PDA

View Full Version : Scottish Independence vs Military assets


Baldeep Inminj
10th May 2021, 14:11
It appears that the issue of Scottiish Independence may soon be addressed again, if the SNP have their way. I have my own views on the merits of this, as I am sure most do (craving independence only to re-join the EU and give it away again :rolleyes:, relying heavily on oil revenues when the whole world is going green and they don't own the oil, basing recovery on the abilities of one of the most unhealthy workforces in Europe etc etc), but my question is not about whether Scotland should leave, but about the UK's military assets and other related issues. I would like the opinions and views of the sage Pprune contributors.

Examples:
-There is a lot of investment going on at Lossie for Wedgetail, Poseidon etc. Does the base close and are all assets moved South of the border? Scottish taxes paid for part of the work, so how is this addressed?
- If UK bases remain in Scotland, are they given 'Sovereign' rights ie. SBA's in Cyprus?
-There are a lot of Scots in the UK Forces, and indeed entirely Scottish regiments. Do they remain in the Service of the UK Armed Forces when Scotland is not in the UK? If they get the right to stay, then can a Scot who is not currently serving joing the UK Forces? Can an Englishman join any future 'Scottish' military?
- Trident (and replacement)??

Interesting times.

Asturias56
10th May 2021, 14:24
This was thrashed about last time and I'm not sure that its worth re-opening

To be blunt no-one has a clue and it all depends on

a) there being another referendum

b) Scotland voting to go

c) the exact terms agreed THEN - no point in all arguing what "should" happen in all our varied opinions as it will absolutely no effect on the actual negotiations and what WILL happen

Hamsterminator
10th May 2021, 15:48
This was thrashed about last time and I'm not sure that its worth re-opening

To be blunt no-one has a clue and it all depends on

a) there being another referendum

b) Scotland voting to go

c) the exact terms agreed THEN - no point in all arguing what "should" happen in all our varied opinions as it will absolutely no effect on the actual negotiations and what WILL happen

This in a nutshell is the enormously frustrating thing about the independence "debate"- it's a chicken and egg situation. If people vote to leave on the grounds that nobody knows what will happen, why vote to leave in the first place? The merits are obviously not clear and neither are the negatives, although to my mind the risks are pretty clear. Anyone gambling the entire economy on a "what's the worst that could happen?" attitude shouldn't be allowed within a million miles of a political party, let alone actually be in government. Of course the Nat's argument is that the one thing that would be guaranteed would be sovereignty, and apparently that's enough for some people. Personally I think sharing a house is better than nailing the door to your bedroom closed just so that you can call it yours, but maybe I just can't see the big picture.

Ultimately though we won't get answers to these questions unless the UK gov spells it out, because the Nats will do anything and everything to keep the subject as vague and fuzzy as possible. It's much easier to sell a dream than a reality check.

bobward
10th May 2021, 19:14
One reason giving for leaving is that they are fed up with being dictated to by and external authority ie Whitehall.
Sooooooo, ditch Whitehall and do what Brussels tells you.

Personally I don't see the sense in them leaving, but then, I don't get a vote in that referendum.

Asturias56
11th May 2021, 07:52
Hamster post has a great deal of common sense but it also illustrate an on-going problem

With both the EU and Scotland the English always talk about "economics" (as in the Common Market) whilst the other side is talking about a political vision.

The Scots Nats (the EU ) don't CARE about the economic case - they want to run their own show and will do whatever it takes AFTERWARDS to to make it run as a country

Napoleon was right in many ways when he described the English as " a nation of shopkeepers" -and even the greatest patriot would be hard pressed to suggest that "grand projects" are something the English want

Hamsterminator
11th May 2021, 08:42
With both the EU and Scotland the English always talk about "economics" (as in the Common Market) whilst the other side is talking about a political vision.

The Scots Nats (the EU ) don't CARE about the economic case - they want to run their own show and will do whatever it takes AFTERWARDS to to make it run as a country


I would argue 9/10ths of what a government does is defined by economics. A government with no money is just a group of people in a room making wishes they have no power to enforce. This goes doubly for socialist governments who rely on taxing the rich to provide for the poor- you need to have rich people in your country for that to work, that relies on businesses, they rely on policies, etc etc.

You're absolutely right that many voting for Indy don't care about the economic argument- but that's only because they've already lost it. If the case were stronger it would be on the front of every flier.

Scotland will manage to get by with a weaker economy, yes. But I do wonder what solace those in poorer families will find in greater sovereignty when the resulting Austerity hits. Probably much the same as the fishermen who voted to leave the EU only to find they couldn't sell any fish. Turns out, money is quite important to most people.

Spartacan
11th May 2021, 10:34
But I do wonder what solace those in poorer families will find in greater sovereignty when the resulting Austerity hits.

Whatever the economise woes brought on by independence might be the Nats would surely blame the UK Government.

It would be the UK's fault for not providing a batter departure settlement.

It would be the UK's fault for not being a more supportive neighbour.

It would be the UK's fault for not re joining the EU.

It would go on, and on and on.

Just a spotter
11th May 2021, 10:45
Should Scotland break from the union, then WRT the bases, no different to the Ukrainians allowing Russia to use Sevastopol.

Nothing to worry about.

:E

JAS

Video Mixdown
11th May 2021, 10:47
There is already a thread on JB for this political argument. Do we really need to have it here as well?

Saintsman
11th May 2021, 11:12
Whatever the economise woes brought on by independence might be the Nats would surely blame the UK Government.

It would be the UK's fault for not providing a batter departure settlement.

It would be the UK's fault for not being a more supportive neighbour.

It would be the UK's fault for not re joining the EU.

It would go on, and on and on.

Just being a pedant. It wouldn't be the UK's fault as it would be the DUK's - The Dis-United Kingdom...

The sentiments are correct though. It would always be someone else's fault.

Spartacan
11th May 2021, 11:29
Just being a pedant. It wouldn't be the UK's fault as it would be the DUK's - The Dis-United Kingdom...

The sentiments are correct though. It would always be someone else's fault.

You are not being pedantic. You have raised the most important question of all and nobody has the answer to it.

OJ 72
11th May 2021, 11:39
In adding my two penny‘worth I may be coming across as a tad controversial, but, then I’ll only be living up to the late, great TE Utley’s definition of an Ulsterman viz ‘The first to give, and the first to take offence’. So here goes!!

Anyone who knows me will realise I’m an avowed ‘Capital-U’ Unionist both by upbringing and instinct, so it would break my heart if, following any independence referendum, the SNP should succeed in breaking up the Union. However, before any referendum is held then the UK Government should make the SNP and the Scottish people aware of the following.

On the day of secession HM The Queen immediately ceases to be the Head of State of an independent Scotland.

Within a clearly defined period (say two to five years) the following should come into effect:

a. The Pound Sterling can no longer be the currency of Scotland;

b. There will be no further fiscal assistance or intervention from Westminster;

c. All UK military bases and personnel to be withdrawn from Scotland and relocated at suitable locations within the remainder of the UK;

d. The regular and reserve battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland be given the option of remaining within the orbat of the British Army or being disbanded with all the honour due to their, and their forebears, gallant service (with similar options being given to similar reserve units of the RN and RAF);

e. All military personnel currently serving in the UK armed forces who were born in Scotland should be given the option to remain on their current terms of service or to be honourably discharged;

f. All UK Civil Service facilities in Scotland to be relocated to the remainder of the UK and their personnel based in Scotland given the option to relocate, or to accept a ‘length of service and seniority’ based redundancy package;

g. No preferential treatment to be given to Scottish industry or manufacturers for any defence or other UK Government contracts; and, finally,

h. A 'hard' border be established between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

These courses of action may seem harsh, and for someone with close familial and work-related ties to Scotland I don’t suggest them lightly. However, they are neither vindictive nor punitive, as the following should be noted.

Firstly, the SNP cannot have their cake and eat it…either they are an independent nation, making their own way in the ‘big, bad world’ whilst standing on their own two feet, or they’re not.

And secondly, in the event of any ‘Border Poll’ in Northern Ireland signalling the reunification of the island of Ireland into a single political entity then all of the tenets that I have outlined above would most certainly be imposed on the people of Northern Ireland!! So why should an independent Scotland be treated any differently?

Will the UK Government do this? Almost certainly not!! If it did lay out all (or some) of what I have proposed, would it change the outcome of any referendum? It almost certainly would!!

What you have to realise that on a 63% turnout only 49% of the Scottish people voted for pro-Independence parties; that's only 30.87% of the total Scottish electorate. So to use a Scottish aphorism - the SNP’s ‘coat is on a shuggly peg’!! Obviously, the cry for 'Freedom' is not as clear cut as Ms Sturgeon et al would have you believe!!

Dave Gittins
11th May 2021, 12:18
Aside from all the other drawbacks mentioned above, I assume, amongst a million other things, that a big box with all the DVLA records and Companies House records would be slung over the border and Jimmie Krankie would be left to get on with it. The CAA would immediately rescind all airworthiness certificates for anybody based in or operating out of Scotland.

If Her Madge's forces were withdrawn, who'd stop the Ruskies flying their Bears where they wanted ?

Most people I know in industry, particularly those who live and work in their Scottish company's premises in England dread the thought of independence because they know that their income stream would stop right away. and they wouldn't get any more work from us.

pr00ne
11th May 2021, 15:35
OJ72,

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that everything that is British is in fact English.

The Queen will still be the head of state of Scotland, just as she is the head of state of numerous Commonwealth countries that gained independence.

The Scots can call their currency whatever they like, if they want to call it Pound Sterling they have every right. Just that the Bank of England will no longer be lender of last resort.

I would imagine that on independence everyone living in Scotland will have the right to call themselves Scottish citizens.

Anyone living in England, Wales or Northern Ireland will remain British and would have to relocate to claim Scottish citizenship, be they military or civilian.

All UK Civil Service facilities are as much Scottish as they are 'English" and will be divided up as part of any settlement. You can't just assume that they are all English!

Emotionally I like the idea of an independent Scotland, and a reunified Ireland for that matter.

But the economic cost to Scotland could be immense.

The economic cost to England would be negligible and mainly concern relocation of certain military nuclear facilities.

The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. England would still be the fifth largest economy in the world, Scotland would be about 154th...

That is a LOT of influence and clout to give up.

Dave Gittins,

You make a good point. In addition to things such as DVLA and Companies House, an independent Scotland would have to set up a diplomatic service, embassies and all the paraphernalia that goes with being an independent nation.

pr00ne
11th May 2021, 15:43
Oh, and as for Russian Bears, I would imagine that there would be no change from the current situation.

woptb
11th May 2021, 15:50
Treat the Jocks the same way we treated the Mick’s after they gained independence.
Don’t let them travel freely to the U.K.,vote,use the NHS,claim benefits or serve in ‘our’ armed forces.............................................🤦🏻‍♂️

The Nip
11th May 2021, 16:00
OJ72,

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that everything that is British is in fact English.

The Queen will still be the head of state of Scotland, just as she is the head of state of numerous Commonwealth countries that gained independence.

The Scots can call their currency whatever they like, if they want to call it Pound Sterling they have every right. Just that the Bank of England will no longer be lender of last resort.

I would imagine that on independence everyone living in Scotland will have the right to call themselves Scottish citizens.

Anyone living in England, Wales or Northern Ireland will remain British and would have to relocate to claim Scottish citizenship, be they military or civilian.

All UK Civil Service facilities are as much Scottish as they are 'English" and will be divided up as part of any settlement. You can't just assume that they are all English!

Emotionally I like the idea of an independent Scotland, and a reunified Ireland for that matter.

But the economic cost to Scotland could be immense.

The economic cost to England would be negligible and mainly concern relocation of certain military nuclear facilities.

The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. England would still be the fifth largest economy in the world, Scotland would be about 154th...

That is a LOT of influence and clout to give up.

Dave Gittins,

You make a good point. In addition to things such as DVLA and Companies House, an independent Scotland would have to set up a diplomatic service, embassies and all the paraphernalia that goes with being an independent nation.

I thought the saying was, if you choose to leave the club, then you can’t expect to still use the facilities. You are quite correct, they are UK assets. I would imagine that IScot is about 8%, that also includes UK debt.
Who is going to be the guarantor of all those Scottish mortgages when there is no bank?
I am not making any comment about the rights and wrongs of IScot, I don’t get a vote, mores the pity.

Yellow Sun
11th May 2021, 16:12
It does rather beg the question whether the leadership of the SNP as opposed to their supporters actually want independence. The emperor’s clothes would seem a little threadbare.

FWIW an ethnic Scot

YS

Asturias56
11th May 2021, 16:19
"Who is going to be the guarantor of all those Scottish mortgages when there is no bank?"

The Central bank doesn't guarantee mortgages - you get them from a commercial organisation - such as the Bank of Scotland plc - or the Halifax

It's the currency a C Bank manages - and they could just adopt the Euro (which for 25 years some folk in England have been claiming "can't last")

MountainMetman
11th May 2021, 16:26
What you have to realise that on a 63% turnout only 49% of the Scottish people voted for pro-Independence parties; that's only 30.87% of the total Scottish electorate. So to use a Scottish aphorism - the SNP’s ‘coat is on a shuggly peg’!! Obviously, the cry for 'Freedom' is not as clear cut as Ms Sturgeon et al would have you believe!!

And only 32% for remaining in the Union.
Those who show up...

pr00ne
11th May 2021, 16:32
Treat the Jocks the same way we treated the Mick’s after they gained independence.
Don’t let them travel freely to the U.K.,vote,use the NHS,claim benefits or serve in ‘our’ armed forces.............................................🤦🏻‍♂️

Er, sorry to rain on your xenophobic parade, but have you ever heard of the Common Travel Area?
It is an agreement between the UK and "the Mick's" whereby citizens of each state can freely travel, live, work, retire, have health care and receive benefits in each other's country.

And I suspect we would have a similar agreement with an independent Scotland.

pr00ne
11th May 2021, 16:35
I thought the saying was, if you choose to leave the club, then you can’t expect to still use the facilities. You are quite correct, they are UK assets. I would imagine that IScot is about 8%, that also includes UK debt.
Who is going to be the guarantor of all those Scottish mortgages when there is no bank?
I am not making any comment about the rights and wrongs of IScot, I don’t get a vote, mores the pity.

But that's the whole point! It's NOT a club, it was an Act of Union.

I suspect that you are about right with the 8%.

As to mortgages, that will be a commercial opportunity for some. A bank does not have to be of the same nationality as the area it serves, witness the Spanish bank Santander and the huge number of UK mortgages they have.

Not_a_boffin
11th May 2021, 16:41
- and they could just adopt the Euro (which for 25 years some folk in England have been claiming "can't last")

Er, aren't there supposed to be some minor issues like economic convergence, financial stability etc to be met before a country can join the Euro?

https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/euro-area/introducing-euro/adoption-fixed-euro-conversion-rate/erm-ii-eus-exchange-rate-mechanism_en

Can't see how that's going to work when ScotGov doesn't control the currency it enters with and can't even control it's own budget deficit. It's a relatively unprecedented situation in the history of the EU. Countries have hitherto joined with their won currency, not one that they're pirating from another state and central bank.

There's also the question of whether the EU actually wants to take on another net spender - as opposed to a net contributor. Right now I'm sure there would be a desire to do so as payback for Brexit. Whether that survived a cold analysis (not least by Germany) would be another question. And that's before we get to the Catalonian precedent that Scottish Independence might set......

Nowhere near as easy as wee Krankie is making out.

Asturias56
11th May 2021, 16:59
Boffin

Again we're back on the "economic" arguments - Scotland is so small teh EU would never notice it . And expanding the "union" is a basic tenet of the place - and, of course its one in the eye for London. The Spanish Govt themselves have said that they see a "free" Scotland that leaves o an n agreed basis as very different from a Catalonia

OJ 72
11th May 2021, 17:08
pr00ne,

Being an Ulsterman trust me me I am certainly not labouring under any misapprehension that Britishness equates to Englishness…God forfend.

However, I think that it’s a trifle presumptuous of you to assume that the Scots will want to retain HM The Queen as Head of State. Remembering that the last nation (sic) to secede from the UK, the Irish Free State (then the Republic of Ireland (RoI)) most certainly did not wish to retain any semblance of linkage to the monarchy.

Regarding the retention of use of the term ‘Pound’, indeed the Scots can call their currency the ‘Jock’ (made up of 100 ‘Sporrans’) if they wish, but if they want to go it alone then as you say there should be no linkage to the Bank of England. Remember, from 1938 until the RoI joined the Euro in 2002 their currency was the ‘Punt’ (Ir£) made up (if I recall correctly) of the ‘Scilling’ and the ‘Pingin’(?).

As for everyone in Scotland having the right to call themselves Scottish citizens that is a given. However, as you may recall from the Belfast Agreement (1998) the complex tenets of nationality are not just as clear cut as they first may seem. Everyone in Northern Ireland now has the right to be British, Irish, Northern Irish or any combination of the above! So what about the nationality rights of, what will be a very large number of Scottish Unionists? 32% of Unionists who did vote + the X% of Unionists who didn't vote in the recent Scottish Parliamentary elections!!

Indeed, given that the largest Pro-Union constituencies in Scotland are the border counties, will there be scope of redrawing the map of Scotland allowing these pro-Union counties to remain within the UK? Remember, that precedent has been set with the formation of Northern Ireland in 1921.

As regards the Civil Service I didn’t assume that they were English. However, they CS as now constituted serves ALL of the UK. If, and again God forfend, Scotland secedes from the Union, then, as per the RoI (and indeed Northern Ireland following the outworking of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 (and subsequent Acts)) then an independent Scotland will have to set up it’s own independent CS to serve their own wholly independent state.

As I said, an independent Scotland would be total anathema to me (and indeed many people), and as for a United Ireland…this is not the forum to go down that tortuous road. But the main thrust of my argument was that, contrary to what the SNP and their fellow travellers would have us believe, independence is not simply a matter of tearing down the Union Flag, putting up the Cross of St Andrew or the Lion Rampant, and replacing God Save The Queen with 'Scotland the Brave', 'Flower of Scotland' or even 'Stop Yer Ticklin’ Jock'. There are a huge amount of complex relationships to be sorted and mutually agreed, and these matters will not just be meekly acquiesced by HM Government despite what Ms Sturgeon thinks. We are certainly not going to solve the Scottish question** in this forum, but, one thing that you and I certainly can agree on is that Scotland has much more to lose by seceding from the Union than it has by remaining!

**This could have all the makings of what Sellar and Yeatman said in '1066 and All That'...'Every time the English tried to solve the Irish Question, the Irish changed the question!!'

The Nip
11th May 2021, 17:12
"Who is going to be the guarantor of all those Scottish mortgages when there is no bank?"

The Central bank doesn't guarantee mortgages - you get them from a commercial organisation - such as the Bank of Scotland plc - or the Halifax

It's the currency a C Bank manages - and they could just adopt the Euro (which for 25 years some folk in England have been claiming "can't last")

Which bank does Scotland own? All those current mortgages are with UK banks /building societies with Sterling set at an interest rate in Sterling. Which new commercial bank is going to provide mortgages with no accounts and no savings?

Ken Scott
11th May 2021, 17:24
As a mere Sassenach it seems to me that at the moment Scotland runs (most) of its own affairs on its own while being subsidized by the UK (as do Wales & NI). Seems like a winner to me & I fail to understand why they want to go it entirely alone without the subsidies and the other things like frigate construction contracts which are placed north of the border as a sop to the nationalists.

esa-aardvark
11th May 2021, 18:09
Many years ago I earned in Dutch Guilders, I was offered a cheap mortgage from
Germany. My financial advisor advised, 'if you do this you are actually a currency trader
open to exchange rate variations for the life of the loan'.
Cue rapid exit.

Willard Whyte
11th May 2021, 18:20
Oh, and as for Russian Bears, I would imagine that there would be no change from the current situation.

One might speculate they could be invited to use Lossie as a F.O.B...

Just a spotter
11th May 2021, 19:12
Regarding the retention of use of the term ‘Pound’, indeed the Scots can call their currency the ‘Jock’ (made up of 100 ‘Sporrans’) if they wish, but if they want to go it alone then as you say there should be no linkage to the Bank of England. Remember, from 1938 until the RoI joined the Euro in 2002 their currency was the ‘Punt’ (Ir£) made up (if I recall correctly) of the ‘Scilling’ and the ‘Pingin’(?).

Good post OJ, and at the risk of slight thread drift; one correction. Ireland being officially bi-lingual Punt was the gaelic/Irish name and Pound the English for the currency. Ireland's currency went decimal in 1971. The currency was pegged 1-to-1 with Sterling until 1979 when it free floated, with the country later being in the first tranche of those entering the Euro.

JAS

Not_a_boffin
11th May 2021, 21:06
Boffin

Again we're back on the "economic" arguments - Scotland is so small teh EU would never notice it . And expanding the "union" is a basic tenet of the place - and, of course its one in the eye for London. The Spanish Govt themselves have said that they see a "free" Scotland that leaves o an n agreed basis as very different from a Catalonia

No. We're back on political arguments. The Euro either has entry criteria, or it doesn't. The basic stability of the currency depends on it and the boxheads (and Cloggies for that matter) might be slightly less than enthusiastic about that effect.

Not at all sure the Spanish have actually said what you suggest.

scr1
11th May 2021, 21:16
the requirements to join the Euro and the EU are different the Budget deficit is to join the Euro not the EU to join the EU you just have to give a commitment to join the Euro at some time in the future. Sweden,Poland,Hungary amongst others have not and show no sign of doing so.

Not_a_boffin
11th May 2021, 22:45
the requirements to join the Euro and the EU are different the Budget deficit is to join the Euro not the EU to join the EU you just have to give a commitment to join the Euro at some time in the future. Sweden,Poland,Hungary amongst others have not and show no sign of doing so.
Those countries all have their own currency, which an independent Scotland will not.....

woptb
11th May 2021, 22:55
Er, sorry to rain on your xenophobic parade, but have you ever heard of the Common Travel Area?
It is an agreement between the UK and "the Mick's" whereby citizens of each state can freely travel, live, work, retire, have health care and receive benefits in each other's country.

And I suspect we would have a similar agreement with an independent Scotland.

Er,meant to be wildly ironic,think I pulled it off......................................................... .....!

minigundiplomat
11th May 2021, 23:27
I was living in Aberdeen for the last indyref, where I heard all forms of fanciful plans. I'm looking forward to watching the next one with a bowl of popcorn.

SaulGoodman
12th May 2021, 03:51
No. We're back on political arguments. The Euro either has entry criteria, or it doesn't. The basic stability of the currency depends on it and the boxheads (and Cloggies for that matter) might be slightly less than enthusiastic about that effect.

Not at all sure the Spanish have actually said what you suggest.

the Cloggies and the Boxheads are actually very happy happy with the Euro. As exporting nations they benefited greatly from a shared currency as their previous own currency was much stronger.

but to come back on the argument: the only way to see if there is a backing for independence is to have a referendum. So let them have it. Wether it is smart or not is not the question. The same applied to the Brexit ref. The future will tell..

Doobry Firkin
12th May 2021, 09:13
I was living in Aberdeen for the last indyref, where I heard all forms of fanciful plans. I'm looking forward to watching the next one with a bowl of popcorn.

As was I and I'm still here. Most of the Wifes family are rabid SNP supporters who'd happily hang Boris if they got the chance as everything bad in Scotland is his and Westmonsters fault.
They either won't listen to sensible arguments about tax and spending or claim it's all 'operation fear' to put people off.

I was also told by a work colleague last time that I shouldn't be allowed to vote in an Independence Referendum as I'm English, even though i've lived in Scotland for almost 20 years (I think he'd fall foul of Hamza's new Discrimination law these days), all the polish people on TV with Salmond saying they were voting yes were fine but the English shouldn't get a vote.

I'm still waiting on Nicola to announce when all the freebee's she promised in the last few months are coming - and who's going to pay for them... Free bus transport for under 21's, free computers for school kids who can't afford them and free bikes, free dental care and of course the 4 day working week. All of the promises were un-costed in their manifesto but they did promise not raise taxes, but they did that in 2016 then raised taxes. Of course when she can't provide it all it'll not be her fault, we'll blame Westmonster and it's another reason to hold a Referendum.

Or I may just be a cynic

Richard Dangle
12th May 2021, 09:45
From the original post...

but my question is not about whether Scotland should leave, but about the UK's military assets and other related issues.

How'd that work out for you? :)

Spartacan
12th May 2021, 10:40
It's worth reading the 2013 blueprint that the SNP produced for the Independence referendum:

SCOTLAND’S FUTURE. Your guide to an independent Scotland (https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/pages/15/)

The full read starts from page 232 but apparently the UK would be quite happy to hand Scotland the following hardware:

2 Frigates
4 Mine countermeasures vessels
2 offshore patrol vessels
6 patrol boats


1 deployable Brigade HQ
2 light armoured reconnaissance units
2 light artillery units
6 AAC HELICOPTERS

1 Typhoon squadron
6 C130 Hercules
1 RAF helicopter squadron


I don't think so, somehow.

Not_a_boffin
12th May 2021, 11:32
the Cloggies and the Boxheads are actually very happy happy with the Euro. As exporting nations they benefited greatly from a shared currency as their previous own currency was much stronger..

Artificially low is one thing. Stable is another. Might also be a bit of an issue if you import energy priced in dollars (or even roubles for that matter).

At some point the Northern European taxpayers - and financial institutions - will tire of supporting the rest of the EU. Which is why yet another net spender (like Scotland) may not be as welcome as they'd like to think when there are a diminishing number of net contributors..

SimonK
12th May 2021, 12:04
Thing is that even if they got all the military assets mentioned above, the costs of running them would be significantly higher than they are at present due to economies of scale.

Sturgeon was asked yesterday about what she would save from the £15 billion+ subsidy she gets annually from English tax payers.....cue no doubt popular reply for the Nat hardcore about binning the House of Lords and Trident. Which gets her around £300m, or 2% towards her £15bn target. I suspect that like Brexit, they will go for the heart and worry about the head afterwards. Scottish Independence would no doubt require popcorn on an industrial scale, but for my friends and family who are held hostage to a fruitloop fantasy, stuck in the neverendum merry go-round, I feel so desperately sorry. How many businesses have put off investment due to the continued uncertainty posed by the economic ruin of indy....how many businesses will move south? What state could Scotland be in now if it had a Government who focussed on helping rather than ruining their country?

Big_D
12th May 2021, 12:15
Artificially low is one thing. Stable is another. Might also be a bit of an issue if you import energy priced in dollars (or even roubles for that matter).

At some point the Northern European taxpayers - and financial institutions - will tire of supporting the rest of the EU. Which is why yet another net spender (like Scotland) may not be as welcome as they'd like to think when there are a diminishing number of net contributors..

I can assure you that euroscepticism has died together with Brexit. And have another look at post 2016 £ FX.

Tinribs
12th May 2021, 12:17
The previous points are well made but I think they should be taken as a collective argument
If the Scots government demand the passing of various fixed and mobile assets are they not also liable for a share of the debts incurred in obtaining those assets, viz the national debt?
To many, including me, the Scottish financial situation seems dubious after independence and no doubt the Scottish government have a plan.
The original plan seemed focused on oil revenues and who owned which bits of the product from which bits of the sea, the substance of those revenues is much reduced and will reduce further making Scottish finances questionable, there will be a plan Nicola is no fool
The arguments may focus on a debt incurred by the remaining British to hire Scottish facilities in the Scottish land, nuclear and aviation facilities
It would be difficult for the submarine force to operate from anywhere further south on the mainland, perhaps Ulster, or maybe not
It might be possible to negotiate a deal for the RAF airfields to remain open but subject to an element of Scottish control
I float these ideas as an interesting consideration of the possibilities

Baldeep Inminj
12th May 2021, 12:21
From the original post...



How'd that work out for you? :)

Less well than I had hoped🙄

SaulGoodman
12th May 2021, 12:21
Artificially low is one thing. Stable is another. Might also be a bit of an issue if you import energy priced in dollars (or even roubles for that matter).

At some point the Northern European taxpayers - and financial institutions - will tire of supporting the rest of the EU. Which is why yet another net spender (like Scotland) may not be as welcome as they'd like to think when there are a diminishing number of net contributors..

that is a very simplistic view as the Northern countries benefit from exports to the Southern countries. If you want to be successful as a monetary union there has to be some transfer of wealth, similar as in the UK or the US for that matter. I find it actually positive that such a system has finally be established with the “corona bonds.”
Also if you look at the the long term exchange rates of the Euro vs Dollar, Rouble or Pound you can’t argue that it isn’t stable or strong.

Yes, Scotland would be a net spender (initially) but their economy is so small that it hardly would be an argument. (Edit: members that are contributors today has been receivers in history for long periods of time, eg the Netherlands)
If Scotland would opt to join the EU I don’t believe that it would be major issue as it is a developed democratic country that still has a little natural resources that most EU members are lacking. Besides that it would also be a great advertisement after the whole Brexit saga. From a purely economic point of view it hardly matters but from a (geo) political point of view it might be interesting.

However, that would still be very far away. I’m not a big fan of such important issues being decided by one referendum as it can cause a great division amongst citizens. But the argument that the previous referendum was “once in a lifetime” is void in my opinion as the landscape has completely changed.

Spartacan
12th May 2021, 12:54
Thing is that even if they got all the military assets mentioned above, the costs of running them would be significantly higher than they are at present due to economies of scale.

Precisely ! You only have to scratch the surface of what would happen to UK Armed Forces to see that the SNP position is completely untenable. The only way that the current NATO position could be maintained would be for Scotland to become a Crown Dependency and (like the Isle of Man etc,) pay a levy to the UK for its defence. That way the bases and assets would remain in Scotland whilst still being operated under the Union Flag.

The problem is that Crown Dependencies are not independent. They are part of Great Britain but not part of the United Kingdom. Whilst they fly their own flag ultimate control resides with Westminster. Importantly, they are not funded by Westminster.

All this detail of the seemingly minor issue of defence of the realm hasn't even been discussed.

I hope very much that the independence issue withers on the vine but if it did ever happen it would be pure tokenism unless another sovereign state decides to provide an independent Scotland with financial backing.

Ken Scott
12th May 2021, 12:56
. But the argument that the previous referendum was “once in a lifetime” is void in my opinion as the landscape has completely changed.

Has it really changed that much? Scotland being ‘forced against its will to leave the EU’ I believe was an excuse latched onto by the SNP to justify their calling for another referendum. If it hadn’t been for Brexit they would have found another reason why ‘the landscape had completely changed’ to require another vote. If Indyref2 goes ahead and No wins again I don’t think that will settle it, in a few more years they’ll be arguing for yet another due to some perceived injustice that only independence will solve.

The entire rationale of the SNP is independence for Scotland and nothing short of that will satisfy them. Nothing, no sensible arguments in favor of the Union and least of all a vote against by a majority of the people, will stand in the way of that goal.

Herod
12th May 2021, 13:28
It would be difficult for the submarine force to operate from anywhere further south on the mainland, perhaps Ulster, or maybe not

Milford Haven? That's put us back on thread.

pba_target
12th May 2021, 13:37
It's worth reading the 2013 blueprint that the SNP produced for the Independence referendum:

SCOTLAND’S FUTURE. Your guide to an independent Scotland (http://https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2013/11/scotlands-future/documents/scotlands-future-guide-independent-scotland/scotlands-future-guide-independent-scotland/govscot%3Adocument/00439021.pdf?forceDownload=true)

The full read starts from page 232 but apparently the UK would be quite happy to hand Scotland the following hardware:

2 Frigates
4 Mine countermeasures vessels
2 offshore patrol vessels
6 patrol boats


1 deployable Brigade HQ
2 light armoured reconnaissance units
2 light artillery units
6 AAC HELICOPTERS

1 Typhoon squadron
6 C130 Hercules
1 RAF helicopter squadron


I don't think so, somehow.
1 RAF helicopter squadron in the 2020s? That's literally somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 the SH force depending on how you count it, so probably unrealistic!

Doobry Firkin
12th May 2021, 13:55
1 RAF helicopter squadron in the 2020s? That's literally somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 the SH force depending on how you count it, so probably unrealistic!

And we can probably replace C130 with A400 now unless they want to take on aircraft the UK are about to retire!

Willard Whyte
12th May 2021, 13:59
It's worth reading the 2013 blueprint that the SNP produced for the Independence referendum:

SCOTLAND’S FUTURE. Your guide to an independent Scotland (http://https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2013/11/scotlands-future/documents/scotlands-future-guide-independent-scotland/scotlands-future-guide-independent-scotland/govscot%3Adocument/00439021.pdf?forceDownload=true)

The full read starts from page 232 but apparently the UK would be quite happy to hand Scotland the following hardware:

2 Frigates
4 Mine countermeasures vessels
2 offshore patrol vessels
6 patrol boats


1 deployable Brigade HQ
2 light armoured reconnaissance units
2 light artillery units
6 AAC HELICOPTERS

1 Typhoon squadron
6 C130 Hercules
1 RAF helicopter squadron

I don't think so, somehow.

Tranche 1 Typhoons (24), C-130s (14), and Pumas (20) shouldn't be an issue. We're scrapping a third of the Challenger IIs so they can have some tanks to play with. Haven't looked at RN cuts but they can probably have a couple of rusty boats to hoist the Saltire on.

Asturias56
12th May 2021, 14:28
well since the T26 new RN escorts are all being built in Scotland and maybe the T31's as well maybe the price will go up......................

Asturias56
12th May 2021, 14:31
"You only have to scratch the surface of what would happen to UK Armed Forces to see that the SNP position is completely untenable. "

Not to them - they don't want the sort of armed services that London wants , they don't want to be a major defense player in NATO or elsewhere.

They genuinely want to be like Denmark -"Defence" as we've known it for 120 years is not what they want

Ken Scott
12th May 2021, 14:46
well since the T26 new RN escorts are all being built in Scotland and maybe the T31's as well maybe the price will go up......................


Not too late to shift production to Portsmouth I hope...?!

dervish
12th May 2021, 15:57
Lots of reasons mooted why Scotland would be unwise to seek independence. Yet the London government seems very keen to keep us. Might it be London has a greater need?
As for that list of military assets, it's so far out of date it isn't worth mentioning. A starter for 10 when Scotland has no pressing need beyond coastal and fisheries protection.

NutLoose
12th May 2021, 15:59
There is always the other option, allow them independence and then invade, it's worked in the past ;)

Asturias56
12th May 2021, 16:10
Not too late to shift production to Portsmouth I hope...?!In 2013 it was announced that shipbuilding in Portsmouth would cease; as of 2016 the former shipbuilding complex was being used for repairing minehunters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunt-class_mine_countermeasures_vessel) and other small craft. BAE Systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems), having subsumed Fleet Support Ltd, continues to manage ship repair and maintenance facilities around No. 3 Basin at Portsmouth.

A lot of people were laid off and have gone elsewhere, the skills have gone and you'd have to rebuild the yard from scratch pretty much. The Parker report in 2016 stated :-"BAES’ Govan and Scotstoun sites are the only UK shipyards currently used to design build and commission a sophisticated naval warship."


IIRC the list put up by Spartacan from 2013 was dividing up, or rather cherry-picking, from what was in service at the time s instead of 2 frigates they'll probably settle for one and no A 400's.

Tinribs
12th May 2021, 17:00
On the subject of money

If an independent Scottish government declared English notes were legal tender in Scotland it is difficult to see how that could stopped but the higher financial transactions would be very difficult to fit in unless they too were in pounds Sterling. The EU have been discomforted by the Brits not using the Euro and so I think they would insist that a joining Scotland would us Euros as part of the agreement

The Nip
12th May 2021, 17:18
On the subject of money

If an independent Scottish government declared English notes were legal tender in Scotland it is difficult to see how that could stopped but the higher financial transactions would be very difficult to fit in unless they too were in pounds Sterling. The EU have been discomforted by the Brits not using the Euro and so I think they would insist that a joining Scotland would us Euros as part of the agreement

There is absolutely no (official)evidence that the EU would permit entry to Scotland in any fast track deal. They have never been a member. To break their own rules for Scotland would be surprising. I agree with the poster above, the EU has just lost one of the largest contributors. How many more net beneficiaries can it support?

There are five recognised candidates for membership of the European Union: Turkey (applied in 1987), North Macedonia (applied in 2004), Montenegro (applied in 2008), Albania (applied in 2009) and Serbia (applied in 2009). All have started accessionnegotiations.

As you can see, applying for and becoming a member is not a short term issue. Those countries waiting to join have to meet the relevant criteria.

SLXOwft
12th May 2021, 20:42
"You only have to scratch the surface of what would happen to UK Armed Forces to see that the SNP position is completely untenable. "

Not to them - they don't want the sort of armed services that London wants , they don't want to be a major defense player in NATO or elsewhere.

They genuinely want to be like Denmark -"Defence" as we've known it for 120 years is not what they want

Like Denmark, really? It's going to be very expensive upscaling from the 2013 offer as I believe Denmark currently fields;
9 Frigates, 3 Ocean Patrol Vessels, 40+ Patrol Boats et al. 9 Seahawks
27 F35-As (replacing 30+ F-16s), 4 CL-604s swapable between VIP and ISTAR , 8 Light Helos, 14 Medium lift Helos, 27 Basic Trainers, 4 C-130Js, 2 MQ-9, 2 x AN/TPS 77,
Army of 7000-9000 trained professional soldiers plus 4200 consripts in basic training - (all males liable for conscription but most are volunteers) plus reservists 444 Leopard MBTs, 400+ AFVs, 19 Self Propelled Guns etc.:)

Seriously though I think the problem would be the remaining UK's if the SNP insisted on a reduced presence of the RAF and threw out all the Sunshine Dodgers, not just the Bombers, where are they all going to go? The Navy has a reduced footprint in both Guz and Pompey, the SSNs could, I suppose, go back to Guz but it is far from ideal forthe Bombers. What are the unbuilt un-sold off airfield options Leeming? Wattisham?

BAE Systems and Babcock are not going to ditch their investments, so Naval shipbuilding will remain where it is.

NutLoose
12th May 2021, 21:58
Still cannot see the figures adding up, and how is signing up for the EU independent, first off they would need to hand back their fishing grounds, plus the Orkneys have said they wouldn’t want to be part of an independent Scotland so that would be the major oil fields gone, plus there is the decommissioning bill to be paid

Asturias56
13th May 2021, 07:24
"As you can see, applying for and becoming a member is not a short term issue. "

Scotland will argue, with some justification, that they were members of the EU, that they were dragged out of the EU against their wishes and that their current structures of Govt and legislation conform to EU standards to end 2019 and the longer they're left out in the cold the more they'll start to diverge

The EU doesn't have to deal with applicants in the order they joined the line

Asturias56
13th May 2021, 07:27
" the SSNs could, I suppose, go back to Guz "

This was discussed a lot last time round - IIRC the question was would you try and replicate the current facilities or could you get away with something less massive. There was talk of opening a new facility at Falmouth but it would take forever to get permissions and build something. The obvious answer is to base them out of the USA.

The Nip
13th May 2021, 07:42
"As you can see, applying for and becoming a member is not a short term issue. "

Scotland will argue, with some justification, that they were members of the EU, that they were dragged out of the EU against their wishes and that their current structures of Govt and legislation conform to EU standards to end 2019 and the longer they're left out in the cold the more they'll start to diverge

The EU doesn't have to deal with applicants in the order they joined the line

When was Scotland a member of the EU? Correct, the EU does not have to deal with applicants in order, I didn't state they would. So how long is it going to take? The Scottish people deserve a timetable in the event of IScot?

dervish
13th May 2021, 08:40
When was Scotland a member of the EU?

Equally, when was the UK, sans Scotland, ever a member? Might Brussels want to renegotiate the treaty with such a different entity?

Scotland punches well above its weight in quite important areas, such as providing 25% of the UK's renewable energy, where it is a world leader. It exports, southwards, 28% of its energy generation, and rising. That fine supply and demand balancing act is out of kilter if Scotland is no longer an internal supplier. Nicola and her predecessors aren't daft, and this goes a long way to offsetting the loss of oil revenue. London goes on about that constantly, but the long term planning and implementation has been there for many years. A relatively minor but important example. What the RUK hear is a very one-sided argument.

Not_a_boffin
13th May 2021, 08:56
"As you can see, applying for and becoming a member is not a short term issue. "

Scotland will argue, with some made up justification, that they were members of the EU, that they were dragged out of the EU against their wishes and that their current structures of Govt and legislation conform to EU standards to end 2019 and the longer they're left out in the cold the more they'll start to diverge

The EU doesn't have to deal with applicants in the order they joined the line

Are foreign relations within the competence of the Scottish Parliament? No.
Was "Scotland" a member of the EU? No.
Within Scotland in the 2016 referendum was there a majority of votes cast to remain? Yes
Within Scotland in the recent parliamentary elections, was there a majority of votes cast for pro-independence parties? No.

Can't have it both ways.

Richard Dangle
13th May 2021, 13:35
Can't have it both ways.

I have yet to meet a political entity of any persuasion, that does not seek to "have it both ways", whenever it suits,

OilCan
13th May 2021, 14:33
Are foreign relations within the competence of the Scottish Parliament? No.
Was "Scotland" a member of the EU? No.
Within Scotland in the 2016 referendum was there a majority of votes cast to remain? Yes
Within Scotland in the recent parliamentary elections, was there a majority of votes cast for pro-independence parties? No.

Can't have it both ways.

Turnout at the last election was high at 63%, but the last Indyref was 85%. That's a lot of votes which could go either way.
Prior to last time polling for 'Yes' started below 30% and ended with a frighteningly close 45/55. This time it appears the starting base is only just under 50%.

It's stretching it a bit to assume that all SNP supporters want independence or that only SNP supporters want independence. Reality it is more nuanced than that.

People who persist with this 'Scotland's too wee, too stupid and too fickle' line of attack are more likely to be doing the SNPs job for them.

scr1
13th May 2021, 15:53
Equally, when was the UK, sans Scotland, ever a member? Might Brussels want to renegotiate the treaty with such a different entity?

Scotland punches well above its weight in quite important areas, such as providing 25% of the UK's renewable energy, where it is a world leader. It exports, southwards, 28% of its energy generation, and rising. That fine supply and demand balancing act is out of kilter if Scotland is no longer an internal supplier. Nicola and her predecessors aren't daft, and this goes a long way to offsetting the loss of oil revenue. London goes on about that constantly, but the long term planning and implementation has been there for many years. A relatively minor but important example. What the RUK hear is a very one-sided argument.


yet here in the Highlands we pay the highest prices for electricity despite producing and exporting south large amounts. yet prices are set in London.

Asturias56
13th May 2021, 16:39
"Can't have it both ways."

well Boffin that absolutely proves you're not a politician.. ( I hasten to add I never thought for a minute that you were!)

Those of us who don't want Scotland to leave can argue all we like but I have a nasty feeling that this time the SNP will get their Referendum and that they will win it. The current Govt in London is far less popular than even Cameron's. The PM is absolute poison N of the border - the Scots Tories asked him to stay away during the latest election campaign

mahogany bob
14th May 2021, 07:53
How about this for 'a cunning plan'.

Have a referendum in England on Scottish Independance with English only voters.

The English being totally fed upwith subsidising the Scots and getting nothing but abuse back in return would overwhelmingly vote to ' let the Scots go'.
( not putting the clocks back in Autumn giving lighter nights in the winter would be a big vote puller)

The Scots, because they disagree with everything the English want would then contrarily vote to remain!

Problem solved!!

OJ 72
14th May 2021, 08:12
An ‘English only’ referendum, Mahogany Bob! Nothing particularly chauvinistic in that at all, eh?!?

And there was me thinking for all these years that I had been living in the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’; where Great Britain comprised England, Scotland and Wales! And my taxes were paid to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for the greater good of all of the UK!!! Apparently not!!

Sometimes I despair!!!

Asturias56
14th May 2021, 09:23
The idea of an earlier "indicative vote" would be interesting - if 95% of the English decided they wanted the Scots to stay tit might actually help. The problem is if 51% say b***** off it would lead to a landslide or, even worse, what happens then if Scotland doesn't stay?

I don't think anyone is silly enough to give England a voice on N Ireland..

Baldeep Inminj
14th May 2021, 14:35
It appears the political aspects have hijacked the thread...I know when to choose my battles!

Here goes then. Scottish independence is inevitable in my opinion, a long as the SNP are in charge. They have no interest whatsoever in the will of the Scottish people, unless that will is to leave the UK. If they force a referendum, and I believe they will, and the result is to 'Stay', does anyone honestly believe Sturgeon will repect that vote? Of course she will not - she is hellbent on independence, and will find a reason in a few years to force another vote, and another ad infinitum, until she gets a 'Leave' result. Once that happens, will she continue to have referendums every few years in case Scots have changed their minds and wish to rejoin the UK...of course not.

Scotland has beautiful countryside and lovely people. But my experience of Scottish towns is that they are run-down, tired, and getting worse. The rate of decline is only being slowed by the cash coming from south of the border. The sensible economic argument to leave does not exist, but the SNP will lie about that. This is purely about Nationalism, and that is why I despise Sturgeon so much, she is a vile excuse for a Scot, who will not be honest with 'her' people. She needs to be honest and say what is obvious to most of us - she wants independence for the sake of it, and so she can rule her own country. She needs to say the people will suffer, the economy will tank ,and jobs will be lost by the thousands, but they will be 'free'. I would at least respect the honesty, but she does not have an ounce of integrity - a truly disgusting individual.

Scotland is being supported by the UK - quite rightly as it is part of it. However, when they choose to leave, they must leave. Not a single penny for their shipyards, bases, airports, NHS, welfare state (a huge drain on Westminster) etc etc. Let Sturgeon talk her way out when Scottish companies are losing contracts and deals in their droves.

I am certain that the English would vote for Scotland to leave, in fact in a landslide. I would love nothing more than to watch the SNP sink under the reality of their own lies...and then extend the Olive branch and graciously allow Scotland to return as the old friends that they once were.

Not Sturgeon though. She would be banished to Rockall, which she can have for free.

Asturias56
14th May 2021, 15:23
Actually the repeated calls for referendums year after year was a PQ tactic in Canada - which never really worked...................

DaveJ75
14th May 2021, 16:58
I feel for the Scots from the ideological perspective but I suspect the next indyref will fail because Sturgeon, much like Salmond, simply can't answer the basic economic questions. There's only so much shortbread you can shift...

Either way, we can expect a warm welcome North of the wall!

http://i.imgur.com/Dem8Mde.jpg

alwayslookingup
14th May 2021, 20:39
Just found this thread and read it expecting the usual amount of Jingoistic bolleaux. I wasn't disappointed, though to be fair there are some excellent and balanced contributions.

In terms of defence, where would a newly independent rUK/England mount its QRA from? At a guess I'd say the sensible option would be some sort of lease operation for Lossie/Kinloss/Leauchars. Similarly for the nukes. Much as I consider them a waste of money, I'd settle for rUK/England to lease Coulport/Faslane to maintiain the subs and warheads if rUK/England wishes to spend the money required to remain part of the big boys club.

In terms of our notional sare of the national debt, fine, it's around 8% by a population basis, so I'm happy to take that on. A year's revenue from oil & gas production will soon sort it out. Failing that, we'll secure borrowing to pay it on our 8% share of the Bank of England's gold bullion reserves.

To conclude, though, a thought. Scotland's been in a Union with England since 1707. If, after just over 300 years, Scotland's economy is such a basket case, then that doesn't say much for how healthy that 300 year union has been for at least one of the partners. At least, Scotland's economy judged by UK accounting standards.

Finally, if Scotland is such a drain on England, then why not sort the issue once and for all and simply dissolve the Act of Union? Imagine how rich rUK/England would be without all those pesky Scots to subsidise and support.

Spartacan
14th May 2021, 21:04
It intrigues me that the SNP want on the one hand to retain the Queen as head of state but on the other hand want to sign international treaties and have their own armed forces.

If the Queen is in charge then the UK will be responsible for foreign affairs and defence as is the case with the Crown Dependencies. That means no armed forces flying the Saltire and no international treaties like union with the EU.

Have these points been addressed?

etudiant
14th May 2021, 21:08
Just found this thread and read it expecting the usual amount of Jingoistic bolleaux. I wasn't disappointed, though to be fair there are some excellent and balanced contributions.

In terms of defence, where would a newly independent rUK/England mount its QRA from? At a guess I'd say the sensible option would be some sort of lease operation for Lossie/Kinloss/Leauchars. Similarly for the nukes. Much as I consider them a waste of money, I'd settle for rUK/England to lease Coulport/Faslane to maintiain the subs and warheads if rUK/England wishes to spend the money required to remain part of the big boys club.

In terms of our notional sare of the national debt, fine, it's around 8% by a population basis, so I'm happy to take that on. A year's revenue from oil & gas production will soon sort it out. Failing that, we'll secure borrowing to pay it on our 8% share of the Bank of England's gold bullion reserves.

To conclude, though, a thought. Scotland's been in a Union with England since 1707. If, after just over 300 years, Scotland's economy is such a basket case, then that doesn't say much for how healthy that 300 year union has been for at least one of the partners. At least, Scotland's economy judged by UK accounting standards.

Finally, if Scotland is such a drain on England, then why not sort the issue once and for all and simply dissolve the Act of Union? Imagine how rich rUK/England would be without all those pesky Scots to subsidise and support.

That last thought is critical imho, unions are voluntary and can dissolve unless the various partners can reach acceptable accords.
The US was not able to do this and consequently had a traumatic civil war. Czechoslovakia by contrast achieved an amicable 'velvet divorce'.
Not sure where things stand in the England/Scotland discussion, but I see no indications that any serious discussions such as took place in Czechoslovakia before the split are happening, just posturing.

alwayslookingup
14th May 2021, 21:16
That last thought is critical imho, unions are voluntary and can dissolve unless the various partners can reach acceptable accords.
The US was not able to do this and consequently had a traumatic civil war. Czechoslovakia by contrast achieved an amicable 'velvet divorce'.
Not sure where things stand in the England/Scotland discussion, but I see no indications that any serious discussions such as took place in Czechoslovakia before the split are happening, just posturing.
There is plenty of will and desire on behalf of the Scottish Government to discuss the terms and holding of a binding and legal Referendum. Unfortunately, a certain PM has taken it upon himself to die in a ditch before agreeing to it. Interestingly, the Good Friday Agreement provides for a Referendum on the reunification of Ireland. Even more interestingly, if such a poll is held and the answer is No, the GFA provides that it can be revisited, but not for at least 7 years. So, it's good enough for one part of the United Kingdom, but evidently not for all parts of the United Kingdom.

alwayslookingup
14th May 2021, 21:20
It intrigues me that the SNP want on the one hand to retain the Queen as head of state but on the other hand want to sign international treaties and have their own armed forces.

If the Queen is in charge then the UK will be responsible for foreign affairs and defence as is the case with the Crown Dependencies. That means no armed forces flying the Saltire and no international treaties like union with the EU.

Have these points been addressed?
There's a general view amongst many of the SNP that it would agree to retain the Queen as a nominal head of state of an Independent Scotland as many Scots have a deep regard for her, and she for the country. That, however, would die with her. There's absolutely no such affection for the Queen's successor.

OJ 72
14th May 2021, 21:57
Whilst the Belfast Agreement (GFA) does, in fact, allow for a poll on Irish Reunification, at what stage the poll is called is actually quite ambiguous!!

The Belfast Agreement states that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland shall call a border poll “if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland". Unfortunately, the document doesn’t actually provide a mechanism for how the SoS will come to such a decision!!

If it is on a % head count after an election then, in the Scottish case, as the SNP and the Scottish Greens achieved barely 49% of the votes cast would this be sufficient to trigger IndyRef 2?!?

In addition, the Belfast Agreement states that consent for a united Ireland would need to be given “concurrently” in the north and south. So, axiomatic to this would be that any IndyRef 2 should need the consent of the rest of the UK for Scottish cessation!!

As an aside, we need to be careful when the Belfast Agreement is held up as an exemplar!! As a wiser man than I put it...’The core of the problem [with the Belfast Agreement] lies in the ‘constructive ambiguity’ at the heart of the Agreement – that is, a form of words that all could sign up to because each party could interpret them differently’.

Surely, what is needed in the Scottish Referendum debate is clarity and not constructive ambiguities!! The next few months/years/decades (delete as applicable) arevgoing to be tortuous enough!!!

kiwi grey
14th May 2021, 23:51
It intrigues me that the SNP want on the one hand to retain the Queen as head of state but on the other hand want to sign international treaties and have their own armed forces.

If the Queen is in charge then the UK will be responsible for foreign affairs and defence as is the case with the Crown Dependencies. That means no armed forces flying the Saltire and no international treaties like union with the EU.

Have these points been addressed?

What a peculiar idea.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all quite happy to have The Queen as their Head of State but seem to manage having armed forces and independent foreign policies reasonably adequately. Why should the Scots be any different?

etudiant
15th May 2021, 00:30
What a peculiar idea.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all quite happy to have The Queen as their Head of State but seem to manage having armed forces and independent foreign policies reasonably adequately. Why should the Scots be any different?

Is that really true? I seem to remember a duly elected Australian PM getting sacked by the Governor General in 1975. Afaik that remains legally possible even today.

rattman
15th May 2021, 01:52
Is that really true? I seem to remember a duly elected Australian PM getting sacked by the Governor General in 1975. Afaik that remains legally possible even today.

Governor General is not the queen, the only power the queen has over australia is the appoinment of the Governor General


Under the Australian Constitution, the only action performed by The Queen is the appointment of the Governor-General (on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister).

No one really knows what happens if the queen refused to appoint the GG, also note that unrealised to many australians the GG is Commander and Chief of the ADF, which is why many of the GG's have been ex military

Courtney Mil
15th May 2021, 01:56
For thread that was supposed to be about basing UK military assets in Scotland with a possibility of independence, members here seem to have turned it into a political rant. Looking at the 80 or so posts, I can see very little that has anything to do with Military Aviation. Maybe the comments sections in the Daily Mail might be more suited to this kind of political crap.

Party Animal
15th May 2021, 07:45
I think the scenario may play out similar to Brexit in that, as and when both sides agree to another vote, the actual ‘make a decision’ element could be resolved in a matter of months. It is after all, just like another polling day. The actual details would then take several years to resolve, especially for defence, which I honestly do not believe would receive much coverage in the debates prior to the vote, other than Scotland would be entitled to whatever percentage (8%?) of our current Armed Forces structure. Clearly, that 8% would need to be balanced, I.e, they would not have one Poseidon, one Shadow etc..

Talking Denmark and Norway examples is probably reasonable to match ambition against in terms of economy but for defence, it would probably be similar to Slovakia, a country of similar size. One Typhoon Sqn to declare to NATO plus a Sqn of SH to support the single Army brigade and maybe 3 Hercs. Offsets against the RAF using Lossie could be mitigated by the RAF providing all of the training for the Scottish Air Force and possibly AAR for Typhoon if supporting NATO QRA. This would remove the need for training aircraft altogether. Footprint wise, I would go for Lossie with ‘the’ Typhoon Sqn plus a permanent RAF det of Poseidon and Wedgetail. I’d stick the SRAF HQ in there as well. The trucks and helo’s would go to Leuchars alongside the leading Army battalion. Joint HQ in Edinburgh and that’s about it.

The other huge questions to be raised would be over pay, terms and conditions, let alone, could Scotland afford any of the above? Which probably might drive the solution closer to the Irish model or even the Costa Rica solution once economic reality had set in.

Asturias56
15th May 2021, 07:52
Problem is Courtney that "basing UK military assets in Scotland with a possibility of independence," isn't a military question - it's a 99% political one. The simple fact that the SNP wants no nukes in Scotland is typical of the political issues - and the decisions will all be made by politicians, not the military.

An interesting questio is WHO would command the Scottish military - I haven't seen many SO's (or even ex-SO's) who have volunteered to help out..............

Richard Dangle
15th May 2021, 08:22
For thread that was supposed to be about basing UK military assets in Scotland with a possibility of independence, members here seem to have turned it into a political rant. Looking at the 80 or so posts, I can see very little that has anything to do with Military Aviation. Maybe the comments sections in the Daily Mail might be more suited to this kind of political crap.

100%.

How come this has not been punted to Jet Blast? Whatever the intentions of the op, its just become an excuse for mindless political point-scoring. Surely to **** we have seen enough of that for a while?

Whatever, it does not belong here.

downsizer
15th May 2021, 08:47
Whatever, it does not belong here.

That applies to almost every thread in this sub forum these days sadly.

OJ 72
15th May 2021, 10:38
In an attempt to move this thread back to something more military-focussed (and thus reduce the apoplexy level of some Forum members) here’s something to consider...

Whilst the transfer of materiel and military bases to a seceded Scotland (if they should want them!) should not be overly difficult - although it may be costly for what may be a cash-strapped Scottish nation - what becomes of those serving members of HM Forces who were born in Scotland?!?

There will certainly be some (many?!?) who may wish to transfer to what the SNP will propose as their military!! However, by virtue of the fact that these self-same people have voluntarily joined the UK forces, and have taken an oath of allegiance to HMTQ, then I suspect that an independent Scotland would be anathema to the majority of them!!

So what of them?!? They cannot be forced against their will to join a Scottish Defence force and what becomes of the Royal Regiment of Scotland et al?? Long gone are the days where we shamefully forcibly repatriated formed bodies of military to the the state that they paid nominal fealty to!!
Cf the Cossacks being forced back to the Soviet Union’s ‘protection’ in Austria in 1945!! OK...some of them did fight for the Wehrmacht, but you get my drift!!

Conversely, what will the Scottish government’s attitude be to their citizens who do not wish to serve in any ‘Scottish Defence Force’ (other nomenclatures are available) and wish to join the UK military?!? Will they be allowed by Holyrood to leave the ‘Hibernian Shangri-La’?? Will we in the UK accept them into the armed forces?!?

Remember, this precedent already exists as there are a large number of citizens from the Irish Republic current proudly serving in the Royal Navy, British Army and the RAF!

Axiomatically, the same argument will apply to the Police, Civil Service etc, but I did say that I was trying to drag things back onto a (vaguely) military heading!!

pba_target
15th May 2021, 10:48
In addition, the Belfast Agreement states that consent for a united Ireland would need to be given “concurrently” in the north and south. So, axiomatic to this would be that any IndyRef 2 should need the consent of the rest of the UK for Scottish cessation!!



I don't have a dog in the fight on this, but while there are merits to the parallels you draw, this is flawed logic. The reason Belfast specifies concurrent north/south referenda is because it is assumed that leaving the UK would cause NI to reunite with the south. Therefore the south should have a say in allowing them to join. In the Scottish IndyRef you're not talking Scotland joining any other nation, therefore no southern vote required.

bobward
15th May 2021, 11:03
Were Scotland to depart the UK , perhaps the following might happen:
1: Typhoon squadrons to RAF Leeming;
2; Poseidon and Wedgetails to RAF Waddington (wasn't this the original plan anyway?)
3: Serving members of all services with a Scots ancestry given the choice of joining the SDF or remaining with the UK forces.
4: As for the submarine force, I don't have any idea what we might do here, as a suitable base, away from large numbers of people, doesn't spring readily to mind.

A passing comment of the mention of Canada, Australia etc earlier. None of these have an actual land border with England, so they are probably not good examples to use (?)

Just my ten-pence worth of thoughts

PapaDolmio
15th May 2021, 11:23
Is there not a verse in GSTQ something along the lines of 'Rebellious Scots to crush'?

Mad As A Mad Thing
15th May 2021, 12:32
Were Scotland to depart the UK , perhaps the following might happen:

4: As for the submarine force, I don't have any idea what we might do here, as a suitable base, away from large numbers of people, doesn't spring readily to mind.



I find it interesting that you assume the submarine force needs to be away from large numbers of people. The English government has shown itself to be perfectly happy with it on the doorstep of Scotland’s most populous city.

OJ 72
15th May 2021, 12:43
Mad as a Mad Thing...I think you’ll find it’s a British Government that decides where our military assets are based!! There is no such thing as an ‘English government’ (sic)!

Rightly or wrongly England is the only one of the four constituent Nations of the UK that doesn’t have its own devolved administration!!

Spartacan
15th May 2021, 13:24
What a peculiar idea.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all quite happy to have The Queen as their Head of State but seem to manage having armed forces and independent foreign policies reasonably adequately. Why should the Scots be any different?

Canada, Australia and New Zealand didn't demand a share of the Queens's assets. If they want the Monarch to hand over the armed forces then the Monarchy and the Monarch's foreign policy is part of the deal.

Alternatively, they could start from scratch, buy their own jets, tanks and boats and then be free to set their own policies.

Asturias56
15th May 2021, 16:55
I'm sure the Chinese would offer them a GREAT deal.................

TukwillaFlyboy
15th May 2021, 23:44
An independent Scotland would not be able to support and operate assets such as fast jets and nuclear submarines.
Some sort of lease arrangement for UK assets in Scotland would be about it.
With a population of 5.5 million its not happening. New Zealand , for example , gave up on fighter jet capability years ago.
More likely Scotland would give up on having any influence on Great Power politics and be happier for it. Naive? Probably. But making the case to the average punter wouldn’t be hard. The UK as a whole is really only just big enough to operate carriers, nuclear submarines etc.
How long before the British public as a whole get fed up with the expense and responsibility ? The time is long gone when the UK was a Great Power.

Finningley Boy
16th May 2021, 09:19
OJ72,

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that everything that is British is in fact English.

The Queen will still be the head of state of Scotland, just as she is the head of state of numerous Commonwealth countries that gained independence.

The Scots can call their currency whatever they like, if they want to call it Pound Sterling they have every right. Just that the Bank of England will no longer be lender of last resort.

I would imagine that on independence everyone living in Scotland will have the right to call themselves Scottish citizens.

Anyone living in England, Wales or Northern Ireland will remain British and would have to relocate to claim Scottish citizenship, be they military or civilian.

All UK Civil Service facilities are as much Scottish as they are 'English" and will be divided up as part of any settlement. You can't just assume that they are all English!

Emotionally I like the idea of an independent Scotland, and a reunified Ireland for that matter.

But the economic cost to Scotland could be immense.

The economic cost to England would be negligible and mainly concern relocation of certain military nuclear facilities.

The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. England would still be the fifth largest economy in the world, Scotland would be about 154th...

That is a LOT of influence and clout to give up.

Dave Gittins,

You make a good point. In addition to things such as DVLA and Companies House, an independent Scotland would have to set up a diplomatic service, embassies and all the paraphernalia that goes with being an independent nation.

Spot on pr00ne,

As a Scotsman living South of the Border I've always bridled over the festering sore of Scottish independence, I and all in my immediate family have and were always staunch unionists and typically referred to Britain or Great Britain as home. Not that we were ashamed of being Scots, far from it. However, the constant jeering and attempts by Nicola Sturgeon to be seen to manage Scottish affairs more competently, to be regarded as an example of things to come if Scotland gets independence, is acutely irritating. The economic cost to the UK by leaving the EU was always going to be a worry and there are some similar arguments, Scottish people not being able to unseat a Tory government or prevent the Brexit vote single handed compare with the times when the UK had to accept EU legislation when it would rather not, but beyond that, there is no comparison. Scotland is and has been for over 300 years a component part of one country, just as England, Wales and now Northern Ireland (since 1921 I believe). The EU isn't a country but tries hard to be one while simultaneously denying that intent. Anyway, enough of getting it off my chest, independence for Scotland is fraught with far more genuine problems and up ending of tables!:uhoh:

FB:ok:

teeteringhead
16th May 2021, 09:27
Papa Dolmio Is there not a verse in GSTQ something along the lines of 'Rebellious Scots to crush'? Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.

Rarely - if ever - used after the '45.

MPN11
16th May 2021, 09:46
Governor General is not the queen, the only power the queen has over australia is the appoinment of the Governor General

Under the Australian Constitution, the only action performed by The Queen is the appointment of the Governor-General (on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister).

No one really knows what happens if the queen refused to appoint the GG, also note that unrealised to many australians the GG is Commander and Chief of the ADF, which is why many of the GG's have been ex military

[my bold] ... as is reflected on the inside of my Jersey passport, Jersey's current Lieutenant Governor is Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton GCB, BSc, FRAeS

https://governmenthouse.gov.je


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1274x1973/jer_passport_2_dd6b8201a35ffd1315e0bdeb21c1ede3c0701bb7.jpg

DaveJ75
16th May 2021, 10:48
For thread that was supposed to be about basing UK military assets in Scotland with a possibility of independence, members here seem to have turned it into a political rant. Looking at the 80 or so posts, I can see very little that has anything to do with Military Aviation. Maybe the comments sections in the Daily Mail might be more suited to this kind of political crap.

Good point. I suppose it comes down to what the SNP will define as independent. If Scotland votes for independence in the literal sense then it'll be up to Scotland to balance its books and defend itself, in which case current UK military assets will need to relocate South.

Given how smoothly Brexit was achieved, should be quite a show...

alwayslookingup
16th May 2021, 16:53
When the USSR split up, Russia agreed, with the other constituent countries of the Union, to be responsible for ALL of the USSR’s debt. Russia also agreed to accept responsibility for ALL of the USSR’s nuclear weapons. Soviet Union nukes in Kazakhstan were either dismantled or sent back to Russia. Russia also agreed, with Ukraine, to share the Black Sea Fleet. A few ships of the Navy of the USSR were transferred to Ukraine. If some Russian sailors weren’t happy about being on a ship that was now flying a Ukrainian flag, they were simply transferred to a ship flying the Russian flag (and vice versa).
In exchange for Russia being reasonable, the other countries of the Union agreed that Russia should be the SUCCESSOR STATE; they would raise no objection to Russia getting the USSR seat on the Security Council of the United Nations.
There will be negotiations between Scotland and England over the process and the terms of Scottish independence. But the question is - would Boris Johnson be as reasonable as Boris Yeltsin?

Spartacan
16th May 2021, 18:21
When the USSR split up, Russia agreed, with the other constituent countries of the Union, to be responsible for ALL of the USSR’s debt. Russia also agreed to accept responsibility for ALL of the USSR’s nuclear weapons. Soviet Union nukes in Kazakhstan were either dismantled or sent back to Russia. Russia also agreed, with Ukraine, to share the Black Sea Fleet. A few ships of the Navy of the USSR were transferred to Ukraine. If some Russian sailors weren’t happy about being on a ship that was now flying a Ukrainian flag, they were simply transferred to a ship flying the Russian flag (and vice versa).
In exchange for Russia being reasonable, the other countries of the Union agreed that Russia should be the SUCCESSOR STATE; they would raise no objection to Russia getting the USSR seat on the Security Council of the United Nations.
There will be negotiations between Scotland and England over the process and the terms of Scottish independence. But the question is - would Boris Johnson be as reasonable as Boris Yeltsin?

I am sure that Russia would be more than happy to do the same for Scotland and it wouldn't surprise me if the Ginger Dwarf from the North would be happy too.

Finningley Boy
16th May 2021, 19:24
With regard to Courtney's post about thread drift, to answer the original question, should it happen, a lot will depend on three things,

1. Military posture which the SNP wish to pursue, the financial priorities of Holyrood will determine how this should take shape, personally I imagine they'll finish up with a scarcely token standing armed forces.

2. Point one may be influenced by how much the SNP wish to impact on the military posture of the remainder UK, i.e. try and hang on to as many Lossiemouth based assets, for example, as possible in the interim only to abandon them or share them with outside interests thereafter.

3. Pints one and two may be influenced by prospective EU interests regarding the possibility of the future of a centralised EU military force.

Whatever the outcome, I suspect an independent Scottish government will remain, to varying degrees, hostile to the government in Westminster. There is no practical explanation for this other than clashing political ideology, this alone will have a lot to do with how a future independent Scotland applies itself to the so far largely avoided (by Holyrood) question of Foreign, Defence and Security policy. This question doesn't worry, or rather interest, them the way that promising EU membership and an incomparable free, at point of use, Health service and a wider list of other social provision does. All laudable but independence will force an independent Scotland to confront all at once.

FB

Asturias56
18th May 2021, 18:03
A quick look at their website has the following gems... https://www.snp.org/policy-area/defence/

Item 4 seems to a general dig at the UK Govt and the rest sounds like Mr Corbyn to me - but that's the policy they're running on. I doubt anyone has read itWhat is the SNP position on Daesh/ISIS? (https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-what-is-the-snp-position-on-daesh-isis/)The struggle against Daesh must be pursued by more than military means and must include the battle of ideas which demonstrate that international justice and civic tolerance can be achieved without recourse to violence and barbarity. SNP MPs will urge the UK government to redouble its efforts to bring about a political resolution, through the UN Security Council in accordance with its Resolution 2254, to end the ongoing conflict in Syria.
What is the SNP’s position on UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia? (https://www.snp.org/policies/what-is-the-snp-s-position-on-uk-arms-exports-to-saudi-arabia/)SNP MPs have led the calls for resolution of the destructive conflict in South Yemen. Given the clear evidence that munitions supplied by the United Kingdom have been used in breach of international law, there should be an immediate ban on arms sales to Saudi Arabia pending a full and proper independent investigation. And we will urge the UK government to immediately halt all military support and arms sales to regimes suspected of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.
How are the SNP supporting veterans? (https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-how-are-the-snp-supporting-veterans/)The SNP believe that veterans are an asset to our society and deserve the best possible care and support.
Does the SNP oppose UK government reductions to Scotland’s defence footprint – including the closure of Fort George? (https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-defence-cuts-scotland-and-closure-of-fort-george/)The UK government’s most recent wave of defence cuts will see the closure of a number of historic defence sites in Scotland, including Glencorse Barracks, Penicuik; Redford Barracks, Edinburgh, and Fort George near Inverness. Scottish Ministers, SNP MPs and local communities have clearly set out our opposition to these cuts and it is deeply disappointingthat Scotland’s views have not been taken on board.

The cuts amount to a nearly 20 per cent reduction in Scotland’s defence footprint, and come on top of years of cutbacks by successive UK governments. The Ministry of Defence’s own jobs figures show that between 2012 and 2018 defence personnel in Scotland were cut by 2,000 – a cut of more than 12 per cent. And, if we go back further to 2000, 10,800 jobs have been cut in Scotland, with an overall reduction of 43.7 per cent.
What are the SNP doing to stop Nuclear convoys through Scotland’s streets? (https://www.snp.org/policies/what-are-the-snp-doing-to-stop-nuclear-convoys-through-scotland-s-streets/)The idea that weapons of mass destruction are being transported through our streets is absolutely chilling. The SNP have raised our concerns about this unacceptable risk to public safety.

View PolicyDo the SNP support Trident renewal? (https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-do-the-snp-support-trident-renewal/)The SNP has never and will never support the retention or renewal of Trident. We believe that nuclear weapons are immoral, ineffective and expensive. And in times of imposed austerity, the £205 billion which would be spent on a Trident replacement over the next 30 years could be far, far more effectively used on improving healthcare, childcare, education and building a better future for our children.

MPN11
18th May 2021, 18:18
One weeps gently at the naïveté expressed in those extracts, not that one would have expected better. Populist gibberish drafted by a Year 10 idealist student, IMO.

etudiant
18th May 2021, 22:39
Not a student of history, but surely the resolution of the Hungarian nationalist movement in the 1860s is a relevant example.
The participants managed to save the system by allowing a much larger degree of self rule for Hungary.
By all account, the work was done largely by Empress Elizabeth, who had much more sense than her husband.
Is there not some comparably capable young woman able to pull the players together today?

Fareastdriver
19th May 2021, 07:31
Not a student of history, but surely the resolution of the Hungarian nationalist movement in the 1860s is a relevant example.
The participants managed to save the system by allowing a much larger degree of self rule for Hungary.

Scotland already has its own devolved Parliament and is responsible for most of the country's laws. Independence is just a way of getting even more political power.

Asturias56
19th May 2021, 07:31
I've looked again and what I've posted above is it - no detail no discussion, no nothing. Guess others might be squirreled away in Foreign policy or in speeches but it's a pretty short and shabby list IMHO

ekw
20th May 2021, 11:09
I've put my replies in between the quoted text for ease of reference.

In adding my two penny‘worth I may be coming across as a tad controversial, but, then I’ll only be living up to the late, great TE Utley’s definition of an Ulsterman viz ‘The first to give, and the first to take offence’. So here goes!!

Anyone who knows me will realise I’m an avowed ‘Capital-U’ Unionist both by upbringing and instinct, so it would break my heart if, following any independence referendum, the SNP should succeed in breaking up the Union. However, before any referendum is held then the UK Government should make the SNP and the Scottish people aware of the following.

On the day of secession HM The Queen immediately ceases to be the Head of State of an independent Scotland.

// From 1603 till 1707 there existed a united kingdom without a united parliament. Without a Stuart restoration this would still be the case until Scotland declared itself a republic. Remember, Ireland (Eire) gained independence in 1921 but did not become a republic until 1949.

Within a clearly defined period (say two to five years) the following should come into effect:

a. The Pound Sterling can no longer be the currency of Scotland;

// an independent country can use whatever currency it likes. It just has no control over the fiscal policy of that currency if it doesn't print it.

b. There will be no further fiscal assistance or intervention from Westminster;

// Naturally.

c. All UK military bases and personnel to be withdrawn from Scotland and relocated at suitable locations within the remainder of the UK;

// I think you'll find that in all previous colonial withdrawals the bases were stripped but they can't take the buildings.

d. The regular and reserve battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland be given the option of remaining within the orbat of the British Army or being disbanded with all the honour due to their, and their forebears, gallant service (with similar options being given to similar reserve units of the RN and RAF);

// In India, the regiments were divided according to geographical area. In Ireland they were merged. I expect anyone wanting to remain under English command could transfer to an English regiment. The Crown might retain the Scots Guards for sentimental reasons.

e. All military personnel currently serving in the UK armed forces who were born in Scotland should be given the option to remain on their current terms of service or to be honourably discharged;

// Yes

f. All UK Civil Service facilities in Scotland to be relocated to the remainder of the UK and their personnel based in Scotland given the option to relocate, or to accept a ‘length of service and seniority’ based redundancy package;

// This is not how it works. All departments would devolve to their new masters within Scotland.

g. No preferential treatment to be given to Scottish industry or manufacturers for any defence or other UK Government contracts; and, finally,

// Well, that would be subject to trade negotiation

h. A 'hard' border be established between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

// Why? Perhaps you could get William of Orange to gallop up and down the border too? Of course if Scotland then joined the EU then indeed Hadrians Wall would have to be spruced up.

These courses of action may seem harsh, and for someone with close familial and work-related ties to Scotland I don’t suggest them lightly. However, they are neither vindictive nor punitive, as the following should be noted.

You are from Ulster. Of course they are vindictive and punitive.

Firstly, the SNP cannot have their cake and eat it…either they are an independent nation, making their own way in the ‘big, bad world’ whilst standing on their own two feet, or they’re not.

// No. They can sign their own treaties and make their own friendships.

And secondly, in the event of any ‘Border Poll’ in Northern Ireland signalling the reunification of the island of Ireland into a single political entity then all of the tenets that I have outlined above would most certainly be imposed on the people of Northern Ireland!! So why should an independent Scotland be treated any differently?

// don't get you here. It states clearly in the Good Friday Agreement that any political change can only come about when the majority agree to it.

Will the UK Government do this? Almost certainly not!! If it did lay out all (or some) of what I have proposed, would it change the outcome of any referendum? It almost certainly would!!

What you have to realise that on a 63% turnout only 49% of the Scottish people voted for pro-Independence parties; that's only 30.87% of the total Scottish electorate. So to use a Scottish aphorism - the SNP’s ‘coat is on a shuggly peg’!! Obviously, the cry for 'Freedom' is not as clear cut as Ms Sturgeon et al would have you believe!!

// but isn't that how Brexit was voted for?

Spartacan
20th May 2021, 19:47
I agree with ekw. Outside the Union Scotland would be something very like Eire. No more - no less.

Asturias56
21st May 2021, 07:38
PEDENAT ALERT!

The Border between England and Scotland at NO POINT follows Hadrian's Wall - it's well north - in some places a very long way north of the Wall.

Fareastdriver
21st May 2021, 08:41
They couldn't get their chariots into reverse gear any further north.

brakedwell
21st May 2021, 10:58
They couldn't get their chariots into reverse gear any further north.

I think it was square wheels that caused the problem!

Fareastdriver
21st May 2021, 18:20
The Romans came quite a way north. I once owned a large property west of Inverurie, Aberdeenshire and in one corner of the elevated part was the remains of the earthworks of a Roman fort. It had a splendid view of Mither Tap, a local megafort, so that was probably why it was built there.

Ninthace
21st May 2021, 18:42
The Roman Empire had different northern boundaries at different times. I seem to remember that they settled on the line of Hadrian's Wall on the grounds anything north of there was not worth the effort. A sort of cost/benefit frontier based on bean counting.

Video Mixdown
21st May 2021, 19:42
The Roman Empire had different northern boundaries at different times. I seem to remember that they settled on the line of Hadrian's Wall on the grounds anything north of there was not worth the effort. A sort of cost/benefit frontier based on bean counting.
Although not actually part of the Wall, the Roman Fort at the top of Hardknott Pass is a remarkable place. You can't help but imagine the lives of the soldiers who had walked, perhaps all the way from Rome, to be garrisonned in that remote, windswept spot.


​​​​

tucumseh
22nd May 2021, 05:44
The Roman Empire had different northern boundaries at different times. I seem to remember that they settled on the line of Hadrian's Wall on the grounds anything north of there was not worth the effort. A sort of cost/benefit frontier based on bean counting.

There is also the small matter of the Antonine Wall, built across the central belt from the Firth of Clyde to the Firth of Forth. There were certainly excursions north of this, but by the eastern route (or by sea), in the same way the Borders/Northern England have the east, central and west Marches. The Highland Line (north of which is LFA14 to you pilots) created a huge physical barrier. One need only stand on the ramparts of Stirling Castle to appreciate that an army on foot must pass the bottle neck created by the impenetrable Flanders Moss and the River Forth, which is why the castle was built there. A little stream called the Bannock Burn meanders across in front of it. As the Scots proved many times, defending north of the bottle neck from huge armies was relatively straight forward, subject to internal politics. (Nothing changes!). Most tourists do the Edinburgh Castle thing. Stirling is far more impressive.

Asturias56
22nd May 2021, 06:32
Back on topic this article from 6 months ago is interesting I think:-

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18890745.analysis-snp-come-back-fighting-issue-defence/Analysis: How the SNP has come back fighting on the issue of defence

By Professor Phillips O'Brien

Issues of national defence and strategic policy have not traditionally rested easily within the SNP.

The party in the past has been left trying to balance two very different, in many ways contradictory constituencies. There is the passionate anti-nuclear and anti-NATO community on the Left of the party, which for years held significant sway over the SNP’s positioning. Determined to make an international statement in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, this group supported independence as a way to force the UK to scrap its Trident missile system. On the other hand, the population of Scotland (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/) generally has not shown itself so preoccupied with issues of nuclear disarmament.

While there is conflicting data about whether the Scottish population supports the maintenance of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent, a clear majority supports continuing membership of NATO and participation in the western alliance. To try and bridge this gap during the 2014 independence referendum, the Scottish Government in its white paper tried to appeal to both camps. The result was a policy that could be said to have lacked clarity. In response, during the campaign the unionist side regularly attacked the SNP for being soft on defence.

The intervening years have been transformational. In the first case the UK’s own defence posture has become oddly distended with heavy investment in two very large weapons systems; Trident and the two new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers armed with extremely expensive F-35B aircraft. This had led to significant cuts in the nuts and bolts of national defense such as the army. However even more important has been Brexit (https://www.heraldscotland.com/brexit/). The 2016 UK-wide vote to leave the European Union was strongly opposed in Scotland, where 62% of the electorate wanted to remain.

The reality of Scottish voters being forced out of the European Union against their will has led to a rapid and sustained growth in pro-Independence support. Many of these voters were originally opposed to independence in 2016 because they were worried that Scotland would not be allowed to remain in the EU and now have lessened their attachment to the UK as a whole. These voters are more centrist and multilateral, and their support for independence is probably conditional on an independent Scotland having as cooperative relationship as possible with other European states. This growth of support by more centrist Scots in favour of independence has seemingly be matched by an important transformation in the SNP’s defence policies—most obviously in its recently released submission to the UK government’s integrated defence review. This submission is measured, one might even call it mature. The overall thrust of which is to demonstrate that an independent Scotland would be an enthusiastic and useful member of NATO and would wish to cooperate closely with its Scandinavian partners in focussing on the High North.

To start with, one of the most striking things about the defence review is how little Trident is discussed. In an 11-page document Trident is only mentioned in two short, consecutive sentences, one of which criticizes the extremely high cost of the weapons system and another saying that money saved by not supporting Trident could be spent on other “conventional” weapons systems. This is hardly a pacifist position and is in line with the thinking of many now serving in the British Army.

If Trident is hardly mentioned, unilateral nuclear disarmament is not mentioned at all. Indeed in the discussion of nuclear disarmament it is specifically pointed out that any such achievement would occur through “multilateral” agreement (ie not forcing the UK to give up its own nuclear weapons except within a framework of an international (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world_news/) move in this area). Considering how powerful the anti-nuclear movement had been in SNP politics to this time, such clear changes in emphasis are striking.

If unilateral nuclear disarmament is non-existent in the review, being a positive member of NATO and a serious military partner of Scotland’s northern neighbours is a constant theme. Indeed one of the most striking thing about the defense review is that the SNP is now arguing, quite cleverly at times, that an independent Scotland could actually be a more productive member of NATO than a UK which has over-invested in Trident and expensive aircraft carriers. For instance paragraph 31 of the report makes this fascinating claim. “Commitments to common NATO tasks, such as Standing Maritime Groups, must be prioritised over ‘out of area’ operations of dubious benefit, like FONOPS in the South China Sea. The United Kingdom cannot continue to ignore its own backyard while attempting to project hard power across the world – it must take a more active role in protecting regional security in the High North.”

In other words—Denmark, Norway, Holland, etc—and independent Scotland will work with you to focus on threats in our own area and won’t be gallivanting around the world playing at global Britain.

That ultimately is what makes this submission so potentially dangerous for unionists. The SNP is saying both to its European partners and the new supporters of independence who have been affected by Brexit that they can rely on an independent Scotland. The old criticisms levelled at the SNP that their defence policies are too extreme now will be much harder to make. Indeed, this review allows the SNP to argue with some force that their defence plans are realistic and directly attached to the interests of its neighbours and NATO partners. It is a serious document that will require a serious response.

Phillips O'Brien is Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of St Andrews

minigundiplomat
23rd May 2021, 23:17
I would have expected a good european such as the professor, to be aware that Holland is a region of the Netherlands, and doesn't have a standing military of its own.

Fareastdriver
24th May 2021, 08:11
Don't confuse him with facts; his mind is made up.

Fareastdriver
24th May 2021, 10:19
Albeit the various lockdowns have limited the dissemination of peoples views on independence but from what I have gathered in the last week or so the opinion about Independence is still very much the same. Scotland's 'overwhelming' mandate for independence and rejoining the EU by voting for the SNP can be countered by the fact that the SNP only gained one seat in the last election. This could be explained by Nicola's unique photo and TV opportunities during Covid. In the Brexit Referendum the majority of voters voted to Remain but the turnout was only 62% as against a much higher figure for the UK as a whole. Breaking down the figures it transpires that only 42% of the Scottish electorate voted to remain.

Hardly an overwhelming number. Westminster should bite the bullet and let Nichola hold another Referendum when this pandemic is over. It should return a similar figure to last time and with luck we can say goodbye to her.

OilCan
24th May 2021, 13:48
Using that logic, only 37.4% of UK voted for BREXIT - which is precisely what rekindled all this Indy stuff in the first place. :(

What source are you using?

EU Referendum Results - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results)

LandingCheck
24th May 2021, 14:10
It's worth reading the 2013 blueprint that the SNP produced for the Independence referendum:

The full read starts from page 232 but apparently the UK would be quite happy to hand Scotland the following hardware:

2 Frigates
4 Mine countermeasures vessels
2 offshore patrol vessels
6 patrol boats


1 deployable Brigade HQ
2 light armoured reconnaissance units
2 light artillery units
6 AAC HELICOPTERS

1 Typhoon squadron
6 C130 Hercules
1 RAF helicopter squadron


I don't think so, somehow.

In 2012, this was utter fantasy.

In 2021, this now sounds functionally divorced from reality.

Finningley Boy
24th May 2021, 14:31
In 2012, this was utter fantasy.

In 2021, this now sounds functionally divorced from reality.

What's also missing from the inventory are training aircraft? How about bases for the assets? Would the Typhoons, C-130s, Helis and, one imagines, training aircraft, all be squeezed into Lossiemouth? Would Leuchars and Kinloss be open againg for various roles?

FB

SLXOwft
24th May 2021, 17:00
What's also missing from the inventory are training aircraft? How about bases for the assets? Would the Typhoons, C-130s, Helis and, one imagines, training aircraft, all be squeezed into Lossiemouth? Would Leuchars and Kinloss be open againg for various roles?

FB
They could buy back HM(S)S Gannet from the mysterious 'European Investor in Transport Infrastructure' if they have bought it by then. The current revenues appear dominated by military traffic.

According to the BBC: 'The most recent accounts, for the year to March 2020, state that the airport turned a £5.4m pre-tax profit. While passenger traffic revenue was less than £800,000, revenue from refuelling mainly military aircraft rose in the year from £12m to £21m.'

mgd, I thought Holland was where RAF Holbeach is.:) The Dutch one was split in to Noord-Holland and Zuid-Holland in 1840.:8

Prof. O'Brien (Director of Research, School of International Relations, St Andrews) is an American, from Boston (the separatist one not the Lincs one.) via Hartford, Conn, Wall St and Cambridge (England) where his PhD was in British and American politics and naval policy. Whatever his politics, his academic credentials are sound, if some of his opinions controversial to some, viz: How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II (Cambridge Military History). I don't think we can dismiss his analysis out of hand.

And finally: I understand polling shows a roughly 50/50 split on unilateral nuclear disarmament; whatever their review document says on the subject the SNP website is very clear. https://www.snp.org/tridentfacts/

8) With independence, we can get rid of Trident in Scotland
Independence will give us the power to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland, and being free to make different decisions from Westminster can save billions of pounds – money that can deliver direct benefits for the people of Scotland.

We want to see a world free from nuclear weapons, and an independent Scotland will be a principled advocate for nuclear disarmament on the global stage.

Asturias56
24th May 2021, 17:52
I could see them dumping everything but some Search & Rescue helicopters and buying some cheapo MPA's. The navy would be patrol boats only - and new orders for the Clyde yards as well. Run the Army down to 8,000 mainly on attachment to the UN and the remainder to march up and down for the tourists.

If you don't intend to fight any wars, and you're not going to be invaded, you can save a shed load of cash "to build bridges to nowhere" to quote Mr Khrushchev.

Fareastdriver
24th May 2021, 19:51
The navy would be patrol boats only - and new orders for the Clyde yards as well.

Judging by the alacrity of which their new inter island ferryboats at being built that should be about the turn of the next century.

minigundiplomat
24th May 2021, 20:56
I'm not sure why Boris doesn't make the vote UK wide and guarantee they go this time; there is far too much risk of them bottling it again. They clearly want to be independent and live in a socialist fantasy euroland, why not let them?

OilCan
24th May 2021, 21:25
You're clearly one of 'those' unionists. :sad: thanks.

minigundiplomat
24th May 2021, 21:43
You're clearly one of 'those' unionists. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif thanks.

Mate, I genuinely feel sorry for you, as you seem to have had your homeland stolen from you, but this is a never-ending banshee wail that will not stop until Scotland goes. Just as 2014 was 'once in a lifetime', this noise, political sabotage and drama will go on and on until the inevitable separation. At some point, its not even worth staying together for the kids.......

OilCan
24th May 2021, 22:08
Mate, I genuinely feel sorry for you, as you seem to have had your homeland stolen from you, but this is a never-ending banshee wail that will not stop until Scotland goes. Just as 2014 was 'once in a lifetime', this noise, political sabotage and drama will go on and on until the inevitable separation. At some point, its not even worth staying together for the kids.......
With 'Mates' like you, who needs enemies? :sad: I'm sure your views are music to The Fish Wifies ears.

BTW; I was born in London - MATE. :=

minigundiplomat
24th May 2021, 22:12
The noise pre-dates the fish wifie by several hundred years.

And for the record, my view is not unusual South of the border, ask around next time you're in London MATE

LandingCheck
25th May 2021, 04:01
What's also missing from the inventory are training aircraft? How about bases for the assets? Would the Typhoons, C-130s, Helis and, one imagines, training aircraft, all be squeezed into Lossiemouth? Would Leuchars and Kinloss be open againg for various roles?

FB

Costs of spares and consumables are a significant issue for every modern Air Force. Meanwhile, in the Scottish Fever Dream of independence, these things, along with qualified people to run them, will appear magically because Nicola wills it, like Hitler in the bunker.

In 2012, my straw polling when I was spending lots of quality time with the Forces guys, was that less than 10% of Jocks were going to elect to join a Scottish Defense Force, and they were nearly uniformly the very junior or those very close to retirement and looking to go home along with Reservists, who had real jobs/careers in Scotland.

I can't imagine that number changes significantly a decade onwards (perhaps, perhaps not.) If you then argue what is the percentage of pilots, intelligence officers/NCOs, mid-career maneuverists, mechanics, skilled ship drivers, combat medical personnel, special operations, combat divers, etc. (fill in any investment intensive job) who would elect to leave an even anorexically thin British military and you are now down to a group of people who can comfortably go out to dinner together. At least the British Armed Forces are deploying (with the professional and post-service benefits accruing thereof.) A Scottish Defense Force is a decade from meaningful participation in an EU, let alone NATO military exercise, let alone operational deployment.

This is to build a maybe Irish level of capability...not a modern force capable of trading fists with the Belorussian Army.

All of the SNP's military analysis is the kind of military analysis to show you've done some. Its homework done on the bus ride into school. Its not real analysis, and its wonderfully unencumbered by such accoutrement as data or a meaningful plan.

The real SNP plan for defense is enough kilted young men to pull the lanyard on the One O'Clock gun and do a parade every so often, and perhaps (no promises! Got to get it approved by Holyrood, with just a FEW caveats) send a few to some EU operation to be assistant logisticians. Really, the plan is obviously to be another security free loader in Europe, and I haven't seen anyone tell the SNP that position is filled with a number of satisfied incumbents.

Asturias56
25th May 2021, 07:09
"This is to build a maybe Irish level of capability...not a modern force capable of trading fists with the Belorussian Army."

That is the exact point - why would Scotland need or want to fight the Belorussian Army? Or anyone else for that matter. We, on here, see defence through the prism of NATO, and the last 75 years of keeping Russia out. Scotland, on its own, won't have the same concerns. They need a Police Force for maritime areas and a small military force for back-up in local terrorist event - other than that its hard to see a real threat to them.

Spartacan
25th May 2021, 07:32
Mate, I genuinely feel sorry for you, as you seem to have had your homeland stolen from you, but this is a never-ending banshee wail that will not stop until Scotland goes. Just as 2014 was 'once in a lifetime', this noise, political sabotage and drama will go on and on until the inevitable separation. At some point, its not even worth staying together for the kids.......

The 'never-ending banshee wail' wouldn't stop is Scotland voted for independence. I doubt it will ever stop whilst the current political movements exists.

An independence vote would be the start of years of tortuous negotiations and the financial settlement would cause the biggest 'banshee wail' of all. Scotland's not big enough to mirror the UK economy so the deal that would have to be cut between Whitehall and the SNP would be crucial. However that might work out it would never be enough for the SNP.

The 'never-ending banshee wail' is just the modus operandi permanent feature of the current political movement whatever happens.

TukwillaFlyboy
25th May 2021, 08:05
Professor O’Briens article is clearly well informed and coherent.
Except one thing.
A nation of 5.5 million people wont be able to support any military capability of any significance.
Simples.

scr1
25th May 2021, 08:24
This is to build a maybe Irish level of capability...not a modern force capable of trading fists with the Belorussian Army

Does the UK have the capability on it's own??

ResBunny
25th May 2021, 10:39
A nation of 5.5 million people wont be able to support any military capability of any significance.
Simples.

Singapore: Population around 5.8 million and no natural resources, operates a mix of 100 F16s and F18s plus a serious network of SAMs.

If Scotland invested similarly, they could give any invader pause for thought.

OJ 72
25th May 2021, 11:35
ResBunny, this is very true. However, unfortunately any putative Government of a seceded Scotland will almost certainly not have the ‘eyes wide open’ worldview that the Government of the Republic of Singapore has. Indeed, when you read the Singapore Ministry of Defence’s mission statement:

‘…to enhance Singapore's peace and security through deterrence and diplomacy, and should these fail, to secure a swift and decisive victory over the aggressor…’

you realise that Singapore is a country that certainly follows Teddy Roosevelt’s aphorism of ’speak softly but carry a big stick’!!

Can any of us honestly see the SNP, as it is currently constituted, agreeing to securing a ‘swift and decisive victory over the aggressor’? I certainly can’t as sadly the SNP’s ‘everybody loves us because we’re Scottish’, woke, ‘A-level sociology’ attitude to foreign affairs shows a massive degree of naivety.

Tinribs
25th May 2021, 11:38
We as, a group. seems to be avoiding the great truth preventing the forward motion of opinion. Scotland as a country has the right to decide it's future in or out of UK.
The arguments almost always descend to a confrontation between the emotional desire of Scots to see their country independent and the economic costs of that need. The two can never be balanced because one is a number and the other a thought, the size of each are not measurable.
In quandaries such as this it is the democratic custom to seek the will of the population and according to the outcome direction and size decide. We will not even approach a solution to this problem until both countries agree on a logical system of decision making, which we will never do. We are doomed to many years of pointless argument.

TukwillaFlyboy
25th May 2021, 11:41
Singapore: Population around 5.8 million and no natural resources, operates a mix of 100 F16s and F18s plus a serious network of SAMs.

If Scotland invested similarly, they could give any invader pause for thought.

Yeah , if Scotland was determined to turn itself into Singapore , but it isn’t , is it ?
Singapore is taken seriously by the military in Australia in a way that few others are.
Because their strategic position is precarious.
It concentrates the mind.
Scotland would turn into a smaller versus of Canada.
Surviving on the fond hope that they really would never have to fight on their own.

LandingCheck
25th May 2021, 12:47
"This is to build a maybe Irish level of capability...not a modern force capable of trading fists with the Belorussian Army."

That is the exact point - why would Scotland need or want to fight the Belorussian Army? Or anyone else for that matter. We, on here, see defence through the prism of NATO, and the last 75 years of keeping Russia out. Scotland, on its own, won't have the same concerns. They need a Police Force for maritime areas and a small military force for back-up in local terrorist event - other than that its hard to see a real threat to them.

At least this is honest. Its basically another Euro state that makes the assumption that should things really go pear-shaped, they can depend upon corn-fed Americans to show up.

It is really the best deal going so I get it...you get to chuck political rocks at Americans all you wish, but if your assumptions about your security fail, well, dial up 001 and someone shows and fixes stuff. I mean, what real security issues does an island that imports the majority of its calories really face?

How is a police force going to defend the off-shore wealth that underwrites the whole Scottish economy, such as it is? From where does this training, intelligence, and material come?
Military force is like a fire extinguisher, in that you don't need one until you need one badly. Independent Scotland will be that tenant that steals the batteries from the smoke detectors.

The SNP "plan" is more Euro-style security free loading. All the while bleating how an independent Scotland is committed to NATO and the EU, by providing all assistance short of actual help. The plan is to be a less functional version of Canada, knowing that actual security exporters own self interest is your fundamental guarantee. That is actually not political independence at all. Its actually the opposite.

LandingCheck
25th May 2021, 12:54
We as, a group. seems to be avoiding the great truth preventing the forward motion of opinion. Scotland as a country has the right to decide it's future in or out of UK.
The arguments almost always descend to a confrontation between the emotional desire of Scots to see their country independent and the economic costs of that need. The two can never be balanced because one is a number and the other a thought, the size of each are not measurable.
In quandaries such as this it is the democratic custom to seek the will of the population and according to the outcome direction and size decide. We will not even approach a solution to this problem until both countries agree on a logical system of decision making, which we will never do. We are doomed to many years of pointless argument.

It is a pretty fundamental point of logic that one saws upon with great care the branch upon which you sit. The SNP has a pretty fundamental burden that the realities that drove Union in the 1700s aren't still in many ways fundamentally true. Can an independent Scotland provide a value add to its citizens in the realms currently held by Westminster?

This is only as emotional an argument as it is allowed to be. At the end of the day, there are fundamental assumptions about the value added of an independent Scotland that simply haven't be discussed meaningfully.

I'm a fan of political devolution and the concept of subsidiarity as a general rule. However, in a world where increasingly aggressive leviathans threaten the rules based order, making the assumption that a rules based order itself requires no maintenance and is the general state of mankind is a proposition without evidence.

LandingCheck
25th May 2021, 13:00
Does the UK have the capability on it's own??

Probably not, but the UK is a global security exporter across the board, and certainly has all sorts of stabilizing capability and capacity. Further, the British maintain a military understanding than the majority of calories and other necessities of daily life in the UK come via sea, and their prime assistance in securing that is 3000 miles to the west.

To this discussion, the Scots will not have this capability to be militarily independently secure, have no desire to pursue this capability and can proceed down these independence roads secure in the knowledge that the British Army won't be getting ready to march up the A-1(M) and force Holyrood to submit at bayonet point. A fact of life NOT shared by say, the neighbors of Belarus or Russia or China.

LandingCheck
25th May 2021, 13:02
Professor O’Briens article is clearly well informed and coherent.
Except one thing.
A nation of 5.5 million people wont be able to support any military capability of any significance.
Simples.

Certainly not a fundamentally poor one focused on maintaining a significant social safety net.

Asturias56
25th May 2021, 13:22
"A fact of life NOT shared by say, the neighbors of Belarus or Russia or China."

And that is the point Scotland is NOT a neighbor of any country that is likely to pose any threat.

It's hard to see Russia invading just Scotland for example. And any problems with fishing aren't going to end in a war that requires a large military presence. No, they can just not have any armed forces knowing that the rest of Europe is in the way of any serious possible aggressor. Ireland did that in 39-45. A lot of Irishmen joined up and fought for the British for various reasons and I'm sure there'd still e be a steady flow of Scots in the ununited UK Armed forces but the Scottish Govt know they don't have to bother...

OJ 72
25th May 2021, 14:11
And just look how the Irish Government treated the brave men and women from the RoI who fought for Britain and the Allies in WWII. A fine example for Scotland…

Pardon for Irish WWII ‘Deserters’ (sic) (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22425684)

Finningley Boy
25th May 2021, 14:31
An SNP Glasgow Councillor called Rhiannon Spear tweeted "don't worry about Europe, we hate the UK as well" I may have not quoted exactly verbatim but I've certainly got the point across. Miss Spear is typical of the juvenile breed of young hothead left-wing folk that have colonised the SNP and Labour Party. As I've forever maintained, the SNP are a radical leftist party with a deep hatred of England, for which you can read the Tory Party. They have no intention of becoming independent much less taking on responsibility for a realistic state foreign, defence and security structure. They seek simply to do UK interests harm while aiming to present the Scottish people to Brussels as another region of folk to be ruled over by the Commission. In return, they expect, certainly hope that they will be showered with the Block's largess as a poor new member. Should the dream come true, they'll present the economic maintenance as carefully planned economic policy made possible only 'cause they threw off the shackles of Westminster and thae English doon there! If the EU play by the rules and insist that the pre-requisite conditions for entry are met, the SNP WI'll blame years of English/Tory misrule.

FB (A Scotsman)

Asturias56
25th May 2021, 16:13
FB - the SNP have always been well left of the Labour Party for most of the last 50 years - especially on defence

Most of them really don't give two hoots for the rest of the UK - they just want an independent Scotland at any price.

Herod
25th May 2021, 21:00
they just want an independent Scotland at any price.

Tell them the REAL price, and they might change their minds. Having said that, there will also be a price paid by the rest of the UK, so they might want it anyway.

Asturias56
26th May 2021, 07:40
I'm afraid that nothing said on here or by the Govt in London has any effect Herod.

Tinribs hit a nail on the head above "The arguments almost always descend to a confrontation between the emotional desire of Scots to see their country independent and the economic costs of that need. The two can never be balanced because one is a number and the other a thought, the size of each are not measurable. In quandaries such as this it is the democratic custom to seek the will of the population and according to the outcome direction and size decide. We will not even approach a solution to this problem until both countries agree on a logical system of decision making, which we will never do. We are doomed to many years of pointless argument".

Defence just isn't important to the average voter these days

OJ 72
26th May 2021, 08:36
Asturias56…I’m not so certain that your assertion that ‘nothing said on here or by the Govt in London has any effect’is strictly correct!!

During the lead up to the plebiscite on the Belfast Agreement in May 1998, the British Government became increasingly worried of the negative reaction to the Agreement in the so-called PUL areas of Northern Ireland. PUL is the ‘catch all’ for the ‘Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist’ community as opposed to the CRN community (Catholic, Republican, Nationalist). In my opinion a naive way to describe a complex situation (not all Protestants are necessarily Unionist and not all Catholics are Nationalist) but terms that have entered the lingua franca of political scientists and sociologists.

The British Government was very concerned that if the PUL community voted ‘No’ in the referendum, then the premise that Westminster (and Dublin) were implementing the agreement with cross-community support would be lost. Consequently, the ‘mandarins’ of the Northern Ireland Office divided those potentially recalcitrant members of the PUL community into two camps; the so-called ‘Hard Noes’ and the ‘Soft Noes’.

The ‘Hard Noes’ were those individuals who, come hell or high water, would vote against the implementation of the Agreement, and no argument, be it emotional, logical, financial, whatever, would change their minds. However, the ‘Soft Noes’ were those who prima facie were against the tenets of the Agreement, but could, for the greater good, be persuaded to vote for implementation! So it was these individuals who were ‘targeted’…not the most appropriate word in the Northern Ireland context, but I think you get my drift.

Consequently, the Government pulled out all the stops with a massive ‘hearts and minds’ advertising and information campaign to move the ‘Soft Noes’ into the ‘Soft Yes’ camp. They may still have reservations about the tenets of the agreement, but, held their nose and voted ‘Yes’. And as history shows, the Belfast Agreement was accepted in NI by 71% ‘Yes’ to 29% ‘No’. Even so, still a lot closer that the British and Irish Governments envisaged.

So what??? I feel that there is a similar scenario at play in Scotland. You have a grouping of ‘Hard No’ Scottish nationalists who could never, ever, be persuaded that remaining in the UK is beneficial for all parties. Then you have the ‘Hard Yeses’ who will always vote for the retention of the Union irrespective. However, I believe that the majority of Scots can be described as either ‘Soft Noes’ or their equivalent on the pro-Union side, the ‘Soft Yeses’. These are the people, who could be persuaded by dint of economic, security, and yes, even emotional arguments to vote to remain in the Union. It is these individuals that the pro-Union cause should be courting. Not with Private Fraser-like cries of ‘If you vote for independence y’er all doomed, I say, doomed’. But with calm, logically thought out counter arguments to the SNP’s ‘Greta Thunberg’ view of nationhood in the 21st Century viz ‘Don’t worry, if we all wish hard enough it will all turn out for the best and let’s not concern ourselves the actualities or realpolitik’.

Asturias56
26th May 2021, 18:12
That's a very valid point OJ - thankyou.

My Edinburgh friends reckon a problem is the collapse of the Labour Party in Scotland - it became totally decrepit and collapsed more or less of it's own accord - there's nowhere for anyone left of centre to go but the SNP these days - and there are a lot of left wing voters there - labour used to return +50 MP's.

LandingCheck
26th May 2021, 18:40
That's a very valid point OJ - thankyou.

My Edinburgh friends reckon a problem is the collapse of the Labour Party in Scotland - it became totally decrepit and collapsed more or less of it's own accord - there's nowhere for anyone left of centre to go but the SNP these days - and there are a lot of left wing voters there - labour used to return +50 MP's.

In intelligence-speak, that's what is known as "an indication."

LandingCheck
26th May 2021, 18:42
Asturias56…I’m not so certain that your assertion that ‘nothing said on here or by the Govt in London has any effect’is strictly correct!!

During the lead up to the plebiscite on the Belfast Agreement in May 1998, the British Government became increasingly worried of the negative reaction to the Agreement in the so-called PUL areas of Northern Ireland. PUL is the ‘catch all’ for the ‘Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist’ community as opposed to the CRN community (Catholic, Republican, Nationalist). In my opinion a naive way to describe a complex situation (not all Protestants are necessarily Unionist and not all Catholics are Nationalist) but terms that have entered the lingua franca of political scientists and sociologists.

The British Government was very concerned that if the PUL community voted ‘No’ in the referendum, then the premise that Westminster (and Dublin) were implementing the agreement with cross-community support would be lost. Consequently, the ‘mandarins’ of the Northern Ireland Office divided those potentially recalcitrant members of the PUL community into two camps; the so-called ‘Hard Noes’ and the ‘Soft Noes’.

The ‘Hard Noes’ were those individuals who, come hell or high water, would vote against the implementation of the Agreement, and no argument, be it emotional, logical, financial, whatever, would change their minds. However, the ‘Soft Noes’ were those who prima facie were against the tenets of the Agreement, but could, for the greater good, be persuaded to vote for implementation! So it was these individuals who were ‘targeted’…not the most appropriate word in the Northern Ireland context, but I think you get my drift.

Consequently, the Government pulled out all the stops with a massive ‘hearts and minds’ advertising and information campaign to move the ‘Soft Noes’ into the ‘Soft Yes’ camp. They may still have reservations about the tenets of the agreement, but, held their nose and voted ‘Yes’. And as history shows, the Belfast Agreement was accepted in NI by 71% ‘Yes’ to 29% ‘No’. Even so, still a lot closer that the British and Irish Governments envisaged.

So what??? I feel that there is a similar scenario at play in Scotland. You have a grouping of ‘Hard No’ Scottish nationalists who could never, ever, be persuaded that remaining in the UK is beneficial for all parties. Then you have the ‘Hard Yeses’ who will always vote for the retention of the Union irrespective. However, I believe that the majority of Scots can be described as either ‘Soft Noes’ or their equivalent on the pro-Union side, the ‘Soft Yeses’. These are the people, who could be persuaded by dint of economic, security, and yes, even emotional arguments to vote to remain in the Union. It is these individuals that the pro-Union cause should be courting. Not with Private Fraser-like cries of ‘If you vote for independence y’er all doomed, I say, doomed’. But with calm, logically thought out counter arguments to the SNP’s ‘Greta Thunberg’ view of nationhood in the 21st Century viz ‘Don’t worry, if we all wish hard enough it will all turn out for the best and let’s not concern ourselves the actualities or realpolitik’.

Very thoughtful and insightful, thanks!

Fareastdriver
26th May 2021, 19:00
and there are a lot of left wing voters there - labour used to return +50 MP's.

There was a saying in the last century that if you pinned a red rosette on a donkey in Glasgow they would vote for it.

ShotOne
31st May 2021, 14:42
Don’t expect an answer to the OP’s question from the SNP anytime: they can’t even tell us (and inexplicably get a free pass from the media) what currency an “independent” Scotland would use.

Tartiflette Fan
31st May 2021, 15:56
In return, they expect, certainly hope that they will be showered with the Block's largess as a poor new member.

FB (A Scotsman)

Would never work. Too much opposition from Poland and all the other "poor" members who would not wanted the Brussels' largesse to be spread more thinly.