Search this Topic:
Aug 14 14 3:56 PM
Aug 14 14 5:07 PM
Aug 14 14 5:25 PM
Aug 20 14 3:39 PM
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, June 25, 2014 (photo: NATO)
An independent Scotland would have to apply to Nato as a new state, secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said.
In an interview published in the Times, Mr Rasmussen is
quoted saying Scotland's membership would have to be approved by the
other member states.
The Scottish government said membership was "in the strong
interests of the rest of the alliance".Pro-Union campaigners claimed the
SNP's plan to join Nato "isn't credible" if it removes Trident nuclear weapons.
"I am not going to interfere at all with a campaign leading
up to the referendum in Scotland, but I can inform you about procedures
and the facts," Mr Rasmussen told The Times.
"In [the] case that Scotland voted in favour of independence then Scotland would have to apply for membership of Nato as a new independent state."
"A decision on accession would have to be taken by unanimity, by consensus as always in Nato."
He added: "Some aspiring countries have waited for many years. Others enjoy a very short procedure depending on how close they are to fulfilling the necessary criteria."
Dec 18 16 7:49 AM
Scotland will publish proposals this
week for how it can remain in the European single market after Britain
leaves the European Union in order to avoid the "national disaster" of a
"hard Brexit", the Scottish government said on Sunday.
Prime Minister Theresa May has said she will trigger Article 50 of the
Lisbon Treaty, the formal process of leaving the EU, by the end of March
to kick off two years of exit talks.
her plans for those negotiations have been shrouded in secrecy and
businesses and investors fear Britain might seek a "hard Brexit" where
controlling immigration takes priority over access to the European
Mar 15 17 12:25 PM
Mar 15 17 1:19 PM
Mar 15 17 3:56 PM
Mar 15 17 4:12 PM
IcelofAngeln wrote:The Nats are also blithely assuming the EU would let them in: not sure Brussels wants another Greece.
Mar 15 17 4:53 PM
Mar 15 17 5:48 PM
If Cameron hadn't blundered in last time and said we couldn't have devo- max Ref #2 wouldn't be in site. It would all have been done and dusted the first time with I honestly believe devo-max being an easy winner and if the Scottish people wanted the compromise (devo-max0 then it was our right to have that as an option.
The trouble is we know that being 1/10th of the English population in a UK vote on any subject we are far to often going to be walked over, simply on the basis of numbers, if Scotland & England have different opinions, the E.U. vote being a perfect example. The trouble is when the Yes vote is 40% plus, those that want it wont let go regardless oif how many referendums and it will always be on the burner
Mar 15 17 7:13 PM
Mar 16 17 1:04 AM
Mar 16 17 2:17 AM
Mar 16 17 10:33 AM
Mar 16 17 12:14 PM
Mar 16 17 12:26 PM
Zen9 wrote:It should be born in mind that the English have not been asked if they want to be in a Union with Scotland.
The more the Scots get asked, the stronger the resentment about that.
I'd we were asked. ......my suspicion is the UK would be over and done.
Mar 16 17 12:45 PM
HMS Pinafore wrote:'Devo Max' was never a serious realistic option!
Devolution Max was essentially Scotland pretending to be an independent country, but remaining part of the UK with Westminster providing all the vital functions of government.
As a result they wanted a situation where you theoretically had two indpendent soverign nations sharing the same currency, armed forces, most of government, energy, media, all the quangoes etc. The SNP also wanted to 'pool' resources and debts (essentially continuing the practice of running an annual 9%+ deficit with Westminster picking up the bill). This of course would be impossible in practice - hence why it was squashed right from the start.
Indy 2 was always going to happen because the SNP will never accept a referendum result in which they lose. Should they lose an Indy 2 vote, then they will start the Indy 3 campaign the very next day (using the 2020 General Election result as the excuse). Should they then lose the Indy 3 vote, they will start campaigning for Indy 4 and so on
As we are now well into 'Neverendum' territory we should plan accordingly:1) Stop all investment in military bases north of the border (since we might lose them).2) Plan to move all the subs down from Faslane to Devenport (funded by the cancellation of the base upgrades up north).3) Retain the MCMVs at Faslane (or move them to the superior facilities at Roysth and shut down Faslane - saving everybody lots of money). 4) Amend the national Shipbuilding Strategy so that final fabrication remains within the UK. The Clyde should still be able to bid to build components (so long as its in the UK), but final assembly moves to Portsmouth. This should be done before construction of the Type 26 & 31 commences.
Mar 16 17 12:53 PM
Mar 16 17 12:59 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.