The SNP has claimed that removing Trident from Faslane would not prevent Scotland from joining NATO, but is that accurate? I don’t believe so.
Since NATO was founded more than 70 years ago, in the words of NATO itself, nuclear weapons have been “the foundation of the Alliance’s collective security”.
The newest addition to the ‘Building a New Scotland’ series of policy papers states:
“This Scottish Government would make it a cornerstone of defence policy that an independent Scotland would only participate in overseas military operations that are lawful, approved by Scottish Ministers, and authorised by the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, nuclear weapons should be removed from Scotland in the safest and most expeditious manner possible following independence. Neither of these proposals would prevent Scotland’s ability to act in self-defence or join NATO.”
First off, I believe it’s important to be transparent. I fully believe that the defence of Scotland is best served as part of the UK. Now with that out of the way, I also believe that if it ever leaves the UK, Scotland should become a NATO member but there are serious hurdles.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
NATO is at heart a nuclear alliance, that is ultimately the point. Now of course some will, rightfully, point out that most NATO members don’t have nuclear weapons and that’s true. But most NATO members don’t need nuclear weapons, they’re protected by the nuclear weapons of other states.
Many point to Germany as a significant NATO member with no nuclear weapons but most don’t realise that German military aircraft are actually wired to take American nuclear bombs should they be required. Germany has no nuclear weapons of its own, but it stores 20 or fewer U.S. B-61 nuclear gravity bombs at Büchel airbase and maintains a fleet of fighter bombers to deliver them.
Three NATO members – the United States, France and the United Kingdom – have nuclear weapons and form the ‘strategic forces’ of the Alliance, around which the entire security posture of NATO is centred. Once more in the words of NATO itself, the strategic forces of the Alliance “are the supreme guarantee of the Alliance’s security”.
More to the point, a key factor in the strategic utility of the UK’s nuclear weapons is in fact that the submarines that carry them are based in Scotland at HMNB Clyde (commonly called Faslane).
Conspiracy theorists like to claim that’s because ‘Scots are expendable to Westminster’, ignoring that nuclear weapons are also stored just outside of London, the more accurate reason is however that the position of the base provides for rapid and stealthy access through the North Channel to the submarine patrolling areas in the North Atlantic, something that can’t be replicated by a base further south or on another coast. The frequent cloud cover also offers a great advantage for submarines coming and going.
Aside from all that, it was reported recently by a colleague of mine that there was a conference session on defence matters not too long ago in which “a very, very senior American diplomat” stated in his presentation that if an independent Scotland were to insist on the removal of the UK’s nuclear deterrent from its territory then the USA would veto any application by Scotland to join the alliance.
I’m not arguing for or against nuclear weapons here but merely stating the reality that NATO is a nuclear alliance and members are not going to be sympathetic to a nation joining the alliance whilst actively undermining its nuclear capability.
I believe the admittance of Scotland into NATO largely depends on the choices made by Scotland. What I mean by that is that should an independent Scotland pursue a policy that actively undermines and weapons the nuclear security of the Alliance then I genuinely doubt that it would be welcomed into the alliance with open arms, to put it mildly.
I mentioned above that a senior American diplomat stated that if an independent Scotland were to insist on the removal of the UK’s nuclear deterrent from its territory then the USA would veto any application by Scotland to join the alliance and to add to this remark, I would say that I can’t imagine the UK or France reacting positively to that either.
If Scotland were to abandon demands for Trident to be relocated, it would likely be welcomed into the Alliance however current policy would appear to place very significant roadblocks in the way of that plan.
So to recap, the policy paper claims that an independent Scotland would seek to join NATO and that it would also demand the removal of the UK’s nuclear weapons from Scotland.
To conclude, I am not arguing for or against the independence of Scotland (although as pointed out above, I believe Scotland is better defended in military terms as part of the UK) nor am I arguing for or against nuclear weapons, I simply believe that the position of the Scottish Government regarding Faslane would make joining NATO very difficult, if not impossible.
The SNP seem to think that they can decide what all these other countries and organisations will do to suit them. You cant have a country join a defensive alliance and then have them refuse one of the cornerstones for the alliance it self. I’ve said this several times but the SNP do not want independence they want out of the UK. That’s valid and fine but there are consequences and costs to that decision. You cannot ignore the geopolitical realities and pick and choose which bits you like if you want to join NATO, the EU or anything else.… Read more »
In their defence (and this is one of those very rare circumstances I’ll ever speak in the SNP’s defence), they have what they believe is an absolute trump card; location location location. Their argument is based on the fact that, regardless of whatever else they do, NATO can’t afford to lose access to Scotland if they want to secure the North Sea and GIUK gap. With both a neutral Ireland and Scotland, the alliance would have severely limited basing options for the Western Atlantic and the vital undersea cables would be far harder to protect. There is also an unfortunate… Read more »
Thing is they fail to take into consideration geopolitics…simply put Spain would see hell freeze over before they would let a secessionist nation into NATO or the EU…they would simply not give a monkeys what anyone said and the more pressure that would be put on them the more they would be forced to dig their heels in as they would see giving in around secessionists as an existential risk to their nation.
No the geopolitics has been taken into account. Scotland is already in NATO and what has Spain got to do wth it? Remember they remain unhappy about Gibraltar! Scotland’s position is different to that of Catalonia being based on a Treaty not invasion. Think about all relevant facts not some imagined single issue assuming it overrides all other points.
UK is in Nato
No kidding! That includes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well of course.
Enlightenment is making slow but welcome progress.
Not really, at least not in the way you’re pretending it does.
An independent Scotland would not be in NATO. Explain why you think otherwise?
Firstly why would it not? Where has it said that would be the case? There would be a T R A N S I T I O N period! Since we are already playing a part in NATO why would that suddenly be shut off and how does that benefit NATO? Independence doesn’t happen overnight and explain why NATO would not want us to contribute.
Not forgetting of course that if we don’t rejoin NATO for whatever reason it would be a big saving on the prospective defence budget!
Ah Nick, there are none so blind that will not see.
Yes and the ones who fail to see beyond their own prejudices and pre-conceived certainties are equally blind.
I feel I can, can you?
Sorry Nick, the UK is in NATO, an independent Scotland would legally be treated as a new nation seeking entry, that is legally very clear and not disputed by anyone. Spain would have a lot to deal with it, they have made it very clear they would not be making it easy….and the UK asking for Scotland to be rushed into NATO because it was needed for our security would have no impact on them..as you noted they don’t like us very much. The Spanish even fired the Spanish consulate in Scotland in 2019 for even saying they would support… Read more »
Aaah, but you are prejudging an unknown and unprecedented event. So while there may be a need to ‘rejoin’ that assumes that Scotland is automatically excluded at the point of independence. You cannot prejudge the pre-independence discussions and neither can you prejudge the transition process. That is the problem with interpreting options on the basis of an opinion without thinking abut what would or not happen. Where does it say in the NATO treaty that such an event requires a formal exclusion? It isn’t in NATO’s interest to do that. Think about it!
I’m afraid the NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg was completely clear and the NATO organisation has made it clear on an number of occasions..the UK is a NATO member not Scotland, if Scotland seceded from the UK the UK would be a member, Scotland would not be. It would have to go through the full application process according to the treaty. The NATO organisation has always made it completely clear that is the treaty and that is the process….sorry but in the case of NATO membership for a secession state the rules have already been decided…there are a reasonable number… Read more »
He knows that but in every post he makes he ‘assumes’ everything would go Scotlands way! Point out the obvious difficulties and he shrugs them off with a ‘yes but we Scotland’ remark.
Oh, …! You and your facts!
You are still ascribing certainty abut something that has yet to happen and eve worse assuming that there wuld be obstacles! We KNOW UK is a member of NATO and Scotland as an entity of itself is ‘not’. The facts are if you really try to think about it that as Scotland is not actually an independent nation then of course it isn’t an individual member. You also foolishly assume that NATO would in a fit of pique say no you can’t be! If again you think about the situation, it would mean a huge gaping hole in the North… Read more »
This.
Aaah, but you are prejudging an unknown and unprecedented event.
Not something that could ever be written about you?
Lmao you couldn’t make it up. We shouldn’t prejudge the event but on your side you are ok to do nothing but tell us how it’s going to happen. You want Scotland to be a separate and independent country, something if the Scottish people vote for I have no problem with, yet as this new country on the international stage you say you should just slot in where you feel like. Let me ask you this, if the requirement/price for you to join NATO was keeping the subs and nukes on Scottish territory would.you still join nato? I ask this… Read more »
No your proposition is not clear at all. Where does it state that Scotland or any other newly independent nation already existing as a contributor to NATO has to apply to ‘rejoin’? In Scotland’s case it would be no more than adding another set of command into the existing 32 and another flag. You are overthinking something unsaid and unwritten and assuming that yur wishful interpretation will as a law of physics apply at a future date. A new country wishing to join is a different matter. Scotland already hosts NATO resources, is already part of the planning and management… Read more »
Nick..I will say this one more time, NATO has said the process is that Scotland will have to apply….it has said the same thing over and over again every time the SNP make a statement to the contrary, NATO correct the record…this is not me assuming this is NATO stating the fact. As I said it’s not me saying it it’s the NATO council and the secretary general of NATO saying this…so that’s not meaningless. The exact statement of the secretary general was; If it happens, then the UK will continue as a member of NATO but a new independent… Read more »
The point is nato subs,protection,people of scotland want independence but the subs can stay,SNP are like all governments not listening to the people we all take NATO canvassing and stick together as friends,help each other.
Could I point you in the direction of thepinstripedline there you will find a very well written article of what difficulties a SDF would have in setting up and actually running a force.
Nobody has said there are not any issues. But don’t forget that this was just speculation itself, such reports always focus on the negatives and completely ignore intentions and wishes. The first thing to ask is what is the bias behind such reports (applies both ways), and so what if there are difficulties they are only there to be overcome and every other independent nation has had to face them anyway.
Oh well🙄
Scotland is not in NATO. The UK is. If Scotland declared independence it would need to seek admission into NATO as a brand new country.
Scotland is already playing a part in NATO, it is already in the command and base structure. Don’y take a bald statement without thinking what it entails. And NOBODY has said that Scotland wouldn’t apply. Scotland doesn’t jst suddenly cease to exist and you also assume that a transition is instantaneous! You also conveniently forget tha it is NOT in NATO’s interest to exclude a state and force both itself and the new state to go through a long winded start from scratch assimilation. Also don’t forget that France is already a semi-detached member of NATO (has been for some… Read more »
No. It isn’t. The UK is. “Scotland” as an entity has no part in NATO. It is entirely in NATO’s interest to exclude a Scotland that has damaged the alliance, and as multiple people have pointed out to you, in the interest of multiple member states to say no to it. Edit: Where TF did you get the whole “Scotland wouldn’t apply to join NATO” thing from? Are you okay? Did someone hit you on the head? That would certainly explain some things. And yes, it would definitely have to go through a from scratch assimilations. It’s been pointed out… Read more »
Norway, Greenland, Canada are equally good and by the time any threat got close to Scotland, too late to do much. Geography shrinks as technology develops.
The further from power a party is the less it needs to be consistent.
Yeah if the Scottish government gets rid of Trident, the British will certainly say no or demand that for Scotland to join, Trident will be in Scotland as without Trident, bluntly Scotland would be wiped off the face of the planet because to the enemies of the west Scotland will be a target independent or not
Why would they? Think about it. Why would Scotland uniquely be wiped off the face of the planet leaving England, Wales, Ireland, Scandinavia untouched? Any nuclear exchange would affect the entire world not just one small country.
Think about it. An all out attack on England would leave Scotland … Oh, … wait a minute!
I would imagine that Scotland remains a target with or without Trident. In a counterforce scenario, Russian planners would neutralize any nearby military asset that can benefit NATO. In a countervalue scenario, you’d want to cripple Scotland’s ability to render aid and recovery to its neighbors. The SNP position is a bit unseemly as well: allowing the families and kids of other NATO countries remain at risk while they hide under their desks at Bute House.
As would the rest of England. Your assumption is based on the ability for Russia to overrun, police and control the best part of Europe! Westminster’s position is unseemly too! There are only 3 countries in NATO with military weapons, and the strategic location of Scotland is a huge geographical asset to western security (not just NATO). The ability of a country with around 6 million population being able to sustain aid and recovery to another of around 60 million is somewhat misplaced!
Nick, my assumption is not based on a Russian invasion of Western Europe. It’s based on the likely scenarios of a general nuclear war. Whether Scotland can provide aid to England after a nuclear war is irrelevant; as a Russian targeting planner, I would not take that risk. I’d certainly not leave airbases and Faslane untouched. Your comment about Westminster being unseemly is incongruous as the UK is willing to use its deterrent to protect other countries.
Whether or not UK would actually launch missiles is unknown. Obviously all the nuclear states in NATO say they will commit to that but how do know if it were really to happen? Nobody can answer that and wider geo-politics at such an unfortunate time will also be a major factor. I mentioned aid because that was a reason someone else provided. There are far too many unthinking immediate jump down people’s throats certianty responses on here and too little considered debate and discussion. The point in this is the arguments about retaining the nuclar deterrent sited near Glasgow, and… Read more »
Nick, we seem to agree that Scotland would be targeted irrespective of the presence of Trident. SNP position has been that the base is a danger to Scotland and has to go. But if Scotland isn’t going to escape, why move the base and the weapons? Geographic diversity is a cornerstone of nuclear deterrence. If you consolidate the subs at the French base or in Kings Bay Georgia, you encourage the other side to think a surprise attack could remove the West’s sub threat. Wouldn’t a better approach be: a. Leave the base as is b. Ride out the few… Read more »
To be honest it’s all a bit irrelevant as Spain would simply veto any Scottish access to NATO or the EU…they could not and would not give anything to any European as they would see it “secessionists”. It would be anathema to them.
As for the views of the rest of NATO if an independent Scotland causes the loss of half the European nuclear deterrent…they would all be serious livid with Scotland…
Why is it everyone blindly accepts Scotland is of one voice, it isn’t, it wasn’t and it probably never will be. The largest proportion of Scotlands population is in the central belt, but during the last referendum other than Dundee no part of Scotland voted for independence outside that area and some big parts of that didn’t. So the borders, D & G, Ayrshire, Edinburgh, H & I, Orkney and Shetland didn’t. Since then the SNP have proved themselves to most Scot’s to be incompetent and worse they have actually shafted those parts that don’t toe the line, Next UK… Read more »
Why is it that everyone blindly assumes that England and Wales is of one voice? You need to look at the statistics. You also need to compare performance on a like for like basis, not easy to do since Westminster decide and impose what Scotland (Wales and NI) have to spend on their services. All goverments have critics but you are saying the UK would be better off under the last 14 years of Tory rule. Look around you the grass is almost never greener on the other side of the fence. The list of incompetencies from Westminster exceeds those… Read more »
I want to say; all this England hates Scotland so much it deliberately put the Trident deterrent on the Clyde is simply another of the Big Lies. Besides which the first deterrent that I’m aware of in Scotland were the US Polaris submarines in Holy Loch in the early 60’s.
Meanwhile all the V bomber bases were planted in the Middle of England.
Truth and Breaking up the UK are polar opposites.
You’ve got a peculiar vivid imagination. You are a mug for fake news and misinformation. A visiting vessel in the Holy Loch is not a permanent base or weapon store. Yes the V bomber bases were in England, but you are probably unaware that they no longer exist, and those bases only existed there in order to be able to reach Nazi Germany and were re-purposed to support the technology of the day post WW2. Your imaginary Big Lie is a figment of your imagination used to justify your position. Trident was housed in the Upper Clyde area because of… Read more »
I can’t see Scotland voting for independance, despite the SNP vitriol. They had their shot at it & got out voted.
But if they ever did, good luck to them. I wondered if Belfast lough or even lough Foyle , N Ireland, would be a suitable altenative to base our SSBNs, both being on or even beyond the North channel? Failing that, Barrow.
I don’t think they’ll consider Northern Ireland for the same reason that there’s likely to be a referendum there in the next however how long.
Most likely Milford Haven I think
That’s news to me! I know her down south has been bumping her gums but then SF always does. Even IF it did come about once the cost of losing the NHS and all the govt jobs etc are laid out for all to see some of these republicans would very likely have a change of heart.
All politicians are like nappy’s, both should be changed regularly and for the same reason 🙂
I dont have a clue where the vote would go tbh all im saying that if you had to make an defence infrastructure decision that would cost a hell of a lot of money, you’re going for the lowest risk option.
👍
It is not vitriol. You make sound and considered comments but then ruin it by making what is in fact a stupid statement. The world doesn’t work on ‘one shot at it’ and neither does the process of electing Governments. People change opinions based on prevailing circumstances and it is entirely right and good practice to review previous decisions over time. Do you make a decision to bang your head on a wall and then continue to do so without reconsidering if it is a good idea or not, because you thought it was a good idea at the time?
Does that mean the unionist Scots could constantly request a referendum to rejoin, or would the SNP suddenly deny the opportunity for democracy?
Something tells me the latter.
You can’t just keep having a vote over and over until you get what you want then, inevitably, never call one again.
No. Who said that would be the situation? It is entirely good practice to revisit previous decisions, which is why we get the chance every 5 years anyway. You really make loads of false one track assumptions. First of all it would not be SNP, it would be a choice of what the people decide, secondly it would not even necessarily be that SNP continues, new parties would emerge. Do we not have a vote over and over every 5 years? Of course people continue to campaign for whatever policies they espouse over and over, regardless. Think it all through… Read more »
That’s an impressively naive take to think that any subsequent Scottish government would allow repeated referenda about being rejoining the UK. No government does that because it famously favours the ones demanding it by wearing down the people that prefer the status quo to the point where they no longer fight it. It’s the very raison d’etre of the SNP – if there were a referendum tomorrow and it failed (again), 15 seconds after the result, they’d be demanding another one. Government change is not the same as material changes to the entire country’s global position. Think it through (to… Read more »
Remember when the Fish people claimed 2014 was a “once in a lifetime” referendum, and then moments after it failed they where already laying the ground work for the next one?
I recall it vividly. Any excuse, any justification for another referendum is the sole objective of the SNP. Governance is merely a pothole on that journey.
But I could bet a significant sum of money that they’d never endorse a rejoin referendum. “The people have spoken,” they’d say. “It is the democratic will of the people.”
They’re Brexiteers with a different banner and nothing more.
The referendum on Scotland’s independence is as significant a moment as the Act of Union. Except this time all the people got a say. End of story.
This comment is not directed at any specific Nation (in fact quite the opposite as we look around us, both closer & further from home) regarding:-
their democratic right to determination, assumptions based upon their future political complexion & international relationships, infrastructure & industrial requirements, institutions, interconnectedness, budget realities, etc.
All of these are indulgent during a period of existential threat wherein the Rubicon has already been crossed; barring some currently hard to discern political astuteness.
Well said. Decisions are made based on circumstances and experiences at the time. Hindsight decides whether or not a decision was the right one, but that is also a time to revisit those decisions!
Of course, I don’t believe existential & Rubicon leave much time for hindsight and revisiting.
Personally, and specifically, do think such assumptions over Defence as proposed in this paper are at best ill-timed though.
Plenty of other countries in NATO refuse to permanently base the weapons. Visiting ships/planes with them on board is a completely different matter, as is the provision of base facilities for the platforms. However the concept of removal is one thing, the actuality of doing so or being able to do so is a decision that is only to be taken at some possible future date in the prevailing circumstances at that time. Making uninformed assertive position statements in advance of that discussion is a waste of time. The use and siting of these weapons will be decided by a… Read more »
Which nato countries have refused to base nuclear weapons?
All the other 29. The weapons are not based at any of them but brought in on visiting aircraft and warships. The paper talks about basing them not preventing them from visiting in the event of a war. Something completely different and if a war broke out then the rules would be rewritten anyway. Whether or not the existing conventional bases would still be a nuclear target is a moot point and unanswerable in advance.
You’re changing the goalposts as usual Nick. You’re telling me all bar The UK,US and France have refused to have nukes on their territory?
I’m sure that will come as a shock to Germany Italy Belgium Turkey and the Netherlands all of whom have Nato nukes in their countries.
So do you think there’s a hypocrisy by refusing to have nuclear weapons in Scotland yet relying on them under the organisations protection?
I can only suggest you learn to read. I did not say they refuse to have them on their territory. Look carefully as I said they do not BASE them there. That is an entirely different matter for them to on visiting aircraft and ships. Nuclear umbrella under NATO means that they are prepared to accept that they may be used, whih is an entirely different matter and is predicated as an obligation in the NATO treaty. Why do people fail to read then jump to some unsubstantiated conclusion and unexplained extrapolation? FYI the reason why Scotland is principally against… Read more »
Lmao honestly have you ever thought about being a politician?
As I’ve just shown you several countries have nukes BASED on their territories. Show me evidence of 29 nato countries refusing to have nukes based in their countries. Bet you can’t.
Spain allows US warships in Rota.
On the one hand you say what Scotland has is its strategic location (which is why the UK’s SSBNs are where they are, within reasonable access of the deep Atlantic) and on the other and on the other complaining that they are based far from London? Which is it?
Did you actually think before writing your question? It isn’t Scotland’s strategic location, which is ONLY vaguely relevant in the event of a sea borne attack, it is Westminster’s imposition of that base, which happens to be along way from imposing a risk on the south of England. Why is it one or the other? If you think about it both apply. And even Vlad the Mad is not about to instigate all out nuclear suicide so the most likely scenario is actually a limited first strike to take out our response capability, in which case the casualties would be… Read more »
Yes we all know there are costs associated with any move to Scottish independence, but that alone is not a valid reason for not pursuing the concept. Removing the weapons from one place does not mean not they cannot possibly be used, and the intention of retaining membership of NATO accepts that possibility. In reality given that unless someone embarks on a punishment policy of global extermination (even Putin isn’t that mad) the main risk is actually that of conventional attack, and the means of repelling it. We’ve been hiding behind and relying on the nuclear umbrella for far too… Read more »
I think you have missed the point of NATO Nick. It is a defensive alliance which aims to deter Russia by making it obvious that Russia could never win. Nick you have a number of issues. Firstly Independence is not even on the cards at the moment. Second if at some point in the future the UK population feel that separation is for the best – don’t expect a referendum we have had enough of those – expect to be chucked out on the terms parliament decides. I just can’t see it happening any time soon. Certainly I would expect… Read more »
If we (NATO, the UK (including Scotland)) didn’t have a nuclear deterrent then Putin’s current policy of conducting war in Ukraine would be a different story. You are correct (hopefully) in saying that ‘even Putin isn’t that mad’ to embark on global extermination, but if not faced with our (NATO, the UK (including Scotland)) strategic nuclear deterrent he would hold the trump card of the threat of exterminating all of us that opposed his madness. Yet the SNP policy is that nuclear weapons are strategically wrong and as you claim the threat is conventional. That’s not correct as we can… Read more »
Nobody has said that UK cannot have a nuclear deterrent. The paper doesn’t say that either. It also doesn’t say that UK can’t have them and it accepts that NATO uses the nuclear arsenal for strategic purposes, and by implitcation also accepts that being in NATO means the possibility of their use. The arguments are fundamentally about the opposition from potential English base locations for the resiting of the weapon systems, and the Unionist expectation that Glasgow and the Central Belt must put up wth them on the doorstep. The debates about strategy are something else, and what Westminster should… Read more »
Of course, a UK (minus Scotland) can have a nuclear deterrent. My grave concern and anxiety like most is that an independent Scotland won’t have a deterrent or be able to rely on a NATO one given SNP policy, I quote below. The SNP policy and NATO doctrine are at the opposite extremes. NATO is not going to change it’s doctrine for at least a generation given the world we live in currently. The door of change started opening in the 1990s with perestroika but unfortunately the reality is that it’s now nailed shut and bolted from both sides for… Read more »
You really don’t understand the implications of demanding the removal of SSBNs from Faslane. It will cost the UK billions which will have to be found from the defence budget (which means much less for other UK defence projects), or from elsewhere in the budget. I’m sure the UK taxpayer would be delighted to have cuts elsewhere or increased taxes because of Scotland. Or it might force the UK to exit the nuclear game altogether. The consequences for a Scotland trying to join NATO in any of these scenarios would be severe if not terminal.
What a ridiculous first statement. Of course I understand the implications. HMT can find the money when they want to! The whole point that you refuse to and fail to understand is the location where the facilities are currently sited. They are not acceptable in Scotland in the same way that they are not acceptable in England. In any event you also miss the point that moving them from the Central Belt of Scotland does not preclude them being sited anywhere else. If E/W really wanted to keep them in the event of Scottish Independence then they can always find… Read more »
scotland risks being a pariah state, blocking home port for NATO nuclear deterrent and potentially restricting russian air watch over north atlantic. hopefully this is no more than snp being worried labour will get some scotish seats this election.
I would strongly suggest that if the SNP got their way and Independence was voted for, they would want rid of the Nuclear deterrent, as said in the article the USA would veto any bid by Scotland to join NATO. The SNP want their cake and eat it, in this world you always have make compromises. I’m not so sure that would go down well with the voters who work in those industries. Pretty sure BAE and the MOD are one of the largest employers in Scotland. SNP need to be careful for what they ask for, they will probably… Read more »
As Mr Cole will tell you though we will roll over and tickle Scotlands tummy because they are nice people and we can’t do without them!😀
Why roll over? Come on this is a serious debate. Clearly the arguments are that England can’t do without Faslane and Coulport!
The options of locating Trident in other parts of Scotland are not limited to the Clyde. How’s about Loch Ewe or Scapa Flow or even Invergordon all previous large Fleet anchorages down wind of Glasgow etc.
Why does it have to be located in Scotland? What about places in England who I am sure would welcome the construction and manning jobs! Fundamentally if England doesn’t want to host what they want as ‘their’ deterrent why should Scotland be forced to? That is the elephant in the room argument!
It’s located in Scotland for the strategic reasons you claim to recognise. Rebasing the SSBNs et al is a lot more than just sailing south and parking them up in Portsmouth.
Why? There is a Trident submarine maintenance facility in Devonport. There are plenty of suitable docking sites that could be developed in England or even Wales, all closer to Aldermaston who refurbish the warheads, along with underground ammunition storage depots. Aside from these Faslane is just a port an docking facility.
I have directed you to a article that lays out perfectly well what the problems Scotland would have setting up affording and running a DF and you haven’t taken a blind bit of notice so I can only assume you really don’t want to face facts! So on that note I think the discussion is over.
I did not take ‘a blind bit of notice’. You make the mistake of forgetting that the report as well as the paper are mere speculation and opinions abut possible options. Neither of which are fact. Does you reference actually state it is not possible to create a defence force? You remain completely ignorant of the fact that Scotland could afford to create its own defence force in exactly the same way as many many many other countries do, and has a GDP better than many. And that in the event of independence there would be a transition period when… Read more »
I really shouldn’t be bothered here but .ithe article does not state you could not form a DF just the difficulty in doing so! You still adhere to the premise because you are Scotland that everything will be rosy but hay ho it very much looks as if the SNP are hopefully going to be toast at the election then perhaps Scotland can have some grown ups in charge.cherio
So why comment by stating that because of these so-called ‘difficulties’ which are instead issues anyway, then impty that it could not be done? Start off with that premise possibly, but then actually justify it. You continue with ridiculous statemsn and assumptions that have never been said, who says it will be ‘rosy’ The grown ups are those who make considered and rational statements. The ones who are not grown ups are those who jump to conclusions believing whatever fake news supports their original badly composed opinion. To counter your last sentence actually go and look at the real statistics.… Read more »
Nice rant😂 you never know you might actually convince someone that regarding defence you know what you are talking about,doubtful though! Now back in your telephone box and have a nice day.
It is obvious that you lack the capacity for rational thought and understanding, still less analysis. Opinion pieces are merely opinion not fact. As a consequnce I think I know somewhat more than you can appreciate. Opinion pieces are about options and variables. Reviewing options is an intelligent process before making a commitment.
Keep digging😂
I’m providing considered and analytical responses, and one liners add nothing intelligent and merely display an inability to think beyond repeating rumour and inuendo! The one liners are invariably the response from those who don’t have a real contribution or rational and valid fact based counterargument .
Wrong on several counts. BAE and MOD are far from the largest employers and then only in a handful of locations. Scotland and most of England would prefer there to be no deterrent but also understands the need for the deterrent. If Scotland were Independent the removal of the weapons from Scottish territory is what is mentioned, not the UK. If you imply that UK would have to give them up because of opposition from the English shires about siting them then why should Scotland be expected to continue hosting them? It does not mean that Scotland could force the… Read more »
Removing the Faslane nuclear deterrent isn’t going to sit well with NATO as it is evidently going to weaken part of its key capability. The reason it is at Faslane is as a deep water strategic and defensive location (not to avoid casualties elsewhere as it would all be over at that point anyhow). So what does NATO gain by excluding Scotland? It demonstrates to the whole world and its own members that NATO is a strong defensive alliance and if you want to be in that Club, which is the best guarantee of security and safety you can have… Read more »
You are all thinking in military terms. What matters in a democracy is the politics. It’s difficult for both Biden and Trump to justify spending on European defence to many hard up Americans, ditto the British government allowing Scotland into NATO and effectively paying for their defence to the remaining UK tax payers. If Scotland does eventually give it’s self a hard kick in the nuts hopefully one way or another the Russian/Putin threat no longer will be an issue.
Why would rUK pay for Scotland’s defence? Some seriousy flawed thinking and invention of some peculiar concepts not mentioned in the paper. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Scotland also pays income tax, duties and VAT so therefore already pays and has paid for its share of the defence capability, and would continue to do so. Where in the paper has it said that UK would have to pay for Scotland’s defence? What does ‘hard kick in the nuts’ actually mean and why do you make that statement? NATO doesn’t exist because of the nuclear deterrent.
Scotland could not simply “inherit” a % of UK kit and equipment.
Yes, that is the basic premise. Especially as we have already paid for our share of it anyway. However as always the devil will be in the detail come negotiating time.
“lawful, approved by Scottish Ministers, and authorised by the Scottish Parliament”
So in other words NEVER.
What contribution to an intelligent discussion does that comment make?
I would simply add that an independent Scotland outside of nato presents much bigger issues to the rest of the U.K. and nato than it being in nato. The idea of Russia/China/India or whoever invading Scotland while the rest of the U.K. and the wider world did nothing is not really going to happen. If that was allowed to happen it’s to the detriment of nato and the U.K. Scotland being outside kept outside the alliance also would keep the alliance outside of scotlands bases, territorial waters etc. That again is costly to nato. For Scotland it doesn’t matter that… Read more »
You are right it’s not a good idea to second guess future decision-making. Therefore we do not know if independent Scotland will be in NATO or not. If it is allowed into NATO all well and good. But if not? Given the uncertain world with the possibility of a non-NATO Scotland coming under external threat then of course the remainder of the UK and wider world would undoubtedly react, much as they have in Ukraine. But in Ukraine, as would have been the case in Finland and Sweden, the NATO response, even if willing would be very limited. It is… Read more »
For all of you still with the will to live on this subject SirHumprey on his blog
thepinstripedline has firmly put this nonsense from Nick Cole firmly to bed.A very good read if you are interested.
I’m not the only one from an Anglo-Irish-Scots family that’s had enough of this destruction of the UK. First off we had to go through all the pain of the Republic’s separation a century ago and then comes the start of the endless more recent Scottish attempts at separation. Its all about immaturity and hate from centuries ago being stirred continually by Hollywood and so called intellectuals (which is an oxymoron in itself) seeking attention. Besides which Scotland rejected independence a few years ago. I’ve never hurt anyone from Scotland or Ireland and I know my family didn’t either. In… Read more »
If the SNP still wants to be in the united kingdom then the defence should be run from westminster like the US ideal, The ideal that if their was a war that they would stop at the border is pure mad way of thinking or that in the event of a nuclear war would scotland have a input on whether we can fire them or not . As we know at this moment the orders for royal navy ship in scotland being built will keep alot of people in work for a fair while , but a independent scotland would… Read more »