NATO Status May Be Out of Reach for a Nuclear-Free Scotland

Global Security Newswire Staff
See more stories about...
Global Security Newswire Staff
Aug. 15, 2013, 10:02 a.m.

The abil­ity of an in­de­pend­ent Scot­land to join NATO was thrown in­to doubt when top al­li­ance of­fi­cials told a Scot­tish del­eg­a­tion that no coun­try could achieve mem­ber­ship if  there were any un­re­solved mil­it­ary or ter­rit­ori­al dis­putes with an­oth­er NATO na­tion, the Lon­don Guard­i­an re­por­ted.

A team of Scot­tish civil ser­vants last month traveled to NATO headquar­ters in Brus­sels to broach the sub­ject of Scot­land join­ing NATO if its voters choose to leave the United King­dom in a ref­er­en­dum next year. The team ar­gued that an in­de­pend­ent Scot­land should be giv­en pref­er­en­tial treat­ment, as the new coun­try would have pre­vi­ously been a mem­ber of a found­ing mem­ber of NATO, the United King­dom, the news­pa­per re­por­ted.

Art­icle 10 of the NATO treaty stip­u­lates that a na­tion seek­ing ad­mit­tance to the group must demon­strate a his­tory of stable de­fense policies and struc­tures, as well as the un­der­stand­ing that every na­tion in the group must ac­cept a nuc­le­ar first-strike policy, ac­cord­ing to the Guard­i­an.

The main obstacle to Scot­land’s join­ing NATO arises out of its rul­ing party’s de­sire to re­move nuc­le­ar war­heads from Tri­dent D-5 mis­siles de­ployed on sub­mar­ines por­ted at the Roy­al Nav­al Base Clyde.

The Scot­tish Na­tion­al Party in March ap­proved a stip­u­la­tion for Scot­land’s con­sti­tu­tion that the “hous­ing, basing and pos­ses­sion” of nuc­le­ar arms would be banned. That led to U.K. de­bate last month over the idea of de­clar­ing the Tri­dent nuc­le­ar sub­mar­ine base sov­er­eign ter­rit­ory, should Scot­tish voters de­cide to be­come in­de­pend­ent of Lon­don.

An in­de­pend­ent study re­leased in June con­cluded that Scot­land would most likely have to choose between the re­mov­al of Brit­ish nuc­le­ar weapons or NATO mem­ber­ship.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
30 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×