It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will an independant Scotland be part of NATO, UN treatise. Have a Military?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Will an independant Scotland be part of NATO, UN, EU and other treatise. Have a Military? Queen, NATO and EU won't be Obliged to provide them defense or anything really.

Scary world to jump out into all alone.




posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I was thinking about this the other day.

Technically Scotland could have no army because if anyone attempted a hostile invasion then the UK would have to respond to prevent bordering a hostile nation.

If they had no army then they would remove themselves from the conflicts of the world and would eliminate the possibility of external terrorist threats.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven


Scary world to jump out into all alone.

Not really. Every one wants to be free to determine their own destiny. Individuals and Nations alike.

Sovereignty



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
That's pretty much up to the Scots to weight up the pros and cons if they do gain independence. NATO has already said they would need then to apply to be part of NATO. Personally, I think things should stay as is, but in any case the almost 50/50 split in the independence polls will give Westminster serious food for thought, and start redistributing the UK wealth in a fairer manner.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
There are Countries out there with no Army, Some of similar population.

Some have agreements with other countries, Costa rica's constitution made it illigal to have an army unless in times of war.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Looking at my passport it says i'm a member of the EU already...

Defence from Who. ?
London Foreign Policy Scares me more than al Qaeda, IS and al Shabaab etc all rolled into one..



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I think that you are a member of the EU as a member of the United Kingdom, Independance will set you free you lucky bugger.

a reply to: Soloprotocol



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I heard Alex Salmond say that the existing facilities currently used to maintain trident etc, would be used to base the Scottish Military.

We have the perfect bargaining chip when it comes down to the stripping down of national assets. The Royal Navy will need time to prepare a suitable new home...perhaps a decade. This too will give us time to form alliances if we desire.




edit on 16-9-2014 by midicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
There are Countries out there with no Army, Some of similar population.

Some have agreements with other countries, Costa rica's constitution made it illigal to have an army unless in times of war.


If Scotland is going to depend on the UK for its defense and thus defacto its foriegn affairs (like Costa Rica does the US) then what would the point of independence be? Somebody will have to defend those off shore oil rigs. Who knows how long the EU or NATO will last. Things in Europe could change and then Scotland would be left caught with its pants down. Not to mention Scotland is not getting into NATO without some bascie ability to defend itself. Only Iceland has that exception.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: nonspecific
There are Countries out there with no Army, Some of similar population.

Some have agreements with other countries, Costa rica's constitution made it illigal to have an army unless in times of war.

Not to mention Scotland is not getting into NATO without some bascie ability to defend itself. Only Iceland has that exception.

And why would Scotland be treated any different to Iceland. We have a lot more to offer than Iceland. a Lot More!



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I did not mean to imply that Scotland should not have an army but that if they chose not to the rest of the western world would intervene regardless.

I can not imagine they have the population and resources to have an army big enough to defend itself without help from other nations.

The UK military does not defend the United kingdom, It fights wars in other countries. The current "Defence" budget is about £50 billion a year yet it is in fact an "Attack" budget.
a reply to: MrSpad



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific


If they had no army then they would remove themselves from the conflicts of the world and would eliminate the possibility of external terrorist threats.


If they had no army they would become an ideal "soft target" for terrorists who just don't like Europeans and non-Muslims very much. (What has Belgium done to deserve an IS attack on its territory?)

As for an army, there are probably Scottish regiments-- traditionally some of Britain's finest-- that would choose to remain with Scotland. (One of the countless messy details that will bubble up in the next two days.)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

And the Barnett Formula, which already gives Scotland far more per head of population than any other of the Home Nations, isn'tr already "fair" for the Scottish.

Bottom line is, Scotland is in for a rude awakening if they vote Yes. Running an 8% Budget deficit, £450 million black hole in the NHS (which is devolved and sod all to do with Westminster), no currency to speak of and a need to come up with £145 Billion in cash reserves just to protect their economy should the banks (which Scotland is far more reliant on than the UK) go belly up again, just to mention a few. Tax hikes and spending cuts all round if they vote yes, so Defence is the obvious target for underspend.

I think joining NATO is the least of their worries.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I imagine that is the rationale for them having armed forces.

However with no Armed forces they would be unable to involve themselves with world conflicts. Acts of terrorism are commited when groups of people either react to a threat or attack or use violence as a way to create change when all other methods prove inefctual.

I do not see how a terrorist group would have a motive to commit an act of violence against a small island that has no bearing on the cause they or fighting for? a reply to: DJW001



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: nonspecific


If they had no army then they would remove themselves from the conflicts of the world and would eliminate the possibility of external terrorist threats.


If they had no army they would become an ideal "soft target" for terrorists who just don't like Europeans and non-Muslims very much. (What has Belgium done to deserve an IS attack on its territory?)

As for an army, there are probably Scottish regiments-- traditionally some of Britain's finest-- that would choose to remain with Scotland. (One of the countless messy details that will bubble up in the next two days.)

I was speaking to a serving Soldier (2 Scots) and he cant wait for Independence. He has questions just like everyone else but say's he would prefer to be part of a Independent Scottish Army than be asked to die in a foreign field for big business .



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

I think the "nos" will win by a narrow enough margin that the "independence movement" will be assured of a long political life, just like the Quebecois "secessionist" movement.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific


I do not see how a terrorist group would have a motive to commit an act of violence against a small island that has no bearing on the cause they or fighting for?


Same reason they would attack a target in Belgium:

www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: nonspecific


If they had no army then they would remove themselves from the conflicts of the world and would eliminate the possibility of external terrorist threats.


If they had no army they would become an ideal "soft target" for terrorists who just don't like Europeans and non-Muslims very much. (What has Belgium done to deserve an IS attack on its territory?)

As for an army, there are probably Scottish regiments-- traditionally some of Britain's finest-- that would choose to remain with Scotland. (One of the countless messy details that will bubble up in the next two days.)

I was speaking to a serving Soldier (2 Scots) and he cant wait for Independence. He has questions just like everyone else but say's he would prefer to be part of a Independent Scottish Army than be asked to die in a foreign field for big business .


I raise your two soldiers for 400....


More than 400 war heroes, army generals and rank-and-file soldiers have issued a plea to Scottish voters warning that independence would leave Britain's defences ‘irresponsibly weakened’.
The former servicemen and women - who are all eligible to vote - have signed a statement entitled ‘We are stronger when we stand together’ urging Scots to vote against separation on Thursday.
The signatories boast a who’s who of Scotland’s military history over the last seventy years, including six former heads of the Army in Scotland and the two WW2 veterans who helped sink the Bismark and its sister ship the Tirpitz - Lt Cdr Jock Moffat and Lt Cdr John Lorimer.
In the statement, the veterans warn voters that the only way to safeguard Scotland’s interests in the future is to vote against independence.


Source[ editby]edit on 16.9.2014 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
I imagine that is the rationale for them having armed forces.

However with no Armed forces they would be unable to involve themselves with world conflicts. Acts of terrorism are commited when groups of people either react to a threat or attack or use violence as a way to create change when all other methods prove inefctual.

I do not see how a terrorist group would have a motive to commit an act of violence against a small island that has no bearing on the cause they or fighting for? a reply to: DJW001



2007 Glasgow International Airport attack
Source



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: smurfy

And the Barnett Formula, which already gives Scotland far more per head of population than any other of the Home Nations, isn'tr already "fair" for the Scottish.

Bottom line is, Scotland is in for a rude awakening if they vote Yes. Running an 8% Budget deficit, £450 million black hole in the NHS (which is devolved and sod all to do with Westminster),


Once again Distortions of the truth... NHS may be devolved in Scotland, and thank the Lord for that,( London is slowly but surely privatising it).. but when you have no control over the tax you send to London other than raising more Tax and the money they send back, a devolved NHS in Scotland Means diddly Squat....
Another 64 Billion in cuts to come from Westminster, 6 billion in Scotland.
What services should we cut to safeguard the NHS...What sector gets Slashed to keep the NHS out of private hands.?
edit on 16-9-2014 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join