By Stephen Phillips

SWEDEN and Finland’s rush to join Nato highlights one of Vladimir Putin’s key miscalculations around his decision to invade Ukraine. If Finland’s application is accepted – and most Nato members have expressed their approval – its 800-mile border will become the alliance’s longest boundary with Russia, more than doubling the length of the European front line.

The Swedish and Finnish accession towards Nato is also putting a renewed focus on Scotland’s future position within the organisation in the event of Scottish independence.

Scottish membership of Nato was a pledge made by Alex Salmond at the 2014 independence referendum. During that campaign, there were differing views of how Nato members would react to a Scottish application to re-join the organisation. Dame Mariot Leslie, a former UK Permanent Representative to Nato who publicly revealed she supported Scottish independence, claimed the international alliance would welcome an independent Scottish state, although a few commentators disagreed.

Last month Nicola Sturgeon reaffirmed the SNP position that an independent Scotland would be committed to rejoining Nato, reflecting wider Scottish public support of retaining membership to the organisation.

As we heard in the 2014 independence referendum campaign, the SNP leadership seems keen to continue promoting its view that fellow member states would benefit from having Scotland within the alliance. Nato’s declared willingness to attract new members in the aftermath of Russian aggression, including Ireland, which has been told it would be welcome to join, would appear to give some substance to such claims. Scotland also remains strategically important for Nato as it forms part of the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap that is essential for countering Russian nuclear submarine activity.

There is however a key stumbling block which could impact on negotiations on an independent Scotland re-entering Nato, namely the fact that both the SNP and its partners in the Government, the Scottish Green Party, are opposed to retaining Trident nuclear submarines north of the Border.

While Nato operates with a nuclear umbrella, it does not mean that all its members need to agree to base nuclear weapons on their soil. Indeed, Finland has made clear that it would not host nuclear weapons as part of its membership within the alliance.

But the position for Scotland may be more complicated. Trident is currently sited in a strategically important location in terms of global security and it would inevitably cause major disruption if it had to be moved elsewhere soon after independence.

Any decisions on nuclear weapons would, of course, be a matter for an independent Scottish parliament where the political dynamic and the public view would determine the course of events. It’s interesting to note that current polling on this issue shows that a majority of Scots do not support the immediate removal of Trident.

Should Scotland vote for independence, the issues of Nato membership and Trident are likely to be inextricably linked. While keen to expand membership, it is possible that Nato would seek some form of compromise over Trident as part of the terms in admitting an independent Scotland into the alliance.

Stephen Phillips is a partner and member of the Independence Advisory Group at law firm CMS