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: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
That was a failed low budget attack on the United Kingdom because of the war in Iraq. Had scotland not been part of The UK and involved in the war I doubt they would have chosen that target.a reply to: flammadraco




posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

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

Ahhh, The Flamming Bawbag attack of 07.
Two Disgruntled Doctors out their nut on resentment at the UK's involvement in middle east issues....and Morphine .

They Hit London the night before with a Car bomb consisting of Propane Gas canisters (safety valves fitted) and Petrol...other than stink the place out they Failed miserably.

With The police on their tail they had to make a run for it, and in their desperation loaded up a Jeep with more Gas canisters and petrol and ram raided a door at Glasgow Airport.

Not what i would call a Terrorist cell by a long shot.
edit on 16-9-2014 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
An independent Scotland would not be part of the EU or NATO, for both they would need to apply and that would take at least 5 years and no guarantee of ever being a member.

It would lose all it's favourable trading rights of EU membership and subsidies and also would not receive any NATO support.

It would also need to ask for joining any treaties it was part of under the UK umbrella and would need to satisfy the conditions of any such agreements.

The UK defence alliance wouldn't exist as it is, a shared defence is not possible, trident is something SNP doesn't want and that compromises their potential for ever joining NATO.

It would also be unlikely to be part of Intelligence alliances such as 'Five Eyes' and therefore a risk to neighbouring nations. It could be the next base for terrorists to due to it's proximity to the UK.

Salmond is nothing but a snake oil salesman. ''Salmond said'' is moot.

www.gov.uk...


The SNP’s condition for an independent Scottish state’s possible membership of the
Alliance that “NATO continues to respect the right of members to only take part in UN
sanctioned operations”, taken together with its policy on nuclear weapons (see below)
could make negotiations over the acceptance of an independent Scottish state into the
Alliance extremely complex. Commenting on the SNP policy update in October 2012,
Lord Robertson, a former NATO Secretary General, stated: “it simply said that it would
join NATO, but on its terms - terms that would be unacceptable to the alliance”.110 An
independent Scottish state’s membership could be vetoed unless it were prepared to
compromise.
Any application by an independent Scottish state to take part in intelligence sharing
relationships would also be subject to agreement of the existing parties. For instance, at
a Ditchley Foundation conference in June 2013, experts appear to have been of the view
that an independent Scottish state would be unlikely to be automatically accepted into
the Five Eyes community; it would have to earn the trust of the other members and that
could take many years




NATO’s Strategic Concept commits the Alliance to the goal of creating the conditions
for a world without nuclear weapons – but reconfirms that, as long as there are nuclear
weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance. This position was confirmed
in NATO’s Deterrence and Defence Posture Review, endorsed by all 28 NATO Allies,
which concluded in May 2012 that “NATO must have the full range of capabilities
necessary to deter and defend against threats to the safety of its populations and the
security of its territory, which is the Alliance’s greatest responsibility” and that “the
supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear
forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States; the independent strategic
nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their
own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies”.112
2.37 All NATO nations, whether they possess nuclear weapons or not, are required to
subscribe to NATO’s Strategic Concept. Although only three NATO nations have nuclear
weapons of their own (the US, UK and France), a number of other Allies host elements
of NATO’s nuclear capability on their sovereign territory in peacetime; and 27 out of
the 28 nations participate in the NATO Nuclear Planning Group (the remaining nation,
France, is a nuclear power). The SNP’s stated policy on the UK’s nuclear deterrent
capability is therefore problematic, and its opposition to nuclear weapons in the round is
inconsistent with NATO’s Strategic Concept.




Alternatively, an independent Scottish state could decide to have a much smaller
defence and international profile, but this would not deliver the same level of protection
and security as it currently receives as part of the UK. The consequence of such a
decision would be much less influence in bilateral or multilateral relationships than the Chapter 2: Security and influence through international alliances and relationships 65
UK, and much lower returns from any relationships in terms of security, business or
technological exchange.




An independent Scottish state would have an important choice to make about its
international role, including deciding which relationships to pursue. In order to retain high
levels of global influence, it would need to establish its own independent credibility and
prove its worth as a defence partner for other nations. This would require a significant
investment of resources as partners would expect Scotland to contribute to, as well as
draw the benefits from, any relationship whether bilateral or in an alliance such as NATO.
The defence forces of an independent Scottish state would of course have their own
very proud military history, but they would initially lack the relationships, institutions and
structures to capitalise on it, as well as the contemporary credibility to make this count.




The UK and the High North
The UK enjoys observer status on the Arctic Council and is an active member of the
Arctic Security Forces Roundtable, which promotes security co-operation in the region
on issues such as situational awareness and search and rescue. The UK maintains a
credible cold weather war fighting contingent capability vested in 3 Commando Brigade
Royal Marines, and the UK Armed Forces participate regularly in exercises within the
region. For example, in March 2012, HMS ILLUSTRIOUS, HMS BULWARK, HMS
LIVERPOOL and around 3,000 Royal Marines took part in Exercise Cold Response,
a multinational Norwegian-run exercise for NATO and allied nations north of the Arctic
Circle designed to improve and practise high intensity and multi-threat operations in cold
weather conditions.
2.42 As a result of its extensive engagement in northern Europe, and the scale and potency
of its defence capabilities, the UK is seen by countries such as Norway and Denmark
as a strategic partner on defence and security. Given the imbalance in likely defence
capabilities, it is not clear whether an independent Scottish state would receive an
equivalent status while, as with NATO, it would also need to apply for access to regional
fora such as the Arctic Council.




6 If Scotland were to leave the UK, it would be less well placed to shape international
security agendas and might in future find itself contributing to coalition missions with
reduced levels of involvement in the planning or development stages. This includes in
relation to intelligence cooperation. It is far from certain that an independent Scottish
state would be accepted into the Five Eyes community, and it would cease to benefit
from the bilateral UK-US relationship. In effect, this would almost certainly mean
Scotland losing access to billions of pounds of world-class military capability and access
to vital intelligence material which is essential for maintaining national defence and
security

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



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Which is the HQ of the EU and the lone gunman was from Syria.
a reply to: DJW001



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I don't think it justifies having a whole army, do you?
a reply to: Soloprotocol



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
That was a failed low budget attack on the United Kingdom because of the war in Iraq. Had scotland not been part of The UK and involved in the war I doubt they would have chosen that target.a reply to: flammadraco



Had Scotland not been part of the UK in 2007, then the UK would not have had a "Scottish Prime Minister" to take us into war with Iraq etc. You all seem to forget that it was two "Scottish Prime Ministers" who lead us into war and left the Country Broke, Sweet FA to do with the English.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
I don't think it justifies having a whole army, do you?
a reply to: Soloprotocol


you dont think what justifies having a whole Army.?



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific
hit the quote button in the specific post you want to answer.


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



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I thought Tony Blair was still Prime minister at that time? I will to check up on that bieng English and all.a reply to: flammadraco



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
I thought Tony Blair was still Prime minister at that time? I will to check up on that bieng English and all.a reply to: flammadraco



You are joking right? Tony Blair was Scottish born in Edinburgh.
edit on 16.9.2014 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: nonspecific
I don't think it justifies having a whole army, do you?
a reply to: Soloprotocol


you dont think what justifies having a whole Army.?


I don't think a low budget attack 7 years ago when you where part of a Union that was at war with the terrorists country can be the sole justification for maintaining an Armed force no.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:21 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), 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.


This. Well Said.

Sure, it's Scotland's choice to leave. It isn't going to be very pleasant, however. They will end up as a welfare recipient of the EU, bnecause, other than North Sea oil, what significant exports and production does Scotland have?

Of course, Scotland leaving the UK will actually benefit the English a lot. No more will the English have to subsidize the free education and other benefits Scotland enjoys right now.

And anyone who thinks that not being involved in foreign conflicts makes you safe from terrorists and extremists is a crack smoking moron. Unless you become a completely locked border isolationist hermit society, Muslim extremists will still be present, and so long as your country isn't run by Sharia law and has an Islamic majority, that's all the beef these asswipes need.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: nonspecific
I thought Tony Blair was still Prime minister at that time? I will to check up on that bieng English and all.a reply to: flammadraco



You are joking right? Tony Blair was Scottish born in Edinburgh.

I stand corrected I did not realise he was born in Scotland, Although that may of not been an important factor in his decision to invade Iraq.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I have had to smile at cameron and Brown promising more huge great benefits to Scotland over the English because he hasn't asked the English whether they are happy to go along with his carrot.

What in fact is reality is that unless Scotland gets its independence it will be facing another attempt as soon as the Yes voters can get another referendum - this won't stop and the mood in the world seems to be for smaller countries rather than huge blank faced blobs with their little think tanks of newly left university kids dreaming up policies that don't actually work.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: nonspecific
That was a failed low budget attack on the United Kingdom because of the war in Iraq. Had scotland not been part of The UK and involved in the war I doubt they would have chosen that target.a reply to: flammadraco



Had Scotland not been part of the UK in 2007, then the UK would not have had a "Scottish Prime Minister" to take us into war with Iraq etc. You all seem to forget that it was two "Scottish Prime Ministers" who lead us into war and left the Country Broke, Sweet FA to do with the English.

Yeah Tony may have been born here,, left at the age of three.

Tell me about the huge majority of English Politicians who voted with Tony to Illegally invade Iraq and Afghanistan at the time when 1 million people across the UK took to the streets to oppose it. So what he is Scottish, The decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan was a plan hatched between London and Washington. Nothing to do with Blairs birthplace. and certainly nothing to do with Scotland.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Tony Blair was born in Scotland to a Scottish family, his dad was from Govan and his mother from Glasgow. Blair went to Fettes in Edinburgh.

www.sunnygovan.com...


The Prime Minister Tony Charles Lynton Blair
was born at the Queen Mary Maternity Home in Edinburgh, Scotland on 6 May 1953, the second son of Leo and Hazel Blair (née Corscadden).
His father, Leo Blair, the illegitimate son of two English actors, was adopted by a Govan shipyard worker named James Blair and his wife Mary, (who lived in Golspie Street, GOVAN), whilst his mother, Hazel Corscadden was the daughter of George Corscadden, a butcher and Orangeman originally of Ballyshannon who had moved to Glasgow in 1916 and died at a young age in 1923.
He was from a family of Protestant farmers in County Donegal, Ireland, who descended from Scottish settlers who took their name from Garscadden, now part of Glasgow.
The Blair family was often taken on holiday to Rossnowlagh, a beach resort near Hazel's hometown of Ballyshannon which is the venue of the main Orange order parade in the Republic of Ireland.
Blair spent the first 19 months of his life at the family home in Paisley Terrace in the Willowbrae area of Edinburgh. During this period his father worked as a junior tax inspector whilst also studying for a law degree from the University of Edinburgh. His family spent three and a half years in the 1950s living in Adelaide, Australia, where his father was a lecturer in law at the University of Adelaide. The Blairs lived close to the university, in the suburb of Dulwich.
The family returned to Britain in the late 1950s, living for a time with Hazel Blair's mother at her home in Stepps, near Glasgow.
He spent the remainder of his childhood in Durham, England, his father being by then a lecturer at Durham University.
After attending Durham's Chorister School Blair boarded at Fettes College, a notable independent school in Edinburgh, where he met Charlie Falconer (a pupil at the rival Edinburgh Academy), whom he later appointed Lord Chancellor.
He reportedly modelled himself on Mick Jagger, and is said to have enjoyed a reputation as a conspicuously "cool" young man among his fellow pupils.
His teachers, however, were less impressed by his behaviour: his biographer John Rentoul reported that "All the teachers I spoke to... said he was a complete pain in the backside, and they were very glad to see the back of him."
Blair was arrested at Fettes, having being mistaken for a burglar as he climbed into his dormitory using a ladder, after being out late.

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



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

There are some who resent the thought that we might choose a path of self determination. Not only that, but that we might succeed in making things a littie fairer in society. They dress their own motivations up in the guise of fake concern, secretly hoping we fail that they might turn their backs on us. We are constantly told what we cannot have, never once what we can. Where is the friendship? We are being treated like an enemy if we choose independence. It may be that we will need an alliance to protect us from our aggressive neighbours.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Defence from Who. ?


Is that how you view this world? By stripping yourself from the UK, international terrorism and rogue states are no longer a threat? You think anyone with a viewpoint on 'search and destroy' will say "Oh but leave the Scottish, they are sound! Somebody told me so..."

Not only are we going to be left with a fraction of the military we currently and proudly have, we will withdraw our troops from the British forces, weakening our neighbour. Is that wise? No it isn't, of course it isn't.

You want to move nuclear weapons a few miles south of the border to eliminate any potential threat to Scotland, costing billions, and I repeat 'a few miles south of the border'. It's absolutely and utterly hilarious.

And with regards troops on duty, on leave etc... How many troops will be available at any one time? I'll tell you - 3,500. Mate, 3,500 troops couldn't protect Boddom Lighthouse.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Oh, and we all asked you questions on the other thread regarding your views on independence. Can you return and answer them please?



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: nonspecific
I thought Tony Blair was still Prime minister at that time? I will to check up on that bieng English and all.a reply to: flammadraco



You are joking right? Tony Blair was Scottish born in Edinburgh.

I stand corrected I did not realise he was born in Scotland, Although that may of not been an important factor in his decision to invade Iraq.


No but it does beg the question why the Scots have decided to blame the English (AKA Westminster) for all their woes, when in fact the current Westminster "COALITION Government" is just cleaning up the god awful mess left after 12 years of two Scottish Prime Minster rule.

Perhaps if Gordon Brown never spent our tax revenue and borrowed money on the "never never" the government in Westminster today would not have had to introduce austerity measures like the bedroom tax.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join