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 [b]who are in favour of independence[/b] put those [s]relationships[/s] practicalities in a lower priority than [b]the romance of[/b] independence. That can all be sorted out later,
aracer - MemberUnfortunately Wee Eck has stated that he won't undertake the commitments and obligations of membership.
Round in circles again- Salmond has stated that Scotland [i]will[/i] 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.
[img] 
[/img]
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, [i]if[/i] 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 - MemberI 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 [i]that[/i] 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
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 [i]allowed[/i] 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.
