SNP’s NATO stance raises questions and concerns

Today the SNP debate whether to drop their historic opposition to NATO membership. They want credit for this, but they deserve scrutiny.

Their membership of the historic Alliance, which has been at the cornerstone of UK national security for 60 years, is predicated on three factors: that they inherit NATO treaty obligations; remove Trident from Scotland; and that they only take part in UN sanctioned operations.

The first is, like much of SNP defence policy, presumption only. There is no precedent for succession of this kind and no discussions have been had, either with the MoD or NATO, about what a separate Scotland would inherit or not. It is likely, however, that, as we have seen only today with a senior Spanish official saying Scotland would not have automatic membership of the European Union and would need to go through the official accession process, Scotland would not have automatic NATO membership.

The second red line for the SNP is equally troublesome. They want at once to join a nuclear alliance while retaining a unilateralist stance. They want nuclear security without responsibility, it seems. The NATO strategic Concept is clear that NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. It states that ‘deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy… The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance’. While other NATO members do not have nuclear weapons, they have not held up an anti-nuclear stance as being a prerequisite for membership.

Should the SNP pursue this line of argument, which they appear wedded to, there are major industrial implications of relocating Trident which have not been considered, and this could also impact on Scotland’s international relations, not least those with the United States.

Finally, the SNP’s policy is confused and contradictory.  While the SNP would want to opt out of operations which are not UN sanctioned, NATO makes clear that a requirement for membership is that countries have ‘the ability and willingness to make a military contribution NATO operations’. Angus Robertson’s red line raises big questions about whether the SNP stance would allow an independent Scotland to meet the conditions for membership since NATO has acted without UN sanction in the past, notably on Operation “Allied Force” in Kosovo, where NATO action saved the lives of thousands of innocent Muslims, and Operation Active Endeavour, the first operation launched under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, invoked after the 9/11 attacks.

If NATO had had this approach in the past then an independent Scotland may not have played a part in the international community’s response to terrorist atrocities or ending the slaughter of innocents. Remember that Alex Salmond called NATO action in the Balkans “unpardonable folly”.  Given the SNP opposed the conflict in Kosovo and the fact that all NATO decisions rely on consensus, it is not clear whether the Alliance would have been able to act at all had a Salmon-run Scotland been a member.

These issues are a few among many of a confused SNP defence policy.  They claim that they will equip and defence Scotland on less than a tenth of the defence budget from which Scotland currently benefits.  They cannot tell us how many planes, ships or tanks they may require, have no timeline for operational readiness and do not know whether a future equipment programme will be manufactured within Scottish borders or bought off the shelf from overseas.  The SNP claim that a separate Scotland would inherit its share of “current assets”, but this is assumption rather than assessment since no talks have taken place and they can give us no detail. Without this, how can we believe their costings let alone any claims to have a credible plan?

The international community will find it bizarre if not self-defeating that the SNP’s major shift in defence policy is to join a military alliance and embrace the benefits of collective power while at the same time leaving the UK which makes Scotland part of Europe’s fourth largest military budget, with reach and influence others crave.  Uncertainty over the ability of a Scottish Defence Force as well as unrealistic red lines will make important allies question whether a separate Scotland could, or has the intention to, play its part in the world.

If the SNP wanted to gain credibility on defence in Perth they would stop posturing. There is only one policy change they could implement, but that is the one option they will not choose.