aracer, you’ve claimed that NATO won’t accept the Danish approach from a new member, and you’ve not been able to support that.

No, the former secretary general of NATO and UK defence secretary claimed so!

And lets not forget that for the past 30 years, the SNP said they wouldn’t join NATO, then when they changed their mind Salmond told everyone that they would be able to automatically become members, till NATO said that wasn’t true – funnily enough, exactly what he claimed about EU membership, till they said it wasn’t true. So, I’d suggest that his assertions aren’t really worth relying on!

ninfan – Member

No, the former secretary general of NATO and UK defence secretary claimed so!

He really didn’t, NINfan. I don’t know what else to say to you… In fact he didn’t mention it at all in that article you quoted.

er,

Lord Robertson, the former Nato secretary general and Labour defence secretary, said : “Does the SNP accept this unambiguous acceptance of the nuclear umbrella? I supervised the entry of seven new members to Nato in 2002 and every one of them had to accept the strategic concept. If the SNP cannot accept the Nato strategic concept then it will simply not get in.”

if you need a bit of help, the Danish approach doesn’t accept the strategic concept.

aracer – Member

the Danish approach doesn’t accept the strategic concept.

What is your source for that? You’re repeating yourself here, but not answering the question.

ninfan – Member
…Salmond told everyone that they would be able to automatically become members, till NATO said that wasn’t true – funnily enough, exactly what he claimed about EU membership, till they said it wasn’t true. So, I’d suggest that his assertions aren’t really worth relying on!

What’s the obsession with Salmond? He’s not going to be king after independence, and all those relationships will be negotiated by whatever government we elect after independence (and not necessarily a govt lead by him).

Most Scots put those relationships in a lower priority than independence. That can all be sorted out later,

He’s not going to be king after independence

He will be in the market for a new job.

aracer, you’ve claimed that NATO won’t accept the Danish approach from a new member, and you’ve not been able to support that

Northwind, tell you what – you point us to any support for your assertion that Scotland could join NATO, given their position on Nuclear weapons

I’ll stick with George Robertson, (former NATO sec gen) saying, and this is a quote:

“It is however, in relation to Nato, the world’s most successful defence alliance, that the champions of the secession of Scotland really undermine their case for a Denmark-type defence policy. Similar-sized countries rely on being part of Nato’s collective defence. Territorial defence is no defence against today’s threats. Nato’s collective shield is crucial to all nations in the alliance.

Of course the Nationalists say they are now in favour of being in Nato. By a hair’s breadth conference majority they unconvincingly said they would sign up. But in an alliance which says in its strategic concept: “As long as nuclear weapons exist, Nato will remain a nuclear alliance”, the unilateralism of the SNP places an unacceptable condition on Nato. They actually propose to disarm their neighbouring country by removing the deterrent, and thousands of jobs, from Faslane.”

I seem to remember reading something about a time where Japan we’re kind of in the EU and we definitely weren’t – didn’t end well.

ninfan – Member

Northwind, tell you what – you point us to any support for your assertion that Scotland could join NATO, given their position on Nuclear weapons

NATO haven’t commented either way at this point, so all we have from them is article 10, the open door policy would support Scotland’s desire to join, and the fact that Scotland has not proposed anything to obstruct that. But you know what? It’s you that’s making the assertions, it’s up to you to back them up.

Robertson’s suggestion that Scotland would be disarming the UK is just absurd- the UK government has stated that they would continue the nuclear deterrant, but in either case that would be their choice not ours. His “concern” on that has no crediblity at all. It’s pretty disappointing from him, but then that’s politics I suppose. But all that aside, he does not speak for NATO.

so all we have from them is article 10, the open door policy would support Scotland’s desire to join, and the fact that Scotland has not proposed anything to obstruct that.

Open door?

The Parties may by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.

Can you guide me to any suggestion whatsoever anywhere that anyone has any intention of inviting scotland to join?

What Scotland wants is irrelevant, they have to be invited!

bit like with the eu and free trade dont you think aracer or are we still proven to be a member from your link?

the reality is , as with lots of these issues we just dont know what will happen and certainly NATO is not getting involved at this moment in time in giving a definitive answer.

The solution is simple. We are currently in NATO. Vote No next year and we will remain in NATO.

You have it backwards, the invitation is the final part of the process. The new member advises NATO of their interest in joining, is evaluated and joins the MAP if need be (it seems to be the case that everyone goes via the MAP, so it’s pretty safe to assume Scotland would have to as well, but that would be NATO’s call and they might choose to bypass it) and if satisfactory is invited to join.

Re open door- NATO is committed to enlargement- article 10 of the treaty, it’s an absolute fundamental. “NATO’s new Strategic Concept, adopted at the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, reaffirmed the Allies commitment that NATO’s door remains open to any European country in a position to undertake the commitments and obligations of membership, and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area.”

the invitation is the final part of the process. The new member advises NATO of their interest in joining, is evaluated and joins the MAP if need be

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

Accession process
Once the Allies have decided to invite a country to become a member of NATO, they officially invite the country to begin accession talks with the Alliance. This is the first step in the accession process on the way to formal membership.

😆

Oh dear, hoisted by your own link again… Not only are you wrong, but your link explains why you’re wrong.

Accession is the final stage on the road to joining, as I explained, and only happens after NATO has decided whether a new country’s application to join should be accepted, after you express your interest and after your application has been considered.

Being invited to join is the final step in the accession process, which is the final step in the joining process. (well, in fact the invitation is step 5 of 7- step 6 being you accepting the invite, and step 7 being a big party with a free bar).

This is all explained in the 2 sections immediately above the section you quoted, on the same page- “support from aspirant countries” and “1995 study on enlargement”. I won’t quote in full but it’s pretty straightforward, as I explained above- countries express an interest in joining, are considered for eligibility, go through a MAP if need be, and then and only then are you invited to join- once your acceptance has been agreed.

(http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm again)

Re open door- NATO is committed to enlargement- article 10 of the treaty, it’s an absolute fundamental. “NATO’s new Strategic Concept, adopted at the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, reaffirmed the Allies commitment that NATO’s door remains open to any European country in a position to undertake the commitments and obligations of membership, and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area.”

Unfortunately Wee Eck has stated that he won’t undertake the commitments and obligations of membership. At this point in time he’s all we have – have any of the other potential post-independence controlling parties stated their case on this?

Most Scots who are in favour of independence put those relationships practicalities in a lower priority than the romance of independence. That can all be sorted out later,

aracer – Member

Unfortunately Wee Eck has stated that he won’t undertake the commitments and obligations of membership.

Round in circles again- Salmond has stated that Scotland will allow visiting nuclear weapons should his party be in power. So, care to support your claim that this doesn’t meet the commitments and obligations?

Oh, just to return to an earlier point quickly- you said earlier that the “Danish approach” wouldn’t be allowed for a new member, and that they are an exception due to being a founder. So, I give you Spain, who negotiated a complete nuclear exclusion before joining- I didn’t know that. Scotland isn’t going so far as that. Course, Spain joined a long time ago but NATO has been moving away from nuclear since then.

Salmond has stated that Scotland will allow visiting nuclear weapons should his party be in power.

Has he? Reference if you please?

So the EU then aracer …where were we ..poor form sir.

Ah, thought I already did. On the BBC, confirming the Danish approach:

“The issue about visiting warships, etc., no country ever confirms the existence of nuclear weapons on its warships – that is well known. This is an issue all non-nuclear countries have to face up to within NATO and out of NATO and we will do exactly the same thing.”

Personally I think it’s a splitter’s option, really not a fan- it’s basically don’t ask/don’t tell, which is hypocritical- though pragmatic. We should be going conventional only, like Spain… And to be fair that would be the SNP’s choice, if they get to make it, but it’s good to have alternatives in place.

The reality is, NATO doesn’t need its new members to be nuclear- the existing nuclear powers guard their arsenal pretty jealously, naval deterrants are designed for long patrols and by definition avoid spending time tied up outside of home ports, land-based weapons don’t travel in this way, air-based we’re not needed. But we’ve got more to offer to NATO than plenty of other members- a strategically useful location, existing early warning infrastructure etc, and would still have more of a military force than Iceland, Albania etc (and Albania are one of the most recent additions)

If NATO rejected Scotland, we are then in an exposed position and it may be necessary to seek an alliance directly with a big friend to protect us against the NATO countries.

After all, Scotland’s location means that the only people likely to invade us are our neighbours who are all NATO members. If we have a neighbouring country with a right wing govt facing bankruptcy because of an over expenditure on military projection we might look like a good diversion for its woes.

I’m sure Russia would see some benefit in having an ally in Scotland’s strategic position, and Scots are great believers in having allies on the flanks of potential enemies.

Nice big market and it would make some of our left wing so deliriously happy that they would overlook a few nuclear missiles on friendly visiting ships. 🙂

Aye, sounds like a load of bollocks, doesn’t it? So does NATO not wanting Scotland as a member.

So the EU then aracer …where were we ..poor form sir.

Sorry, JY. I started writing a reply to your latest, but then realised we were simply rehearsing all the same old arguments we’d done before and decided I CBA. You can take that as a win if you like, though in reality I think we’re actually a lot closer in our thoughts on this than we have been before. FWIW if leaving the EU would also mean leaving the single market I’d vote to stay – though I don’t believe it would (and reckon it would be in our interests to pay less money in and to get rid of stuff like the CFP).

Far more fun to argue about something I don’t really care very much about 😉

Ah, thought I already did. On the BBC, confirming the Danish approach

I thought we’d already established the Danish approach wasn’t viable for new entrants – Wee Eck has to agree that he’s happy for ships with nuclear loads to come visiting (otherwise he leaves open the option to turn away ships he knows are carrying such weaponry – it’s not like he has to be told what sort of armaments certain boats are carrying). I don’t think Spain can be described as a new entrant by any stretch of the imagination.

aracer – Member

I thought we’d already established the Danish approach wasn’t viable for new entrants

Do you really? That’s interesting, because every time you’ve suggested this is the case, I’ve asked you to provide something to support it, and you never have. The closest you came was saying “the Danish approach doesn’t accept the strategic concept.” but again, when challenged you didn’t provide anything to support that either.

So no, you have not established it. But here is another opportunity 😉

Well I found this, not sure how reliable the source is: “The agreement there is that nuclear weapons are forbidden, but as NATO vessels/craft do not declare the presence of nuclear weapons they are still welcome”. The thing is, accepting the strategic concept includes explicitly accepting nuclear arms, which clearly isn’t the case if “nuclear weapons are forbidden”.

Therefore, we will: … ensure the broadest possible participation of Allies in collective defence planning on nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces, and in command, control and consultation arrangements

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f394fe62-f375-11e2-b25a-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fgooglenews%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2ZtKz0e9U

bentley are investing

Sorry aracer, but there’s a wee bit of a hole in that. NATO policy since 1996 is that new members will not be allowed to host alliance nuclear weapons, let alone be required to. Non-nuclear members can still fulfil the planning, command and control duties (even Spain sits on the NPG). But all NATO members are required to commit fully to nonproliferation, which specifically outlaws either transferring or receiving nuclear weapons.

Scotland would also almost certainly be bound by the NPT, since there seems little doubt we would sign up- and all other new members to have joined in recent years are similarly bound. So NATO has already taken on many new members who can never be a base for nuclear weapons in peacetime.

The big picture is that no member has become a new nuclear host since the 60s, and several have withdrawn. Germany is in the process of fully withdrawing and will completely withdraw in 2015. The US have stated that hosting their weapons in Europe has “no military value”. You said earlier that you thought Spain wasn’t a useful example as it’s 25 years old, but that’s still 25 years more recent than the last time a NATO member became a nuclear host- this is ancient Cold War history stuff, described by Germany as a relic that serves no military purpose.

The strategic requirement to ensure the “broadest possible participation in peacetime basing of nuclear forces” has to be viewed against this backdrop. It would be a huge reach to suggest that “ensure the broadest possible participation” equates to “make mandatory” even without those restrictions, but taken in context it’s clearly not an issue.

To be blunt, the fact that there’s no explicit requirement for a member to be a nuclear host should be clear enough, but I hope this removes any doubt that the strategic concept requires it.

Just out of curiosity.

But how tough is it to live and work in Japan. The Internet suggests an unemployment rate of 4.1%. Which doesn’t seem too dire tbh.

On your average Japanese, what have the implications been on their daily lives of Japan’s economic performance over the past 20 years.