The Scottish Air Force

[Courtney Mil]

I'm wondering. If the rebelious Scots vote for a divorce, what will the issues be regarding their (so called) share of the UK's military aviation?

It would be impractical for them to take, say, a handful of Typhoons as they would end up with a fleet that was too small to do anything with. They would have to negotiate support contracts, set up their own MoD, headquarters, logistics, JPAC (as it's proved to be so successful), etc, etc.

This is nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of independence, the likelihoods and the other issues. Really just the military aviation issues.

[salad-dodger]

They've already got a Navy, it's even got an air arm! Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Fisheries_Protection_Agency)

S-D

[Circuit Clear]

The daily rags are suggesting that Scotland will have to re-negotiate every "marriage" previously undertaken by the UK gov. This would include all the Euro trade, human rights, health contracts, defence partnerships etc as if they were a new entity.
Would the US insist upon the neutralizing of American derived military hardware and software until Mr Salmond agreed to their proposals?
His attempts in saddling the world stage as an independant leader may lead to him firing blanks from the many cannons currently residing under RN and RAF ownership.

[Courtney Mil]

Of course, you make a good point. American hardware was sold to a NATO member state, which Scotland wouldn't be. Not even sure if they would want to be.

I guess the other question here is, what equipment would they actually want?

[Davef68]

SNP's latest stance is that they'd want to be in NATO, but nuclear free. So for QRA etc, invite a NATO ally to use Scottish bases for their interceptors.

Would a Scottish Air Force need much more than the Republic of Ireland? Some decent medium range MPA capability, some helicopters and perhaps some tactical transports. And a Gulfstream for President Salmond

[incubus]

We could lease an Antonov...

[salad-dodger]

I wonder how many serving Scottish personnel would choose to remain in the Royal Air Force and how many would switch to the Air Force of a newly independent Scotland?

One also assumes (and hopes) that the RAF would remain open to Scottish citizens.

S-D

[BEagle]

Typical Jockistani Air Force front line type:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/JAF_zpscb176f65.jpg

Westland Wallace....:\

[CoffmanStarter]

The most practical approach I guess would be for Scotland to "sub contract out" their air force needs to us ... and we charge them accordingly. This approach would be equipment neutral but help defray our operational costs ... certainly from an Air Force perspective. An appropriate cost/charge mechanic would need to be formulated for Air Stations ... but nothing too difficult for a sharp Bean Counter to conjure up.

VIP Transport needs ... their problem ...

Coff.

[CoffmanStarter]

Or failing that ... they could buy a shed lad if these Ultra Light Mil Aircraft from South Affrica ... a Bang Seat in a Kite :bored:

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Ahrlac-full-screen-620x284.jpg

Ideal for Grouse Shooting ... or keep the residents of Glasgow in order :E

[goudie]

Would Scotland need a Defence Force? I mean who would want to invade the place? No lucrative economy or land, apart from the oil...aha! The oil. The USA would be in there like a shot to 'protect' the people from the heinous President Salmond!

[CoffmanStarter]

Better still ... they could sub contract out their Air Force needs to India like everything else in this Country :mad:

Good thread Courtney ... time for another Friday Beer :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

Mine's a Black Sheep, Coff. Thanks.

[CoffmanStarter]

Keep an eye on your floppy disk port ... coming through Courtney :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

Here's another idea. What would be useful to them? What might be a workable small force size? I think opinion here is that they may not have the resources or the desire to do their own Air Defence. Actually, why would they? They're hardly surrounded by anyone but NATO nations.

[CoffmanStarter]

Seriously ... Maritime Reconnaissance could be a starter ... just extend/expand their current Fishery Protection capability ?

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/14088_zps7289cd29.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Shame we don't have any spare MPAs to offer. They probably have all the civvie helos they need to service the rigs. What else?

[Failed_Scopie]

Having just spent the last few days with several Scottish Officers from the various battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, I got the distinct impression that joining Wee 'Ecks putative Scottish Defence Forces would be about as popular as catching any ftal disease that you would care to name. If an independent Scotland wished to create it's own Defence Force, it would do largely from scratch and I do not think that many Scot's surrently serving in the Forces would be willing to transfer.

[Union Jack]

I guess the other question here is, what equipment would they actually want?

I don't know about any air force, but I imagine that any army would want to keep Mons Meg (qv) - and oh yes, the One O'Clock Gun ....:D

Jack (aka Jock)

[VX275]

Who's going to be the Airworthiness Authority for Scottish aircraft?
Will Scottish airfields retain their IATA/ICAO codes?
Do the Scots really want a Scottish government? After all the UK has already had 13 years of poor government by Scottish born Prime Ministers (Being born in Edingburgh makes Tony Blair a Jock in my book) and look where that got the UK.
Are there actually enough people in Scotland to fill all the Civil Service type jobs Independence will create?
Will the Shetlanders want to be part of an independant Scotland (even I know the best way to offend a Shetlander is to call him a Scotsman)? An independant Shetland would really peeve Mr Salmond as by his own rules the oil would be Shetland's not Scotland's.

[Easy Street]

Will any of those who swore allegiance to the Crown be forced to repudiate?

[cokecan]

current SNP defence policy is called 'High North' - its a focus on maritime security capability in the north east Atlantic and up to the Arctic, its looking for NATO membership, but more as a way to get defence co-operation with the Nordic states/Iceland than any great love of NATO itself.

the 'no nukes' thing is emphatic, but the SNP politicos do understand the practical issues around relocating the SSBN's to Devonport, and they also understand that in the event of the RN having to relocate the SSBN's, the UK Govt is not going to be interested in keeping Faslane open as a joint facility.

they may be open to a deal when the public switch on to the number of civil jobs, and military incomes, that will be lost when the whole of RN Clyde closes, but that would have to be post-referendum rather than before.

they also get that without a UK-Scotland defence treaty that includes the SSBN's being based on the Clyde, and probably the RAF staying at Lossiemouth, the RN will not be giving orders for Type 26 Frigates to yards on the Clyde...

in land terms their policy/inclination makes Ireland look wildly interventionist - how they intend to square that with the professed policy to retain/re-muster the old Scottish Regiments and pay for High North is something of a mystery.

[keesje]

Maybe some J-20s? Affordable and capable.

;)

[cokecan]

Easy Street,

no, no forced transfers are on the cards - as Failed_Scopie says, appetite within HM AF for transfer to a Scottish AF is about zero, SNP know that and have no interest whatsoever in the media being full of 'forced to serve a country i don't want to' stories. the cynical might also suggest that if no one wants to be in a new Scottish AF, the politicos would have a superb excuse to not have a military, and they could then divert spending to parish pump vote rigging, err.. i mean regeneration projects in less developed constituancies.

also worth noting that as Scotland would retain HMQ as head of state, no new oath would be needed, it'd just be a change of middle-management.

[Easy Street]

Scotland would retain HMQ as head of state
I hadn't read that anywhere - thanks for the informative reply!

[labrador pup]

The policy of keeping HMQ as head of state is, in my opinion, a sop to the undecided and as soon as Salmond got his independence, God forbid, this would be reversed. Don't forget the SNP is a left-wing republican party.

[cokecan]

LP,

the SNP is a vehicle for independence, it has left wing republicans within it, it has right wing libertarians in it, it has, in my political lifetime, been a left wing republican party, a right wing free market, isolationist party, a euro-fedealist republican party, a soft right republican party and a soft left monarchist party.

i'm 38.

Salmond et al will present any box of policies they believe will tempt the votors to vote for independence - hence the mad scrabble for a defence policy when polling showed it was a major concern of the public, and Salmonds' apparent inability to use the words 'Ireland', 'Iceland' and 'arc of prosperity' since 2008/9.

a number of the people i know who are on the fringe of the SNP believe it will not survive long post independence - independence is all it exists for, and it has no real core/shared ideology past that. they think it will, in time, fracture into broadly the same ideological parties as exist down south, and as has been mentioned, will probably have to deal with regionalisation - Lerwick being as far from Edinburgh as Edinburgh is from London, and Lerwick likes neither...

[OutlawPete]

What a masterstroke, another thread designed to give Scotland a kicking by the bigotted. Well done old fella! :D

[PPRuNeUser0139]

Not Scotland - just a few power-hungry politicians determined to get their snouts into the trough.:= It has nothing at all to do with any kind of reality.
I hadn't realised that in some eyes the question of Scottish independence is only open to being discussed north of the border.

[Pontius Navigator]

I saw Yes Prime Minister last night and the section covering Scottish Independence was a classic.

Robbie Coltrane was playing brilliantly against Jim Hacker. Oil - the BRITISH oil revenue would be divided against population numbers. Scotland to get 8%. BRITISH national debt to be similarly split. Scotland to get something like £88bn (may be £880bn) a large number anyway. Whitehall monies enabling free university education and free prescriptions would stop. He just kept on piling on the agony. Defence wasn't mentioned but in reality there are all those less obvious areas, in the Air Force alone, AMTC, OASC, Officer Training, EFTS, FTS, Airmen training and trade training, etc etc. All these second tier expenditures would all need to be funded by agreement or done in croft.

[newt]

"another thread designed to give Scotland a kicking by the bigotted"

Ever thought they might deserve it after voting in a complete load of numpties to represent them? They have no idea how separation is going to work or what will happen after the vote. Many believe it will all be settled a matter of months after the vote! Wrong! It will take years of negotiation for Scotland and the UK to sort out the mess!! All at extra cost and uncertainty for the tax payers ie you and me!

All because Alex wants to be president and not first minister!!

Now where is that bottle of brandy to steady my nerves?

Notice I said brandy and not whisky. Would rather support the French these days!:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[CoffmanStarter]

Newt ...

"Separation" ... The Quadrantal Rule is to change north of the boarder as well ? ... civilisation is coming to an end my friend :}

I know ... hat, coat, gloves ... Door !

[CoffmanStarter]

Anyway ... Back to Courtney's OP ...

A couple of Squadrons of these might be sufficient :ok:

That's the ADV Flying Haggis !

http://www.identitybydesign.co.nz/images/portfolio/illustrations/flying-haggis.jpg

Expecting incoming ...
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry021.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)


I know ... Hat, coat, gloves ... Revolving door

[Kluseau]

These threads do seem to generate more heat than light.

For those actually interested in the background, wide ranging Scottish devolution came into being in 1999 when the Scottish Parliament reconvened after a gap of 292 years. Since then we've run our own transport, education, health and various other areas of policy. The main areas of policy retained at the UK level in Westminster are foreign affairs, tax, defence, benefits and employment policy.

The question that will be put in the table in Autumn next year is whether Scots want to live in an independent country.

It's difficult to say which way this vote will go. The trend over the past decade has been for the Scottish National Party to become ever more popular in elections for the Scottish Parliament. As a result they were able to form a minority government in 2007, and took an overall majority in the 2011 election: despite the fact that the Scottish electoral system, which is a complex form of PR, was explicitly desgned to prevent any one party ever getting enough seats to gain an overall majority.

The SNP have been so popular because (a) they are not Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem, and (b) because they've proved to be a fairly moderate, common sense and effective government in difficult times. And certainly far more moderate, common sense, and effective than the UK government has appeared to be on a very wide range of issues.

It would be wrong to say that the electoral popularity of the SNP will necessarily translate into a "yes" vote for independence. The SNP are certainly trying to bring this about. And it seems that the other parties are so inept in their approach to the independence debate that they are also recruiting "yes" votes when they say they want the opposite to happen. A recent mock referendum among some students at Glasgow University voted fairly heavily aganst independence, but how significant that is depends mainly on whether you want to believe the outcome of the real referendum will be "yes" or "no".

Time will tell. The really big outstanding issues are defence, where, amongst other awkwardnesses including some highlighted on this forum, is that the SNP has a non-nuclear stance even though thousands of jobs depend on the submarine bases on the Clyde; and Europe, where opinions are divided about whether an independent Scotland would automatically become a member of the EU, or not.

Cameron seriously muddied the waters on this last point when he talked of a UK referendum on EU membership after the next UK election: as a result independence may prove Scotland's best chance of staying on the EU. And he and his cronies are doing everything in their power to govern so badly they appear to be trying to force Scots to vote "yes", simply to remove the taint of rule from Eton. If the 2014 Scottish referendum does emerged with a "yes" for independence, then it seems clear that Cameron and his government will have done far more to bring it about than Salmond and his government...

Indeed, one plausible theory for the groteque ineptness of the current UK government's approach to the referendum is that Cameron actually wants a "yes" vote. As Scots have increasingly voted in Westminster elections for anyone but the Conservatives, Cameron's best, perhaps only, chance of winning the 2015 Westminster general election would be for those living in Scotland not to vote in that election, which would have to be a consequence of a "yes" vote in the independence referendum the previous year.

[CoffmanStarter]

Kluseau ... Banter aside ... I for one hope Scotland remains part of the UK as do many of my Scottish friends :ok:

[OutlawPete]

"Ever thought they might deserve it after voting in a complete load of numpties to represent them?"

Sorry, do you live in Scotland? Its not a bad place to be to be honest, free tertiary education, lots of overseas investment and (speaking as someone who resides in the north east) a fairly robust economy. Aberdeen is awash with cash and has virtually shrugged off this recession.

As for voting in numpties...have the current occupants of number 10 been everything they promised? I think not.

I, along with 99% of the people I know do not want independence for Scotland. Inflamatory threads like this and the "banter" that they evoke do nothing positive and merely allow the bigotted opinions of narrowminded people some bandwith.



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Courtney Mil]

Interesting, but my question is what will happen about dividing up military assets (mostly aviation). And what is a practical force size of any of those assets?

[Kluseau]

Interesting, but my question is what will happen about dividing up military assets (mostly aviation). And what is a practical force size of any of those assets?

Fair enough. It shows the way at least some thinking is going that BBC Scotland produced this report yesterday entitled "How do Danes defend themselves", though this does not touch on the aviation question:
BBC News - How do Danes defend themselves? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21635950)

[OutlawPete]

As a point for debate Courtney, your question is valid in a mature debate.

But it's also unnecessary. The union will prevail, I have no doubt about that.
My point is, "banter" aside, many of the posters on here don't think it's personal to have a go at a collective group of people because a minority are campaigning for something that no one (with any sense) wants.

Well it is personal, especially as many of them aren't joking. They mean it.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[newt]

Actually Outlaw......I do live in Scotland and feel perfectly justified to comment!

The union will only prevail if everyone comes out to vote! There are too many people who look at the polls which state that there is only 29 percent in favour. If they stay at home then the yes vote may still win the day!

[Pontius Navigator]

Whether the Union prevails or not, coming out to vote is one thing, having an informed vote is another. Arguing here of course has a very slight chance of affecting one or two votes as it seems most have already got an entrenched position regardless of any debate.

For the other 61% it is essential that the pros and cons are set out impartially and accurately so there is a slight chance of making an informed rather than an emotional decision.

Where costs fall and on what are absolutely essential.

[GGR]

Highland Air Guard Ground Interception Strike force or HAGGIS for short.

GGR

[OutlawPete]

So you live in Scotland, newt but you'd sooner support the French by drinking brandy instead of whisky... attitudes like yours are feeding this independence bollock$.




Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[TomJoad]

If Scotland does vote independence then what happens to all the Scottish cultural aspects/traditions/regalia etc that have been incorporated into the UK establishment and state fabric. Don't dismiss how much foreign revenue this brings to the UK by way of tourists and investment. The tourists love to see the
bagpipes, kilties etc at state occasions. I think the loss of such will be all to sad and hard to replace. It will shine a light on the how pallid English culture is- anything that tries to fill the gap will be seen as fabricated "disneyesque". I fear for the sight of Morris Dancing accompanying state occasions.

Putting aside the rights/wrongs of Scottish independence, after all it's their legitimate and democratic right to hold such a debate, I fear England will struggle to find its own identity which has long disappeared against the strong cultural identity of the celtic components of the UK. God forbid the City of London or the Home Counties are allowed to be our cultural image.I'm sure the great cities in the North will have their thoughts if you refer to them as English if it is solely represented by London and the South. Interesting times ahead. I guess we will be left asking the question when the Scots leave us is what is England. :eek:

[CoffmanStarter]

Let's hope we all stay together because this simply doesn't look right :=

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01437/SNN1406GXB-682_1437682a.jpg

[Albert Driver]

You know, I rather like that.

Put a big Golden Crown in the middle and I could live with it

- and without some of the Whingers of the North.

[TomJoad]

Like i said disneyesque. :=

[itwasme]

Perhaps it would be better if the rest of the UK were to be polled to determine whether they want to continue in a union including Scotland?

Just a thought :-)

[diginagain]

^ ^ ^

It's only fair...

[cuefaye]

newt,

Thought you were givin' up and moving back across the border?

[Biggus]

TomJoad,

Your question "what is England?" is a valid one, irrespective of what happens with regards to independence for Scotland. I suggest a stroll down many of the main roads in the center of London would answer the question.

However, I feel I should point out that many of the iconic symbols of Scottish heritage were actually highly exaggerated, in terms of their significance and popular usage, at the time of the explosion of Victorian tourism.


If Scotland becomes independent why can't bagpipes still be used at English events? The King of Jordan introduced them to his armed forces because he liked them, why shouldn't the English continue to use them? Why does the flag have to be changed - Scotland doesn't have intellectual property rights on the cross of St Andrew.

[Mach Two]

Great job in answering the question, guys.

CM, I think you'll find an earlier thread on this that claimed that the new Scottish nation would be entitled to 26 fast jets. Even assuming that the remainder of the UK handed over, let's say, 26 Tornados, what the hell would they do with them? It's a big squadron, but a tiny force. Prbably not a viable one. Even more importantis what they might want them for. I know NATO is loving its recent expansionism, but I do wonder if Scotland, or more correctly the new Scottish government, would ever want to involved in any kind of OOA ops that would require such a force. I see a more pacifist approach to world affairs. Who knows.

They;d need a big organisation to back that up and I doubt the new nation, should it happen, would have the will to spend that kind of money on military capability.

To go with the huge thread drift, no, it won't happen anyway.

[APG63]

Coffman's flag looks OK and i'm sure we'd get used to it. The problem is that we'd have to repaint all out aircraft with a new roundel with no blue in it. Imagine the expense.

[OutlawPete]

Perhaps it would be better if the rest of the UK were to be polled to determine whether they want to continue in a union including Scotland?

Just a thought :-)

I'd prefer it if this was the case. If England voted to break up the union it would be more palatable to accept, in my opinion.

Like I said earlier Courtney Mil, don't expect sensible debate on your original question. As I originally thought...this will turn into yet another Jock-bashing thread.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, points well taken. The only bashing to to be done in February and March are on the Rugby pitches. IMHO. But I do like the flying haggis.

M2, thank you. So what is the answer?

[Failed_Scopie]

I agree with Kluseu on this one - the solution to the Tories' Scottish problem i.e. no one north of the border votes for them is to chin off the Scots and, hey presto, Labour will never get in dahn sarf again. Whose to blame for this? Labour - they stoked the fires of Scottish Nationalism to try and gain a tactical advantage at Westminster and now it's come round to bite them in the arse... hard!

[Kluseau]

One of the odd things about all this is that the whole Scottish independence debate appears to raise stronger views in England than in Scotland. On reflection there's good reason why this might be. Underlying much of the debate is a sense that since 1999, people living in England have had a poorer deal in terms of self determination than people in Scotland, Wales or NI.

There are two elements to this. The first is that MPs in Westminster representing Scottish constituencies can and do vote on issues that only affect England (such as health or education), and clearly that is wholly wrong. I believe that SNP MPs in Westminster refrain from doing so: I believe that those of other parties do not. If Scotland stays part of the UK after 2014, then that problem must be addressed. Why should my West Lothian MP have a say in, for example, hospital spending that will only affect England, and not their own constituents because hospital spending in Scotand is a devolved matter for the Scottish government? They shouldn't.

The second is that moves to a regional level of goverment in England, which were meant to run alongside devolution for Scotland, Wales and NI, have come to nothing. There were grand plans around the millennium to do away with a tier of local government (most of England bizarrely has one to spare) and replace it with Regional Assemblies and Regional Development Agencies. Nothing ever came of the former, while the latter, which were set up, were abolished in early 2012. Meanwhile, Government Offices for the Regions, which had ensured that a degree of regional awareness informed Whitehall decision making, were abolished in 2011. In effect, power in England is more centralised right now than it has been at any time in several decades.

If I lived in an English region and saw devolution moving ahead in Scotland, Wales and NI, and the Scots being offered a choice on nationhood, I think I'd be pretty cheesed off too. The answer to this is not to stop doing things right in the devolved administrations: it is to start to do them right in England.

Er... meanwhile, on the military aviation front, there is a legitimate debate to be had about the implications of a possible "yes" vote for independence in Scotland. But it would be more compellingly argued if it were not set against a background in which England has a serious democratic deficit when compared to the other nations within the UK. Why do you all put up with it?

[Courtney Mil]

meanwhile, on the military aviation front, there is a legitimate debate to be had about the implications of a possible "yes" vote for independence in Scotland.

Yeah, that's what I had in mind.

[OutlawPete]

"One of the odd things about all this is that the whole Scottish independence debate appears to raise stronger views in England than in Scotland."

Agreed, which makes me wonder what the Scots have done to pi$$ them off so much?


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[yotty]

At last some sensible input from north of the border! My opinion is that when the Scots realise the true implications of separating (and the cost) they won't vote for it. They're canny folk after all.

[newt]

"Thought you were givin' up and moving back across the border?"

Like many others I intend to move before the vote cuefaye.

When you hear lawyers, teachers and business people say they will move south if the nats win the day, then it is, in my opinion, the only thing to do.

And do it before the vote!!!

[Kluseau]

"Thought you were givin' up and moving back across the border?"

Like many others I intend to move before the vote cuefaye.

When you hear lawyers, teachers and business people say they will move south if the nats win the day, then it is, in my opinion, the only thing to do.

And do it before the vote!!!

But moving south before the vote means your views won't get to count. If there were a significant flight of people south during the next 18 months, it would presumably involve those who believed that a "yes" vote was a strong possibility or a probability. And it would presumably be by people who would otherwise have voted "no", and so increase the chances of a "yes" to independence.

[rjtjrt]

Presumably a model for how it would all happen is the Baltic States separation at break up of USSR.

[OutlawPete]

"Thought you were givin' up and moving back across the border?"

Like many others I intend to move before the vote cuefaye.

When you hear lawyers, teachers and business people say they will move south if the nats win the day, then it is, in my opinion, the only thing to do.

And do it before the vote!!!

newt, you sound like you actually want Scottish independence mate. I'd pack your bags now if I were you. Head south and enjoy your brandy. The rest of us who give a damn will fight to preserve the Union.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[SandyYoung]

Currently, many Scots realise that the First Puddock would dearly like to become King Puddock.

Further poor governance by the struggling coalition will increase the 'Yes' vote as people protest against fiscal policies which are not getting the UK back to work. Dave needs to get a grip or the Men in Grey Suits will call and Boris will be the new leader. Which might not be a bad thing!

(For those not familiar with the word 'puddock' it means 'toad' or 'frog' - ignore all the web dictionaries saying it means 'paddock'.

[AR1]

What have they done to P8ss us off? - On my tour of Scotland I was told to 'F*** off back to England' by a policeman, assaulted by 3 jocks in the toilet of a Chinese restaurant whilst my wife sat at the table wondering why I hadn't returned. We resorted to going into town in numbers, if at all. Short hair, wrong accent apparently. How many Scottish faced this level of hostility in England?
Go and toss your cabers has been my attitude ever since.

[Kluseau]

What have they done to P8ss us off? - On my tour of Scotland I was told to 'F*** off back to England' by a policeman, assaulted by 3 jocks in the toilet of a Chinese restaurant whilst my wife sat at the table wondering why I hadn't returned. We resorted to going into town in numbers, if at all. Short hair, wrong accent apparently. How many Scottish faced this level of hostility in England?
Go and toss your cabers has been my attitude ever since.

Funny that. I've lived in Scotland for 13 years, have an accent as "BBC English" as they come (thanks to a childhood starting in Coltishall and extending to assorted places like Driffield, Tengah, Watton, Binbrook and Gutersloh) yet have never once experienced anti-English prejudice of any sort. Neither has my Yorkshire-accented wife, or my middle-English sounding daughters, who went to school and university here.

If a Scottish policemen really did say that to you, you should have reported it: and he would soon afterwards have become an ex-policemen.

[OutlawPete]

AR1,
Not casting any doubt on the authenticity of your story, I have two questions:

1. Did you report the policeman? If not then you really can't complain about it as you are part of the problem there.

2. Why would you choose to alienate an entire country based on an isolated incident (the Chinese restaurant) the likes of which happens the length and breadth of the UK every weekend? Seems slightly irrational to me.

[glad rag]

On my tour of Scotland I was told to 'F*** off back to England' by a policeman,

Really. :hmm:

[Tankertrashnav]

When I was at Seletar in 1967 a Scottish chum, then a nav on 209, decided that he was a Scottish Nationalist and that he would serve Her Majesty no more. In spite of his mates trying to talk him round he was resolute, refused to fly and was inevitably court martialled. He was dismissed the service and IIRC sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. He was quite happy about the outcome and was looking forward to serving the SNP when he finally got home. When he was under house arrest in the mess awaiting confirmation of sentence there was a rota of us to keep him under survelillance, which involved getting a few Tigers in and watching his TV with him- all very matey.

Never did find out what happened to him. As he's my age it's a shame that if Scottish Independence does come it will be too late for him to fly for the SAF - not that anything they might have is likely to have a seat for a nav!

[newt]

Outlaw.....where did I ever say I supported Scottish independence? Far from it actually but I can read the writting on the wall and as all my eggs are in their basket at present, I feel it is prudent to move now and not wait for the result.

Even though they cost us an unfair amount of the national budget, they should remain part of the United Kingdom. Is that clear enough Old Chap?

[Union Jack]

.... also worth noting that as Scotland would retain HMQ as head of state, no new oath would be needed, it'd just be a change of middle-management. - Cokecan

.... and the change of the title of the force - and this thread - to:

The Royal Scottish Air Force!:ok:

Jack

[Courtney Mil]

My thread, I'll call it what I like! :cool:

[OutlawPete]

newt
You're supporting it by throwing the towel in, fella.
If you really believe what you just wrote stay and be counted with those of us that want the Union to go on.
Scotland does its bit by the way, it has brought a considerable amount of value to the UK, both financially and in it's contribution to the development of our way of life, whether you choose to see that or not.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Union Jack]

My thread, I'll call it what I like!

Oh I see - "the voice of one crying out in the wilderness.”:)

Jack

[Wingswinger]

Currently, many Scots realise that the First Puddock would dearly like to become King Puddock.

Nice one, Sandy. I used this sometime ago in another thread on the referendum when I referred to him as the "Holyrood Puddock". It's good to know I'm not alone in seeing amphibian similarities. :}

[Al R]

Standby standby.. wait for it.. steady.. cat, pigeons, go.

BBC News - SNP claims MoD 'set to go back' on Scotland defence pledges (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21643240)

The SNP has claimed the Ministry of Defence could be set to go back on key defence commitments to Scotland.

The UK government said in 2011 that up to 7,000 personnel would return to Scotland from Germany, with barracks and a training area being built.

Nationalists said it would be "unacceptable" if this pledge was to change when an announcement is made in the Commons this week.

[Circuit Clear]

The amphibian similarities have been spotted by my mother who has lived in Scotland for many years and heard a local shopkeeper call "him"...fishface!

As for the original debate, I would also have concerns for the large Defence Industry in Scotland which may decide to avoid any new interference from said aquatic creature and move south.

A more hardlined leader of Westminster may consider closing all military bases north of the border and reap the benefit of those personnel and families spending their salaries in the south.

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, Jack. I'm both impressed and touched. :ok:

[cuefaye]

Touched, for sure :E:ok:

[Courtney Mil]

It has been said, cuefay.

[TomJoad]

TomJoad,

Your question "what is England?" is a valid one, irrespective of what happens with regards to independence for Scotland. I suggest a stroll down many of the main roads in the center of London would answer the question.

However, I feel I should point out that many of the iconic symbols of Scottish heritage were actually highly exaggerated, in terms of their significance and popular usage, at the time of the explosion of Victorian tourism.


If Scotland becomes independent why can't bagpipes still be used at English events? The King of Jordan introduced them to his armed forces because he liked them, why shouldn't the English continue to use them? Why does the flag have to be changed - Scotland doesn't have intellectual property rights on the cross of St Andrew.


Ah you missed the point my friend. The streets of London is not where you find England, nor should it be. In as much as we appear to have a disunited Kingdom, the Scots have been alive to that for some time hence the present referendum, we also have a disunited notion of what England is. Post independence, if the vote is yes, the lack of union within England never mind what is left of the UK will be thrown into sharp contrast. If we no longer have the bogey man of the Scots to direct our xenophobic tendencies then we will be left to direct them amoungt ourselves - home counties against the North, Cornwall declaring a move for independence, London against everybody. What is England indeed. As for your suggestion that England would consider keeping the Scottish trappings for state edification - well really is that not the root of our problem. We have nothing of our own so we borrow. Good grief what has happened to the United Kingdom.

[TomJoad]

[QUOTE=Kluseau;7722876]

If I lived in an English region and saw devolution moving ahead in Scotland, Wales and NI, and the Scots being offered a choice on nationhood, I think I'd be pretty cheesed off too. The answer to this is not to stop doing things right in the devolved administrations: it is to start to do them right in England.

[/QUOTE

Spot on. Instead of our purile whinging we should be honest and recognize that the Scots have made devolution work. On a democratic basis they have decided that university education should be free at point of access, that Health Care should be protected from creeping privatization and remain true to its founding principles. And don't make the the mistake oft quoted of those "down sarf" that those decisions are taken without responsibility for funding.
"They are spending our money" writes the Daily Express. No, they are spending their share of the tax take differently, directed by different priorities, different needs, different philosophies. They simply decide on their priorities for public spending just as we do. If we are envious of what they do then we need to get up of our arses and make our head in the sand politicians change. How often do we hear "Westminster is to follow Scotland by introducing" - only this week it was minimum pricing on alcohol. Yes I am envious of their approach to health care for elderly, university funding, social justice; but i don't hold it against them its what we should be doing. Scotland has grown weary of the Union and I for one sympathise; if only we had been as switched on.

[OutlawPete]

"Good grief what has happened to the United Kingdom. "

It's still united Tom and with positive influences such as yours it will remain so.

This whole Scottish independence cr@p has rattled us all but we could all learn from it.

I sincerely hope so


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Kluseau]

However, I feel I should point out that many of the iconic symbols of Scottish heritage were actually highly exaggerated, in terms of their significance and popular usage, at the time of the explosion of Victorian tourism.


If Scotland becomes independent why can't bagpipes still be used at English events? The King of Jordan introduced them to his armed forces because he liked them, why shouldn't the English continue to use them? Why does the flag have to be changed - Scotland doesn't have intellectual property rights on the cross of St Andrew.

All very true. Tartan as we know it today effectively dates back to a visit to Scotland by George IV in 1822, which was choreographed by Sir Walter Scott. Scott drew on some traditional elements of highland dress to invent a very different and largely fictional "tradition" more or less from scratch. This was further embellished in the 1842 by a pair of fraudsters, the Sobieski brothers, who published a hugely popular catalogue of "traditional clan tartans" that were no such thing, but which subsequently became accepted as such.

Meanwhile, aren't bagpipes of essentially middle eastern origin, finding their way to Scotland via southern Europe and Ireland? So if the King of Jordan did copy Scottish pipes, he was merely returning to a tradition that was probably considerably older in his country than in Scotland.

And... St Andrew, a man who never came within 1000 miles of Scotland, though some of his bones might have done, arguably, after his death. He is also the patron saint of Romania and Russia and had a much closer association with those places. He seems to have been acquired as partron saint of Scotland in preference to St Columba as a result of an ecclesiastical power struggle after 1070.

Yet, out of this remarkable rag-bag of inventions and borrowings comes a culture which probably has more recognisable and distinctive elements than most: something greatly helped by the presence of maybe 20 million people outside Scotland who trace their origins here. I saw only yesterday a photo of a highland games (one of many) held in the USA, featuring an Imperial Stormtrooper (as in "Star Wars") wearing a kilt over his white armour. The culture has developed a life of its own...

[diginagain]

The culture has developed a life of its own... Irn Bru?

234

[TomJoad]

Irn Bru?

234

Irn Bru or jellied eals and warm beer guess it depends on which side of the wall your vote lies. The origins of the symbols are largely irrelevant, we all came out of Africa anyway. What is relevant is the gap they leave behind if the vote is yes. You are a fool if you underestimate or deny the importance of Scotland to the union, ask yourself why the mainstream parties are so against
the yes vote. There are idiots and bigots making comments here on something the import of which they cannot comprehend. Idiotic bigots are the worst type of bigot, and a bigoted idiots are the worst type of idiot.:ugh:

[ericferret]

Reverting to the 1801 pre union flag would bring two benefits, firstly it would no longer be possible to hang it upside down and secondly cheaper to produce.
A win win situation for England.

As to anti English racism, I was taken out for a drink in Dundee circa 1977 by my cousins husband. I was told not to speak loudly and thereby identify myself as English or to attempt to go to the bar. A great night, not!!!!!!

Actually the best bit was drinking up time. Everbody seemed in an almighty rush to get out of the bar after last orders had been called. Baffled I had the large fire alarms on the wall pointed out. After drinking up time was over these were switched on and left on till the bar was clear. How I missed Germany.

Come to think of it we could advertise the vacancy I am sure we could find a new partner in crime.

We are going to miss those Scottish infantry though. When going over the top having the Scots on one side and the Australians on the other was about as good as it got.

[AR1]

GladRag - Entirely true I'm afraid. - I'm not anti Scot, indeed it's a lovely place., but my 3 year flirtation with it gave me experiences I doubt any of my Scottish colleagues experienced in England (open to be proved wrong) nor indeed Wales, albeit South Wales. Therefore when the subject of independence pops up, I'm more than happy to hold the door open.
The defence matter is considerably more complicated than my simplistic view. I can't imagine any force funded by an indepandant scotland would be large enough to guarantee any security, so imagine any future regime would allow bases to be used as part of an agreement with NATO, or a yet to be announced British Isles setup, whereby some operational costs are paid for by the new Republic.

[Kluseau]

...whereby some operational costs are paid for by the new Republic.

Very little is certain about next year's referendum, except for one thing: Scotland will not become a republic. Everyone is clear that whatever the outcome the monarch will remain head of state.

[Party Animal]

Speaking as an Englishman who lives in Scotland and having spent most of my RAF life based in Scotland...., I have absolutely no idea how the vote will go but if there is a RSAF of the future, I would be first in the queue to jump across (if they would have me). I'd even take a considerable pay cut to do so.

Just think, for the 1st time in 20 years, I'd belong to an organisation trying to build up from scratch. Everyday would be talks on expansion and taking on new and more staff, probably with open minded leadership as opposed to FJ is the be all and end all and the mantra of cuts/savings/cuts/savings etc...

But back to CM's original starter. I reckon 12 x Typhoons would work (similar to Slovakia with 12 x MiG 29's). This would be sufficient to maintain an independant QRF capability and stop NATO worrying about having to defend the latest member. Maintenance packages and maybe conversion would be catered for south of the border. Nothing unusual nowadays, especially when you consider platform types currently in service that the RAF needs to train on in the States.

Next priority would be MPA. Probably a lease type package of 7 x P3's with a laydown similar to New Zealand. Following that would be SH and AT. Not sure how many numbers and of what type but matched to the size of the Army (Scottish Brigade maybe??). Finally, for the RSN, a Frigate/OPV mix.

All training outsourced to the best provider or home grown in a joint HQ/Training setup for all ranks of all services.

Anyone else??

[Yamagata ken]

Scotland will not become a republic. Everyone is clear that whatever the outcome the monarch will remain head of state.I'm intrigued by this. By whom's authority will Scotland (bending the knee to Brussels when handing over the newly minted Certificate of Independence) require that the monarch will remain head of state? I thought the entire process revolves around leaving the United Kingdom.

[Courtney Mil]

Back in July on the Scotland would get 18 fast jets plus 26 helos if it splits (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/491003-scotland-would-get-18-fast-jets-plus-26-helos-if-splits.html) thread, Fatter Gator came up with a shopping list of expensive items that the new Scottish government would need to furnish (20th Jul 2012 at 07:24). If I may paraphrase:

run, staff and maintain schools,
free healthcare for all,
police,
roads,
welfare,
fire service,
free university tuition,
criminal justice,
parliament,
civil service,
bus subsidies, tram subsidies, railway subsidies, farm subsidies,
NATO subscription (yes they are planning to do that),
foreign development,
a diplomatic service,
culture, media and anything else that people expect of governments.

One could think of a hundred more, I'm sure. And many of the items on the list would have many, significant sub-divisions such as vehicle licensing, passport office, border agency, customs and excise, highways agency, and so forth. All that to come from an annual budget that may be something in the region of £140 billion? That's a GDP that would possibly reduced by, for example, the potential move of contracts such as Type 26 south of the border and the loss of local income from the current UK military bases in Scotland. They would, of course, also inherit their share of the total UK debt (and who knows what their credit rating would be and, therefore, how huge their repayments). I can't see that leaving very much for defence.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers (Director of Research at the Royal United Services Institute) pointed out that their likely defence budget might be around 1.4% of GDP, say £2 billion. compared to around £39 billion for the UK. Even Norway spends double that figure, Denmark one and a half times. Round figures.

With that, Salmond is talking about running one naval base (presumably with mainly smaller vessels to service its fisheries protection and border patrol - a border that is mainly maritime), one air base (if we leave one there - why would we if we thought separation were coming?) and a mobile brigade.

They would also face the one-off costs of building all the infrastructure for their MoD, logistics, training units, air, land and sea HQs, etc, etc.

I doubt very much if they would be in the market for fast air. I would imagine their defence needs would revolve around the threat of terrorism, cyber-attack, ops in the Arctic seas and, possibly, playing a part in NATO or UN peace-keeping missions.

We all know that defence is expensive and it is interesting to consider how a new nation would be able to pay for all that. Perhaps they might be expecting to be able to rely on the fact that a threat to one part of the British Isles is a threat to the whole; so Scotland might be tempted to shelter under the UK's defence umbrella for free. One could extend this argument to them gaining protection from NATO for free.

My questions here are:

Once they've paid for all those items on the government shopping list, would they realistically be able to afford a battalion, a naval base with ships and an airfield with some aircraft.

I also wonder what those ships and aircraft might be.

[Yamagata ken]

You've missed one thing off your list Courtney. Scotland is totally commited to free renewable energy, aka windfarms. So when Europe sits under a blocking high pressure system for a week, Scotland will be absolutely certain to be at the top of the list for Norway to supply hydro-power (bypassing their mates in Sweden and Denmark). And of course France won't give priority to their Francophone neighbours and Germany. For sure, Scotland will be the top of Europe's energy priority list.

[baffman]

I'm intrigued by this. By whom's authority will Scotland (bending the knee to Brussels when handing over the newly minted Certificate of Independence) require that the monarch will remain head of state? I thought the entire process revolves around leaving the United Kingdom.

At which point it would cease to be "United".

[Kluseau]

I'm intrigued by this. By whom's authority will Scotland (bending the knee to Brussels when handing over the newly minted Certificate of Independence) require that the monarch will remain head of state? I thought the entire process revolves around leaving the United Kingdom.

Why should Scotland's leaving the United Kingdom, if that were the outcome, prevent the monarch remaining as head of state? Doesn't your logic imply that having QEII as head of state means that Canada, Australia or New Zealand must somehow all be part of the United Kingdom (which, before the incoming arrives, I should make very clear they are not)?

[Biggus]

As has already been stated on this thread, the SNP are offering a "package" which they think will attract the most "yes" votes. That package therefore currently includes such things as retaining the monarch as head of state, keeping the pound, etc.....

How many of these the SNP actually intends to keep once independence has been obtained may well be a very different matter. For example, they were actively discussing joining the Euro until they perceived the voting public weren't keen on the idea - but that may well still be a long term SNP aspiration, one that simple isn't discussed in the open. In the same way, maybe retaining the monarch is just a short term vote winning measure, rather than a long term intention?

[OutlawPete]

AR1 -
From:

"Go and toss your cabers has been my attitude ever since."

To:

"I'm not anti Scot, indeed it's a lovely place., "

You're not to sure where you are on this at all, are you fella? But it's an improvement in attitude, anyway.

I'm still curious, did you report the policeman?

[m0nkfish]

Ignoring the whole political thing for a second, 12 x Typhoon or 12 x Gripen??

[CoffmanStarter]

Courtney ... I'd argue that any Scottish Mil Aviation needs could be broadly similar to that of Erie. In which case their fleet mix seems reasonable ?

Irish Air Corps (http://www.military.ie/air-corps/fleet)

Coff.

I need new reading glasses :(

[Courtney Mil]

F16, Grippen, Typhoon, etc, are very expensive to run. I think out of their budget. I'll find some references.

Coff, you're probably right there. There has been some talk about what aircraft might suit them. The above were ruled out on economic grounds, some have suggested some of the UK's Hawks. Are there some platforms that might do the sort of stuff that the Irish do?

[SWBKCB]

Page 6 and nobodies identified the first requirement for the air force of a new nation - some shiny new biz jets!

[Courtney Mil]

Nobody's.

So go ahead and offer your thoughts. Even Salmond isn't crazy enough st spen his whole defence budget on a fleet of Peron style private jets. So what might he buy, SWBKCB?

[AR1]

Pete the concept of accountability was not as strong in 1983 as it is today, reporting him never even crossed our minds - there were 2 couples present. The constable was at the time restrained by his Sgt. Notice he was restrained not me.

[OutlawPete]

AR1, a fair point if it was as long ago as that but technically he committed an offence and should have had the book thrown at him.

I'm not saying those attitudes didnt exist but Scotland has long since moved on from that kind of behaviour. Most of the hostility in our long standing union these days appears to be coming from south of the border.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Mach Two]

Outlaw and AR1, loving your thread drift love-in, but not really relevant on this threat or this forum. AR1, maybe you just bring out the worst in people.

[CoffmanStarter]

Courtney ... to help drag the thrust of this thread back to your original question ...

Some form of Maratime Patrol Aircraft would seem desirable. On the face of it the CASA/IPTN CN-235 would appear to be a good economic option. If Scotland went with the CN-235 MPA version then there is the capability with 6 hardpoints to carry AM-39 Exocet-Missiles or Mk.46-Torpedos if needed. There is a good spread of Mil use around the world ... so not too difficult to "import" an existing Op Model with a bit of tweaking for Scottish needs. Could also be used for their Fishery Protection role.

The Pilatus PC-9 (off the shelf) would offer an economic training aircraft with sufficient stretch for budding pilots to gain their wings.

Others might like to suggest helicopter/trooping capabilities based on a few working assumptions around needs.

I would have thought a significant SAR capability would also be need ...

Best ...

Coff.

[TomJoad]

What have they done to P8ss us off? - On my tour of Scotland I was told to 'F*** off back to England' by a policeman, assaulted by 3 jocks in the toilet of a Chinese restaurant whilst my wife sat at the table wondering why I hadn't returned. We resorted to going into town in numbers, if at all. Short hair, wrong accent apparently. How many Scottish faced this level of hostility in England?
Go and toss your cabers has been my attitude ever since.

AR1

Not nice is it when somebody judges you and passes comment on you based on your nationality, you have my sympathies. Same thing happened to me, travelling back up M6 with some Scottish mates following time in the sand pit we were stopped just outside Birmingham for minor traffic offence, broken rear light from what I remember. Policeman hearing accent from the driver must have assumed we were all Scottish. He made great show to us that he was letting us off but then remarked best you ...... Off back to porridge land. Made my apologies to mates in the car, they brushed it off. Not point getting upset by bigots. So what does this tell us, bigots are found in every nation, to suggest Scotland has more than its fair share is, well somewhat blinkered. Taff, Paddy, Jock, all terms designed and used with intent to put down consciously or not, I think the English dish it out but cry foul if it's not on our terms. Only my opinion of course.:=

[Mobil 254]

AR1,

On my first day in the RAF we were lined up in the block and asked by our instructor if there were any "Poxy F@@king Jocks in his flight". It goes without saying that we got a bit of a hard time from this dullard. Just one of a few incidents I had whilst serving. There are plenty of bigots around down south too.


Anyway, if the union is dissolved the Scots will get on with it and do just fine in my opinion.

[lj101]

Anyway, if the union is dissolved the Scots will get on with it and do just fine in my opinion

Out of interest, what are your thoughts on the Shetland Islanders stance reference Scottish Independence?

The SNP has previously recognised the islands' right to decide their own future but has since changed its mind, with oil revenues vital to its economic case for separation.
Speaking after sending his letter, Mr Scott said: “This week the genie flew out of the nationalist bottle. The SNP doesn’t believe in people determining their future unless it’s on their own nationalist terms.
“That does not work in Shetland. If independence, with all the huge uncertainty that would cause, were to be contemplated, then Shetland will want to fight for what is fairly ours.”
His letter referred to a report by Capital Economics, one of the world’s leading economic research firms, lauding the “strong” negotiating position of the islands if Scots vote for separation.The analysis said Shetlanders could decide to remain part of the UK in the aftermath of a ‘yes’ vote or insist on a high degree of autonomy from a separate Scotland, similar to the relationship between Denmark and the Faroe Islands.
Mr Scott challenged the First Minister to “accept that fact”. When Shetland's local authority held a referendum 35 years ago asking if residents wanted to be part of an independent Scotland, the result was nine to one against.

[Mobil 254]

lj101,

I don't know the opinions held by the Shetland islanders. I suppose the vote in 2014 will let us know how they feel.

I do know Tavish Scott MSP is dead set against independence being a Lib Dem but the normal bloke in the street will let us know when the vote is held.

[Courtney Mil]

Anyway, if the union is dissolved the Scots will get on with it and do just fine in my opinion.

The Union isn't going to be dissolved, Scotland is just blustering about separating from it. Anyway, it doesn't look like it's going to happen any more; Nigel Farage says so, so it must be true.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/farage-independence-dead-in-the-water.20285722 (Nigel Farage Interview)

That aside, he does make one very good point and that is to highlight again, the SNP's claims that membership of the EU would not require full negotiation. They seem to be making it up as they go along and it simply doesn't seem to add up, the same as their claims about the future Scottish Defence Forces.

[lj101]

Mobil

Here is some insight into local Shetland opinion;

Shetland News : SHETLAND says NO to Scottish Independence - 4 - Shetlink (http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15571&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75)


and interestingly;

I don't know if you saw my earlier post in another thread but according to my source Jens Stoltenberg extended a hand to us for a return to Norway when he gave a speech at the Town Hall back in May.

[althenick]

Courtney
The Union isn't going to be dissolved, Scotland is just blustering about separating from it.

to

The Union isn't going to be dissolved, 30% of the flag-waving Patriots in Scotland are just blustering about separating from it.

There - fixed it for you

Al the Porridge-wog (and one 70%)

[Courtney Mil]

Sorry, yes, 30%, Al. Thank goodness for the majority.

[Agaricus bisporus]

How could Scotland possibly produce enough tax revenue to sustain itself independently? Its an utter fantasy. Sure, they'd want to steal the oil - but why? How? Who says it is theirs? Did they develop it? I don't believe there is any moral right to oil just because it comes ashore in your patch.
There is no doubt that they could not possibly afford a defense force and would rely on being under our umbrella which is hugely hypocritical and unethical (but then that twit Salmond is at the bottom of all this idiocy).

And why, when we are trying to reduce governmental/bureaucratic waste and duplication are we adding layers of bureaucracy (like their ridiculous parliament) instead of removing them? We should be centralising, nor dividing. This is insane, irrational, divisive and destructive. By Christ we will live to regret it if it happens.

Anyway, until we all vote to destroy it this is still our UNITED Kingdom so we will all, as is our democratic right, be given a say if there is a referendum over this - that is all the English, Welsh, N Irish and Scots. ALL of us? Won't we? Because if not we've abandoned democracy, and that is the beginning of the end and I for one will begin thinking subversive thoughts against our so-called "government" in Westminster...

[Kluseau]

Feel better? I appreciate the world is a different place when seen from Tunbridge Wells, but I'm not sure a Daily Fail-esque rant is necessarily the way to win the hearts and minds of those who actually will have a vote next Autumn. As an aside, does your enthusiam for centralised government extend to the EU? If so, then you are at least being consistent.

[Mobil 254]

lj101,

Thanks for the link but it looks like more people have posted on this one than the Shetland says no to Scottish independence.

Shetland News : Clive's Record Shop - Shetlink (http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11216)

AB, great rant mate:D

[melmothtw]

As an aside, does your enthusiam for centralised government extend to the EU? If so, then you are at least being consistent.
Quite right Kluseau, but as we all know any Scots/Welsh/Irish/Cornish person who wants freedom for his country is a narrow nationalist, but an Englishman who wants the same (either for England or Britain - they often can't tell the difference) is a patriot. You should know this...!

[AR1]

To whom..

That's me told...

[ericferret]

Actually the derogatory term usually used is "little Englander."

[Courtney Mil]

Five feet eight inches tall and from England. I don't see that as degoratory.

I see the SNP is now all grumpy about the basing plan for the troops returning from Germany. They are now banging the drum about the UK failing to honour their commitment to base more troops there than have been announced today.

Simple question. Why the hell would the UK Government base more there if the Scottish (or maybe just the SNP) intent is to separate, after which the UK Governemt would then have to relocate them all sount of the border and massive additional cost? Actually the referendum will probably happen before most of them get back here, so they'd never end up in Scotland anyway.

These rantings just don't add up unless they have a policy of relying on British trooops being based permanently in Scotland for some devious reason.

[cuefaye]

EIGHT!? Who?

[Courtney Mil]

Me. That's my height.

[TomJoad]

How could Scotland possibly produce enough tax revenue to sustain itself independently? Its an utter fantasy. Sure, they'd want to steal the oil - but why? How? Who says it is theirs? Did they develop it? I don't believe there is any moral right to oil just because it comes ashore in your patch.
There is no doubt that they could not possibly afford a defense force and would rely on being under our umbrella which is hugely hypocritical and unethical (but then that twit Salmond is at the bottom of all this idiocy).

And why, when we are trying to reduce governmental/bureaucratic waste and duplication are we adding layers of bureaucracy (like their ridiculous parliament) instead of removing them? We should be centralising, nor dividing. This is insane, irrational, divisive and destructive. By Christ we will live to regret it if it happens.

Anyway, until we all vote to destroy it this is still our UNITED Kingdom so we will all, as is our democratic right, be given a say if there is a referendum over this - that is all the English, Welsh, N Irish and Scots. ALL of us? Won't we? Because if not we've abandoned democracy, and that is the beginning of the end and I for one will begin thinking subversive thoughts against our so-called "government" in Westminster...

Steady on, following your logic you would give all EU member states a say in any future referendum the UK may hold to determine continued membership of that union. I wonder how many would vote to have us leave. Appears to me you are happy for Scotland to be part of the union but only on your terms - and you wonder why there is a problem with the marriage.:ok:



"How could Scotland possibly produce enough tax revenue to sustain itself independently?"

Why, what is your evidence to back that up. Oh of course there are simply no independent states with a population of 5 million and similar resources , how silly of me. Please, let me talk to your dad! :ugh:

[Kluseau]

I see the SNP is now all grumpy about the basing plan for the troops returning from Germany. They are now banging the drum about the UK failing to honour their commitment to base more troops there than have been announced today.

Simple question. Why the hell would the UK Government base more there if the Scottish (or maybe just the SNP) intent is to separate, after which the UK Governemt would then have to relocate them all sount of the border and massive additional cost? Actually the referendum will probably happen before most of them get back here, so they'd never end up in Scotland anyway.

These rantings just don't add up unless they have a policy of relying on British trooops being based permanently in Scotland for some devious reason.

I suspect its all smoke and mirrors on both sides, with UK and Scottish governments saying and doing things more for their perceived effects on the referendum than for any other reason (and especially not for any reason connected with good policy making; or the long term benefit of Scotland, or the UK; or military effectiveness).

[rab-k]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with Prestwick going this year, and Leuchars becoming a car park for tanks, doesn't that leave just a single RAF Ensign flying north of the border come 2015? (Reserve units excepted).

[Courtney Mil]

Somebody once said that politics is always smoke and mirrors, Kluseau. But I never believed that.

Rab, yes I think you're right. But ask yourself this, I you were the UK Govenrment, would you base anything north of the border now if you thought there were a risk of separation, meaning you'd have to move it all?

SNP shotting themselves in foot, perhaps?

[Bigears]

Rab, you're corrected as requested RAF Benbecula (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/stations.cfm?selectStation=9DEBFE76-A7E6-5AA7-40942596512EFA49) . Somewhere all politicans should be sent

[rab-k]

You're quite right Bigears, I'd forgotten the RRH sites at Benbecula, Buchan and Saxa Vord, plus the Tain range, though they're not quite on a par with what you'd call an RAF station proper, of which there will soon be only one.

Did the SSDR mention the future of RAF Reserves squadrons at Edinburgh, Glasgow and, assuming the SCOTS DG don't kick them out, Leuchars?

[OutlawPete]

Courtney Mil:

" I see the SNP is now all grumpy about the basing plan for the troops returning from Germany. They are now banging the drum about the UK failing to honour their commitment to base more troops there than have been announced today."

Why shouldn't they complain? The spin you have put on it makes them out to be the bad guys. Be fair mate, Westminster has handed Scotland its arse on several issues along the years.

All they're doing by making this decision is adding justification to the SNP's bid for independence.

Anyway, it's not like you haven't "banged your drum", as you put it. Love or loathe the SNP, all they were doing was representing their constituents and if they are unable to do that then the UK might as well be a dictatorship.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Hummingfrog]

TomJoad

How could Scotland possibly produce enough tax revenue to sustain itself independently?"

Why, what is your evidence to back that up. Oh of course there are simply no independent states with a population of 5 million and similar resources , how silly of me.

I think the evidence is in the latest Scottish Executive figures published today:ugh: (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00415871.pdf)


In 2011-12, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £18.2 billion
(14.6% of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £17.2 billion
(13.5% of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit
of £7.6 billion (5.0% of GDP) when an illustrative geographical share of North Sea
revenue is included.

so when the oil runs out the - which it will - the deficit will be 14.6% of GDP plus the interest payments on Scotland's share of the UK debt.

Luckily I have a vote in this nonsense:ok:

HF

[Wander00]

If there was a Scottish Air Force - would it be commanded by the Scottish Air Chief marshal (formerly the Scottish Gp Capt)?

[Mil-26Man]

Aye Hummingfron, we can all cherry pick reports to suit our agendas.


In 2011-12, including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue, Scotland’s net fiscal deficit was £7.6 billion (or 5.0% of GDP). In 2011-12, the equivalent UK position including 100% of all North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £121.0 billion (or 7.9% of GDP).


The above shows that Scotland's percentage deficit is less than that of the UK's. If the UK can function quite happily with a deficit of 7.9% of GDP (including North Sea oil revenue), then why can't Scotland do the same with a deficit of just 5% of GDP?

And as to your point about Scotland being screwed when the oil runs out - when that happens we'll ALL be screwed!

[Courtney Mil]

Why shouldn't they complain? The spin you have put on it makes them out to be the bad guys. Be fair mate, Westminster has handed Scotland its arse on several issues along the years.

All I was saying was that the UK Government would have been crazy to move so many assets north of the border IF they might have to relocate tham all over again after separation. I don't think for a minute that the decision was taken to be nasty to the Scots, they simply had to take into account the possibility of independence. Nothing for anyone to take personally.

Alright, let's forget the political and tribal arguments for a moment. I'd be interested to hear if any PPRuNers have a view in the viability of Mr Salmond's supposed plans.

Alec Salmond has articulated his ambition to appropriate one of the five multi-role brigades planned for the Future Force 2020 and mentioned in the SDSR. In his words: "The configuration of the army in Scotland, the mobile brigade, which is the outcome of the defence review, looks exactly like the configuration you'd want for a Scottish defence force - so that's one naval base, one aircraft base and a mobile armed brigade."

Could this actually work in practice, and what would be the main obstacles?

[Biggus]

Was the original statement about the number of troops "intended" to be based in Scotland - which the SNP says the UK government is not honouring - made before or after the annoucement to cut a further 20,000 troops from the Army?


If it was before (and I don't know if it was or not), then surely with the announcement of a 20,000 troop reduction it must have been blindingly obvious that the "goalposts" would have moved somewhat, and all bets were off!!



rab-k,

Buchan and Saxa Vord went some time ago!!

[The Stimulator]

Sadly Courtney, I feel that the sum total of his planning is "The configuration of the army in Scotland, the mobile brigade, which is the outcome of the defence review, looks exactly like the configuration you'd want for a Scottish defence force - so that's one naval base, one aircraft base and a mobile armed brigade." I fear that the actual words are the closest he has come to a plan so far, and there is no flesh to put on the bones as yet.

[TomJoad]

TomJoad



I think the evidence is in the latest Scottish Executive figures published today:ugh: (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00415871.pdf)




so when the oil runs out the - which it will - the deficit will be 14.6% of GDP plus the interest payments on Scotland's share of the UK debt.

Luckily I have a vote in this nonsense:ok:

HF


Oh how silly of me - there was me thinking that one of the goals of independence was to have responsibly for tax raising. I naively though that such things as income tax may change, and particularly corporation tax. I didn't think that fiscal projections of balance of debt would have been made using exiting UK tax take. Neither did I realise that Scotland's share of UK debt had been determined. The referendum vote provides teh mandate for the negotiations to take place to determine what will be known as the "settlement". The settlement will then be put to the country to accept/reject - so lots to play for potentially , especially given the tricky problem of where to put the submarines. My point being we do not know what that portion of the debt will be so don't pretend we do.

Similarly I didn't realise that the aim was to run the country with 0 % deficit; how could that possibly work, I mean look at the UK deficit at the moment ! And of course no government of any future independent Scotland would look to manage the budget responsibly; the country just does not have the talent to do so - look how wisely the city of London does it and how smart they had to be to get us where we are today. And of course no other similarly sized country can do it , they just do not exist. :ugh:

Like you Hummingfrog I to have a vote in the matter and I am no advocate of independence. Trouble is, I tend to be awkward, I do like to make an informed vote - call me old fashioned. :ok: The puerile nonsense of "the country could not stand alone financially when the oil runs out" is morally, intellectually and grammatically bankrupt :) Its an old worn out record and it does not cut it any more . Consider - for all of Eire's current financial difficulty do you see them hammering on the doors of Westminster asking to be let back into the union. Finally, when we first went over to proportional representation in Scotland a considerable number of ballot papers were spoilt because the ordinary Joe could not understand the system. Don't count on the same ordinary Joe understanding or giving a passing thought to the budget deficit and financial projections based on slight of hand. :ok:

[Hummingfrog]

TomJoad

I naively though that such things as income tax may change, and particularly corporation tax.

You are right they will change - SNP policy is to reduce corporation tax so I presume to keep the books reasonably balanced they will have to raise other taxes. The problem is there is no information coming from the Yes campaign as to which taxes will be raised - especially as they have said they disagree with the policy of limiting benefit increases to 1% so money will have to be found, post independence, to cover the increase in benefit relative to the rest of the UK

My point being we do not know what that portion of the debt will be so don't pretend we do.

Who is pretending to know what the portion of debt will be? All we know is that they will be some debt to service. Read posts properly before attributing your thoughts to other posts:ugh:

And of course no government of any future independent Scotland would look to manage the budget responsibly; the country just does not have the talent to do so

I agree with you - judging by the farce of the Edinburgh Tram project Scotland lacks the talent to manage big projects;)

The puerile nonsense of "the country could not stand alone financially when the oil runs out" is morally, intellectually and grammatically bankrupt

It remains to be seen how Scotland and the rest of the UK will cope when the oil runs out but the SNP puts great emphasis on the oil wealth. It should be regarded as the icing on the cake but the underlying economy has to be able to continue when it runs out and the figures for 2011-12 show that the Scottish economy will suffer more than the UK as a whole.

Consider - for all of Eire's current financial difficulty do you see them hammering on the doors of Westminster asking to be let back into the union.


I went to a photographic exhibition in Melbourne whose subject was "The young people of Eire" It was heartbreaking as it told the story of how the recent crash suddenly exploded into the lives of the Irish. Each picture was of a person who was leaving Eire because they job had evaporated. Most were well educated and the theme of their stories always said how fast the economy had imploded. The interesting thing was that about 75% were coming to the UK for work while the rest were off to Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc

So while Eire may not be hammering on the doors of Westminster a fair proportion of their young well educated citizens are:confused:

HF

[Wingswinger]

So while Eire may not be hammering on the doors of Westminster a fair proportion of their young well educated citizens are

Just as a fair proportion of young well-educated Scots have always done. The economy of Scotland has never been able to provide stimulating employment enough to match the output of its better schools. Just look at how many Scots there are in the upper echelons of business, government and the media. We are present well out of proportion to our actual numbers in the overall population of the Union.

[Courtney Mil]

Well, let's face it. It is now quite clear that the SNP are talking up their financial future in order to con the voters into supporting separation.

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said the "buried document blows a crater" in the SNP's independence spending promises.

He added: "Publicly, the SNP talk about protecting the public sector after independence but behind closed doors they concede that public sector job cuts could be necessary to keep costs down.

"Even setting up something as fundamental as a tax collection system for an independent Scotland could cost us twice as much as Scotland's share of HMRC costs as part of the UK.

"The sums don't add up."

Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont insisted Mr Swinney was in denial over civil servant advice about the dangers of basing the plans on a "volatile and diminishing commodity like North Sea oil".

Source: BBC News - Scottish independence: SNP's Swinney admits to economic challenges (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21679760)

As was said on the Today Programme this morning, they are good at picking the years that show the spikes in the Scottish economy. All of this is exactly what I've been saying.

So back to the original question (remember what the thread is about?) about the size and shape of the Scottish Air Force. Doesn't look like they'll be able to afford what Salmond is spouting, does it?

[melmothtw]

Well, let's face it. It is now quite clear that the SNP are talking up their financial future in order to con the voters into supporting separation.



And probably just as true that the UK establishment is talking down Scotland's financial future in order to con voters into not supporting separation. As with most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Now, getting back to your original question. What makes you think that Scotland wants an air force?

[Party Animal]

Ignoring cost for one moment, the problem is, there is no paperwork clearly stating what the SNP would like to see for defence post independance. We can speculate as much as we wish but I really would like to see some hard figures on the table, even if they are just aspirational. All I've had through my door so far is a leaflet telling me that if I vote 'yes' for independance, a new Scotland will suddenly become filthy rich and the streets will be paved with gold. Absolute bullsh1t, but simple propaganda for the naive, foolish or young to believe in.

[Courtney Mil]

And probably just as true that the UK establishment is talking down Scotland's financial future in order to con voters into not supporting separation

That may also be true, but the talking down in this case is coming from Hollyrood, not London.

What makes you think that Scotland wants an air force?

Because Salmond stated that he does, remember?

"The configuration of the army in Scotland, the mobile brigade, which is the outcome of the defence review, looks exactly like the configuration you'd want for a Scottish defence force - so that's one naval base, one aircraft base and a mobile armed brigade."

[melmothtw]

Because Salmond stated that he does, remember?

"The configuration of the army in Scotland, the mobile brigade, which is the outcome of the defence review, looks exactly like the configuration you'd want for a Scottish defence force - so that's one naval base, one aircraft base and a mobile armed brigade."


That's fair enough, but there are air forces, and then there are air forces. When folks on here talk about Typhoons and even Hawks they're thinking about a full-spectrum capable air arm which I just don't see Scotland needing (or even wanting). As has already been mentioned, I think the New Zealand and Irish models with the emphasis on MPA and transport are more realistic / desirbale than simply fielding a smaller RAF.

[Courtney Mil]

That's a sound observation, Mel, and it's one of the things I'd love to hear other folk's opinions on. What they might want that the UK could offer and just what they might afford.

[Sandy Parts]

Quote:
"The configuration of the army in Scotland, the mobile brigade, which is the outcome of the defence review, looks exactly like the configuration you'd want for a Scottish defence force - so that's one naval base, one aircraft base and a mobile armed brigade."
Maybe he meant "a one aircraft base and a mobile armed brigadeer"??

[OutlawPete]

Hummingfrog said:

It remains to be seen how Scotland and the rest of the UK will cope when the oil runs out but the SNP puts great emphasis on the oil wealth. It should be regarded as the icing on the cake but the underlying economy has to be able to continue when it runs out and the figures for 2011-12 show that the Scottish economy will suffer more than the UK as a whole.

I'm not pro SNP but they have done more to draw in outside investment than the UK government has recently. They haven't really made too much noise about the oil (recently)and my understanding is that it would be proportionately shared between the UK and Scotland should independence happen.

Take a look at the other industries and whisky is the next big one people think of. When we're not pouring it into rivers we make a fair bit of cash from it for UK PLC. Also farming, forestry and tourism before we even get to renewable energy has been much more prolific in terms of development than the North Sea. Salmond knows the oil will run out, he's not daft even though people say different.

It is a perception that comes from south of the border that the Scots only think about the oil. It's wrong, there are many more irons in the fire.

[TomJoad]

TomJoad



Read posts properly before attributing your thoughts to other posts:ugh:




So while Eire may not be hammering on the doors of Westminster a fair proportion of their young well educated citizens are:confused:

HF


Correct you are :confused:, please show evidence to back your claim - I know of no movement from Eire's young well educated citizens banging on westminster doors. To suggest that the country's current financial difficulties against the global down turn would be cause to abandon their independence is a staggering suggestion. Please do not attributed false claims - evidence please. Otherwise , you are guilty of the very sin you claim of the SNP.:ugh:


I would never wish to see the day when Scotland's sons and daughters do not seek out a life beyond these shores. The Scots are an outward looking people it's in their blood - the contribution Scots have made to the modern world against the size of the country is truly staggering. One must only assume you hold the same view of other small countries such as Denmark, or New Zealand - how dare they exist as independent states. With respect to your claim of lack of talent - I beleive you have shown your true colours - could luck to you, use that vote wisely.:D

[lj101]

Tom

Some info here;

Emigration from Ireland soars - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/9584756/Emigration-from-Ireland-soars.html)

[Hummingfrog]

OutlawPete

They haven't really made too much noise about the oil (recently)

Only today Wee Eck stood up in Holyrood and said that Oil would be the great saviour of Scottish finances. He even said that there were £1.5 trillion pounds of retail value left. Notice he said retail - this is not what the Scottish treasury would get but it is a figure he bandies about a lot - hoping that people will assume that the £1.5 trillion is available for use by the Scottish Executive.

As I understand how the the oil industry is taxed, the treasury only get a small percentage of the retail value of the oil. Once the block license has been paid for the treasury gets Corporation tax, Petroleum revenue tax (PRT) and fuel duty at the pumps. I believe that PRT has been reduced/modified recently to encourage development of the more marginal fields.

The big players in the N Sea are slowly pulling out as returns on investment dwindle - eg BP selling the Forties to Talisman.

Oil is a valuable tax provider but as the saying goes " a dog is not just for Xmas it is for life" so "Independence is not just for the life span of oil - it is for EVER"

HF

[TomJoad]

Tom

Some info here;

Emigration from Ireland soars - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/9584756/Emigration-from-Ireland-soars.html)

Yes but yet no mass movement as yet for Eire to repeal the 1922 Anglo Irish Treaty and Eire to to rejoin the UK as has been suggested. So economic difficulties leading to migration of populations (as has happened before and always will) is no argument against a case for independence.

[TomJoad]

OutlawPete



... hoping that people will assume that the £1.5 trillion is available for use by the Scottish Executive.

HF

You didn't so why assume others are less gifted - Oh sorry you already made that clear with your view on lack of talent.:eek:

You really do appear to have a hang up on this oil thing and your pejorative references to Salmond indicate an underlying dogma. If the Scots were to vote for independence - which i do not believe they will - they will not do so because of oil. You are well of the mark with that line.:sad:

[Hummingfrog]

TomJoad

Read posts properly before attributing your thoughts to other posts
:ugh:

To suggest that the country's current financial difficulties against the global down turn would be cause to abandon their independence is a staggering suggestion.

yes but yet no mass movement as yet for Eire to repeal the 1922 Anglo Irish Treaty and Eire to to rejoin the UK as has been suggested


Who is suggesting that Eire abandons their independence you seem to have got that idea into your head from somewhere - certainly not my post which referred to their young people leaving Eire for England

With respect to your claim of lack of talent - I beleive you have shown your true colours

Are you Ex Mil as you don't seem to understand banter - signified by the ;) sign.

The quote from you stated that YOU didn't believe Scotland had the talent! See quote in blue!!

And of course no government of any future independent Scotland would look to manage the budget responsibly; the country just does not have the talent to do so

I was only, tongue in cheek, agreeing with you:E

HF

[CoffmanStarter]

I understand a new style Pilots Brevet is under consideration by Mr Salmond ...

http://66728c23231e9ad29bda-499d692b8818ca0498d1f1d042a47200.r48.cf2.rackcdn.com/2012uploads/2012/05/FlyingSporran-medium.jpg

:E

PS ... Visual Banter should anyone feel aggrieved :ok:

[TomJoad]

TomJoad

I went to a photographic exhibition in Melbourne whose subject was "The young people of Eire" It was heartbreaking as it told the story of how the recent crash suddenly exploded into the lives of the Irish. Each picture was of a person who was leaving Eire because they job had evaporated. Most were well educated and the theme of their stories always said how fast the economy had imploded. The interesting thing was that about 75% were coming to the UK for work while the rest were off to Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc

So while Eire may not be hammering on the doors of Westminster a fair proportion of their young well educated citizens are:confused:

HF

Ah Banter the last refuge of the "you didn't understand what iI thought I had meant brigade";)

I introduced the premise that despite the economic downturn that Eire would nonetheless not be approaching the UK to repeal the 1922 treaty through which Eire gained independence. My premise being that economic performance is not such the persuasive determinant to the state of independence or maintenance of a political union that you are making

To which you countered that while Eire was not hammering on the doors of Wesminster her young educated people were. Clearly they are not.:bored:

You know that feeling when you have to explain a joke......and yes i am ex mil:ok: And sticking wee smiley winky thumbs up chuckle emioticons dont make banter mate.:ugh:

[TomJoad]

Ok Hummingfrog, given that I am already in the No camp, convince me why I am right to be there from the UK perspective. In other words, explain to me what benefit the rest of the UK gets from Scotland's presence in the Union.

The politicians talk vaguely of "stronger together" and the leaflet posted through the door today spoke of "we help each other out". What is the tangible effect of these claims - why have successive UK governments all sought to retain Scotland in the Union if the country is such an economic drag.

Please no banter, visual, overt or otherwise latent - it is not translating;)

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNM6bhR-MKrbeR1msWYGCx1P7IDorPEji4WETSqPza8k4yNy2Riw

[Courtney Mil]

Maybe time you guys with political axes to grind started your own thread on your favourite topic. Obviously not in the Mil Aircrew bit. But many thanks for your bitter, transmit-only bigotry. Great fun. Nearly time for the delete button.

[CoffmanStarter]

^^^ :D:D:D:D ^^^

[TomJoad]

Maybe time you guys with political axes to grind started your own thread on your favourite topic. Obviously not in the Mil Aircrew bit. But many thanks for your bitter, transmit-only bigotry. Great fun. Nearly time for the delete button.

Care to explain please. Is it just because you do not have a shared opinion and only yours is relevant. Here is a suggestion, maybe its time for you to just ignore the posts that do not interest you: you know like grown ups do. Give it a go.

[Courtney Mil]

No, Tom. Just because this thread (and this forum) is about MILITARY AVIATION not Scottish politics or English politics. It's very simple. If you want to discuss other stuff, please feel free to do so. Just find the right place to do it.

Every question I've posed here about future Scottish aviation has been swamped with how great Scotland is or isn't. Neither of which I could give a **** about.

Personally, I don't want my name at the top of a tribal rant thread - hence I prefer the idea of deleting the thread.

Does that answer your question?

[TomJoad]

No, Tom. Just because this thread (and this forum) is about MILITARY AVIATION not Scottish politics or English politics. It's very simple. If you want to discuss other stuff, please feel free to do so. Just find the right place to do it.

Every question I've posed here about future Scottish aviation has been swamped with how great Scotland is or isn't. Neither of which I could give a **** about.

Personally, I don't want my name at the top of a tribal rant thread - hence I prefer the idea of deleting the thread.

Does that answer your question?


Not really. Your question and its possible answers are intrinsically related to what has been debated. But specifically I want you to answer your claim of bigitory - please honestly do. And hey, your teady bear fella, play with it as you will .

[Courtney Mil]

I truly believe that the undercurrent discussion on the political level herein consists mainly of people spouting their own views, some completely ill-informed and largely based on their own tribal and, yes, bigotted ideas. In so saying I am attacking neither side of the very worthy, but totally misplaced (in an aviation forum) discussion.

I do not agree with you that the sideline discussion is "intrinsically related" to the topic - if it were you would be relating your arguments to the topic.

Anyway, my teady bear is my own affair and not for discussion here.

[TomJoad]

I truly believe that the undercurrent discussion on the political level herein consists mainly of people spouting their own views, some completely ill-informed and largely based on their own tribal and, yes, bigotted ideas. In so saying I am attacking neither side of the very worthy, but totally misplaced (in an aviation forum) discussion.

I do not agree with you that the sideline discussion is "intrinsically related" to the topic - if it were you would be relating your arguments to the topic.

Anyway, my teady bear is my own affair and not for discussion here.

So there we have it, your dislike of people proffering their own opinions. WOW.
You are also the arbitrator of what is informed or otherwise. WOW

Please delete the thread.

Bye the way, what is the teddy bear wearing if I may be so bold;)

[OutlawPete]

Courntney Mil.

Time to drop the butter wouldn't melt attitude. Not to mention the "it's my ball, my rules and I'll say who plays" line, bored with that one now, its come out a couple of times.

Ironically you've dipped in and out of the political aspects as you saw fit throughout the whole thread so far. All the time whilst trying in vain to make some tenacious link to military aviation.

I did say at the start, this topic stank. It has NO relevance as the independence vote will be no.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[TomJoad]

^^^:D:D:D:D^^^

Spot on..


But please what is the bear wearing before the thread is deleted:}

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbzDbB6C5zgmCs6nz-8WcHrJWPkhicQm2fg85AY3Y5nIeszhQ6

[OutlawPete]

Hummingfrog said:

"The big players in the N Sea are slowly pulling out as returns on investment dwindle - eg BP selling the Forties to Talisman. "

Not disputing what you've said there but in essence what we actually have is a company that has made a signifancant profit from an asset that it chooses to sell whilst it still has value to another company (a great deal for both by the way) that has the techniques to exploit the asset even further.

Hardly the rats leaving the sinking ship just yet.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[TomJoad]

Hummingfrog said:

"The big players in the N Sea are slowly pulling out as returns on investment dwindle - eg BP selling the Forties to Talisman. "

Not disputing what you've said there but in essence what we actually have is a company that has made a signifancant profit from an asset that it chooses to sell whilst it still has value to another company (a great deal for both by the way) that has the techniques to exploit the asset even further.

Hardly the rats leaving the sinking ship just yet.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android


Careful OutlawPete, I think you may fall foul of the "don't post your opinion" rule set by the OP. I'm going to push my luck here before the teddy bear is tossed and thread is deleted by upset of Tumbridge. Anyway here is my opinion albeit not original "truth is the first casualty of war" The skills shortage of professional engineers in Aberdeen remains at a crisis point - we are recruiting from overseas - so much for our population migration. Any plans for independent Scotland can't rely on oil- don't you know its running out - funny how the same message is not made so prominently to the westminster government maybe it only runs out for Scotland! Finally, sombody should tell the BBC, the oil companies, recruiters and the UK Engineering Council that they have got it all wrong.:=

Oil and gas 'jobs boom' forecast for North Sea

BBC News - Oil and gas 'jobs boom' forecast for North Sea (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21003704)

[OutlawPete]

It's a fact Tom. The local press is full of vacant and new posts. Engineering firms in Aberdeen are snapping up ex-servicemen as soon as they're released (some before), automotive engineers are jumping ship to the highly lucrative offshore network. Modern Apprenticeship schemes are booming.
On top of all that additional demand there is an aging population of engineers who joined the oil industry at the get go coming up for retirement.

I said somewhere else in this thread that Aberdeen has virtually shrugged its shoulders at this recession. Take the building trade as a litmus test for this, there are whole new industrial estates being built in Dyce not to mention the thousands of private homes springing up all over the northeast. Now I don't think for one minute that a business case hasn't been done for all of this.

However, the emphasis shouldn't be on the oil. Scotland has got into the renewable energy business on the ground floor. Already outside investors are sitting up and taking notice of this. When the oil does run out (not in any of our lifetimes) the country will be at the epicentre of the renewable energy boom.



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[OutlawPete]

Just a thought, an independent Scotland may have to look to it's closest ally to fill some of these jobs. We might see a few folk scramble over Hadrians wall heading north!

Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android [/quote]




Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Party Animal]

OutlawPete / TomJoad,

Roger all that - now what's your opinions of a 'potentailly' future Scottish Airforce?

Base or bases? - just Lossie?

HQ organisation and where? - Separate Army, Navy, Air Force HQ's or one Joint?

Any wings or groups or just a HQ and sqns?

How many sqns and how many aircraft and of what type?

How about an opinion on what you would like to see (should independance go ahead) versus what you think we would realistically see?

Look forward to reading your answers.

[diginagain]

We might see a few folk scramble over Hadrians wall heading north!
We've been bringing our expertise to the industry for many years now, so not much will change.

[OutlawPete]

In my opinion, Party Animal, an independent Scotland would need more than just helicopters and transport. Fisheries protection and security of the offshore installations would be paramount to secure the investment there. The Eire model oft lamented will not cover this need.

A few Harriers would be handy actually. And a Nimrod or two. Maybe a couple of F3's for Q cover, they were getting really good before the UK government chopped them up.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Milo Minderbinder]

There won't be a Scots airforce because they won't be anyone to fly in it. Scots are congenital mercenaries who only fight successfully in other peoples armies. If they created their own they'd be so absorbed with internal bickering that nothing would get done. They only fight successfully if they're fighting a cause other than their own, led by someone other than their own.

[diginagain]

More popcorn, anyone?

[OutlawPete]

Quote:

We might see a few folk scramble over Hadrians wall heading north!

We've been bringing our expertise to the industry for many years now, so not much will change.

Very true, Aberdeen (& shire) is a popular area for incomers and their contribution is welcome. The fact that the current population can't support the growth is not a weakness. Many engineers (and other trades) have moved here as other parts of the UK have receded or died off completely and they will continue to do so.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[diginagain]

My wife and I spent a very pleasent spell living in a small community near Forfar. Of the inhabitants, most had connections with the offshore sector in one form of employment or another, and only one was North British.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"only one was North British"

Thats because the locals have all emigrated to places better....
The "clearances" are still going on, just in a different way.

[OutlawPete]

"only one was North British"

Thats because the locals have all emigrated to places better....
The "clearances" are still going on, just in a different way.

The Scots will always emigrate, I think it must be in our genetic code. I'm not from this part of the country but when I was posted to Lossie the decision to raise my family here was a no-brainer. With all the redundancies, disbandments and cut backs of the military, the northeast offered it all. Excellent employment opportunities, very affordable housing, a good education system that didnt mean having to find tuition fees to put my kids through uni. Not to mention the scenery, outdoor life and fresh air. Many people posted here never leave, some even move their extended families here.

Can't think of too many places any better at the moment, Milo. You can keep your overpopulated, mis-managed, gridlocked south.

Apart from the southwest that is. Somerset and Cornwall are just fantastic.




Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Aggamemnon]

Apart from the southwest that is. Somerset and Cornwall are just fantastic.

Ssh! They'll all want in!

[TomJoad]

OutlawPete / TomJoad,

Roger all that - now what's your opinions of a 'potentailly' future Scottish Airforce?

Base or bases? - just Lossie?

HQ organisation and where? - Separate Army, Navy, Air Force HQ's or one Joint?

Any wings or groups or just a HQ and sqns?

How many sqns and how many aircraft and of what type?

How about an opinion on what you would like to see (should independance go ahead) versus what you think we would realistically see?

Look forward to reading your answers.


Assuming the vote is yes , which I still maintain it will not:

1. I do not believe Scotland would need nor could afford an Air Force much beyond a few helicopters or small fixed wing ac for coastguard/maritime/fisheries protection. Certainly no air defense, transport or ground attack requirement.

2. The answer then to how many bases follows from above. Most sensible option would be to retain Lossie rather than close and reopen another base; its capacity more than adequate for independent Scottish needs. Lossie would also provide capacity for visiting aircraft. The requirement/desire to exercise in low flying areas/access to air weapon ranges available in the North of Scotland would I suspect remain for the rump of the UK Air Force (whatever it is to be called). I suspect that the rump of UK government and Scottish government would be able to form a mutual agreement (HN agreement/memorandum of understanding) to provide continued access on quid pro quo basis. Similar cooperation/access agreements would exist for the rump of UK land and navy assets. Here, the SNP's desire to remove nuclear weapons would not happen overnight - entirely unrealistic to expect rump of UK to find solution to problem overnight - so an agreement to maintain the Faslane/Coulport base would again form part of the settlement negotiations.

3. Bulk of Scottish military capability would I suspect be formed by land component. Their role, most likely assigned to NATO/UN rapid reaction and peacekeeping duties. Given the small size of her force requirement then I suspect a single defence force would be practicable. Single HQ (administrative Edinburgh, operational Lossie) certainly no wings or multiple sqns - no need as no where near the number of assets. Through life support for assets contracted to industry as per ASTOR model.


In sum, Scotland's defence capability/requirement would be concentrated on small land element. Following Denmark's philosophy - small countries cannot field comprehensive military capability across all components of air, land, sea . Scotland would need to be part of a larger alliance (NATO) providing what it can in return for what it cannot - as per current arrangement for small NATO countries. So as far as air is concerned , no AD, no AT, and no mud moving - can't afford it, don't need it. A few rotary aircraft/fixed wing sharing search rescue/fisheries protection.


Cooperation between Scotland and rump of UK would, contrary to some of the muppet comments found on this thread, would exist post independence. If you like a very special special relationship would exist . The rump of the UK would have a vested interest to see that this takes place - how else would it make up the deficit of the current forces drawn from Scottish population/territory. Scots would continue to serve in rump of UK Air, Land and Sea under bilateral agreement - all things are possible but these possible future models will not be spoken nor explored formally by either westminster nor SNP until after independence.

Ok mark it up in red please and let me know when I should expect the the next task - perhaps a DO letter on marquee for mess doo, set of minutes, signal or a formal letter to Wg Cdr Smythe offering an apology for comparing wife to a bloated warthog at the summer ball. Ah the memories of ISS , and summer balls.:oh:



Now PartAnimal , looking forward to your thoughts on future independent Scotland's defence needs beyond that which you have posted;)

[Courtney Mil]

I'm impressed, TomJoad. A good and relevant answer. Thank you.

In particular, I support your statement:

Cooperation between Scotland and rump of UK would, contrary to some of the muppet comments found on this thread, would exist post independence.

Basing for QRA and LF training springs to mind. When the UK gets a replacement MPA, there would be a good argument for deploying those assets for mutual benefit. Although it won't be military for much longer, SAR may well be a British Isles task - better than duplicate or non-cooperating ops.

This is, of course, IF. Very unlikely that separations will happen, but I get the feeling it's getting slightly more likely every month. But you have answered some of my questions about afordability.

[TomJoad]

I'm impressed, TomJoad. A good and relevant answer. Thank you.

In particular, I support your statement:



Basing for QRA and LF training springs to mind. When the UK gets a replacement MPA, there would be a good argument for deploying those assets for mutual benefit. Although it won't be military for much longer, SAR may well be a British Isles task - better than duplicate or non-cooperating ops.

This is, of course, IF. Very unlikely that separations will happen, but I get the feeling it's getting slightly more likely every month. But you have answered some of my questions about affordability.

Don't really see any evidence that the the YES vote will prevail as you suggest. I do believe we will vote to remain with the union. However, what will follow will I suggest be the more interesting outcome. The shape of the union will change. The inevitable consequence of devolution is progression towards full tax raising, fiscal and regulatory autonomy. The chestnut of the West Lothian question will finally be laid to rest as the UK moves towards a federal system. I find it inconceivable that the Union will survive in the same way as we know it now; it is becoming increasingly irrelevant and ill serving to the component states.

[Courtney Mil]

Don't really see any evidence that the the YES vote will prevail as you suggest.

We must be using different languages, Tom. Maybe I express myself badly. I DO NOT THINK IT WILL HAPPEN. I AGREE WITH YOU. That is why I said IF.

Honestly I have never suggested that the YES vote would prevail. My entire purpose here was to explore what armed forces Scotland might need IF separation were to happen. Hypothetical.

I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I'm just putting forward a hypothetical case to explore what might be in Scotland's interest, th UK's interest and what might be feasable.

Party Animal (thank you, by the way) put into writing exactly what I've been trying to ask.

[TomJoad]

We must be using different languages, Tom. Maybe I express myself badly. I DO NOT THINK IT WILL HAPPEN. I AGREE WITH YOU. That is why I said IF.

Honestly I have never suggested that the YES vote would prevail. My entire purpose here was to explore what armed forces Scotland might need IF separation were to happen. Hypothetical.

I.



"but I get the feeling it's getting slightly more likely every month."

Must have been lost in translation.:rolleyes: My apology - let's leave it there.:ok:

[Hummingfrog]

Courtney

This is, of course, IF. Very unlikely that separations will happen, but I get the feeling it's getting slightly more likely every month.

I think the opposite is happening. As the yes/no campaign drags on the SNP's claims are being put under the microscope more and more. Where once Salmond appeared to be a consummate politician the facade is beginning to crack. He was caught out being economical with the truth about taking legal advice on Scotland not having to apply for EU membership - he hadn't. Recently he has said the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) figures were wrong on oil and he will publish his own soon! The OBR, an independent body, has recently criticised Cameron so will people believe Salmond?

Should Scotland become independent then I think that Lossiemouth will close as it won't be required. The small Scottish Air force (SAF) could quite happily follow other small country templates and share civil airfields. Prestwick is underused now that Ryanair is its only scheduled airline so MPA/Transport could be based there with FJs as well, if the SAF needs them, with any excess requirement being utilised at Glasgow as the North side seems to be available for development. Kinloss still has an active runway and lots of spare hangarage so helicopters could be based there with the Army.

The advantage of co-locating with the civilians is there is then no need to have runway maintenance, ATC or fire services within the military budget.

HF

[orca]

I completely agree with the sentiment of sharing airfields. The local civilian airfield near me houses a National Guard unit, as does one I have been detached to recently. Seems a very efficient way of doing business - and the more you reduce, the more you can reduce. Seemed to work at KAF too - and when you really needed people out of your way, they moved.

I wonder what the manpower tarif for a 6 aircraft Typhoon unit at a RAF base with RAF cooks and RAF guards and RAF ATC, and PSF and...oh you get the picture...would be compared to a 6 aircraft SAF F-16 unit out of Prestwick would be....with adequate engineering support, a chap on the gate and two ops assistants?

I also think that the idea of pooling MPA assets is a good one. The E-3s out of GK or the Franco-German land units seem to work. Not sure which model would be the most appropriate.

[lj101]

From The Times today

The Defence Secretary has mocked “insultingly vague” plans for independent Scottish armed forces in the event of devolution and warned that the defence of both nations would suffer.
Philip Hammond told an invited audience in Edinburgh today that Scotland would be the principal loser in any division of the United Kingdom with entitlement to just one and a half destroyers, two Hercules transport aircraft, five Chinook helicopters and “under one Red Arrow” in any division of the armed forces.
“Defence and security should be at the heart of this debate about Scotland’s future and yet, just over a year before the Scottish people go to the polls, the commitments from those proposing independence remain almost insultingly vague, implausibly long on ambition and incredibly short on detail and the means to deliver them,” he said.
“I ask myself why? Might it be that they know that any properly informed and well-reasoned analysis will demonstrate that Scotland is stronger and more secure as an integral part of the UK than it would be alone?”
“The reality is that, as part of the UK, Scotland benefits from every pound invested in our collective security.”
The Scottish National Party has outlined plans for a 15,000 strong defence force in the event of devolution and promised to abandon nuclear weapons. The proposed Scottish defence budget would be around £2.5 billion according to the SNP.
However, Mr Hammond claimed that Scottish politicians had failed to understand the scale of logistical and infrastructure support required, necessitating a significantly larger force of 20,000 for an army alone, without a navy or airforce to cover Scotland’s long coastline.
He claimed that SNP politicians were being “juvenile” to assume that Scottish soldiers serving in the British Army would wish to transfer their skills to a Scottish defence force with a “fraction of the opportunities”.
The Defence Secretary also warned that Scottish industry would lose out heavily from an end to Royal Navy ship building north of the border, such as the two aircraft carriers being built on the Clyde, and an end to basing in the region.
Mr Hammond faced fierce criticism in Scotland last week after news that the return of 20,000 troops from Germany would produce an increase of just 600 troops based north of the border.
The announcement contradicted previous promises of major economic benefit to Scotland from the return of forces from Germany.
Despite this, Mr Hammond said that MoD plans represented a “commitment” to Scotland and warned that ending the union would undermine the network of mutually supportive bases spanning both borders.
“An independent Scotland would have to build its defence credibility and its intelligence reliability from scratch and develop its own bilateral relationships, and the success of these would depend in part on what Scotland can offer in return,” he said.
He questioned SNP plans, outlined by the party’s Westminster head Angus Robertson MP, to seek membership of Nato after independence.
“I note the claim made by Angus Robertson that, on independence, Scotland will inherit its treaty obligations,” he said. “The reality is that it would be the rest of the UK that would inherit Nato membership. An applicant Scotland would need all 28 member nations to decide that it met the requirements to join, taking into account its defence policy, including its intended budget, capabilities, missions and objectives.”
Mr Robertson responded to the speech by attacking what he called “broken promises and U-turns” from the government on Scottish bases as well as recent reports that army training ranges have been firing controversial depleted uranium shells into the Clyde.
“He came to insult Scottish service personnel and demean his office by making jokes about Scottish defence needs,” said Mr Robertson in a statement. “People will make their own judgements about the wisdom of making that kind of speech when the reality is it’s his government that has been part of a massive defence underspend of over £7 billion pounds in Scotland in the last ten years alone.”
Mr Robertson added that a Scottish Defence Force would offer “attractive full-rank career prospects” for servicemen. “Domestic operations, training at home and with neighbours and allies as well as international participation in UN sanctioned peacekeeping missions will guarantee an attractive career path,” he said.

[Hummingfrog]

Philip Hammond told an invited audience in Edinburgh today that Scotland would be the principal loser in any division of the United Kingdom with entitlement to just one and a half destroyers, two Hercules transport aircraft, five Chinook helicopters and “under one Red Arrow"

So that is why the local paper has announced that the BoB Air Display staged at Leuchars will not be transferring to Lossiemouth - not much of a display with only half a Red Arrow:E

HF

[Kitbag]

The advantage of co-locating with the civilians is there is then no need to have runway maintenance, ATC or fire services within the military budget.



Nah, there will be a cost, commercial businesses do not give a service away for free.

[Icanseeclearly]

Precisely, The RN pay a fortune to Prestwick for the privelage of basing a couple of Seakings on the North side, if I remember correctly take Gannet out of the equation and PIK would almost cease to function.

Not sure if there are any other Military units co located on a civvy airfield but from my experience its not a cheap option.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

UGSAS continue to operate from Glasgow Airport. Not sure of the costs.

Duncs:ok:

[Kluseau]

There won't be a Scots airforce because they won't be anyone to fly in it. Scots are congenital mercenaries who only fight successfully in other peoples armies. If they created their own they'd be so absorbed with internal bickering that nothing would get done. They only fight successfully if they're fighting a cause other than their own, led by someone other than their own.

Not sure how you manage a present tense in your second and your final sentences there, MM. The last time your comments might have been valid was during the Thirty Years' War from 1618 to 1648. As the war memorial that stands in just about every Scottish village will confirm, in more recent times Scots have fought, and died, in large numbers, for causes they felt they shared with others from elsewhere in the UK, and sometimes led by men who happened to be Scots. 14% of UK deaths in World War One were Scottish (with Scotland accounting for around 10% of UK population at the time). Rather more recently, it was reported that 25% of the British infantry serving in Iraq and Afganistan in Autumn 2007 were Scottish.

Your failure to appreciate this has resulted in a post that insults the memory of every Scot who has laid down his or her life in the course of duty over the past couple of centuries and which, in both tone and content, is little short of racist.

[TomJoad]

Your failure to appreciate this has resulted in a post that insults the memory of every Scot who has laid down his or her life in the course of duty over the past couple of centuries and which, in both tone and content, is little short of racist.

:D:D:D:D

Kluseau,

You spotted it well done; then again this thread, and others of its ilke, are replete with such undertones. Good on you for pointing it out so eloquently - no doubt a defence of banter will be offered (last refuge of intellectually bankrupt). We need to make some allowances for such commentators, I fear it points to a "congenital" disposition ".

[Hummingfrog]

Icanseeclearly

The RN pay a fortune to Prestwick for the privelage of basing a couple of Seakings on the North side, if I remember correctly take Gannet out of the equation and PIK would almost cease to function.

Why does the RN pay a fortune - bad management of finances perhaps. They should use the Ryanair model - charge too much and we go elsewhere - it isn't as though Seakings need a long runway!! I am sure that Bond in Inverness don't pay a fortune for their access to the airfield

With the choice of airfields in Scotland I am sure a financially savvy SAF will be able to negotiate a good rate to share an airfield certainly far cheaper than having to train and pay its own in house airfield support team. This will be the benefit of having a small lean Airforce - the people making the financial decisions will be nearer the frontline.

I once had the pleasure of showing some Irish Air Corp pilots the joys of night hovering prior to their acquisition of Dauphines. Their procurement team for the Dauphine consisted of 3 people - one from the government, the Squadron boss and the QHI. They wanted a piece of American kit in the helicopter - the French said no - French kit is only suitable - the Irish said OK we'll go somewhere else - the French changed their minds! A quick decision for a lean acquisition team:ok:

TomJoad

no doubt a defence of banter will be offered (last refuge of intellectually bankrupt).

Do you have a sense of humour as people who put brackets around disparaging comments have usually lost an argument;)

HF

[lj101]

Royal Navy Unit Prestwick
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated monetary value is of the property comprising Royal Navy Unit Prestwick; how much is planned to be spent on its redevelopment; and if there are plans to sell this facility. [317786]

Mr. Kevan Jones: The MOD has a long-term commercial lease to 2019 with the Prestwick Airport Authorities for the HMS Gannet Air Station. The existing assets on the site are appropriately maintained but, as we do not own the site itself, there are no plans for redevelopment.

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that will be lost as the result of the transfer of search and rescue operations from the Royal Navy Unit Prestwick to Glasgow; and what plans there are for the transfer of existing staff. [317787]

Mr. Kevan Jones: It is not anticipated that the decision to move future search and rescue operations from HMS Gannet at Prestwick to Glasgow airport will result in any job losses. Appropriate civilian personnel will be offered the opportunity to work with the successful contractor under the rules of Trade Union Protection of Employment (TUPE).

I think most if not all (contracts) are negotiated by MOD civil servants - happy to be proven wrong.

[Tankertrashnav]

Interesting discussion on the likely makeup of an independent Scottish defence Force on Radio 4's Question Time last night. SNP's Joan MacAlpine saw an independent Scotland as a member of NATO with similar sized armed forces as Norway, including an air force equipped with modern FJs. Whether comparing the Scottish and Norwegian defence forces is valid depends, I suppose, on how much oil Scotland reckons they can snaffle, as in the end that's the only way they are going to pay for a credible defence force.

You can get it on BBC i - player, or catch it again on Radio 4 at 1310 today.

[TomJoad]

TomJoad



Do you have a sense of humour as people who put brackets around disparaging comments have usually lost an argument;)

HF

Apparently 80% statistics are made up (might be 82);)

[Icanseeclearly]

If the SNP want their forces to be the same as the Norwegians then they best start spending.

Norway's defence budget £4.6 billion

Scotland's will be £2.5

Quite a difference but never let the truth get in the way of politicians especially the SNP who make it up as they go along.

Also, and I stand to be corrected, Norway still has conscription and the information I can find is they get paid a lot less than their UK counterparts.

[TomJoad]

I suppose, on how much oil Scotland reckons they can snaffle, as in the end that's the only way they are going to pay for a credible defence force.

You can get it on BBC i - player, or catch it again on Radio 4 at 1310 today.

Tankertrashnav I agree , but to be honest, if Scotland were to go for independence I would not want to see the lion's share of our tax take go to the defence vote. Scotland has much more pressing needs; indeed, a sense of such feeds the call for greater autonomy. A small force appropriate to need and means: coastal, fisheries protection and perhaps small land contingent to provide support to UN/NATO. Scotland would be unencumbered by trying to maintain a seat at the big table, so no need for 5th, 6th or whatever generation of fighter. Scotland would certainly not be looking to punch above its weight - could not afford to do so, and unlike UK there is no political or public desire to do so. Scotland would have no expeditionary ambitions beyond maintaining whisky exports.;) So credible yes, but credible to address the task not past glories.