Finland’s NATO debate is probably one of Scotland’s confrontations
Events in Ukraine have launched a debate in many countries on NATO membership, with Russia already threatening peace in the Baltic region. First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeonhas expressed its intention to hold a referendum on Scottish independence by the end of 2023. If he is serious about holding a referendum by then, Scotland must carefully consider joining NATO over the next year.
Tensions in Ukraine have raised the question of whether NATO membership is vital to Putin’s defense against Russia. If Putin threatens to merge into the Russian Federation those nations that were once not only part of the Soviet Union but also part of the former Russian Empire, then Finland has a right to be concerned. Putin himself has instigated the NATO issue by demanding a ban on Ukraine’s accession just before his attack.
As the Helsinki Times pointed out last week meeting of Finnish and Swedish decision-makers, many expect Finland ‘s NATO accession process to take place quickly. It is clear that Finland is beginning to see the benefits of the NATO Alliance, especially in Article 5. Article 5, known as the commitment clause, would require a joint response from the member states if they were attacked by Finland’s eastern neighbor. An answer that is not guaranteed even from other Nordic countries.
Scotland is likely to face a similar debate about its future, especially within the SNP, as it is the largest party and has a changed attitude towards NATO membership in the past. The position of the Scottish Greens in Scotland, which is now in line with the SNP, makes it even more difficult because they have a strongly negative view of NATO.
Due to the violence in Ukraine, the issue is urgent. All the more so given the worrying claim by the British Secretary of Defense that Russia has in the past sought to influence the debate over Scottish independence. The reasons for this are impossible to know for sure. It can be assumed that Putin is seeking to instill a general sense of political instability, as he has done in several other countries.
Perhaps Putin is following the same argument as opponents of Scottish independence that it would undermine British security by jeopardizing Trident, Britain’s nuclear program. The Scottish National Party has always been in favor of removing Trident from Scotland, where it is currently based. Over the years, the estimated cost of relocating it has been eye-catching, leading some to speculate that it is likely to be abolished when Scotland becomes independent.
This would likely pose a huge problem for NATO, as the triangle is one of the organization’s strongest assets. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed this in a televised interview with the BBC. He said: “Part of the UK’s contribution to NATO is, of course, the UK’s nuclear weapons – the nuclear deterrent – which contributes to NATO’s overall nuclear deterrent effect, which is important to NATO.”
The argument about the transfer of Trident is unnecessary. Estimated figures for the cost of relocating Trident have always varied, but if the UK believes that nuclear deterrence is vital, all the costs would be worth considering. Furthermore, while Stoltenberg’s statement may suggest to some that the abolition of nuclear power may affect Scotland’s position in the event of independence from NATO, the complete removal of Scotland from Trident should not affect its ability to join NATO. Iceland has been a member for a long time and does not even have any kind of permanent army.
Like Finland, Scotland must consider new options for the future of its defense in the form of NATO membership. Russia’s involvement in the independence debate is very worrying, but it should not be a reason why we are not holding a democratic referendum or even influencing how we vote in it. We must work proactively to address security concerns so that Putin does not achieve one of his ultimate goals, which is to suppress democracy.
Factor: Tony Heron
This is the opinion view “View”. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of The Helsinki Times. This column has not been revised and HT is not responsible for any inaccurate or misleading statements in this article.