PDA

View Full Version : Scottish Air Force - can it be done, an objective discussion?


Pages : [1] 2

Clad
29th Jan 2014, 15:04
I have read several threads about Scottish Independence Defence on here however they appear to very quickly transgress into 'England having a parliament' and 'what will happen when the oil runs out'. Valid and very interesting points !!

But it would be really interesting to have a pure debate about the potential for Scottish Defence??

No doubt everything centres around money but can Scotland take on defence at the point of independence or are will they have to wait some 10 years before becoming a credible force. Relying on the rest of the UK/NATO for support until then? It will be worth pointing out many recent NATO partners have been in similar circumstances.

For example - It's interesting that the SNP have gone from a hawk defending the very large Scottish air defence region to using upwards of (16) typhoons.

If in the unlikely event of independence at the strike of midnight and the Union Jack coming down - what will Scotland have in Air Force terms?

Is there a sufficient infrastructure in place for Scotland to defend itself and or contribute??? Or equally will it end up having to agree a NORAD style QRA structure with then UK - for example what has happened recently in Holland/Belgium.

Not a particular fan of independence but the oil debate is getting worn with the general scots folk.... We know it's running out but we also know it's around for a while yet especially in fields further out. We also know plenty other folks around the world don't have it and do ok (i.e not in recession)

SNP recent defence white paper for reference

############################

Key elements of air forces in place at independence, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, will secure core tasks, principally the ability to police Scotland’s airspace, within NATO.

an Air Force HQ function (with staff embedded within NATO structures)
Scotland will remain part of NATO‘s integrated Air Command and Control (AC2) system, initially through agreement with allies to maintain the current arrangements while Scotland establishes and develops our own AC2 personnel and facility within Scotland within five years of independence
a Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) squadron incorporating a minimum of 12 Typhoon jets based at Lossiemouth
a tactical air transport squadron, including around six Hercules C130J aircraft, and a helicopter squadron
flight training through joint arrangements with allies

############################

Moderators you do a great job - feel free to move adjust this to other forums etc. Many thanks.

PFMG
29th Jan 2014, 15:44
Quite a large coastline and responsibility for homeland defence of the British Isles on the northern flank might need a maritime patrol asset, perhaps based somewhere in Morayshire

Ooops might have strayed into another Nimrod thread - sorry :E

Roland Pulfrew
29th Jan 2014, 16:02
Well it was, sort of, done here:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/520640-scotlands-defence.html

And here:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/513367-if-scotland-declares-udi.html

SASless
29th Jan 2014, 16:19
How do Skirts and Cockpits work out?

Inventing Anti-G Kilts would be a trick I bet!

Pontius Navigator
29th Jan 2014, 16:41
Maritime could be limited to fisheries and oil rig patrols and done by light twins.

No requirement for FJ for offensive/defensive attack missions.

Like Ireland, no need for air defence aircraft - in the case of Ireland the question was 'what about Irish neutrality?' and the response was 'what about it?' Ireland tended to be omitted from outline maps of the UKADR ( a bit like the BBC ignores the Irish weather question.

Army Air Corp - Teeny, weeny, Jock (my keyboard kept typing Joke) airways, essential for flying senior officers between golf links.

So, the Scottish Air Force could attain FOC within a year.

Danny42C
29th Jan 2014, 16:48
Why would they need an Air Force ? Who's their enemy in particular ?

Unless....."Scots, wha' hae Wallace bled ?" :confused:

gooddaysir
29th Jan 2014, 16:51
the more I think about Scotland becoming independent, the funnier it seems to get. I can remember asking my dad to buy me a pellet gun when I was about 15 and it was the thing I most wanted in the whole world. and after about 6 months of shooting tin cans and tree trunks with it I got bored and hardly used it since.


I suspect your independence will become very boring, expensive and pointless after a while, should it come into fruition

MPN11
29th Jan 2014, 16:53
Clad ... great question. I trust you have your slit-trench dug deep! I'm not going to draft a Scottish AF scenario for anyone, because of one simple fact ... MONEY. I doubt anything even vaguely approaching Salmond's concept is affordable, man-able, justifiable or sustainable.

Danny42C ... The English? :E

NutLoose
29th Jan 2014, 16:59
You seem to be running before you walk, Typhoons and Hercs are nice, but you also need the infrastructure to support them, and they're not exactly a cheap aircraft to operate.

Personally I would look at a Country about the same size with a coastline and their requirements and work from that..

Eire springs to mind

Air Corps (Ireland) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Corps_(Ireland)#Capabilities)

As you can see they haven't gone googlie eyed at aircraft that have far more capacity or sophistication than they need.

gooddaysir
29th Jan 2014, 17:04
Nicaraguan Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Air_Force)

Pontius Navigator
29th Jan 2014, 17:05
Hercs? They have the A9 to Inverness. Who wants to got north beyond there? As for the northern isles, they would probably be quite happy giving the RNoAF any facilities. Maybe the western isles could come to a similar arrangement with the RDAF. :)

glad rag
29th Jan 2014, 17:34
You seem to be running before you walk, Typhoons and Hercs are nice, but you also need the infrastructure to support them, and they're not exactly a cheap aircraft to operate.

Personally I would look at a Country about the same size with a coastline and their requirements and work from that..

Eire springs to mind

Air Corps (Ireland) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Corps_(Ireland)#Capabilities)

As you can see they haven't gone googlie eyed at aircraft that have far more capacity or sophistication than they need.

Indeed!
Ministerial Air Transport Service

The Air Corps provide a Ministerial Air Transport Service (MATS) to assist the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uachtar%C3%A1n) and members of the Government in official engagements at both home and abroad. The Gulfstream IV and Learjet 45 are used specifically for this purpose. The AW139 and occasionally the EC135 and CASA are also used for the MATS.

newt
29th Jan 2014, 17:53
By the looks of things, they won't even have a credible currency let alone a credible defence force!:ugh::ugh:

Stuffy
29th Jan 2014, 18:52
Yes, but Scotland will have oil and whisky !

The peak oil production has passed , Sir Alex Ferguson has retired and Scotland will be up haggis creak without a paddle for the Loch.

An independent Scotland suits the EU. Easier to integrate into a Northern EU region.
Nationalism is out !

Of course a very lightly defended strategic area.
That would please Mr Putin. Perhaps he will supply the Scottish Air Force with the aircraft they need. And the ships. Mr Putin likes a single malt.

I would advise reading Tom Clancy's book Red Storm Rising.

Red Storm Rising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Storm_Rising)

NutLoose
29th Jan 2014, 18:57
The Air Corps provide a Ministerial Air Transport Service (MATS) to assist the President and members of the Government in official engagements at both home and abroad. The Gulfstream IV and Learjet 45 are used specifically for this purpose. The AW139 and occasionally the EC135 and CASA are also used for the MATS.

You'd struggle to get Salmond in a Learjet.

MPN11
29th Jan 2014, 19:02
You'd struggle to get Salmond in a Learjet.
A Scottish Aviation Pioneer would suffice ... he isn't going far :p

Rakshasa
29th Jan 2014, 19:06
Realistically you're looking at a squadron cheap to run rotary assets; 212 or along those lines, a light Maritime patrol capability; a few BN Islanders, maybe. C130 is probably unlikely, C27J might be more sustainable for the sort of need an independent Scotland would likely have.

Fast Jets? Forget it. The infrastructure just isn't there even if the money for the jets is.

NutLoose
29th Jan 2014, 19:21
Trouble is won't the assets be coming from the three Armed Services inventory, and not what would probably better options.

Canadian Break
29th Jan 2014, 19:58
In the Scotland Analysis Paper on Defence (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/248654/Scotland_analysis_Defence_paper-FINAL.pdf), an indication was given of how complex these negotiations would be in the context of HM Armed Forces. In that Paper it was noted that “an independent Scottish State could not simply co-opt existing units that are primarily recruited or based in Scotland, as these are an integral part of the UK armed forces … While many military personnel and capabilities are located in Scotland, these do not operate in isolation; … they depend on close integration with other capabilities, services and infrastructure spread across the UK”. Movable military and defence assets located in Scotland would not therefore become the automatic property of an independent Scotland. If they are integral to the defence and security of the UK as a whole they are not “specifically for local use”.

Clad
29th Jan 2014, 20:02
Controversially (again to stress not an independence fan) I think it can be done re a Scottish Air Force.

Albeit in terms of using pre-existing UK SHF helicopters and fixed wing transport aircraft only.

How.... pooled or joint UK/International training - links to Marshall's for servicing etc - joint Scandinavian training/purchasing approach.

Scotland can't realistically undertake strike/air defence roles ... a Baltic States Air Defence solution would therefore be required or a joint UK NORAD idea to defend the Scottish Air Defence Region. Scotland should concentrate on maintaining the Northern NATO radar network in terms of air defence - like Iceland - it cannot afford a fast jet capability.

Money wise.... if the aircraft are there in terms of C130/Merlin (transferred) there is no initial outlay. The main monetary issue (thereafter) arises from then on engineering/training costs - however if the aircraft are in place you clearly don't need to worry about purchase. I think the clear message out of the whole thing is Scotland wouldn't be buying an airforce from scratch. It's an expensive game training, maintaining but if other nations in Europe Scotland's size or smaller can do it, surely we can.

My realists view..

10/15 helicopters mixed type, 3 C 130 and 4/5 potential MPA aircraft (possibly continue/widen the aircraft contract which is in place for the Scottish Fisheries Agency... is this achievable, I personally think it is! Granted Scotland won't be an major player with this force level in terms of invading others, however in terms of a coalition standpoint we could provide a air/lift capability to operations. Building blocks for the future!

Piltdown Man
29th Jan 2014, 20:09
I'm sure the valuable Scottish pound will buy a tidy fleet for President Salmond. A person of his stature would surely need an executive 737 and his whinging sidekick Sturgeon has to be entitled to at least a Hawker. And they'll need a few helicopters for the "Presidential Flight." With the money left in the budget a fleet of attack C172s could be run and the Scottish peninsular would be protected from all those who would wish it harm.

More seriously, the Scots will not have enough income to afford what they want to do AND and run an airforce. They will not be in control of their currency and their social bills will be too large to have sufficient income for defence spending. Borrowing will be too expensive. Not until the pubs and clubs of Glasgow are empty of the unemployed will they start to be in a position to have sufficient cash to run anything but the most basic of armed forces. And that won't include shiny jets.

PM

chiglet
29th Jan 2014, 20:49
You'd struggle to get Salmond in a Learjet.
A Scottish Aviation Pioneer would suffice ... he isn't going far http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif
A Twinpin would be better

Skeleton
29th Jan 2014, 21:08
Can it be done? Yes but not in the way Wee Eck is saying it will be, basic MPA capabilty, no heavy lift and certainly no fast jets. The President will of course no doubt require some form of airborne transportation for him and his groupies. Trouble is what they end up with in terms of equipment following an asset strip of the Armed Services will not cover the above, no MPA for starters.

Will it be done? With Wee Eck in charge, if it isnt, he will tell you it has been been done, is about to be done, or won't be done because the horrible nasty people in London wont pay for it.

Squirrel 41
29th Jan 2014, 21:29
Ok, back on topic

First, there's no question that Scotland could be a perfectly operational government and defence force. It is silly (and for unionists, utterly counter-productive) to suggest otherwise. Personally, I think it would be a great shame, and I want a decisive rejection of the SNP, but as a Sassenach, I don't get a vote.

Second, when states break up, the default position is that the state assets - including military equipment - are divided geographically. This is then open for negotiation and swops - hence why the Ukraine's Tu-160s only went back to Russia as part of a financial deal. Under this, Scotland would get all the Scottish bases and the units normally based there, including the V-Boats. As the SNP is anti-nuclear, it would presumably negotiate these away in return for something else (which may or may not be military).

So as it stands Scotland would get three Sqns of Typhoons and two of Tornados, along with some Sea Kings, Das Teutor, the Astutes and V-Boats, whatever army units are in Scotland and various odds and sods (e.g. is the TA AAC Gazelle unit still at Leuchars?)

**This is not to say that they automatically get the personnel for anything beyond a transitional period**

And then the fun starts. What does Scotland actually want in the way of defence capability? It will "own" some fast jets, but does it need an FJ fleet? Scotland could decide that it wants the lot or none: this is all for negotiation. But interestingly, I suspect that an independent Scotland's biggest military problem will be in the land forces, as the Scottish regiments always seem to have recruiting problems.

We shall see - but I really hope we don't have to.

S41

TomJoad
29th Jan 2014, 22:10
Squirell 41, good post, far too sensible for here.:D:D:D

You mention possible difficulties a future SDF would encounter in manning the land component -

"But interestingly, I suspect that an independent Scotland's biggest military problem will be in the land forces, as the Scottish regiments always seem to have recruiting problems."

Wouldn't the manning requirement be much reduced compared to Scotland's current contribution?

Skelton " The President will of course ...". the proposal is for a monarchy retaining HM the Queen as head of state. Do your homework before embarrassing yourself further, else post on something on which you are informed, even if only partiality:

TomJoad
29th Jan 2014, 22:22
The defence proposals as per the White Paper are IMHO the weakest and less thought out proposals of the SNP. I don't believe that they actually represent the intentions, hopes or ambitions of either the SNP nor those voters inclined to vote Yes come 18 Sep. The SNP simply do not have sufficient experience or competency to define the defence needs of an Independent Scotland. I suspect that, should Scotland vote Yes, and like Squirell I have my reservations although perhaps not as confirmed, then a future SDF would have much in common with Eire and the similarly small northern European countries.

Skeleton
29th Jan 2014, 22:23
I was being sarcastic and for not spelling my name right, you go on my, fools I want nothing to do with list. Goodbye.

TomJoad
29th Jan 2014, 22:32
I was being sarcastic and for not spelling my name right, you go on my, fools I want nothing to do with list. Goodbye.

Appears neither of us could be arsed with due diligence then. Kind of important don't you think:ok:

Squirrel 41
29th Jan 2014, 22:53
TomJoad,

On the land stuff, I'm not sure - not my thing. But IIRC Alec Salmond (or Angus Robertson, SNP Defence Spokesman) said that they were opposed to the Regimental amalgamations, and that they would reverse this in an independent Scotland. Now, if all of the RRoS Bns were to be recast as Single Bn Regts, then the recruiting requirements would go up - and there is grumbling in Westminster that the Scottish regiments were already the most poorly performing in recruiting stakes. Of course, this could also be political hot air..... :hmm:

A future SDF would depend on what role Scotland wanted to play. E.g., it could be quite sensible for Scotland to get one of the RAF's C-17s as "Scotland's share", and then operate it through the NATO Strat Airlift thingy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Strategic_Airlift_Capability) in Hungary.

On FJs, Scotland as a new NATO member would presumably be expected to take over the northern UK AIDZ (NB, not the case for non-NATO Erie). Therefore a need FJ and tankers. As One-Hundred and Eleven (:E) Sqn showed at the end of the F3, it is possible to mount northern QRA with a single Sqn, but realistically, it would need two and an OCU - so the three Sqns worth of Typhoons in Scotland would be enough. NFTC for pilot training would be one option, unless the RAF/Ascent offered the RScAF (presumably, as the SNP are now royalists, oddly) a good price.

All of which is soluble: as are some T23s and some T26s in due course for OPV / FFG duties. No need for CVs, amphibs (after all, they'll have CalMac), or SSN/SSBNs. Some little OPVs? MPA is more problematic, as the P-8 is expensive, but C-295s would provide the EEZ enforcement that would be requirement.

Just some thoughts...

S41

Navaleye
29th Jan 2014, 23:48
I could hear the nails going into the coffin. No Pound, No Euro, No NATO. No Shipbuilding and zero investment from South, Excellent pitch by the Governor. Lets sit back and enjoy. It like local parish councillors running your country. Good luck, vote for who you like. Please examine your long term savings and move them if you can.

Without a hard currency what does he intend to pay BAe Systems with? It raises many defence issues which I suspect the rest of us will have to shoulder.

bcgallacher
30th Jan 2014, 01:34
While not being a supporter of independence,after having a look at what the smaller Scandinavian countries have by way of air power it would appear that they can support credible forces.I really see no reason why an independent Scotland could not do the same. I am optimistic that we will not have to do so.

SASless
30th Jan 2014, 03:02
What if the Scots stayed out of the EU, NATO, and do exactly like the Irish....they would not need much of a Defense Force if they undertook a proper Neutrality stance on foreign issues.

Canadian Break
30th Jan 2014, 04:46
I do not believe that it would be as you say - certainly as far as the international Law that deals with such things as assets. "
While many military personnel and capabilities are located in Scotland, these do not operate in isolation; … they depend on close integration with other capabilities, services and infrastructure spread across the UK”. Movable military and defence assets located in Scotland would not therefore become the automatic property of an independent Scotland. If they are integral to the defence and security of the UK as a whole they are not “specifically for local use”."

perthsaint
30th Jan 2014, 06:10
Squirrel 41 has it pretty much bang on.

Surplus
30th Jan 2014, 06:28
I bet the V boats just happen to be all on patrol in September.

Roland Pulfrew
30th Jan 2014, 06:42
grumbling in Westminster that the Scottish regiments were already the most poorly performing in recruiting stakes. Of course, this could also be political hot air.
I can state that it is not hot air. A number of well manned "English" battalions with an excellent local recruiting record were sacrificed to avoid chopping undermanned "Scottish" battalions with a very poor recruiting record (although some do quite well in Fiji and Samoa :E).

Roland Pulfrew
30th Jan 2014, 06:43
grumbling in Westminster that the Scottish regiments were already the most poorly performing in recruiting stakes. Of course, this could also be political hot air.
I can state that it is not "hot air".

AR1
30th Jan 2014, 07:02
Splitting material assets (should be..) straightforward. - I imagine the retention of HMQ covers the transfer of personnel? As that's where I see an issue arising - unless someone get's their chequebook out to ensure there's an incentive to transfer an individuals service north of the border.

newt
30th Jan 2014, 07:07
Will they get to keep one of the new carriers?

They built them!:ok:

dctyke
30th Jan 2014, 07:17
If some of the fast jets were to be transferred no problem. Lots of tranch one high milage models to move about before it happens.

Heathrow Harry
30th Jan 2014, 07:39
the problem will be. as ever, cash

Wee Eck and his mates are promising all sorts of extra goodies to the electorate - they can follow the Scandinavians and put up taxes or they can cut capabilities.

I can't see them being able to afford much beyond a basic transport and Fisheries air force, a bundle of "regiments" all under staffed and perhaps 3-4 marine patrol vessels

aergid
30th Jan 2014, 08:02
http://www.localriding.com/image-files/flag-scot-saltire.gif
As a"Jock in a Frock" I would like to see Scotland only keep a token force of a few C-130s & Merlins (CHOSC Role) and 45 Commando. Komanchio is needed to protect the Oil Lines from Terrorist Attacks.

As for Jets and Marine Defences Why?

"El Presidente Salmond" can have the old Gannet parked up at NAS Prestwick (if it hasnt gone yet?) as his personal transport :ok:

Who gonna want to attack us? we only have pubs full of unemployed in Glasgow and nothing else going for us.....

I personally think a nice trade deal with say Russia & China (look at Cyprus's Military?) should see Scotland flourish away from "our sassanach neighbours".....









:mad: Can anyone see a bit of "tongue n cheek" here lol :mad:

teeteringhead
30th Jan 2014, 08:18
Typhoons and Hercs are nice, but you also need the infrastructure to support them, and the personnel!

I would guess air and ground crews for sophisticated real military aircraft would be difficult to find/pay for. If it happens, surely Irish AAC would be a good model?

Not sure about other than air, but I'd be surprised if the Pinocchio Green Berets would stay ........ there would then be even fewer Royals in RUK to justify a 3-star in Command. ;)

Clad
30th Jan 2014, 10:23
Western Flank exposed if (neutral) Ireland or an independent Scotland doesn't have an air defence will not leave the Western part of Europe/NATO very much exposed?? Also an air policing nightmare potentially for rogue aircraft - who would intercept them?

ORAC
30th Jan 2014, 11:25
HC 483 Defence Implications of possible Scottish independence (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/483/m01.htm)

Written evidence from Dr. Michael John Williams, Reader in International Relations, Department of Politics & International Relations, Royal Holloway, University of London

..........4. Equipment – dissolution of the Union would also require a division of military equipment between the two countries. This would most likely be part of a wider process of determining ‘ownership’ of assets as well as allocation of debt related to the past-procurement of such assets. It would be disingenuous of Mr. Alex Salmond and the SNP to believe that they should acquire weaponry, Land Rovers, helicopters, planes or ships (to name but a few pieces to be divided) without payment or assumption of debt related to such past procurement. It will thus be necessary to devise a formula for the transfer of equipment. It is worth noting that while there will be military bases in Scotland (which would be relatively easy to assess and transfer) much of the supporting equipment (especially lift capacity) is not necessarily linked to those bases.

5. Equipment Continued – Some critical pieces of equipment will be easily split as the SNP has, for example, disavowed the use and presence of the Trident nuclear deterrent in Scotland. While this may be an ethical point for the SNP, it also reflects fiscal reality. An independent Scotland would be a rump economy compared to that of the UK today (and of a UK post-Scottish independence). Compared to other small NATO/European nations, a Scottish defence budget would be paltry. Denmark and Norway, comparatively sized northern European nations spent 1.4 and 1.5 per cent on defence in 2010 for total expenditure of 2.8GBP billion and 4.2GBP billion respectively. If Scotland was independent in 2010 and spent 1.4 % of the GDP on defence the budget would be approximately 1.7 to 2 £ billion. This would make Scotland among the smallest defence spenders in Europe. While it is possible for many nations in northern Europe to run on small budgets, this discounts the significant start-up costs and independent Scotland will incur in developing a Ministry of Defence, MoD support systems, equipment procurement as well as the development of intelligence capacity such as MI5 and to a lesser extent MI6.........

8. NATO - One of the thorniest questions on the issue of international obligations will be Scotland’s role vis-à-vis NATO. Scotland has articulated interest in being involved in the European Union and ESDP, which as a smaller economy will most likely help future economic transfers via infusions of funds from the EU to Scotland. However, Alex Salmond and the SNP have a firmly anti-NATO perspective. This is problematic because Scotland has depended on NATO for security for over 60 years now. A refusal to join the Alliance that helped secure Scotland in the Cold War and post-Cold War era would be seen as a direct affront to countries that Scotland might want to court post-independence. This would include not only neighbours such as Norway and Denmark, but also the USA and Canada. Furthermore, it could poison relations with England and Wales, who will see Scotland as ‘free-riding’ on English defence expenditure and commitment to NATO. The SNP can, of course, change its current policy, but this would mean, among other things, accepting NATO as a nuclear alliance – a position counter to the SNP position of nuclear weapons. It will not be easy for the SNP to do a u-turn on this issue and the implications of the current position vis-à-vis NATO need to be more clearly elaborated to the Scottish people.

9 – An independent Scotland will, over time, be able to develop a Scottish Defence Force that can act in the protection of Scotland and possibly may even contribute to future international operations via the UN or other international organizations. Achieving such a force, however, will be costly, complicated and difficult. The current Scottish leadership must be more honest and transparent with the Scottish people about the challenges of defence in a post-independence era. For England and Wales, a vote for Scottish independence will have implications but they will be far less severe than for the newly independent Scotland.

Pontius Navigator
30th Jan 2014, 12:18
Accepting the lack of money for a viable regular military force, would the Swiss citizen model be feasible.

A small regular training cadre of Army, Navy and Air Force with a large, low paid, conscripted manpower with a commitment to age 60. Naturally it would take several decades to reach an FOC citizen force.

What would an army need? Infantry for policing and civil order, Engineers, but probably not armour or artillery.

What would the Navy need? Two or three patrol boats (actually something the RN probably should have more of too) run by a coast guard, fisheries, or customs.

Air Force. Do they really need an airlift capability? Or ground attack/strike/recce/anti-ship? A number of MPA, say 3-4 light twin prop. Maybe some medium helicopters to support the army in its civil policing role.

Feasible may be but popular?

Squirrel 41
30th Jan 2014, 12:19
I do not believe that it would be as you say - certainly as far as the international Law that deals with such things as assets.

Well, this is what happened when the former Soviet Union broke up, which is the best guide in international law. The network effect is important operationally but not legally. If Scotland becomes independent (and I hope it doesn't) then all of this will be negotiated - as it was between Ukraine and Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet#Joint_Fleet_and_its_partition).

Let's hope we don't see, but in September we'll know.

S41

teeteringhead
30th Jan 2014, 12:50
would the Swiss citizen model be feasible.

er.....


.... with every adult male with an assault rifle and 50 rounds at home.

Might make Sauchihall Stret on a Saturday night interesting. :eek::eek:

newt
30th Jan 2014, 13:06
Oh no teeteringhead!

Give them guns and they will be in York within a week and London by the end of the month! Then the flag being waved by aergid will be flying at Westminster before we can get the boys back from overseas!

Oh and skirts will be compulsory gear!:{:{:{

Pontius Navigator
30th Jan 2014, 13:19
Squirrel, while agreement was reached regarding the TU-160s, the aircraft carrier was a different kettle of fish.

Now, what would happen should they demand an extortionate price to transfer the CVS to the motherland? Would the Chinese acquire two more floating pleasure palaces?

FrustratedFormerFlie
30th Jan 2014, 13:24
Like a lot of small nations reliant on primary/extractive industry, an independent Scotland would mostly be needing to defend itself against 'economic terrorism' rather than 'mass invasion' or obliterative nuclear attack.

Forget tanks and fast jets. Think small and specialised (SF mostly?) for an army. And then spend more time thinking about how to secure the offshore oil and gas against theft, being held to ransom, or malicious destruction (potentially leading to massive environmental and conseqeunt further economic damage). So combination of surface and airborne assets to patrol, detect, deter, deliver soldiers to defend assets on and offshore, and if necessary destroy threats.

Of course an independent England would face largely similar challenges.

What I cant get my head round is the idea that a United Kingdom MUST have the V-fleet, an independent England feels it would be necessary to have the V-fleet, but nobody (regardless of their position on Scottish independence) seems to think Scotland would need the V-fleet. There's a disconnect in there somewhere! If England needs it, but Scotland doesn't, whats it for? :ugh:

ORAC
30th Jan 2014, 14:24
If England needs it, but Scotland doesn't, whats it for? Because The French have it..........

ranger703
30th Jan 2014, 16:58
Photos: Europa Aviation Europa Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Europa-Aviation-Europa/1303028/L/&sid=7af8c9168ee8d687d6ede133fe41cdfe)

The build up began some time ago...........

NutLoose
30th Jan 2014, 17:06
A small regular training cadre of Army, Navy and Air Force with a large, low paid, conscripted manpower with a commitment to age 60. Naturally it would take several decades to reach an FOC citizen force.

Vote for independence and we'll conscript you..... I don't think that's a vote winner :E

Canadian Break
30th Jan 2014, 17:14
Not sure that the former (ever) Soviet Union paid much attention to International Law. The quote I put up was from a professor of International Politics - which I guess covers off International Law.

TomJoad
30th Jan 2014, 17:25
I could hear the nails going into the coffin. No Pound, No Euro, No NATO. No Shipbuilding and zero investment from South, Excellent pitch by the Governor. Lets sit back and enjoy. It like local parish councillors running your country. Good luck, vote for who you like. Please examine your long term savings and move them if you can.

Without a hard currency what does he intend to pay BAe Systems with? It raises many defence issues which I suspect the rest of us will have to shoulder.

Did we/do we shoulder Eire. Go on Navaleye do explain why would Scotland be different.

TomJoad
30th Jan 2014, 17:58
TomJoad,

On the land stuff, I'm not sure - not my thing. But IIRC Alec Salmond (or Angus Robertson, SNP Defence Spokesman) said that they were opposed to the Regimental amalgamations, and that they would reverse this in an independent Scotland. Now, if all of the RRoS Bns were to be recast as Single Bn Regts, then the recruiting requirements would go up - and there is grumbling in Westminster that the Scottish regiments were already the most poorly performing in recruiting stakes. Of course, this could also be political :bored:hot air..... :hmm:

A future SDF would depend on what role Scotland wanted to play. E.g., it could be quite sensible for Scotland to get one of the RAF's C-17s as "Scotland's share", and then operate it through the NATO Strat Airlift thingy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Strategic_Airlift_Capability) in Hungary.

On FJs, Scotland as a new NATO member would presumably be expected to take over the northern UK AIDZ (NB, not the case for non-NATO Erie). Therefore a need FJ and tankers. As One-Hundred and Eleven (:E) Sqn showed at the end of the F3, it is possible to mount northern QRA with a single Sqn, but realistically, it would need two and an OCU - so the three Sqns worth of Typhoons in Scotland would be enough. NFTC for pilot training would be one option, unless the RAF/Ascent offered the RScAF (presumably, as the SNP are now royalists, oddly) a good price.

All of which is soluble: as are some T23s and some T26s in due course for OPV / FFG duties. No need for CVs, amphibs (after all, they'll have CalMac), or SSN/SSBNs. Some little OPVs? MPA is more problematic, as the P-8 is expensive, but C-295s would provide the EEZ enforcement that would be requirement.

Just some thoughts...

S41


Squirrel, similarly I'm no expert on the land side either but I suspect an Independent Scotland's requirement here would be much less than some have suggested. An Independent Scotland would surely have a much diminished, more modest, less ambitious, less interventionist foreign policy than the current UK. You are correct that Salmond was opposed to regimental amalgamations but how much of that was driven by realpolitik. He made similar protestations on the rebasing plans as they affected Leuchars, Lossie and Kinloss. To be fair, he could do nothing less in his position, but not only could an Independent Scotland not afford to maintain this level of defence infrastructure it would more importantly have no need for it. I wonder if an Independent Scotland would have difficulty manning her land forces, would the manning requirement not be less than she presently provides to the UK - don't know. Out of interest what is the size of Eire's land forces wikipedia reports a strength of 7600.

Pontius Navigator
30th Jan 2014, 18:20
One thing overlooked in discussion of the SAF is the willy waving aspect, especially important if kilts may be worn with mess kit.

What rank will the CAS hold? Will he have the same rank as the CDS?

Will he have star parity with his fellow NATO CAS?

Naturally, if he is a 4*, he would need 2x3*, 4x2*, 8x* as minimum. Then, on the diplomatic circuit he would need additional VSO for parity a bit like RAF Flt Lt being given acting rank when working with International forces.

Of course, if CAS is a 4* then the navy and the army . . .

TomJoad
30th Jan 2014, 19:18
One thing overlooked in discussion of the SAF is the willy waving aspect, especially important if kilts may be worn with mess kit.

What rank will the CAS hold? Will he have the same rank as the CDS?

Will he have star parity with his fellow NATO CAS?

Naturally, if he is a 4*, he would need 2x3*, 4x2*, 8x* as minimum. Then, on the diplomatic circuit he would need additional VSO for parity a bit like RAF Flt Lt being given acting rank when working with International forces.

Of course, if CAS is a 4* then the navy and the army . . .


Alternatively they may go for something more sensible rather than perpetuate the bloated structure we currently enjoy.


Don't know what mess functions you were attending Pontius but willys were never waved in No 5 dress. Just not cricket, besides scares the horses:=

Pontius Navigator
30th Jan 2014, 19:39
TJ, 'twas you that inferred a direct connection with kilts.

I know many wore kilts in the '90s until word came from on high that the RAF Jocks were not to wear kilts. IMHO that was a nonsense order killing a bit of individuality.

My bit about rank parity was of course tongue in cheek but the underlying message is still there. Would the First Minister be satisfied with a one or two star SO and would he be seeking a NATO command post for his SOs?

The RNZAF might offer an appropriate model with a 2* and Available: 3,253
2,300 Airmen, 640 Officers, 357 Civilian Staff, and Active Reserve.

Not sure how he would manage with only 357 civil servants.

Ed,

Another topic would be squadron number plates. During WW2 many sqn numbers were block allocated to the allies - RNoAF, FAF, Polish, RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF. Some still use these WW number plates.

Would Scotland expect to retain its existing based number plates or claim long standing cold-war ones, 12, 43, 111, 120, 201, 206 etc or seek some of the historic WW2 number plates viz the from the Banff Strike Wing?

Roland Pulfrew
30th Jan 2014, 20:32
Don't know what mess functions you were attending Pontius but willys were never waved in No 5 dress.

Not sure about that TJ. Don't 602 claim to be the only RAF/RAuxAF unit authorised to wear the kilt in RAF uniform on the authority of King George?

TomJoad
30th Jan 2014, 21:29
Not sure about that TJ. Don't 602 claim to be the only RAF/RAuxAF unit authorised to wear the kilt in RAF uniform on the authority of King George?

Going combat in a kilt is one thing (trust me) waving your willy whether authorised or not, even by a monarch, well that's just going to end in tears;)

gr4techie
30th Jan 2014, 22:28
Yes, but Scotland will have oil and whisky !

Am I right in thinking our oil and whisky is privatised?

Therefore the profits won't be going to the Scottish government and they will have little control over these industries.

The only source of income from oil and gas would be through taxation (thats if they will pay taxes, unlike Starbucks and Amazon). And taxes always ends up being passed down the line to you and me the customer, who pays more for the product.

rab-k
31st Jan 2014, 02:29
"Scottish Air Force- can it be done?"

I'd imagine a couple of dozen of these would do for starters...



http://i1219.photobucket.com/albums/dd437/Rab-k/SDFJAS39_zpse0732847.jpg

Evalu8ter
31st Jan 2014, 06:26
I might have missed it - apologies if I have - but how do the SNP see airworthiness and assurance working for their proposed 'share' of the fleets? I assume they expect to carry on relying on UK RTSA/MAA - surely if they do this must come at a cost in terms of people and funding? This is assuming, of course, that the UK agree to retain such responsibility. Will a RScAF have its own Duty Holders - how can they discharge responsibility relying on someone elses assurance?

Then we have the issues of T&E and acquisition; what if the RScAF requirements are different to that of the rest of the UK? Who drafts them and who pays for them? Same with T&E. It's very easy to claim assets at the point of separation but it's a fundamentally different matter to support & upgrade them 'through life' and to ultimately replace them.

Still, as long as Salmond has a posh jet & helicopter to pose in these other issues will be quite secondary....

Party Animal
31st Jan 2014, 07:34
but how do the SNP see airworthiness and assurance working for their proposed 'share' of the fleets? I assume they expect to carry on relying on UK RTSA/MAA - surely if they do this must come at a cost in terms of people and funding?


Yet another example of the type of thing that gets missed when new nations are formed, or re-branded in Scotlands case. Slovakia had a few unexpected shocks on joining NATO in 2004 and whilst still organising itself from the split with the Czech Republic. Dividing the personnel and equipment between the 2 countries was the easy part. Then, the extras fell out such as:

1. You now need a Defence Attache plus support staff for all the countries that you have an interest in.

2. You now need a wedge of VSO's for all the NATO organisations within Europe and the USA.

3. You now need a new MOD building, Joint HQ, Army, Airforce, Navy HQ (okay not Slovakia!) etc.

4. You now need a new Abbey Wood, Procurement organisation etc.

5. You now need a team who understands and can implement NATO STANAGS etc.

6. You now need an organisation that does the RTS, MAA stuff etc.

and the list goes on. Not insurmountable by any means but still a huge cost as a relative percentage of a small defence budget and probably something that hasn't even been considered.

Wensleydale
31st Jan 2014, 07:43
As for Scottish Squadron Numbers.... The 300 series is reserved for non-Commonwealth foreign squadrons - perhaps appropriate as Bonnie Prince Charlie was Polish!


Should they wish to join the Commonwealth after independence then the 400 series is available.

newt
31st Jan 2014, 09:16
Why not start with 1314? Then maybe 1513, 1619 or 1746 to keep the progression. Could end with 2013! The year they completely stuffed the English!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

tucumseh
31st Jan 2014, 12:22
Then we have the issues of T&E and acquisition; what if the RScAF requirements are different to that of the rest of the UK? Who drafts them and who pays for them? Same with T&E. It's very easy to claim assets at the point of separation but it's a fundamentally different matter to support & upgrade them 'through life' and to ultimately replace them.

Off the top of my head, Lynx is a good model. When I was involved there were about 14 users nations. MoD UK had more aircraft than the rest combined. The others just sat back and waited for MoD to pay for e.g. modifications, and adopted them if they wanted them. The idea was for your build standard to track that of MoD; it was divergence that cost disproportionately more. But it was ok to retain an old MoD build standard, as there was a robust audit trail.

As users, they were automatically on the distribution from the Design Authorities so always knew what was going on. (See Red Arrows thread!!) If they wanted a copy of a Staff Requirement, we'd hand it over. In fact, they'd very often contribute, especially Holland, who I always found very efficient. They had access to our spares through reciprocal support arrangements. The far bigger problem was intra-MoD.

I'm pretty sure someone in Jockland has been working on this for a very long time. After all, the legal ramifications were ironed out in the late 70s when a raft of senior Law Lords were given a long term task to prepare for independence. Any new Jock Parliament "simply" has to switch them on. I imagine they'd do the same with all major Departments of State. Not that I think they'll vote Aye, but you never know.

Heathrow Harry
31st Jan 2014, 13:59
Of course the obvious answer for a tiny set of armed forces is to amalgamate the lot in to the Scottish Armed Forces - one uniform, one set of VSO's and the few assets they have run by junior officers and NCO's..........

or just turn the whole lot over to the Polis

Lowe Flieger
31st Jan 2014, 15:06
Dividing up what has been united for so long will be a complex task. This is especially true of defence where the starting point for an independent Scotland's requirement should be a strategic defence review. In fact the cart will, of necessity, have to come before the horse as initial defence assets will be a proportion of those currently in the UK inventory. These may not be want Scotland needs and may be more than they want to pay for.

As Scottish public expenditure is about £1,200 per person higher than the UK, it will have to balance that by income from NS oil. If divided geographically, that income should be able to fund the difference initially, but is a shrinking asset. Scotland's priority will be to draw up a credible fiscal plan, what it proposes to spend and how it intends to pay for it in the form of taxes and borrowing. Oil will be critical to the country's finances and a significant part of its defence review would therefore, logically, be devoted to protecting those crucial NS assets, at least until they start to tail off in future. To me, that suggests small naval vessels, helicopters, marines and some sort of MPA capability - manned or unmanned.

There is no reason why a well-governed independent Scotland cannot become a successful, vibrant economy. It has a rare opportunity to make a (sort of) fresh start. If the 'Yes' vote prevails then I hope it gets a forward-thinking government that ensures the country is open for business and not hamstrung by public spending. I tend to the view that the current SNP one comes from the tax and spend camp, and while that might gain short-term popularity, it may not bring long term success. But I am miles south of the border and not really close enough to know if my suspicion is correct. Whatever, we will remain close neighbours as the geography dictates it cannot be otherwise. Both the UK and Scotland have to scrap for their economic position the world, a task which gets harder by the day, but I hope we would remain good neighbours and trade freely with each other. That is in the long-term interests of folks both sides of the old wall.

And my own opinion on independence? Well. breaking up will cause problems for both sides in the short and medium term so staying as we are, imperfect as it is, is a less risky and safer course. But I have no issue with the right to self-determination, and if that's the way the vote goes then both parties just have to knuckle down and make it work. There will be plenty of problems but opportunities too. With power comes responsibility and whatever hand a government is dealt, it is its job to deal with it.

Pontius Navigator
31st Jan 2014, 18:23
Of course the obvious answer for a tiny set of armed forces is to amalgamate the lot in to the Scottish Armed Forces - one uniform, one set of VSO's and the few assets they have run by junior officers and NCO's..........

or just turn the whole lot over to the Polis

Ah, the holy grail of military economy.

Will you suggest the kilters wear trews and which tartan would you chose?

Heliringer
1st Feb 2014, 16:07
I don't know why you'd buy bullets when there is no one to shoot!

Does Scotland need any real defence? We've got Nor/Swe/Den Looking after the North and the rest of EU looking after the South. West we have the USA defending the Atlantic.....So is there really a threat?



All the Jocks need is Infantry/SF inc usual support and some UAV Maritime Recce . Oh and the usual Helicopters to move them around the hills/rigs

TomJoad
1st Feb 2014, 18:35
TJ, 'twas you that inferred a direct connection with kilts.

I know many wore kilts in the '90s until word came from on high that the RAF Jocks were not to wear kilts. IMHO that was a nonsense order killing a bit of individuality.



No indeed you got there first with "One thing overlooked in discussion of the SAF is the willy waving aspect, especially important if kilts may be worn with mess kit.:ok:

In any respect if one is wearing the kilt correctly it is impossible not to wave;)

Re the edict from on high, yes I remember it well. We simply ignored it, in the Scottish stns at least:p

For the obedience of fools and guidance etc, etc

Pontius Navigator
2nd Feb 2014, 07:30
Re the edict from on high, yes I remember it well. We simply ignored it, in the Scottish stns at least:p

For the obedience of fools and guidance etc, etc

I know Waddo stopped :(

Taking HH's suggestion of all of one uniform, would that ever work?

I know it was the aim for UK Forces, except where they were a different colour, and except where they had different headdress etc.

The Jollies immediately stuffed that plan by refusing to wear Army dress and insisted on Lovat.

Heathrow Harry
2nd Feb 2014, 09:26
"The only source of income from oil and gas would be through taxation (that's if they will pay taxes, unlike Starbucks and Amazon)."

PWC reckon that the Total Tax Contribution for the entire Oil & Gas UK E&Psector as £30.1bn which amounts to 5.5% of total Government receipts
for all taxes in the tax year 2010/2011

Heathrow Harry
2nd Feb 2014, 09:28
"Will you suggest the kilters wear trews and which tartan would you chose?"

Not my problem - I'd expect it would be Salmond Pink anyway ;);)

Heathrow Harry
2nd Feb 2014, 09:31
One thing in this discussion that rather alarms me - most people agree the Scots don't need fast jets, SSN's etc etc - but England does??

If the Scots downsize there'll be a lot of people in England & Wales asking why the hell we can't do the same - give up the Imperial pretensions and just defend our own shores

Pontius Navigator
2nd Feb 2014, 10:00
If the Scots downsize there'll be a lot of people in England & Wales asking why the hell we can't do the same - give up the Imperial pretensions and just defend our own shores

I think there are people already saying this. It really is willy waving on the grand stage.

The imperialists or globalists all fall back on the 'protecting vital trading routes' yet we haven't had significant resources for more than a token effort for decades.

On another thread the RN Caribbean guard ship, a frigate and an RFA, were cited as doing a vital job but this was countered with the statement that drugs intercepted were bound for the USA not Europe.

Other countries, such as Norway, Germany, France and Portugal all have naval forces that are designed to protect their littoral and not someone else's. Norway very much depends on sea trade but doesn't feel the need to patrol the world's oceans.

Biggus
2nd Feb 2014, 10:16
HH,

Reference:

"...why the hell we can't do the same - give up the Imperial pretensions and just defend our own shores..."

We're getting to that point slowly, defence review by defence review, and as each new piece of kit becomes more expensive (Type 45 destroyers at £500M+ each, meaning 12 are replaced with 6). I remember when the magic figure for numbers of frigates and destroyers in the RN was 50, that then became 40 then 30, 25..... we're now down to 19 I think. Likewise we used to have 30+ FJ Sqns in the RAF, what is it now, 7?

What you're advocating is biting the bullet, admitting the truth of the situation and getting on with it. Unfortunately the reality is all about politicians thinking/wanting/wishing that the UK is still a "world player" and maintaining a close relationship with USA. For that a certain level of military capability is required, but how much longer we can afford/maintain that (and I'm talking about looking ahead 10+ years), and whether we actually need it, is highly debatable.

Pontius Navigator
2nd Feb 2014, 10:58
Say, for a moment, the bombers were to redeploy from Scotland tomorrow. Then they look at the rebasing costs, not to mention Natural England, RSPB and the Environment Agency, they decide it is unaffordable and the whole issue is abandoned.

Now, what to do with the spare cash? Initially it would go on decommissioning the submarines and dismantling the warheads. Then there would be further savings closing the factory and dismantling the security apparatus.

Now, in a decade's time, we have a huge bundle of spare dosh.

Would it remain with the MOD? No way.

Roland Pulfrew
2nd Feb 2014, 12:23
Now, in a decade's time, we have a huge bundle of spare dosh.

But of course "we" wouldn't. The whole annual Defence budget wouldn't even pay the annual interest on all of the Governments' borrowing. Until the government borrowing is reduced/paid off completely we are as a nation screwed. There is plenty of money, we just choose to squander it on the NHS, paying feckless people to sit and do nothing and on unfounded pensions. And that is not going to be fixed in the next 10 years, and certainly won't be if the 2 Eds get in next time around.

Pontius Navigator
2nd Feb 2014, 12:27
RP, Balls? .

ricardian
2nd Feb 2014, 14:31
Here's an idea (http://player.vimeo.com/video/39325401)for Wee Eck and his Scottish Air Force

West Coast
2nd Feb 2014, 16:22
Cool video! So many interesting ways to become an organ donar. If I was 10 years younger, I'd have to get me one of those.

rab-k
2nd Feb 2014, 18:54
Aye, and Camerloon could get a couple with floats to fill his MPA void. :p

OutlawPete
2nd Feb 2014, 22:12
Yes, but Scotland will have oil and whisky !

The peak oil production has passed .....


Stuffy, might be an idea to tell the folks spending £ Millions in Dyce that they've missed the oil rush. The place is awash with new industrial developments, I guess whoever did the business case for all that expenditure must be aff their heids...

TomJoad
2nd Feb 2014, 23:04
Stuffy, might be an idea to tell the folks spending £ Millions in Dyce that they've missed the oil rush. The place is awash with new industrial developments, I guess whoever did the business case for all that expenditure must be aff their heids...

Peak oil flow is such a movable feast. We have known reserves, extractable known reserves, known reserves currently beyond economical or technological reach. Then of course we have the unknown reserves.

As OutlawPete says the smart money is still pouring in.


As an aside was it Donald Rumsfeld that spoke about the known knowns and the known unknowns?

engineer(retard)
3rd Feb 2014, 12:48
North Sea oil and gas exploration at 'crossroads' says Deloitte's PSG | Aberdeen & North | News | STV (http://news.stv.tv/north/262011-north-sea-oil-and-gas-exploration-at-crossroads-says-deloittes-psg/)

Mixed bag for the future says the real world. However, it is of the defence topic

Hangarshuffle
4th Feb 2014, 16:46
1. Scots should entirely bin their entire military upon independence. Not required - most Scots are entirely anti their own sons being killed in foreign wars on Londons orders and who can blame them? It will suit their own foreign policy which will be entirely no deploying and neutral.
2.Allow multinational oil companies to police their own offshore assets, using their own aircraft or offshore vessels (they do elsewhere in the world anyway). Offshore oil companies are bigger than Scotland anyway.
3. Possibly leaseback Faslane to the UK RN? For a very high premium? (tricky politically but money would be handy....)? Same for the dry dock for the carrier. Sell the other carrier for cash to India.
4. Highly unlikely Putin (most likely baddy) would whack Scotland, and even if he did and Scotland had a token Armed Force, they couldn't do anything anyway (too small). So bin the armed force anyway and smary up to him.


Actually I think this strange dogs breakfast of a travesty of a policy I've just concocted could happen. Cameron but would be quite happy to offload Scotland - removes tons of Labour MPs. Most people in England care little for defence policies of any hue.


Good luck Scots anyway and go for it - go for independence you have everything to gain, sad though I would find it.

Biggus
4th Feb 2014, 18:13
Hangarshuffle,

"...go for independence you have everything to gain..."

Do you have any idea of the complexity, detail and sheer volume of effort involved in unpicking 300 years of integration? :ugh:

Who exactly do you expect to pick up the bill for it all...? :ugh:

Do you actually read any papers without scantily clad ladies on page 3...? :ugh::ugh:

perthsaint
4th Feb 2014, 18:44
I have a fair idea of what is involved and who will be paying for it.

What exactly is your point?

Biggus
4th Feb 2014, 18:54
PS,

That the statement "...you have everything to gain....", is a naive, simplistic, ill informed and inaccurate comment when discussing what is an extremely complex situation of which I suspect Hangarshuffle has no real background knowledge - neither does he have a vote in the matter.

However, I can rapidly see this descending into another thread discussing the pros and cons of Scottish independence, which I have no wish to see come about, and I already know from previous such threads on pprune which side of the fence you are on.

TomJoad
4th Feb 2014, 23:53
PS,

However, I can rapidly see this descending into another thread discussing the pros and cons of Scottish independence, which I have no wish to see come about, and I already know from previous such threads on pprune which side of the fence you are on.

Lol yes but with your statement in the previous post you intentionally entered that very discussion:ugh: Rather naive to throw something like that in and then expect to wash your hands and say I don't want to discuss. Kinda of suggests that you do not accept the legitimacy that there may be a different opinion.

Ok I know you don't want to hear it but hey ho humour me. So 300 years integration - task to unravel etc etc. Yes yes ,tricky, but it can be done. "We don't do these things because they are easy etc etc ".
What about the 1000 years of England's independence before the union - oh how difficult it must have been in conjoining all of that with Scotland to form the Union - hell's teeth man its democracy.:p It won't happen if folk don't want it , it will if they do and if they do then it is legitimate.

All offered with tongue firmly in cheek - no offence intended implied or otherwise. As Bush jnr said "I have lots of opinions on many thinks but I don't necessarily agree with all of them".:ok:

Tom

Biggus
5th Feb 2014, 06:41
TJ,

If you've ever read anything I've said on the matter, I've never said it "..can't be done...". Scotland is quite capable of being an independent country, the question is, at what cost, in both the short and long term? It is in this area that the SNP argument as being put to the voters is disingenuous.

Unlike Hangarshuffle I do have a vote on the issue, and try to refrain from flippant throw away lines on the matter.

But once again I couldn't help biting! :(

BEagle
5th Feb 2014, 07:19
If the Scots were really so blindingly stupid as to follow Salmond's nonsense, I wonder what the effect would be upon aviation infrastructure in general?

Who would man the Scottish version of NATS...or the CAA? Would they need to re-register all civil aircraft and begin negotiations with EASA? Who would render valid the thousands of civil flight crew licences held by Scottish pilots? Or produce the maps and charts for 'Scottish' aerodromes and airspace?

The whole 'Independence Wha Hæ' concept would be an immensely expensive irrelevance based upon misplaced, Braveheart-inspired jingoism, which no amount of whisky and shortbread exports could offset....

Pontius Navigator
5th Feb 2014, 08:23
Interesting to note #235 on the MPA thread the convergence with the Scottish Air Force thread and defence in general.

Nothing has happened regarding the Russian fleet that would require basing of an RN asset in Scotland and there should be no presumption that Scotland would resume MPA basing either.

melmothtw
5th Feb 2014, 11:34
Do you have any idea of the complexity, detail and sheer volume of effort involved in unpicking 300 years of integration?

Britain was part of the Roman Empire for 366 years (as you should well know Biggus), but I'd say we haven't done too badly under independence.

Pontius Navigator
5th Feb 2014, 11:57
Britain was part of the Roman Empire for 366 years (as you should well know Biggus), but I'd say we haven't done too badly under independence.

Took us ages after they left to get the central heating working and bathrooms in most homes. Roads probably have a bit to catch up on though and as for drainage we haven't hacked that yet.

Skeleton
5th Feb 2014, 12:15
Whilst your busy dividing up the military and the family silver bare in mind there is fair amount of English voter's who at the moment really do not care if Scotland goes or stays. Come the glorious day and that opinion may change. Cameron may then be forced and rightly so, to listen to his own electorate. As important as this is for Scotland, England needs to remember its just as equally important for them.

melmothtw
5th Feb 2014, 12:20
As important as this is for Scotland, England needs to remember its just as
equally important for them.


But not for Wales or Northern Ireland though eh?

Wensleydale
5th Feb 2014, 13:50
Let's look at this properly....


If Scotland goes its own way then so too does the Midlothian question. Without all the left wingers from Scotland dragging us down, the Conservatives will enjoy a much larger majority and won't have to toady to the Liberal Democrats. The result is much more cash available and you may even get an MPA back because the Money is no longer being wasted on all the "fluffy" money pits!


Win Win!

Heathrow Harry
5th Feb 2014, 15:02
Do you think the Tories will spend the windfall on Defence? The peopel who brought us Duncan Sandys, Mr Nott, and gawd knows how many cuts since

they're already hollering for a 25% rate of income tax :sad::sad:

Mach Two
5th Feb 2014, 15:27
Ooh, goodie. This old chestnut again. I take it we've dispensed with the obligatory couple of pages on future Scottish defencw and we're back onto the Scottish (don't care what you've written, I have an axe to grind) versus the English (God, this will hurt, but we'll probably be better off in the end).
As important as this is for Scotland, England needs to remember its just as equally important for them.
But not for Wales or Northern Ireland though eh?Well, the UK basically is England so why worry about the little regions scattered about the perimeter?

TomJoad
5th Feb 2014, 17:44
The whole 'Independence Wha Hæ' concept would be an immensely expensive irrelevance based upon misplaced, Braveheart-inspired jingoism, which no amount of whisky and shortbread exports could offset....

Interesting point there Beagle, such insight is truly compelling. Why has this not been identified before - get it out there fella , it will kill this independence jape for sure.:ugh:

Pontius Navigator
5th Feb 2014, 17:47
TJ,

And of course Salmon, Haggis, Aircraft Carriers, M . . . . . . . s

And also our first dog came from Inverurie even though we got her in Exmouth and we get out meat pack from Inverurie too.

Hangarshuffle
5th Feb 2014, 19:04
Biggus
I was watching Michael Wood on a history programme a couple of nights ago, on BBC4, and it struck me how much the union has ebbed and flowed over the course of what, pre Norman Conquest times?
This could turn out to be an ebb for England, and a flow for Scotland.
My replies were meant to be pretty light hearted.
I wish the Scots well. It is an important issue, probably the issue of the century for the UK, but hardly being treat as such by England - why is that?


Scots have everything to gain, I think - I repeat it. Self governed, no need to take in London in any issues. Man, who could blame them? Would you be happy if the positions were reversed? If Cornwall was ran from Edinburgh>?
Well we will see, but truly back to the original OPs post, I don't think Scotland would follow any sort of mini England approach to defence.
I see them as being neutral, dis-established military.


Think of the money they would save? That will be the driving factor - money.


How much have we spent on the military/war effort since 2001? - I would love to know.


**** me if I read another patronising remark on here about haggis, whisky, carriers. The Scots have freedom from such attitudes to gain, if nowt else!!

OutlawPete
5th Feb 2014, 21:00
"misplaced, Braveheart-inspired jingoism" to accuse the Scots of jingoism is absurd. If anything, this is driven by the political divide that separates not only Scotland but vast swathes of England from the out-of-touch inhabitants of Westminster.

Cameron is obsessed with welfare reform yet does very little to sort out the mismanaged taxation system that allows some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet to avoid paying their dues. Recovery of back taxes owed by global businesses would certainly help uk plc get out of the financial crapper quicker than cutting a tenner a week from a few benefit claimants.

TomJoad
5th Feb 2014, 23:13
Cameron is obsessed with welfare reform yet does very little to sort out the mismanaged taxation system that allows some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet to avoid paying their dues. Recovery of back taxes owed by global businesses would certainly help uk plc get out of the financial crapper quicker than cutting a tenner a week from a few benefit claimants.

That's the half of it Outlaw. While by proxy, on behalf of Dave, the CEO of BP makes an impassioned please (is that jingoisim) don't do it Scotland - Great Britain is still great. Whit - get yourself down to Lanarkshire, Liverpool, the Midlands , or London big man and consider how great food banks are in this great country. Get your self down to Cornwall and Somerset (take your wellies) big man and console the folk there that Great Britain is still great. They wont invite you in for a cup of tea cause they canny:ugh: And the next time you wade into a debate of which you know nought "take a knee" or tell Dave to "gonae nae dae that". :ugh:


Sorry that was a wee bit political and off topic. Back to topic - hey what about Scottish drones (cue bagpipe jokes) would a SAF have them. If so what colour scheme. :ok:

newt
6th Feb 2014, 08:24
Here we go Hangarshuffle!

The Scot Nats are an egotistic bunch of haggis eating, whisky sodden, idiots!

And I hope you are choking on your porridge!

I moved to a part of my country, the United Kingdom, to retire and relax in relative security! I am now faced with independence and a life full of uncertainty! Currency, pensions and standard of living are all now very uncertain factors in my life! Not to mention passports, property prices etc etc etc!

For all those who think separation is a good idea, there are many more who do not and they HAVE to get out and vote! Otherwise the apathy vote will allow the Nats to win and plunge the WHOLE of the UK into an uncertain future!:E:E:E

dervish
6th Feb 2014, 08:51
hey what about Scottish drones (cue bagpipe jokes)

On a more serious Military note, what tartan will the Jocks adopt given the RRS currently wears either the (UK) Government Tartan (aka Black Watch) or a bastardisation of it?

melmothtw
6th Feb 2014, 14:00
Spoken like a true Brit Nat, Newt.

newt
6th Feb 2014, 14:19
And that's on a good day!:E

TomJoad
6th Feb 2014, 22:34
Here we go Hangarshuffle!

The Scot Nats are an egotistic bunch of haggis eating, whisky sodden, idiots!

And I hope you are choking on your porridge!

I moved to a part of my country, the United Kingdom, to retire and relax in relative security! I am now faced with independence and a life full of uncertainty! Currency, pensions and standard of living are all now very uncertain factors in my life! Not to mention passports, property prices etc etc etc!



Yep, democracy is such a bitch:p

tmmorris
7th Feb 2014, 06:39
The tyranny of the majority.

newt
7th Feb 2014, 06:57
Hardly democracy when a minor group get a vote but the majority have no say at all over the breakup of the UK! If the vote was democratic then everyone in the UK would be able to vote!

It's a bit like the Tories deciding that you can only vote in the EU referendum if you are a paid up Tory supporter!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Ken Scott
7th Feb 2014, 07:16
Newt: but by your logic the whole of the EU should have a vote in the UK Referendum.......

Pontius Navigator
7th Feb 2014, 07:19
Ken, OK the French might vote for, of the rest they may say where?

brakedwell
7th Feb 2014, 09:27
1. If the SNATS get their way introduce a law to make Scottish nationals wear kilts at all times while on English/Welsh/Ulster soil.
2. Reopen the Scottish Aviation Twin Pioneer production line to equip the Scottish Air Force.

Roland Pulfrew
7th Feb 2014, 09:41
but by your logic the whole of the EU should have a vote in the UK Referendum

Without wishing to divert this topic any further but you are wrong with that one.

The country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales are the nations within the Country. A small percentage of the country wish for one of those nations to go-it-alone. However, as an advocate for self-determination, I support the Scots decision to hold a referendum, much as the Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders have done, I just feel that as this decision has huge implications for the whole of the UK then we should all have a say (which might give the SNP the decision they seek :E).

The EU is not a country, it is a loose union of countries through treaty or treaties. It is very much like any other treaty body, such as NATO (from which the French once withdrew) and the decision to withdraw is an internal issue for the country in question. The decision to withdraw has significant implications for the treaty body (not lease the £8.7B we waste on it each year) but in the case of the EU, no-one else in the EU has a right to decide whether a country decides to withdraw.

FrustratedFormerFlie
7th Feb 2014, 10:29
Didn't the Swedes have a Scottish Aviation Bulldog variant with 7.62 machine guns on underwing hardpoints. Should cover most foreseeable needs! :O

Ken Scott
7th Feb 2014, 12:37
Roland: that would depend entirely on whether you perceive the EU to be a 'loose union of countries' or an incipient Federal State! Many of the Heads of State would certainly consider it to be the latter.

OutlawPete
7th Feb 2014, 13:22
1. If the SNATS get their way introduce a law to make Scottish nationals wear kilts at all times while on English/Welsh/Ulster soil.

That could interesting, English females seem to have a thing for blokes in a kilt...:D

Roland Pulfrew
7th Feb 2014, 13:30
or an incipient Federal State. Many of the Heads of State would certainly consider it to be the latter.

Whilst there may be some that would prefer a US of Eu or EUSSR (and I would add a large number of unelected eurocrats also see it as the latter) it remains irrelevant. The EU is NOT a country; it IS a loose union by treaty. As such the decision to abrogate from a treaty is for national politics/decision making of the relevant state; it is NOT for all member states.

rab-k
7th Feb 2014, 16:30
Aye Roland, and the UK, also a Union by treaties, and is a State comprised of countries - two being former independent Kingdoms, one being a former Principality within a former Kingdom and the remainder being a religious enclave of a former Kingdom. As such the decision to abrogate from a treaty is for national politics/decision making of the relevant country; it is NOT for all member countries.

melmothtw
7th Feb 2014, 16:46
Well said Rab-K. I'm always astounded by the hypocrisy of those who demand UK 'independence' from Europe (a multi-national confederation of nations), but denigrate those Scots/Welsh/N Irish (even English) who seek the same independence for their nations from the multi-national confederation that is the UK.

Roland Pulfrew
7th Feb 2014, 17:02
Aye Roland, and the UK, also a Union by treatiesAye Rab, I never said that it wasn't! Actually it was an Act of Union rather than a treaty is two countries became one. But you are wrong on the status of the countries. There is only one country, UK of GB & NI, made up of several nations. The change of status effects the whole country that is all parts of the country. But I also said that I would support Scottish independence if that is they way the vote goes (I might even vote that way myself)!

Melmoth

Sorry fella but perhaps you could point out where my "hypocrasy" is? The UK is NOT a "multinational confederation" it is one country (for now).:=

Edited to add: don't bother with my last; it's w-a-a-y off topic for which I apogise!

melmothtw
7th Feb 2014, 17:33
All depends on your definition of country, Roland

country: definition of country in Oxford dictionary (British & World English) (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/country)

Can apply to Scotland, Wales etc as much as the UK

rab-k
7th Feb 2014, 17:56
Forgive me Roland, but...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Articles_of_Union.jpg/327px-Articles_of_Union.jpg

"The ACT (made in the Parliament of Scotland) Intituled, Act Ratifying and Approving the Treaty of Union of the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England".

As stated, the Act simply ratified and approved the Treaty.

kintyred
7th Feb 2014, 18:22
At the risk of returning to the topic.....what would be the Scots' requirement for air power? I could see the need for some air defence and possibly some tactical transport but the rest would probably be optional. I suspect that given the other commitments the SNP are pushing there will be little spare money for anything else.

mr fish
7th Feb 2014, 18:32
alex salmond seems to have spent his entire political career working towards this vote...


if the answer is no, will he retire..........FOR GODS SAKE YES!!!!!!

sherburn2LA
7th Feb 2014, 18:51
An economical model would be to go for a balloon based air defence force. They could fill them for nothing at Holyrood. Salmond could keep himself aloft indefinitely.

kintyred
7th Feb 2014, 19:49
The SNP plans a defence force of 15000 personnel, implying an Air Force of around 3000. It's difficult to imagine supporting more than a handful of aircraft and no more than 2 or 3 types. They envisage contributing to humanitarian missions as one of their main priorities....I'm not sure that their plans are mature enough to withstand detailed scrutiny and I anticipate significant scaling back of their ambitions should independence materialise. What could you realistically achieve with such a small force?

kintyred
7th Feb 2014, 20:00
A further thought, having looked at similar sized Air Forces, is that they almost exclusively use US made aircraft...probably not an option for the SNP, who will not want to spend so much of their budget outside Scotland. Even spending money in England will stick in their craw so I don't see them achieving much bang for their buck (or Euro or whatever) and this will make the Scottish Air Force proportionately even smaller than the numbers would suggest.

Pontius Navigator
7th Feb 2014, 21:07
kinty, I think we reached those points around page 2 and no one seems to have advocated a requirement for heavy metal.

BEagle
7th Feb 2014, 21:08
And just who would conduct elementary, basic and advanced flying training for this JAF? Where and at what price?

The whole idea of a piddling little defence-of-the-shortbread air farce is just plain daft and totally representative of the ill-considered 'independence' folly....

engineer(retard)
7th Feb 2014, 21:32
16 Typhoons as part of their share of UK assets has been requested by the Scottish White Paper:

Scottish independence: army make-up revealed - The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-army-make-up-revealed-1-3209070)

Courtney Mil
7th Feb 2014, 21:34
Perhaps an opportunity for you and I to set up an amazing (and competatively priced, but still highly lucrative) flying training school. Not sure what currency we'd be paid in, BEags, but I have an account with a good money transfer company. :ok:

Engineer,

What the hell would anyone do with 16 Typhoons and no support, infrastructure, engineering personnel or pilots? Let alone all the MAA stuff, updates and the like. Eurofighter's contract is with the UK, not with any third party.

Why would Scotland want them? They will hardly be able to (nor want to) deploy on OOA ops.

Ken Scott
7th Feb 2014, 22:43
They would probably hope to share support with the RUK - training , simulators, maintenance etc as they are unlikely to want or be able to set up their own. They obviously hope that this will be provided at amenable rates....

rab-k
8th Feb 2014, 00:41
Ken, isn't that what is/was proposed by the UK for the F35? (Genuine question).

Personally I don't think Tiffys are needed - a couple of dozen Griffen's would be better suited to the task/budget.

PS Thanks for your PM Roland, most insightful - welcome to my 'ignore' list.

Courtney Mil
8th Feb 2014, 05:24
welcome to my 'ignore' list

Where Salmond put reality, perhaps?

engineer(retard)
8th Feb 2014, 06:48
Engineer,

What the hell would anyone do with 16 Typhoons and no support, infrastructure, engineering personnel or pilots? Let alone all the MAA stuff, updates and the like. Eurofighter's contract is with the UK, not with any third party.

Why would Scotland want them? They will hardly be able to (nor want to) deploy on OOA ops.

It's the result of employing an ex-journalist as your defence expert.

OutlawPete
8th Feb 2014, 07:35
Even spending money in England will stick in their craw....

You clearly don't hold us in very high regard. Strange as this concept may be for you, the majority of us north of the border consider England et al to be our closest allies. Considering what we have achieved as a Union, I can't see this ever changing.

Furthermore, as it's the Calcutta cup today and England's finest will be representing their country on the hallowed turf of Murrayfield, I wish them the very best of luck. But I pray that the cup stays in Edinburgh :)

Biggus
8th Feb 2014, 07:56
The SNP solution to many issues seems to be to continue using the relevant UK wide system currently in place. Part of their argument seems to be that Scotland has already paid for/"owns" 1/9 of said systems.

What they don't say, and don't tell the voters, is that once Scotland is independent it will have to pay for continued use of such systems (assuming their continued use is even allowed) as Scottish taxes will no longer be contributing to these systems upkeep and running costs.

So if, for example, an independent Scotland wished the CAA to continue its role in an independent Scotland, as opposed to setting up a Scottish version, they would have to pay for it.

The list of "services" an independent Scotland would either have to pay the rest of UK to use (assuming the rest of UK agrees, and does this then truly represent independence?), or set up mini versions of, is extremely long - and the cost of this process is largely ignored by the SNP as they promise the voters a land of increased wealth for all upon achieving independence.

Heathrow Harry
8th Feb 2014, 08:55
precisely!!

And since they will have no political stroke in England/Wales anymore you can bet the price will be "commercial" at long last

The Bank of England, CAA, DHSS, Passport Office, Driving Licenses ...................

all waiting to pounce

TomJoad
8th Feb 2014, 09:10
precisely!!

And since they will have no political stroke in England/Wales anymore you can bet the price will be "commercial" at long last

The Bank of England, CAA, DHSS, Passport Office, Driving Licenses ...................

all waiting to pounce

Does Ireland (Eire) use any of these organisations?:)

perthsaint
8th Feb 2014, 09:13
The thought that we'll have to pay for things we currently pay for is a real show stopper:eek:

Biggus
8th Feb 2014, 09:21
First of all you may have to pay more in future.

However, the main point is that the SNP are being disingenuous about the true costs of Scotland being independent, of which those are just some examples!


The SNP aren't saying that Scotland can be an independent country, but it won't be easy, the first few years will be something of a struggle, and the standard of living may drop to start with as costs are borne. No, they are saying that everything will be fine in an independent Scotland, standards of living will rise, pensions will go up, taxes come down, oil funds set up, milk and honey will flow, etc, etc......

TomJoad
8th Feb 2014, 09:35
The point is that the SNP are being disingenuous about the true costs of Scotland being independent, of which those are just some examples!


Does Ireland use any of these organisations?

kintyred
8th Feb 2014, 09:37
OK, let's digress then....

Leaving aside the issue of the flag, which won't look as good without the blue bit, the advantages of independence south of the border are:-

1. We won't need to put the clocks back in the winter.
2. No need for Scottish football reports on final score.
3. More money for us...we no longer need to subsidise the Scots (Barnett formula).
4. Lees likelihood of returning a communist government (41 Labour MPs come from Scotland).

By the way, I say this as a Scot.

engineer(retard)
8th Feb 2014, 09:39
Does Ireland use any of these organisations?

Are you asking if Ireland has organisations that regulate flying, provide driving licenses, passports, welfare system etc - Probably not :O

Kintyred, You missed out "No more Independence threads"

TomJoad
8th Feb 2014, 09:56
Are you asking if Ireland has organisations that regulate flying, provide driving licenses, passports, welfare system etc - Probably not :oh:

Really! Or are you and Harry being disingenuous?:=

TomJoad
8th Feb 2014, 09:59
OK, let's digress then....

Leaving aside the issue of the flag, which won't look as good without the blue bit, the advantages of independence south of the border are:-

1. We won't need to put the clocks back in the winter.
2. No need for Scottish football reports on final score.
3. More money for us...we no longer need to subsidise the Scots (Barnett formula).
4. Lees likelihood of returning a communist government (41 Labour MPs come from Scotland).

By the way, I say this as a Scot.

Get yirsel a proxy vote big man:ok:

kintyred
8th Feb 2014, 10:36
Thanks TJ! Spiffing idea old chap!

TomJoad
8th Feb 2014, 11:26
nae problem old bean:ok:

Pontius Navigator
8th Feb 2014, 12:13
Someone visiting this page or a couple of pages back could be forgiven if they didn't realise this thread was about draining the swamp.

OutlawPete
8th Feb 2014, 12:33
OK, let's digress then....

Leaving aside the issue of the flag, which won't look as good without the blue bit, the advantages of independence south of the border are:-

1. We won't need to put the clocks back in the winter.
2. No need for Scottish football reports on final score.
3. More money for us...we no longer need to subsidise the Scots (Barnett formula).
4. Lees likelihood of returning a communist government (41 Labour MPs come from Scotland).

By the way, I say this as a Scot.

1. You don't have to do this in England if you don't want to. You simply choose to.

2. There are many football fans south of the border who want to see Scottish fixture results (amazingly).

3. Scotland more than pays its way so you are wrong. There will be less money in England post independence. You should be concerned about this (I am) especially in the current economic climate.

4. Who gives a stuff who's in government, nothing changes. Meet the new boss......

TomJoad, Eire has established its own agencies to deal with issues such as driving licences, passports etc. They also have insurance and cell phones work just fine and are affordable too (those myths were hysterical when it was traipsed out in the press that Scotland wouldn't have these things).

Don't know about aviation legislation though and it's a very good point, perhaps they pay a levy to the CAA for this service?

piesupper
8th Feb 2014, 13:00
If you want rid of Alec Salmond then the logical answer must be to vote #YES. Independence will follow and with it a GE in Scotland. The result will likely be a loose coalition between what's left of the SNP and whatever emerges from the ruins of the Labour Party and a fair number of Greens. Alec will lead this for one term before handing over to Nicola and enjoying a well-earned retirement
Vote #No and the SNP will most certainly not go away, we will simply redouble our efforts, elect a majority of SNP MPs to Westminster (including Alec and Nicola) and declare UDI as is our right under long-standing UN conventions. Negotiations will take some time and you in the South are going to have Alec in your face for some time. AS back in Westminster and ripping Dave and Gideon a new one on a weekly basis is something I and many others would pay good money to see.
Should you doubt the veracity of the foregoing statement, just ask why Dave refuses to actually debate with Alec....

So if you don't like the guy - help him to get #indy so he retires sooner.
If you don't like the idea of #indy, then be prepared for a very big disappointment - its coming one way or another.

To hardware - as agreed something along the lines of the Irish model but with expanded SF, extra maritime and coastal patrols. 16 Typhoons may be our "share" but I doubt we'd take them, we'll make a deal for stuff we could make better use of.

If we DID want heavy hardware I'm sure that nice Mr Putin would cut us a good deal on 8-10 Mig-29s and 2-4 Bears for MPA, possibly some Antonovs and MiL for moving our SF about. A couple of these air-defence systems the Israelis took such fright at being based in Syria, mhmm? Bet he'd be glad to help establish a "maintenance" base at say Machrihanish, perhaps?

Be a very good idea to play nice and abandon old imperial thoughts. Many things are changing, many more WILL change.

Ken Scott
8th Feb 2014, 13:15
Piesupper: just to confirm then - Scotland votes 'yes' & the SNP claims 'the people have spoken', votes 'no' & SNP goes & declares UDI in the face of a democratic rejection of independence?

engineer(retard)
8th Feb 2014, 13:16
2. There are many football fans south of the border who want to see Scottish fixture results (amazingly).

3. Scotland more than pays its way so you are wrong. There will be less money in England post independence. You should be concerned about this (I am) especially in the current economic climate.

TomJoad, Eire has established its own agencies to deal with issues such as driving licences, passports etc. They also have insurance and cell phones work just fine and are affordable too (those myths were hysterical when it was traipsed out in the press that Scotland wouldn't have these things).

(2) Only the non voting Scots as far as I am aware.

(3) Yet to be convinced because there will be 8% less people and 32% less land mass to spend the remaining money on.

Are the Irish agencies charitable organisations or doe sit have to be paid for?

piesupper
8th Feb 2014, 14:48
Sorry - I [c|sh]ould have put that more clearly
In the event of a No vote in the referendum, then the next step is at the UK GE in 2015 - a majority of the Scottish Westminster seats falling to a nationalist coalition would require UN intervention - as was always the route envisaged pre-1999.

Note I say nationalist coalition - although the SNP has (obviously) been the major driver up till now - the experience of the #YES campaign has demonstrated that the demand for democracy in Scotland far transcends the ranks of the SNP - valuable work is being done by people and organisations that would never previously been seen dead with the SNP.
This is all about the people of Scotland and actually very little to do with Alec Salmond now.

Still the Daily Mail, Telegraph and BBC need someone to demonise so Alec will do...
Despite being the most capable politician and strategist in these islands for a very long time
Jealousy is a bitch - eh?

Biggus
8th Feb 2014, 15:23
So let's get this right, you're saying that if "the people of Scotland" vote No in the referendum, then their wishes are simply going to be ignored?

You suggest the UN will somehow get involved, and overturn the wishes of the majority?

How does that work? How is that all about the people of Scotland? What exactly are you on...?

piesupper
8th Feb 2014, 15:42
This is all a bit irrelevant, we WILL win at he referendum, despite (almost) 100% media opposition and the dirty tricks that are in play now and in the coming months.

Did the Labour Party pack up and go home cos it lost in 2010? Why the hell should we then if we narrowly fail in a rigged referendum?

I wonder exactly what form the false flag op(s) will take? Pity for MI5/6 that Adam Busby and his SNLA has been well rumbled as a plant. I'm sure there will be others, hopefully as amateurish and with no real collateral damage. It is well drilled into any youngster joining or working with the SNP - if ANYONE talks about guns or violence in any form whatsoever they are an AP (agent provocateur) and/or a drunken **** -sometimes both - Report them immediately -

And that's one reason why we have got to where we are today without so much as one drop of blood being spilled - if you ignore Willie Macrae and we know who did the blood spilling there - suicide when the gun was found 100yds away? Aye right...

I have met several APs in my "career" as an SNP activist - funny how they always disappeared without trace shortly after we told them to grow up and no be so bloody stupid - allowed us to identify a couple of MI5/6 safe houses in Glasgow and Stirling though. teehee Funny also how these properties went on the market soon afterwards too...

TomJoad
8th Feb 2014, 15:43
1. You don't have to do this in England if you don't want to. You simply choose to.

2. There are many football fans south of the border who want to see Scottish fixture results (amazingly).

3. Scotland more than pays its way so you are wrong. There will be less money in England post independence. You should be concerned about this (I am) especially in the current economic climate.

4. Who gives a stuff who's in government, nothing changes. Meet the new boss......

TomJoad, Eire has established its own agencies to deal with issues such as driving licences, passports etc. They also have insurance and cell phones work just fine and are affordable too (those myths were hysterical when it was traipsed out in the press that Scotland wouldn't have these things).

Don't know about aviation legislation though and it's a very good point, perhaps they pay a levy to the CAA for this service?

Err no as far as I am aware OutlawPete they can even manage to field their own the IAA.:ok:

Imagine that.;)

TomJoad
8th Feb 2014, 15:48
Piesupper: just to confirm then - Scotland votes 'yes' & the SNP claims 'the people have spoken', votes 'no' & SNP goes & declares UDI in the face of a democratic rejection of independence?

Err no that cannot happen (UDI bit) SNP need to have a mandate to petition teh UK government. The UDI bit was actually dismissed by Alex Salmond himself in pursuing the referendum route. For those who are interested in this anorak stuff this is dealt with in the Edinburgh Agreement.:)

piesupper
8th Feb 2014, 15:59
Biggus - it works by the Scots electorate choosing a majority of representatives who demand independence - previously we would have said SNP MPs but the campaign is much wider now. We appeal to the UN for self-determination - look it up..

There are 53 Westminster seats, the YES coalition (to invent a possible name) would have to gain 27 or more of these at the 2015 GE to move forward. Given the collapse in Labour party activists - (many of who are now working with Labour for Independence) and the fact that it is a UK-wide election, there will be little/no chance of bussing in activists from England to put "boots on the ground"

Winning 27 Westminster seats is very do-able, especially when following a NO vote, the petty Westminster backlash begins, cuts cut deeper, many who voted NO at the referendum will be converted AND we have almost a year to reflect. Do NOT kid yourself that some sort of "Devo-Max" deal will be concocted - There is neither the time, the political will or unity to cobble anything semi-believable together and anyway we have heard these empty promises before.

Anyone who thinks that things will just carry on gaily as before following a NO vote is living in cloud-cuckoo land- The Tories will have their revenge for our temerity and will not be slow to axe Barnett and claw back what little powers we do have at Holyrood.
And every one of these actions will simply convert more Scots to #indy.

"First they laugh at you, then then they fight you, then you win" Ghandi

We are at Stage2 moving rapidly to Stage 3 but unfortunately many on here are still at Stage 1

Wrathmonk
8th Feb 2014, 15:59
Can this be merged with the thread in Jet Blast as it clearly no longer has anything to do with Mil Aircrew.:ugh:

Piesupper

As you are so good at predicting the future

we WILL win at the referendum

could you let me have the lottery numbers for the next few weeks please.:rolleyes:

TomJoad
8th Feb 2014, 16:10
Can this be merged with the thread in Jet Blast as it clearly no longer has anything to do with Mil Aircrew.:ugh:

Piesupper

As you are so good at predicting the future



could you let me have the lottery numbers for the next few weeks please.:rolleyes:

Move it yes, but don't merge it.

kintyred
8th Feb 2014, 17:11
OutlawPete,

I backed up my argument that thr Scots are subsidised by reference to the Barnett Formula (120% of the amount of government expenditure spent per head in England at the last count). You can't be taking about oil, surely. Independence is for life, not just till the oil runs out in a couple of decades. Assuming you have an ace up your sleeve I'm sure we'd all be glad to see it.

piesupper
8th Feb 2014, 18:57
Quite happy to keep this as a discussion of what hardware we would need/could afford.
Problem is when someone says "Ah but you couldn't maintain it" - (which is perfectly reasonable...) then we have to discuss finance and that inevitably.......


So tell me if we DID want heavy metal, how many Typhoons would be needed? Assume a mutually acceptable price for maint- support and sims could be agreed..

Maritime patrol? Tu-142s - if suitable airframes could be made available - may be a little overkill - what else?
Shame about the Nimrods...

piesupper
8th Feb 2014, 19:00
Kintyred -

I could reply in detail to this but those who don't like what I have to say would move it to Jet Blast

Quickly - lot more than 20 yrs oil left - Oil and gas merely icing on cake- real winner will be offshore wind and tidal turbines and selling nice clean water to the drier parts of our parched southern neighbour.

piesupper
8th Feb 2014, 19:02
Wrathmonk

17, 18, 23, 29, 30 and 41

Happy to help :-)

Canadian Break
8th Feb 2014, 19:07
Having read Piesupper's posts I can reassure him that in the event of a "No" vote he does not need to resort to the shenagins he describes - simply suggest that the people of the rest of the UK are asked to vote in a referendum whether or not Scotland should be invited to leave the Union! Simples. :E

piesupper
8th Feb 2014, 19:38
Fractured Canuck

Ask yourself this - if Scotland is such a drain on the rest of the UK, why are they so keen for us to stay?

It can't be cos they love us so much - you only need to look back over this thread and similar to see the frankly racist outpourings from allegedly educated chaps - check out the vitriol in the BTL comments in the Daily Mail, Express Telegraph and even yes in the Grauniad.

So there must be another reason. I wonder if you can work out what it is...

Hint: I think the moneymen in the City may disagree with the average English voter that you think will be so keen to get rid of us.
Can you say "Balance of Payments"? Try "Export Earnings" ....

Pontius Navigator
8th Feb 2014, 19:52
Pie, don't confuse them, politicians, with us.

Canadian Break
8th Feb 2014, 19:53
No, honestly - if you really want to go then let the rest of us vote.

OutlawPete
8th Feb 2014, 19:58
Kintyred,
Its tiresome to keep having it rammed down our throats the we, in Scotland somehow take everything and contribute nothing. The Barnett formula was devised by Westminster yet according to you, Scotland is a drain on England's cash flow. The formula is there to see the whole of the UK benefits equally regardless of geography.

I really wish England had the vote, maybe her population would feel a lot better about themselves if they were actually kicking us out of the Union.

Wrathmonk, if you don't want to read the thread, simply don't click on it!

MG23
8th Feb 2014, 20:22
Anyone who thinks that things will just carry on gaily as before following a NO vote is living in cloud-cuckoo land- The Tories will have their revenge for our temerity and will not be slow to axe Barnett and claw back what little powers we do have at Holyrood.

Yes, obviously the 'Conservative and Unionist Party' will be eager to punish the Scots for staying in the Union. The Tories want Scotland to stay even though they'd be far more likely to win future elections if it left.

But, equally obviously, no sane government would allow anything essential to the UK government to be based in Scotland in future, in case they do leave one day. That's not 'revenge', it's plain common sense.

Wrathmonk
8th Feb 2014, 20:36
Pete

What I want to do when I click on a thread to do with a future independent Scottish Air Force, in the military forum, is read a proper grown up (?) discussion about exactly that.

If I want to read a bunch of nationalists and unionists waving their willies about shouting how their views on the future of currency, voting, oil rights, EU membership etc are the right, and only way, and everyone else is wrong then I visit the 150 page thread in Jet Blast (which, if memory serves me right, was where the previous military forum thread on a future Independant Scottish Air Force ended up when the 'my Dads harder than your Dad' brigade pitched up!)

Keep on topic. That applies to both sides. That is all that is required. Simples really.

5 Forward 6 Back
8th Feb 2014, 20:38
And just who would conduct elementary, basic and advanced flying training for this JAF? Where and at what price?

I don't know where and on what types, but those of us who are at least approximately Scottish, with Scottish family, and A2 certificates on our walls, and 1000+ instructional hours, plus experience in DSAT syllabus design and modification, etc etc, could probably contribute to a viable Scottish AF training system.

There are some capable people out there in the RAF who occasionally wear a kilt, and I'm sure Salmond could probably offer me a suitably different package to make me consider helping! Witness the number of threads full of people fed up to the back teeth of the way the RAF is going. I, for one, adore flying and love instructing; maybe a small fleet of PC-9s based at Leuchars would be my ideal second career....!

TomJoad
8th Feb 2014, 20:41
Pete

What I want to do when I click on a thread to do with a future independent Scottish Air Force, in the military forum, is read a proper grown up (?) discussion about exactly that.

If I want to read a bunch of nationalists and unionists waving their willies about shouting how their views on the future of currency, voting, oil rights, EU membership etc are the right, and only way, and everyone else is wrong then I visit the 150 page thread in Jet Blast (which, if memory serves me right, was where the previous military forum thread on a future Independant Scottish Air Force ended up when the 'my Dads harder than your Dad' brigade pitched up!)

Keep on topic. That applies to both sides. That is all that is required. Simples really.

And the aviation content in this post, mil or otherwise ?

kintyred
8th Feb 2014, 20:44
OutlawPete,

Let's try GDP per capita then. Scotland's is only 96% of the UK average and nearly £800 below that of England. And if the extra funding from Westminster stops, the money will have to come from somewhere....and the oil will stop one day. Then what?

TomJoad
8th Feb 2014, 20:47
Quite happy to keep this as a discussion of what hardware we would need/could afford.
Problem is when someone says "Ah but you couldn't maintain it" - (which is perfectly reasonable...) then we have to discuss finance and that inevitably.......


So tell me if we DID want heavy metal, how many Typhoons would be needed? Assume a mutually acceptable price for maint- support and sims could be agreed..

Maritime patrol? Tu-142s - if suitable airframes could be made available - may be a little overkill - what else?
Shame about the Nimrods...

Firstly its not a simple matter of how many Typhoons are needed. That level of questioning betrays the lack of understanding of what it takes to support fast jet mil aircraft operations. It is a relatively easy one to dispense with in any respect. Scotland would have no military need, nor could she afford through life support, manning, training, obsolescence planning for such a platform. This has been put to bed before, look to Ireland for an idea of Scotland's mil air needs - not impossible and certainly more plausible.

piesupper
8th Feb 2014, 20:59
Pretty much with you on this Tom, I asked merely as a hypothetical question in air defence, given our area, coastline rtc, how many would be needed to match current theoretical UK coverage.

I am certainly not for pissing away the savings we will make on Trident and foreign adventures on fast-jet status symbols unless there is a cast-iron case for them.
I do think that we will need some form of air defence/surveillance for the rigs especially when the emphasis moves west of Shetland.

If we can get by with a few light twins as the Irish seem to do then fine but we may need something more. After all a lot of our national assets will be out there.

And yes a wee fleet of PC_9s at Leuchars for training.. though I'd maybe be more keen on buying back the Bulldogs the Swedes have in their underground hanger and basing them at Prestwick - but I'm biased :-)

TomJoad
8th Feb 2014, 22:06
OutlawPete,

Let's try GDP per capita then. Scotland's is only 96% of the UK average and nearly £800 below that of England. And if the extra funding from Westminster stops, the money will have to come from somewhere....and the oil will stop one day. Then what?

We would have invented the flux capacitor by then.:ugh:

What an asinine question. What government on Earth makes such long term projections - who knows what market forces, emerging technologies will be in play in 5 years never mind 20-40. Have a think, in 1980 who would have forecast the growth, employment and revenue streams arising from mobile communications, computer gaming, digital media. Go figure and stop seeing bogey men where there are none. Oh and take this part of the debate to jet blast.

kintyred
8th Feb 2014, 22:23
TJ,

I did start with a couple of posts about the affordability of a Scottish Air Force and was then told that Scotland had plenty of dosh. I begged to differ and no one has yet told me where the money is coming from. Let's be clear, the oil reserves total £1.5trillion pounds and will cost £1trillion to extract. Spread over 50 years the Scots will get £10bn a year, which is just about enough to pay off their share of the national debt.

I mischievously posted some thoughts about the advantages to England of Scottish independence....I sincerely hope Scotland remains part of the Union....and I am a Scot, remember!

The bottom line remains the same, unless Scotland opts for the same model as some of the smaller European Air Forces and uses predominantly US equipment it is unlikely to field much in the way of air power.

By the way, my personal opinion is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. It strikes me that for the country with the fourth biggest defence budget in the world the UK doesn't give it's taxpayers good value for money....unless they also happen to be BAE shareholders!

piesupper
9th Feb 2014, 01:39
MG23

"But, equally obviously, no sane government would allow anything essential to the UK government to be based in Scotland in future, in case they do leave one day. That's not 'revenge', it's plain common sense."


Gonny use some plain common sense over the stuff you have lying around at Faslane, Coulport, Glen Douglas and Macrihanish then?

Or is that different, somehow?

And we'll be looking for your FULL share of clean-up costs at Dounreay too, including HMS Vulcan. Mind and keep the payments coming regular now, wouldn't want anything to happen to your electricity and water supplies now. would we?...

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 03:52
PS Thanks for your PM Roland, most insightful - welcome to my 'ignore'
list.


Ha ha, you must have got the same mental private message that he sent me.

bcgallacher
9th Feb 2014, 06:43
While I am not a supporter of independence and will vote noI am getting a little annoyed with the implication that we are a bunch of peasants with heather growing out our ears that would be incapable of setting up our own defence forces. The smaller Scandanavian countries seem to be able to finance credible forces,even some third world countries can finance fast jets etc.,so I think a bit of common sense and realism is required.

BEagle
9th Feb 2014, 07:20
bcgallacher wrote:
....I think a bit of common sense and realism is required.
Perhaps you should invite the ridiculous Salmond to consider the same?

Wrathmonk
9th Feb 2014, 08:05
And the aviation content in this post, mil or otherwise ?

Wow. Well done Tom. The same could be said of pretty much every post to do with Scottish independence :ugh:

So, back to topic then.

Biggest problem with a ScAF will be recruitment. You can 'negotiate' the transfer of the equipment but having the associated (and role trained) manpower may be slightly different (in the short term at least). There will be those who wish to transfer and whilst the re-introduction of conscription (;)), or even the re-activation of all those who live in Scotland and still hold a reserve committment (;);)), may help the training costs of new/untrained personnel will still be considerable. I assume the ScAF will still swear an oath of allegience to HMTQ - which may stick in the throat for some of the more fervant nationalists?

Good chance for some rapid promotion for those with the necessary skills though.

Pontius Navigator
9th Feb 2014, 08:06
bcg, really it is not a question of whether you can afford a willy waving air force but whether you need one at all.

Yes, developing countries do operate FJ, but do they do so in sufficient numbers for a viable defence force? Even Iraq's air force, formidable on paper was just that, a paper tiger.

Scotland has no potential enemies with both the capability or intention to pose a threat. Air policing against the errant air liner would, I concede, be a valid reason for an interceptor but that interceptor does not need to be a Typhoon or Lightning.

Eul0gy
9th Feb 2014, 08:20
The problem in this whole independance jolly and if we can affort anything comes down to the SNP, they haven't got a Scooby do when it actually comes to what is required to run a defence force. They are hoping current serving military will come home and just take up the strain. They have no clue on what it take to fly on fast jet unless pixie dust is in there somewere . They havent given firm confirmations what will happen to our terms of service , commitment bonuses or pensions. He might have 16 typhoons but no one to fly or support them until he sets up training and recruitment. I under stood this when I asked the SNP when back home on leave and they said that like marriage we would get half of everything

Courtney Mil
9th Feb 2014, 08:39
Two points here. The first is that this has, once again, become a "debate" simply about Scottish politics with only fleeting references to mil av that fail to offer the thread any relevance outside of Jet Blast - worse, we now have a confessed nationalist activist using PPRuNe as a soap box, which really does not conform to the spirit of the rules of the Forum.

Second, the point that BEagle has just made this morning. The reason that the futute of Scottish Military forces is so open to debate is that Salmond et al have failed to issued any viable or credible plan for post-indie Scotland. I draw the Forum's attention to the same analysis that I posted here some months ago.

http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/HJS-In-Scotlands-Defence-Report-LOW-RES.pdf

I hope this helps,

Courtney

perthsaint
9th Feb 2014, 08:53
A report from a neoconservative think tank? Yes, that'll be objective.

Henry Jackson Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jackson_Society)

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 08:54
It does help Courtney, and I agree that confessed nationalists have been using Pprune as a soapbox and that this needs to stop. BEagle, Newt, and yourself - please stop using Pprune as a soapbox to further your Brit Nat agendas. Thank you.

Courtney Mil
9th Feb 2014, 09:16
Read my posts before accusing me. I don't have an agenda, I don't have a vote and I shall not even be a UK resident by the time this all happens. My only interest in all this the concept of setting up a new air force, as the thread title implies.

Have you read the report? If not, you can hardly comment on its objectiveness, if so, I look forward to your thoughts on some of the mil av issues it raises.

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 09:21
Lighten up Courtney, my comment was meant with a certain amount of tongue in cheek (although my point about those thumping the UK drum being 'nationalists' just the same, was serious).

No, I haven't read the (neo-con) report. Like yourself, I won't have a vote either (but not being Scottish, or a resident of Scotland, I don't see why I would/should).

engineer(retard)
9th Feb 2014, 09:33
Firstly its not a simple matter of how many Typhoons are needed. That level of questioning betrays the lack of understanding of what it takes to support fast jet mil aircraft operations. It is a relatively easy one to dispense with in any respect. Scotland would have no military need, nor could she afford through life support, manning, training, obsolescence planning for such a platform. This has been put to bed before, look to Ireland for an idea of Scotland's mil air needs - not impossible and certainly more plausible.

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis, it hasn't been put to bed, it remains one of the planks of Scottish Defence policy as expressed by the White Paper. The lack of critical and intelligent thought that has been applied makes the Scottish governments independence proposal look like a house of wet cards.

5 Forward 6 Back
9th Feb 2014, 09:43
I think even a tiny FJ force is viable in terms of a defence strategy, in terms of policing the appropriate areas to offer something to NATO and the chance to intercept errant airliners.

While Typhoons or F35s would be unnecessary, part of the whole plan appears to be that an independent Scotland would inherit some; so while some cheap F16s akin to the nordic countries, or even some wacky ex-Soviet equipment would do the required mission sets cheaply, they're not as cheap as "free."

Even some of the older, Q-only T1 Typhoons would probably do the job fine. In terms of who'd train people and who'd fly them, I'm sure there would be some volunteers. I work with some Scots who, while not overtly nationalistic, are frustrated by the nepotism and favouritism sometimes shown by manning and the difficulty in fighting for certain jobs.

There are those who would relish the chance to be involved in the very early setting up of these systems too. Imagine, as a jaded, tired Typhoon flight commander, or an A2 QFI, being offered a post in a new Scottish AF and the chance to shape the way it would operate and train?

We all know people who say they're glad they're not still in the RAF now, and this forum's full of threads with people talking about leaving. My Facebook timeline is full of colleagues with shiny new ATPLs and even a couple with Virgin Atlantic jobs recently. The exciting chance to be involved in an embryonic Air Force might tempt some people away; even if you end up with old pre-upgrade PC-9s and a tiny fleet of older T1 Typhoons, it's a pretty historic occasion and some parts of it might be good!

newt
9th Feb 2014, 09:59
Not a chance melmothtw! It's too much fun winding you up:E

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 10:06
Not a chance melmothtw! It's too much fun winding you uphttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif


You're really not Newt, and neither are the private message diatribes I'm receiving on the subject from Roland....:bored: (I can do emoticons too)

engineer(retard)
9th Feb 2014, 10:30
I think even a tiny FJ force is viable in terms of a defence strategy, in terms of policing the appropriate areas to offer something to NATO and the chance to intercept errant airliners.

Have you any idea what the support costs are for a tiny fleet of Typhoon, especially when you have a unique variant?

newt
9th Feb 2014, 10:45
melmothtw


It does help Courtney, and I agree that confessed nationalists have been using PPRuNe as a soapbox and that this needs to stop. BEagle, Newt, and yourself - please stop using PPRuNe as a soapbox to further your Brit Nat agendas. Thank you.

It seems that we do wind you up! :ok:

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 11:00
melmothtw


It does help Courtney, and I agree that confessed
nationalists have been using PPRuNe as a soapbox and that this needs to stop.
BEagle, Newt, and yourself - please stop using PPRuNe as a soapbox to further
your Brit Nat agendas. Thank you.

It seems that we do wind you up! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Shame you chose not to continue my quote:



Lighten up Courtney, my comment was meant with a certain amount of tongue in cheek...

Clad
9th Feb 2014, 11:08
If Scotland has no air air defence and neutral Ireland has no air defence who guards and air polices the western part of the EU and North Atlantic

!

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 11:38
If Scotland has no air air defence and neutral Ireland has no air defence who
guards and air polices the western part of the EU and North
Atlantic

!


The same folks as currently do - Norway, France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the (rump)UK, the US. I'm sure the Swedes and Finns would pitch in too (as they're currently doing over Iceland).

There's really no need to panic.

engineer(retard)
9th Feb 2014, 11:46
The same folks as currently do - Norway, France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the (rump)UK, the US. I'm sure the Swedes and Finns would pitch in too (as they're currently doing over Iceland).

There's really no need to panic.

So the brave new Scotland aspires to be like Iceland and Ireland, who are co-incidentally nations that went bust, and rely on the good will and largesse of their neighbours to look after them :D:D

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 11:54
So the brave new Scotland aspires to be like Iceland and Ireland...


I'd say you were right about Scotland aspiring to be like Iceland and Ireland (and every other independent country in the world), but I'm not sure where the 'coincidence' lies in them going bust. It's worth noting that larger and more 'powerful' nations than these went bust or came very close to doing so during the global economic crisis (and worth noting also that a great many smaller countries didn't).



and rely on the good will and largesse of their neighbours to look after them
:D:D


Not too disimilar to the 'special' relationship between the UK and US eh? Besides, foreign policy is rarely based on 'good will and largesse', but on self-interest. The self-interest in protecting these countries is that in doing so you protect your own. The same will be true post-independence with regard the relationship between Scotland and rUK.

TomJoad
9th Feb 2014, 12:22
TJ,

I mischievously posted some thoughts about the advantages to England of Scottish independence....I sincerely hope Scotland remains part of the Union....and I am a Scot, remember!

The bottom line remains the same, unless Scotland opts for the same model as some of the smaller European Air Forces and uses predominantly US equipment it is unlikely to field much in the way of air power.

By the way, my personal opinion is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. It strikes me that for the country with the fourth biggest defence budget in the world the UK doesn't give it's taxpayers good value for money....unless they also happen to be BAE shareholders!


kintyred the manner of my dismissal of your previous was rude. Please accept my apologies. I hold to the point I was making. Your statement highlighted above is exactly what I think most here need to reflect on - Scotland's defence requirements/ambitions would be significantly less ambitious than the present UK - that is blindingly obvious except to some antagonists here.

engineer(retard)
9th Feb 2014, 12:37
I'd say you were right about Scotland aspiring to be like Iceland and Ireland (and every other independent country in the world), but I'm not sure where the 'coincidence' lies in them going bust. It's worth noting that larger and more 'powerful' nations than these went bust or came very close to doing so during the global economic crisis (and worth noting also that a great many smaller countries didn't).


...and still looking to their neighbours to shoulder their load. I expect that the neighbours will be blamed again if they do not protect you properly. The co-incidence is that your economy aspired to be like theirs as well until your role models went belly up.

rab-k
9th Feb 2014, 12:50
"belly up" eh?...

Darling left red-faced as 'bust' nations overtake UK in world prosperity index (http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/8381-darling-left-red-faced-as-bust-nations-overtake-uk-in-world-prosperity-index)

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 12:53
The co-incidence is that your economy aspired to be like theirs as well until
your role models went belly up.


Just to be clear, I am not Scottish and neither do I live in Scotland. Like most on here, my contributions are made as an interested outsider.

Seeing as you brought it up though, my understanding is that Scotland aspires to have an economy along lines similar to those of other comparably sized countries. You name Ireland and Iceland, which is correct, but also New Zealand, Belgium, Denmark etc (none of whom went bust). As to those countries you name that did go bust - most have come through the other side, and none are banging on our door to be let into the oh-so-stable and prosperous UK.

You're correct when you say that larger countries shoulder a larger burden than smaller ones (could it be any other way?). As per your (correct) assertion, the US shoulders a larger burden re the defence of Europe than the UK does. What's your point?

Pontius Navigator
9th Feb 2014, 12:53
As posted before, the question of Irish neutrality in the event of attack from the west was ignored.

In the case of Scotland the English caps would be over the Moray Firth. :O

piesupper
9th Feb 2014, 13:01
Tom Joad
" Scotland's defence requirements/ambitions would be significantly less ambitious than the present UK"

Spot on - we would start without any overt or instinctive delusions of past imperial grandeur.

However - as stated by others "Who is going to patrol the airspace to the N and W of Shetland?"
Scotland _could_ leave it to others, but that would be an abrogation of our moral responsibilities to our neighbours as well as leaving a lot of our (future) infrastructure unguarded - lets leave fisheries patrols out of this for now - I'm talking inappropriate airspace incursions and threats to offshore installations.

_Assuming_ the relevant maintenance training and general infrastructure needs could be negotiated (we want to buy, you are motivated to sell) - how many fast-jet and MPA airframes do the pros on here think would realistically be needed?

Despite the suspicions of some, I mostly come on this forum to learn and be entertained. Much fun is to had on the caption competition and the " earning a Brevet" thread is pure gold. My sincere thanks to all who have contributed to those threads and others.

Right now I want to be educated. Of course the policy wonks in the SNP will be asking these questions and will have their own ideas, but I can assure you as a humble footsoldier I want to know as much as possible too. And I'm not necessarily going to believe all I am told from SNP Towers. I'll make my own mind up, thank you, with input from as many varied sources as possible. The #YES campaign is about an awful lot more that Alec Salmond and the SNP and there are (and should be) many strands of opinion - We are a very loose-knit bunch with one central idea in common - Scotland is better run by the people who live there (wherever they originated - its not where we came from - its where we are going) This seems like a good place to ask to get some alternative viewpoints.

So given the task - surveillance patrol of our land and offshore waters out to ~500 miles, defence of our offshore facilities and our responsibilities to pick up our share of the wider European airspace defence - what kit do we need?
Are any existing UK assets which we are due (cos if we take a share of the debt then we'll have a corresponding share of the assets) suitable or even feasible for our use? DO we say "OK Keep your Typhoons - we'll have a corresponding slice off our share of the UKNational Debt and we'll spend it on hardware from the Yanks, the Swedes or the Russians" .
Please remember also that Scotland owns a population share of the existing training, spares, sim etc - We paid for it with our taxes every bit as much as those in other parts of the UK.

OutlawPete
9th Feb 2014, 13:38
So given the task - surveillance patrol of our land and offshore waters out to ~500 miles, defence of our offshore facilities and our responsibilities to pick up our share of the wider European airspace defence - what kit do we need?
Are any existing UK assets which we are due....

Its a shame the UK government gave the harriers away. A couple of Sqns of them would have been ideal.


So the brave new Scotland aspires to be like Iceland and Ireland, who are co-incidentally nations that went bust, and rely on the good will and largesse of their neighbours to look after them :D:D

Rabs link more or less puts that one to bed. This is the one thing that irks me, the very notion that Scotland just couldn't cope on its own.

The No campaign are doing nothing of value to convince people to vote that way and with comments like that, you are doing more work for the Yes campaign than you realise.

Canadian Break
9th Feb 2014, 13:50
The fast pointy things that you are all talking about are only the tip of the iceberg. What about the ADGE that is needed for C2, compiling the Recognised Air Picture etc etc. I suppose you could reinstate Buchan and buy a couple of radars - then there's the entire logistic/engineering support for this. Tanker support? The list goes on and on. Then there is the legal question of which assets are transferred to Scotland. I will not rehearse the discussion I have already posted on here; suffice to say that it is not simply a percentage game. The received legal wisdom is that the (rest of) UK could re-assign the movable assets to bases in the "rump" and that Scotland would have no call on them. Only in cases where the asset is placed to singularly defend Scotland would the Scots have a legitimate claim on the asset and, as they are currently placed to protect the United Kingdom, I do not see this being the case in many instances. This is not my opinion - it would seem that this is International Law - the same law which many on this thread tell us would give the North Sea oil rights to Scotland on independence.

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 13:58
These arguments are all becoming a little circular.

The pro-camp says that Scotland doesn't really need the same level of assets/capabilities as the current UK. At the top-end, a few fast jets, some transports, and an MPA or two would suffice. Along the same lines as Ireland, New Zealand etc (although both those countries do manage to survive without fast jets).

The anti-camp then retorts that you need tanker support, radar and C2 systems, etc etc...

The pro-camp says that Scotland doesn't need...

And so on, ad infinitum.

Canadian Break
9th Feb 2014, 14:34
Not quite sure why pointing out that you cannot simply rely on Fast Jets makes me "anti"; from a military viewpoint - basic components of an AD system - simple as that. So, if you want the Fast Jets then you need all of the other paraphenalia that come with them.

From a personal point of view, I believe that Scotland would be worse off out of the Union - but that is not the issue I am writing on here.

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 14:40
I believe that Scotland would be worse off out of the Union - but that is not
the issue I am writing on here.


Actually, that's exactly the issue that everyone is writing about on here. It's just been cunningly disguised to look like a discussion on air defences.

Canadian Break
9th Feb 2014, 15:11
That may be what you are arguing - so I'll say it one more time: from a military viewpoint - basic components of an AD system - simple as that. So, if you want the Fast Jets then you need all of the other paraphenalia that come with them.

piesupper
9th Feb 2014, 15:20
"That may be what you are arguing - so I'll say it one more time: from a military viewpoint - basic components of an AD system - simple as that. So, if you want the Fast Jets then you need all of the other paraphenalia that come with them."

And I'll say it one more time - we have already paid (more than) our share for the sic "paraphenalia "

So let's do some grown-up sorting out of who gets what and what is of most utility to who.

What does Scotland realistically need?
How much (if any) of that is feasible to extricate from the existing MoD morass?

And if none of it is - assign a market value and deduct it from our share of the UK National Debt.

But again I ask the pros, what airframes and associated support structure do you think is required to fulfil our expectations and obligations?

Canadian Break
9th Feb 2014, 15:26
So, did you read my post about International Law? Probably not, but hey, don't let facts get in your way.

In terms of what do you need then I suggest you decide what you want to do. Given that any sort of monitoring of your airspace will require an ADGE then I suggest that this is your starting point. If you then want to simply monitor what happens in/around/over "your" oilfields then you need some type of maritime surveillance - not too expensive in the overall scheme of things. If you want tp Police andor Defend your airspace the you need to get the chequebook out, because that's where its starts to get very expensive.

Wrathmonk
9th Feb 2014, 15:35
How about we spend the budget!

The Independence white paper states that the Scottish Defence budget would not exceed £2.5Bn. If budget allocation is similar to the MOD (got to start somewhere!), and if you assume there will not be a PJHQ and Defence Equipment and Support costs and Defence Estate costs will fall to the individual service then very broadly speaking (http://www.armedforces.co.uk/mod/listings/l0012.html) the budget allocation would be ScAF 23%, ScN 18% and ScARMY 59%. For the ScAF this would translate to £575M.

According to evidence given to the HofL a Typhoon flying hour (inc servicing, crew training etc) costs £70,000. A squadron of 12 Typhoons, manned 1.5 to 1, with each pilot requiring a NATO minimum of 180 hours, would therefore cost £226.8M per year.

So that leaves £348.2M. Whose up next to claim their slice of pie?

And, yes, I know there are huge holes in this discussion - no allocation for pensions, allowances, headquarters staff, equipment programme, personal jets for El Presidente (joke!) etc but at least it's on thread and trying to answer the OPs question!

Onceapilot
9th Feb 2014, 16:06
They could buy the fleet of 4 TriStar KC1's at the end of next month for penny's because UK MOD has no idea of their true value.:ugh: Let's see, fully capable stategic AT/AAR Combi that is far cheaper to run than the A330-300 tanker contract. The Scottish air force could easily lease them back to NATO or the RAF and make a profit! Just be quick Jock, before they scrap them all!:sad:

OAP

Ken Scott
9th Feb 2014, 17:20
we would start without any overt or instinctive delusions of past imperial grandeur.


Piesupper: Your comment implies that the English tend to look over their shoulders to their Imperial past, whereas interestingly, Scotland was always statistically over-represented amongst those that built the British Empire.

At the Act of Union England already had an embryonic Empire while Scotland did not. It was access to that Empire and to English finance that enabled the Scottish to flourish militarily & technologically (the Scots were responsible for many of the inventions that helped make the modern world), arguably none of this would have been possible without the partnership of the Union.

There's probably a lesson in there somewhere, if only I could just put my finger on it......

Canadian Break
9th Feb 2014, 17:27
If you could just put your finger on it........ you would be accused of inventing/interpreting history in such a manner as to detract from the advantages that independence would bring to Scotland etc etc.

engineer(retard)
9th Feb 2014, 17:52
According to evidence given to the HofL a Typhoon flying hour (inc servicing, crew training etc) costs £70,000.

On top of that you might want some spares, obsolescence monitoring, modification design service, technical publications maintenance, simulator, industry repair and overhaul, weapons, national supply chain

chinook240
9th Feb 2014, 17:55
" an independent Scotland would be entitled to £7.751bn of defence assets based on an 8.4 per cent population share of the total value of £92,277,442,000 for items held by the Ministry of Defence."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-5bn-defence-assets-claim-1-3299615

piesupper
9th Feb 2014, 18:14
OAP

Cheers, it's wee gems like this that I come on here for </evil grin>

piesupper
9th Feb 2014, 18:16
Aye Ken - the key word in there is "arguably" - But probably not by anyone who could win an argument :->

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 18:27
That may be what you are arguing - so I'll say it one more time...


Don't kid yourself CB. There's only one reason why discussions on future potential Scottish military capabilities keep on coming up, and that's so folks can argue, both for and against, Scottish independence. When we start getting repeated threads on future Irish, New Zealand, et al, military capabilities then perhaps I'll believe otherwise.

so I'll say it one more time

Now a promise is a promise CB. These circular arguments have passed over from ad infinitum to ad nauseum...

Wrathmonk
9th Feb 2014, 19:03
Latest leaked memo from ScAir (RP)

So.....we've got a squadron of Typhoon and some AAR/AT (hope the latter will not be known as ScAT ;)). No spares or external support but that can be bought in on an as and when basis (all by negotiation by our C-in-C Field Air Chief Admiral Salmond of course:ok:). As for weapons we will probably only need a couple of A-A missiles per aircraft because we don't envisage any form of expeditionary warfare (and besides, apart from the odd switch pigs the RAF haven't used many in anger.....;)). Whilst we've got the chance we need to offload the SH onto the Army (but don't give them the cash). That way we can perhaps afford another squadron of Typhoon or perhaps an F35. HQ have asked for 1000 office chairs at £1200 each. Bargain - we should consider buying more. Oh, and some fancy artwork and sculptures.

This RP stuff is easy. Can't believe its considered a black bag job.

Courtney Mil
9th Feb 2014, 19:18
Well, hardly surprisingly a number of you have neatly sidestepped the issues raised in the document I offered, prefering instead to squabble about political issues and such. You will, I would guess, continue to banter about random, minor issues rather than take in the big picture. If you disagree with points raised in the paper (which is, by the way, a well-considered piece of work, regardless of political affiliations), why not address them here. Or are they too difficult? Maybe it's too long to read, without enough pictures.

Wrathmonk
9th Feb 2014, 19:24
Courtney

You've got all the discussion you'll ever get at post #195.

A report from a neoconservative think tank? Yes, that'll be objective.

And with that it has been dismissed out of hand. You should pop over to the thread on Jet Blast. Happens a lot over there as well....

Courtney Mil
9th Feb 2014, 19:32
Well, yes, I guess as I expected. If the issues raised are too diff, ignore and go back to name-calling. Still, it was worth a try to drag it back to something concerned with mil av. Never mind.

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 19:43
prefering instead to squabble about political issues and such.


To be fair Courtney, the issue is political.

The political affiliations/sympathies of a report's authors goes to heart of its credibility, and I'd suggest that a neo-conservative thinktank has already made up its mind on Scottish independence (and its associated defence plans), and so has no credibility. I would be just as sceptical in anything to come from Fox News or the Socialist Worker.

Kudos on trying to steer it back to mil aviation though, but you already know my thoughts on the relevance of that to this particular thread....

Courtney Mil
9th Feb 2014, 20:37
So you haven't read it? It may not say say things you want to hear? Or, it may offer some very useful ideas for the future. Up to you, though.

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 20:45
No Courtney, as I said in an earlier post (and for the reasons spelled out in my previous post) I have not read the report.

We can all find reports to support our own already formed opinions on the pros or cons of Scottish independence, check out this doozy - Securing the Nation: Defending an Independent Scotland - Scottish Global Forum (http://www.scottishglobalforum.net/securing-the-nation-defending-an-independent-scotland.html) , but if we're honest I think we both know that they're not really helpful in coming to a balanced and informed position on the debate.

Courtney Mil
9th Feb 2014, 20:56
The thing I would really commend to you in the paper is the good collection of facts PRIOR to any of the conclusions. And they are just facts, not neo-anything. But, as I said, if you refuse point blank to read anything you think you may not like, that is your decission. :ok:

melmothtw
9th Feb 2014, 21:07
Well, we're going round in circles here Courtney so will call a halt (on my part at least) to it there. For the record, you're actually one of the few PPruNers who's opinions I respect, but I guess on this particular subject we're both going to be on different sides of the fence.

Best

Courtney Mil
9th Feb 2014, 21:13
Fair enough, Mel.

Ken Scott
9th Feb 2014, 22:44
Piesupper: I used the word 'arguably' deliberately as it is not possible to say with certainty. Maybe in a parallel universe England didn't bail out its bankrupt neighbour & free of its shackles Scotland went on to found its own enlightened empire, ruling with a justice and benevolence that the English could only dream of, whilst its engineers and scientists performed miracles in a modern reformation.

However I think it's more likely that Great Britain became the factory of the world & ended up with the largest empire in history because of the symbiosis of of our two countries within the Union.

rab-k
9th Feb 2014, 23:26
Where now the Empire? Where now the Union?

Clad
10th Feb 2014, 00:19
Going back to an earlier posting would it not make sense for Scotland/UK to enter into a NORAD style arrangement... The UK supplies the aircraft... Scotland supplies the radar and bases.. Eg: Baltic States and Iceland...

Quick point...Belgium and the Netherlands have recently gone joint QRA covering both countries!

Just a hypothetical idea... I have no interest in politics but I have lived in Scotland since I was 'wee'... it would be a very sad day to lose the union!

500N
10th Feb 2014, 00:30
Reading that document that was posted, it comes across to me that the Scots are presuming one hell of a lot of hardware will be handed over if they vote Yes.

Is that wishful thinking or is it likely ?

piesupper
10th Feb 2014, 01:17
Ken, in THIS universe England didn't bail out its bankrupt neighbour in 1707, it paid off the debts of nobles who had lost money in the Darien scheme - just another of the myths that pass as truth when its the victors writing history. Scots town and cities were not in trouble, the nobility was. There was widespread rioting throughout Scotland and substantial English forces were moved to Carlisle just in case

Any 'symbiosis' was forced on us. There was little to be proud of in the British Empire - at best it was marginally less bad than the excesses of the Belgians and others. Many, if not most conflicts in the world today can _arguably_ be laid at the feet of Brit Imperial administrators and their penchant for straight lines on a map. Balfour and Sykes-Picot to name just two who bear much blame for grief in the ME (Okay Picot was French) Scots played a major part in it, certainly - mainly due to being turfed off their own land in the Highland AND Lowland Clearances and having to seek opportunities elsewhere. Those doing the turfing were for the most part ethnic Scots, granted. But they had been thoroughly Anglicised and as alluded to above, were personally deeply in debt to English nobility. Once again demonstrating that our beef is not so much with the English people as such but with the scumbag nobility that so many down south still want to kowtow to. A class thing rather than black and white Scots v English. Frankly what went on in the Highlands was genocide, pure and simple and it is a story that WILL be told post-indy but perhaps not here.

I think we've tried the patience of the mods a bit far cos this is more me correcting the version of history you were taught and nothing to do with Scotlands future air defence requirements, hypothetical or otherwise.

Happy to discuss it elsewhere in the forum of your choice , sir :-)

piesupper
10th Feb 2014, 01:31
500N

Everythings negotiable :-)
At the end of the day we will get more than our fair share in some sectors, a lot less than our share in others across ALL of the assets of the UK as it stands at the moment. I expect there will be offsetting against future guaranteed power supplies on a long-term basis. Quite possibly water as well and the rent that will be due on HMNB Clyde and Rosyth until the subs and warheads are removed and the clean up is complete. <aside>You DO know we already export about 25% of our total generating capacity as it stands and have done so for the last 30-odd years? Close the border now and it all goes dark from about Crewe north to the border. That is in no-ones interest, north or south of the border. Just another reason to be assured that there WILL be a currency union and there will be NO passport controls. Such scare stories are only in the very short-term interest of the No camp and Daily Mail feature writers and must be dismissed as such.</aside>
There will be negotiations, tough ones to be sure and each side will walk away thinking they should have got better - but the civil servants on both sides WILL agree sensibly like grown-ups and leave the posturing to the politicians.

Oh and just to add...
Whilst negotiating we may also insist on a "correction factor" for this ---> MoD blocked possible West of Scotland oil boom in 80s because of Nuclear Weapons (http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/8137-mod-blocked-possible-west-of-scotland-oil-boom-in-80s-because-of-nuclear-weapons)

How much did Scots (and the N English workers who would have benefited as well) lose out of that?

piesupper
10th Feb 2014, 02:03
Clad:
very possibly - as I said to 500N everything is negotiable, especially if is mutually beneficial in the long-term and the willy-waving of the politicians can be put to one side.

Heathrow Harry
10th Feb 2014, 13:27
"Whilst negotiating we may also insist on a "correction factor" for this ---> MoD blocked possible West of Scotland oil boom in 80s because of Nuclear Weapons (http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/8137-mod-blocked-possible-west-of-scotland-oil-boom-in-80s-because-of-nuclear-weapons)"

The article says "the Firth of Clyde after BP discovered oil south of Arran in the 1980s."

that's really amazing as no oil well has ever been drilled offshore within 100kms of Aran