N ato is conducting joint exercises off the Scottish coast.

They come just after the trip by Alex Salmond to America and his lecture to the Brookings Institute think tank, where he said Scotland's international partnerships would remain unchanged under independence: alliances with the US and other states would endure, while Scotland would become an independent member of organisations from the European Union and the UN to Nato.

Nato is right not to publicly signal Scotland would simply join the alliance, not least because it would undermine the UK – a key member.

Yet neither is this an indication Scotland would have trouble being admitted to Nato if there is a Yes vote.

Nato provides security which Scotland could not attain on its own. Membership would have the added effect of plugging Scotland into international security networks.

Scotland could exist without Nato – there is no immediate territorial threat – but it would be more costly and would make it far harder for Scotland to integrate with its key partners, not least the rest of the UK (RUK).

Integration is important in terms of future defence-sharing with RUK, as it is for its future relationships with Scandinavia. And as there are incentives for Scotland to join Nato so, too, are there significant reasons why Nato would want Scotland to be a member, not least Scotland's geostrategic position.

As Scotland sits in the middle of the North Atlantic it would be odd if it weren't welcomed into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. This area is increasingly important globally. We should also not undervalue the importance of existing Nato infrastructure in Scotland which Nato will want to maintain.

Perhaps, more important, is Scotland's ability to fill gaps in the existing security framework. Such a gap in the Atlantic has been exacerbated by the MoD prioritising Iraq and Afghanistan at the cost of a proper readiness for sea operations in the Atlantic.

The decommissioning of the Nimrod and cancellation of its replacement has left a hole in surveillance in the region. Scotland could, and should, plug this gap in the event of independence. Indeed, at present Nato does this surveillance using aircraft from Leuchars and Lossiemouth.

It would be highly attractive for Nato to retain these assets. A proper negotiation between Scotland and RUK could lead to Scotland filling an important function, which focuses north instead of south. The SNP position, that an independent Scottish state will ban nuclear weapons from Scottish territory, reflects the mood of the Scottish public in regard to nuclear weapons.

But Scotland being nuclear-free is unlikely to be a serious impediment to Nato membership. Norway and Denmark have also banned nuclear weapons and both are important members of the alliance – fulfilling key tasks in Afghanistan and Libya.

Scotland's refusal to host nuclear weapons on its territory – as long as it acts responsibly over the concerns of RUK – will be balanced by what it can offer elsewhere. In light of changing geopolitical interests, Scotland would be a good bet for Nato.