Scottish Independence vs Military assets
If Scotland invested similarly, they could give any invader pause for thought.
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.
‘…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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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...
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...
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)
Pardon for Irish WWII ‘Deserters’ (sic)
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)
FB (A Scotsman)
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.
Most of them really don't give two hoots for the rest of the UK - they just want an independent Scotland at any price.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
they just want an independent Scotland at any price.
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
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
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’.
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’.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oakland, Bay Area, Sac Town
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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’.
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’.
and there are a lot of left wing voters there - labour used to return +50 MP's.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.