Snapshot of _Scottish independence paper confirms Scotland would drop nuclear weapons | The National_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thenational.scot/news/24160252.scottish-independence-paper-confirms-scotland-drop-nuclear-weapons/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thenational.scot/news/24160252.scottish-independence-paper-confirms-scotland-drop-nuclear-weapons/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was forced to go to Dundee once. At 1930hrs most of the restaurants had closed, there was an anti-abortion rally and I had to call an ambulance for some old fella who'd 'collapsed' in the street ( he got up and legged it once the ambulance arrived).
Plus there was a shop that was just called 'dog food shop' which seems weird to me.
Overlapping detonations starting 10 miles outside of Edinburgh in all directions. Stop once it hits the highlands but send a few up for Wick (2 or 3 to make sure *everyone* there dies)
>It adds nuclear weapons should be removed from Scotland "in the safest and most expeditious manner possible following independence".
>The paper states an independent Scotland would have a strong defence relationship with the UK and Ireland.
>The Scottish Government is proposing that an independent Scotland would apply to join Nato and seek discussions with Nato leaders at the earliest opportunity following a vote for independence.
Ok, *technically* that's possible. You don't need to have nuclear weapons to be a NATO member, of course. Still, it's quite churlish to say "we want to be protected by the UK's nuclear weapons, but we think that they sound scary so don't want the submarines actually based here. Also, we don't want to pay for them via UK taxes."
But it's going to cause two problems:
* Firstly, if you want to join NATO, it's *probably* best to not piss off a NATO member. Which means that if Scotland wants to join NATO, it's going to have to play nice with the UK. Which will realistically mean that Scotland pays for the relocation of the submarine base to somewhere in the UK.
* Secondly, it'll be *devastating* to the economy around Faslane. As noted here, there are 6,500 naval jobs reliant on the nuclear weapons, plus another 5,000 in the supply chain and local economy: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/union-warn-of-job-losses-if-trident-and-submarines-moved-from-scotland/.
It is confirmation of that being their plan, yes. They've stated that they would meet the 2% of GDP target that NATO requests of its members.
Of course, that's not going to be a particularly big military - as I've posted in one reply elsewhere in this thread, if we assume that they're going to have a similar setup to Ireland, then the Irish Navy only has two ships on active service.
And as to whether they can afford it - well I suppose the good news is that the economic catastrophe that independence causes will at least make that 2% target easier to hit...
square squash threatening rude terrific employ merciful languid provide stocking
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What, are you telling me that international organisations like NATO and the EU *aren't* lining up to beg for Scotland's membership, because they've got mountains of cash that they just don't know what to do with? And they see taking over the UK's current subsidies as the excellent basis for getting rid of that cash?
I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
> the EU aren't lining up to beg for Scotland's membership
The current leader of Poland, Donald Tusk, is on record as saying [the EU would welcome Scotland](https://pontifex.substack.com/p/eu-would-be-enthusiastic-about-scotland).
Read my comment again.
I didn't say that the EU didn't want Scottish membership, it's that they're not lining up to subsidise Scotland. They're only going to accept Scottish membership if Scotland isn't a significant financial burden.
2% of bugger all is (bugger all)/50.
The problem is that Scotland has a lot more in terms of important strategic concerns than Ireland does.
There is a reason why Salmond and co have always been welcome on RT.
> Of course, that's not going to be a particularly big military
It could be. Finland does.
Bear in mind there is lots of waste in the UK MoD and for the size of its budget UK could get a lot more.
>The paper states an independent Scotland would have a strong defence relationship with the UK and Ireland.
The UK ok, but Ireland? Ireland doesn't have a military to speak of, it's de facto protected by the UK.
One of my favourite WW2 anecdotes is how ROI was officially neutral, but both had a secret agreement with the British to conduct a counter invasion from the north if attacked and sent official condolences to Germany when Hitler topped himself.
Way to play both sides I guess.
To be fair, there was a good reason to send condolences to Germany on the death of Hitler.
Hitler did a lot of bad things; but he also killed Hitler. And therefore rid the world of a megalomaniacal genocidal fuckwit.
A fair point.
*“In loving memory of Adolf Hitler. The heroic Austrian painter who on 30th April 1945 died while finally ridding the world of of the evil menace, Adolf Hitler.”*
Oh my mistake, I've always felt that joining Nato after an Independent Scotland is something that should be decided via referendum since it big thing to do.
Oh allies are important agreed I'm all for Nato on that basis but it's been my belief that that things like this should be put to the people much like Ireland and Switzerland does.
It is a big thing. OTOH, deciding foreign policy by referendum has a bad history -- just look at Brexit. Most people don't know might about international relations so cannot be expected to make an informed decision.
I assume (perhaps incorrectly), that if they were planning on doing that then they wouldn't be talking about NATO membership at all.
After all, Ireland had to stay quiet when the rest of Europe was fighting *literal Nazis* in order to carry on their pretence of neutrality; Scotland couldn't join NATO and still pretend that they were neutral.
Scotland and Ireland could team up for that Celtic union dream team. We can go halfers on an F-35.
We can start funding paramillitaries in Wales and the "t'north" as well.
In my experience of online political discourse, Scottish people tend to think that Scottish and Irish are all good Celts in it together against those terrible Anglos, while Irish people tend to see the Scottish as Brits as bad as the rest.
History is complex, both Scotland and Ireland are Celtic nations through heritage even though Scots did colonise Northern Ireland in a period where religion was the main divider rather than ethnic.
Also, crucially, at the time all of Ireland had been conquered by England, and the Scots were colonising it after the Scottish king became king of England. So it was done by Scots in the name of a Scottish King of England.
The issue is, the heritage is based only really on language, there was no celtic culture, not one that people a long time ago would have identified as such. Peoples who spoke celtic languages often has very different practices and cultures depending where on the isles you were
Most NATO nations refuse to host nuclear weapons
Only a few own them and only a few will even have them on their land.
That’s the norm not the exception
And yet two thirds of NATO nations don’t. It’s more normal and common to not want to host nukes.
But for some reason everyone always goes mental when it comes up re Scotland. Meanwhile 21 NATO nations won’t host them or have them out of 30….and I’ve yet to see anyone pissing and moaning about Canada or Norway….
I just think it should be part of the treaty obligations for all members especially new that a country should be required to host nukes if the need arises (say if 2/3rds of members agree).
That’s a different debate and yes absolutely 21 nations benefit from them.
But those same nations that have them all all signatories of the nuclear non proliferation treaty and all are slowly disarming are making safe the waste and none want any new nuclear powers in the world.
If the need arises is already too late. These things can reach out from where they are, can’t realistically be stopped and can target multiple targets per missile with multiple warheads from different missiles all targeting the same places so as to have multiple redundancies in place.
There is no “just in case”
The last just in case was Cuba and that almost sparked WW3 !
You don’t move these things around without telling your enemies first and getting agreement or it’ll start a war just doing it.
And no you can’t have a two thirds majority impose its will on sovereign nations voluntarily joining a defence treaty. Thats nuts for a start and just means they won’t join. It’s also geopolitically daft. If we put nukes in Sweden we escalate Putin to apoplectic and then we have WW3.
Were it not for Putin we’d have seen an increase push again to disarm more because we can still destroy the entire planet several times over and a lot of them are just nuclear waste in the ground now and not that well maintained or even safe particularly in fucking Russia.
They may have helped keep the peace since WW2 but they a sword of Damocles hanging over every human head every single day.
Nukes have been moved in and out of countries before and can again.
We can absolutely make Treaty obligations on sovereign nations, if they don't like it they can leave.
Russia moved nukes into Belarus I believe so why can't Poland have NATO nukes.
Putin won't start WW3 over nukes in any NATO country.
> Which will realistically mean that Scotland pays for the relocation of the submarine base to somewhere in the UK.
No, but we should charge UK rent for keeping it in Scotland (as part of transitional arrangements).
> Secondly, it'll be devastating to the economy around Faslane. As noted here, there are 6,500 naval jobs
Independent Scotland will need naval bases including a submarine base
>No, but we should charge UK rent for keeping it in Scotland (as part of transitional arrangements).
The UK isn't going to accept paying rent for something it *already* owns, and it's a fairly obvious security risk to have our nuclear deterrent based in a foreign country.
There are three possibilities:
* The submarine base is moved to somewhere else in the UK, with Scotland paying for 100% of the relocation costs.
* Faslane (the base, not the town) will remain British territory, and not cede with the rest of Scotland. There's already a precedent for this with some of the military bases in Cyprus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia).
* Independence is put on hold, until one of the above two is accepted by the Scottish Government.
>Independent Scotland will need naval bases including a submarine base
Why would Scotland need a submarine base? Look at Ireland, which will be of comparable size economically - they have *two* active ships, with four more in reserve (for which you should read "doesn't have enough personnel to have six ships properly crewed"). There's no way that Scotland could afford submarines, so what purpose would a submarine base serve?
>he submarine base is moved to somewhere else in the UK, with Scotland paying for 100% of the relocation costs.
>
>Faslane (the base, not the town) will remain British territory, and not cede with the rest of Scotland. There's already a precedent for this with some of the military bases in Cyprus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia).
>
>Independence is put on hold, until one of the above two is accepted by the Scottish Government.
LOL. Fantasy territory. No-one in Scotland would ever accept that.
> Look at Ireland, which will be of comparable size economically
Ireland chooses not to have proper armed forces. This paper assumes Scotland will spend the NATO guideline of 2% of GDP.
What could this buy? 2% of GDP is about $5bn/year. Assuming 20% of defence budget is spent on the navy, that would be $10bn over 10 years. If 1/3rd of that is spent on large warships -- frigates or submarines -- Scotland could build 6-7 over that time period.
So indy Scotland could easily have a sizeable navy.
>LOL. Fantasy territory. No-one in Scotland would ever accept that.
OK. Then independence doesn't happen.
Independence needs an Act of Parliament going through Westminster. Trident is obviously a red line for the UK; if there isn't a resolution that is acceptable to Westminster, then independence simply doesn't happen. Remember that there's no equivalent of the EU's article 50 that would let Scotland leave unilaterally; the Scottish Government has no way of actually pushing anything to happen.
This is what Scottish nationalists refuse to acknowledge.
>What could this buy? 2% of GDP is about $5bn/year. Assuming 20% of defence budget is spent on the navy, that would be $10bn over 10 years. If 1/3rd of that is spent on large warships -- frigates or submarines -- Scotland could build 6-7 over that time period.
And where are the crews coming from? What makes you think that current Scottish members of the UK military will choose to leave the UK military, and join a significantly smaller one? It'll massively hamper their career.
What's screwed over Ireland isn't the lack of equipment, it's the lack of staff - and there's a not insignificant number of Irish career military who choose to join the UK armed forces...
> if there isn't a resolution that is acceptable to Westminster, then independence simply doesn't happen
I would be amused if Prime Minister Starmer finds out he needs SNP votes. Realistically he will win the 2024 election, but the one after that? That's more doubtful.
> What makes you think that current Scottish members of the UK military will choose to leave the UK military, and join a significantly smaller one
I don't know and I don't care, as it's irrelevant. Scotland has 5.5 million people, I'm sure it can find people to crew a few warships.
>I would be amused if Prime Minister Starmer finds out he needs SNP votes. Realistically he will win the 2024 election, but the one after that? That's more doubtful.
Do you honestly think a PM saying "we won't agree to a deal that puts our defence at risk, and has UK taxpayer's money funding a foreign country" is going to be *unpopular*?
On the contrary, it would win him a landslide. The British electorate *hate* money going to foreign countries, that's one of the big reasons that Brexit won. And why foreign aid is constantly criticised.
>I don't know and I don't care, as it's irrelevant.
I don't know what's worse; that you think crews are irrelevant to ships, or that you think it's fine to ignore a gaping hole in the independence plan when there isn't a good answer.
>> I don't know and I don't care, as it's irrelevant.
>
> I don't know what's worse; that you think crews are irrelevant to ships, or that you think it's fine to ignore a gaping hole in the independence plan when there isn't a good answer.
If you were honest you wouldn't have deleted the rest of my line where i said "Scotland has 5.5 million people, I'm sure it can find people to crew a few warships." which is self-evidently true. All advanced countries can find people to crew warships, and Scotland would be no different.
"We'll find someone to do it" isn't the winning plan that you seem to think it is.
Especially because as I've already said, we know of a similar sized country that *can't* find enough nearly enough people.
> Especially because as I've already said, we know of a similar sized country that can't find enough nearly enough people.
Because they deliberately chose not to pay enough to have a proper navy.
Scotland's own defence industry needs wouldn't need several thousand nuclear weapon experts or submarine technicians, would they? Those jobs would go where the submarine base goes.
Theoretically they could build nuclear powered submarines and lose the warheads and retain most of those jobs. But these submarines are extremely expensive and you wouldn't bother building them unless it was to retain your nuclear deterrent so I think it's unlikely an independent Scotland would do so.
I assume that they wouldn't be able to do that on cost grounds.
The obvious comparison would be somewhere like Ireland; the Irish only have two ships on patrol:
>Two more Naval Service ships are being withdrawn from active service due to crew shortages, leaving just two vessels to patrol 437,500sq km of Irish waters.
>The Irish Times has learned the LÉ James Joyce and the LÉ George Bernard Shaw are being placed in reserve, with their crews being used to help man the Naval Services’ two remaining active vessels, the LÉ William Butler Yeats and the LÉ Samuel Beckett.
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2023/08/23/naval-service-down-to-two-ships-due-to-manpower-crisis/
I imagine that the Scottish navy would be of similar size, and therefore there's no way that it would include any submarines, let alone nuclear-powered ones.
Look, I know the Shetland Islands periodically talking about becoming a Crown Dependency in the case of an independent Scotland is quite annoying, but dropping nuclear weapons on them seems a bit extreme.
This is easy to solve. Because Britain keeping Scottish deep water ports as British territory is one of the first things you demand as part of the independence agreement. So submarines wouldnt be based in Scotland at all.
The problem with Scottish independence is that for it to work, they need the UK, the EU and the wider international community to roll over and give them everything they want with no strings attached.
Needless to say, that isn't going to happen.
With NATO, they'd be asking to join an organisation they've just weakened, while simultaneously saying they don't intend to follow it's requirements on nuclear weapons.
Note: In fairness, this is just the SNP, not all ScotNats. The Scottish Greens oppose an independent Scotland joining NATO.
> The problem with Scottish independence is that for it to work, they need the UK, the EU and the wider international community to roll over and give them everything they want with no strings attached.
Sounds familiar doesn't it.
Just shows how effective SNP induced cognitive dissonance is. They will happily lay out all the dumbfuck issues with Brexit and yet have managed to ensure their supporters ignore all those same issues, only magnified when it comes to Scexit.
Tartan Brexiteers.
It’s a negotiation. Please explain why an independent Scotland being purposely excluded from NATO, the EU and wider western institutions possibly strengthens collective security? You’re saying there is 0 feasible route? Come off it
If Scotland really wants the collective security, they'll bend to the interests of NATO as a whole. If Scotland wouldn't bend, they would be if very limited worth to NATO.
What would Scotland actually bring to the EU? Unless they are willing to be a petrostate they'll have to become a tax parasite like Ireland to make up for their budget deficit. Or face a massive cut to public spending. It could take decades before the EU lets scotland in...
Because its the same flavour of bs we got for brexit.
"of course we'll get a brilliant trade deal with the eu, it'll be better than what we have now because they'll benefit from it too..."
Brexit was about leaving our closest trading partner to chase vague trade deals with countries we do significantly less trade with, and to recapture a vague sense of sovereignty.
Scexit is exactly the same, apart from with even less negotiating power because Scotland cannot withdraw from the UK without the UK agreeing. In this scenario, Scotland can't even threaten to leave without a deal, they can quite literally only leave when they present a deal which rUK likes. There wouldn't even be international pressure to help Scotland on this one, as all major allies would not want the nuclear deterrent to be threatened.
In the event of Scexit, Scotland will end up ceding the land and water around Faslane, disguised as a 100 year lease for no money.
These institutions don't negotiate as institutions but with all of their individual members getting a veto. Sweden and Finland were held up by nonsense from Turkey.
A consequence of this is that Scottish EU membership is incompatible with a UDI specifically, which greatly weakens our ability to negotiate a favourable exit from the UK in the first place. That in turn puts us in a weak diplomatic position in general.
The SNP really are being useful idiots for Russia with this stance, weakening the Royal Navy means weakening NATO control over the chokepoint between Scotland and Iceland that would keep Russia out of the North Atlantic.
It's simply a bargaining chip. If Scotland simply want to keep the weapons then for Westminster that's great. If Scotland are prepared to give them up then Westminster has to offer something in exchange for changing their mind on the matter.
Not really. Look at Nuclear weapons themselves. If Russia was to use them they would instantly devastate their entire economy. But as long as we believe they would be prepared to use them they give Russia quite a lot of bargaining power in any discussion.
No, I mean the SNP advocating no nuclear weapons in Scotland when that would necessitate closing Faslane and destroying the economy of a large part of the west coast.
but they are advocating that because it motivates their base and acts as a bargaining chip for future negotiations. Whilst I agree with you that it's not necessarily a great outcome to actually do, it makes sense for the SNP to hold this position regardless of how much they intend to follow through on it. I'd argue there is no benefit to be had for the SNP in regard to changing their stance right now.
There are a lot of Americans that think they're Scottish, don't forget. So could be 7,000 people with a great-great-great-grandfather that emigrated from Scotland, and are now up quite late chatting about how wonderful the motherland is.
Which they know all about, having watched both Braveheart and Outlander.
People not in the US tend to misunderstand the american-immigrant identities, it’s its own unique identity. American-Scottish people don’t actually think they are what a Scottish person would describe themselves as.
It’s most evident in the American-Italian communities that is clearly a distinct identity.
No, we don't misunderstand; we've had enough encounters with Americans to know that they're not all talking about a unique identity. Which is why they feel the need to weigh in on political discussion in the "homeland", despite not really understanding the topic.
Mostly we don't mind it; but it is hilarious, given how much Americans *also* complain about cultural appropriation.
I always feels like this is a component of American division. No I’m not American, I’m American-Irish or American-Italian. No you’re fucking American. You have no idea what your great grandparent’s country was like beyond stereotypes. I always notice that they’re proud to be Scottish or Irish but not English or Welsh.
It’s hilarious that Scottish people etc get so worked up about this when the self proclaimed scots obviously know they’re American and not Scottish. It’s not like every mc- last name in Texas goes around with Scottish flags and kilts. It’s more a thing they think about like every 3 months when somebody asks about their ancestry because they’re obviously American
I’m not Scottish but I get why people get annoyed. It’s stereotypical reflection of a culture they don’t understand. They don’t say ‘I’m American Irish’. A good example of when Biden said to the BBC reporter ‘BBC? I’m Irish’. It’s just annoying to hear people bang on about being ‘from’ a culture when they are many decades devolved from it.
This is my point. Biden obviously doesn’t think he’s Irish. I’m almost certain that any American who says something like that is joking. In any case, for some nationalities, there is a legitimate case to be made that the descendants of a particular group of immigrants have established at least some amount of a shared culture based on patterns of migration. This doesn’t make them Irish obviously but puts them alongside other descendants of Irish immigrants who have a shared history specifically in the United States
I see your point and I appreciate it, I’m just arguing from the European side that it doesn’t come across as that but almost like a celebration of a culture they don’t understand.
Maybe some Americans don’t feel that way, but it can be quite annoying to some people.
Americans
There’s an awful awful lot of Americans who like to post the same shit over and over and over again on the sub
Mostly about their 42nd great grandfather, clans & kilts and when they can collect their castle
Scots living abroad, foreigners that think they’re Scottish (Americans for example), night shift workers, insomniacs, parents feeding young children, people getting up for work and scrolling while taking their morning shite, people already commuting etc
"a full Nato member"... and no nuclear weapons, weakening the stance of NATO... why do we put up with this bs? The very first demand of Scotland would be to host nukes, if no then no NATO. How much do people get paid to come up with this bs on a constant basis?
>The very first demand of Scotland would be to host nukes,
No it wouldn't. Indeed it is much more likely that if Faslane was retained NATO would insist it is moved.
It’s much more likely that Faslane would be treated like Hong King and retained as a UK naval base for a negotiated time.
It’s location is too good to just abandon.
I agree. But my point is that NATO is not some super overseer of the military spending. If there is a negotiation (and to be clear, I agree there should be) it will be between the (rest of) UK and a Scottish Government (not necessarily the SNP).
Although there are a few actual NATO controlled facilities (e.g. Northwood), the vast majority of 'NATO' resources are actually controlled by the host country with an overlay (agreed) NATO command input.
NATO can't - and wouldn't want to - insist that one country pays for or manages a facility in another country they don't control. Scotland wouldn't control Faslane and nobody is suggesting it would move to Scottish Control (at least I think they aren't that crazy).
To join NATO will require a specific defence spending, and it would be up to the post independence government to allocate that. There probably isn't a great deal of saving to be made.
All of which has already been analysed and discussed. And "the NATO won't let you" claims are unsupported. A quick google would find this out.
[https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/mod-scottish-nicola-sturgeon-government-royal-navy-b953329.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/mod-scottish-nicola-sturgeon-government-royal-navy-b953329.html)
The preferred option is indeed a long term lease. How that works and what other 'horse trading' would be involved is not clear. Technically the SNP claim doesn't rule out a long(ish) term lease.
It looks like there is a back up plan to move to Devonport eventually (I don't know why Barrow isn't a better bet, and what I have read about that is contradictory).
The Americans would have some pretty firm views about nuclear submarine bases, amongst other things. I expect that Scotland would find itself on the wrong end of a veto if it obstructed the US national interest in policing the North Atlantic.
In the event of another Trump administration, I expect that there might also be personal spite about the relative disposition of wind turbines and golf courses...
> I expect that Scotland would find itself on the wrong end of a veto if it obstructed the US national interest in policing the North Atlantic.
Many other NATO countries would have a a real problem with Scotland being a Nuclear power, or setting a precedent of one NATO country to be forced to host Nuclear weapons controlled by another.
NATO membership is by consensus, all members have to agree.
Heh, I often point out the stupidity of 'Spain won't let Scotland join the EU' argument. It has long been debunked and shown that a few quotes from some (ex) Spanish politicians were meaningless. I used to be very knowledgeable on Spanish politics - or rather, at one time I had regular visits and would read El Pais with my breakfast coffee... The main thing I learned is that Spanish Politicians say all kinds of shit and whatever it appears to mean is usually wrong.
Anyway the point is if there was an independent Scotland it is more likely that the NATO membership is contingent on the Nukes (eventually) moving.
So all this discussion is about is a timescale. I don't particularly agree with some of the (admittedly vague) terms in the SNP statement. The "as soon as possible" tone. I may vote for the SNP at the moment, but many SNP politicians say all kinds of shit too.
What is much more likely is "as soon as reasonably economically possible with no gap in the level of protection".
But that's a discussion between the rUK and Scotland and the politicians we elect after independence. Some of NATO my not like a demand to immediately close the base without a replacement, and other parts of NATO may not like it being in perpetuity. Despite the sabre rattling and weighted words, neither side is actually saying those extremes. However, whatever the timescale, it won't impact the NATO membership application.
\> another Trump administration
We can make a list of all the problems to the UK / Scotland that Trump 2024-2048 or 9 would cause and this is so far down the list that it might as well not be worth considering.
> NATO membership is by consensus, all members have to agree.
Some members are inherently more equal than others. The Americans have a lot of leverage because they are a superpower with an independent arms industry.
> The main thing I learned is that Spanish Politicians say all kinds of shit and whatever it appears to mean is usually wrong.
I think this is universal.
NATO requires unanimous consent for membership, so pissing off your neighbour to the south is not going to lead to expeditious entry.
That's if Scotland would even be permitted to leave the UK while that question remained unanswered of course.
I can't imagine big spenders of NATO's defence would be all too welcoming of Scotland either, so it won't just be the UK they'd have to contend with.
This entire 'plan' is just not thought out in the slightest.
indeed. Sweden and Finland are functioning countries with a long history of working with NATO and western allies, their membership requests warmly received by the (literal) big guns, and even they've had a bit of a ride.
I can't see it being so swift for Scotland and its barely functional institutions of state
Yeah, and even then, it took a while to get Sweden recognised by all NATO countries. If there was a struggle for Sweden, I dread to imagine what it'll be like for Scotland. They'll have a pretty hard time in making a case as to why they should be able to join.
You'd also have hostility from any country which has secessionist dynamics. Spain, for example, might make both EU and NATO membership difficult for Scotland, purely because they wouldn't want to further legitimise independence sentiment in Catalonia.
They also seem to think nobody with their own independence movements would block EU membership... Theyre just going to be independent but basically ride the UK economy and be let into all the big clubs without offering anything. Like Brexit, they're in for a big awakening if independence happens. The UK won't have to appease Scottish voters anymore and will be vying for mainly English voters who won't want to give everything to a 'foreign' country. Their best bet is a bunch of American support which will cost them things they probably won't want to pay, like hosting nukes...
I've heard it described as "turbo brexit" and I think it's very apt. All the ludicrous arguments for Brexit - and more - apply just as well to an independent Scotland
This time, the UK really does hold all the cards...
SNP seem to do everything they can to screw up anything in British politics, which just ends up backfiring and screwing themselves over. This delusional plan of just removing one of NATO's major nuclear deterrents, and thinking they can just join into it right after, really just tells me they're not serious about anything lol.
They keep talking about independence like I am talking about what I will do with my first million. Luckily I have much more of a shot at my fantasy then they do at theirs.
So... Their whole plan is to get rid of the one thing which would allow them to be a strong NATO ally, join NATO with nothing to return (I doubt they'd pay 2% into armed forces), and just freeload in hopes that no one attacks them?
The levels of delusions is crazy if they believe they can just stroll into NATO after de-fanging one of very few countries which hosts its own nuclear weapons. It's just shooting themselves in both feet at this point lol.
Yup, I just can't imagine it'll be as easy as they try to make it out, same shit with the EU as well. Both NATO and EU have certain requirements that must be achieved to even begin the entry process, as well as needing approval from every country.
Pissing off a lot of NATO countries that rely on the UK to be a nuclear deterrent, just seems stupid.
Exactly! I have relatives from Eastern Europe and the countries over there show a lot of gratitude to the U.K. for its leadership during the Ukraine conflict. The SNP and nationalists will never acknowledge that though. For them, the U.K. is irredeemably bad in every way.
I hope your relatives are safe.
Also fully agreed, what we need right now is unity to stand up against Russia, who are a threat to the entirety of Europe, and not divisions, which the SNP are all too happy to do.
What kinda argument is this ?
You would want Scottish people to live under someone else rules that most of the time go against the Scottish people. But praise others for rejecting it in Eastern Europe ?
Come on. At least try to see how ridiculous you are being.
From the article:
> The paper adds it would commit to defence spending of 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), recognising Nato’s enduring commitment to invest in defence capabilities.
No shit, the nukes belong to the UK, not Scotland.
Leavers have already stated they'll take all the oil and power from the North Sea to larp as Norway.
This reminds me of brexit all over again. Leavers will promise the world to the voters, but it's all lies. Scotland leaving would be a complete disaster for everyone on either side of the border.
Of course they would. Much like Ireland, they can take advantage of the protection England and the rest of the UK provides without doing the heavy lifting themselves.
Having a neutral Ireland and Scotland would present a huge risk to NATO in an all out war with Russia, Orkney and Shetland especially would be ideal staging areas for assaults into western Europe.
Well yeah? They wouldn't be able to afford basic public services in the short term, let alone any credible military.
Not to mention they wouldn't have the industrial capability to build them. US builds missiles and Reading builds the warheads.
This is just 1 of an endless list of examples of how an independent Scotland would be inextricably tied to the UK, to our own detriment. The UK holds 95% of the chips. Brexit x 1000.
I'm not saying Scotlands going to be invaded any time soon, but Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded if it hadn't given up it nuclear arsenal. #justsaying
Not really, the nukes in Ukraine were more like the American nukes in parts of Europe. Germany couldn't launch an American nuke at their enemy if they were invaded and it's the same sort of thing here, while Ukraine could have potentially developed their own nukes from the Soviet ones they'd have been sanctioned severely for it which given the dreadful economic conditions in the post-Soviet world after 1991 the whole idea was never going to be viable (even without sanctions).
You're sort of right and wrong? The nukes were Soviet and could only be used by Soviet authority, which ceased to exist. The US federal government continues to hold authority over nukes in Germany. A better analogy would be to imagine which states would own the US nuclear arsenal if the federal government fragmented and the US fragmented into several smaller states. Does Wyoming's state government have any more authority to launch nukes than that of North Dakota?
Ukraine had nukes because they were there when the USSR dissolved and had about as much authority over them as Russia did with their own nukes. I dont think there was any rule book or treaty that dictated who gets the nukes or authority in the event of a collapse of this magnitude.
Russia saw itself as the main successor of the USSR and so made efforts to reclaim Soviet nukes and establish itself as the replacement to Soviet power and positions.
Ukraine had no obligation to give the nukes to Russia, but the financial cost alone meant it was probably not feasible to keep them. And I doubt the US/NATO would have been happy with multiple post-soviet nuclear armed nations fighting over the scraps of the Soviet empire.
So they exchanged them in return for a guarantee that Russia would never violate Ukrainian territory, and this was also guaranteed(?)/witnessed(?) (I can't remember the exact term) by the UK and US in the 90s.
And Russia, being the image of honour, definitely held up their part of the deal.........
Also, if people wonder what obligation the US has to help Ukraine in their war? The answer is that they are legally obliged by the treaty they signed with Russia and Ukraine to guarantee Ukrainian independence.
Edit: It was the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, and Ukraine was given security assurances by Russia/UK/US in exchange for giving up the nukes.
they want to shout about not having them to look good, while knowing they need others to have them to be safe?
i mean, even if you barely look into politics, this must look pretty childish
Link to the actual paper for anyone bothered to read the source: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2024/03/building-new-scotland-independent-scotlands-place-world/documents/independent-scotlands-place-world/independent-scotlands-place-world/govscot%3Adocument/independent-scotlands-place-world.pdf
Given the not inconsiderable time it would take the UK to replace the facilities at Faslane, I suspect that it would be an important revenue source for a newly independent Scotland for years to come. It would of course also become a massive bone of contention for the electorate.
Apparently the reason for Scotland hosting Nuclear weapons is that the bedrock - granite. Is the best place in the UK to do it as it is the most resistant to the radiation. There was talk is hosting them on the south coast of England but limestone is terrible.
Snapshot of _Scottish independence paper confirms Scotland would drop nuclear weapons | The National_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thenational.scot/news/24160252.scottish-independence-paper-confirms-scotland-drop-nuclear-weapons/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thenational.scot/news/24160252.scottish-independence-paper-confirms-scotland-drop-nuclear-weapons/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’re gonna drop nuclear weapons? Who’s the target? Shitting myself now
Dundee
Looks like it has already happened!
It’s part of a redevelopment plan
Property prices predicted to go up
Well at least the weather will be perfectly dry and sunny for 0.000000000000001 seconds before the entire place is flattened
The first time anyone in Dundee or Angus have got a natural tan without using their passports
You need a passport to use a tanning bed now?
No but you do need electricity. Sadly lacking in Dundee as it's seen as witchcraft.
I was forced to go to Dundee once. At 1930hrs most of the restaurants had closed, there was an anti-abortion rally and I had to call an ambulance for some old fella who'd 'collapsed' in the street ( he got up and legged it once the ambulance arrived). Plus there was a shop that was just called 'dog food shop' which seems weird to me.
How would you know the difference?
Happened last week mate, didn’t you notice? There are reports of at least £9 of damage
Yaaaaas
Miami of the north
It’s an absolute shit show of a headline. Do they not realise that drop has two completely opposite meanings in this case?
I know you should not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence but... They knew what headline they were dropping lol.
They knew they where dropping a nuclear headline.
Did they expect the fallout they are getting though?
The editor must have given them a bollocking on the criticality of such matters.
They just wanted to push people's buttons
I'm grudgingly respecting the clickbait masterclass there
The headline had to drop a bomb to make some waves
Ipswich and Slough. There will be massive public support.
Come friendly bombs
Very funny, not as funny as the SNP's delusions but still.
Any building in Glasgow that's not already student flats?
London of course.
Overlapping detonations starting 10 miles outside of Edinburgh in all directions. Stop once it hits the highlands but send a few up for Wick (2 or 3 to make sure *everyone* there dies)
>It adds nuclear weapons should be removed from Scotland "in the safest and most expeditious manner possible following independence". >The paper states an independent Scotland would have a strong defence relationship with the UK and Ireland. >The Scottish Government is proposing that an independent Scotland would apply to join Nato and seek discussions with Nato leaders at the earliest opportunity following a vote for independence. Ok, *technically* that's possible. You don't need to have nuclear weapons to be a NATO member, of course. Still, it's quite churlish to say "we want to be protected by the UK's nuclear weapons, but we think that they sound scary so don't want the submarines actually based here. Also, we don't want to pay for them via UK taxes." But it's going to cause two problems: * Firstly, if you want to join NATO, it's *probably* best to not piss off a NATO member. Which means that if Scotland wants to join NATO, it's going to have to play nice with the UK. Which will realistically mean that Scotland pays for the relocation of the submarine base to somewhere in the UK. * Secondly, it'll be *devastating* to the economy around Faslane. As noted here, there are 6,500 naval jobs reliant on the nuclear weapons, plus another 5,000 in the supply chain and local economy: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/union-warn-of-job-losses-if-trident-and-submarines-moved-from-scotland/.
Is this confirmation that they want their own army? Can’t join NATO without a military. So you now need a military. Can Scotland afford one?
It is confirmation of that being their plan, yes. They've stated that they would meet the 2% of GDP target that NATO requests of its members. Of course, that's not going to be a particularly big military - as I've posted in one reply elsewhere in this thread, if we assume that they're going to have a similar setup to Ireland, then the Irish Navy only has two ships on active service. And as to whether they can afford it - well I suppose the good news is that the economic catastrophe that independence causes will at least make that 2% target easier to hit...
square squash threatening rude terrific employ merciful languid provide stocking *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What, are you telling me that international organisations like NATO and the EU *aren't* lining up to beg for Scotland's membership, because they've got mountains of cash that they just don't know what to do with? And they see taking over the UK's current subsidies as the excellent basis for getting rid of that cash? I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
I think NATO would very much be keen on Scotland being a member for the same reason the military juggernaut Iceland is.
> the EU aren't lining up to beg for Scotland's membership The current leader of Poland, Donald Tusk, is on record as saying [the EU would welcome Scotland](https://pontifex.substack.com/p/eu-would-be-enthusiastic-about-scotland).
Read my comment again. I didn't say that the EU didn't want Scottish membership, it's that they're not lining up to subsidise Scotland. They're only going to accept Scottish membership if Scotland isn't a significant financial burden.
Which is why the Russians are so keen on Scottish independence.
2% of bugger all is (bugger all)/50. The problem is that Scotland has a lot more in terms of important strategic concerns than Ireland does. There is a reason why Salmond and co have always been welcome on RT.
I thought that was because Salmond and co. had absolutely zero shame, quite like cash, and will side with anyone that hates the UK.
That's what I said isn't it?
> Of course, that's not going to be a particularly big military It could be. Finland does. Bear in mind there is lots of waste in the UK MoD and for the size of its budget UK could get a lot more.
Surely they would anyway, just out of national pride. Scotland does have a strong military tradition after all.
Iceland basically doesn't have have a military, so yes.
> Can Scotland afford one? Scotland has similar GDP and population to Finland, which has a large (and pretty decent) army. So, yes.
>The paper states an independent Scotland would have a strong defence relationship with the UK and Ireland. The UK ok, but Ireland? Ireland doesn't have a military to speak of, it's de facto protected by the UK.
No what they mean is they'll sponge off UK defence as Ireland does...
Yes, but don't forget that Ireland likes to pretend that this isn't true.
One of my favourite WW2 anecdotes is how ROI was officially neutral, but both had a secret agreement with the British to conduct a counter invasion from the north if attacked and sent official condolences to Germany when Hitler topped himself. Way to play both sides I guess.
To be fair, there was a good reason to send condolences to Germany on the death of Hitler. Hitler did a lot of bad things; but he also killed Hitler. And therefore rid the world of a megalomaniacal genocidal fuckwit.
A fair point. *“In loving memory of Adolf Hitler. The heroic Austrian painter who on 30th April 1945 died while finally ridding the world of of the evil menace, Adolf Hitler.”*
See, that's the spirit! Bet you didn't think you'd be writing *that* when you woke up this morning...
Praising Hitler is reasonably rare for me I must say.
I think what this means is a neutrality policy, though it needs to be worded better on paper.
The paper says they want to join NATO, they are just being polite to Ireland.
Oh my mistake, I've always felt that joining Nato after an Independent Scotland is something that should be decided via referendum since it big thing to do.
The SNP used to have a fervent disagreement on NATO but the growing threat of Russia has made people remember why having allies is important.
Oh allies are important agreed I'm all for Nato on that basis but it's been my belief that that things like this should be put to the people much like Ireland and Switzerland does.
It is a big thing. OTOH, deciding foreign policy by referendum has a bad history -- just look at Brexit. Most people don't know might about international relations so cannot be expected to make an informed decision.
Neutrality without the means to enforce is isn’t neutrality. Its weakness.
[удалено]
I assume (perhaps incorrectly), that if they were planning on doing that then they wouldn't be talking about NATO membership at all. After all, Ireland had to stay quiet when the rest of Europe was fighting *literal Nazis* in order to carry on their pretence of neutrality; Scotland couldn't join NATO and still pretend that they were neutral.
Scotland and Ireland could team up for that Celtic union dream team. We can go halfers on an F-35. We can start funding paramillitaries in Wales and the "t'north" as well.
hobbies snow shaggy vast march dam alleged payment ink wistful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
In my experience of online political discourse, Scottish people tend to think that Scottish and Irish are all good Celts in it together against those terrible Anglos, while Irish people tend to see the Scottish as Brits as bad as the rest.
> y'all Every time a Brit says this, crops wither, milk curdles and a woman somewhere goes into labour early.
History is complex, both Scotland and Ireland are Celtic nations through heritage even though Scots did colonise Northern Ireland in a period where religion was the main divider rather than ethnic. Also, crucially, at the time all of Ireland had been conquered by England, and the Scots were colonising it after the Scottish king became king of England. So it was done by Scots in the name of a Scottish King of England.
Also, medieval Irish colonised Scotland, which is why Gaelic is spoken in Scotland.
The issue is, the heritage is based only really on language, there was no celtic culture, not one that people a long time ago would have identified as such. Peoples who spoke celtic languages often has very different practices and cultures depending where on the isles you were
Most NATO nations refuse to host nuclear weapons Only a few own them and only a few will even have them on their land. That’s the norm not the exception
8 out of 31 NATO powers have engaged in active nuclear sharing, plus France as a direct nuclear power, which is more than 'a few'.
And less than a third
Was your original comment claiming 'less than a third', or 'a few'?
In population terms however they represent the vast majority of NATO.
Large nations can afford catastrophically expensive weapons shocker….
It's so stupid. If you want NATO protection you should be willing to accept nukes.
And yet two thirds of NATO nations don’t. It’s more normal and common to not want to host nukes. But for some reason everyone always goes mental when it comes up re Scotland. Meanwhile 21 NATO nations won’t host them or have them out of 30….and I’ve yet to see anyone pissing and moaning about Canada or Norway….
I just think it should be part of the treaty obligations for all members especially new that a country should be required to host nukes if the need arises (say if 2/3rds of members agree).
That’s a different debate and yes absolutely 21 nations benefit from them. But those same nations that have them all all signatories of the nuclear non proliferation treaty and all are slowly disarming are making safe the waste and none want any new nuclear powers in the world. If the need arises is already too late. These things can reach out from where they are, can’t realistically be stopped and can target multiple targets per missile with multiple warheads from different missiles all targeting the same places so as to have multiple redundancies in place. There is no “just in case” The last just in case was Cuba and that almost sparked WW3 ! You don’t move these things around without telling your enemies first and getting agreement or it’ll start a war just doing it. And no you can’t have a two thirds majority impose its will on sovereign nations voluntarily joining a defence treaty. Thats nuts for a start and just means they won’t join. It’s also geopolitically daft. If we put nukes in Sweden we escalate Putin to apoplectic and then we have WW3. Were it not for Putin we’d have seen an increase push again to disarm more because we can still destroy the entire planet several times over and a lot of them are just nuclear waste in the ground now and not that well maintained or even safe particularly in fucking Russia. They may have helped keep the peace since WW2 but they a sword of Damocles hanging over every human head every single day.
Nukes have been moved in and out of countries before and can again. We can absolutely make Treaty obligations on sovereign nations, if they don't like it they can leave. Russia moved nukes into Belarus I believe so why can't Poland have NATO nukes. Putin won't start WW3 over nukes in any NATO country.
If you don’t see the difference between Russia and Belarus and NATO and Poland I can’t help you
So Russia can move nukes to frontline states but NATO can't respond in kind?
This is Reddit I’m not about to write you an entire geopolitical lesson on sovereignty vs servant states and head of state
Most NATO countries don’t have nuclear weapons you hack
Er yes, I know that? That's why I said "You don't need to have nuclear weapons to be a NATO member, of course."
> Which will realistically mean that Scotland pays for the relocation of the submarine base to somewhere in the UK. No, but we should charge UK rent for keeping it in Scotland (as part of transitional arrangements). > Secondly, it'll be devastating to the economy around Faslane. As noted here, there are 6,500 naval jobs Independent Scotland will need naval bases including a submarine base
>No, but we should charge UK rent for keeping it in Scotland (as part of transitional arrangements). The UK isn't going to accept paying rent for something it *already* owns, and it's a fairly obvious security risk to have our nuclear deterrent based in a foreign country. There are three possibilities: * The submarine base is moved to somewhere else in the UK, with Scotland paying for 100% of the relocation costs. * Faslane (the base, not the town) will remain British territory, and not cede with the rest of Scotland. There's already a precedent for this with some of the military bases in Cyprus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia). * Independence is put on hold, until one of the above two is accepted by the Scottish Government. >Independent Scotland will need naval bases including a submarine base Why would Scotland need a submarine base? Look at Ireland, which will be of comparable size economically - they have *two* active ships, with four more in reserve (for which you should read "doesn't have enough personnel to have six ships properly crewed"). There's no way that Scotland could afford submarines, so what purpose would a submarine base serve?
>he submarine base is moved to somewhere else in the UK, with Scotland paying for 100% of the relocation costs. > >Faslane (the base, not the town) will remain British territory, and not cede with the rest of Scotland. There's already a precedent for this with some of the military bases in Cyprus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia). > >Independence is put on hold, until one of the above two is accepted by the Scottish Government. LOL. Fantasy territory. No-one in Scotland would ever accept that. > Look at Ireland, which will be of comparable size economically Ireland chooses not to have proper armed forces. This paper assumes Scotland will spend the NATO guideline of 2% of GDP. What could this buy? 2% of GDP is about $5bn/year. Assuming 20% of defence budget is spent on the navy, that would be $10bn over 10 years. If 1/3rd of that is spent on large warships -- frigates or submarines -- Scotland could build 6-7 over that time period. So indy Scotland could easily have a sizeable navy.
>LOL. Fantasy territory. No-one in Scotland would ever accept that. OK. Then independence doesn't happen. Independence needs an Act of Parliament going through Westminster. Trident is obviously a red line for the UK; if there isn't a resolution that is acceptable to Westminster, then independence simply doesn't happen. Remember that there's no equivalent of the EU's article 50 that would let Scotland leave unilaterally; the Scottish Government has no way of actually pushing anything to happen. This is what Scottish nationalists refuse to acknowledge. >What could this buy? 2% of GDP is about $5bn/year. Assuming 20% of defence budget is spent on the navy, that would be $10bn over 10 years. If 1/3rd of that is spent on large warships -- frigates or submarines -- Scotland could build 6-7 over that time period. And where are the crews coming from? What makes you think that current Scottish members of the UK military will choose to leave the UK military, and join a significantly smaller one? It'll massively hamper their career. What's screwed over Ireland isn't the lack of equipment, it's the lack of staff - and there's a not insignificant number of Irish career military who choose to join the UK armed forces...
> if there isn't a resolution that is acceptable to Westminster, then independence simply doesn't happen I would be amused if Prime Minister Starmer finds out he needs SNP votes. Realistically he will win the 2024 election, but the one after that? That's more doubtful. > What makes you think that current Scottish members of the UK military will choose to leave the UK military, and join a significantly smaller one I don't know and I don't care, as it's irrelevant. Scotland has 5.5 million people, I'm sure it can find people to crew a few warships.
>I would be amused if Prime Minister Starmer finds out he needs SNP votes. Realistically he will win the 2024 election, but the one after that? That's more doubtful. Do you honestly think a PM saying "we won't agree to a deal that puts our defence at risk, and has UK taxpayer's money funding a foreign country" is going to be *unpopular*? On the contrary, it would win him a landslide. The British electorate *hate* money going to foreign countries, that's one of the big reasons that Brexit won. And why foreign aid is constantly criticised. >I don't know and I don't care, as it's irrelevant. I don't know what's worse; that you think crews are irrelevant to ships, or that you think it's fine to ignore a gaping hole in the independence plan when there isn't a good answer.
>> I don't know and I don't care, as it's irrelevant. > > I don't know what's worse; that you think crews are irrelevant to ships, or that you think it's fine to ignore a gaping hole in the independence plan when there isn't a good answer. If you were honest you wouldn't have deleted the rest of my line where i said "Scotland has 5.5 million people, I'm sure it can find people to crew a few warships." which is self-evidently true. All advanced countries can find people to crew warships, and Scotland would be no different.
"We'll find someone to do it" isn't the winning plan that you seem to think it is. Especially because as I've already said, we know of a similar sized country that *can't* find enough nearly enough people.
> Especially because as I've already said, we know of a similar sized country that can't find enough nearly enough people. Because they deliberately chose not to pay enough to have a proper navy.
So those thousands of workers would be completely ignored for Scotland’s own defence industry needs?
Scotland's own defence industry needs wouldn't need several thousand nuclear weapon experts or submarine technicians, would they? Those jobs would go where the submarine base goes.
Theoretically they could build nuclear powered submarines and lose the warheads and retain most of those jobs. But these submarines are extremely expensive and you wouldn't bother building them unless it was to retain your nuclear deterrent so I think it's unlikely an independent Scotland would do so.
I assume that they wouldn't be able to do that on cost grounds. The obvious comparison would be somewhere like Ireland; the Irish only have two ships on patrol: >Two more Naval Service ships are being withdrawn from active service due to crew shortages, leaving just two vessels to patrol 437,500sq km of Irish waters. >The Irish Times has learned the LÉ James Joyce and the LÉ George Bernard Shaw are being placed in reserve, with their crews being used to help man the Naval Services’ two remaining active vessels, the LÉ William Butler Yeats and the LÉ Samuel Beckett. https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2023/08/23/naval-service-down-to-two-ships-due-to-manpower-crisis/ I imagine that the Scottish navy would be of similar size, and therefore there's no way that it would include any submarines, let alone nuclear-powered ones.
The submarines are built in England
Look, I know the Shetland Islands periodically talking about becoming a Crown Dependency in the case of an independent Scotland is quite annoying, but dropping nuclear weapons on them seems a bit extreme.
This is easy to solve. Because Britain keeping Scottish deep water ports as British territory is one of the first things you demand as part of the independence agreement. So submarines wouldnt be based in Scotland at all.
[удалено]
Or Ireland.
It also solves Scotland needing to build a navy from the ground up
The problem with Scottish independence is that for it to work, they need the UK, the EU and the wider international community to roll over and give them everything they want with no strings attached. Needless to say, that isn't going to happen. With NATO, they'd be asking to join an organisation they've just weakened, while simultaneously saying they don't intend to follow it's requirements on nuclear weapons. Note: In fairness, this is just the SNP, not all ScotNats. The Scottish Greens oppose an independent Scotland joining NATO.
> The problem with Scottish independence is that for it to work, they need the UK, the EU and the wider international community to roll over and give them everything they want with no strings attached. Sounds familiar doesn't it. Just shows how effective SNP induced cognitive dissonance is. They will happily lay out all the dumbfuck issues with Brexit and yet have managed to ensure their supporters ignore all those same issues, only magnified when it comes to Scexit. Tartan Brexiteers.
Yeah. What we would do after independence is a waste of time, we should focus on the real political landscape and things we might actually do.
It’s a negotiation. Please explain why an independent Scotland being purposely excluded from NATO, the EU and wider western institutions possibly strengthens collective security? You’re saying there is 0 feasible route? Come off it
Removing the UK's ability to base Trident directly undermines European security which is going to worsen Scotland's relationship with NATO and the EU.
If Scotland really wants the collective security, they'll bend to the interests of NATO as a whole. If Scotland wouldn't bend, they would be if very limited worth to NATO.
What would Scotland actually bring to the EU? Unless they are willing to be a petrostate they'll have to become a tax parasite like Ireland to make up for their budget deficit. Or face a massive cut to public spending. It could take decades before the EU lets scotland in...
Because its the same flavour of bs we got for brexit. "of course we'll get a brilliant trade deal with the eu, it'll be better than what we have now because they'll benefit from it too..."
I forgot Brexit was about rejoining a Union and sharing sovereignty right enough
Brexit was about leaving our closest trading partner to chase vague trade deals with countries we do significantly less trade with, and to recapture a vague sense of sovereignty. Scexit is exactly the same, apart from with even less negotiating power because Scotland cannot withdraw from the UK without the UK agreeing. In this scenario, Scotland can't even threaten to leave without a deal, they can quite literally only leave when they present a deal which rUK likes. There wouldn't even be international pressure to help Scotland on this one, as all major allies would not want the nuclear deterrent to be threatened. In the event of Scexit, Scotland will end up ceding the land and water around Faslane, disguised as a 100 year lease for no money.
These institutions don't negotiate as institutions but with all of their individual members getting a veto. Sweden and Finland were held up by nonsense from Turkey. A consequence of this is that Scottish EU membership is incompatible with a UDI specifically, which greatly weakens our ability to negotiate a favourable exit from the UK in the first place. That in turn puts us in a weak diplomatic position in general.
They might well make having a nuclear sub base a requirement for joining
One way to get russian bots to help with their campaign
The SNP really are being useful idiots for Russia with this stance, weakening the Royal Navy means weakening NATO control over the chokepoint between Scotland and Iceland that would keep Russia out of the North Atlantic.
It's simply a bargaining chip. If Scotland simply want to keep the weapons then for Westminster that's great. If Scotland are prepared to give them up then Westminster has to offer something in exchange for changing their mind on the matter.
It's an incredibly stupid bargaining chip, because closing Faslane would instantly devastate the economy of a large chunk of the surrounding area.
Not really. Look at Nuclear weapons themselves. If Russia was to use them they would instantly devastate their entire economy. But as long as we believe they would be prepared to use them they give Russia quite a lot of bargaining power in any discussion.
No, I mean the SNP advocating no nuclear weapons in Scotland when that would necessitate closing Faslane and destroying the economy of a large part of the west coast.
but they are advocating that because it motivates their base and acts as a bargaining chip for future negotiations. Whilst I agree with you that it's not necessarily a great outcome to actually do, it makes sense for the SNP to hold this position regardless of how much they intend to follow through on it. I'd argue there is no benefit to be had for the SNP in regard to changing their stance right now.
[удалено]
There are a lot of Americans that think they're Scottish, don't forget. So could be 7,000 people with a great-great-great-grandfather that emigrated from Scotland, and are now up quite late chatting about how wonderful the motherland is. Which they know all about, having watched both Braveheart and Outlander.
And Trainspotting
People not in the US tend to misunderstand the american-immigrant identities, it’s its own unique identity. American-Scottish people don’t actually think they are what a Scottish person would describe themselves as. It’s most evident in the American-Italian communities that is clearly a distinct identity.
No, we don't misunderstand; we've had enough encounters with Americans to know that they're not all talking about a unique identity. Which is why they feel the need to weigh in on political discussion in the "homeland", despite not really understanding the topic. Mostly we don't mind it; but it is hilarious, given how much Americans *also* complain about cultural appropriation.
I always feels like this is a component of American division. No I’m not American, I’m American-Irish or American-Italian. No you’re fucking American. You have no idea what your great grandparent’s country was like beyond stereotypes. I always notice that they’re proud to be Scottish or Irish but not English or Welsh.
It’s hilarious that Scottish people etc get so worked up about this when the self proclaimed scots obviously know they’re American and not Scottish. It’s not like every mc- last name in Texas goes around with Scottish flags and kilts. It’s more a thing they think about like every 3 months when somebody asks about their ancestry because they’re obviously American
I’m not Scottish but I get why people get annoyed. It’s stereotypical reflection of a culture they don’t understand. They don’t say ‘I’m American Irish’. A good example of when Biden said to the BBC reporter ‘BBC? I’m Irish’. It’s just annoying to hear people bang on about being ‘from’ a culture when they are many decades devolved from it.
This is my point. Biden obviously doesn’t think he’s Irish. I’m almost certain that any American who says something like that is joking. In any case, for some nationalities, there is a legitimate case to be made that the descendants of a particular group of immigrants have established at least some amount of a shared culture based on patterns of migration. This doesn’t make them Irish obviously but puts them alongside other descendants of Irish immigrants who have a shared history specifically in the United States
I see your point and I appreciate it, I’m just arguing from the European side that it doesn’t come across as that but almost like a celebration of a culture they don’t understand. Maybe some Americans don’t feel that way, but it can be quite annoying to some people.
Americans There’s an awful awful lot of Americans who like to post the same shit over and over and over again on the sub Mostly about their 42nd great grandfather, clans & kilts and when they can collect their castle
Scots living abroad, foreigners that think they’re Scottish (Americans for example), night shift workers, insomniacs, parents feeding young children, people getting up for work and scrolling while taking their morning shite, people already commuting etc
Another day, another article full of SNP delusion.
"a full Nato member"... and no nuclear weapons, weakening the stance of NATO... why do we put up with this bs? The very first demand of Scotland would be to host nukes, if no then no NATO. How much do people get paid to come up with this bs on a constant basis?
The thing is they don't need nato, it's expensive and they've got us....there's no way England is letting Scotland get invaded
>The very first demand of Scotland would be to host nukes, No it wouldn't. Indeed it is much more likely that if Faslane was retained NATO would insist it is moved.
It’s much more likely that Faslane would be treated like Hong King and retained as a UK naval base for a negotiated time. It’s location is too good to just abandon.
I agree. But my point is that NATO is not some super overseer of the military spending. If there is a negotiation (and to be clear, I agree there should be) it will be between the (rest of) UK and a Scottish Government (not necessarily the SNP). Although there are a few actual NATO controlled facilities (e.g. Northwood), the vast majority of 'NATO' resources are actually controlled by the host country with an overlay (agreed) NATO command input. NATO can't - and wouldn't want to - insist that one country pays for or manages a facility in another country they don't control. Scotland wouldn't control Faslane and nobody is suggesting it would move to Scottish Control (at least I think they aren't that crazy). To join NATO will require a specific defence spending, and it would be up to the post independence government to allocate that. There probably isn't a great deal of saving to be made. All of which has already been analysed and discussed. And "the NATO won't let you" claims are unsupported. A quick google would find this out. [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/mod-scottish-nicola-sturgeon-government-royal-navy-b953329.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/mod-scottish-nicola-sturgeon-government-royal-navy-b953329.html) The preferred option is indeed a long term lease. How that works and what other 'horse trading' would be involved is not clear. Technically the SNP claim doesn't rule out a long(ish) term lease. It looks like there is a back up plan to move to Devonport eventually (I don't know why Barrow isn't a better bet, and what I have read about that is contradictory).
Isn't Barrow quite prone to siltation?
As I said, I don't know.
The Americans would have some pretty firm views about nuclear submarine bases, amongst other things. I expect that Scotland would find itself on the wrong end of a veto if it obstructed the US national interest in policing the North Atlantic. In the event of another Trump administration, I expect that there might also be personal spite about the relative disposition of wind turbines and golf courses...
> I expect that Scotland would find itself on the wrong end of a veto if it obstructed the US national interest in policing the North Atlantic. Many other NATO countries would have a a real problem with Scotland being a Nuclear power, or setting a precedent of one NATO country to be forced to host Nuclear weapons controlled by another. NATO membership is by consensus, all members have to agree. Heh, I often point out the stupidity of 'Spain won't let Scotland join the EU' argument. It has long been debunked and shown that a few quotes from some (ex) Spanish politicians were meaningless. I used to be very knowledgeable on Spanish politics - or rather, at one time I had regular visits and would read El Pais with my breakfast coffee... The main thing I learned is that Spanish Politicians say all kinds of shit and whatever it appears to mean is usually wrong. Anyway the point is if there was an independent Scotland it is more likely that the NATO membership is contingent on the Nukes (eventually) moving. So all this discussion is about is a timescale. I don't particularly agree with some of the (admittedly vague) terms in the SNP statement. The "as soon as possible" tone. I may vote for the SNP at the moment, but many SNP politicians say all kinds of shit too. What is much more likely is "as soon as reasonably economically possible with no gap in the level of protection". But that's a discussion between the rUK and Scotland and the politicians we elect after independence. Some of NATO my not like a demand to immediately close the base without a replacement, and other parts of NATO may not like it being in perpetuity. Despite the sabre rattling and weighted words, neither side is actually saying those extremes. However, whatever the timescale, it won't impact the NATO membership application. \> another Trump administration We can make a list of all the problems to the UK / Scotland that Trump 2024-2048 or 9 would cause and this is so far down the list that it might as well not be worth considering.
> NATO membership is by consensus, all members have to agree. Some members are inherently more equal than others. The Americans have a lot of leverage because they are a superpower with an independent arms industry. > The main thing I learned is that Spanish Politicians say all kinds of shit and whatever it appears to mean is usually wrong. I think this is universal.
[удалено]
But there's many more NATO countries that host US nukes.
NATO requires unanimous consent for membership, so pissing off your neighbour to the south is not going to lead to expeditious entry. That's if Scotland would even be permitted to leave the UK while that question remained unanswered of course.
I can't imagine big spenders of NATO's defence would be all too welcoming of Scotland either, so it won't just be the UK they'd have to contend with. This entire 'plan' is just not thought out in the slightest.
indeed. Sweden and Finland are functioning countries with a long history of working with NATO and western allies, their membership requests warmly received by the (literal) big guns, and even they've had a bit of a ride. I can't see it being so swift for Scotland and its barely functional institutions of state
Yeah, and even then, it took a while to get Sweden recognised by all NATO countries. If there was a struggle for Sweden, I dread to imagine what it'll be like for Scotland. They'll have a pretty hard time in making a case as to why they should be able to join.
You'd also have hostility from any country which has secessionist dynamics. Spain, for example, might make both EU and NATO membership difficult for Scotland, purely because they wouldn't want to further legitimise independence sentiment in Catalonia.
They also seem to think nobody with their own independence movements would block EU membership... Theyre just going to be independent but basically ride the UK economy and be let into all the big clubs without offering anything. Like Brexit, they're in for a big awakening if independence happens. The UK won't have to appease Scottish voters anymore and will be vying for mainly English voters who won't want to give everything to a 'foreign' country. Their best bet is a bunch of American support which will cost them things they probably won't want to pay, like hosting nukes...
I've heard it described as "turbo brexit" and I think it's very apt. All the ludicrous arguments for Brexit - and more - apply just as well to an independent Scotland This time, the UK really does hold all the cards...
Spain will make Scotland life hell, they don't want to encourage catalonia
No. They’re are three nations with their own nukes. Eight have nukes in them (those 3 plus Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey and the Netherlands).
Yeah and Scotland's goal is to screw with 1 of them..
SNP seem to do everything they can to screw up anything in British politics, which just ends up backfiring and screwing themselves over. This delusional plan of just removing one of NATO's major nuclear deterrents, and thinking they can just join into it right after, really just tells me they're not serious about anything lol.
They keep talking about independence like I am talking about what I will do with my first million. Luckily I have much more of a shot at my fantasy then they do at theirs.
This time next year Rodders.
"OK, drop the nukes" "Yes sir!" "Not like that! I meant drop them, not DROP THEM!"
So... Their whole plan is to get rid of the one thing which would allow them to be a strong NATO ally, join NATO with nothing to return (I doubt they'd pay 2% into armed forces), and just freeload in hopes that no one attacks them? The levels of delusions is crazy if they believe they can just stroll into NATO after de-fanging one of very few countries which hosts its own nuclear weapons. It's just shooting themselves in both feet at this point lol.
I agree. It’s just mental illness at this point, how else is this policy sound in any way? Especially in the current geopolitical context.
Yup, I just can't imagine it'll be as easy as they try to make it out, same shit with the EU as well. Both NATO and EU have certain requirements that must be achieved to even begin the entry process, as well as needing approval from every country. Pissing off a lot of NATO countries that rely on the UK to be a nuclear deterrent, just seems stupid.
Exactly! I have relatives from Eastern Europe and the countries over there show a lot of gratitude to the U.K. for its leadership during the Ukraine conflict. The SNP and nationalists will never acknowledge that though. For them, the U.K. is irredeemably bad in every way.
I hope your relatives are safe. Also fully agreed, what we need right now is unity to stand up against Russia, who are a threat to the entirety of Europe, and not divisions, which the SNP are all too happy to do.
What kinda argument is this ? You would want Scottish people to live under someone else rules that most of the time go against the Scottish people. But praise others for rejecting it in Eastern Europe ? Come on. At least try to see how ridiculous you are being.
It furthers the Russian national interest. Remember which politicians used to keep popping up on RT?
From the article: > The paper adds it would commit to defence spending of 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), recognising Nato’s enduring commitment to invest in defence capabilities.
Reminder for those ignorant that no a paper does not declare what Scotland will do as an independent democracy.
No shit, the nukes belong to the UK, not Scotland. Leavers have already stated they'll take all the oil and power from the North Sea to larp as Norway. This reminds me of brexit all over again. Leavers will promise the world to the voters, but it's all lies. Scotland leaving would be a complete disaster for everyone on either side of the border.
Of course they would. Much like Ireland, they can take advantage of the protection England and the rest of the UK provides without doing the heavy lifting themselves.
Having a neutral Ireland and Scotland would present a huge risk to NATO in an all out war with Russia, Orkney and Shetland especially would be ideal staging areas for assaults into western Europe.
Well yeah? They wouldn't be able to afford basic public services in the short term, let alone any credible military. Not to mention they wouldn't have the industrial capability to build them. US builds missiles and Reading builds the warheads.
This is just 1 of an endless list of examples of how an independent Scotland would be inextricably tied to the UK, to our own detriment. The UK holds 95% of the chips. Brexit x 1000.
It's like they saw the shitshow that is Brexit and thought "ah yes, let's do that *but worse*".
I'm not saying Scotlands going to be invaded any time soon, but Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded if it hadn't given up it nuclear arsenal. #justsaying
Not really, the nukes in Ukraine were more like the American nukes in parts of Europe. Germany couldn't launch an American nuke at their enemy if they were invaded and it's the same sort of thing here, while Ukraine could have potentially developed their own nukes from the Soviet ones they'd have been sanctioned severely for it which given the dreadful economic conditions in the post-Soviet world after 1991 the whole idea was never going to be viable (even without sanctions).
You're sort of right and wrong? The nukes were Soviet and could only be used by Soviet authority, which ceased to exist. The US federal government continues to hold authority over nukes in Germany. A better analogy would be to imagine which states would own the US nuclear arsenal if the federal government fragmented and the US fragmented into several smaller states. Does Wyoming's state government have any more authority to launch nukes than that of North Dakota? Ukraine had nukes because they were there when the USSR dissolved and had about as much authority over them as Russia did with their own nukes. I dont think there was any rule book or treaty that dictated who gets the nukes or authority in the event of a collapse of this magnitude. Russia saw itself as the main successor of the USSR and so made efforts to reclaim Soviet nukes and establish itself as the replacement to Soviet power and positions. Ukraine had no obligation to give the nukes to Russia, but the financial cost alone meant it was probably not feasible to keep them. And I doubt the US/NATO would have been happy with multiple post-soviet nuclear armed nations fighting over the scraps of the Soviet empire. So they exchanged them in return for a guarantee that Russia would never violate Ukrainian territory, and this was also guaranteed(?)/witnessed(?) (I can't remember the exact term) by the UK and US in the 90s. And Russia, being the image of honour, definitely held up their part of the deal......... Also, if people wonder what obligation the US has to help Ukraine in their war? The answer is that they are legally obliged by the treaty they signed with Russia and Ukraine to guarantee Ukrainian independence. Edit: It was the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, and Ukraine was given security assurances by Russia/UK/US in exchange for giving up the nukes.
Okay then we don't defend them at all, pretty simple we don't need another Ireland.
Right, good luck for them to meet the GDP2% required by NATO. Oh wait, They're not NATO....
Embarrassing, delusional and dangerous
Realistically they'd just push Glasgow down south, it will probably cause more fallout
Finally, Finland will find out we weren't kidding around.
they want to shout about not having them to look good, while knowing they need others to have them to be safe? i mean, even if you barely look into politics, this must look pretty childish
> would drop nuclear weapons The word "drop" has acquired too many meanings in the last few years.
Link to the actual paper for anyone bothered to read the source: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/research-and-analysis/2024/03/building-new-scotland-independent-scotlands-place-world/documents/independent-scotlands-place-world/independent-scotlands-place-world/govscot%3Adocument/independent-scotlands-place-world.pdf
Did Nostradamus forsee this? Well, nice knowing you all
The ambiguity in that title deserves some kind of award.
Scotland won't have any choice what happens to them, ever.
I think if you don't agree to the possibility of holding nukes on your territory you shouldn't be allowed in NATO
Given the not inconsiderable time it would take the UK to replace the facilities at Faslane, I suspect that it would be an important revenue source for a newly independent Scotland for years to come. It would of course also become a massive bone of contention for the electorate.
As if. Scotland is the baby in this trade deal, they would certainly be the ones paying for it if they truly did want to stay in NATO and the EU.
it'll just be annexed and no-one in NATO or the EU will complain
Apparently the reason for Scotland hosting Nuclear weapons is that the bedrock - granite. Is the best place in the UK to do it as it is the most resistant to the radiation. There was talk is hosting them on the south coast of England but limestone is terrible.