing of worth to offer with the SNPs stand on Faslane and not allowing the Americans or English to continue using it for their nuclear fleets. So we would end up alone not a member of NATO and no guarantees we would fit the joining criteria for the EU either that would make us a very small weak country who has forsaken our National security for the dream of independence.

[mi16]

Perhaps the Saudi's will invade us to rape us of our wealth or wind and wave power.

[RagnarRocks]

Maybe Iceland will sail down with a few gunboats and steal our oil and gas along with the few fish left

[mi16]

The last I heard they were up the creek without a paddle.

[Oddquine]

As with all things National Security is a major concern for small countries surrounded by larger better armed neighbours. Whilst at the moment all is peace and quiet in the Northern European front, history tells us this area is prone to frequent flare ups so can we be assured that an Independant Scotland would automatically gain access to NATO or as seems more likely have nothing of worth to offer with the SNPs stand on Faslane and not allowing the Americans or English to continue using it for their nuclear fleets. So we would end up alone not a member of NATO and no guarantees we would fit the joining criteria for the EU either that would make us a very small weak country who has forsaken our National security for the dream of independence.

Why would a small country, like Scotland, stuck, without option, physically to a small country with delusions of grandeur, like England (and I use England as opposed to the rUK advisedly, as England rules) need to be in any military alliance? The only ones who would be wanting to attack us would be the USA or rUK for the oil..or some country wishing to go through us to attack rUK. So either there is no possible problem (unless you think the USA or rUk would attack us for oil)..or there is a problem if a real enemy lands in Scotland to get at the rUK. Now maybe I'm simplistic.....but why should Scotland organise their defences to protect the rUK...........when the rUK will have NATO to defend them?

I'm not overly keen on NATO, if only because, afaik, they have a first strike nuclear policy...which basically makes them USA under a European umbrella..and I'd be chuffed to bits if NATO said we were not going to get in. Unfortunately, I really don't think that will happen....if only for all the empty skies and uninhabited areas available for NATO exercises in Scotland..unless, of course, Westminster has convinced NATO that if we make rUK take back Trident, so populated areas in England/Wales/NI are more liable to be affected by direct strikes/nuclear accidents than the piddly little unimportant city of Glasgow and surrounds, they (the rUK) couldn't possibly accommodate it within their borders...so removing Trident from Scotland would be a deal breaker. I'd be more than happy to break that deal.

I think the Scottish Government are maybe a bit optimistic re timescale in the joining process.....but not hosting Trident for rUK shouldn't matter, given that of the 28 countries currently involved...only 3 have a nuclear capability......and the really, really, really scary thing is that one of those is the USA........ and the other is the UK.

Have to wonder, does hosting a Nuclear facility for another country make one caught in the Nuclear non-proliferation is verbo0ten regime, if you aren't a friend of the big 5, rules......in which case NATO wouldn't want us anyway..because we would be illegal.......like Israel and India et al, for example.

[RagnarRocks]

I think its a bit of a stretch to say England has ideas of grandeur considering its history I'd call it a fading once mighty power still punching above its weight in the world. As for the oh no one would bother with us because we are so small, well that's taking a similarly narrow minded view on global events and how alliances can be made and broken rather quickly. Having powerful military friends in this world is no bad thing for a small country. Or do you recommend isolationism on top of independence ? Go independent with no guarantee of NATO letting us in or the EU all this in a world where trading blocks are the way things are moving. So we go independent forgo trading with Europe or the USA so that leaves the pacific trading block which is dominated by china or Australia maybe India or Africa I'm just wondering how giving that you don't seem to particularly be in favour of anything aside from independence how is Scotland supposed to survive and prosper aside from some deluded socialist state like Cuba or North Korea. And yes the USA is big brother in NATO with Nuclear weapons what would Scotland have to offer NATO without Faslane ...not a lot is the answer

[Oddquine]

I think its a bit of a stretch to say England has ideas of grandeur considering its history I'd call it a fading once mighty power still punching above its weight in the world. As for the oh no one would bother with us because we are so small, well that's taking a similarly narrow minded view on global events and how alliances can be made and broken rather quickly. Having powerful military friends in this world is no bad thing for a small country. Or do you recommend isolationism on top of independence ? Go independent with no guarantee of NATO letting us in or the EU all this in a world where trading blocks are the way things are moving. So we go independent forgo trading with Europe or the USA so that leaves the pacific trading block which is dominated by china or Australia maybe India or Africa I'm just wondering how giving that you don't seem to particularly be in favour of anything aside from independence how is Scotland supposed to survive and prosper aside from some deluded socialist state like Cuba or North Korea. And yes the USA is big brother in NATO with Nuclear weapons what would Scotland have to offer NATO without Faslane ...not a lot is the answer

Of course it has delusions of grandeur........paying silly money we can't afford to maintain Trident to ensure a veto in the UN proves that.

Which part of 25 out of 28 countries in NATO don't have nuclear weapons on their soil are you failing to grasp? If rUK wants to be a nuclear power.....then they are obliged to store/maintain it on rUK soil........not on Scotland's. However, there has to be a settled military force for a couple of years before NATO will accept membership, as far as I can see.....so it is unlikely Scotland would be eligible by 2016..which is why I commented re timescale.

Wish you would stop assuming you know what I think......I would prefer no NATO (but then given we have the UN and the EU.....why do we need NATO at all bar as yet another USA thumb of control ?) I would prefer EFTA to joining the EU......I have no problem with taking part in UN peace-keeping duties.......and I'd also like Trident out of Scotland, our own currency, a Republic with an elected Head of State (and given the current crop of possible political candidates, I'd go for Princess Anne for preference, if she fancied standing)..........and if the Scottish branches of UK plc political parties decide to really be Scottish, as opposed to calling themselves Scottish, but really being UK.......I'd likely vote Lib-Dem.

Heck, I'd love to think that I could dictate what an Independent Scotland would look like....but I am realistic enough to know that, as has happened for all my voting life in the UK, and apart from the last two elections in Scotland , lots of other people will decide my future for me. I can accept Scots voting for a Scottish Government I don't like..given that is democracy........but there is noting remotely equivalent to democracy in Westminster elections,...or in the Union as an incorporating entity which ignores the votes from outside England, unless England itself requires a casting vote to choose the UK Government, because the English voting population is fairly evenly divided.......which rarely happens.

See, way I look at it is, regardless of what I think and would, given my druthers, prefer, given I am only one of 5 and a quarter million or so, which might make me isolationist (though I deny that) but the Scottish Government is definitely not isolationist...in fact, rather internationalist, without being war-mongers..as I expect every Government from 2016 on will be.......however, I do get the impression that the UK Government is trying to ensure that we get the impression that every International body in which they think they have any influence will refuse to either have anything to do with us....or make life immensely difficult for us......and I believe that is just wishful thinking on the part of the UK.......but unfortunately their modus operandi appears to be working so far, when I read the likes of your post.

[weezer 316]

There isnt much to be said for oddaquines rant there bar, thankfully, such mind numbingly dumb nationalism is dying or dead, especially amongst people my age. Nationality matters not a jot to us and neither it should.

Anyway, to the point. Its a positive point for the independence case that we could pull out of Nato. I honestly couldnt give a damn if we are in it or not. I cant see the futures wars being fought with aircrafts and submarines anyway, rather small tactical wars. The whoesale bombing of civilians like ww2 would never be tolerated any more by most people around the world.

If you worried the russians will attack then your either stupid or ignorant. I'm far more worried about us using the pound upon independence.

[ducati]

Future defence needs are in intelligence. The more the better. However the 'stealing my freedom' morons don't seem to get it.

Just hope the terrorists blow up their families not mine!

[orkneycadian]

I see we are not even in the referendum year yet, and the "them and us" menatality between Scotland and the rest of the UK is rearing its head. Our colleagues south of the border feel they are being victimised for political reasons in relation to a referendum that most of us do not want anyway. That sets a good scene for harmonious neighbourly relations should the referendum somehow end up with a yes (although I very much doubt it!)

Having alienated our neighbours, and probably biggest potential customers for Govan, who would we build ships for then? With no shipbuilders in the "new" UK (unless Northern Ireland can build naval ships...), they would be free to go to the international markets. Sure, the independent Scotland would be one such potential international shipbuilder, but we would be competing with the rest of the world, including places with low cost labour markets like the Philippines who have a reputation of being very cost effective in shipbuilding.

Any takers for a bet on how long Govan will last post independence?

[golach]

I see we are not even in the referendum year yet, and the "them and us" menatality between Sctoland and the rest of the UK is rearing its head. Our colleagues south of the border feel they are being victimised for political reasons in relation to a referendum that most of us do not want anyway. That sets a good scene for harmonious neighbourly relations should the referendum somehow end up with a yes (although I very much doubt it!)

Having alienated our neighbours, and probably biggest potential customers for Govan, who would we build ships for then? With no shipbuilders in the "new" UK unless Northern Ireland can build naval ships...), they would be free to go to the international markets. Sure, the independent Scotland would be one such potential international shipbuilder, but we would be competing with the rest of the world, including places with low cost labour markets like the Philippines who have a reputation of being very cost effective in shipbuilding.

And takers for a bet on how long Govan will last post independence?

Hear Hear!!!!

[ducati]

I see we are not even in the referendum year yet, and the "them and us" menatality between Scotland and the rest of the UK is rearing its head. Our colleagues south of the border feel they are being victimised for political reasons in relation to a referendum that most of us do not want anyway. That sets a good scene for harmonious neighbourly relations should the referendum somehow end up with a yes (although I very much doubt it!)

Having alienated our neighbours, and probably biggest potential customers for Govan, who would we build ships for then? With no shipbuilders in the "new" UK (unless Northern Ireland can build naval ships...), they would be free to go to the international markets. Sure, the independent Scotland would be one such potential international shipbuilder, but we would be competing with the rest of the world, including places with low cost labour markets like the Philippines who have a reputation of being very cost effective in shipbuilding.

Any takers for a bet on how long Govan will last post independence?

I would imagine that Portsmouth will bounce out of its mothballs about a minute after the yes vote is anounced.

[ducati]

It's like so many things pronounced by the Nicky and Alex show, we don't want that bit (of the Navy) we do want that bit.

[RagnarRocks]

I thought the statement from the defence secretary yesterday made the uk govts position clear when asked about the scottish yards if Scotland voted for independence he was pushed twice and each time replied " the uk has never comissiomed warships outside the uk " I'd call that pretty clear

[macadamia]

We notice the complete silence of the First Haggis on yesterday's events. Very brave of him to wheel out the wee wifie. Should we read anything into this?

[Phill]

The recent announcement from BAE is, in my opinion, a clever piece of political manoeuvring prior to the referendum. It could backfire or it could be a cute move.

The fact is, Faslane is geographically and strategically very important to the USA, NATO and the (r)UK. In that order. So Salmond has to put a lot of spin on his future back peddling, which he has already started.
Scotland equally is geographically and strategically important from a military point of view, the risk of succumbing to global power projection is from Russia. And how would they love to shove two fingers up to the merkins!

I certainly wouldn't like to see an Indy Scotland becoming a full EU member state, as the deal would have to be renegotiated and I would assume tie Scotland into any future federal EU army and subsequently be obliged to step up to the Brussels stasi and comply with their demands, and as a frontier state, that could be very demanding.

[RagnarRocks]

I think some EU minister said last week that if Scotland wished to join the EU it was pretty much take it or leave it no negotiations.

[weezer 316]

The recent announcement from BAE is, in my opinion, a clever piece of political manoeuvring prior to the referendum. It could backfire or it could be a cute move.

The fact is, Faslane is geographically and strategically very important to the USA, NATO and the (r)UK. In that order. So Salmond has to put a lot of spin on his future back peddling, which he has already started.
Scotland equally is geographically and strategically important from a military point of view, the risk of succumbing to global power projection is from Russia. And how would they love to shove two fingers up to the merkins!

I certainly wouldn't like to see an Indy Scotland becoming a full EU member state, as the deal would have to be renegotiated and I would assume tie Scotland into any future federal EU army and subsequently be obliged to step up to the Brussels stasi and comply with their demands, and as a frontier state, that could be very demanding.

Can I ask how old you are?

[Phill]

Can I ask how old you are?12 How old are you?

[weezer 316]

In all honesty, how old are you? Im 29.

Your post smacks of 1950s style reds under the bed paranoia, the exact same paranoia that caused the cold war in the first place.

Russia isnt a threat. Globalization has done a superb job of intergrating our economies so we need each other which is the way it should be.

[ducati]

In all honesty, how old are you? Im 29.

Your post smacks of 1950s style reds under the bed paranoia, the exact same paranoia that caused the cold war in the first place.

Russia isnt a threat. Globalization has done a superb job of intergrating our economies so we need each other which is the way it should be.

Paranoia has it's place Weazer. If it hadn't been for the Rhine defences and the superb capability of the Nato airforces showing the Russians on a weekly basis that their aircraft would (nearly) always be intercepted, then they would have rolled through Europe. If you don't believe that, ask a Pole or a Checz. My Dad's job in the '50s was protecting front line airfields in Germany from Russian attack. This included infiltration and sabotage. Both sides took it very seriously. Hell of a lot of casualties in the cold war.

[Phill]

It's no paranoia, just an awareness of the global political game playing. Methinks you need to reread my post, I never said we were to be invaded nor go to war.

[Phill]

I think some EU minister said last week that if Scotland wished to join the EU it was pretty much take it or leave it no negotiations.There will be negotiations, a new deal will have to be brokered. It is the 'give & take' in any deal that will carefully hidden away in soundbites that concerns me.
Personally, I wouldn't have little more than trade agreements with the EU.

[RagnarRocks]

There will be negotiations, a new deal will have to be brokered. It is the 'give & take' in any deal that will carefully hidden away in soundbites that concerns me.Personally, I wouldn't have little more than trade agreements with the EU.
Now why do you think a small new player without anything to really offer the EU would be able to negotiate some new deal, if that we're the case don't you think all the existing small nations would want to renegotiate their treaties.
The current Uk only manages to renegotiate with limited success.
As for Russia well the Cold War may be well over but that does not mean that people like Mr Putin still don't view the world very differently to a liberal western way of thinking and want the old soviet power back. I think viewing countries you've only read about in books or the media is dangerous ground as the Russian Mind set is very different to the European when it comes to human rights the law, personal freedoms.
Mind if your happy to trust a man who was ex KGB, president twice then put his buddy in power before assuming the mantle again and is using all that lovely gas and oil money to rearm and reassert his grip over the region then I wonder which part you're actually Ok with,or maybe its a view lacking in the global dynamics and how quickly things can and do change the future is never safe unless you keep it safe. Hence we have very busy security services

[Phill]

An Indy Scotland will be a new member state in the EU and as such will need to negotiate its entry, it will be very much aligned and basically a formality but there will be some new twists thrown in from the commission, that will be the negotiation. Scotland will have plenty to offer, just how it would be done is the interesting part, I certainly wouldn't let Salmond get involved.

[RagnarRocks]

[QUOTE=Phill;1055382]An Indy Scotland will be a new member state in the EU and as such will need to negotiate its entry, it will be very much aligned and basically a formality but there will be some new twists thrown in from the commission, that will be the negotiation. Scotland will have plenty to offer, just how it would be done is the interesting part, I certainly wouldn't let Salmond get involved.[/QUOTE

This is taken from the BBC news website

Mr Barosso: "The EU is founded on the Treaties which apply only to the Member States who have agreed and ratified them. If part of the territory of a Member State would cease to be part of that state because it were to become a new independent state, the Treaties would no longer apply to that territory."In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory."

Then this from hard talk
Interviewer: The Commission has made it clear that any country, a country like Scotland, that would choose to be independent, would need to reapply for EU membership. When you think about how that would work, would it just be nodded through, do you think?
Jose Manuel Barroso: "Look, I did not comment on specific situations of member states because I very much respect that it is their right, their sovereign right to decide about their organisation."Now, what I said, and it is our doctrine and it is clear since 2004 in legal terms, if one part of a country - I am not referring now to any specific one - wants to become an independent state, of course as an independent state it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules - that is obvious."
Interviewer: "So, it has to renegotiate its terms?"
Jose Manuel Barroso: "Yes.
"Interviewer: "And is it renegotiating those terms from inside, as a member of the EU, or is it effectively reapplying from outside the EU?"
Jose Manuel Barroso: "We are a union of states, so if there is a new state, of course, that state has to apply for membership and negotiate the conditions with other member states......
Interviewer: "So if, and I am using the example of Scotland, and I appreciate you are not talking about specifics, but say a country like Scotland, it, say, chooses independence, it is then like a new state applying to the EU?"
Jose Manuel Barroso: "For European Union purposes, from a legal point of view, it is certainly a new state. If a country becomes independent it is a new state and has to negotiate with the EU.
Interviewer: "What about the rest of the UK that is effectively left behind by Scotland's independence...."
Jose Manuel Barroso: "That is the principle of the continuity of the state, in that case if a...
Interviewer: "Would it have to renegotiate its terms?"
Jose Manuel Barroso: "No, no in principle no."So it would appear contrary to pro independence campaigners the answer to EU membership is quite clear cut. A new country a new agreement.

[RagnarRocks]

Then there are the other EU members opinions to consider,so Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeons opinions appear based on common sense as opposed to law ....Latvia's Edgars Rinkevics said Scotland would be considered a "new country".The Baltic state is due to take over the EU presidency shortly after the Scottish independence referendum, in autumn 2014.SNP ministers say they would seek to negotiate continued membership in the event of a "Yes" vote, without the need for a formal application.The comments by Mr Rinkevics came after similar remarks by foreign ministers for the Czech Republic and Ireland.The Latvian foreign minister also raised the possibility that the rest of the UK might not automatically inherit the UK's membership of the EU.He said the European Commission was "considering" that question and that a "solid legal opinion" was needed.The UK government has said it was "confident" that independence for Scotland would create one new state rather than two.The BBC asked all 27 EU member states and Croatia, which joins in July, to comment on how Scottish independence would be handled by EU countries.Continue reading the main story“Start QuoteWe consider the debate on Scottish independence as a domestic affair and therefore don't comment on it”German governmentLatvia has become the fifth country, including the UK, to suggest Scotland would need to apply for membership of the EU.Mr Rinkevics, said: "If Scotland clears independence, it is a new country. The procedure of admitting a new member to the EU would have to be followed."All the chapters of negotiations have to be opened, duly negotiated and then closed."He added: "Member states as well as EU institutions currently have more questions than answers on many items."But my belief is that, come Scottish independence, we will have to have accession talks with Scotland as a country that applies for membership, rather than have some kind of different formula in this case."Mr Rinkevics would not speculate on how long the process might take, except to say that an application by Scotland should be a "bit quicker" than that of Iceland or Croatia, because Scotland is already in the EU.The Czech republic's foreign minister, Karel Schwarzenberg and Ireland's European affairs minister, Lucinda Creighton, have previously said an application would be required.Ms Creighton also said it may be possible to complete the entry process by the Scottish government's target date for independence in March 2016.Latvia's Edgars Rinkevics said Scotland would be considered as a "new country".In October 2012, Spain's foreign minister, Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, said that "Scotland would have to join the queue and ask to be admitted" to the EU.The Spanish foreign ministry suggested that this remark was still valid.Three countries - Estonia, Hungary and Slovakia - indicated a need for clarification.The Estonian foreign ministry said: "We need a binding legal opinion", including on whether or not the rest of the UK might need to apply for membership.The Hungarian ambassador in London, János Csák acknowledged: "There are different opinions on whether Scotland would inherit membership or refile accession papers."We should wait for Brussels. EU institutions should come up with an understanding of what should happen.".'Domestic affair'Slovakia's foreign minister, Miroslav Lajcak, had previously said: "There is no clear answer to this. In the end, it is a political decision made by all the member states."In response to the BBC survey, half the countries - 14 - said they either did not have a position or did not want to express a view at this stage.Scottish Deputy First Minister Nicola SturgeonA spokesman for the German government said: "We consider the debate on Scottish independence as a domestic affair and therefore don't comment on it."Poland said it would, "respect the outcome of any arrangement that would be applied", following the referendum in autumn 2014.The remaining six countries failed to respond or said they were unable to comment at this point.In 2007, Scotland's deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, told a Scottish Parliament committee that an independent Scotland's membership of the EU would be "automatic".In a speech in Brussels on Tuesday, the SNP minister said the Scottish government would seek to negotiate continued membership.Ms Sturgeon said: "On issues like the Euro, Schengen (free area of movement within Europe) and the rebate, our aim would be to retain the prevailing terms."The most powerful case for Scotland's continued membership is not based on law or process - but on common sense, reality and mutual self-interest."A Scottish government spokesman, added: "The Latvian foreign minister said the European Commission legal service is currently looking at both Scotland and the rest of the UK's position in the EU following a "Yes" vote in 2014."We consider that it is possible to prepare and publish a 'precise scenario' that will provide the European Commission with the information it needs to consider an independent Scotland's continued EU membership, and we continue to call on the UK government - as existing member state - to join with us in making such a submission."A spokesman for the UK foreign office said: "In the event of independence, the UK is confident that the remaining UK would be recognised as the continuator state and could continue to exercise the UK's existing international rights and obligations at international organisations such as the EU, NATO and the UN.

[RagnarRocks]

This is from the telegraph
Senior sources confirmed that Scottish Government officials were informed at Nato headquarters that countries wanting to join are not allowed to “import” existing military or territorial disputes into the alliance.But Alex Salmond has promised to force the removal of the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines from their Faslane base on the Clyde as soon as possible after independence.He intends to include a ban on nuclear weapons in a separate Scotland’s written constitution despite Trident forming part of the “supreme guarantee” of Nato’s security along with the arsenals of France and the US.The pledge would put a separate Scotland at loggerheads with the remainder of the UK amid warnings there are no suitable sites south of the Border where the deterrent could be based.Although SNP members last year voted to reverse long-standing party policy and support Nato membership, this was contingent on Trident being removed from Scotland.Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, confirmed that given a choice between the two an independent Scotland would remain outside Nato.However, membership of the alliance is seen by the SNP hierarchy as crucial in establishing their defence credentials and reassuring Scots about their security after independence.The blow came after it emerged Scottish civil servants travelled to Nato HQ in Brussels on July 6 to discuss options for joining the alliance if the nationalists win next year's independence referendum.In a further setback, it is understood their arguments that a separate Scotland should be treated as a special case were rejected, with Nato confirming it would have to apply from scratch and the process normally takes a minimum of two to three years.Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary, confirmed the UK Government facilitated the meeting and it had proved that a separate Scotland “can't apply to join Nato and then disregard the fact that it is a nuclear alliance.”He added: “The Scottish Government's plans for Nato appear to be in serious disarray.”Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, said: “It is no surprise officials were told that shutting down the submarine base at Faslane was incompatible with entry into the alliance.“Defence of the nation is the first responsibility of any government, yet once again Alex Salmond has been caught playing fast and loose with the truth – making assertions without checking the facts.”It is understood a Nato assistant general secretary used the meeting to set out the hurdles applicants have to clear to satisfy Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty.This requires all countries to contribute to the alliance’s security, including its nuclear umbrella, which the official said also means not “importing” territorial or military disputes.Scotland would have to demonstrate a history of stable defence policies and structures as a minimum entry requirement.Article 10 also implies that every Nato member accepts the alliance's nuclear first-strike policy. Officials emphasised that Scotland’s entry would require unanimous agreement of all the 28 existing members.Although Mr Salmond has repeatedly argued that the vast majority are not nuclear powers, Scotland is in a unique position as it already hosts a large part of Nato’s nuclear umbrella.It is understood the Scottish Government argued that Scotland should not have to apply from scratch as it is part of an existing member state but this was rejected.Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, a former Nato Secretary General and Labour Defence Secretary, said Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria were expected to resolve similar territorial disputes before starting their application process.He told the Guardian that Mr Salmond knew there was a contradiction between Scotland joining Nato and getting rid of Trident, adding: “He’s taking the Scottish people for fools.”The Scottish Government confirmed a “useful initial discussion” took place but refused to disclose details of its content.A spokesman for Ms Sturgeon said: “We have made clear that that continued membership is contingent on the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland, and if the people of Scotland vote Yes they will have voted to support a proposition that calls for the removal of Trident at the earliest safe opportunity.”Angus Robertson, the SNP’s defence spokesman and referendum campaign manager, also made no mention of the meeting's content but said: “Scotland is in a vital geostrategic location for Nato with the Atlantic to our west, North Sea to our east and the Iceland gap to our north.”A Nato spokesman said the talks were “informal and informational” but said the content was private.However, he confirmed that it is “widely agreed” that an independent Scotland would have to apply from scratch as a new state and the procedure was outline in Article 10.

[Phill]

This is taken from the BBC news website.........
Yes, what I said. An Indy Scotland would have to negotiate a new agreement. But remember, as it currently operates in line with the EU, the ratification of alignment would largely be a formality, so the process would be simplified (I assume) but for any new regulations the EU wish to apply.
In simple terms there is no huge stumbling blocks to an Indy Scotland becoming a member state in so much as introducing or changing socio & economic laws, trade agreements, customs practices, agriculture etc. etc. etc.

No offence RR but I guess your driving an iPad using safari on the following two posts, (as am I!) frankly they make my eyes bleed so I'm not going to try and read them just now.
(Hate to sound like grammar polis but the lack of spaces / paragraphs makes it hard work)

[RagnarRocks]

Yes, what I said. An Indy Scotland would have to negotiate a new agreement. But remember, as it currently operates in line with the EU, the ratification of alignment would largely be a formality, so the process would be simplified (I assume) but for any new regulations the EU wish to apply. In simple terms there is no huge stumbling blocks to an Indy Scotland becoming a member state in so much as introducing or changing socio & economic laws, trade agreements, customs practices, agriculture etc. etc. etc. No offence RR but I guess your driving an iPad using safari on the following two posts, (as am I!) frankly they make my eyes bleed so I'm not going to try and read them just now. (Hate to sound like grammar polis but the lack of spaces / paragraphs makes it hard work)I appreciate the iPad comment and I did try to edit them a bit to make them readable but basic premise is your argument is fundamentally flawed as the EU bods seem to feel its a bit more than a technicality but a full application. Whilst common sense seems easy enough you're viewing from a one shall we call it Scottish perspective not from the perspective of our many European compadres who seem to disagree with it just being a rubber stamp renegotiation .

[Phill]

I may not be making myself clear.

For a completely non EU state to come along, lets say Turkey as an example, they need to show they are aligned with EU laws, regulations, human rights issues, trade, finance, policing etc. etc. etc. etc.
Which they have found as a stumbling block.

Scotland, part of the UK, a current member state of the EU, is largely aligned with all of the above as it already is (part of) a member state. This may remove the lengthy process of ratifying eligibility.
Whilst it may be a full application, a larger part of it will be rather straight forward.

[RagnarRocks]

If you take a look at the articles, might be easier to read the originals,they state in some of them that negotiations aren't open it's pretty much a take it or leave it option for new members, which a major stumbling block would be currency. There are other factors one which might be trying to persuade some of the newer states that Scotland deserves special treatment. The other question would be say Scotland does slide Into the EU but the Uk leaves there's another problem. Dealing with our many continental brethren on treaties has never been an easy issue as Europes colourful history bears witness.

[Phill]

I fully accept where your coming from but the EU is, effectively bent, corrupt and self serving. And currently in need of more 'stable' member state's so while the rhetoric may be bold, my guess is Scotland will generally get an easy ride. I quite agree currency will be a massive issue, which what scares me. To barter that one off will take some doing, and I suspect some dodgy give aways hidden in lengthy regulations & articles will be the route.

[RagnarRocks]

I accept your position but it does seem at odds with what the EU is actually vocalising. They seem to be of the opinion that Scotland as a new country can expect no favours. You seem too forget that whilst the UK may not be perfect it does carry some weight within Europe where as a newly independent Scotland does not carry the same weight or bargaining capability. Normally you negotiate from a position of strength where in these negotiations does Scotland gain that strength from ?

[Phill]

I accept your position but it does seem at odds with what the EU is actually vocalising. They seem to be of the opinion that Scotland as a new country can expect no favours. You seem too forget that whilst the UK may not be perfect it does carry some weight within Europe where as a newly independent Scotland does not carry the same weight or bargaining capability. Normally you negotiate from a position of strength where in these negotiations does Scotland gain that strength from ?Scotland carries some weight too, status can be worth more than GDP. And the GDP is not to be sniffed at, especially when the EU will be claiming a share!

[weezer 316]

Paranoia has it's place Weazer. If it hadn't been for the Rhine defences and the superb capability of the Nato airforces showing the Russians on a weekly basis that their aircraft would (nearly) always be intercepted, then they would have rolled through Europe. If you don't believe that, ask a Pole or a Checz. My Dad's job in the '50s was protecting front line airfields in Germany from Russian attack. This included infiltration and sabotage. Both sides took it very seriously. Hell of a lot of casualties in the cold war.

Spare me please. Poland and CZ were soviet puppet states they needed to keep alive after world war two. To say they were scared of germany doing what it did to them in WW2 (25 million casualties, half the total count) is an understatment and infact likely justified. Saying that, your assertation that they wanted to roll into western Europe isnt backed up by fact. Their country was literally destroyed, far far worse than anything the UK has ever suffered. They didnt have the will nor the resources to do it and no amount of revising history changes that.

Russians aint stupid. Their new found wealth is on the back of large energy exports to the west, brought in in part by western technology and investment. They understand we aint goinna invade them (peace is far to much fun) and they simply dont want to attack us. This global power projection he speaks off is simply falacy, undermined nto only in action but by Soviet embarrassments in Afghanistan and then newly independent Russia in Chechnya. They cant win there they know they won take the west. Christ they cant even get the Stans on board now.

[RagnarRocks]

Scotland carries some weight too, status can be worth more than GDP. And the GDP is not to be sniffed at, especially when the EU will be claiming a share!I wasn't thinking along the lines of GDP its hardly a powerhouse economy,but does currently spend more than it earns so it would come down to Mutte Merkel and her big cheque book and whether Scotland thinks it can have a social wonderland of everything free to everyone in which case its going to struggle to balance its books. Whichever way an independent Scotland turns it will be a new kid on the block and will have to make new friends. Non of which guarantees entry into any of the clubs

[RagnarRocks]

Spare me please. Poland and CZ were soviet puppet states they needed to keep alive after world war two. To say they were scared of germany doing what it did to them in WW2 (25 million casualties, half the total count) is an understatment and infact likely justified. Saying that, your assertation that they wanted to roll into western Europe isnt backed up by fact. Their country was literally destroyed, far far worse than anything the UK has ever suffered. They didnt have the will nor the resources to do it and no amount of revising history changes that.Russians aint stupid. Their new found wealth is on the back of large energy exports to the west, brought in in part by western technology and investment. They understand we aint goinna invade them (peace is far to much fun) and they simply dont want to attack us. This global power projection he speaks off is simply falacy, undermined nto only in action but by Soviet embarrassments in Afghanistan and then newly independent Russia in Chechnya. They cant win there they know they won take the west. Christ they cant even get the Stans on board now.So why are the Russians spending so much on rearming and also using bully boy tactics on their neighbours. I don't think you'll find anyone surprised at Mr Putins desire to reestablish Russia's former power. To believe that the last few decades of comparative peace means an end to European conflict is a tad naive. Until the curse of man and his hunger for power are cured then the world will remain a tinder box just waiting for the right spark. The last few decades have seen wars fought vicariously In other countries but still the same masters supplying the arms. One big headache for all parties is the rise of militant Islam non of them Know how to handle that little fire cracker but it won't stop them playing their other little games until it all goes wrong again.

[Phill]

Spare me please. Poland and CZ were soviet puppet states they needed to keep alive after world war two. To say they were scared of germany doing what it did to them in WW2 (25 million casualties, half the total count) is an understatment and infact likely justified. Saying that, your assertation that they wanted to roll into western Europe isnt backed up by fact. Their country was literally destroyed, far far worse than anything the UK has ever suffered. They didnt have the will nor the resources to do it and no amount of revising history changes that. Russians aint stupid. Their new found wealth is on the back of large energy exports to the west, brought in in part by western technology and investment. They understand we aint goinna invade them (peace is far to much fun) and they simply dont want to attack us. This global power projection he speaks off is simply falacy, undermined nto only in action but by Soviet embarrassments in Afghanistan and then newly independent Russia in Chechnya. They cant win there they know they won take the west. Christ they cant even get the Stans on board now.
Lordy!
Which Russia are you dreaming of?
The embarrassments in Afghanistan (for every nation) were well predicted by anyone with common sense and you are conveniently (or ignorantly) swapping Soviet & Russian very liberally.
And as fallacies go, just who now has global power projection? (The UK (and certainly an Indy Scotland) has little now to counter the constant tests from Russia against NATO & this magical UK / US relationship)

[ducati]

Spare me please. Poland and CZ were soviet puppet states they needed to keep alive after world war two. To say they were scared of germany doing what it did to them in WW2 (25 million casualties, half the total count) is an understatment and infact likely justified. Saying that, your assertation that they wanted to roll into western Europe isnt backed up by fact. Their country was literally destroyed, far far worse than anything the UK has ever suffered. They didnt have the will nor the resources to do it and no amount of revising history changes that.

Russians aint stupid. Their new found wealth is on the back of large energy exports to the west, brought in in part by western technology and investment. They understand we aint goinna invade them (peace is far to much fun) and they simply dont want to attack us. This global power projection he speaks off is simply falacy, undermined nto only in action but by Soviet embarrassments in Afghanistan and then newly independent Russia in Chechnya. They cant win there they know they won take the west. Christ they cant even get the Stans on board now.

Blimey, do you know how many tanks USSR had? If the game of brinkmanship had been lost by the west, they could and would have rolled and there was absolutely nothing the west (short of MAD) could have done about it. Paranoia means not rational to me. There was nothing irrational about the fear of and preparations for that scenario. The trouble with history is it is often so bizarre that a new generation comes along and from their new world view think nooo it can't have been like that, so we will just make up what we think it should have been like. It actually pisses off people who lived through it. Go and talk to some people instead looking at the bloody internet.

[RagnarRocks]

The last regiment I served with 32aer was based in north eastern Germany it was a regular occurrence to have active edge ( mass deployment) because the Soviets had decided it would be an amusing gig to run thousand of tanks toward the border just to test our readiness anyone who served in BAOR would remember these events. The Air Force would be able to tell you how often bear and badger bombers would probe before being turned back and then we have the naval incidents.The Cold War was very real and often played so close to the wire it was lucky we didn't have another war. No paranoia when I say the life expectancy of my regiment should war break,out was 30seconds ahh the joys of imagery theatre nuclear weapons.

[Phill]

And today the UK & NATO's air defences are still regularly tested by Russia. And as do we, theirs, we'll not so much now as we're missing long range recon' aircraft. But we can still send a couple of tiffys & a tanker northwards.

[piratelassie]

Sounds like yet more scare mongering to me this entry. The world wo'nt explode and the seas wo'nt dry up if we vote to rule ourselves next year. It's an oppertunity we ca'nt afford to miss.Can you imagine what Westminster will do if we vote no, "right you had your chance, you did'nt take it so shut your mouth and take what's coming, No free Education, No NHS, privitation of water, etc etc " and if you are honest with yourself you know that's what will happen in time.



As with all things National Security is a major concern for small countries surrounded by larger better armed neighbours. Whilst at the moment all is peace and quiet in the Northern European front, history tells us this area is prone to frequent flare ups so can we be assured that an Independant Scotland would automatically gain access to NATO or as seems more likely have nothing of worth to offer with the SNPs stand on Faslane and not allowing the Americans or English to continue using it for their nuclear fleets. So we would end up alone not a member of NATO and no guarantees we would fit the joining criteria for the EU either that would make us a very small weak country who has forsaken our National security for the dream of independence.

[RagnarRocks]

Well how do you work out we can't afford not to vote for independence ?
And the alleged back lash from Westminster ?
Do you have any proof of your statements or are they groundless blatant scaremongering ?

I would call the security of a small independent country important if you consider the state of the world at the moment or maybe you feel the world is a totally safe place which would of course be due to our alliances which have kept us safe :0)

[piratelassie]

And why would these important alliances not remain in place, and regards a backlash, I would regard the absence of a backlash [for instance on the Clyde] is because of the strength of the Scottish parliment. I believe the Clyde would have been sacrificed to save tory votes in the south of England which has happened in the past, had it not been for the forthcoming referendum.


Well how do you work out we can't afford not to vote for independence ?
And the alleged back lash from Westminster ?
Do you have any proof of your statements or are they groundless blatant scaremongering ?

I would call the security of a small independent country important if you consider the state of the world at the moment or maybe you feel the world is a totally safe place which would of course be due to our alliances which have kept us safe :0)

[RagnarRocks]

Well the argument for ship building is currently quite clear whilst Scotland is part of the UK,the Uk will still place defence orders with it. If Scotland goes independent then the UK govt has stated it has never placed an order for a warship outside of the Uk.
You can't demand independence and expect other countries to place their defence in your hands.
Those important alliances are alliances with the Uk and independent Scotland would be just that Independent and therefor its own master and liable to join whichever clubs it wants as long as they want Scotland.
NATO without Faslane it ain't gonna happen!
Europe it would appear as long as you tow the line to Brussels then you should get in.
It's no good wanting independence then squealing about the consequences of being independent. I've yet to see any show of power from the Scottish govt toward the Uk.

[squidge]

This decision to close Portsmouth is being talked about as if it was a purely political decision. However none of these yards are nationalised. They are run by BAE a global company whose chairman sits on David Camerons Business Advisory Group. I find it inconceivable that a company such as this would close Portsmouth and leave themselves vulnerable to losing contracts in the event of a YES vote. If BAE had any concerns they would be excluding themselves from lucrative defence contracts then they would not have closed Portsmouth. Govan is, and will remain even after a YES vote the best place to build ships. "never heed what the hoodies craw for doom". BAE systems have the ear and move in the right circles to know what they are doing to ensure the survival of their business.

[piratelassie]

Well said.


This decision to close Portsmouth is being talked about as if it was a purely political decision. However none of these yards are nationalised. They are run by BAE a global company whose chairman sits on David Camerons Business Advisory Group. I find it inconceivable that a company such as this would close Portsmouth and leave themselves vulnerable to losing contracts in the event of a YES vote. If BAE had any concerns they would be excluding themselves from lucrative defence contracts then they would not have closed Portsmouth. Govan is, and will remain even after a YES vote the best place to build ships. "never heed what the hoodies craw for doom". BAE systems have the ear and move in the right circles to know what they are doing to ensure the survival of their business.

[RagnarRocks]

You seem to miss the crux of the matterWhilst Scotland is within the United Kingdom it will recieve orders for warships and the docks stay openIf Scotland becomes independent then the orders go back to Portsmouth as the United Kingdom will not place warship orders outside their borders.Perceived conspiracies are all very well but are baseless at this point regardless of whether someone knows the Prime Minister, BAE have made a commercial decision if Scotlamd votes for independence then the decision would become political

[ducati]

You seem to miss the crux of the matterWhilst Scotland is within the United Kingdom it will recieve orders for warships and the docks stay openIf Scotland becomes independent then the orders go back to Portsmouth as the United Kingdom will not place warship orders outside their borders.Perceived conspiracies are all very well but are baseless at this point regardless of whether someone knows the Prime Minister, BAE have made a commercial decision if Scotlamd votes for independence then the decision would become political

And it shows forward thinking, that is; both BAE and the UK gov. are confident of a no vote.

[Humerous Vegetable]

I freely admit to being extremely thick, but why would any military alliance want an unaffiliated country, with expertise, training locations and other resources, sitting in the middle of them and not being a member of the club? I think Nato will drag us in, whether we want to go or not.

[orkneycadian]

Good on you Piratelassie for coming back and entering into the spirit of the debate. I have criticised you in the past for lighting the blue touchpaper at the start of a thread, then running away. But I can also withdraw that criticism when I see proper debate going on. Keep up the debate! :)

[squidge]

And it shows forward thinking, that is; both BAE and the UK gov. are confident of a no vote.BAE are hard nosed profit seeking global corporation. They would absolutely not make a decision this far ahead of the referendum which would leave them building ships only in Scotland if they remotely thought that contracts would be pulled.

[ducati]

BAE are hard nosed profit seeking global corporation. They would absolutely not make a decision this far ahead of the referendum which would leave them building ships only in Scotland if they remotely thought that contracts would be pulled.

The contracts in question won't be awarded until after the referendum

[RagnarRocks]

There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking on the warships contracts but personally I thought the governments statement was quite clear.
Both Mr Hammond, and Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish Secretary, gave clear indications that a pledge that went with the announcement - to award the next multi-billion pound naval contract to Scotland - would be reversed in the event of a Yes vote.The Defence Secretary said the Government only ordered warships from UK yards, while Mr Carmichael said Portsmouth would be “well placed” in the event of the break-up of the UK.A final decision on the contract for 13 Type 26 Global Combat Ships will not be made until after the referendum, when there would still be time to reprieve shipbuilding at the Hampshire yard.
Mr Hammond qualified the announcement later when he pointed out that complex warships were always built in the UK, so that ministers had “sovereign control over the operation of those contracts”.He added: "What I have said, and I'll say again today, is I see no reason to expect that the UK would want to change from the position that we would want to build complex warships in the UK for reasons of maintaining sovereign capability in the future."Asked if Scotland would still get the Type 26 orders in the event of the break-up of the UK, Mr Carmichael said: "If Scotland is no longer part of the country, then, yes, it is difficult to see how the work would go to Scotland."“These contracts are on the Clyde because the Clyde is part of the UK. Inevitably a lot of things will change, there will be an enormous period of uncertainty, if Scotland were to vote Yes.“I think what Scotland has got tonight is a very good and compelling case for remaining part of the UK.” He went on: “If Scotland were to vote Yes, then the rest of the UK would be looking for shipyards within their jurisdiction and yes you would think Portsmouth would be well placed in that circumstance.
Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, said it was preposterous to suggest Scotland would lose the orders in the event of independence.
Now considering both statements it would appear that the only preposterous statement is Nicola Sturgeons on failing to understand that as an independent country the United Kingdom has no legal or moral requirement to place orders outside of its own borders.

[Phill]

BAE systems are effectively bank rolled by the UK govt via the MoD. They have plenty a risk from an Indy Scotland as do the govt, it is political game playing, simple as that.

[weezer 316]

Blimey, do you know how many tanks USSR had? If the game of brinkmanship had been lost by the west, they could and would have rolled and there was absolutely nothing the west (short of MAD) could have done about it. Paranoia means not rational to me. There was nothing irrational about the fear of and preparations for that scenario. The trouble with history is it is often so bizarre that a new generation comes along and from their new world view think nooo it can't have been like that, so we will just make up what we think it should have been like. It actually pisses off people who lived through it. Go and talk to some people instead looking at the bloody internet.

Number of tanks? I don't have an exact figure but I bet it was alot. Your point is irrelevant though as they had neither the will nor the means (their country was utterly destroyed, huge fuel shortages, food shortages etc). It was paranoia, on both sides as they were equally convinced the west would invade.