Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaKev
I do not think it is bye bye NATO and I cannot see NATO not allowing Scotland to join either.
I base that on the following reasons.
- Its not a new land mass, it is already covered by NATO. The only difference is that it is now an independent state.
- Nuclear weapons will not be lost, they will be just relocated to another part of the rUK.
- Scotland is in a strategic place for European and Atlantic defence.
You're point about lack of nuclear powers in Europe. I don't truly understand the point in what you are saying.
The UN security council, permanent members when set up, UK, USA, France, Russia (then Soviet Union) and China, were the only holders of nuclear weapons at that time. The idea was to limit capabilities to these states. Remember the issues when India and Pakistan started developing weapons. Or even now over North Korea and in the past Iran, who are trying or tried to develop nuclear capabilities.
If I was a US citizen, I would personally be more happy the fact there are less states who have these weapons, meaning less likely having to fire these weapons in anger. I think we all agree that would be a disaster and no one will win.
The danger is that more states have these weapons, when would be the tipping point when they would use them. Today, Ukraine would they be tempted to use them? A few years ago, when would Yugoslavia used them, when the country fell apart?
That's my thoughts. |
You haven't had to deal with hardline American Republican's then, especially the TEA Party crowd.
I have and it's an eye opener - the worst of them make the Tories look like communists!
They very much feel that Europe spends too much on welfare when that money should be spent on defence, amongst others.
What I've also discovered, both from that source but also military analysis sites is that the US DoD really, really dislikes the idea of mini-states with "bonsai" militaries freeloading in NATO. If you can't pull your weight in the Alliance, you shouldn't be in it. Hence there's considerable frustration and resentment that most of the EU countries have slashed their defence budgets since the 90's, further increasing the perceived burden on the US. If, worst case scenario the rUK had to abandon it's nuclear deterrent (which isn't exactly an independent one anyway) because they couldn't find a suitable base in rUK waters, for whatever reason, that would, as I wrote earlier leave the US as sole nuclear armed NATO power. America wouldn't like being lumbered with that - it would increase the feeling that the Euros were freeloading at the US's expense. Lastly, French nukes aren't currently at NATO's disposal.
The US may not block Scotland joining NATO, but they will (and do, apparently) have grave reservations about both Scotland's no-nuclear weapons-on-Scottish-soil stance and the smallness of it's proposed armed forces. The former is at odds with US strategic interests - look what happened to New Zealand when it prohibited nuclear armed and propelled vessels entering it's waters. Salmond isn't proposing that, but he will have to accept something nuclear in the vicinity. Like the base at Faslane staying where it is for far longer then he's commited himself politically. US support for Scottish membership of NATO may entail accepting the continued existence of Faslane and it's support infrastructure, similar to the US base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Also if a TEA Party type gets in to the White House (Sarah Palin nearly made it to Vice-President) it's possible that support for NATO from such an administration would be very much conditional on Europe pulling it's weight. That could mean
forcing countries to spend the required by treaty 2% GDP on defence. Failure to do so
could also result in them pulling the plug on the Alliance and leaving Europe to the wolves. Some do think like that.
Can Scotland afford to have 2% military spending, on top of everything else? Where would you get the manpower for a large armed force from a population of 5 million? The Scandinavian countries and Israel all use the national service/conscription then reservist model. Conscription would be just a tad unpopular with the younger generation here and can't see the SNP adopting it except under severe duress.
That's why I wrote earlier that NATO membership wouldn't be good idea for an independent Scotland. It's not helped by the SNP not giving any real, proper indication as to how advanced and developed their geopolitical thinking is. I don't think they've given it much thought.
This is all worst case scenario, but imagining possible unintended consequences is a very good thing to do.
Mike.
