Scottish Independence vs Military assets

[SimonK]

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]

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Richard Dangle

From the original post...



How'd that work out for you?

Less well than I had hoped🙄

[SaulGoodman]

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

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]

Originally Posted by SimonK

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]

. 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]

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]

Originally Posted by Spartacan

It's worth reading the 2013 blueprint that the SNP produced for the Independence referendum:

SCOTLAND’S FUTURE. Your guide to an independent Scotland

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]

Originally Posted by pba_target

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]

Originally Posted by Spartacan

It's worth reading the 2013 blueprint that the SNP produced for the Independence referendum:

SCOTLAND’S FUTURE. Your guide to an independent Scotland

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

There is always the other option, allow them independence and then invade, it's worked in the past

[Asturias56]

Originally Posted by Ken Scott

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 and other small craft. 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]

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]

Originally Posted by Tinribs

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]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"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.