Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon recently called for the Trident nuclear weapon system based on the Clyde to be scrapped.
An independent Scotland would remove nuclear weapons from its soil and seek to join what the NATO Secretary General has described as “a nuclear alliance”.
When asked on The Andrew Marr Show whether the UK would still be a valued member of Nato without nuclear weapons (due to Labour and the SNP potentially looking to scrap them), NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg responded :
“Britain is a highly valued member of Nato for many reasons. You spend more than 2% on defence, you provide a lot of valuable, high-end capabilities and you have shown again and again you are willing to deploy when needed. Part of the UK contribution to Nato is of course the UK nuclear weapons – the nuclear deterrent – which contributes to the overall nuclear deterrent of Nato, which is something that is important for Nato. Nato’s goal is a world without nuclear weapons but we have to arrive there through viable, balanced nuclear arms control and disarmament.
The world will not be safer if Nato got rid of all its nuclear weapons while countries like Russia, China, North Korea and other countries maintain their nuclear weapons. So yes, we would like to see a world without nuclear weapons but as long as there are nuclear weapons, Nato will remain a nuclear alliance.”
In addition, GMB union have warned that removing nuclear weapons and nuclear submarines from Faslane were risking the livelihoods of 6,800 service personnel and civilian staff at the site.An estimated 5,000 extra jobs are linked to the base in the supply chain and local economy in Argyll.
NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg also recently confirmed that an independent Scotland would have to leave the alliance.
“If it happens, then the UK will continue as a member of NATO but a new independent state has to apply for membership and then it is up to 28 allies to decide whether we have a new member. All decisions in NATO are taken by consensus, so we need the consensus of all allies. By leaving the UK it will also be leaving Nato, but of course it is possible to apply for membership and then the allies would then decide whether the independent state would become a member of NATO.”
It is understood that many believe Scotland would likely face the issue of having its entry challenged by Spain which is cautious of encouraging break-away states due to the independence movement in its Catalonia region. However in light of Spain’s recent statements regarding their acceptance of Scotland’s entry to the European Union, this is unlikely to be the case.
An independent Scotland would meet most the entry requirements of the alliance and the country is strategically important however it may not be able to join for many years if approved as the entry process for the alliance is lengthy.
According to the news aggregator today, next years military savings are going to be aggressively conducted – scrap Red Arrows, scrap main battle tanks, merge Paras and Marines, scrap RAF Regiment, lease off/mothball a carrier etc etc. Reality is at long last being faced. Once Scotland achieves its freedom, England will have to face the reality of its place in the world. And let’s face it, who is the UK kidding with these US owned nuclear weapons? They are preventing nothing at all.
So they have prevented nothing, so the peace in Europe means nothing to you the Mike. They are owned by UK and the decision to launch is the UK only. Reality will be certainly but it will hit Scotland far more then England
Send a link, or, it is just fake news. Alternatively, read the thin pinstriped line
It’s Mike, David.
Has been posting inflammatory anti English posts for some weeks.
Just the new TH, with a chip on shoulder about the UK being somebody in world affairs. Note the mention – “England will have to face the reality of its place in the world.” They are obsessed with it.
“Once Scotland achieves its freedom”
It is a union, not occupation. One that Scotland does rather well out of.
“with these US owned nuclear weapons?”
Nope, the UK leases the Trident MISSILES, through a combined pool with the USN. The missile is just that, a MISSILE. The WEAPONS as you call them, the nuclear warheads, or “MIRV” are British made and maintained, albeit with assistance from the US through LANL and other places. But…who gives a fig? We have liaison with the US on a whole range of military and intelligence areas, what difference does it make with nuclear weapons?
Are you TH under a new alias Mike?
Tell me, what IS the reality of England’s place in the world in your opinion?
In alliances, political areas, economic, diplomatic, cultural, soft power, and so on. Explain your ideal of England’s place.
Hi Daniele-when I see a post like this I generally just ignore. Apart from it’s aggressiveness and inaccuracies, the biggest error is to talk about ‘England’ as opposed to the UK or rUK. The irony in the whole debate is that England has no stand alone identity politically being the only member of the Union without its own Parliament or Assembly!
Regards from(an unpleasantly hot 33 degrees) Durban
Hi Geoff
And regards from a freezing Surrey.
I know what you’re saying about ignoring, I am feeding trolls and all that.
But the way I see it, why leave propaganda against my nation unchallenged?
I myself will debunk when I can.
And if it is merely an “opinion” and I’m bad old Daniele for somehow shooting down another’s opinion ( It has been said here before )well I have my opinions too, and will say as such.
That is, after all, the point of this forum.
Cheers!
Fair enough Daniele. I am happy to have a robust debate but when someone is over the top aggressive, I couldn’t be bothered-getting too old to waste my precious time left on this Planet! BTW-Fair enough-Blond genug! Forgotten the movie where the Brit POW’s had fun with the Nazis by translating English sayings literally into German-Colditz story or Great Escape? Another favourite with our Afrikaans friends was Ek het jou life(I love you) which we translated as I have your leaf!
Excuse the divergence!
I’m sure I will reach that point too, one day far in the future. I hope!
You’ve earned your retirement. Enjoy.
From the Times:
Britain’s armed forces fight for extra funding
Lucy Fisher, Defence Editor
December 2 2019, 12:01am, The Times
Boris Johnson has promised the most wide-ranging review of Britain’s defence capabilities since the Cold War
Boris Johnson’s pledge to hold a comprehensive defence review next year is set to fuel fierce wrangling within and between the three armed services as they compete for funding.
A dispute has already started in the army about its ability to field a war-fighting division, a commitment outlined in the 2015 Whitehall-wide strategic defence and security review that insiders say is unaffordable.
Ageing tanks, artillery, surveillance and target acquisition assets cannot easily be upgraded or renewed under current budget projections, army sources say. They warn that more money will be needed under the review.
One source said: “If we didn’t have a war-fighting division, we wouldn’t be taken seriously by the Americans. Our third division is supposed to plug in to US forces directly. They’ve been warning about it for a long time: that if we continued to go down this route of smaller forces, we’d become irrelevant.”
A war-fighting division comprises around 20,000 personnel and is regarded as a strategic unit. The next biggest grouping in the British army is a brigade, at around 5,000 personnel, which is considered to be a tactical unit. “The Americans think in strategic blocks, they aren’t interested in tactical units,” the source said.
Mr Johnson promised that if he was returned to Downing Street after the general election he would conduct an “integrated defence, security and foreign policy review” next year that would lead to a “a huge technological upgrade of security forces to keep Britain safe and strengthen Nato”.
It would be the most wide-ranging review of Britain’s defence capabilities since the Cold War, he said.
Investment in space is set to be at the forefront of modernisation. The RAF has already seconded its first pilot into the Virgin Orbit space programme.
Defence chiefs had anticipated that the next Whitehall-wide strategic defence and security review would take place next year, since the last was in 2015 and the precedent has arisen of holding one every five years. As such, internal jostling has already started within the services.
Last night Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, a former head of the RAF, said that more funding was needed to fulfil commitments from the last review, including two extra squadrons of Typhoon fighter jets.
“That’s in progress but yet to be done. That’s a function of both manpower and money, but it would be a very high priority for the next review,” he said.
“There is nothing the RAF is likely to be prepared to lose. Aircraft numbers are low, the training system is in trouble.” Admiral Lord West of Spithead, a former head of the navy, said that the government must commit to retaining Britain’s second aircraft carrier amid reports it is considering mothballing the second £3.2 billion ship or lending it to allies. Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, has denied the claims. Admiral West added that more investment was needed for ballistic missile submarines to protect the North Atlantic, in response to a growing threat from Russia, as well as more cash for amphibious assets, frigates and destroyers.
Francis Tusa, editor of the industry newsletter Defence Analysis, said: “The services always fight, but right now there’s an abnormal level of pressure because all services have come up with unrealistic plans.”
This in no way supports your argument mate, just the opposite
Cut and paste civvy with no subject matter knowledge and experience. Best keep to strictly or whatever you armchair superhero’s entertain yourself with. Intolerant xenophobic fool!
Dry you eyes, wasn’t even replying to you. You may need to read moron Mikes previous troll like posts! And thanks for the concern at my previous military experience, which encompasses enough time, to have a vastly experienced mindest and opinion on military matters. Please keep posting as your opinion matters………..
What the Hell are you waffling on about? I mean seriously? Put this crap on Twitter so the rest of the educated world can tear it to shreds.
I see that the foot soldiers of the silly season are out in force. I belive the red arrows have been up for the chop pretty much every single day since their inception.
Mike absolute non-sense. You don’t work with the MoD day-to-day and you have no idea what you are talking about.
Good to see Krankie and Scottish Nazi Party’s band of merry trolls out in force
Lol this is your ultimate fantasy but it’s mere BS???? of the highest order.And as you are clearly ignorant to reality the U.K. nuclear ☢️ system is not leased the nuke bomb is British built and designed as are the Subs only the rocket that carries the weapon is from our Yank pals
Get yourself back onto that wings over Scotland pish propaganda site that’s where you belong son
Haha and your lot will prevent naff all as well old bean… Pop off yourself and wither away farming trees and fingering salmon.
Actually Mike Britain builds and owns its own nuclear warheads, but we do share a pool of trident delivery system missiles with the USA, but that doesn’t mean we have to ask permission to fire them! But being an Allie we surely would let the yanks know if we were going to, but we have an independent deterrent
War heads serviced in Georgia USA, cheaper than doing it ourselves as we are poor now !
And once again the troll rears his intolerant head. Boring and repetitive but as expected.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/9VrsRNeA0SHcEeos1h/source.gif
The matter might be resolved by declaring Faslane to be a Soverign Base Area like the ones we have in Cyprus.
If we abandon Faslane, then a cash-strapped SNP government might be tempted to offer it to some other power (Russia? China?) in order to spite the Westminster government and to demand more “aid” from the English.
Do you really believe that? I cannot imagine for a second that the Scots would allow that to happen. Also, what aid? They are much more likely to join the EU and become a net receiver of their budget than they are to ask rUK/England for help. That assumes of course that they would need assistance, which is far from certain.
An independent Scotland would be desperate for revenue. Salmond’s revenue calculations were based on an oil price of $130/barrel – twice the recent highs.
The Chinese Belt-and-Road Initiative would love to buy a base in Scotland and has plenty of money.
The SNP’s favourite tactic is to exploit their “victimhood” to solicit aid from anyone who will fall for it.
Without the UK The EU will also be strapped for contributions without the UK and would not be keen to accept another basket-case economy.
I’m embarrassed for you Richard if these are your genuine views on Scotland.
Whatever ones views on Scottish Independence I would hope that we avoid over-reacting to negative aggressive or genuinely ignorant comment from both sides for this is what ‘agents provocateur’ hope to achieve-to divide and embitter us. My best friend as a Student was a Scots Nat and(misguided as he was:) ) it never interfered with our friendship. The one thing that Alex Salmond said that i agreed with was that there would remain a Social Union-we are culturally and socially connected in the island of Britain and NI and the silent majority I am sure would want to maintain that.
These are my genuine views on the SNP, who are not Scotland. Please answer my points, rather than resort to personal abuse.
Richard Cooper, let me quote you…..
“An independent Scotland would be desperate for revenue. Salmond’s revenue calculations were based on an oil price of $130/barrel – twice the recent highs.
The Chinese Belt-and-Road Initiative would love to buy a base in Scotland and has plenty of money.
The SNP’s favourite tactic is to exploit their “victimhood” to solicit aid from anyone who will fall for it.
Without the UK The EU will also be strapped for contributions without the UK and would not be keen to accept another basket-case economy.”
“An independent Scotland……..” isn’t an attack on the SNP, its a slur on Scotland, even this hypothetical independent one.
There’s some pretty interesting views on here about Scotland (independent or otherwise) and the SNP, it does seem to get wrapped up together. As I’ve said before, I can understand why some Scots would feel a grievance against our southern neeburs.
As for answering your points…. hmmm, for some reason I’m not feeling too inclined to debate with you for some reason…..
You still haven’t managed to answer even one of my points.
Richard, I wasn’t aware I had to. I guess you’re looking for some SNP supporter to toss it back and forth, that’s not me, you howl at the moon all you want.
Without trying to offend (while realising I may) I really don’t find your arguments worthy of debate.
So they pass by default.
The SNP wouldn’t do that as almost every single western nation would place sanctions on Scotland including the rest of the UK.
Richard Faslane is an excellent submarine base but why would the Russia use Faslane , Ruk/Nato could easily monitor and in an emergence block the route round the kintyre peninsula from Northern Ireland would not make any tactical or strategic sense, Most Scots would not appreciate Russians swanning around Helensburgh
The propaganda value, access to a port on the Atlantic, de-stabilising NATO, and a glorified Kaliningrad, that’s why.
The Scots would stand to lose whole industries at Faslane, Rosyth, Clydeside etc. and would be desperate to be seen doing something to gain revenue. They would hope that NATO countries would give them huge handouts to keep the Russians/Chinese out. As the SNP has shown, in ignoring the result of the referendum, they don’t actually give a toss what the Scots think.
I will not comment on Scottish independence Richard, it is not my concern, but you make a big jump from English out to Russian in, ‘maybe’ Scotland has some strategic value for Russia submarines, but would also need motor rifle troops, corvettes and Regiment of Su35 for security, too expensive for us, not to mention regardless of Scottish government view I think the population will be hostile so overall not worth the effort for very limited benifits. There is massive difference between Scotland and Kaliningrad, Kaliningrad is worth a war to defend being Russian territory, Scotland is not
Gib. has too many holes already. Any more and it would probably fall down.
Declaring Faslane / Coulport as SBA’s is an interesting idea. Could that work?
Would have to include waterways too for access.
It would also take the agreement of this independent Scotland. A cornerstone of the SNP policies is to be rid of nuclear weapons so while its an option for the UK to have a Guantanamo it would be unlikely with the SNP doing the negotiations. Not impossible of course but the UK would most likely have to concede a LOT to get it.
Agreed, and good points.
Had not considered SBA status. Rules it out for me as IF this tragedy happens I would not give the SNP an inch for breaking up my country.
No reason why it could not work. If an independent Scotland were a serious suggestion given recent issues a withdrawal agreement and future relationship would need to be agreed before a referendum. Defence, NATO relationship etc. would be a key part of that agreement. The rest of the UK would need to be happy that Scotland would effectively defend its borders. There is a lot of coastline for a few million people.
For me personally, if there is a referendum on Scotland, well, it has to include the whole UK being asked.
It is, after all, my country that is being broken up.
And referendums are “advisory only” as I have been told many times by learned people here when i complain about the 2016 vote being ignored, sabotaged, litigated against, and downright blocked.
Perfectly reasonable position. The SNP like to portray England as a colonial power whereas it is a union. In fact the King who did it at the time was James I – a Scot.
As for referendums being advisory (as indeed was 2016) they nearly always have to be by their very nature. They are only asking a question in “principle” they have not normally addressed any of the details of how to put it into practice. If however a withdrawal agreement and future relationship have been agreed there is absolutely no reason why the question and execution should not be placed in the same act.
You said what i was going to say
True on both counts
I take your point but a landing of say Russian forces in Scotland would would result in a swift move by the rest of the UK & NATO to occupy and control the beachhead. Ireland might be sacrificed in the short term to shore up GB and potentially Europe. Hence the reason why the UK would want to know how Scotland intending on defending itself
Lol, I’m pretty sure Scotland’s Government would need to agree, but you have more chance of Mrs sturgeon campaigning for the Union than agreeing to a sovereign Nuclear base in Scotland.
Cam I doubt that’s one of their devolved powers. The SNP’s bloody minded attitude will only get them so far. They really need to be sweetening the pot for the UK Government and start removing some of the obvious show-stoppers. It is the SNP who want this ridiculous idea we are all happy the the status quo.
There is an assumption in this article and in the ongoing discussion that no country in NATO, other than Spain, would have a problem with an independent Scotland’s application for NATO membership. But there is one country, indeed the most important NATO member, that would have a significant problem with Scotland’s application and that is the United States. There is no particular fondness for Scotland, unlike Ireland, in the United States. An independent Scotland’s stance against nuclear weapons and the fact that an independent Scotland could not add any significant defense capability to NATO would make it be seen as another European country that would have to be defended by an increasingly burden weary United States. I doubt that Scotland would allow US forces, especially nuclear capable fighters, from being stationed in or transit Scotland. The SNP has demonstrated a particular contempt for the United States and has taken actions, e.g., the release of the Lockerbie bomber from prison, that still rankle in the United States. I believe these factors, among others, would doom any approval from the US.
Sturgeon and her allies in the SNP seem to be denizens of some other world they have created in their own minds totally divorced from the realties of 21st century planet Earth.
I think you are perhaps mixing the views of the SNP with that of the Scots – a proud warrior nation if ever there was one. I therefore think they would want to do their part. In addition geographically they have a lot to add.
As an independent nation I think they would drop any socialist agenda and become far more right wing – they would need to focus on bringing money in after all.
I suspect the military in the US would be pragmatic and see the benefits. Yes in principle the politicians might block it but it doesn’t seem like a battle any of them would bother to fight.
I know what you mean but I don’t think it will do more than bubble whilst part of the UK. Whilst sovereign UK territory it would be our problem and troops would be a last resort obviously. An independent Scotland would have a choice of sorting it itself or a UN peace keeping force.
Maybe Nato should help with the cost of Our nuclear deterant Nato funds many other nations millitary hardware and training ect.
yawn it would be funny if it weren’t so serious but some of the drivel being posted in here on the perceived opinions of what most Scots think is laughable , Andy sorry andy (no capitals) I think you need to stop basing your views on what a small group of political halfwits believe as its frankly ignorant.
Like they say, “be careful what you wish for.” It rarely turns out the way you are expecting it too.
Whilst ridding Scotland of nukes is high on the SNP list it is not a priority for the majority of Scots, most worry about employment, NHS, school taxes etc. If any Scot wishes to see what happens when a base closes look at Dunoon the Yanks left Holy loch about 30years ago and the area still hasn’t recovered , also losing the scots tax receipts of about 6000 or so workers and military personnel would put a strain on the Scots economy.
You’ve surpassed yourself with this one…
Bravo on calling an entire nation of people repulsive because you dislike one political party, with views like that no wonder some Scots want independence.
The term ‘FRISP’ has been around for years, its one of the funnier ones and less offensive than ‘Porridge wog’ which ticks a few boxes.
None of it bothers me when its sort of in context, I’ve had many a spirited debate with friends who are ‘Morris dancing child abusers’, fairs fair after all.
What we often see on here is something a bit more sinister, you’ve got to love the internet for giving people the ability to howl at the moon over what ever ‘THEY’ is grinding their gears at that particular time. I suppose its actually on an article about the Scottish government this time so sort of relevant. While being batcrap crazy most the time of course.
Hmm that may be. Hardly conducive to reasoned debate though. Particularly having previously been called a troll for challenging the nonsense spewed by ANDY slightly galling for him to ‘debate’ in such a way…
Agree Robert, some of these dafties actually make me sympathetic to Wee Jimmy with the guff they spew. Don’t get me wrong, it passes when I see her on the telly.
I apologise for the capitals comment, that was below the belt and not something I’m proud of saying, frustration of the moment and I apologise.
No, as I’ve previously told you I haven’t served, which is why I don’t comment on articles relating to treatment of forces, pay, conditions etc as its not something I have direct knowledge of so I would be commenting from opinion and hearsay not fact. however with immediate family in the forces I grew up on base and have an understanding of the life for families.
My knowledge comes from working on defence projects as I’ve commented on on other posts, you’ll forgive me for not saying specific ships or boats for fear of doxxing myself but safe to say I’ve worked up close and personal with some of the UKs most recent and note so recent hardware.
The comment I took issue with a someone who is a proud Brit but equally a proud Scot was you “effin repulsive scottish people”. Yes you may not have meant a whole nation and for taking that leap I apologise. However comments like that do not help debate and just fuel the Nats view of “little englanders”. It is perfectly possible to have debate and issues such as the SNP without character insults to people for their political view. I fundamentally disagree with the political views of Danielle (apologies for specifically using him as an example) and many others on this site but have never felt the need to insult their character based on their views.
I recognise I say this having snapped at you and used the low blow “ANDY” comment and for that I apologise.
I’m not veteran, however for many topics of this site, i.e. Scottish defence industry I have first hand knowledge and experience which I believe this valuable and hopefully interesting and informative to some. I’m many things, quick to frustrate, military brat etc. But troll I am not…
Robert1, you don’t need to have served to have an opinion on things, I’ve never been a nurse or a teacher but still have an opinion on their pay and conditions. Don’t worry about some old roaster, you’ve given a very eloquent response which is more than he deserves. From his point of general stance I’m guessing he served when the ships were made of wood (and I’m not talking the ‘Ton class).
If someone is getting precious about their views while denigrating a whole nation, they’re really not worth bothering about.