This week marks a tipping point in Libya’s future. A tyrant reduced to playing hide and seek with the subjects that he was ruthlessly crushing a matter of weeks ago, a wave of jubilation celebrating decades of oppression finally being lifted and a country ready to be reborn.
Closer to home, this week may also see a tipping point for the SNP. Its judgement over being consistently anti-NATO deserves being called into question in light of recent events, which it surely will by opposition parties and the MSM before too long. An alliance between advanced nations where an attack on one is deemed to be an attack on all can only be a positive thing as, alongside the UN and the EU, it bonds together countries with the resources and the might to ensure global stability is maintained.
The SNP sees Nato in a different light, as a nuclear-weapon wielding relic of a bygone age when Russia was supposedly the bogeyman and ‘first strike capability’ was all that mattered. This dark imagining is a sci-fi nightmare that not only won’t happen, but is certainly not any more likely to happen through Nato’s mere existence.
It is testament to how sure-footed a politician Alex Salmond is that the First Minister’s “unpardonable folly” comments back in 1999 regarding the Nato bombing of Kosovo remain his most famous gaffe, one that Salmond himself regrets. However, that famous phrase has only served to regularly harden the belief across Scotland that the SNP is anti-Nato, even if there is strong support within the party to change this policy.
There is hardly a starker contrast between the SNP’s view of Nato and much of the rest of the world’s than the following two passages; the second a speech on Monday from President Barack Obama and the first a 2009 from Scotland’s whiter, younger, more Nationalist version, Jamie Hepburn MSP.
*S3M-3607*♦* Jamie Hepburn: 60th Anniversary of NATO
That the Parliament notes that 4 April 2009 marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO); recognises that the continued presence of NATO serves as a destabilising factor in the West’s relationship with Russia; notes that NATO relies heavily on the continued use of nuclear weapons as part of its operational capacity; recalls that the first Secretary General of NATO, Lord Ismay, described the organisation’s purpose as being “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”; further recognises that the world has fundamentally changed since the founding of NATO in 1949, and, given that the Cold War is meant to be over, believes that the organisation has no useful purpose in the modern world.
Barack Obama, 22nd August 2011
To our friends and allies, the Libyan intervention demonstrates what the international community can achieve when we stand together as one — although the efforts in Libya are not yet over. NATO has once more proven that it is the most capable alliance in the world and that its strength comes from both its firepower and the power of our democratic ideals. And the Arab members of our coalition have stepped up and shown what can be achieved when we act together as equal partners. Their actions send a powerful message about the unity of our effort and our support for the future of Libya.
The independence referendum may be some way off but I cannot see the SNP winning many friends by remaining so steadfastly opposed to Nato and the strategic options that it provides so soon after the organisation has enjoyed such clear successes, such as the Libyan operations in 2011.
Anyway, an independent Scotland pulling out of Nato is possibly the worst possible example of realpolitik that one could dare to consider. Let’s break down the timeline for how it would go:
– Scotland releases Libyan Lockerbie bomber and convicted murderer of numerous Americans, to outrage from the US
– America funds and organises a successful series of Nato bombing raids that results in dictator Gaddafi being deposed
– Scotland celebrates its independence and, on behalf of the new country, President Salmond says he looks forward to working constructively with the rest of the world and boosting Scotland’s international profile
– Scotland leaves Nato
Seems unlikely, doesn’t it?
In the military, the best course of action is often short and sharp, which is precisely how the SNP’s U-turn on an independent Scotland’s relationship with Nato should be if the they want to avoid this being a harmful distraction to the party’s referendum campaign.
It’s time for the SNP to kill this unnecessary sacred cow and accept Nato for what it is. Anything else is, yes you guessed it, ‘unpardonable folly’.
#1 by Indy on August 23, 2011 - 9:24 am
Hmm. I think the grandiose claims about standing up to a tyrant should be taken with a pinch of salt given that a number of NATO nations’ leaders – including the President and UK Prime Minister – met with said tyrant not so long ago and their respective governments had no problems oiling up to him to gain an economic advantage for their respective countries. International politics and diplomacy is rarely black and white. Bad guys can become good guys and good guys can become bad guys surprisingly easily, can they not?
As for NATO – it is a nuclear based alliance and that is what the problem is for theSNP. SNP policy is pretty clear cut and non-negotiable. No nuclear weapons in Scotland’s land, sea and airspace. Of course if NATO was prepared to be flexible and agree to an independent Scotland being a member on those terms that could be discussed but it is right that we, as a party, set out our position clearly from the outset.
#2 by Jeff on August 23, 2011 - 10:00 am
I reckon Scots can understand, and support, an opposition to nuclear weapons in principle and certainly an opposition to holding them in Scotland, but dictating to other countries, the US no less, whether they should have weapons or not does seem to be stretching the bounds a little bit for me and as well argued as you have made the policy here Indy, I just can’t imagine the Salmond and the SNP bringing a majority with them on this.
For so little benefit and with so much at stake, is it not best to just fall in line with the Western majority and avoid making it a big deal? Principle to one side, is that not smart politics?
(Certainly agree with your first paragraph. I just thought I’d try kicking things off with a bit of rhetorical flair)
#3 by Indy on August 23, 2011 - 10:21 am
Eh? In what sense are we dicatating to any other country what they should do?
The SNP position is that we will not allow any nuclear weapons in Scotland’s land, sea or airspace no matter whose they are. That is surely a perfectly reasonable position and would, I suggest, be supported by the majority of Scots.
If NATO is prepared to accept that – if, for example, they will accept that they cannot use the sea around Scotland for training exercises involving nuclear submarines – then that opens the door and I for one would have no problems cooperating with NATO forces in conventional training exercises etc. But our position on nuclear weapons is, and should remain, non-negotiable.
As far as the politics of it goes, frankly in any discussions on NATO we want to be starting from a position of strength – starting with a wobble on one of our most basic and fundamental principles would be stupid and weak as well as morally wrong.
#4 by Lost Highlander on August 23, 2011 - 10:12 am
As an organisation I have to ask just which countries are active over Libya and even if NATO did not exist would they not have acted anyway. Certainly the majority of NATO states did not get involved and have provided little if any material support.
And you do not have to sign up to becoming a full member to actually have partnership in NATO. Many countries while outside of NATO actively cooperate with the organisation and train and get involved in joint material purchases.
Look at Afghanistan which though UN sanctioned is a NATO mission but one where the Swedish, Irish, Azerbaijan who are cooperative countries are involved in.
#5 by Ken on August 23, 2011 - 11:20 am
Countries that have been active over Libya – NATO and non NATO through active flights, active support and logistics and also participating in the naval blockade:
Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Jordan, Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, UAE, UK, US. Some NATO members are willing if called upon i.e Estonia, Croatia.
You then have other countries cooperating with accepting landings at bases, or passage through airspace, supplying logistics, munitions, funding etc. There’s more to the intervention than simply flying planes and dropping bombs.
This is UN mandated mission, so it’s going to include non-NATO members anyway, like ISAF in Afghanistan, so I’m not really seeing the problem with this.
#6 by Jeff on August 23, 2011 - 1:23 pm
Fair points Ken.
For me the issue is mostly political and the smartest way for the SNP to get to that Yes vote that they so crave.
There may well be no huge difference between Scotland being in Nato and out of Nato as, as you say, non-Nato countries can get involved relatively straightforwardly but an indpendence campaign that involves the SNP saying they want to pull Scotland out of the UK, out of the EU AND out of Nato might just sound a bit too isolationist for many Scots.
#7 by Ken on August 23, 2011 - 2:20 pm
Sorry, it was more a response to Lost Highlander’s questions, rather than a comment on the SNP’s policy.
As someone from a non-NATO member (but living and working in Scotland), my own point of view of the above policy is that it neatly (and falsely) labels NATO in one box, while not recognising the shift in its operational purpose since 1999 as it has evolved beyond the Cold War purposes it was first created for. It is increasingly being used as an active arm of the international community (i.e. the UN) instead of relying on masses of poorly trained blue helmets from Asia and Africa – the traditionally dominant suppliers of blue helmets to take re-active action.
For me, focusing on the potential use of nuclear weapons by NATO as an objection to participating alongside international action is nonsense.
I can see a future of being a non-member of NATO, but with a bias towards aiding them in times of an obvious ethical or moral cause. Or, like Estonia and Croatia, being a member but not providing direct military assistance… because it can’t.
#8 by Indy on August 24, 2011 - 7:18 am
We are not focussed on the potential use of nuclear weapons. We are focussed on the actual presence of nuclear weapons – under NATO command – in our country. We don’t want them here and I am not just talking about the SNP here – it is clear from successive surveys and opinion polls that the majority of Scots do not want them here either.
#9 by Ken on August 24, 2011 - 10:01 am
“We are focussed on the actual presence of nuclear weapons – under NATO command – in our country”.
Then don’t have them. Nothing is stopping a NATO member not taking part in “nuclear sharing”. Many members of NATO don’t participate in it. That shouldn’t affect any future Scottish / NATO policy of membership.
#10 by Daniel J on August 23, 2011 - 11:52 am
“For so little benefit and with so much at stake”?!
You talk of realpolitik… tell me what is the more rational decision, to commit to an international alliance and spend at least 2% of our GDP on the military.
or
Look at the geopolitical situation and realise that our defence is intrinsically linked to that of the rUK. I assume we would be joining NATO to offer some protection in the event of a hostile action on Scotland? In any such action rUK could not allow Scotland to be invaded as it would be too detrimental to their own security.
Let’s not forget members are *not* obliged to respond using military force, NATO would provide us with no real guarantee of our security. Putting our best bet security wise, once again with the rUK who has a strategic interest in the security of the Scottish mainland.
I’m all for Scotland playing a proactive and productive role in the world, but that is not best served by joining an obsolete organisation of little benefit to our security, which cherry picks places in the world *worth* intervening in.
#11 by Jeff on August 23, 2011 - 1:19 pm
Daniel,
I’m not sure where you get the 2% of GDP figure but I am sure that contributions to Nato would be a blip in an independent Scotland’s overall budget and I certainly believe that an independent Scotland would save billions on Defence compared to what we spend as part of the UK, even if we were part of the UK.
I dn’t really understand why we have to put all of our eggs in one basket. Yes, rUK would assist in the unlikely event that Scotland is attacked but why not have the EU as cover, and the US through Nato? Just a few years ago Scotland had a Secretary General of NATO and in a few years we’ll be looking at walking away from the clearly still relevant organisation. That can’t make sense.
#12 by Angus McLellan on August 23, 2011 - 4:53 pm
NATO’s budget seems to be around £2 billion, of which we might guess that Scotland might contribute 1.2% at most. So, yes, £20 million or so is indeed a blip. But if you took Afghanistan as your point of reference rather than Libya, would you be quite as enthusiastic about NATO membership? Fighting on the ground inevitably means a steady trickle of body bags arriving back home. Do you think there would be much appetite for that?
#13 by Jeff on August 23, 2011 - 5:09 pm
I think, on the whole, Afghanistan has been a worthwhile endeavour if it is indeed drawing to a close so, yes, happy for that to be the point of reference rather than Libya. Same for Kosovo.
#14 by Tony on August 23, 2011 - 8:41 pm
In what way has Afghanistan been a worthwhile endeavour?
You are aware of course that the casus belli was to secure a pipeline and 9/11 just a convenient flag waver.
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp
Bush jr government was packed full of people formerly putting their talents to good use cajoling the Taliban into doing business with them. Come 9/11 all bets were off and regime change was on.
What a coincidence that Syria has no oil but Libya does.
#15 by Tony on August 23, 2011 - 12:15 pm
Libya is a terrible example not just for the reasons indy points out, but for the hypocrisy for the lack of action in say Syria or other friendly nations ran by tyrants or even pretend democracies like Israel who regularly oppress, abuse and kill.
A European reaction force free from US foreign policy interests would appeal more I reckon. More humanity less mineral exploitation. In the grand scheme of things once we shed our shared ‘British mindset’ that we must have an over priced military and the need to project our muscle where it is not wanted. The only person I have ever heard mention support for NATO was also a military type who wanted scotland to keep nukes on the Clyde, not exactly a vote winner that.
#16 by Jeff on August 23, 2011 - 12:35 pm
I have never understood the argument that preventing genocide in one country is a bad thing if you don’t prevent genocide in another country.
There are numerous countries with terrible things happening from Syria, through Somalia to Zimbabwe, but how does inaction in these countries make the action in Libya any less worthy? Indeed, you seem to be arguing in favour of more action from Nato around the world which, in turn, is indirectly an argument that Nato is a good thing and Scotland should be a part of it.
I share your belief that a EU force would typically be preferable for Scottish forces to get involved with but having the strategic option to team up with the US, depending on the situation, is no bad thing and I think ending that link over something as futile as getting the US to drop its nukes is the wrong judgement.
#17 by Indy on August 23, 2011 - 1:18 pm
Jeff I feel you may misunderstand the position.
The SNP’s opposition to NATO is based on the fact that NATOdoes – and would presumably want to continue to – keep nukes in our land, sea and air space.
That is the fundamental objection and why the SNP is completely opposed to joining NATO on those terms. The nuclear weapons which are currently based in and around Scotland are assigned to NATO. They are NATO’s nukes as much as they are the UK’s nukes. That is why we are clear that we cannot join NATO provided that a condition of membership is that we continue to allow that to happen.
Clearly we would like to see other countries disarm but that is a matter for them. The fact that the US is a nuclear power would in no way prevent an independent Scotland from cooperating with the US on anyconventional military matter which had been approved by the Scottish Parliament. That could happen either within or outwith the NATO umbrella.
#18 by Jeff on August 23, 2011 - 1:30 pm
Indy,
I believe I understand the SNP’s reservations regarding Nato but I’ve probably not stated my assumptions clearly enough.
I’m assuming that, if there is a Yes vote returned at the independence referendum, then nuclear weapons will almost immediately be moved to Southampton both for rUK to have better control over them and also because Scots generally don’t want them here. Nothing to do with Nato, just the reality of how the independence process would pan out.
So, with nuclear weapons outside of Scotland, I can see little barrier to Scotland joining Nato as Nato would presumably want Scotland as a member of its organisation much more than it would want to run nuclear expercises in a country that wasn’t interested in them.
Anyway, that’s where I’m coming from. Would that scenario change your outlook?
#19 by Indy on August 23, 2011 - 1:44 pm
See this is what I think you misunderstand.
Immediately after independence all of the UK’s nuclear weapons will still be based in Scotland. Those weapons are also NATO weapons. And Scotland will still within NATO’s sphere of influence if not technically a member.
You assume that an indepedent Scotland having declared its intention to remain within the NATI alliance could simply phone up NATO HQ and say please take these away and by the way we don’t want you sailing your shiny nuclear subs around our coastline – and NATO will just say yeah sure OK, no probs.
On the other hand if we say we want you to remove your nukes and that is non-negotiable we can then discuss our future relationship with NATO on that basis.
#20 by Jeff on August 23, 2011 - 1:55 pm
Well, I guess if that is the difference in our opinions then it is pretty narrow and I suppose the SNP’s opposition to nuclear weapons will win them more support than opposition to Nato will lose them.
I still think it’s potentially a tricky needle to thread and, as pointed out in the post, there is definitely scope for a party split on this with Angus Robertson and Mike Russell already being quoted as being in favour of joining Nato being party policy.
#21 by Indy on August 23, 2011 - 2:02 pm
I think that is a misunderstanding of party policy. Opposition to NATO is predicated on the nuclear issue. If the nuclear issue can be resolved i.e. if NATO accepts an independent Scotland’snon-nuclear terms of membership then the reason for opposition to NATO membership no longer exists.
However we are talking hypotheticals here.
It’s a judgement about how you present policy I suppose. Whether we say we are for NATO membership provided we are able to ban nuclear weapons from our land, sea and air space – or whether we say we will not join NATO as long as membership requires an acceptance of nuclear weapons.
There are arguments on both sides but you can bet that if we started to run with a pro-NATO line someone would pop up to say than an independent Scotland would not be allowed to join NATO without accepting nuclear weapons.
#22 by Jeff on August 23, 2011 - 2:04 pm
One last question then, as we’re almost on the same page – Do you honestly believe that rUK, particularly with Conservatives in power, would be happy holding its nuclear arsenal in a foreign country?
#23 by cynicalHighlander on August 23, 2011 - 1:25 pm
It was never about preventing genocide that has been the handy excuse of the West for generations when it suited the establishment. This was about regime change, which is illegal, to gain unfettered access to Libya’s natural resources by western businesses for profit.
The Scramble for Access to Libya’s Oil Wealth Begins
#24 by Jeff on August 23, 2011 - 1:31 pm
Genocide/regime change/whatever, when a country’s leader sanctions the killing of its own citizens, I’ll always be in favour of the US, UK, Scotland, whoever taking action.
#25 by Tony on August 23, 2011 - 1:41 pm
Never said it was a bad thing Jeff……………………..I simply pointed out the staggering hypocrisy in the cherry picking. And aye you are correct in detecting an underlying point that I would support an action based on morality not a deeply flawed imperialist foreign policy. The history of US interventions inform us that they have more often taken the part of the tyrants (central and south America) mounted invasions at the behest of energy conglomerates (Iraq, Afghanistan) only intervened in genocidal warfare a long long time after they should have (Balkans) and ignored allies who routinely abuse the human rights and steal the of those they occupy and think nothing of launching murderous assaults at will with US made and supplied weapons (Israel).
The nukes issue is a no-brainer for me, to even suggest we should be bed fellows with a US that is a malign influence at present is gravely ill thought. Would a ‘better nation’ do so without cause to think of the wider issues?
#26 by CassiusClaymore on August 23, 2011 - 1:28 pm
NATO is a cold war relic. An independent Scotland would not need to be in it. No-one is pointing nukes at us.
Labour should be very quiet about wars. They dragged us into an illegal one in Iraq which cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and which removed any remaining moral authority the UK had on the global stage.
And still the UK prances around the world as though it is important – and despite its wrecked economy (thanks, Gordon) and its huge indebtedness – like a skint aristo too proud to admit he can’t afford to maintain his stately home.
What a total embarrassment. They must be looking on in Mumbai and Beijing with a mixture of distaste and amusement, wondering how long they should allow the UK to pretend that it matters.
CC
#27 by Alasdair on August 23, 2011 - 1:37 pm
How can the SNP support joining and benefiting from the nuclear umbrella of NATO yet insist on scrapping Trident? It would be rank hypocrisy of the worst kind. Is that what you are proposing?
#28 by Jeff on August 23, 2011 - 1:39 pm
I’m not really proposing anything Alasdair.
I guess the way I see it, as I said earlier, is that an independent Scotland would have already offloaded its nuclear weapons to Southampton as part of the separation settlement so the ‘scrapping Trident’ policy would be moot at that stage.
#29 by Indy on August 23, 2011 - 1:49 pm
No it won’t have.
It is SNP policy to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons. That is not Labour policy or Tory policy and who knows what Lib Dem policy would be?
Much as I would like to assume that the SNP would form the first government of an independent Scotland we can’t actually assume that. It may be that an incoming government will wish to continue to share a nuclear defence capacity with rUK.
#30 by Indy on August 23, 2011 - 2:28 pm
Oops that seems to have gone a bit pear shaped.
Jeff asked if I believe that rUK would be happy holding its nuclear arsenal in another country.
I said yes and if we state our intention to remain within NATO that could be seen as a reasonable assumption.As I said the French, US and UK nuclear submarines are assigned to NATO . Under those terms American nuclear weapons are stored at airfields in non-nuclear countries like Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands etc.
That is what we are seeking to make clear is unacceptable.
#31 by Doug Daniel on August 23, 2011 - 3:16 pm
Is it not regular practice for nuclear countries to place their nuclear weapons in other countries, so that these prime targets are as far removed from their own citizens as possible? I reckon nothing would please the rUK government/Conservatives (same thing, really) more than for an independent Scotland to allow them to continue harbouring their WMDs on the Clyde.
#32 by Angus McLellan on August 23, 2011 - 6:09 pm
US Trident submarines are based at home and so too are Russian, French and Chinese ballistic missile submarines. Not really “regular practice” then.
For tactical nuclear weapons the story is different as Indy says below. But as things stand today – some analysis here – those bombs might well be gone within a decade or so anyway, not for political reasons but because their shelf-life has expired.
#33 by Andra on August 23, 2011 - 5:07 pm
Life is full of compromise situations. This is something a government needs to deal with, while an opposition can conveniently ignore. The LibDems were a classic party of everything for everybody because they never expected to form government, and when they did they found lots of flaws in their ‘policies’. The SNP are a party of ‘opposition’ with respect to the NATO issue until they are in charge of an independent Scotland.
Their current stance on NATO is extremely shallow and is designed solely to attract brownie points. The choice is “in†(along with the various compromises such as accepting that NATO is a Nuclear power, and probably accepting status quo regarding existing Nuclear facilities; while possibly expressing long term objective of doing away with Nuclear); or “outâ€.
In my view there is no logic in “outâ€. Surely we want to be “in†so as to influence in our small way the direction of NATO. If our logic were to be “outâ€, then that would suggest that all nations should be “outâ€; and if all nations were out then NATO would no longer exist; and oppressed peoples subject to genocide would have little or no hope of a white knight coming to their rescue. Tyrants would be able to act with impunity. (We’d have to change our moto from “Nemo me impune lacessit†to “we’re all right Jack – sort out your own problemsâ€).
Just because we cannot act in all cases does not mean we cannot act in some. Compromise often means working with the lesser of two evils until the opportunity comes to draw another line in the sand. For example we worked with the Taleban when the big enemy was Russia, and we attempted the second preference option of working with Gadaffi until there was an opportunity to do otherwise. I see no problem with these cases.
My theory is that independence would change very little with respect to NATO, Nuclear weapons, and our foreign and defence policy since our best interests are currently being served. The same applies to other subjects, but if the SNP adopted this stance their justification for independence would evaporate so they need to maintain an opposition mindset of all will be Rosie after they big day.
#34 by Indy on August 23, 2011 - 6:13 pm
Erm you seem a bit confused.
NATO is not the world’s policeman and nor is it a knight in shining armour. It is a defensive alliance which arose in the aftermath of WW2/start of the Cold War. Its founding principle is that an attack on one is an attack on all. It has a mandate to intervene only where its members consider that there may be a security threat or where a member has been attacked – that is the basis for NATO action in Afghanistan for example. However the action in Afghanistan was not exclusively a NATO action – non-NATO members also took part. NATO has a number of partner countries which are not full members but cooperate with NATO.
It is acting in Libya under a UN mandate. That is an important point. Without a UN security council mandate NATO would have no authority to act.
So far so good – if that was the sole basis of its existence no-one in the SNP would have any issues with NATO.
However it is also a nuclear based alliance and that is the particular issue that causes concern.
#35 by Barbarian on August 23, 2011 - 7:10 pm
What we need is a clear message from the SNP as to what their defence policy is. This is just one of many arguments that must be clearly communicated prior to the referendum.
It’s no use saying the SNP manifesto has the details, the message needs to be actively promoted.
My view is that nuclear weapons aside, the only time the SNP seems to be interested in defence has been with the RAF base closures.
#36 by Tony on August 23, 2011 - 8:31 pm
Out of interest who do you think we have need to defend ourselves against?
I really can’t see the Norwegians ravaging our west coast any more and U.S. companies already control most of our oil so the English would have no reason to invade us.
Ireland for example copes with minimal but highly professional defence forces, but then again they are not bombarded with the neo-imperialist jingoism that we are on a daily basis.
#37 by mav on August 23, 2011 - 8:22 pm
hook line and sinker Jeff. Saw the tweet last night, and now the reaction.
Its a neat illustration of the SNP’s fundamental problem – that sooner or later they have to talk about specifics, and when they do, its difficult.
Lets face facts. if Scotland was to vote yes to independence, there would be a lot of recent converts in the ranks. They aren’t there yet, and a policy of leaving NATO would drive them away. There are simply too many families with military ties, or who live near military bases, for a policy that would cut our military influence to be a vote winner. The SNP campaign on Moray etc shows they no and understand that. Most Scots would see NATO membership as a good thing, that it is a body that can be, and just has been, a force for good. If the SNP fight a referendum campaign that sees them facing questions like this day in, day out, they will lose.
No wonder they’re feart.
#38 by Indy on August 24, 2011 - 7:24 am
Sorry Mav if the SNP’s defence policy was such a vote loser we would never have won Moray in the first place. So you are undermining your own argument there.
#39 by derek on August 23, 2011 - 10:03 pm
Pretty hard to see Scotland opt out the UN charter or the European human rights charter, many nations have protection from the UN and NATO without having an army?
#40 by Barbarian on August 24, 2011 - 12:16 am
Type your comment here
Ooh, bad assumption, in fact downright dangerous.
Scotland has rather a lot of coastline, plus substantial offshore assets.
Standing waving a little flag is not going to stop an aggressor. Can you predict what threats will be facing Scotland in 10, 20 or 50 years? There has to be a substantial defence in place. You cannot suddenly create armed forces out of thin air.
How do you know that Norway won’t change politicially over the next 50 years? Unlikely, I’ll admit, considering their history, but the bottom line is that without a coherent defence policy in place, the SNP will not win the referendum.
#41 by Indy on August 24, 2011 - 7:29 am
But the SNP does have a coherent defence policy in place which is based entirely on the kinds of non-conventional threats that we are likely to face. Because it is in fact a correct assumption that we are extremely unlikely to face a conventional invasion – but your point that we have a lot of coastline plus substantial offshore assets is also true. If we consider the kind of attacks which might be made against us are nuclear weapons goint to protect us? Nope. Will being in NATO protect us? Nope. Would having a strengtened conventinal defence capacity focussed primarily on defending Scotland’s land, sea and air space protect us? Yes. And we might even be able to manage a functioning Coastguard into the bargain.
#42 by Tony on August 24, 2011 - 11:17 am
Barbarian
You seem to have missed the part of my previous where I stated;
“Ireland for example copes with minimal but highly professional defence forces”
So need for the “…thin air” retort nor the rest really.
The only hope for unionists is that the British neo-imperialist mindset wins out. The SNP do indeed have a coherent policy, but it does not include dominating anyone or aiding the flawed foreign policies of other states.
#43 by Doug Daniel on August 24, 2011 - 2:27 pm
Oh come on, let’s be serious here. The era of trying to take over other countries through military aggression is coming to a close. America has another few countries on it’s hitlist (North Korea, Iran etc), and there are still a few other nations in Africa and the Middle East that are ruled by dictators, but other than that, there are no countries who provide anything even resembling a moral justification for military invasion. What excuse would America use to invade Scotland? After all, they’re the only ones invading other countries through military force in this modern era. The clever guys (i.e. China) are doing it via purchasing assets, while the barbaric Western world is stuck in 19th century ideologies. China could take over the world without firing a bullet, and no size of armed force is going to stop it.
#44 by fitalass on August 24, 2011 - 5:21 am
“I can see a future of being a non-member of NATO, but with a bias towards aiding them in times of an obvious ethical or moral cause. Or, like Estonia and Croatia, being a member but not providing direct military assistance… because it can’t.”
And there lies the rub, what ever else you say about the Scots, they are a proud fighting nation. Now that doesn’t mean that they want to go off picking a fight in other countries necessarily, but they will want and expect to feel confident of a solid and secure defence policy. And that is something that the SNP have failed to come up with, and the off chance that EU neighbours might just pop over here to provide it if necessary won’t wash.
If you are not prepared to put yourself forward as member of Nato, don’t expect them to provide a pacifier in return. The UK’s historic links to Nato are strong. And I am not so sure that the Scots would be all that happy or secure leaving.
#45 by Ken on August 24, 2011 - 9:41 am
“If you are not prepared to put yourself forward as member of Nato, don’t expect them to provide a pacifier in return. ”
While I agree it appears that there’s no coherent future policy on this, all I’m saying is that you don’t have to be a member of NATO these days to work in cooperation alongside them for mutual benefit. The Partnership for Peace and Euro Atlantic Partnership Council includes both NATO and non-NATO members alike, including Sweden, Finland and Ireland. That to me seems to be a more desirable ‘best of both worlds’ plan for the SNP, though I agree with you and I don’t see the problem with being within NATO if it continues to evolve in the manner it has done in the past 12 – 13 years.
#46 by Gail on August 24, 2011 - 1:36 pm
I don’t think there’s any problem with wanting to be out of NATO. I fully agree with this position as you might expect.
One point though, there is an organisation that protects the right to collective self defence – the UN Article 51 – where is the need for Art 5 of NATO? Art 5 exists because of those very sci-fi reasons you highlighted: An attack on America was an attack on all liberal democractic countries (i.e. north america and western europe). It’s not needed anymore.
NATO will increasingly become irrelevant as the UN reforms. But it will also become increasingly irrelevant because the US contributes by far the greatest number of troops and money into NATO, yet this spending will decrease quite a fair bit over the next few years and beyond.
And re the unpardonable folly…the intervention WAS illegal under international law. Alex was correct to call its legality dubious. It is illegal but legitimate (there should be an exception to the use of force for humanitarian intervention, customary law now reflects this). And Kosovo highlights, exactly as Alex said at the time, that the UN/EU should have been on the ground years before with diplomatic means. There is still questions raised regarding whether or not airstrikes were the most humanitarian way of going about it as opposed to ground troops and peacekeepers being deployed years before. So in my own humble opinion it is definitely not un-tenable to remain opposed to joining NATO.
#47 by Jeff on August 24, 2011 - 3:41 pm
Well argued Gail, a very logical and convincing position to take. I must admit I don’t know why these missions continue to be Nato-led rather than UN-led, the UN is perhaps too big to be flexible enough to mobilise quickly? If we want as wide a coalition as possible for these global problems, the UN should be first choice, in my opinion at least.
That said, I maintain that Scotland would be needlessly reducing its strategic options by stepping away from Nato and public sentiment would be hard to win over when you have Obama singing Nato’s praises; but I’m not going to pretend that I don’t understand, and to a certain extent share, your arguments.
#48 by Andra on August 24, 2011 - 4:48 pm
NATO is better at the job because has the structure in place and it is an alliance of like minded countries with similar views and interests. The UN on the other hand has no structure and lack of drive and direction – you can’t manage military operations by committee. It will be a long time until the UN can take over the roll.
Scotland has similar to views and interests to most of NATO and so this is an effective method of contributing. The Nuclear argument is a secondary issue that should not cloud the main issues of the modern world. The SNP are keen to differentiate themselves from the crowd, and unfortunately they distract attention from the real issues of oppression and lack of liberty in many parts of the world.
#49 by Jeff on August 24, 2011 - 5:08 pm
That’s a neat summation of the crux of the issue Andra. I guess it’s a classic clash of the SNP’s idealism vs the harsh realities of the real world.
#50 by Tony on August 24, 2011 - 7:24 pm
*shakes heid*
Oh to be able to rationalise hypocrisy!
“…distract attention from the real issues of oppression and lack of liberty in many parts of the world.”
You just couldn’t make it up………………it is the US and her allies who are responsible for much of this. Dispensing with habeus corpus when it suits, rendition flights, propping up friendly dictators, state sponsored murder etc. etc. etc.
Is it really idealism Jeff to stand against these “harsh realities” rather than as you seem to be advocating allying with those perpetrating such?
In the name ae the wee man!
#51 by Doug Daniel on August 24, 2011 - 8:51 pm
To be fair, since the American contribution to NATO is something like 43%, it would be pretty strange if Obama DIDN’T sing its praises!
#52 by Alex Es on August 24, 2011 - 7:17 pm
Jeff –
Why not be idealistic and do the right thing by keeping Scotland out of NATO?
If this particular strand of moral elevation within the SNP can win through, that’s a good thing.
I don’t know how much you know about how NATO leaders lied through their teeth about not expanding to countries bordering Russia only to break their word?
It’s all part and parcel of the American empire, and now that that empire is in decline it would be a great historical moment for Scotland to make a tiny contribution to this welcome process by staying out of NATO.
The way you quote Obama suggests you don’t grasp that he is, like all post-war American presidents, a war criminal who thinks nothing of murdering Pakistani children through drone strikes, to take just one example.
Read some Chomsky!