Scottish Independence vs Military assets
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?
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?
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!!!
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!!!
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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..............
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..............
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!!
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!!
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.
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I Wish I Knew
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!!
Rightly or wrongly England is the only one of the four constituent Nations of the UK that doesn’t have its own devolved administration!!
Alternatively, they could start from scratch, buy their own jets, tanks and boats and then be free to set their own policies.
I'm sure the Chinese would offer them a GREAT deal.................
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
FB
