PDA

View Full Version : Scottish Independence


Ken Scott
3rd Dec 2006, 16:08
If the latest polls are to be believed, a majority of the Scots want independence (52%) & a majority of the English (58%) want them to be independent. If, as seems possible, the Union will breal up, then the repercussions for the 3 services are enormous. I recall the SNP issuing a list many years ago of the regiments, tanks, ships & aircraft that Scotland should have upon independence, which probably now exceeds the total that still exists! The division of the material assets would not be the problem, although as the mostly Scottish cabinet left to go back North they would possibly take with them more than their fair share! The real issue would be the people.

We all have the right of abode in member countries of the EU, so no mass ethnic cleansing should arise in either country (for simplicity I've not added in Wales or NI to this thread). But presumeably only citizens of the countries will be able to serve in that countrie's armed forces. The Scottish army regiments shouldn't cause too much bother, as I guess they're pretty much wholly Scottish. But what about for example all the Scots in the RAF, RM & RN? Are you all going to go back? You wouldn't be eligible to serve in the English forces, likewise those from south of the border at Lossie, Kinloss, Leuchars, Faslane etc. While the Scottish would obviously get some F3s, Frigates, Nimrods etc, will there be enough trained people to round up & send back to man them? Whilst we're sorting out our forces & moving people ariund, willingly or otherwise, how effective & capable will be the 3 services, in both countries?

vecvechookattack
3rd Dec 2006, 16:13
While the Scottish would obviously get some F3s, Frigates, Nimrods etcNo, no no......The jocks would get a couple of Canberra's and 3 Type 42 destroyers.... thats the lot.

When Scotland is awarded independance it will relinquish any form of Armed Force......it just won't have one..and any jock wanting to serve in the English army will be welcome...in much the same was as the British Army welcomes other commonwealth nationals.


However, in all seriousness I think it will be a long time before we see an independant Scotland. Remember that Sinn fein influenced the formation of the Scottish National party nearly 100 years ago and as yet bugger all has happened. The terrorist group SNLA went particularly quiet after the assassination attempt of Lady Diana and Mrs Thatcher proving that they did not have the support. Maybe 52% is not enough to convince westminster but I feel that ultimately the answer will be provided at the next coronation.

betty swallox
3rd Dec 2006, 16:24
Ken.
I can't help thinking you're post is somewhat naive. As a Scot, I can't really see any of your comments coming to fruition. Are you looking for a rise from those north of the border? I must say, whilst I appreciate this is a rumour network, I can't help but think there are far more relevant topics to talk about...

Ken Scott
3rd Dec 2006, 17:01
Betty - You're right, this is a rumour network & I'm not actually spreading a rumour, just thought it was an interesting discussion point in light of recent polls. I also think that the emergence of English nationalism in response to the perceived unfairness of the Union post Scottish devolution makes it more likely that Scotland will be cast adrift whether they want independence or not. This was not meant to be a post to stir things up but to ascertain what people in the services felt they might be compelled to do after a hypothetical split in the union. If you think it's naive to ask the question, fine, but I'm interested in the responses. If you feel there are more pressing matters, ok, don't waste your time responding.

Jackonicko
3rd Dec 2006, 17:45
It does raise an interesting point, though.

Why do we base anything, and spend anything, on infrastructure that we WILL eventually lose while closing bases further south.

Scampton or Kinloss?
Coltishall or Leuchars?
Lyneham or Lossiemouth?

Do we really need more than one Scottish airfield to host SAR/deployed MR and low level training? Wouldn't it be wise to keep the cadre intact and concentrated in England itself?

Duncan D'Sorderlee
3rd Dec 2006, 17:55
Betty,

When it does come to fruition, you could become CAS!

Duncs:}

ZH875
3rd Dec 2006, 18:11
Scottish Independence:


The sooner the better.....







.....That way I can send the wife home....:)

betty swallox
3rd Dec 2006, 18:18
Duncs...me and CAS in the same sentence...never!:hmm:

brickhistory
3rd Dec 2006, 19:58
Uninformed, uneducated Yank question regarding this:

Why?

splitbrain
3rd Dec 2006, 20:02
Uninformed, uneducated Yank question regarding this:

Why?

Why what?

Does Scotland want independence?

Would England be glad to see the back of them? ;)

Certain factions within Scotland have long since wanted to break free from the UK with its government seated in London. They, I presume, believe they could get a better deal for their own people.
Depending upon who you listen to and what figures you believe the move would be either catastrophic or a grand triumph. By figures I mean hard cash, our papers this week suggest that England subsidises Scotland to the tune of mega-bucks; losing that income would see Scotlands tiny economy unable to cope and it would find itself ecomonically on a par with Albania. Others rubbish that idea and point to North Sea Oil which Scotland would lay claim to, a move that would land England in the mire.
Tis very complex sir.

rab-k
3rd Dec 2006, 20:47
When Scotland is awarded independance it will relinquish any form of Armed Force

Where is your precident? Tell me, was it the Czech Republic or Slovakia that relinquished all its share of the previously joint Czechoslovak forces in favour of the other taking the lot? Me thinks neither did! The UK Armed Forces are not England's by another name. The Kingdom of Scotland would be entitled to its share, as would the Kingdom of England & N.Ireland post dissolution of the Act of Union. (Even if Scotland's share was done as a % of the population of the former UK of GB & NI: 10%).

However, in all seriousness I think it will be a long time before we see an independant Scotland. Remember that Sinn fein influenced the formation of the Scottish National party nearly 100 years ago and as yet bugger all has happened.

Do you honestly think that any form of devolution would have been proposed for Scotland if it the Scottish electorate had continuously and unquestioningly voted unionist? The whole devolution project was created to try and take the wind out of the sails of the Independence movement, which to an extent it has. However, the project is still in its infancy and the long term effect upon the Union is still very much uncertain. (50% of political parties represented at Holyrood are in fact pro-Independence).

The terrorist group SNLA

If you care to read the book 'Britain's Secret War: Tartan Terrorism and the Anglo-American State' (ISBN 1851583130) you'll discover that the SNLA was a 'one man and his dog' outfit whose membership was drawn mainly from the ranks of MI5. (The 'one man' part I believe is still languishing in a gaol in the Irish Republic).

Given that the Independence movement in Scotland has no financial support from the business sector, (With one recent exception: http://business.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=991&id=1488712006 ), no financial support from the Trade Union movement and no support whatsoever from the media and yet can still put a political party into Holyrood as the official oppostion to an Executive Coalition administration, then perhaps the underlying feeling of the Scottish electorate is only now being realised by the Unionist parties.

Finally, I'm not saying that every Scottish squaddie in the British Army would want to join that of an Independent Scotland, but don't try to tell me not one of these guys wouldn't:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41903000/jpg/_41903476_blackwatchtank203mod.jpg http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40196000/jpg/_40196738_soldierssaltire203.jpg http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38970000/jpg/_38970929_warsaltire203.jpg http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40615000/jpg/_40615561_blackwatch203.jpg http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40598000/jpg/_40598877_tanksaltire203.jpg

PS Don't think it'll happen for a while - if ever, so discussion, although interesting, perhaps verging on the 'academic'.

Ken Scott
3rd Dec 2006, 22:09
Rab-k:

As I said in my original post the 'fate' of the Scottish Regts seems clear cut, they would form the Scottish army. It's the RAF, RM & RN, where there are no Scottish Sqns or ships, which is more interesting. Are there enough sailors, across all the trades, to man the ships that a Scottish Navy would presumeably aquire? Would all the Scots who seem to have settled comfortably at bases in England return to Scotland, & are there sufficient Scottish pilots to man the aircraft?

Dauphineer
3rd Dec 2006, 22:52
The world is full of proud Scotsmen who whould do anything in the world for Scotland...........

Except live there.

Lazer-Hound
3rd Dec 2006, 22:56
Telegraph Article re Scottish independence and Trident:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/03/nuk103.xml

Speaking as an Englishman, regarldess of the financial side of the equasion I particularly resent the likes of Brown and Ried imposing laws and taxes on England that they can't impose on their own constituents! The sooner Scotland becomes independent the better, as far as I'm concerned.

rab-k
3rd Dec 2006, 23:42
The world is full of proud Scotsmen who whould do anything in the world for Scotland...........

Except live there.

Same used to be said of the Irish, not so now.

Ken - I don't have the answer to your questions regarding any Scottish Defence Force and its make up re. Naval/Air.

However, unless as an Independent State the Kingdom of Scotland chose to opt out of NATO and The United Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland suddenly became 'hostile', meaning that there was the need to fight a war on home turf on day one, then the need for 'Instant Forces just add bodies' doesn't come into it. I can easily see solutions to any short-term problems in terms of manpower for either service:

An Independent Scotland would quite probably continue its membership of organisations to which it had belonged as a constituent country of the UK of GB & NI: UN, EU, NATO, Commonwealth, etc. The build up of Armed Forces would be a gradual process and as Scotland is important in terms of its strategic geographic location and as the largest oil producer in the EU, I don't think we'd be lacking any short-term assistance on the part of our NATO colleagues, if such were indeed sought.

Would it be in the wider interests of NATO and other organisations to see an Independent Scotland turn into a strategic loose cannon or similar hostile backwater? I doubt that very much. Any dents in 'British/English' pride at Scotland having gone its own way would soon take a back seat to other wider and more important issues.

Postman Plod
3rd Dec 2006, 23:49
Speaking as an Scotsman, regarldess of the financial side of the equation I particularly resent the likes of Brown and Ried imposing laws and taxes on England that they can't impose on their own constituents!

However I think devolution is probably as far as it should go.....

rab-k
4th Dec 2006, 00:07
Speaking as an Scotsman, regarldess of the financial side of the equation I particularly resent the likes of Brown and Ried imposing laws and taxes on England that they can't impose on their own constituents!

However I think devolution is probably as far as it should go.....

Can of worms and thread drift warning, but, how many English(men) resented the likes of Thatcher imposing laws and taxes on Scotland (Poll Tax) that they didn't (at the same time) impose on their own constituents? I know two wrongs don't make a right, but this situation of national political inequality is nothing new. What is new however is that it has become so obvious to those living in England.

Back to thread!

Lazer-Hound
4th Dec 2006, 00:32
Well the Scottish Navy could have the former HM Ships:

Edinburgh
Argyll
Montrose
Sutherland
Campbeltown

Assuming they aren't scrapped or sold to Chile in the interim.

Dr Dorian
4th Dec 2006, 05:22
Telegraph Article re Scottish independence and Trident:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/03/nuk103.xml

Speaking as an Englishman, regarldess of the financial side of the equasion I particularly resent the likes of Brown and Ried imposing laws and taxes on England that they can't impose on their own constituents! The sooner Scotland becomes independent the better, as far as I'm concerned.



So although we are a United Kingdom you just seem to be upset that Scots are in Power ??

I am the first to agree that Scottish MP's should not vote on purely English Issues, however since the Union was signed the English have had the majority at Westminster and imposed their will on Scotland and Wales until devoultion.

Isnt it interesting that Now there are a few Scots running the show the English seem to be a bit hacked off, there were no complaints when Maggie was treating us like second class citizens.

When the Poll Tax was voted in two years earlier in Scotland than England it was done so by a majority of English MP's. You might want to check the act of Union as it states that no one part may be taxed more than the other, funny how England was not interested then in the complaints coming from Scotland that it was unfair and illegal while also telling us that the Union was a good thing !!

In my opinion it seems now that "Middle England" isnt able to dictate like it once did the teddies are flying.

Wyler
4th Dec 2006, 10:03
Independence would only go so far methinks. Such things as defence would require a federal type of agreement. Are we (English) really going to waste scant resources policing the Border between Wales/Scotland? and vice versa. I am an English Democrat and campaign actively for an English Parliament. That, I consider, is essential before anything else because the current set up is a disgrace. New Labour are, I think, going to have to deal with this aspect sooner rather than later.

GPMG
4th Dec 2006, 10:21
The sooner the FRISPS are barred from this country the better, the thought of jockinese runniing this country next year makes me sick.

ORAC
4th Dec 2006, 10:36
Only a personal impression, but the increase in support in England for Scottish independence seems to be be being matched by a decrease in enthusiasm in Scotland. Which raises the question, who is entitled to a vote on this?

I mean, if we are equal partners and the Scots were entitled to a vote in a referendum for independence from England, surely the English would be entitled to hold a similar referendum on independence from Scotland?

I cannot see why the Scots would have any more right to complain or have a right of refusal than the English did when the Scots voted. :E

Ken Scott
4th Dec 2006, 10:41
Thread drift warning noted: this was never intended as a post regarding the rights or wrongs of independence, but how things might go once it had taken place. Interestingly not one Scot has so far said that they would of course return to the motherland rather than remain down south - true, no one has said the latter either, but without a stated intent to return, I can only assume that what Dauphineer said in his post is true!

BluntedAtBirth
4th Dec 2006, 11:02
Fascinating thread, and one of some personal interest! Not sure transferring all the Scottish regiments in one batch is that straight forward a solution - just because your family have been officers in a Highland regiment for the last 150 years doesn't mean your home isn't in Knightsbridge or Wiltshire.

Some policy issues are immediately apparent. An independent Scotland would probably be a more left-wing country than the remainer of the UK, which would, correspondingly, move to the right - just check voting patterns in Parliament. I would imagine it would be in the EU, perhaps not in NATO, nuclear-free and more interested in peacekeeing tasks rather than expeditionary capabilities. This probably adds up to about the same size of formed army units focused on peace support operations, a small navy (no carriers) to patrol the Exclusive Economic Zone, and pretty much no air force; compare and contrast with the Irish Republic.

Faslane would be a major issue between the governments; perhaps best not to close Devonport too quickly! The airfields could be covered under a visiting forces arrangement or even operated jointly; compare and contrast with Incirlik.

As to Scots in the armed forces of the remainder of the UK, if Scotland retained a monarchy then the same rules as the numerous Australians, NZ etc would apply, if it became a republic then dual citizenship or the arrangements for the Irish, South Africans etc would cover it. I doubt 'you' would get rid of the Jock mafia that easily.

possel
4th Dec 2006, 11:36
If the latest polls are to be believed, a majority of the Scots want independence (52%) & a majority of the English (58%) want them to be independent....

Not exactly a huge mandate from either camp though.

The good thing would be that we in England would not have to put up with Scottish politicians voting on matters in Parliament that only affect England and Wales. (This is possibly why so many of us in the South would support it.) The logic of this policy escaped me until I realised how much of the current government is Scottish!

BORN4THESKYS
4th Dec 2006, 11:56
Hi

Well my mother is Scottish and father is English (born in England), and I have always liked to call myself British. I enjoy having family from both England and Scotland, and the friendly banter that can go between the two sides, although I do have to say that there is def a more anti English feeling from the Scots towards the English as opposed to the other way around, only a personal view! I personally think to break up though would be a great loss, as together we are stronger, and broken up we are weakened and will be divided, then the EU can really set to work. Scotland for having a fraction of what England does in terms of population has had in the past produced some excellent academics and still does to this day, and looking at my mothers side of the family, the children seem to be receiving a far superior education, sorry to affend but I think its true.

However I do get fed up with the double standards of the Scottish MP's, how dare they have the cheek to vote to charge tuition fees etc for university in England but vote no for Scotland, what the hell's going on? To be fair Gordan Brown is a joker too, I laughed when he gave his pathetic speech on celebrating Britishness, funny that because when his wife has been on the verge of giving birth he has always shot up to Scotland, what's the matter Gordan can't stand the thought of being born in England on the birth certificate!!

Divided and weakened the Eu will have a field day, no doubt it will only be a matter of time before we get the Euro, whether we like it or not, thats democracy for you eh. What I notice is that in Scotland people are very much more sensitive about there history, and nationality. I only fear that Scotland will head exactly the same way as England, and that is to slowly lose national identity through enforced multiculturalism, and cheap Eastern European labour, it will happen, just as it is in England, and the only people who benefit are large corporate greedy businesses, whi are usually big doners to the spineless Labour party.

To sum up my rant, if we want long term security and want to fight off the rogue EU, and keep our indentitys we should unite, to keep what identity we have left, otherwise we are going to get stamped on left right and centre. I don't know about anyone else but I want to keep the pound and keep Britain for the British, every Irish person I have spoke to has only had negative things to say about the Euro since joining, most say they wish they'd never joined.

Stay united folks, its the way ahead, either that or we become slaves to the EU!!! :(

rab-k
4th Dec 2006, 13:17
Born4the skys - Dont worry, your 50 million souls in England could still take on a "rougue EU" without the 5 million extra bods that Scotland remaining in the UK would bring. I'm sure you'd cope admirably without us :)

As has been said before, the political double-standards are not a recent event in the Union so forgive me if my sympathies do not extend too far on that score. The UK of GB & NI is not Anglia Major in a different guise and perhaps some people are only now beginning to realise this. Scots are as entitled to run a UK Govt. just as much as welsh or English MPs are.

As for people returning home - some of us are already there!:E

MarkD
4th Dec 2006, 18:45
Faslane as England's Gitmo anyone?

rab-k
4th Dec 2006, 19:28
Faslane as England's Gitmo anyone?

Not a bad idea! The Royal Navy could stay there until the Vanguard Class boats were retired in say 2025.

Their replacement could be based at a purpose built facility somewhere in England and Faslane would continue as a NATO facility under the control of the Scots Navy. (Just so long as the RN didn't leave the same amount of crap behind that the Yanks did: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320720.200-cold-war-waste-fouls-the-clyde.html )

MR12
4th Dec 2006, 19:53
The whole devolution project was created to try and take the wind out of the sails of the Independence movement, which to an extent it has.

One complementary theory being that as Maggie splintered Labour's support down south it played on reflex nationalism in Scotland for political advantage - maintaining a rump of seats while Kinnock's modernisers tried to steer into bluer water; adding another layer of government which would provide more jobs and more patronage for Labour second- and third-stringers who lacked the talent for a seat at Westminster (yes, there are a few, and most of them are in Holyrood now) - and the Scots bit.

knowitall
4th Dec 2006, 19:57
"This probably adds up to about the same size of formed army units focused on peace support operations"
well it would appear they don't want anyone to actually Join the Armed Forces!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4988888.stm

johnny99
4th Dec 2006, 20:18
Uninformed, uneducated Yank question regarding this:

Why?


Think of 4th of July then go figure - why would any nation wish self determination? Why is the majority of the UK (England in particular) rather cool to fuller integration with that other Union in Europe despite pointers that such would bring economical gains - could it be that people think more than economics are important? Look to your own history.

Why would an independent Scotland want to field an Air Force, Navy and Army, unlikely it could be afforded: don’t believe an independent Scotland would have any hang ups re ditching the punching above weight mantra that seems more of a hollow dogma now than anything else, and the country has an altogether different outlook anyway. How would an independent England negotiate for continued use of the Clyde basin – or could the boats go elsewhere! Whatever happens there are some difficult problems ahead - where present servicemen choose to go I suggest is the least; most likely some form of bi nation agreement would come to play for basing assets in-country as happens. After all, if Scotland lacked the capability (which it most surely would) then would it not be in England's interest to protect its northern approaches. Finally, anyone who thinks this amendment of the Union is so much nonsense just look to the lack of intellectual depth in the recent responses from the government’s big 3 (Blair, Brown Reid), they are treating the issue seriously, albeit somewhat slow to wake up the possibility. The Scots are seeing through this bluster so who knows what they will vote.

ZH875
4th Dec 2006, 20:34
Why would the Scots need a full time Army.


Just look at the residents of Glasgow, who would dare invade?.

(And the blokes are pretty scary too!!)


Anyway, why would anybody else want Scotland, a Beautiful country ruined by its inhabitants...

Woodgreen
4th Dec 2006, 20:35
As much as the idea of Scottish independance sounds good to me, I fear the actual idea of a Scottish Defence Force is ridiculous.

The main reason being, that all the current military hardware is bought for and serviced by an English government. I, for one, wouldn't really want to serve in a Defence Force that had no kit, or funds to buy equipment. (The oil in the North Sea isn't going to our companies, and tax on tourism is hardly going to do it!):ugh:

brickhistory
4th Dec 2006, 21:17
Think of 4th of July then go figure - why would any nation wish self determination? Why is the majority of the UK (England in particular) rather cool to fuller integration with that other Union in Europe despite pointers that such would bring economical gains - could it be that people think more than economics are important? Look to your own history.


Well done.

However, I guess my question would more accurately be why, after 200-odd years of union, split now? To what possible advantage could it be? There have been some interesting, informative posts to read in this thread.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
4th Dec 2006, 23:22
Scots are as entitled to run a UK Govt. just as much as welsh or English MPs are.


Exactly right. The reason why we English get pissy about it now and again is when the Jocks start asserting their independence and expressing contempt for the Union. The Union works, so stop doing Johnny Foreigner's work for him.

rab-k
4th Dec 2006, 23:54
There have been some interesting, informative posts to read in this thread.

Yes, and sadly some resembling a C130 that aren't.

Woodgreen - I thought the Union was still in place, or did the "English Government" suddenly materialise without the need for any legislative process? IMHO if you're going to argue the case for the Union, this aint the way to do it. So "the idea of an actual Scottish Defense Force is ridiculous" is it? Reasoned argument or knee-jerk aside given little if any consideration?

Well consider this if you will, why would Norway feel that it too required Armed Forces? Similar to Scotland in terms of physical geography, lengthy coast with large inlets, natural resources of oil and fisheries interests. Surley given such similarities, if Scotland doesn't need any, nor should Norway. So what's this then, Scotch mist?

http://www.sirviper.com/rnaf/f-16introimage.jpg

I trust you'll now be writing to the Norwegian Defence Ministry to inform them of the apparent waste of their tax payer's hard earned cash, after all, Norway's population is smaller than Scotland's so they really don't need any of this hardware, do they!

Okay, Norway (4.7m) has a smaller population than Scotland (5.1m), fine, then how about a country a bit larger, take Denmark (5.4m) for example:

http://www.jetphotos.net/images/f/F16_E-190_06_F1.jpg.11157.jpg.thumb

Whoops, smaller picture, slightly bigger country, but do you begin to see a pattern forming here?

Okay, okay, lets try to make things easy and go for a non NATO country shall we? Any armed forces there perhaps, hello, any examples? Let me help: New Zealand (4.1m):

http://www.airforce.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/cda1af6b-6623-4bbd-a081-edbc68e659ab/0/orion.jpg

Damn, sorry, just keep on finding small countries with 'air' along side other armed forces.

As for £, well, I guess as the largest producer of oil in the EU, I recon an Independent Scotland could afford the modest forces it would need, don't you?

Brick - After 300 (almost) years time has moved on. England's need for a Union was based on a perceived threat from:
Scotland's attempts to establish an Empire (Nova Scotia & Darien) and in doing so upset the French and Spanish. (King Charles I and later King William ensured that such ventures did not impinge upon England's relations with her larger European neighbours - despite the fact that both were also Kings of Scotland)
Scotland's possible choice of a catholic monarch to succeed the protestant Queen Anne of Great Britain. (Such a threat was not extinguished for another 40 years after the Act of Union)
Scotland's possible future alliances with rival powers to England, (i.e. Spain and France), opening up an attack via Scotland in any future conflict, forcing England to fight on two fronts.The Scottish poilitical establishment and nobility had been practically bankrupted by the failed Darien Colony and that together with some veiled threats of English military persuasion and the prospect of trade sanctions persuaded the powers that be in Scotland to accept the 'marriage' proposal.

After three centuries of Empire building and European conflict, the situation has changed: Europe is stable, (ex. the Balkans and Cyprus/Turkey) and the Empire, what's left of it, pretty much gets on with things by itself.

At the end of the day the Union was a kind of 'marriage of convenience' with both parties benefiting - England could turn her back on Scotland and concentrate on matters in Europe and further afield, (With the exception of the '15 and '45 uprisings of course), while Scotland got a financial package to ease the pain of Darien and gain access to England's trade markets both at home and abroad.

Despite these many historical benefits, in a modern context many, but not all I hasten to add, in Scotland feel that the Union has served its purpose and that Scotland should look to become a player not just confined to the UK stage, but to go on to a European and ultimately Global one also.

With some of the comments posted on here, I'd be surprised if the English were not overwhelmingly delighted to see us go.

Woodgreen
5th Dec 2006, 10:42
Cheers Rab-k for the pretty pictures. I used to do that in Primary School, to avoid writing things.

That was a well Googled article.

Why would Scotland need a Defence Force? Who are we going to have to fight? Maybe Iceland, in an argument over fishing rights, or possibly Norway. Maybe not, as they seem to be quite well armed.

Actually I don't really care, as it really doesn't matter. It won't happen, so not worth getting worried about.

:D

rab-k
5th Dec 2006, 11:04
I used to do that in Primary School,to avoid writing things.

Primary School stories is it? I used to walk away with the ball when it looked like the other team might win, to avoid being on the loosing side. Sound familiar?

Thanks for answering my question with another question BTW :hmm:

PS http://forum.chip.co.id/images/smilies/extra/google.gif can indeed be your friend, but I prefer to get knowledge from books - it's amazing what you can learn - do much of that at school did we? (That was a rhetorical question BTW)

Wyler
5th Dec 2006, 11:51
The Union has run its course because it is blatantly unfair. I have a real problem with GB as PM when his children will be entitled to a free University Education but mine would not. That is crap and only one example. The masses are now starting to wake up to this and I think the politco's are getting twitchy. No doubt there will be some half arsed slight of hand to create some smoke but the issues need to be addressed full on sooner rather than later.
As Rab-K has said, Norway, Denmark etc all manage quite well and we, as the Union, are punching WAY above our weight at the moment. So, a bit of downsizing and readjustment is about due. Let's start with an English Parliament and take it from there. I hope the SNP does well in the elections because that will add momentum.

Yes, I know, cloud cuckoo land and all that...........no harm in dreaming.

Flatus Veteranus
5th Dec 2006, 18:55
As a gesture of solidatity with the Scots, I am considering offering myself as the SNP candidate for my Devon constituency at the next election. Anything to help them on their way!

rab-k
5th Dec 2006, 19:01
Deal! I'll move back to Kingskerswell (temporarily) and you've got at least 1 vote. (Provided you're 'South Hams' of course :ok:)

An Teallach
5th Dec 2006, 19:06
With the caveat that I am by no means an expert in Scots or English education policy, my understanding is that the differences between the Scottish and English methods of funding higher education are largely revenue neutral.

England merely favours its students paying more up front, while Scotland favours higher payments after graduation.

Woodgreen
5th Dec 2006, 19:52
So "the idea of an actual Scottish Defense Force is ridiculous" is it? Reasoned argument or knee-jerk aside given little if any consideration?

We don't need a Defence Force. Why? Because the English will do it for us, leaving valuable funding available for education and health.


Damn, sorry, just keep on finding small countries with 'air' along side other armed forces.

As for £, well, I guess as the largest producer of oil in the EU, I recon an Independent Scotland could afford the modest forces it would need, don't you?

.

Well, it would be nice if the oil companies were actually scottish, but i'm sure the revenue raised from taxes would be enough for something.

MountainMetman
5th Dec 2006, 20:31
For the sake of this exercise, let's assume that the original supposition stands and Scotland does go for independence, in the papers over the weekend (sry, can't remember which one) there was extensive discussion of this. The Scotish nationalist view stated that they were expecting to keep a proportion of the navy and air force and use the royal regiment of scotland as the land based force. I'm not sure where they get the impression that they are entitled to the parts of the air force and navy but that was the impression I received from the article.
Given my employer is British, upon independence, would I remain at my current Scotish post, would there be an air force to work with, would it have the same sitution as RAFG and would I be able to put in for "overseas allowances"?
Does anyone have an idea of the implication for QRA north? Would the MoD commit to protecting Scotish airspace or would Leeming suddenly get a new lease of life?

rab-k
5th Dec 2006, 20:37
We don't need a Defence Force. Why? Because the English will do it for us, leaving valuable funding available for education

If you're are a product of the Scottish education system Woody, then boy-oh-boy we need every last penny!

But go on, explain to me, (and whoever else is reading this), why a sovereign state would wish to rent (presumably) the armed services of a foreign state to provide its strategic and national security?

The only arrangement remotely close to such a situation I can think of was the USA and Iceland, however that arrangement has ceased and fair play to the Icelandics, they are planning to have a standing army from a total population of just 300,000.

So go on, I'm sure the citizens of a (hypothetically speaking) United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland are waiting with fingers poised to hear why they should provide the Defence Forces for an indpendent Kingdom of Scotland.




MtnMet - The answer to your question as to why an independent Scotland would be entitled to parts of the Navy/Air Force, is that this is exactly the same principle that is being applied when the Unionist parties state that an indpendent Scotland would be responsible for a proportion of the UK of GB & NI's National Debt.

If the logic that you seem apply here means that all things belonging to the UK in reality belong to England, then it follows that the National Debt of the UK also belongs to England - you can't have it both ways.

MountainMetman
5th Dec 2006, 21:02
rab-k, understood in as far as that goes, but if there is full independence from the UK, would they not also separate themselves from the debt and all other links to the union, becoming a commonwealth country in the same style as New Zealand or Canada? Also, if the UK becomes only Wales, England and NI, will the union flag loose the saltire and become once more the pre1800 version?

rab-k
5th Dec 2006, 21:56
I don't think the comparison is correct in as much as colonial countries of the British Empire were never constitutionally the same as the UK constituent countries.

There was never an Act of Union ratified by separate sovereign parliaments where Empire territories were concerned - a contact drawn up between two separate states to funtion as one, but with some exceptions: Law, Religeon, Education etc. The only precident to what is being discussed here is the Irish Free State and Irish history is not a subject I am all that familiar with.

If the separation was along the lines of a clean break with no proportional responsibility to be shared on anything, then yes I agree that under such circumstances not so much as a spent case should find its way into the hands of a Scottish equivalent of an MoD - we would no doubt be overrun by an army of weapons dealers on day one however, but there you go.

As a Commonwealth Country which continued to have Elizabeth, Queen of Scots, (her likely title), as Head of State, then Scotland's status would develop as you say into something more akin to that of Canada or New Zealand, as opposed to Scotland's Commonwealth status now as merely a participant as a Home Nation in the Commonwealth Games.

As for the flag, in keeping with the rest of my input into this thread i.e. mere speculation on my part, I suppose a Union Flag without the Cross of St Andrew would probably consist of the Cross of St George on its own:

Wales, not being a Kingdom but a Principality of the Kingdom of England since its official annexation in 1535, is represented in the flag of the Kingdom of England.

Northern Ireland is an odd case as it is represented officially by the Union Flag, and unofficially by the Ulster (red hand) Flag. It is not strictly speaking represented in the design of the Union Flag/Union Jack either:

The Cross of St Patrick was incorporated into the Kingdom of Great Britain Flag in 1801 to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland flag, which remains to this day. However, Ireland ceased to be a Kingdom in 1921, but the Cross of St Patrick was not removed from the Union Flag as you might expect. Its use has recently resumed in Northern Ireland however as the badge of the PSNI and may yet have some further official use in any resumption of a devolved NI Assembly.

I doubt there would be any change to the Royal Arms, as the Monarch would remain Head of State of both the UK and Scotland. (The Irish Harp remains - even though as a Kingdom it doesn't)

MightyHunter AGE
5th Dec 2006, 22:35
Speaking as an Englishman, regarldess of the financial side of the equasion I particularly resent the likes of Brown and Ried imposing laws and taxes on England that they can't impose on their own constituents! The sooner Scotland becomes independent the better, as far as I'm concerned.

Speaking as a Scotsman I resent the english being able to "try" a tax out on the Scots in the form of poll tax, stand down you will not win that argument. The sooner bigots from both sides shut up the better as far as I'm concerned.:rolleyes:

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
5th Dec 2006, 22:46
Speaking as an Englishman, it annoys me that you (and Ulster sometimes) become a laboratory for novel ideas. Whether it's a "local" idea I don't know. Look at this from any angle and we're still bloody family.

MightyHunter AGE
5th Dec 2006, 22:52
Look at this from any angle and we're still bloody family.

Well said that man and perhaps some of the posters on here (maybe non-military types) dont realise that many, if not all of us stand side by side together when it really counts and the ***** hits the fan so lets just all get along eh? Banter is good and healthy but I reckon some on here are just after a baiting, bigots take many forms.

GreenKnight121
6th Dec 2006, 10:34
An Teallach, while both methods may, indeed, be "largely revenue neutral", they are not "opportunity neutral"!

The "Scotland" method allows more of those who cannot afford to "pay up front" to get that University sheep's-skin than does the "England" method.

If you are among the poorer classes, with children that you would like to see do better than you did, moving north just got more attractive.

chornedsnorkack
6th Dec 2006, 10:37
An Independent Scotland would quite probably continue its membership of organisations to which it had belonged as a constituent country of the UK of GB & NI: UN, EU, NATO, Commonwealth, etc.
Ireland is in EU and UN, but not in Commonwealth or NATO.

Also, even if Scotland does not become independent, it does not mean staying in EU. Greenland was in EU with Denmark - when they got their devolution, they walked out of EU.

If Scotland is not in EU, you cannot assume EU right of abode, either.

Ireland has armed forces. Were those formed from defecting/taken over Irish units of Union army, or were they recruited from scratch/IRA?

rab-k
6th Dec 2006, 11:47
Perhaps someone will be able to confirm this, but I believe the Irish Free State was a Commonwealth Country until becoming Eire/Republic of Ireland, at which point it ceased having the British Monarch as the Head of State and began appointing Presidents. (Not sure how and from what the Irish Army was formed - perhaps someone else can help here).

I also recall a while back some Eurocrat from Brussels saying that as Scotland was already an EU Member via the UK's membership, any and all EU treaties binding on the UK (of GB & NI) would by default be equally binding on an Independent Scotland and reformed UK (of E & NI), as the single body which had signed up to the treaties had split to become two separate bodies. I'm struggling to recall the precise wording but if I can track down the relevant info I'll post a link to it for all you insomniacs out there. (There was also a counter-argument which, to show even handedness, I'll also link to, again if I can find it).



The Eurocrat I referred to was Professor Emile Noêl, a former Secretary General of the European Commission. The Scotsman newspaper article dating from 1989 cannot be accessed via the paper's web due to its age, (Pieces from 2000 being the oldest), and the only references to it are by the SNP, which falls into the "well they would say that, wouldn't they" category. Here are the SNP links that refer to the article anyway - take them for what they are:

http://www.snp.org/independence/questions/europeandtheworld/europe/
http://www.snp.org/press-releases/2002/news.477/

The counter to Prof. Noêl came from none other than Sr Romano Prodi, a former European Commission President, whose Scotsman article being more recent could be accessed via their site:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=428432004

(Sounds like the lawyers would be raking it in either way!)

chornedsnorkack
6th Dec 2006, 11:52
Perhaps someone will be able to confirm this, but I believe the Irish Free State was a Commonwealth Country until becoming Eire/Republic of Ireland, at which point it ceased having the British Monarch as the Head of State and began appointing Presidents.

Actually, Ireland for a while appointed Presidents while still having British monarch as head of state - 1937 to 1949.

An Teallach
6th Dec 2006, 11:53
GreenKnight

I agree wholeheartedly, and presumably if Westminster politicians could see the same truth that is self-evident to us, they would consider copying the Scottish system in England and Wales.

The tenor of my 1st post was in response to Wyler's Daily Mail-style "The Jocks are getting something we're not". As far as I can see there's nothing to stop top-up of Uni costs being grad funded rather than parent funded in England and Wales. Perhaps other than a feeling of 'not invented here' among the poor underpaid wasters at Westminster.

FCK1
6th Dec 2006, 14:15
Divided and weakened the Eu will have a field day :(


Right, and then the germans get us an dunkirk will all have been in vain! does the term "Council of Ministers" mean anything to you? which "brussels" individual voted for the EU measures that the UK has accepted so far? I'm really starting to get fed up with all these conspiracy theories born out of ignorance of the actual structure being discussed.

xraf
6th Dec 2006, 14:51
The single most interesting thing in this completely pointless but ever so interesting thread is the astonishing lack of understanding of the English/British scam which has successfully operated for hundreds of years.

If this paperwork only (yes really - see Wales) exercise ever happened:

1. The British armed forces would still operate in exactly the same way regardless of how 'Britain' ( a non existent but politically useful landmass) was divided up. There is no English Army now and there will not be a Scottish one then!:ugh:

2. The British Monarchy will still rule Scotland and the rest of their 'lands and possessions' This would be a political and procedural change not a constitutional one(see Wales as above) :=

Hope this helps!:E

An Teallach
6th Dec 2006, 15:09
The British Monarchy will still rule Scotland

Shir Shean for President, that's what I used to say. If only to hear him say:

"Sho, Shlobodan Miloshevitshhhh, my archsh nemeshish!" but as Slobo is in the clink ...

chinnyrationcarrier
6th Dec 2006, 21:27
I, for one, wouldn't really want to serve in a Defence Force that had no kit, or funds to buy equipment. :ugh:


Don't you already serve in such a Defence Force?