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”.
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, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said 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 against nuclear weapons would make joining NATO very difficult, if not impossible.
Would it work?
One word answer
No
For someone making dollars u spell neighbour(British) not neighbor (American) and what is mass freedom as a non public boss. I’d rather take income advice from the local job centre and that’s saying something. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Exactly right, Why should Scotland benefit from the nuclear umbrella but not contributing to it. and would Kim Jong Sturgeon agree to paying 2% of GDP on defence?
What about all the other countries not having nuclear weapons also in NATO. Instead if ill-considered childish name calling why not enter into an intelligent discussion? Asking hypothetical questions is not helpful and the answer is actually yes, and possibly more.
You do realise that as part of the uk, all the nations of the uk contribute equally so we already pay the 2%.
On what basis?
Personally I felt that the initial plans by the SNP if they gained independence would be to follow in the footsteps of Ireland , and play the neutrality card, a sop to all the moral righteous crowd in Scotland but in reality a means to save money, which is one thing Edinburgh needs to do if it went its own way. Getting into bed with the Greens substantiated that stance especially when one of its leaders (The Scottish Greens share their leadership ) Patrick Harvie stating just last week that he was opposed to NATO and Scotland joining it (have to laugh as he cited how Sweden and Finland weren’t members in which to justify his stance)
“I would like to think that there is a way to achieve that level of cooperation between countries that are committed to democracy and peace and security – but without everyone having to be under a first strike nuclear policy.So I doubt very much my party is going to want to ditch it’s policy on NATO – but I do think there is an appetite for discussion about how do you achieve strategic cooperation for peace-building in a way that will include countries that want to join, and countries that are not part of that.Finland and Sweden have worked closely with NATO even though they have not been members.”
His stance was backed up by Scottish Green MP Ross Greer stating only a few days ago :
““morally wrong” for Scotland to join Nato if it were to become independent.”
I feel that the sudden statements by “The management” that they would seek admittance into NATO, is more of a vote retainer in light of the invasion of the Ukraine. However with their Green bed partners openly going against the script I feel that a large number of the SNP Cabinet are going to have a few sleepless nights as they march towards Indi 2
The usual reminder that the Irish position was formed by a huge number of factors that simply aren’t likely to be replicated in an Independent Scotland (or any nation in modern Europe).
Mark wrote:
That maybe so, but Scotland as an independent nation cannot afford the public spending it is currently subscribed to, it will have to make savings without alienating the populace and playing the moral righteous card in which to cut the defence budget would I feel be a low risk solution to claw back a few pennies.
Depends on a host of factors, Ireland during the Troubles sustained a mid 1%+ defence spend, the only issue was the size of the economy made this tiny anyway. I don’t see the EU average spend being outside of their capabilities, of course it wouldn’t be what Scotland has as part of the U.K. but that doesn’t mean the limitations of the Irish DF.
The snp hope most likely would be that if we stay out of the nuclear game Scotland will be safe from being hit. I think that is a stupid idea. You would have to go begging to Russia and China asking that they don’t target Scotland. What will they want in return. All nato ships and troops to stay out of Scotland?
It’s a nice idea to have a nuclear free world with no conflicts and I would love that. But it’s a pipe dream just now.
Why would non-nuclear Scotland be a nuclear target? And how does having nuclear weapons prevent being a target? England doesn’t house nuclear weapons so are you suggesting that England is more at risk than Scotland?
Why wouldn’t it be a target?
It’s quite a list of non-nuclear countries that Russia has been making nuclear threats against these last few weeks.
And our ‘deterrence’ relies on being hit first!!!! Putin has been threatening everyone not just the nuclear weapons possessors.
you think the UK Stock of Warheads is in one location. and the weapons that are stored by the USA @ Lakenheath dont count.
Were there not credible reports from Soviet sources that one cold-war plan was in the event of nuclear war one strategy considered was “hit a non-nuclear nation (e.g. Belgium or Norway) first” in the hopes of fracturing the alliance? If so, not having nuclear weapons but being part of NATO may you to the front row of any target list…
An outline risk yes. But is it any riskier than housing and potentially losing the warheads and bases from which the launch platforms depart, and therefore leaving intact the actual potential retaliation capabilities? Both strategies have flaws. If there were to be a ‘demonstration’ launch then the most likely is to target something or an area off-shore. Was the threat of hitting a non-nuclear target any worse than our proposed use of tactical weapons in the face of overwhelming manpower and armour through Germany also at the same time. While carrying out such a threat the mostlikely outcome would not be that we would all suddenly give in but double down on at least a conventional response. At what point does anyone continually give in to nuclear blackmail, when would it stop?
WIth the new nuclear weapons at Russia’s disposal even if it targetted the UK Scotland would be massively effected (maybe even destroyed in the process) without even being targetted itself.
As does everybody. Fallout is not confined to borders. The point is that not having a prime target make it less likely that the fallout would orginate from near Glasgow. However think how many countries do not have nuclear weapons and are in NATO. Nuclear weapons are only weapons of last resort adn therefore have not real role in any conventional conflict other than to divert resources. What though is preferable, to survive under an invader or to survive in a nuclear wasteland?
Everyone knows that Independence would produce an exodus, to England and elsewhere, that would drain Scotland’s talent. The same thing happened to the Republic of Ireland after 1922.
The Republic only came about in 1948, as to population movement from 1922 onwards, again there are a multitude of reasons for that, most of which aren’t applicable to a independent Scotland.
To those that left southern Ireland the difference between Free State and Republic is academic. There were not multiple reasons but singular: employment and opportunities to flee an oppression culture. Read several 20th century Irish novelists and playwrights for background. ‘Most’ means we are left with the critical ones.
Where does ‘Everyone knows’ come from? And why?
‘Everyone knows’ comes from my comment. It is based on much commentary and editorials spanning my personal experience going back four decades. Why? Because there would be obviously more and better in other countries to attract creative talent. Look at the famous Scots who left.
In my longer experience ‘Everybody knows’ the opposite of what you state. Opinion is fine and creates discussion but asserting it as fact is wrong. You make a statement without any supporting discussion, context or detail. The famous Scots you refer to invariably went elsewhere other than England. There is plenty of creative talent in Scotland. Look at the numbers of ‘talented’ finance people and companies who have left London for Europe!
This is dissolving into pettiness. You must know about all those Scots living in England quite happily, prosperously, usefully?
I visit London fairly often. No one is leaving.
So? Prosperously? Are we not doing the same already. The difficulty with the Unionist arguments is that they are not comparing like with like, and many of the finance people in London rely on the corrupt dirty money sloshing around the hedge and off-shore gambling funds. (The real reason for Brexit). So explain why anyone would leave Scotland, which is the point of the discussion? Pro-English statements and position are absolutely certain, everyone else is a numpty and incapable of surviving.
The last number I saw was 7,000, compared to 1 million who work in FS in the UK.
https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/ey-over-7000-finance-jobs-left-london-for-eu/
Which compares to far larger predictions made by some groups, and balances against jobs which have been created here since.
Ideally we still need things like the regulatory equivalence status that Brussels grants to eg New Zealand, but we are not there yet,
ok Sean Connery loved Scotland so much he lived in the Bahamas,
Trying to splint the union is ok
But let the entire Union have that vote.
and with Independence all passport holders need to return to there country.
See how Independent Scotland feels when it gets kicked out.
it will demand a 2nd go and recount and its unfair for years.
But rather than keep Moaning about it. jogg on
You sound about 5 and i guess you love Nicola, and i ask where does 60% of your family work for. and live.
? and relevance? Methinks you don’t.
Wrong again. Scotland CAN have that public spending and draft budgets have frequently been presented that demonstrate that. Instead of ill-informed statements that merely support your wishful thinking it helps to actually understand all factors, not just the few.
‘Scotland CAN have that public spending and draft budgets have frequently been presented that demonstrate that.’
In whose currency, backed by what security? Explain basic economics.
Go and look in a dictionary and read up what economics means. Independent countries have their own currency. Backed by the same security as every other independent country. GBP is not the only one available and there would be a Scottish version backed up by the wealth, talent and resources available. Just go and look at all the publications on the subject not those that assume the nil-case. Have a reality check. Remember that Scotland pays taxes too, and in fact only gets back to control just over half of that revenue. The rest is spent on what the South East of England wants.
More pettiness. You request facts but can provide none. What currency would an Independent Scotland use? This question has been tackled by economists on the left as well as the right; none have a favourable answer. Of course Scotland can chose Independence to go alongside their national cultural identity, flag, religion, Parliament and Scottish Law that they already possess. But the consequences won’t be what one might expect. English and Welsh tax payers would look askance at having to support this Independence on a ‘business as usual’ basis. Joining the Euro would similarly be lengthy and inevitably override Scottish economic policy decision making – somewhat central to the whole concept of Independence one might think. Otherwise it’s going to be a steep learning curve. Meanwhile, many of the brightest and best will vote with their feet.
The currency will be created once Scotland is in a position to do so!!!!! Until then it cannot so spurious coments based on ‘you can’t do this now so therefore will not be able to in furture’ do not help. You haven’t given much thought to this have you? Why do you argue against independence then produce what amounts ot a clearly inept comment about being supported by other independent nations? Or do you think that only England has its own currency and nobody else is allowed one? Fundamentally explain why Scotland wouldn’t have its own currency? That would be more helpful than a statement or suggestion that we couldn’t or won’t.
ok Sherlock what money would Scotland Use, and how would the Bank Of England pay it.
we will wait as your not in the EU so cannot use Euro’s
we can pay in $s but at a lower exchange rate.
cannot pay you in £s as you dont have a monetary system and the Bank of England already blocked that.
do you want it in Mars bars/Percy Pigs and windmills.
Scotland could have its own Money, its just every International Bank. would screw Scotland in exchange rates as the money would be worthless.
due to the fact that Scotland is a net importer and has to buy everything.
What makes you think that the BoE (the name is a clue) be expected to underwrite an independent country? You don’t really understand it at all do you? Why would a currency be worthless, and on what basis? Scotland is not independent so is not in a position to create a currency – which is why it doesn’t have one as part of the UK – duh!
again i blame the education and the parents for the lack of very COMMON SENSE.
there must be a troll in that gap between your ears
Aah an intelligent contribution I see, Perhaps if you engaged brain you would probably understand instead of ranting nonsense like a naive child. The lack of common-sense is on the part of those who cannot relate to reality just spouting the fake news and misinformation someone has invented. Do some research before you criticise.
Your pointless like your sweet love of a peat bog. suggest you got live in your swamp and take Fiona with you and your DONKEY, as your a total ASS.
Perhaps you also need to go and learn English! Look in a mirror then you’ll see the ass! Ranting like that is not an intelligent debate. It merely shows you can’t put two thoughts together and come up with a rational comment.
Ah yes the old London steals our cash and we only get half back story. Totally ignoring the fact that the cash is spent on all the things controlled by London such as benefits defence foreign aid……
You do know when every tax is taken into account and all spending Scotland makes a loss?
No it doesn’t. Loss is a peculiar concept based on the way Westminster manages and accounts for spending. That mechanism doesn’t compare like with like and the spending in an independent Scotland will be based on different priorities and needs. In any event we only get to manage around 60% of our tax revenue, and cannot generate any deficit, only Westminster is allowed to do that under the rules they impose. Balanced budget forecasts have been produced for comparison purposes based on Scotland managing all its own affairs. However we would create our own currency, we cannot do that as part of the Union, and we would have exactly the same fiscal powers as any other sovereign country around the world if independent. We wouldn’t then be contributing to the various vanity projects of of Westminster or foreign adventures trying to recreate the Empire.
It’s funny that as yet I haven’t seen any respected financial expert (not crack pot) that seems to think Scotland is viable based on its tax’s and spending plans.
In charge of schools snd police the snp have resulted in falling standards in schools snd less convictions. Wouldn’t call their policies successful.
the final one I can’t get past is snp we’re offered a once in a generation vote, they lost so I’m afraid in democracy you don’t get to throw up your hands and say oh we didn’t like what happened we won’t to go again.
Only because you’ve only read a subset of things that support your view. There are plenty of reports contrary to your limited understanding. Schools ‘may’ have fallen but no worse than rest of UK, and there isn’t any real evidence to substantiate that anyway. You are probably not aware but convictions depends on evidence, without which nothing happens. And Police in Scotland are beset by eactly the same issues as the rUK. It was NOT a once in a generation vote. NOBODY signed up for that, there is no documention and the agreement does NOT say so either.. Democracy is all about adapting and changing your minds, none of which are immutable and unchangeable. If it was we would still be ruled by the Romans. All political systems have failures and successes. Just compare things north and south of the border. Rampant corruption from the Westminster Government just as bad as the third world countries we criticise. Most importantly ask yourself the question, WHY when there are plenty of other countries around the world with fewer resources who manage perfectly well thank you, cannot Scotland? Instead of saying no and promulgating false impressions and extrapolations based on the erroneous assumption that Scotland would mirror Westminster’s inadequacies just do wider research and think about things. Anyway this thread is actually about defence and again Scotland can afford its own defence no less than any of the other smaller nations, and can and would concentrate on the geographical position rather than pandering to an outdated global imperial regeneration.
Ok here is one of many that show schools in scotland have Fallen far lower than the other 3 nations so no your wrong Scotland’s standards have dropped since being controlled locally
https://www.itv.com/news/border/2019-12-03/new-figures-show-long-term-education-decline-as-scotland-falls-behind-england
That is a single set of resuklts out of context. FYI schools education has ALWAYS been controlled locally. And instead of misuing statistics make sure you place them in proper context. There are also statistics that show in relation to Endland and Wales which have ALSO fallen Scotland is performing better. And in any event the outcome depends on what is being measured.
Also if it wasn’t once in a generation why did Alex salmond say it was when minister?
Seems like you make the facts fit you views
It has nothing to with what politicians may or may not say. Just look at that excuse for a Prime Minister and his sycophants spout out from time to time. Read the agreement nowhere does it say, promise of even suggest that it is/was a once in a generation. And in any event what is a generation? Adapt and survive. Circumstances and situations change all the time. The world is a very different place from 2014. Democracy is all about changing your mind to suit new circumstances. And if it was not immutable how did we get away with Brexit? That was changing minds. What law is there that says we have to put up with some situation indefinitely once a decision based, as usual from Westminster, on lies, misdirections, and failed promises? If what Alex Salmond said at the time was to be maintained then why did the other similar promises made by Gordon Brown and David Cameron’s ‘vow’ not been implemented. Your argument falls flat on its face because you are taking a very narrow view of all related matters.
Ok. Just out of interest did you find and serious independent economic experts that think scotland can balance the books on independence? I ask only because I fail to have seen any.
They do exist. None of them saying we cannot do anything other than assume the same conditions as imposed through Westminster. The problem is also that they base their arguments on assumptions about what may or may not occur at some time in the future. They make a statement and draw conclusions to suit the statement. The same argument applies to Westminster which renders all these issues pointless. Westminster hasn’t balanced a budget – ever. That is why it runs a deficit. It covers that deficit by inventing ‘cash’, or borrowing which in normal government terms means printibg money. So if we ignore the hypothetical situations yes, Scotland only controls around 60% of its tax revenue at present. Following independence it would control 100% and spend as it needs and not on Westminster priorities. Fundamentally ALL these accusations that we couldn’t afford to be independent completely ignore the fact that all other similar sized countries can and do manage to do what you assume we cannot. Instead of saying we cannot people should ask the question why they think we cannot. When you then start to factor in all the things that we wouldn’t do it becomes immediately obvious that yes it is affordable and yes we can do it, and have the resources also. Indicative budgets have been produced and are valid and have been validated. You cannot assume that Westminster’s priorities and spending profile would be carried forward into an independent Scotland. That is the flaw in the arguments against.
Also if u take the time to study PISA 2018 which is a comparison of 3million school age kids Scottish maths and reading has fallen from being one of the highest to significantly behind England. This has occurred since devolution
Are we ignoring the fact Scotland has far lower tax revenues than rest of U.K. but far higher spending?
Haven’t they just had to beg London for another 3billion after spending up? Not a good sign
No. We spend differently. No begging. We often but nt always get a Barnett related share of England’s spending. Hasn’t England had to do the same post Brexit, Pandemic and Ukraine? You forget that Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland have to put up with what is decided for and by England. All the small home nations have to have a balanced budget, by law. England can generate additional funds by borrowing which is how we all managed the Pandemic. Therefore the small home nations have to be allocated the extra by Westminster as it is in excess of the fixed budget we have to work within. You are not comparing like for like. Why, why, why cannot Scotland manage its own affairs when other similar sized countries can and do? Answer that instead of repeating ad nauseum misconstrued out of context statements, false assumptions and flawed extrapolations.
Duh! The currency that will be created. Or do you somehow think that like the rest of the world (not) we would resort to exchange and barter. The same security as enjoyed by EVERY other country in the world. Economics is about trade, oh I forget Scotland doesn’t do any of that does it, everybody exists on benefits at the largesse of the HM Treasury. Come on instead of spouting utter rubbish which you would realise if you thought about it how about a sensible discussion. Or do yiu think that only Westminster can have a currency, funnily enough the rest of the world manages fine without being tied to the Bank of England and HMT. Of course Scotland doesn’t have its own currency (yet) it cannot while part of the UK. Just like every other country that exists independently or has become independent. If and when that happens Scotland will create its own currency.
Based on the current Forecasted and a whopping SNP OVERSPEND OF £3.5B.
on top of the missing £7b of covid relief funds.
and wee Jimie Krankie will need to go begging of Whitehall to delivery on its Election promise.
so how does the wet sock intend to survive when you cannot manage a Budget.
You need to get a life! What relevance has your complete fabricated misinformation got to do with the point? Perhaps you should look more closely at the even worse antics emanating from Westminster. Over spends to make your eyes water, handouts to already wealthy chums, corruption on a par with a third world country. Nothing is missing in Scotland. All been used for the intended purpose. Comments from Unionists are mereky trying to deflect from their own woes and succeeding in your case. Scotland is on a par with most other countries of the same size.
Wrong on the first point you make – completely. You haven’t actually done much research or applied any reasoned analysis.
O.K. You help us out Nick. Explain.
Where do you get your assertion of dubious neutrality? Scotland has never said it would be neutral.
Do you have a source for that Patrick Harvie quote?
Isn’t “everyone being under a first-strike policy” a straight misrepresentation?
I thought NATO had renounced that, and it’s not as if Russia is capable of rolling tanks up to the Rhine over a long weekend.
Good point about Finland, it’s not just that they are now asking to join nato, it’s that the country has spent the last 50 odd year as practically an armed camp. It massively invests in defence ( when you consider its population is the same ish as Ireland) it has an airforce that’s a contemporary of the major European nations, had an armoured force not much less than ours and has 2000+ fires, as well as every male between 18-60 as an active trained reservists ( even the over 60s can be called up). They also have a total mobilisation plan with all organisations having a role in total war….and a hunting and warrior culture…..can’t see Scotland doing that.
I imagine the RoUK would seek a 100 year lease on Faslane as part of any independence deal. Scotland’s commitment to the UK as a result of major long term UK investment will need to be respected after independence. That will include military bases.
Whats the RoUK?
Rest of UK
It isn’t where the deterrence is homed that is the issue. You forget that the launch capability is actually under the North Atlantic or Arctic somewhere and not even in Scotland anyway. So siting the submarine bases can be anywhere.
Issue is Faslane and every UK MOD site/base/training areas are owned by the Crown,
independence separate’s the government not the sovereign rulers. so its the property of the Crown.
so much like building ferries it falls on the stupid
Jon. Do explain. Why would the rest of the UK ever consider leasing bases from an independent Scotland. We wouldnt. All out military can pull back south of the border. Repair Hadrians wall. Impose tarrifs on all good entering RoUK from Scotland and allow Scotland to have its much desired glorious independence….until wee jimmy cranky takes you into the EU. Then you will have zero independence.
Fun isnt it?
As to currency and paying for itself. All the SNPs forecasts have been based upon current currency eg continuing to use Sterling. I dont think the RoUK government or Bank of England would agree to that. It would weigh down on sterling and cause financial instability probably devaluing Sterling massively. So thats a non starter. Instead Scotland would have to develop all the institutions of a stand alone country, which is correct me if I’m wrong what the SNP want?
So a central bank. An inland revenue. Customs and excise service. Ministry of defence, your own NHS, funded through your own taxation. A currency of your own. The Sturgeon Crank or SC would be a great name for it.
I’d imagine it will trade at 10,000 Cranks to the £.
If the SNP and the people of Scotland want that…great. gets my vote. I do agree though if Scotland wants another referendum then whole of UK should get the vote. Do we want Scotland to remain part of the UK? Yes I do. However any vote to leave needs to be clearly and honestly spelt out to the people of Scotland as to the true costs, impact on economy, multi-faceted holistic implications across all of society. Not lies and half baked nebulous concepts. I think any vote to leave will relegate Scotland to a much poorer country and take Scotland decades/ hundreds of years to recover rrom.
Perhaps we should build a new base in Barrow in Furness to annoy them ?
An independent Scotland should not join NATO – aa irs position is incompatible with membership. It would also be vastly hypercritical of Scotland to have nuclear cover but oppose nuclear weapons. Scotland could not have the advantages of being in the UK and be independent. We should not build or permanently base RN ships in another country. This is particularly true of the nuclear deterrent. We should build up a second site in England to base SSBNs.
Norway does it and Sweden will do it also.
Why is Scotand’s position incompatible? Explain with rational arguments in less than 500 words for maximum points. There are only 3 nations with nuclear cpability in NATO anyway, so what about all the other 27 (current) signatories to the alliance?
Scotland does not have a position on this. If it choses Independence then it will have much bigger problems immediately than where to dock a handful of British submarines.
Whose currency will Scotland use?
How will it borrow without U.K. supporting its credit rating.
Of course you might chose the Euro but Scotland would soon discover vaunted Independence at any cost would be, well, very costly. Hence exodus of talent.
Scotland will not use someone else’s currency! A rather naive statement you make. Does Iceland have its own currency, does Norway, Sweden, the Baltic States and almost every other country in the world? Why does UK need to support its credit rating? Wat about English independence from Europe? If you need to make parallels then do not just assume one single position and assert nothing but. Why would it be costly, or are you repeating what somepone else said in the pub?
You clearly have not thought about this central question at all have you? I suggest you do some research.
again the Naive person is YOU, What Money system will a independent Scotland use.
your logic and its issues is why is so funny.
SCOTLAND 60% exports to England. what if England Exports all it Scots Home.
we can all be childish and Naive, But untill Scotland repays its covid debt and its other debts.
or should Westminster start pulling its money out now
You really need to go back to school and start learning how to interpret facts. It doesn’t take much imaginatoin to answer your own point by applying some brain cells. An independent country uses its own currency. And don’t respond by saying it doesn’t have one, because that is obvious. As Scotland isn’t independent it cannot while remaining tied via Westminster, and historically under a joint agreement no less subject to that agreement remaing valid, and therefore under that system has to use GBP. If that agreement is terminated then Scotland will create its own currency. Your naive question answered! Scotland already pays its Covid debt. FYI Scotland also pays income and other taxes to Westminster. Scotland’s exports go VIA England so what has that got to do with nuclear deterrence and defence? Are you advocating deporting non English people from England? Stop ranting nonsense and start thinking.
I most point out although we have left the EU we are still in Europe. The EU is not Europe….
Quite right and there are many also in Europe who aren’t in the EU.
You again are forgetting the countries that store Nuclear weapons, Germany can deliver Nuclear bombs. yet doesn’t have any of its own.
so the SNP plan is to Piss off a member of Nato and then request that state protects you, and approves your application to join.
someone hasn’t really thought this thru.
Why do you make statements of certainty of outcome when it is all hypothetical and information on proposals state exactly the opposite of what you are saying? Where is the pissing off coming from? Where is the request etc? Come on it is patently clear you’ve put no thought into this at all.
UK provides the mutual assured destruction, when east europe finds out an independent scotland ends that, they may not be happy. As article suggests america will pressure to keep their submarine base too.
Somehow whenever the SNP and NATO membership gets discussed the air of total other-worldness that surrounds the whole question of Scottish Independence just distorts everything. The US and the UK aside, just what makes the SNP think that Poland, Germany, Italy, the Baltics, Turkey, etc are all that keen on a non-nuclear Scotland as a member of NATO?
Scotland ads strategic basing in the North Atlantic and has close to zero strategic threats.NATO would be insane not to want Scotland. How do you defend Europe from the Russian navy without Scottish basing? With great difficulty. Remember it’s not just the UK that kept SSn and SSBN in Scotland the USA did also. There is not actually such a thing as the GIUK gap it’s really the GIS Gap and it’s NATO front line at sea.
Not insane for S to be independent from rUK. Faslane doesn’t have to house the SSBNs. It can still be a base and as part of NATO would also continue provide berthing and support services.
Again Faslane would not belong to Scotland as its CROWN LAND. and who is the Sovereign Leader of Scotland.
i am sure thats the Queen and not wee jimmy Crankie.
Scotland has no access to Faslane another raging SNP Issue.
Honestly some people just have not got a clue. Faslane is in Scotland. If we move from UK then rUK has no say in it whatsoever. Even in your peculiar thinking process the queen is not a leader, and neither does she have anything to do with so called crown assets, which is a metaphor for government anyway. Abusive childish name calling adds nothing to the debate and merely illustrates your complete lack of any grasp of reality.
Johan
If Scotland became independent but still a Kingdom (for however long), then all Crown Land in Scotland would remain Crown Land, but the Crown is that of the Queen of Scotland. This is no different to that of Australia, Canada, etc. The First Minister would become Prime Minister. Queen Elizabeth is Queen of more than a dozen countries all of which have ‘Crown Land’. Ireland followed this path. It’s been done before.
No it’s everyone else trying to make a big deal of a nonsense issue that’s the real issue. No one in Scotland outside of some Greens and a few in the SNP fringes care about the issue. Things like currency, EU membership and fiscal policy are the things people look at. Defence, Faslane, Nuclear weapons and NATO just don’t figure.
Answer it yourself – why not? Why are those countries you mention not housing nuclear deterrence themselves? What Ukraine has demonstrated is that conventional defence has to be substantial, without which the reliance on nuclear response increases rather than decreases.
The SNP do understand it more rationally than you do! Of course there are small minorities in ALL parties that oppose things. Bearing in mind that NATO is about a defence response to an attack which without sufficient conventional weapons is the only option available. NATO is not about to invade any country and therefore not be an existential threat to an aggressor.
What makes you think that they aren’t keen? And who said anything about rUK giving up nuclear weapons which will remain and protecting all the other non-nuclear states anyway? How many states in NATO currently have nuclear weapons and how many don’t?
The govt needs to start pushing back hard against the Snp. They are literally using our own taxes to break up the country. They are using UK tax money to bribe the media and civil service to support them, and have been for a decade totally unchecked. They have introduced discrimination against English people eg student fees and are breaking the UK structures unchecked.
The first thing that needs to happen is scrapping the Barnett formula grant. This needs to be replaced with loan system where the UK loans Scotland etc.. Money and they then owe this back to us just as if independence would force them to.
They currently take around £15 to 22 billion a year in grants when their gdp is only 150 billion! The worst deficit in Europe.
This would also mean that they would have to pay off their entire debt before having a second vote or before leaving. Similar to how the EU deals with Italy etc…
They would have to decide to stop taking the UK money which their supporters deny they do! This would prove it and would collapse Scotland if they stopped.
Or carry on with the loans building up debt to the UK keeping them tied to us.
It is so sad that this is the kind of thing they are forcing on the UK just because a bunch of racist, anti English yobs have brainwashed large number of our countrymen to hate the English.
But it is disgraceful the UK. Govt has allowed this to happen!
We have to push back.
Also any vote would be for all Scots throughout the UK or with Scottish parents, a second vote would need super majority of 66%, Orkney and shetlands would gain independence if voting no, trade tariffs of 30% of Scottish exports and no free movement of people to escape Scotland and work in the UK.
We need to be hard as that idiot Cameron should have been to begin with!
I just hope corrupt Sturgeon is gone soon!
Absolutely right on everything there especially super majority, must be unequivocal once and for all.
Agree. No Brexit like 48 vs 52%. Thats too close. Has to be 60%+ voting for self suicidal independence.
Agree aboyt scrapping Barnet formulary and making Scotlands luxurious governmental overspend into a loan that is fixed in law to require repayment to rUK taxpayers over a defined time period.
In reality Scotland has never had it so good as now, nor will it ever again if they vote for independence.
Westminster should put a cap on Scottish loans and make it clear that the UK wouldn’t guarantee them in the event of an independent Scotland. I’m still trying to work out if Scotland went independent what they think they would be using as a currency. BoE should make it clear to all that it would not be the GBP.
difficult for westminster to tell scotland what to do as plays to the SNP rhetoric. there remain realities, scotland won’t have a currency it is leaving the UK bank and it will have to get it’s borrowing down to EU levels before applying for EU membership.
They’re like a petulant child. You keep stuffing choccies in their mouths to stop them moaning, they keep moaning so they get more choccies. With a petulant child, at some point, you have to just tolerate the tantrum & remind them who the parent is.
(In this analogy, the children are England, Wales, Scotland & NI with the parent being the UK gov).
To which all the countries you mention send their taxes!
Forgive me but I’m not sure I see your point.
If I wasn’t being clear, I’m not referencing the fine people of Scotland, Wales, England or N.Ireland. I’m referencing their elected officials some (not all) of which bash the U.K. incessantly so the elected officials in Westminster placate them by throwing money at the problem.
While it’s true each region pay taxes to Westminster, it’s increasingly a net burden to the citizens of England. This combination of elected officials rejecting the U.K. whilst simultaneously using U.K. taxpayer money to buy votes is slightly irritating.
The problem is that devolved nations have their own view on their priorities and potential solutions. Mainly because the ones that come from Westminster don’t work. The biggest issue by far is that UK gets what England (usually the South East) wants like it or lump it. The demographics are extremely skewed. The inevitable result is that the regions furthest away from London (including English regions) feel disenfranchised. The tax burden is no more a burden on England than anyone else. Votes are not being bought, and money is not thrown at them.
Regional priorities – agreed.
SE/London centric – agreed. Very annoying – i’m NW England myself.
Tax burden the same – agreed.
Votes being bought – Disagree. Not bought in the sense of “vote for me and I’ll slip you £50” but bought in the sense of promising a policy & then using government funds to pay people. Don’t think it was actually him but Jefferson is often given credit for saying something like ‘a republic will only last until the people realise they can vote themselves more money’ – See below from Monkey Spanker as to why the SNP is popular – free prescriptions, free Uni, £20 to parents (for something). Theres also better care for the elderly etc. All great things to be fair.
But – it is a simple fact that the SNP are only able to provide such things because they recieve more from the UK taxpayer as a collective than Scotlands taxpayers & companies alone contribute.
This would be fine. Ordinarily, I don’t have an issue with money from an affluent area paying for services of a less affluent area. It’s no different to your mates being short so you buy them a pint or chuck them £50 to help pay rent. You do it without question.
I (and an increasing number of others) DO take exception to the SNP (not the Scots!) and their BS rhetoric which frankly, sounds like racism toward the English a lot of the time. And whenever they might have to cut back on a service, it appears to me that they seek to blame the UK Gov/English and bang the drum that “ooohh woe are we… if ONLY we were independent”.
We’re all in this together, I’m super proud to be a Brit & claim Sean Connery, Billy Connolly, Watt, Watson-Watt, Baird etc etc as my countrymen. I just wish there was a political party we could ALL get behind instead of what we have.
And vote for me because I can give you this doesn’t apply anywhere else in UK? Government funds are what we as tax payers contribute to. Government funds are not some benign overlord charity dispensing money. And our current government doesn’t vote themselve more money? Which is a notional entry on a spreadsheet against which everybody has to pay back out of future taxes, apart from the wealthy who have money to spare and keep and not pay tax!
‘Apply elsewhere’? Yes. 1) doesn’t make it right does it?! See Jefferson quote above. Give me someone to vote for that is going to try and be fiscally responsible and I’ll vote for them. 2) If/when they can’t deliver, I can’t think of any political party (save Germany c.1935 but they blamed a religious group…) that just default to (what appears to be) blaming the ‘filthy English’. It’s divisive, not good for our country and whilst no one wants or expects ‘gratitude’, I certainly don’t expect to be spat on.
‘Benign overlord’ – I know how the world works. I’m attempting to have a reasonable discussion here. Would appreciate you not being condescending.
‘Current vote more?’ Yes. Doesn’t make it right does it?! See Jefferson quote above. Give me someone to vote for that is going to try and be fiscally responsible and I’ll vote for them. AND They’ve all been doing it for decades. It’s not just the current Gov or party pal.
‘Wealthy keep money’ ……..see previous answers. Again, the political ‘elite’ are all the same, leaving loopholes and turning a blind eye, making phoney gestures and having a chat with international forums with a promise of fixing it ‘soon’. Maybe we should try and find some better people, perhaps patriots with integrity to vote for… 🤷🏻♂️
Please actually think about what you are saying! An (any) independent country has its own fiscal system, and would create one. At the moment Scotland has in effect no borrowing if we are being pedantic.
Why would Westminster guarantee an independent Scotland’s ‘loans’ which wouldn’t be from Westminster anyway? Your comment makes no rational sense. An independent country is solely responsible for its fiscal policies everywhere. And with the same fiscal powers as every other country.
You ever compare the SNP to the ruling party of Germany in 1935? Socialist, Nationalist, thinly veiled racism, blame others for all your problems…. 😏
You should run. Got my vote. 👍
You can’t punish the Scottish people because you don’t like the elected government. Not even half of Scottish people eligible to vote give there vote to the SNP and a smaller percentage of them would agree with everyone of their policies.
Facts are the SNP have made some popular choices like free prescriptions, free higher education, making universal credit payments available weekly, fortnightly instead of only monthly, a monthly £20 payment to parents with children, higher tax rate on high earners. All these are vote winners but doesn’t mean that everyone supports independence. And these don’t even cost very much but make a real difference.
When it’s a choice between posh millionaire tories who always sound like they are talking down to you or SNP who at least act like a average people it’s no contest for the majority. The SNP promise to put what’s best for Scotland and Scottish people first and that is appealing.
I see a huge gap in English politics for a new party and wish an english party could give people an alternative and as we are a democracy if you don’t like them you can vote for someone else
Hear hear, don’t tell anyone but Scotland making university free and cutting back on student numbers while limiting the amount they pay to universities actually saved money over the system in England where Mickey Mouse universities charge £9,000 a year for nonsense degrees all covered by government loans to students that never earn enough to pay them back. But English national in the Tory party( the same ones who started charging people £9,000) don’t want anyone knowing that.
They cut back numbers? I’d be ok with that – the whole “50% should go to Uni” was always a bad idea. But how do you think that would fly in England & Wales? My guess is the press would jump on it as a “betrayal of the working class” or “elitists closing the door behind them”.
Re the £9k – FYI Labour introduced the fees & loan when they realised the country couldn’t afford 50% to uni, then realised they still couldn’t afford it so comissioned an independent review which recommended no cap on the fees whatsoever.
I agree about the nonsense degrees – Maybe if 18 year olds didn’t make decisions to study pointless subjects, they’d fair better in life. Do we need 135k people studying psychology? 282k people in social sciences? How many high paying jobs do they think there are in these fields? We used to call them “why bother” degrees. FYI, paid my loan back in 7 years.
Not that I’m defending the SNP as I can’t stand them but most of what you wrote are lies. Like discriminating against English students. When you make lies up and spread it you don’t help anything other than fuel the Scottish and English nationalist trying to break up the UK. You call yourself UK voter but given your ignoring welsh and northern Irish people not to mention Scottish people resident in England in your later statement I’m guessing your no supporter of a United Kingdom comrade.
What do you mean go? Is that a public threat against a women and a political party? Do you not respect democracy? Making people “go” is what people like Putin and Xi and stopping them is why we have a UK defence force.
UK tax money is also Scottish, Irish and Welsh tax money. You forget! Not sure you have ahy idea of how any of this works. Please go and read up.
Why?
A very basic and false assumption is made in this article that should (Unlikely) Scotland become an independent nation that the nuclear bases and the submarines based and serviced there would remain.
Clearly the remainder of ANY British government would not countenance this, so a rather spurious article of an event whether independent or not would not occur.
The Scottish government currently, even more than most is mired in endemic corruption engendered under the control of Sturgeon’s SNP and even the most die hard nationalists would balk at having the responsibility for maintaining, never mind owning this nuclear deterrent.
In the unlikely event of Scottish independence, the Trident boats would move straight to Barrow. Then long term facilities would be built on the Cumbrian coast. How many Russian Subs & bombers would make a beeline for Scottish air/waters, knowing the Scots lacked the resources to defend them?
If they were thrown out of Scotland the most likely destination for our SSBNs would be America.
I highly doubt they would need to move for years as it would be a key negotiating point for the SNP. Imagine what they could get back from us in exchange for a 10 to 20 year lease of the bases we have there. We’d need it too as it will take that long to build new facilities elsewhere, if we ever did.
Have you ever been to Barrow or the Cumbrian coast? The place is empty and there is no major population centre there. Barrow in Furness is completely taken up by the shipyards. There are 6,000 + people directly employed at Faslane with tens of thousand more in the wider community required to support such a facility. It takes a city the size of Glasgow to support that kind of infrastructure. It took decades to build Faslane and would take decades to move it. Every city in the north of England would love to get the subs however the subs come with storage for 250 nuclear weapons. Where are you going to find deep sheltered water next to a mountain I.e a fjord with a major industrial city with in a 1 hour drive in England that you could get planning permission to store 250 nuclear war heads from town and county councils. Barrow and Carlisle are non starters. Liverpool your next best bet but there is no where near by your going to be building a nuclear weapon storage facility.
Moricambe Bay, West of Carlisle.
What do you think defends Scottish and English air and waters anyway? The barely adequate conventional weapons do that on a daily basis. SSBNs are only there as a means of retaliation.
You have missed my point. Once The RAF as well as the RN have left Scotland, there will be no assets, nuclear or conventional, to defend Scotland.
You haven’t thought about any points. Yes the RN and RAF will as part of UK military will not be subject to a post-independence Scotland. However, the assets that Scotland owns and contributes to will remain as a proportion of the joing shared assets. They’ll just be renamed. Scotland has paid for them and continues to pay through the same taxes as everybody else at present. What actually happens in the event of independence will be down to negotiation, compromise and agreement. Never heard of re-badging or renaming?
Well Scotland has to pick up its share of national debt, probably around £250 billion. Then it has to cut its budget deficit to a max of 3% GDP if it wants to join EU. Doubt it will have any money to run Typhoon, T26, etc.
There are no has to or musts. They are merely hypothetical extrapolations and subject to whatever the situation is at the time. There is no certainty despite all the many ridiculous and unsubstantiated assertions above. The national debt will be part of the horse trading at the time and do not forget that there is also no certainty that it would be agreed. IF the national debt at the time of joining the EU, which is NOT a foregone desire anyway, is above 3% or whatever figure that the EU require AT THAT TIME, then it will dealt with as required. Fundamentally the UTTER error that anti-independence people always make is to assume that nothing is done, spent or earnt in Scotland unless Westminster has graciously bestowed charity. Budgets have already been forecast that allow for exactly the potential outcomes that you state with utter certainty are immutable fact. Those same budgets allow for requisite funding allocations that you decry. And lets not forget that plenty of other similar sized countries as Scotland can and do afford to pay the costs you criticise, but none of the ‘too poor, too wee, too impoverished’ critics ever ever ever actually expain the full basis of their assumptions, they just make out of context statements. Those against independence have only ever said no and have never ever actually looked at the facts or even more important actually made any substantive and sustainable case against independence, still less analysed all the issues and pros and cons. Much the same with the currency argument. Those against only ever say we do not have a currency, yet fail to acknowledge that we can’t have one while tied to Westminster, and then assume that one would not or never be created. While very undesirable there is nothing stopping any independent country from choosing to use any other currency as it sees fit.
I suggest you read “Adults in the room” by Yanis Varoufakis, on how the EU deep establishment (Germany) is brutal & ruthless to small nations that overspend. You can forget free prescriptions or university education, if the Germans run your budget.
Instead of taking a range of hypothetical forecasts as certainty apply some flexibility. What is wrong with controlling ‘overspending’? Who says that Germans will run the budget? Is Scotland in the EU or not? This thread has nothing to do with EU but nuclear defence! Stop throwing ‘dead cats’ into the debate.
Not sure of the point of this article.
Just to “stir the pot” – anyone heard of the English Secession idea? i.e. England declares it’s independance from the UK. Wales, Scotland & NI left as the “UK”.
The argument goes, WS&NI absorb more, significantly more Gov spending than they contribute, they mostly hate the English anyway, puts an end to the “will they get another referendum” “will they gain independance” nonsense, don’t have to hear Stugeon ever again…. Don’t get me wrong, except for their politicians, love the Scots, Welsh and Irish peoples myself. If we could only stop the internal bickering and divisive rhetoric from politicians, we’re obviously better together… but, is it possible we’d all get along better if we were seperated? Thoughts?
Wales, Scotland and England share an island. I can guarantee we would find plenty to argue over even if we split. Borders, trade, fishing, crime etc. There is no getting away from geography. What we desperately need is a new middle ground UK political party that can unite the majority of people that sit in the political centre.
Yes to a new centre ground party. I hoped that would be the LibDems, but they have moved to the trendy woke left.
“Borders, trade, fishing, crime” – disagree. Lots of countries share borders & get along perfectly well (since that kerfuffle in 1939 at least). We share EEZ & Fisheries borders with Ireland, Norway etc & that mostly seems fine. Nothing we can’t discuss and overcome given the myriad of internation treaties & conventions. Can have extradition treaty for criminals. Of course, as a newly independant Nation, we’d have to decide if we want to sign up to such things.
Could not agree with you more about the need for a new party. The whole “Left v Right” spectrum thing is far too simplistic these days & fails to address the fact the both are becoming increasingly authoritarian & illiberal. But for want of better terminology, I agree the vast majority of we Brits are centrist-classical-liberals & most elections find ourselves picking the best of a bad bunch that promise at least ‘some’ of the things we actually want.
I don’t share your optimism. If Scotland leave the UK and join the EU there will be all sorts of issues at the border and it will become highly politicized. Just look at NI right now. The majority of people will roll their eyes at it and get on with life, but there would always be the opportunity for politicians to make something of it and appeal to views at either end of the spectrum.
Anyway, I think we are generations away from Scottish independence, assuming it happens at all. A united Ireland is somewhat more likely in my lifetime I’d say.
I suppose the difference between Scotland and Northern Ireland is that there isn’t the massive political strife and sectarian violence between nationalists and unionists in Scotland that NI had for so long.
Issues between the Scottish/UK border would be far less troublesome than the ROI/NI border.
The NI protocol was designed to get round the issue of a hard UK/EU border, it wasn’t put it for sectarian reasons. The same issues will apply to a Scotland/England border if the former joins the EU. We will have the same set of arguments over a hard or soft border, on equivalence etc, yet there wouldn’t be the option to stick a border in the Irish Sea to get round it.
Correct but a hard border between Scotland and UK is going to be far less of an issue than the Irish hard border.
The hard border in NI was an issue because it would go against the good Friday Agreement.
I’m sorry but the GFA does NOT mean there is no border between NI/ROI it says the border should not be militarised!
Dont forget that we are talking about two different countries with different tax,vat etc here and before the EU/GFA/NIP trade went along quite happily!The NIP can be sorted if politicians just stop mixing the GFA and NIP together they are two different things!
As has been stated by HMRC, PSNI and the NIO, you stick customs facilities at the border, you will need to end up sticking security forces there to protect them. The NIO for example have stopped installing speed cameras in areas as they were torn down as soon as they went up.
In case you need it explained, no trade did not go along “happily” before the EU, there were full trade and customs checkpoints that massively disrupted the communities and were repeated targets by dissidents all the way back to post War of Independence through to the Troubles. It only became a non issue when both nations were in the EU SM/CU.
The NIO and HMRC have both stated the Ports were the easiest place to put checks as the Ports were already used for SPS checks as even before the EEC/EU Agri trade treated the island of Ireland as a separate unit to GB.
No the NIP was designed as those sectarian tensions meant a traditional customs border infrastructure wasn’t acceptable. That issue doesn’t apply to a Scottish/U.K. border, “normal” infrastructure could be used.
There’s far less issues in regards to a Scottish/British border than the current NI/ROI one, for example there’s far less crossing points and actual border facilities wouldn’t be a risk compared to NI.
I’ll give it a go.
I’ll turn CAMRA (campaign for real ale) into a political party.
Agreed bud. I’m just throwing the idea out there as a conversation starter. Love being British! We have a few things to apologise for but an absolute tonne of things to be proud of. We should remind each other of that regularly & strive to deserve the awesome country our predecessors left for us. We’ve achieved so much together – radar, jet engine, steam power, industrial revolution, electric motor, reflecting telescope… just the list of inventions alone is endless.
As for political party – 100% agree. “Tolerance” seems sorely lacking in a lot of politicaly active people. So much division & so few willing to have a resonable discussion in the political sphere these days. So polarised when most citizens are centrist that just want to get along.
It is 100% the point of the article.
Something would be worked out. I’d have thought that Scotland is culturally, historically, and strategically important enough (geographically) to get NATO membership. Maybe the UK would be better as a federation with each separate part financially accountable to itself, and not subsidised by England?
For a federation to actually work, you would need to break England up. Something like North, South, East, West, London. There are old ‘English’ Kingdoms that could be used as a basis. London needs to be on its own, otherwise it will dominate whatever area it is in. Best known relatable examples are Australia & Canada. Change the Queen’s title to Queen of Britain. Scrap the House of Lords for an Australian style Senate to further limit London. Step too far for most I think. But is definitely workable. Anything less will still find London running everything.
What we sometimes forget is geography. Just look at the sea and airspace that an independent Scotland would control. The security of rUK would depend on us having a defence agreement with Scotland, whether they are in NATO or not. IF Indy ref 2 happens and IF they vote to leave, there will be a lot of bluster before the grownups agree on what is best for both sides. That is a mutual defence agreement to protect our island.
I predict Scotland is going nowhere
.
This thing called ‘Scottish independence’ is as dead as a Dodo. For the sake of preventing boredom and repetition I will not elaborate. It’s time to move on and accept the fait accompli. End of.
You may well be correct. But I would like Westminster to put a cap on Scottish (ie SNP) borrowings. Might bring a dose of reality to the whole issue of allowing devolved governments (all of them but SNPLand is the worst offender) a blank cheque.
Can you explain what you mean by Scottish SNP borrowing? Ive not heard of this before?
The issues facing an Independent Scotland go beyond N.A.T.O. membership and nuclear weapons. These have been rehearsed over and over again – from currency and borrowing rights to membership of various international forums that would lapse and not be replaced. However the main question is the most obvious. Why? The grounds for Independence seem to boil down to mere gestures. Country, flag, church, laws, traditions … am I missing something?
Norway refuse nuclear weapons and it’s our nearest NATO Allie, Sweden is doing the same. An independent Scotland hosting of nuclear weapons would always be a decision for the people and government of Scotland and would always be respected by an English or rUK government. Timing and removal of such weapons and an extended lease on facilities would be a pretty easy settlement between the Scottish and English governments. Some unnamed America diplomat can say what he likes about not letting Scotland in to NATO however England would demand Scottish entry and America would bow to that because it’s impossible to defend the island of Great Britain without defending Scotland and it’s almost impossible to defend the North Sea and North Atlantic without bases in Scotland so Europe would also demand Scottish membership. Would England or a rUK choose to remain a nuclear power given the cost and complexity of moving facilities from Scotland, probably not. Would England or the rUK choose to be a nuclear power and leave its entire nuclear arsenal in the middle of a foreign county, accessed by a series of inland water ways even with a sovereign base arrangement, certainly not.
Also imagine the US president willing to commit political suicide to veto Scotland from joining NATO in a country with so many historic links to Scotland they invented Tartan day.
All that being said there is little chance of Scotland being independent any time soon and if England sorts it’s s**t out with levelling up, federalisation and electing a Prime-minister who does not break the law there is no reason the UK can’t continue atleast as Great Britain for the foreseeable future. We have reached peak NAT and peak Tory. Things can only get better. Vote labour save Britain 😀
The truth is an independent Scotland is a military nightmare for the UK. They would want frigates and typhoons and the financially these items would end up as rust piles because the SNP simply could not afford to run them they would be a least 8billion per annum in the hole. I am afraid the problem lies with our woke spineless Westminster politicians. The correct step to take would be to make all military bases in the UK sovereign terrority along with appropriate entry and exit as per Cyprus.
I agree make HNBC sovereign territory now also RAF Lossiemouth with sea and air access in law, then make it clear 100% clear written into law that all Royal Navy ship building and any other military contracts would be brought to rUK. Then let Sturgeon tell the thousands of skilled engineers they would all be losing there jobs because of the neverendum.
It would be much easier to open a facility in England to handle missiles if they were smaller than the 60ton Trident. Its more capable than we need. Hitting North Korea from the Norwegian Sea is hardly defensive.
I think a 10 ton missile would still be capable of 5000km with 4 warheads, so have a batch 2 Astute, with VLS for 6 missiles or 24 Tomahawks plus some torpedos. We then also get more Astutes, only one size of boat, much better economies of scale and perhaps more than 11. Maybe 14?
Of course it would work. How many countries in NATO actually also possess nuclear weapons? These are weapons of last resort retaliation and we would be better spending that money on more capable and more of conventional weapons and manpower. Scotland is already in NATO by the way. Reducing conventional weapons means that the likelihood of needing to go nuclear increases. Scotland is well placed to support the east North Atlantic as well as the south Arctic. If we are being pedantic England doesn’t have nuclear anyway, they are all currently housed in Coulport and Faslane, both within spitting and fallout reach of one very large city, and given the prevailing winds most of the Central Belt too.
Were Scotland to become independent I would have thought that it would be ‘grandfathered in’ as part of an existing member. Even if it had to apply from scratch I can’t see it possible to apply different standards of admission to those of Sweden and Finland who don’t appear to be being told that they have to host nukes.
I could see Nicola demanding a very significant lease payment or compensatory agreement (like maintaining RN shipbuilding in Glasgow/Rosyth) from England to maintain the bases there for an agreed or indefinite period. If this was large enough I’m sure the Scottish population would see that it could be very much to their benefit. Bribery is often a very powerful persuader.
Not sure about that.
Algeria, Malta, Cyprus fell out of NATO.
Should Scotland become independent then maybe your Nazi boss Putin would decide that it has to much of a Nazi problem and need de-nazifying, where the supposed ethnic Russian population of 3 demand to be part of the Russian Nazi empire, and the local Jock plod have been hassling and harassing innocent members of the (very rubbish) FSB who had visited independent Scotland to look at Glasgow central train station!
And therefore he will build up a force of half trained rapists, on “exercise” for two months nearby, an exercise where all their kit breaks down, rations run out and half the kit is sold on the black market by corrupt rapists, then tell those amateurs that they are going on a “special military task”, to ensure the ethnic Russian trio are safe back with the Nazi motherland, where the 4 million jocks will wave them through as hero’s and it will be over in 2 days!!!!
Sound familiar bell-end Putin poodle? And I know you won’t answer as you are a. Unable to without getting a trip to Siberia, and b. To scared as you have no balls to back up your viewpoint! Therefore here we go again Johnskie any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine 🇺🇦 Yet?
Let’s not let reality get in the way of an “anti-Scotish independence post”.
First the USN did not want the UK to get Trident 3 because they plan to decommission all their ballistic subs by 2050, it took Mr Blair calling in a favour on George W Bush to get a Presidential Order countermanding the US Joint Cheifs of Staff. The UK will not be getting a sniff of the new US Joint Services hypersonic missile replacement which can be sea, air and land launched without any need of specialist submarines.
My research points to the USN ceasing any further Trident 3 related sattelite launches in the early 2040’s and they have already stopped and warhead or software development for Trident 3.
The delays to the Dreadnaught program build means it may well be cancelled if Scots vote for independence in 2023 as it will have no port or facility to maintain and fit the UK’s nuclear warhead to the missile. Though the latter is in fact a floating dock and could be moved elsewhere.
The current Vanguard ballistic submarines are ageing and have problems with launch tubes flooding or becoming unoperable due to faults. The reactors powering these boats are rapidly approaching the end of their servicable life.
This being the case, just why would anyone with a smidgen of knowledge think the US would be desperate to retain the UK nuclear boats, especially as the US Joint Chiefs of Staff did not want the UK to have Trident 3 in the first place.
According to the scientists at “Weapons into Ploughshares” the US retired all its nuclear dumb bombs from Europe over a decade ago, as they focussed on the joint services delivery system and mothballed all the nuclear bomb handling facilities in Europe.
The reality is we do not “shelter” under the US nuclear umbrella anymore than we shelter under the Russian nuclear umbrella as both nations can turn the world into a crisp many times over before any UK ballistic missile left its submarine.
After that there is the strategic importance of Scotland’s land and air bases to anti submarine and air intercept operations for NATO, so yes, the US and NATO will throw all that away in a huff just because England loses its ballistic weapon capability.
Really?
There is a few major problems with this plan. and i am sure the SNP have no considered this problem.
1/ UK current MOD Bases are on Sovereign Land and not UK or Scottish Soil.
2/ Does SNP Expect the UK To Hand over UK Défense assets
3/ To Join Nato needs approval from all other members,
4/ Scotland has no armed forces, yes there are Scottish Regiments in the British
Army.
5/ Scotland would have to provide evidence it can supports itself and its GDP.
6/ Bank Of England will not allow Scotland to use the £.
7/ Cannot join the EU As it cannot defend itself, N-Ireland could invade them.
all valid points and could be worked around but would take years, and do we really want to listen to Politicains and there agendas.
It is very interesting the view people have of nuclear weapons. An independent Scotland not having nuclear weapons or being a neutral country will be pretty irrelevant if the U.K. nuclear deterrent was either targeted or Used. What I think most people just refuse or really cannot internationalise the outcome of the deterrent ever being used. It’s an everyone dies button, simple as, you cannot launch a single missile as you will expose and loss your deterrent so you have to undertake a full launch, if one balistic missile submarine launches a strike everyone else will, it’s a simple equation, russia or China would not know if the rest of the nato deterrent would respond, so they would have to assume they would and they would not allow there nations to be gutted, so the would fire all of NATO, The US and other powers would know this and even if the treaty did not hold they would need to launch on the assumption Russia China would launch.
Crop and black soot modelling has shown a 100 warhead exchange would reduce the world food production by 10% of ten years ( that’s the Pakistan v India scenario), a full NATO v Russia and or China exchange would put out potentially a couple of thousand warheads, that will effectively end food production of a decade, which means everyone apart from a few hunter gatherer societies dies…..so it’s all political play and noise really as it has no functional difference on the Scottish population living or dying in a NATO Russia exchange as actually everyone dies….
I think Scotland wouldn’t be able to join for one simple fact which is that post independence I’m not sure whether there would be much left of defence. I think it would be more coastal/fisheries defence organisation. What would it offer to NATO if it couldn’t offer safe habour to nuclear submarines and airbases. These are the key assets Scotland would have to offer NATO and if they are not on the table what would be the point of admitting into NATO? I did read some article (can’t remember where now) where the Scot Nats said they weren’t forbidding all nuclear submarines just British ones…That kind of underpins their rationale – anything but the English. The SNP are contemptable at the best of times but I came to the conclusion that most of the Scots that vote for them do because the SNP have always been able to rangle money out of the treasury. I think a firm “no” to the SNP on more funding I think would collapse their voting base – I really do.
George, thanks for this excellent assessment and presentation.
No, an independent Scotland will not work… 😏
If the ROI was truly independent without the protection of the UK, Russia would have had a pop, knowing that they are not a NATO member.
With this in mind, let’s say that Russia attacked the ROI in a small way to test the UK/EU response… would the UK act unilaterally to protect ROI?.Would the EU/France attack Russia to protect an EU member State outside the remit of NATO, I don’t think either would.
So this applies to Scotland in the direction they would choose to go if they ever became a truly independent Country