Scottish Independence vs Military assets

[teeteringhead]

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]

Originally Posted by rattman

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

[DaveJ75]

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil

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]

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]

Originally Posted by alwayslookingup

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]

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]

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 it

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?

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?

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?

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?

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 Policy

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

From another Ulsterman

I've put my replies in between the quoted text for ease of reference.

Originally Posted by OJ 72

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]

I agree with ekw. Outside the Union Scotland would be something very like Eire. No more - no less.

[Asturias56]

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]

They couldn't get their chariots into reverse gear any further north.

[brakedwell]

Originally Posted by Fareastdriver

They couldn't get their chariots into reverse gear any further north.

I think it was square wheels that caused the problem!

[Fareastdriver]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Ninthace

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]

Originally Posted by Ninthace

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.