Osbourne says no to currency union.

False premise and the BoD – surely not?

Athgray My conscience would be clear if we did not have our own wmd. Some thing like Spain, Norway Iceland, Greece,Denmark,Canada and in fact 25 of the 28 members of NATO.

Athgray My conscience would be clear if we did not have our own wmd. Some thing like Spain, Norway Iceland, Greece,Denmark,Canada and in fact 25 of the 28 members of NATO.

How do you feel about nuclear weapons being deployed in Scotland ? Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey, all NATO members, without nuclear weapons, all have nuclear weapons deployed in their countries. Despite being classified as non-nuclear weapons states, ie, they have no control over the nuclear weapons in their country.

Would an “independent” Scotland be in the same position ? If not why not ?

Gordimhor, nuclear deterant has been, and still is a cornerstone of NATO ethos. If you want in, you agree to the protection, perceived or real that they bring. You just want someone to do the dirty work for you. I have already said it is not high on my priority list one way or the other, however those vehemently opposed should surely not wish entry into NATO.

A free Yorkshire would be in NATO as long as we don’t have to buy the drinks.

Just thought you needed to know.

According to the SNP the position would be no nukes in Scotland Scotlands Future says there would be the “speediest safe removal” and Yes Scotland website says

We know already that the current Scottish Government’s priorities for defence would include removal of Trident nuclear submarines from the Faslane naval base within the first five year term of an independent Scottish Parliament.

Personally I believe that in negotiations after a Yes vote the timetable could be extended. Whilst it would be far from ideal Icould accept that Scotland might host Trident for a specified time, with the aim of becoming a wmd free zone.
Athgray I dont subscribe to the M.A D. doctrine, and I believe that the non nuclear members play a full part in NATO

Whilst it would be far from ideal Icould accept that Scotland might host Trident for a specified time, with the aim of becoming a wmd free zone.

Presumably this is based on hope rather any realistic assessment of an independent Scotland’s leverage on such matters.

.

I dont subscribe to the M.A D. doctrine

Well an independent Scotland which is a NATO member will, so you’re going to be disappointed.

Nuclear Sharing goes to the very heart of NATO’s policy of nuclear deterrence and the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction.

Presumably this is based on hope rather any realistic assessment of an independent Scotland’s leverage on such matters

Are you saying that an independent Scotland wouldn’t have a choice on whether we hosted WMDs?

I am already disappointed Ernie 🙂 thanks to many of the various policies of the various uk governments of the last 52 years. Including their policy on nuclear weapons.
edit

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/9126-osborne-currency-threat-is-subterfuge-or-confused-economics-says-academic

(Lights blue touch paper and runs away…)

Are you saying that an independent Scotland wouldn’t have a choice on whether we hosted WMDs?

I’m saying that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be as independent as some would like to suggest. NATO membership does not mean that a member state can do what it likes with regards to defence, this comment by gordimhor recognizes that :

Whilst it would be far from ideal Icould accept that Scotland might host Trident for a specified time, with the aim of becoming a wmd free zone.

Otherwise there would not be any need to compromise. The question is how much compromise an independent Scotland would have to make. I suspect that most independence supporters in their enthusiasm overestimate Scotland’s leverage and underestimate Scotland’s need to comprise.

It is very unlikely that things will end up anywhere approaching the best hoped for scenario. imo

ernie_lynch – Member

Nuclear Sharing goes to the very heart of NATO’s policy of nuclear deterrence

Does it really? The nuclear weapons that are still shared are no more than vestigal- outdated gravity tactical weapons with limited capacity to deliver them and no real idea where we’d put them if we could. The really important word there is tactical, nuclear deterrence is dependent on strategic weapons, tactical weapons are for use against conventional armies.

Germany’s removed all but a handful (*) and it’s been suggested the last will go next year, but even if they don’t they’ll have no capacity to deliver them soon as the Typhoons that replace the old Tornados can’t deploy them.

Turkey can’t fly them at all apparently. So if that’s the case the only way they could be used would be to either manually toss them out of a cargo plane, drive them onto a battlefield in a truck, or bury them somewhere then detonate them when Vladimir Putin rides past on a bear.

US EUCOM dismisses the shared arsenal as having “no military value” and says that withdrawing all of the remaining shared weapons would have “no military downside”

So if this stuff goes to the very heart of the NATO policy of nuclear deterrance, that probably tells us a lot about the policy.

(* oh and by the way- you said earlier “despite being classified as non-nuclear weapons states, ie, they have no control over the nuclear weapons in their country.”- you can see the reality of this, Germany says “let’s get rid of 4/5th of these”, and rid they are, without the slightest dispute from NATO, the US, or other allies.)

you said earlier “despite being classified as non-nuclear weapons states, ie, they have no control over the nuclear weapons in their country.”- you can see the reality of this, Germany says “let’s get rid of 4/5th of these”, and rid they are, without the slightest dispute from NATO, the US, or other allies.

That doesn’t provide proof of control over the nuclear weapons in their country. And the “without the slightest dispute from NATO, the US, or other allies” pretty much says it all. I’m sure that an independent Scotland will be able to do as it pleases with regards to defence, as long as there isn’t the slightest dispute with the US and other allies. My only comment was with regards to comprise.

ernie_lynch – Member

That doesn’t provide proof of control over the nuclear weapons in their country.

That’s a fair point- just because the US did exactly what Germany asked, doesn’t meant they’re compelled to. Though it does show that there’s no overaching objection to unilateral disarmament, and that nobody’s very concerned about diminishing nuclear sharing- unsurprising really. No nation has been asked to be part of nuclear sharing since the 60s I think, and some have largely withdrawn since. No nation has ever been compelled to host nuclear weapons as a condition of NATO membership and several have unilaterally declared themselves nuclear free. So it sets the stage pretty clearly i reckon.

(It seems interesting to me that the new Secretary General is a former Norwegian prime minister, and so led a nuclear-free NATO member and now leads NATO)

Further to that, as you probably know the UK government has committed to retaining and relocating Trident, so there goes any other grounds for dispute, or reason for sharing- not to mention any NATO grounds for concern over the strength and continuation of the deterrant.

So the only question left is probably timescale. Frankly the official single-term timescale just doesn’t seem feasible, relocating Trident safely is going to be a big engineering project, though it’s hard to know whether that’s just, er “optimistic” or whether it’s designed as a bargaining position.

As for compromise, you need to consider what Scotland brings to the alliance. The quick answer to that is, imo, “More than Albania”. Scotland’ll have bigger and more modern conventional armed forces, and a far more important strategic location. And the same number of nuclear weapons 😉 Reality is we’ll be a stronger contributor than other recent members who’ve been welcomed, so will we have to compromise in some way that they didn’t?

So you end up at the basic question- what will happen when Scotland asks to join. Is it really in NATO’s interest to say anything but come on in, grab a beer.

[half time talk]

The survey for the Scottish Chambers of Commerce (SCC) found more than half of respondents rated the level of debate so far as “poor” or “dismal”.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-27228233
Are standards slipping in here?

Both sides of the independence debate need to “step up their game” in the final months of the referendum campaign,

[/half time talk]

As for compromise, you need to consider what Scotland brings to the alliance. The quick answer to that is, imo, “More than Albania”.

What does Scotland get out of NATO membership? I’d rather see it neutral than obliged to protect the territorial intregrity of the world’a largest military power or various criminal states in the Balkans.

(Lights blue touch paper and runs away…)

😀

It’s in The Herald too, it’ll be interesting to see how widely it gets reported.

The survey for the Scottish Chambers of Commerce (SCC) found more than half of respondents rated the level of debate so far as “poor” or “dismal”.

I’m surprised it’s that low tbh.

piemonster – Member
It’s in The Herald too, it’ll be interesting to see how widely it gets reported.

Is it not the same piece of news as this from March?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/23/currency-union-independent-scotland-backing

I’m saying that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be as independent as some would like to suggest.

+1 in many respects but people will swallow the deceit that says it will. Ernie, there is an emotional attachment here….I have asked before if yS supporters on this page would (hypothetically) be able to look their children in the eye and promise them that the policies outlined by AS would mean that there would be no nukes in Scotland. This was in specific reference to don’t ask, don’t tell. Since the answer was an unequivocal yes, you have all that you need to know.

People will be claiming more control over monetary and fiscal affairs next.

Having just read the last page of posts, I vote this subject the most tedious of any on STW in the past year.

And that is really saying something! 🙁

konabunny – Member

What does Scotland get out of NATO membership?

Good luck with having that question answered. I have repeatedly asked why an independent Scotland would need to be a member of NATO (specially in light of the obvious nuclear weapons issue/dilemma being discussed) and all the saltire-waving mel gibson wannabes who have been so vociferous in their cry for freedoom over almost four thousand posts and more than a hundred pages have maintained a deathly silence.

Except for one who said Scotland didn’t need to be a member of NATO, before making some smartarse comment about watching paint dry, and then finally stating that NATO membership would cause Scotland no problems with regards to nuclear weapons, thereby completely avoiding explaining the benefits that NATO membership would bring an independent Scotland.

I can only assume that the possibility of Scottish troops gallivanting across the globe fighting wars and restoring Scotland’s “national pride” is too appealing to ignore.

🙂

Tightywighty it’s a second report from the same economist for the neutral website Scotlandseptember18.com

saltire-waving mel gibson wannabees.

You just let the mask slip Ernie.

I’m with you Konabunny

Okay, well let’s just not anyone see us agreeing on anything in public, yeah? 😉

ernie_lynch – Member

What does Scotland get out of NATO membership?

Good luck with having that question answered. I have repeatedly asked why an independent Scotland would need to be a member of NATO

Yup, and by all means carry on as if it was brilliant point, rather than a question that was daft enough that most people ignored it. Maybe the others realised that even if they answer the question you’d not be happy, more fool me eh.

What does Scotland as a nation get out of NATO membership? Simple enough answer, same as everyone else. Mutual protection, and the greater stability in your area that is created by that shared protection. Closer political and military ties with other members, influence over the organisation’s policy and action. Why is the UK in NATO?

Also, politically it’s useful to show continuity and stability post independence, we don’t want to be perceived as some unpredictable new state and we want to stay on the best terms with neighbours, these are things that tie us together.

So the real question – Should Scotland join NATO? NATO is a difficult organisation tbh- some laudable goals, some very dodgy politics, some pretty unpalatable cold-war leftovers. I’m a bit on the fence personally- there’s good reasons for Scotland to join, and good reasons not to, I don’t think either is really overwhelming. In the short term there’s some factors that make it more desirable for a new nation to be in the club, for all parties, so taking into account that withdrawing is easy, I tend to come down on the side that we should join.

Will your “nation” be “sober” enough to vote or was wee eck misrepresenting the truth yet again?

Is Scotland’s need for mutual protection as pronounced as Albania’s (three neighboring states recently at war or insurgency), Turkey (war or insurgency in all of its Asian neighbours and Armenia and Azerbaijan and Georgia) or the USA (war or insurgency wherever it chooses to occupy)? Does Scotland want closer military ties with those countries? Is having more influence (lol) over NATO policy a better deal than not having to get sucked into its military adventures?

What’s the point in Scotland being independent without serious changes?

What’s the point in Scotland being independent without serious changes?

Very good question. Preceded by what’s the point when you will end up with less power/freedom than you started with?

What they want is basically what they have now but a government of their choice.
Why does the change have to be “serious” ? What exactly does this mean? Can it not just be fairer

Is no nukes not serious?
Is being very pro EU not serious?

What would be acceptable to show “seriousness”?
Why is it essential?

THM I dont think you can technically have less power/freedom when the starting point/base line is being governed by a party you didn’t vote for. Could you explain please?

IF AS was to do this you would call him a liar. If i was to say you wit was a lie you would cry troll.

konabunny – Member

Is having more influence (lol) over NATO policy a better deal than not having to get sucked into its military adventures?

Look at the reality of how members “have to get sucked into military adventures”- only 8 members mobilised in Libya for instance.

OK that’s cleared that up. The only person prepared to answer the question, after dismissing it as a daft question, admits that he can’t think of any overwhelming reasons why an independent Scotland should be a NATO member. Which makes the apparent determination to join NATO, with its associated unresolved nuclear weapons issue, sound even more confused.

And the nuclear weapon issue is the big carrot which Yes Scotland is using to entice lefties who believe in peace and social justice, I certainly feel its seductive powers, so it’s not as if it’s a trivial matter.

It seems that NATO membership is just another one of those rather important issues which the Yes camp have given little or no thought to, and which presumably they feel they needn’t explain, as somehow, with a bit of luck, it’ll all come out in the wash.

A “daft” question indeed 🙂

Do you think you should only do something when there are “overwhelming reasons” to do so? It’d be nice if everything was black and white but you’ll be waiting a long time, doing nothing at all, for that.

Oh, and

“A “daft” question indeed “

Konabunny’s question, which we’re talking about now, is a good one. Yours was daft.

On the subject of coming out in the wash. Nice bit of “debate” in FT surrounding the Kevin Toolis article today. Pretty dirty linen there!!!

Type that in an Aussie accent did you Northwind?
THM, It is wee eck who has been misrepresented. We have huge problems with associated health problems and the culture of macho heavy drinking that I see 13/14yo kids buying into. He said he couldn’t promote whisky if people looked at us (the country that people associate with it) as a nation of drunks. I have to say you are slipping,he agreed a currency union may not happen yesterday,isn’t that a far better target for a broadside from HMS Hurtmore?

Konabunny’s question, which we’re talking about now, is a good one. Yours was daft.

🙁

duckman – Member
THM… I have to say you are slipping,he agreed a currency union may not happen yesterday,isn’t that a far better target for a broadside from HMS Hurtmore?

No that’s been obvious from the start.

Maybe the Scotsman is less accurate than you ducks, but I read their version of what the DO said differently!

“My argument is that if you are promoting it as authentic and of great worth, you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks.”

I guess he was talking hypothetically! 😉 hard to tell with that guy

I saw it in the Times,which is not renowned for a best case scenario in relation to him. I have checked and he did say that,but I assume the point he was trying to make was the same. Now that I am 45 and my eldest is 14 I think minimum unit price is a brilliant idea.

I get the point – I was teasing with the first reference!!