Banner

By Alex Robertson
 
The Unionist press is working itself into a lather over the intention of The SNP to take another look at the policy regarding membership of NATO.
 
Set up in 1949 after the Second World War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has seen Europe through the dark days of the Cold War but now it is as much in need of reform as The EU and other European Organisations.

It accounts for some 70 percent of the world defence expenditure, and around a third of its expenditure is European, the rest being from the USA.

The question of whether it is fit for purpose begs the core question of what its purpose is these days. It seems as if, for the Scottish media it has become a totem, some sort of icon, either of all things good or of all things bad. Much is made of the fact that three of its members possess nuclear weapons, although the vast majority do not, like Germany or Norway, for example.

But in trying to make sense of the debate, it is essential to try to get the basic facts right. First of all it is not a question of whether an independent Scotland would join NATO – it is already a member and would continue to be so under the terms of the Vienna Convention as a successor state. So the question is whether an independent Scotland would withdraw from NATO. That is an entirely different question and calls into play all sorts of other considerations.

One of the key things about NATO is that it binds Europe and the USA together, and that is important for all sorts of reasons. Secondly, it does provide some sort of collective security under its famous Article 5 which ensures the ‘all for one’ principle, although that proved less than totally solid as a commitment when it came to the Falklands war. Thirdly, although its original purpose was to tie the US into European security in the Cold War, now that the USSR no longer exists, and neither does the Warsaw Pact, so what is the focus nowadays?

Much of the attention that has been paid to the issue in the media concentrates on the military aspects. But NATO has always been, and remains a political organisation. By no means democratic, it is still accountable in member state parliaments and media. And in a world where the superpower membership list has changed, with Europe currently not being one of them, the security risks have also changed. Cyber crime and terrorism now represent the greatest risks.

A further factor in the equation is the role of defence in the EU. The political tectonic plates are shifting in Europe and there is a lot more to come. Over the decades, the idea of a European Defence Force has been raised and set aside several times. But one of the main options facing the EU is a far tighter cohesion and governance, like fiscal policy as well as economic regulation. Who is willing to bet that sooner or later the European Defence Force idea won’t arise again?

So in light of all that, does it make sense for an independent Scotland to pull out of NATO, and thereby lose its voice at the very time when the defence of Europe is being settled for the next 50 years?

There are merits on either side of the question, and it is perfectly proper that it should be discussed and debated calmly and rationally, and it can do without the noisy ignorant posturing of a Unionist media out to score silly party points. Nor should it distract from the main event, which is the referendum on independence. That may be the Unionist intention, but we must all turn our backs firmly against such temptations.

Of course, whether or not an independent Scotland does pull out of NATO will be a matter for the democratically elected government in parliament after the election in 2016. That may or may not be an SNP government, but the current debate has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and nothing to do either with what the SNP decide is their policy.

What is certain is that there will have to be a Strategic Security and Defence Review by whatever government is in power after independence. That will be the time to consider whether Scotland wants to pull out of NATO or not. And part of that answer will be what NATO has to offer against cyber crime and terrorism.

Just bear in mind, I suggest, that that decision will be as much if not more about political matters than military ones.

Comments  

 
# Macart 2012-08-07 08:07
The answer to that question depends as you say Mr Robertson, on NATO itself. NATO as a concept (that of mutual support and defence) is not in itself a bad idea. NATO used as a tool for aggression or to manufacture geopolitical outcomes is a corruption of that concept.

The organisation itself isn't the problem, but the attitudes of certain member states could do with a re-tune. NATO working in concert WITH the UN and in full compliance with international law is the ideal. The larger powers losing the weapons of mass destruction and re-tasking their military for the 21st century would be even better.

I would say staying part of an alliance committed to those changes would be a good thing, otherwise partners for peace and cooperation on a case by case scenario would be a better bet.

But more than likely what they call 'real politik' will intervene.
 
 
# UpSpake 2012-08-07 08:28
Scotland, whether it likes it or not, and due to the changing conditions in the Arctic, whereby the sea ice is melting and opening up hitherto inaccessible sea routes, is now a strategic country as far as NATO is concerened.
What an independent Scotland chooses to do as regards membership or otherwise of NATO, matters.
 
 
# Davy 2012-08-07 09:35
To know that Scotland was to remain within Nato after independence would be a powerful incentive for undecided voters to vote "Yes" in 2014.

The idea that we could remove nuclear weapons from our country and still remain part of the worlds largest defence force would be a win, win situation for a lot of people.

When debating this situation we have to remember that the vast majority of people in this country have grown up knowing they are in NATO and may like the security they feel comes with that, and if we then say that come independence we are out of Nato without so much as a 'by your leave', then the consquences could be costly to the independence campaign.

My preference is to get Nuclear weapons out of my country but to remain within Nato.
 
 
# Macart 2012-08-07 10:05
And I suspect Davy that you have hit on the probable real world outcome/compromise right there. However that is going to be a hard sell to the anti NATO camp. Its also a compromise that has to be sold to certain other NATO partners as well.
 
 
# Davy 2012-08-07 11:59
Quoting Macart:
And I suspect Davy that you have hit on the probable real world outcome/compromise right there. However that is going to be a hard sell to the anti NATO camp. Its also a compromise that has to be sold to certain other NATO partners as well.


Well 'Macart', the way I see it, is our SNP Scottish Government have show us the way with their behaviour in government over the last five years. They have show a willingness to compromise with other political parties even under the most difficult of circumstances, if it means Scotland will be better for it. And Scotland has show their approval for this with that outstanding election result in May 2011.

So if our SNP government can do it, then its up to our SNP party to show the same vision. Scotland First, party second, always.Vote YES 2014.
 
 
# Macart 2012-08-07 12:23
Goes withoot sayin' Davy. :)
 
 
# sneckedagain 2012-08-07 13:01
In my fifty plus years of working for independence I have never been asked about NATO.
In so far as people understand it or think about it at all most of them vaguely think NATO is a good idea.
That is the political reality we must factor in.
I agree that cooperative defence arrangements are indeed a very good idea but I have no time whatsover for NATO because of what it has become.
Which is where the dilemna comes in.
An independent Scotland will have to decide what it does about NATO membership.
Scotland has to be independent first. By suggesting we remain in NATO will we improve our chances of winning the independence referendum?
Quite probably.
What it will do is completely take the wind out of the sails of our opponents who were having some success suggesting we would be unable to defend ourselves if we were independent - and I would suggest that is part of the reason why our leaders have proposed this position.
Another may be to keep US onside.

But it is also the case that once we are independent this decision will be one for the first independent Scottish Goverment who might well decide we don't want to be part of NATO.
We will then be able to make that choice. We can't at the moment.

It's a bit of a case of political principle versus political pragmatism.

If we were to have an absolute guarantee we would remove nuclear weapons and we would have nothing to do with invasions I might be inclined to vote for NATO.
I remain to be convinced however
 
 
# Davy 2012-08-07 13:36
Its a start.
 
 
# Magua 2012-08-07 16:45
I refer to a previous comment I made on 22/7/12 re- the "SNP NATO policy in tune with Scots" - hope you can find it! I said in this post - IF Angus Robertson MP is right that an independent Scotland would be deemed a "successor-state" AND that NATO membership is a foregone conclusion - just like the EU - an SNP Government would be duty-bound to "secede" from membership, given their long-standing opposition to WMD's. If not, this would mean that, as an established member, Scotland would HAVE TO maintain any WMD's remaining in their domain. Alarm bells are already ringing, with words like "update", "real-politik" and "modernisation" rearing their ugly heads. Is it just me, or does anyone else - like the SNP Youth - detect a "NEW" syndrome. Incidentally, how ARE Bliar and the "Scottish Pimpernel" doing?
 
 
# velofello 2012-08-07 17:38
sneckedagain: You've said it for me.
 
 
# Aplinal 2012-08-09 17:38
I have been away for the last three weeks and this is all news to me. IF (and it seems there is still an issue about the 'if') the SNP are proposing to remain in NATO, then this WILL impact on my continued support for the party. I remain a fervent Independence supporter, and that will never change. But I am implicitly anti-nuclear/WMD and supported the SNP position on that. I would be extremely disappointed if they choose to play "realpolitik" with the issue in the lead up to the independence referendum.

It seems that the SNP are "conceding" rather too much on the back of poll indications about voters' intentions. If you can not win the argument on a policy and stick with it - it's time to concede the vote!

STAND up to principles, SNP!
 
 
# Magua 2012-08-19 20:55
Re: "sneckedagain" and "pictic-1"
"sneckedagain": first, you are right: NATO can't tell "independent" countries what to do, unless, of course, they invade them! They can, however, dictate to "member-states" what they CAN and CANNOT do re-NATO defence policy.
Like any club, NATO members forego the right to act "independently" or "do as they please" - so, either they sign-up and abide by "The Rules",OR they don't join! But, what really puzzles me is - IF the SNP's no-WMD policy is sacrosanct, WHY NOW,is Angus Robertson MP, SO intent on declaring that an independent Scotland would already be deemed "an established member of NATO" when "The Rules" governing this are clear - ESTABLISHED MEMBERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM DISARMING UNILATERALLY? But, is this "Defence Alliance" - which has gained a deserved reputation for pre-emptive aggression - anything an independent Scotland would wish to have ANY dealings with?
Suspicions are already growing that this "debate" is a pre-cursor to a later, fundamental change of policy that would allow a future, independent SNP Government, to claim it was "obligated" by a mandate from the Scottish people to remain within NATO at ANY cost - including the maintenance of WMD's in Scotland! So, if that is NOT the case, why ARE Angus Robertson MP and friends trying to "repair" a policy that "ain't broke"?
As ALEX Robertson hinted, this may be a calculated ploy to calm the nerves of the "undecided ponies" in the referendum campaign - but,in the process, it could cause a stampede of loyal work-horses "spooked" by a "NEW" SNP regime!
And, re "pictic-1", I'm afraid you're wrong - at least according to Angus Robertson MP, who maintains that an independent Scotland and the rump of the UK would be deemed "successor states" a la EU membership. The REAL paradox is that an independent Scotland doesn't want WMD's (unless there IS a change of policy) while "Engerlund" and the rest do. Go figure!
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Banner
Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Latest Comments