Implications of Scottish Independence
- Thread starter Ricey
- Start date
Lacking detail would be the over-arching complaint of anything SNP related.Kampgruppe1970
New Member
say it is a yes vote .... the Snp are not guaranteed to win the 2015 election ... I disagree with the Snp on a lot of things including reducing the current military spend of Scottish taxpayers contributions towards the UK military budget from around £3.3-6 billion to £2.5 Billion the extra money would be needed to help restructure the armed forces ... what is going to happen is we will get more hardware in some areas we don't need and not enough hardware that we do need ... that will be fact .... and I would be surprised if a independent Scotland joins nato..... nato membership is a fairly recent development for the Snp
every army needs big hitters ... SDF will need heavy mechanised equipment ... the AS90 ... yeah it is a excellent SPG ... my preferred choice would be the G6 Rhino but the AS90 would be a good bit of kit to have ... I don't think the Challenger 2 would be suitable for Scotland (just my opinion) unless it operated on the mainland only due to the logistics involved in transporting a 60 + ton tank as we have a lot of islands ... if we are to retain the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards then we need tanks I would go for a lighter tank like the T-90SM/BMT72(Terminator2) or the Italian B1 Centauro so that incase of a unknown force decides to invade say the Outer Hebrides then it would be easier to transport a lighter Tank than a Challenger 2 ... the whole point of the SDF will be to defend Scotland and you can't defend a country with just APC's in my opinion ... not every country is Iraq or Afghanistan ... maybe my opinion of the SA80 is due to the bad publicity it receives .... but I would be looking to replace it within a 10 year span
either way if it is a yes vote then our military planners must make serious changes to the organisation of Scotland's future armed forces to get the balance right ... I know we aren't going to be a major player in the world
Opposition to nuclear weapons means no entry to NATO, so you won't be surprised
An independent Scotland would have to 'support nuclear weapons' to gain access to Nato - Telegraph
No they don't, you don't have to have any particular piece of equipment if it doesn't fit the planned CONOPS which in an independent Scotlands case would be peacekeeping duties. Why bother with heavy armour if you're not going to be involved in places which require that level of protection? Pointless money drain on a slim budget
Expand it to Scotland not needing Challenger 2 at all due to the same reasoning as before, why bother with it if you're not going anywhere with the threats anywhere close to needing that level of protection?
Plus, what's the point of operating them ONLY on the mainland? To stop the rest of the UK invading? Again, pointless money drain.
So purchase and support entirely new (and small) numbers of MBTs which Scotland doesn't actually need?
Who is this "unknown force"? They're not that unknown if they're going to need MBTs to hurl them back into the sea are they. It's not as though you can really do a sneak attack on Scotland either
Please give a justification as to why Scotland needs tanks at all, because if the hypothetical Scottish state does develop, the SNP has made it clear they only want to be involved in peacekeeping roles, stuff like that. You don't need heavy armour to do that, not even close.
Then in your opinion they should be restricted to the mainland, why? What is the point of having a few heavy main battle tanks if you're not going to take them places? Who is invading Scotland?
Cr2 would be awesome for those lightning border raids over to England however!
Nothing like trundling through the streets of Durham or York in a Chally..
Being serious again, the SNP haven't laid out any plans for sea or air lift for much more than a reinforced company or two of light infantry so why encumber themselves with heavy kit which simply can't be deployed overseas and which will see no domestic use? Better to pick up some of the UOR mine protected vehicles used in Afghanistan, see if you can snag some Vikings which will also make excellent disaster relief vehicles either at home or overseas and which can all be easily lifted by Herc?
You're very welcome to as many Cr2 as you can carry as I believe we're running 200 out of a working fleet of twice that, so the odd fifty can be easily spared - but it'd be pointless.
:edit: Sorry, just saw the "unknown force invading the outer Hebrides" and was glad I wasn't drinking at the time or I'd have spat all over the monitor.
Let's keep things within the bounds of reality here - if you did have to turf off any invaders, those Vikings I suggested buying earlier would be way easier to get on task and use than Cr2.
Nothing like trundling through the streets of Durham or York in a Chally..
Being serious again, the SNP haven't laid out any plans for sea or air lift for much more than a reinforced company or two of light infantry so why encumber themselves with heavy kit which simply can't be deployed overseas and which will see no domestic use? Better to pick up some of the UOR mine protected vehicles used in Afghanistan, see if you can snag some Vikings which will also make excellent disaster relief vehicles either at home or overseas and which can all be easily lifted by Herc?
You're very welcome to as many Cr2 as you can carry as I believe we're running 200 out of a working fleet of twice that, so the odd fifty can be easily spared - but it'd be pointless.
:edit: Sorry, just saw the "unknown force invading the outer Hebrides" and was glad I wasn't drinking at the time or I'd have spat all over the monitor.
Let's keep things within the bounds of reality here - if you did have to turf off any invaders, those Vikings I suggested buying earlier would be way easier to get on task and use than Cr2.
It's a bit silly, worst comes to the worst you want something to chase away the Russians from your air space and something to keep Russian submarines away from your naval bases.
Can effectively chalk down the likelihood of an amphibious landing on Scotland to zero.
Can effectively chalk down the likelihood of an amphibious landing on Scotland to zero.
Looking at from another angle, how will Scottish independence affect the rest of the UK? For instance, is Scotland a net economic boon or drain on the economy as a whole? Will the UK be better or worse off in the overall scheme of things?
I don't know the answers but am putting the questions out there.
I don't know the answers but am putting the questions out there.
Scotland has around 8.4% of the UK's population and provides 8.3% of the UK's economic output, they receive 9.2% of UK public spending and approximately 10% higher spending per capita than the rest of the UK.
My biggest issue is with Salmonds ham fisted approach, who seems much more concerned about throwing out ideas to make him seem popular than actually being a sensible statesman.
A list of pretty big national policies he has told the public are things which will be easy to do, and ALL of those organisations have stated that nothing is certain, that it's not Scotlands decision if those things happen or not.
Business leaders have repeatedly stated their objection to Scotland becoming an independent nation (or at least stated they believe that they will be worse off), looking at the stats had RBS tanked in an independent Scotland then bailing them out would be 211% of the Scottish GDP (and guess who Salmond wants to behave as Scotlands money tree if things don't go well? The rest of the UK).
I wouldn't be so irritated with it if it wasn't such a half assed plan based on a "Yeah, stick it to the man" mentality and expecting such one way traffic.
My biggest issue is with Salmonds ham fisted approach, who seems much more concerned about throwing out ideas to make him seem popular than actually being a sensible statesman.
- We'll join NATO - NATO says it doesn't work like that
- We'll join the EU - The EU says it doesn't work like that
- We'll keep the pound - The Bank of England says it doesn't work like that
A list of pretty big national policies he has told the public are things which will be easy to do, and ALL of those organisations have stated that nothing is certain, that it's not Scotlands decision if those things happen or not.
Business leaders have repeatedly stated their objection to Scotland becoming an independent nation (or at least stated they believe that they will be worse off), looking at the stats had RBS tanked in an independent Scotland then bailing them out would be 211% of the Scottish GDP (and guess who Salmond wants to behave as Scotlands money tree if things don't go well? The rest of the UK).
I wouldn't be so irritated with it if it wasn't such a half assed plan based on a "Yeah, stick it to the man" mentality and expecting such one way traffic.
Sadly, yes - it's not an issue that we can't spare or don't want to let go of Cr2 or AS90 - we have plenty of spares sitting ready that we've dropped out of active service - there might have to be a flurry of upgrades to get the stand by Cr2's up to the standard that the actives are (Cr2 is probably one of the most current pools of tanks in the world as it's a small fleet which has been repeatedly reworked to evolving standards but the ones standing around may be a few levels back)
What doesn't work is Scotland fitting any of this heavy, expensive and difficult to transport stuff into their TO&E. Scotlands stated ambition to have a force of 15K including air force, Navy and army doesn't leave a lot of room for heavier kit.
If they make some sensible decisions, they can do internal security, QRA and protect their EEZ with the right kit - and it'll have to be a blend of stuff inherited from the rUk's stocks and some new buy kit.
If I were dragging out fantasy-achievable, let's buy in M777 - light, air portable, precision guided stuff, really good bit of artillery and a battery or two of those would be useful for peace keeping stuff where the odd bit of organic firepower would be needed.
Heavy armour and SPG's doesn't fit unless you want to go buy in some Absalom or other heavy sea lift capable but multi purpose vessels - or rely on commercial transport or allied sea lift.
Unless you're really determined to be firmly in charge of the crowd during the next Rangers vs Celtic match, in which case, yeah, a time on target air burst overhead will keep 'em in line.
We'll be a 1tn economy instead of a 1.5tn economy and the question as to if Scotland is a net contributor or drain is a hard one to answer as there's a whole bunch of questions about where to draw the EEZ, what liabilities are extant (the rest of UK is saying Scotland would have to contribute to the cleanup cost of Faslane for instance, under the basis that the facilities were instated using UK tax money as a joint venture,the SNP are arguing that the perfidious English inflicted it all on them and no they won't etc..)
That's a TBA question, truth be told.
We'll be the 8th or 9th biggest economy instead of 5th or 6th. Independence may kill Trident however - that's a total ball-ache as the cost of moving the facilities (the SSBN's and the armoury/munitions jetty) will be troublesome.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The UK is saying no pound for Scotland and the EU doesn't see Scotland's entry as workable so the SNP will have to put a ton spin on to get around this.
It depends if Scottish voters are as stupid as Australian voters, our politicians tell straight faced lies every election that any reasonably intelligent person can pick but when the election is over and promises broken many people are still stunned and surprised who ever wins.
It's beyond ridiculous, Salmond has said if they don't get the pound then they will refuse to take their share of national debt as well as putting a tax on goods crossing the border. No doubt if that happens they will still put out their hand and ask for their share of assets, because that's the sort of backwards logic that Salmond uses.
It's hilarious, that's 3 of his major policies which he has claimed will be easy (£, EU & NATO) but the key people in those institutions say it's by no means quick or easy or even possible in some cases.
Then particularly about defence, i've read more detail on some fantasy fleet posts online than in their statement. At least with fantasy fleet sheets sometimes they try justify the costs.
It's hilarious, that's 3 of his major policies which he has claimed will be easy (£, EU & NATO) but the key people in those institutions say it's by no means quick or easy or even possible in some cases.
Then particularly about defence, i've read more detail on some fantasy fleet posts online than in their statement. At least with fantasy fleet sheets sometimes they try justify the costs.
Frankly, Australian voters seem smarter than US voters, and I is one! :rolling
How can you tell if a politician is lying? Because his lips are moving.
And we vote them back into office again, and again, and again. Seems they have to die to get out, but even that hasn't been enough on at least 2 occasions. Alzheimer’s certainly doesn’t disqualify them. Or being Grand Vizier in the KKK.
There was an interview here a few years ago with someone who specialises in ''body language''. According to him, when watching politicians speak on telly, there are very obvious ''body language'' signs that clearly indicate politicians are often lying.
I think that's "not workable with a government which keeps saying it'll be exempt from rules which apply to everyone else & won't have to go through the normal process of joining".
I don't think anyone believes there#d be any difficulty in Scotland joining if it was willing to agree to the normal rules. The problem is the SNP & its leader.
Much the same for NATO, the pound, & UK military procurement. The SNP attitude is that there's no problem everybody is bluffing & they'll eventually all cave in to Scottish demands. The 5 million tail will wag the 57, 500, & 900 million dogs.
The argument over retaining the pound is a very disingenuous one in that they're claiming it as "something bought with common effort and investment" - whereas in fact, Westminster has simply said a firm "no" to remaining in an economic union with Scotland - they can trade using the pound if they wish (and there's no legal basis for us to stop them, in the same sense that some countries use the US dollar as their currency)
It's very odd.
I'm sure an independent Scotland could join the EU - where the sticking point is, is that the SNP are saying "but we're already *in* the EU and we're not leaving" in effect - such that they'd simply move from the UK to independence and carry on in the same standing in the EU. I believe most other opinions are centred around the concept that as a newly independent country, they'd have to go through the same entry process that everyone else did (and the UK was vetoed by France on at least one occasion I seem to recall) That'd take time and I guess that'd be unpopular with the voters.
It's an astonishing display of very odd behaviour.