Scottish Independence

[Jamaldo]

An interesting point - could you envision a "special relationship" between rUK and an Independent scotland? I'd imagine there'd be signifcant pressure from voices inside both countries to ahve shared defence and foreign policies

I don't see the current relationship as equal. The US say "Jump", and the UK say "How high?".

I believe that the relationship between us, an independent Scotland, and the rest of the UK, would be far more co-operative and equal, but we get to have a proper say in things unlike now.

This myth that we're going to be the bitch of every other major country in the world after independence is absolute fantasy that exists only in the mind of unionists.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

It will be up to us if we decide to fight alongside the Americans in any future war though. As a member of the UK we have no say. Scottish soldiers will be sent to a foreign country, and hundreds of them will die as it stands if a Westminster government decides to suck the President's dick and do what he wants. Independence can change that.

And why would we "obliged" to go to war. We certainly can't be forced. We'll no longer be part of the special relationship between the UK and the US (thank f**k) so there'd be pressure on that front to do anything. Not our fucking problem as far as I'm concerned.

Because of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

That's what a military alliance is, that's what happened after September 11th in Afghanistan.

[Reynard]

Because of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

That's what a military alliance is, that's what happened after September 11th in Afghanistan.

No no!! Scotland WILL be a member of NATO but not have to abide by any of the joining the club criteria remember.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

A couple of points, the USA's ideal number of nuclear armed nations is one: Them. I don't think they'll be too broken up about us refusing to house nuclear weapons. It was never a part of the deal to be obliged to keep nukes on sovereign ground. The Germans did, becuase they were the front line, the UK did, becuase they were the NATO supply dump from across the atlantic - it's important to note as well that the UK's own nuclear programme was only there to act as an insurance policy against American cold feet. Largely, the US had to base a lot of nukes in European countries due to the lack of range on these weapons. Since the 80s this has been of lesser concern. The modern alliance is not so hung up on the nuclear part of the 'nuclear alliance'.

Secondly, the point about Iceland is that yes, it's an aircraft carrier that helps bottle up the GIUK gap. The point is that it's possible to be a contributing and important member of NATO without conforming to what might be said to be the more traditional ways of contributing. Actually having armed forces in Iceland's case, in our case, bottling up the southern approaches of the GIUK gap and contributing small but well trained forces without housing nukes. Plenty of countries find their niche, and becomign adumping gorund for a huge nuclear arsenal doesn't have to be it.

Finally, NATO did invoke article V after 9/11 but were politely told that they weren't needed. Even then it was not unanimous and some countries sent only the barest of token forces for one or two tours through Afghanistan. Countries can pick and choose their level of engagement, so can we - up to and including housing nuclear weapons.

Quite a few other countries housed them in one shape or another as well. Also a question I genuinely don't know the answer to, is the position of the SNP just about nuclear weapons, or does it relate to nuclear powered ships and submarines in general? When I talked about basing weapons in Scotland, I worded it badly. I wasn't really thinking about maintaining a permanent deterrent, more whether or not nuclear armed ships would be able to dock in Scottish ports.

On the Section V bit, NATO might not have been required initially, but there was a lot of complaining from the US, Britain and Canada about other countries not pulling their weight once Iraq had kicked off as well. This also comes back to my original point. If NATO vote for military action because one of the members has come under attack, only sending a token force of 100 people is, I think, clearly taking the p*ss (and also lends your tacit support for the conflict). It's quite understandable that a small nation like Scotland wouldn't want nuclear weapons within it's territory, and wouldn't want to become embroiled in foreign conflicts that are of little relevance to the country. I don't think anyone anywhere could have an issue with that stance. But to then say we want to join a military alliance like NATO is utter hypocrisy.

[renton]

Quite a few other countries housed them in one shape or another as well. Also a question I genuinely don't know the answer to, is the position of the SNP just about nuclear weapons, or does it relate to nuclear powered ships and submarines in general? When I talked about basing weapons in Scotland, I worded it badly. I wasn't really thinking about maintaining a permanent deterrent, more whether or not nuclear armed ships would be able to dock in Scottish ports.

On the Section V bit, NATO might not have been required initially, but there was a lot of complaining from the US, Britain and Canada about other countries not pulling their weight once Iraq had kicked off as well. This also comes back to my original point. If NATO vote for military action because one of the members has come under attack, only sending a token force of 100 people is, I think, clearly taking the p*ss (and also lends your tacit support for the conflict). It's quite understandable that a small nation like Scotland wouldn't want nuclear weapons within it's territory, and wouldn't want to become embroiled in foreign conflicts that are of little relevance to the country. I don't think anyone anywhere could have an issue with that stance. But to then say we want to join a military alliance like NATO is utter hypocrisy.

I'm not sure, would be nice to think it extended to any weapons on ships docking into Scotland, even as far as nuclear powered ships. Other countries did house them, but as I say, they were under no obligation and I'm sure one or two even asked for their removal (which then happened, would have to look it up again). As for NATO article V, yeah, there was complaining - and then the world kept spinning, even if you think it's taking the piss, in the world of realpolitik that's just called a day at the office. Generally, Scotland would be welcomed into the alliance, regardless of it's stance on nuclear weapons. The white paper outlined a set of modern armed forces with deployable army units, eventually being able to deploy a flight of 4 typhoons to support NATO/UN operations and maintaining a standing frigate patrol in the north sea. The rUK will still have Trident so it's not like our position in isolation is denying NATO that dubiously useful resource while otherwise maintaining a force useful to our regional neighbours and contributing where possible to other operations.

[~~~]

 

An interesting point - could you envision a "special relationship" between rUK and an Independent scotland? I'd imagine there'd be signifcant pressure from voices inside both countries to ahve shared defence and foreign policies

USA & Canada have a good relationship, they share defence security etc.., they don't have the same foreign policies, but it's a mutual benefit they cooperate with each other.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

I'm not sure, would be nice to think it extended to any weapons on ships docking into Scotland, even as far as nuclear powered ships. Other countries did house them, but as I say, they were under no obligation and I'm sure one or two even asked for their removal (which then happened, would have to look it up again). As for NATO article V, yeah, there was complaining - and then the world kept spinning, even if you think it's taking the piss, in the world of realpolitik that's just called a day at the office. Generally, Scotland would be welcomed into the alliance, regardless of it's stance on nuclear weapons. The white paper outlined a set of modern armed forces with deployable army units, eventually being able to deploy a flight of 4 typhoons to support NATO/UN operations and maintaining a standing frigate patrol in the north sea. The rUK will still have Trident so it's not like our position in isolation is denying NATO that dubiously useful resource while otherwise maintaining a force useful to our regional neighbours and contributing where possible to other operations.

I don't see any benefits of joining NATO that you can't get from just having good relations with the other countries as well. I'd imagine whatever happens there'd be extensive co-operation with the British Armed Forces, and Scotland could still join peacekeeping missions as and when it felt like it. I don't think NATO would turn Scotland away, but I still believe seeking admission is complete and utter hypocrisy on the part of the SNP, and I think the only reason for it is to placate people worried about defence issues before the referendum. And as 44% of their own party members voted against it at their conference, I don't think it's a particularly radical opinion on my part.

[HardyBamboo]

An interesting point - could you envision a "special relationship" between rUK and an Independent scotland? I'd imagine there'd be signifcant pressure from voices inside both countries to ahve shared defence and foreign policies

Like anything else if it was in both parties interest we would have a "special relationship" (I am talking politically here, I would fully expect my relationship with English suppliers for example to remain exactly as it is now if Scotland votes for Independence).

[Ad Lib]

It will be up to us if we decide to fight alongside the Americans in any future war though. As a member of the UK we have no say. Scottish soldiers will be sent to a foreign country, and hundreds of them will die as it stands if a Westminster government decides to suck the President's dick and do what he wants. Independence can change that.

And why would we "obliged" to go to war. We certainly can't be forced. We'll no longer be part of the special relationship between the UK and the US (thank f**k) so there'd be pressure on that front to do anything. Not our fucking problem as far as I'm concerned.

NATO is a defence pact. If one of the members is invaded, the others are obliged to protect it.

[AberdeenBud]

NATO is a defence pact. If one of the members is invaded, the others are obliged to protect it.

Invaded being the key word.

Misguided and badly organised neo-imperialist conflicts do not fall under this obligation.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Invaded being the key word.

Misguided and badly organised neo-imperialist conflicts do not fall under this obligation.

The actual word is attacked. And yes they do, hence Afghanistan.

[Burma]

The actual word is attacked. And yes they do, hence Afghanistan.

I must have missed Afghanistan's (Or Iraq's) attack upon NATO.

[AberdeenBud]

 

 

The actual word is attacked. And yes they do, hence Afghanistan.

Some nations chose to join Dubya's coalition, since Afghanistan didn't actually attack anyone they were in no way obligated to do so by the NAT.

The overall point is this part of the NAT was created specifically for the Cold War with The USSR in mind and realpolitik ensures that it is almost never enforced.

One NATO member invaded another in the 70's FFS.

[vikingTON]

The actual word is attacked. And yes they do, hence Afghanistan.

When did 'Afghanistan' or its regime attack a member of NATO?

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

I must have missed Afghanistan's (Or Iraq's) attack upon NATO.

When did 'Afghanistan' or its regime attack a member of NATO?

Article V was invoked after the September 11th attacks, and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was the response.

Some nations chose to join Dubya's coalition, since Afghanistan didn't actually attack anyone they were in no way obligated to do so by the NAT.

The overall point is this part of the NAT was created specifically for the Cold War with The USSR in mind and realpolitik ensures that it is almost never enforced.

One NATO member invaded another in the 70's FFS.

No.

No they don't.

I think you're misrepresenting who you believe to be 'Afghanistan'.

It's not about what/who I believe to be responsible. The USA chose to respond by invading Afghanistan, and NATO countries backed them because of the treaty. I've said it enough times on here, (although some sent token forces) every single NATO member sent a contingent to Afghanistan because it was a NATO mission. People seem to refuse to accept that this a possible consequence of NATO membership. It's not an abstract concept, it has actually happened quite recently.

[~~~]

Tory on Question Time tonight saying we have to get out of the EU

At least we know one promise the unionists can offer us if we vote against independence

[ayrmad]

Under the status quo I'd never vote for unilateral disarmament under independence I'd be 100% for it, I'm not interested in Scotland being a daddybigbaws on the world stage.

Hardly any c**t outside these borders knows we're a country so we certainly aren't going to be viewed as a vital part of any future global defence cooperative, that'll do for me, the nutters can spend a chunk of their tax bucks on defence, I'll settle for us being a nobody in the arms race.

If it means our shipbuilding etc is reduced so be it, they'll just have to diversify or die.

[kiddy]

With all this talk of NATO, 11/9 & Afghanistan. Could somebody tell me if Iraq attacked a NATO member, if Kuwait are a member & why NATO decided to provide "security" in Libya?

[Burma]

With all this talk of NATO, 11/9 & Afghanistan. Could somebody tell me if Iraq attacked a NATO member, if Kuwait are a member & why NATO decided to provide "security" in Libya?

Iraq did not attack a NATO member and was not attacked in turn by NATO in either 1991 or 2003. Both occasions Iraq was attacked and latterly invaded by a coalition of forces operating under US command.

As Kuwait is in the Middle East and not geographically pertinent to a strategic defence of the North Atlantic zone then they are not in NATO. Although they have recently strengthened their relationship with NATO.

NATO implemented and oversaw Operation Unifed Protector (I think) in Libya at the request of the United Nations Security Council in order to enforce two UNSC resolutions relating to weapons and military flight embargoes and the removal of Quaddafi and his regime.

[Reynard]

Tory on Question Time tonight saying we have to get out of the EU

At least we know one promise the unionists can offer us if we vote against independence

We do need to get out of it.

If Scotland ever becomes independent I will certainly be voting against us joining the EU , if its still around in its present form.