Crosswords4 mins ago
An Independent Scotland
15 Answers
Not being well versed in such matters, please be gentle with me!
Would an independent Scotland have automatic membership within NATO?
If not, what would be the procedure and how long would that take?
Would an independent Scotland have automatic membership within NATO?
If not, what would be the procedure and how long would that take?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Matheous-2. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
this might be of some help, i read down a number of paragraphs, it deals with the EU membership but read a bit further on
https:/
https:/
Imagine the scenario: Scotland votes for independence and membership of the EU, NATO, etc. is raised and interest indicated by the new country. Do you really think these organisations are going to say "Ah, well, we don't know if we'll let you in, we'll have to think about this and make a big issue of it" ? Of course not, through the UK Scotland is already a member and the remaining UK will also be a "loose end" to tidy up. Both will be sought as participants, not least because it looks good and almost entirely maintains the status quo. In fact, the remaining UK will actually want and support Scotland's involvement and everyone will want this to work as smoothly as possible. On the other hand, those who before and right up to 18th September want to make the prospect of independence for Scotland look as unattractive as possible will play on fears and do their best to amplify them. If/when independence comes about, independent Scotland will be welcomed even by most of the scaremongers. The main obstacle and factor against independence is the fear of change. The biggest argument for it is the possibility of outperforming the UK - not such a big challenge if you look at all the lists where at best the UK shows as mediocre.
Yes Wharton, I have read most of the link. It doesn't paint a pretty picture at all. I don't think it would be a smooth ride at all. At this moment, I would have to say 'no' to independence....I think perhaps if this vote had been ten or more years ago -we might have been in a better financial position, but not now.
It's better the devil you know.
It's better the devil you know.
With all respect, though, Karl and Wharton -- you cannot guarantee that the organisations will be so cooperative as in your scenario. It's not scaremongering to say that, in reality, there is no idea how the negotiations will go or how smooth they will be. It's just common sense. You might expect that the EU/ NATO/ remainder of UK would be keen on making things smooth and pretending that Scotland were not independent and still part of the UK. But it's not much more than hope, really.
There are, after all, things that a united UK can bring to the table that a divided UK just doesn't. Aside from anything else, you can easily imagine that in the EU, Scotland might be keen on promoting its native language, which while as yet unmentioned could potentially lead to a need for Scots Gaelic official documents, a whole new layer of bureaucracy, etc. You'd hope that the new Scottish government doesn't try to be so stupid as to demand documents in Gaelic, but if it did it would lead to the negotiations at the very least dragging out far longer than has been suggested.
When it comes to NATO, it's not clear what an independent Scotland offers to NATO at all. A hopelessly under-budget armed forces, no Nuclear weapons, rapid removal of Trident from the current bases... these aren't just things that will be tossed aside as not important by the rest of the NATO members. And so, again, there is no guarantee that the transition will be quick and easy, and that Scotland will get all it wants (or even most of it) out of the negotiations that will inevitably follow.
I don't see this as scaremongering at all. It is surely obvious that what follows a Yes vote is a period of major uncertainty. Of chopping and changing. Indeed, if the Scotland's Future paper is to be believed, of Scotland trying desperately to have its cake and eat it. Let's keep the pound, the EU/ Nato terms and exemptions negotiated for us so carefully by those nasty people at Westminster. Let's have everything we would have had if we'd gone for Devo-max, in other words, only now with a lot more hassle and rather fewer guarantees that it will happen after all.
A bit more realism, and a bit less of the insults and protestations and general smear campaign from the Yes camp, and they might just look a bit credible. As it is, the Yes vote is an unrealistic Utopia that will only work if Scotland gets absolutely everything it asks for and everyone else decides that having two smaller countries to deal with is preferable to having one large and strong one. No-one knows, properly, what will follow Independence. Except that it will be messy. And, in implying that it will be easy, the Yes campaign is lying through its teeth and knows it.
There are, after all, things that a united UK can bring to the table that a divided UK just doesn't. Aside from anything else, you can easily imagine that in the EU, Scotland might be keen on promoting its native language, which while as yet unmentioned could potentially lead to a need for Scots Gaelic official documents, a whole new layer of bureaucracy, etc. You'd hope that the new Scottish government doesn't try to be so stupid as to demand documents in Gaelic, but if it did it would lead to the negotiations at the very least dragging out far longer than has been suggested.
When it comes to NATO, it's not clear what an independent Scotland offers to NATO at all. A hopelessly under-budget armed forces, no Nuclear weapons, rapid removal of Trident from the current bases... these aren't just things that will be tossed aside as not important by the rest of the NATO members. And so, again, there is no guarantee that the transition will be quick and easy, and that Scotland will get all it wants (or even most of it) out of the negotiations that will inevitably follow.
I don't see this as scaremongering at all. It is surely obvious that what follows a Yes vote is a period of major uncertainty. Of chopping and changing. Indeed, if the Scotland's Future paper is to be believed, of Scotland trying desperately to have its cake and eat it. Let's keep the pound, the EU/ Nato terms and exemptions negotiated for us so carefully by those nasty people at Westminster. Let's have everything we would have had if we'd gone for Devo-max, in other words, only now with a lot more hassle and rather fewer guarantees that it will happen after all.
A bit more realism, and a bit less of the insults and protestations and general smear campaign from the Yes camp, and they might just look a bit credible. As it is, the Yes vote is an unrealistic Utopia that will only work if Scotland gets absolutely everything it asks for and everyone else decides that having two smaller countries to deal with is preferable to having one large and strong one. No-one knows, properly, what will follow Independence. Except that it will be messy. And, in implying that it will be easy, the Yes campaign is lying through its teeth and knows it.
jim, it won't be pretty, and won't be easy, and
wharton i posted a useful link, points which have already been raised by others, not just from the government website.
it does smack of have your cake and eat it, if its to be independence, then it must be the whole hog. you don't call the shots entirely on this either, and its not scaremongering, have you actually looked at the proposals. as to out performing the UK, what does that mean, if this is
meant to be Scotland, then shouldn't that say out performing the rest of the UK, which wouldn't be the case.
Scotland has many non Scots living in Scotland, who if on the electoral roll will get a say, and many businesses that may see this as bad for their business, that breaking up the union, might make them seem weak, may not be in favour and take their business elsewhere.
as to the points about NATO, as a separate country what by way of defence will Scotland have to offer. Who will pay for a Scottish armed services? We are like as not joined in our economies, armed forces, business, taxation, benefits system, and a whole host of other important
matters, i don't have to look at websites to know this. Better with than without, that would be my motto for the UK
wharton i posted a useful link, points which have already been raised by others, not just from the government website.
it does smack of have your cake and eat it, if its to be independence, then it must be the whole hog. you don't call the shots entirely on this either, and its not scaremongering, have you actually looked at the proposals. as to out performing the UK, what does that mean, if this is
meant to be Scotland, then shouldn't that say out performing the rest of the UK, which wouldn't be the case.
Scotland has many non Scots living in Scotland, who if on the electoral roll will get a say, and many businesses that may see this as bad for their business, that breaking up the union, might make them seem weak, may not be in favour and take their business elsewhere.
as to the points about NATO, as a separate country what by way of defence will Scotland have to offer. Who will pay for a Scottish armed services? We are like as not joined in our economies, armed forces, business, taxation, benefits system, and a whole host of other important
matters, i don't have to look at websites to know this. Better with than without, that would be my motto for the UK
also if you look scroll down the page it links to other points that are equally valid.
http://
http://
If independence is voted for then of course nobody will pretend the UK remains undivided. As I said, for the coming months up to the second half of September there will be those who for their own reasons will suggest Scotland will be lost without the most binding ties to their historical partner.
Let us assume that, following independence, EU and NATO membership will take more than a few weeks, perhaps even years, to iron out. Scotland will then be in a position not greatly different from Norway and Iceland (the second is a founder member of NATO but has no military at all - would Scotland be given a hard time ? No, I suggest, unless the UK sees to it to "get even" - nonsense I also suggest). Seen from a realistic UK perspective, both of these comparison countries do enviably well not only outperforming the UK on pretty much every desirable level (infant mortality, life expectancy, health service performance, literacy/education, per capita GDP, (un)employment - the list goes on and on - but they both have their own currencies. Independence opens up this prospect for Scotland, rejection of it ties Scotland to a much larger and poorly performing unit/partner. Even if Scotland only managed to position itself halfway between Denmark, Iceland, Norway, etc. on the one hand and the UK on the other in the performance table it would be a spectacular leap forward.
What the UK brings to discussions is history but otherwise far less than the NO camp would want us to believe (and they themselves picture when facing backwards in life - the empire and all it implied are long gone) and certainly not at all any more than an independent Scotland and UK working together in agreement and unison. I firmly believe the two parts will work better together after independence because the current, uncomfortable relationship will be consigned to history. I also believe there are lots of people on both sides of the border who realise this, whether they are prepared to admit it or not. Suggesting the termination of an old political arrangement is for emotional reasons anathema for quite a few people, particularly because it suggests rejection by one of the other, but most of all because it represents serious change - one assumes, but maybe not as much as some would suggest - the sky will most certainly not fall in. History will not in the slightest be wiped out the past will be unchanged, successes and failures. But I also feel the yes campaign has been too afraid of acknowledging the prospect of change but they are in a difficult position because there are so many "fearties" among the electorate.
Let us assume that, following independence, EU and NATO membership will take more than a few weeks, perhaps even years, to iron out. Scotland will then be in a position not greatly different from Norway and Iceland (the second is a founder member of NATO but has no military at all - would Scotland be given a hard time ? No, I suggest, unless the UK sees to it to "get even" - nonsense I also suggest). Seen from a realistic UK perspective, both of these comparison countries do enviably well not only outperforming the UK on pretty much every desirable level (infant mortality, life expectancy, health service performance, literacy/education, per capita GDP, (un)employment - the list goes on and on - but they both have their own currencies. Independence opens up this prospect for Scotland, rejection of it ties Scotland to a much larger and poorly performing unit/partner. Even if Scotland only managed to position itself halfway between Denmark, Iceland, Norway, etc. on the one hand and the UK on the other in the performance table it would be a spectacular leap forward.
What the UK brings to discussions is history but otherwise far less than the NO camp would want us to believe (and they themselves picture when facing backwards in life - the empire and all it implied are long gone) and certainly not at all any more than an independent Scotland and UK working together in agreement and unison. I firmly believe the two parts will work better together after independence because the current, uncomfortable relationship will be consigned to history. I also believe there are lots of people on both sides of the border who realise this, whether they are prepared to admit it or not. Suggesting the termination of an old political arrangement is for emotional reasons anathema for quite a few people, particularly because it suggests rejection by one of the other, but most of all because it represents serious change - one assumes, but maybe not as much as some would suggest - the sky will most certainly not fall in. History will not in the slightest be wiped out the past will be unchanged, successes and failures. But I also feel the yes campaign has been too afraid of acknowledging the prospect of change but they are in a difficult position because there are so many "fearties" among the electorate.
.
Thanks for that Emmie. -We would have to start from scratch with pretty much everything!
The answers in emmie's useful links are very political
from a law point of view - there are two choices -
Scotland is a successor state to the United Kingdom which Alex Salmond obviously thinks it is and so lots of things are his by right ( membership of the EU, ownership [rather than use] of sterling, eternal happiness etc )
or it is a new start from scratch. - which politically most of the EU think it is.
Could Scotland sue anyone - concerning their status ?
well to use any of the EU legal courts you have to be ... a member of the EU I think
Spain for example has separatist movements and so it sees its own interests in limiting them, by making life as hard as they can for wee bonny Scotland.
I have to say I am surprised at the complete lack of thought that Alex Salmond has given to these rather obvious questions.
Lots of " come up and discuss it: game on...!"
and not very much of: " when the five biggest industries move south of the border what we will do is...." [tax the hell out of everyone else]
Thanks for that Emmie. -We would have to start from scratch with pretty much everything!
The answers in emmie's useful links are very political
from a law point of view - there are two choices -
Scotland is a successor state to the United Kingdom which Alex Salmond obviously thinks it is and so lots of things are his by right ( membership of the EU, ownership [rather than use] of sterling, eternal happiness etc )
or it is a new start from scratch. - which politically most of the EU think it is.
Could Scotland sue anyone - concerning their status ?
well to use any of the EU legal courts you have to be ... a member of the EU I think
Spain for example has separatist movements and so it sees its own interests in limiting them, by making life as hard as they can for wee bonny Scotland.
I have to say I am surprised at the complete lack of thought that Alex Salmond has given to these rather obvious questions.
Lots of " come up and discuss it: game on...!"
and not very much of: " when the five biggest industries move south of the border what we will do is...." [tax the hell out of everyone else]
1 to 15 of 15
