We need clarity about Scotland's position, on becoming independent, in relation to the numerous international treaties to which the UK is a party.
The EU and Nato treaties are presently the main focus, and the position regarding Nato membership (and by implication Trident) will be debated at the SNP conference next week.
It has been suggested an independent Scotland would simply continue to be a member of Nato, ie in some way "inherit" membership. That cannot be so.
According to Dr Stephen Neff, an expert on international law at Edinburgh University, the general position is that Scotland would cease to be a party to the UK's treaties. The rest of the UK (RUK), the larger part, would continue as a member. There is precedent for that. Dr Neff's view is entirely in line with that of many other experts, being in accord with the provisions of the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties.
There are no provisions in the Nato Treaty nor any special elements of international law which conflict with the principles of the 1978 Convention and which would allow Scotland to continue as a member or "inherit" membership of Nato. Scotland would simply cease to be a member.
As a non-member of Nato it is surely easier to insist on the neutralisation and removal of Trident (as well as easier to negotiate satisfactory membership terms if membership of Nato is wanted). Indeed Scotland would not be allowed, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, to have Trident within its territory or territorial waters, and in any way under its control. For Trident to remain, it would have to be under the control and ownership of RUK (or even the US) and under the terms of a new agreement. That would be a huge limitation of sovereignty.
It must be premature for the SNP to pre-empt in any way a decision about joining Nato now, when the possible terms of its membership of Nato are unknown, and certainly premature in advance of any agreement about removal of Trident.
Duncan Clark,
2/9 Western Harbour Place, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article