Armed forces of an independent Scotland [Archive]

Robert Peffers

July 8th 04, 11:29 PM

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:07:21 +0100, (phil hunt)
> wrote:
>
> >There's recently been speculation in the media that UK defence cuts
> >ewill result in some or all of Scotland's infantry regiments being
> >disbanded[1]. If Scotland became an independent state, what
> >sort of armed forces should it have -- if you were appointed
> >Scottish minister of defence, what would you do?
>
> 4-6 fisheries protection vessels, alsae guid for keeping the damn
> English away fra the wee oil platferms.
>
> one of them Brewery ships sounds like a guid idee an all, fer keeping
> the troops mora...morae.....spirits oop.
> Now, are we goona join that Nato thingie or not?
>
> If we are, then a coople of battalians of infantree shood werk well
> fer yon peeckeepin roll, and we can gaw down and smack the damn
> Sassenachs occasionaly an all.
>
> A few MPAs (again 4-6) for long range patrol, plus C2 of any SAR work,
> plus a dozen Merlins for both land and naval work (SAR, troop
> transposrt, resupply).
>
> If Bonnie auld Scotland did ever split, I see them (if you haven't
> guessed I'm not a native Scottish speaker) more as an Ireland (minimal
> forces except for peacekeping and EEZ patrol), than a Sweden
> (extremely large and competant forces for the size of economy and
> population).
>
> Peter "Hoots Mon, where's me kilt?" Kemp
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Oirish! ye soondit mair lik aa Sootheron til me. Aiblins yo maun bi an
Inglis Oirisher? DARFC
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

[email protected]

July 9th 04, 12:06 AM

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:07:21 +0100, I read these words from
(phil hunt) :

>There's recently been speculation in the media that UK defence cuts
>ewill result in some or all of Scotland's infantry regiments being
>disbanded[1]. If Scotland became an independent state, what
>sort of armed forces should it have -- if you were appointed
>Scottish minister of defence, what would you do?

See previous thread re : Ditch full of piranhas !

Scottish Piranha (Queen's Regiment)
abbreviated to "SPQR"
(Senatus Populusque Romanus",
ie "The Senate and People of Rome.")
tenuous link to "Pontius Pilate's Bodyguard"
(the Royal Scots,
oldest Infantry Regiment of the Line in the British Army)

Continuity maintained !

-- The Despicable Stewart
-- Perfidious Alban
-- http://www.ian-stewart.dsl.pipex.com/

[email protected]

July 9th 04, 12:07 AM

Ian Morrison

July 9th 04, 12:15 AM

"josiah-jenkins" > wrote in message

> Scottish Piranha (Queen's Regiment)
> abbreviated to "SPQR"
> (Senatus Populusque Romanus",
> ie "The Senate and People of Rome.")
> tenuous

Extremely tenuous!

> link to "Pontius Pilate's Bodyguard"
> (the Royal Scots,
> oldest Infantry Regiment of the Line in the British Army)

Are they not a tank regiment now? An ex-neighbour of mine was sent to
Ir*q as part of the recent illegal invasion force and he was in a tank
(his mother reportedly said "can you imagine what it smells like in a
tank full of 18 year old boys?"). I'm pretty sure it is the Royal Scots
that he is in.

------
Ian O.

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

BfB

July 9th 04, 12:28 AM

"Robert Peffers" > wrote in message
...
>
> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> rg...
> > There's recently been speculation in the media that UK defence cuts
> > ewill result in some or all of Scotland's infantry regiments being
> > disbanded[1]. If Scotland became an independent state, what
> > sort of armed forces should it have -- if you were appointed
> > Scottish minister of defence, what would you do?
> >
> >
> > [1] see for example:
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3310763.stm>,
> >
>
<http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsi
> d=4282>
> >
> >
> > --
> > "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> > people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> > (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
> >
> >
> Frae Auld bob Peffers:
> Well Denmark does very well as they are. Anyway Scotland would be entitled
> to her share of the UK armed forces, (or if not we could hang on to ALL
the
> nukes as hostages). If they don't give us our proper share the Indians,
> Pakistanis, Israelis or even the Palestinians may pay well for them. Even
> the Koreas have nuclear ambitions.
>
Explain this bit, please.

'But senior civil servants say the current level of poor Army recruiting and
retention cannot go on. Already, Scottish regiments rely on hundreds of
Fijian soldiers to bolster the ranks, at a time when commitments to Iraq and
Afghanistan are mounting.'

Thomas Schoene

July 9th 04, 12:50 AM

Ian Morrison wrote:
> "josiah-jenkins" > wrote in message
>

>> (the Royal Scots,
>> oldest Infantry Regiment of the Line in the British Army)
>
> Are they not a tank regiment now?

Still light-role infantry according to the British Army. They have been to
Iraq, but don't seem to have gone in during the invasion, ariving in
December of 2003.

An ex-neighbour of mine was sent to
> Ir*q as part of the recent illegal invasion force and he was in a tank
> (his mother reportedly said "can you imagine what it smells like in a
> tank full of 18 year old boys?"). I'm pretty sure it is the Royal
> Scots that he is in.

Perhaps he is actually in the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, who are a tank
unit and were in the actual invasion force.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[email protected]

July 9th 04, 12:52 AM

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:15:50 +0000 (UTC), I read these words from "Ian
Morrison" > :

>"josiah-jenkins" > wrote in message

>
>> Scottish Piranha (Queen's Regiment)
>> abbreviated to "SPQR"
>> (Senatus Populusque Romanus",
>> ie "The Senate and People of Rome.")
>> tenuous
>
>Extremely tenuous!
>
>> link to "Pontius Pilate's Bodyguard"

Not at all !

Old Ponty was a Roman geezer, wasn't he ?

I know he was born in Embra New Town or somewhere like that,
OK it might have been Wester Hailes, but his Old Man was one
of those "fasces" fellows from Rome.

Q. How come the city was never known as Reme ?
Did they toss a denarii to decide whose name went on the maps ?
>
>> (the Royal Scots,
>> oldest Infantry Regiment of the Line in the British Army)
>
>Are they not a tank regiment now? An ex-neighbour of mine was sent to
>Ir*q as part of the recent illegal invasion force and he was in a tank
>(his mother reportedly said "can you imagine what it smells like in a
>tank full of 18 year old boys?"). I'm pretty sure it is the Royal Scots
>that he is in.

How the heck would I know ?

I just went raking on Google to find something to post (FGS) !

A W-S gets away with it all the time !!

Away and re-calculate your impending parachute and geezpeace !

-- The Despicable Stewart
-- Perfidious Alban
-- http://www.ian-stewart.dsl.pipex.com/

Madra Dubh

July 9th 04, 01:04 AM

"Ian Morrison" > wrote in message
news:34e07cb7f29311f1e07f330690f839b0.3570@mygate. mailgate.org...
> "josiah-jenkins" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Scottish Piranha (Queen's Regiment)
> > abbreviated to "SPQR"
> > (Senatus Populusque Romanus",
> > ie "The Senate and People of Rome.")
> > tenuous
>
> Extremely tenuous!
>
> > link to "Pontius Pilate's Bodyguard"
> > (the Royal Scots,
> > oldest Infantry Regiment of the Line in the British Army)
>
> Are they not a tank regiment now? An ex-neighbour of mine was sent to
> Ir*q as part of the recent illegal invasion force and he was in a tank
> (his mother reportedly said "can you imagine what it smells like in a
> tank full of 18 year old boys?"). I'm pretty sure it is the Royal Scots
> that he is in.

The smell was the clue?

Robert Peffers

July 9th 04, 02:01 AM

"BfB" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Robert Peffers" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > rg...
> > > There's recently been speculation in the media that UK defence cuts
> > > ewill result in some or all of Scotland's infantry regiments being
> > > disbanded[1]. If Scotland became an independent state, what
> > > sort of armed forces should it have -- if you were appointed
> > > Scottish minister of defence, what would you do?
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] see for example:
> > > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3310763.stm>,
> > >
> >
>
<http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsi
> > d=4282>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> > > people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> > > (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
> > >
> > >
> > Frae Auld bob Peffers:
> > Well Denmark does very well as they are. Anyway Scotland would be
entitled
> > to her share of the UK armed forces, (or if not we could hang on to ALL
> the
> > nukes as hostages). If they don't give us our proper share the Indians,
> > Pakistanis, Israelis or even the Palestinians may pay well for them.
Even
> > the Koreas have nuclear ambitions.
> >
It seems fairly clear to me. Her Majesty will still remain Queen of Scots
and thus Her Majesty's Forces will also be partly Scotland's. Union of the
Crowns joined the Countries under one monarch, It took another 04 years
before the Act of Union joined the Parliaments but each country remained a
country. That is a precident for a monarch to be monarch of two independent
countries. Is that clear enough? So, that being the case, and the fact that
Scottish taxpayers paid for a share of all the United Kingdom Of Great
Britain and Nothern Ireland's forces we are well entitled to our fair share
of everything. Is that clear enough?.

Now, if the rest of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland were to refuse to give
Scotland her fair share of the armed forces, we would just have to hang on
to what was already in Scotland and that would include almost the entire
nuclear armaments of the former union. That must be clear enough? Scotland
has shown in countless surveys she has no more wish to have nuclear arm in
Scotland than the English wish them in England, why else did they choose to
send most of them to Scotland and about as far away from London as they
could get. Ergo, Scotland does not want them. We would thus be well within
our rights to sell them to the highest bidder to get enough money to provide
a conventional force for Scotland's defence. After all, in that situation,
Scotland would have thus been cheated by the remaining part of the UK. Why
then would we be wish to be loyal to them? That is not complicated.

If trust and loyalty are to be retained then it will be because we deal
with each other as friends with many common interests. High among those
common interests are the defence of all the countries in Great Britain. If
one side cheats the other then that kind of relationship dies and devil take
the hindmost. Just why do so many folk think everything belongs to England?
We joind together by a treaty. Scotland is a legal partner and not a
defeated and conquered enemy. We have legal rights to our share of joint
assets.
>
> 'But senior civil servants say the current level of poor Army recruiting
and
> retention cannot go on. Already, Scottish regiments rely on hundreds of
> Fijian soldiers to bolster the ranks, at a time when commitments to Iraq
and
> Afghanistan are mounting.'
>
>
>
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

Peter Kemp

July 9th 04, 03:15 AM

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:29:57 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
> wrote:

>Oirish! ye soondit mair lik aa Sootheron til me. Aiblins yo maun bi an
>Inglis Oirisher? DARFC

Just a pur wee English lad here (though my Mam is Danish). Nothing but
respect for the lads north of the Border though (and not just becasue
my Boss is one of them).

Peter Kemp

Robert Peffers

July 9th 04, 10:46 AM

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:29:57 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
> > wrote:
>
> >Oirish! ye soondit mair lik aa Sootheron til me. Aiblins yo maun bi an
> >Inglis Oirisher? DARFC
>
> Just a pur wee English lad here (though my Mam is Danish). Nothing but
> respect for the lads north of the Border though (and not just becasue
> my Boss is one of them).
>
> Peter Kemp
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
The first thing to learn about scs is that our favourite sport is
leg-pulling. We never knowingly miss a chance. You are welcome here and we
don't really care where you come from. It can be quite funny for a while
when new posters turn up to troll Scots, for many of the regulars here are
from all over the World. More of them in fact than native Scots. Sometimes
it is a bit strange for humour in different countries can fly over the heads
of others. So, in Scots, "Cam oan awa ben the hoose an bide a wee", (Come on
it and stay a while).
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

Adam Whyte-Settlar

July 9th 04, 02:14 PM

BUFF

July 9th 04, 02:54 PM

"Ian Morrison" > wrote in message
news:34e07cb7f29311f1e07f330690f839b0.3570@mygate. mailgate.org...

> Are they not a tank regiment now? An ex-neighbour of mine was sent to
> Ir*q as part of the recent illegal invasion force and he was in a tank
> (his mother reportedly said "can you imagine what it smells like in a
> tank full of 18 year old boys?"). I'm pretty sure it is the Royal Scots
> that he is in.
>

probably as mechanised infantry in Warriors APCs - tracked but not a tank.

Paul J. Adam

July 9th 04, 08:43 PM

In message >, BUFF
> writes
>"Ian Morrison" > wrote in message
>news:34e07cb7f29311f1e07f330690f839b0.3570@mygate. mailgate.org...
>> Are they not a tank regiment now? An ex-neighbour of mine was sent to
>> Ir*q as part of the recent illegal invasion force and he was in a tank
>> (his mother reportedly said "can you imagine what it smells like in a
>> tank full of 18 year old boys?").

>probably as mechanised infantry in Warriors APCs - tracked but not a tank.

It's tracked, it's got a turret, it's a tank to any roving reporter.
(Just because the Army call it an 'infantry fighting vehicle' - what do
a bunch of illiterate squaddies know that a highly-trained reporter
doesn't?)

Just like any rowboat with a GPMG is a "battleship" and a Piper Cub or
Cessna becomes an "advanced attack aircraft" when the meedja get
frothing.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

July 9th 04, 08:50 PM

In message >, Robert Peffers
> writes
>Frae Auld bob Peffers:
>Well Denmark does very well as they are. Anyway Scotland would be entitled
>to her share of the UK armed forces,

Sure, but it means you get to pay for them (and most of the support and
TacDev is way down south, meaning you need to pay again to duplicate it
if it's a hostile split). Balkanisation isn't usually a good idea (I
mean, _look_ at the Balkans - would _you_ want to live there?)

>(or if not we could hang on to ALL the
>nukes as hostages). If they don't give us our proper share the Indians,
>Pakistanis, Israelis or even the Palestinians may pay well for them. Even
>the Koreas have nuclear ambitions.

Careful there - the US might remember the Auld Alliance and decide that
Scotland is close enough to France to become part of the Axis of Evil.
Trying to auction nuclear warheads might get some unwelcome gatecrashers
(besides, most of the customers are short on manners, and might decide
that it was easier to kill other bidders than match their price, then
the auctioneer gets hit in the crossfire, and where's your profit then?)

>Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
>Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
>Kelty,
>Fife,
>Scotland, (UK).

Fife, is it? My mother's from Aberdeen and my father from Perth, though
I was born just south of the Tyne.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Peter Kemp

July 9th 04, 08:53 PM

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 01:14:55 +1200, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:29:57 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Oirish! ye soondit mair lik aa Sootheron til me. Aiblins yo maun bi an
>> >Inglis Oirisher? DARFC
>>
>> Just a pur wee English lad here (though my Mam is Danish). Nothing but
>> respect for the lads north of the Border though (and not just becasue
>> my Boss is one of them).
>>
>> Peter Kemp
>
>I'm intrigued. What possible other reason could there be?

The sheer mastery of the fast paced but brutal sport of curling, what
else ;-)

No, to be honest, after a few nights on the Isle of Bute one year
sipping pints of heavy as the sun set across the I've never had a bad
word (well, not a serious one) to say for the Scots or thier land.
Great place, great beer.

Peter Kemp

Robert Peffers

July 9th 04, 09:48 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, BUFF
> > writes
> >"Ian Morrison" > wrote in message
> >news:34e07cb7f29311f1e07f330690f839b0.3570@mygate. mailgate.org...
> >> Are they not a tank regiment now? An ex-neighbour of mine was sent to
> >> Ir*q as part of the recent illegal invasion force and he was in a tank
> >> (his mother reportedly said "can you imagine what it smells like in a
> >> tank full of 18 year old boys?").
>
> >probably as mechanised infantry in Warriors APCs - tracked but not a
tank.
>
> It's tracked, it's got a turret, it's a tank to any roving reporter.
> (Just because the Army call it an 'infantry fighting vehicle' - what do
> a bunch of illiterate squaddies know that a highly-trained reporter
> doesn't?)
>
> Just like any rowboat with a GPMG is a "battleship" and a Piper Cub or
> Cessna becomes an "advanced attack aircraft" when the meedja get
> frothing.
>
> --
> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
> Julius Caesar I:2
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Oh! Aye! I've met your type of people all my working life. I worked in
Radio/RADAR/SONAR/RADIC and other military electronic fields from 1952 until
I retired. Now. in certain specialities, I also did work for other branches
of the armed forces and even hospitals and, believe it or not, museums.

However, it was common for certain service personnel to have the same
attitude you show in the above post. You thought you were the experts and
knew better than all those stupid civvies. Well, laddie, here is how it
went. The instructor on the service's courses would go through the course
like this. (They used Fimms Diagrams, you know the kind of thing) , {Is the
switch on or off? If off - do this, If on - do that}. "--- and if that does
not fix it you go to the next step -- -- -- and this goes on till the end of
the Fimms.

We were all in civvies clothes in the class so at this point we civvies
would stick our hands up and ask, "And if that does not work, Sir, What do
we do then"? The answer was always the same, "Oh! Then you call in the
Dockyard". To which all the civvies in the class would cry in chorus, "But,
Sir, we are the Dockyard". Now the main point I make is this is that we were
the experts, not them. Who the hell did they think drew up the Fimms
diagrams?

We had, though, always to then go through the laid down courses to get a
certificate in the particular equipments we were the experts on in order to
work on them after the ships went into full Naval service. That was the
regulation. Some daft P.O, Chiefie or bloody mechanic on the ships who had
called us in because they had reached the end of the Fimms and failed to
diagnose the problem thought they knew better than us.

That is not to say there are not very good POs CPOs and mechs out there for
most were real good 'uns. There were, though, some real duffers and it was
they who always knew better.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail)..

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

Robert Peffers

July 9th 04, 10:03 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Robert Peffers
> > writes
> >Frae Auld bob Peffers:
> >Well Denmark does very well as they are. Anyway Scotland would be
entitled
> >to her share of the UK armed forces,
>
> Sure, but it means you get to pay for them (and most of the support and
> TacDev is way down south, meaning you need to pay again to duplicate it
> if it's a hostile split). Balkanisation isn't usually a good idea (I
> mean, _look_ at the Balkans - would _you_ want to live there?)

What do you meam by all the support is down there? We have the Clyde
Submarine base and Rosyth Dockyard for navy and Lossie RAF and so on. If a
split comes about we are entitled to a FAIR share. If we don't get it we are
entitled to impound everything in Scotland.
Also, what do you mean we would have to pay for it? We have paid our share
of it all along.
Surely you do not think only the English pay for defence?

>
> >(or if not we could hang on to ALL the
> >nukes as hostages). If they don't give us our proper share the Indians,
> >Pakistanis, Israelis or even the Palestinians may pay well for them. Even
> >the Koreas have nuclear ambitions.
>
> Careful there - the US might remember the Auld Alliance and decide that
> Scotland is close enough to France to become part of the Axis of Evil.
> Trying to auction nuclear warheads might get some unwelcome gatecrashers
> (besides, most of the customers are short on manners, and might decide
> that it was easier to kill other bidders than match their price, then
> the auctioneer gets hit in the crossfire, and where's your profit then?)

You have to be kidding - I don't see coward Bushy invading the countries
that actually HAVE nukes. Do you? The situation you mention is that Scotland
did not get her fair share and had impounded all the UK's nukes and the
means to deliver them. Bushy is stupid but not that stupid.
snip
>
> Fife, is it? My mother's from Aberdeen and my father from Perth, though
> I was born just south of the Tyne.
Fife only since 1952 but I was born in the Lothians.
I worked all my working life with the MOD in the defence field.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

Ian Morrison

July 9th 04, 10:29 PM

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message

> Great place, great beer.

Great beer? On Bute? Where?

------
Ian O.

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Dweezil Dwarftosser

July 9th 04, 11:04 PM

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>

> Careful there - the US might remember the Auld Alliance and
> decide that Scotland is close enough to France to become part
> of the Axis of Evil.

Please get it right: France is part of the Axis of Weasels.
;-)

Robert Peffers

July 9th 04, 11:55 PM

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> >
>
> > Careful there - the US might remember the Auld Alliance and
> > decide that Scotland is close enough to France to become part
> > of the Axis of Evil.
>
> Please get it right: France is part of the Axis of Weasels.
> ;-)
As pointed out to you the USA will not invade a country that actually has
WMD. There are quite a few around that the USA does not care for but,
"AFTER", they get nuclear capability the USA becomes very quiet on the
subject.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

Lachie

July 10th 04, 01:51 AM

Robert Peffers > sgrìobh,
>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> In message >, BUFF
>> > writes
>> >"Ian Morrison" > wrote in message
>> >news:34e07cb7f29311f1e07f330690f839b0.3570@mygate. mailgate.org...
>> >> Are they not a tank regiment now? An ex-neighbour of mine was sent to
>> >> Ir*q as part of the recent illegal invasion force and he was in a tank
>> >> (his mother reportedly said "can you imagine what it smells like in a
>> >> tank full of 18 year old boys?").
>>
>> >probably as mechanised infantry in Warriors APCs - tracked but not a
>tank.
>>
>> It's tracked, it's got a turret, it's a tank to any roving reporter.
>> (Just because the Army call it an 'infantry fighting vehicle' - what do
>> a bunch of illiterate squaddies know that a highly-trained reporter
>> doesn't?)
>>
>> Just like any rowboat with a GPMG is a "battleship" and a Piper Cub or
>> Cessna becomes an "advanced attack aircraft" when the meedja get
>> frothing.
>>
>> --
>> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
>> Julius Caesar I:2
>>
>> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
>Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
>Oh! Aye! I've met your type of people all my working life. I worked in
>Radio/RADAR/SONAR/RADIC and other military electronic fields from 1952 until
>I retired. Now. in certain specialities, I also did work for other branches
>of the armed forces and even hospitals and, believe it or not, museums.
>

I think the point he is making is that media always talk through their
arses pontificating on things military. He is not having a go at the
poor buggers stuck in the tracked, turreted tanky thing.

Mind you when Labour are finished with the RAF, the highly trained
reporter may be right designating the Cessna as a FGR.

>However, it was common for certain service personnel to have the same
>attitude you show in the above post. You thought you were the experts and
>knew better than all those stupid civvies. Well, laddie, here is how it
>went. The instructor on the service's courses would go through the course
>like this. (They used Fimms Diagrams, you know the kind of thing) , {Is the
>switch on or off? If off - do this, If on - do that}. "--- and if that does
>not fix it you go to the next step -- -- -- and this goes on till the end of
>the Fimms.
>ew better.

--
Lochy.
"You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and
folk-dancing". Sir Arnold Bax.

Adam Whyte-Settlar

July 10th 04, 09:29 AM

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 01:14:55 +1200, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:29:57 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Oirish! ye soondit mair lik aa Sootheron til me. Aiblins yo maun bi an
> >> >Inglis Oirisher? DARFC
> >>
> >> Just a pur wee English lad here (though my Mam is Danish). Nothing but
> >> respect for the lads north of the Border though (and not just becasue
> >> my Boss is one of them).
> >>
> >> Peter Kemp
> >
> >I'm intrigued. What possible other reason could there be?
>
> The sheer mastery of the fast paced but brutal sport of curling, what
> else ;-)
>
> No, to be honest, after a few nights on the Isle of Bute one year
> sipping pints of heavy as the sun set across the I've never had a bad
> word (well, not a serious one) to say for the Scots or thier land.
> Great place, great beer.

I liked Bute too. The palm trees lining the main street are an unusual sight
in Scotland.
Such a shame there are locals living there - can't have everything I
suppose.
A W-S

>
> Peter Kemp

Peter Twydell

July 10th 04, 10:21 AM

In article >, Paul J. Adam
> writes
>In message >, BUFF
> writes
>>"Ian Morrison" > wrote in message
>>news:34e07cb7f29311f1e07f330690f839b0.3570@mygate. mailgate.org...
>>> Are they not a tank regiment now? An ex-neighbour of mine was sent to
>>> Ir*q as part of the recent illegal invasion force and he was in a tank
>>> (his mother reportedly said "can you imagine what it smells like in a
>>> tank full of 18 year old boys?").
>
>>probably as mechanised infantry in Warriors APCs - tracked but not a tank.
>
>It's tracked, it's got a turret, it's a tank to any roving reporter.
>(Just because the Army call it an 'infantry fighting vehicle' - what do
>a bunch of illiterate squaddies know that a highly-trained reporter
>doesn't?)
>
>Just like any rowboat with a GPMG is a "battleship" and a Piper Cub or
>Cessna becomes an "advanced attack aircraft" when the meedja get
>frothing.
>
I'm not familiar with the term "advanced attack aircraft". Surely any
brand of mud-mover is a "fighter-bomber" according to the reptiles??

And anything bigger than a C-47/Dakota is a "giant transport plane".
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Robert Peffers

July 10th 04, 11:13 AM

"Lachie" ]> wrote in message
ght...
> Robert Peffers > sgrìobh,
> >
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In message >, BUFF
> >> > writes
> >> >"Ian Morrison" > wrote in message
> >> >news:34e07cb7f29311f1e07f330690f839b0.3570@mygate. mailgate.org...
> >> >> Are they not a tank regiment now? An ex-neighbour of mine was sent
to
> >> >> Ir*q as part of the recent illegal invasion force and he was in a
tank
> >> >> (his mother reportedly said "can you imagine what it smells like in
a
> >> >> tank full of 18 year old boys?").
> >>
> >> >probably as mechanised infantry in Warriors APCs - tracked but not a
> >tank.
> >>
> >> It's tracked, it's got a turret, it's a tank to any roving reporter.
> >> (Just because the Army call it an 'infantry fighting vehicle' - what do
> >> a bunch of illiterate squaddies know that a highly-trained reporter
> >> doesn't?)
> >>
> >> Just like any rowboat with a GPMG is a "battleship" and a Piper Cub or
> >> Cessna becomes an "advanced attack aircraft" when the meedja get
> >> frothing.
> >>
> >> --
> >> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
> >> Julius Caesar I:2
> >>
> >> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
> >Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
> >Oh! Aye! I've met your type of people all my working life. I worked in
> >Radio/RADAR/SONAR/RADIC and other military electronic fields from 1952
until
> >I retired. Now. in certain specialities, I also did work for other
branches
> >of the armed forces and even hospitals and, believe it or not, museums.
> >
>
> I think the point he is making is that media always talk through their
> arses pontificating on things military. He is not having a go at the
> poor buggers stuck in the tracked, turreted tanky thing.

I know just what he is saying. However, much of such criticism is just as
bad as bad media coverage.
>
> Mind you when Labour are finished with the RAF, the highly trained
> reporter may be right designating the Cessna as a FGR.

Look at it this way. I have never been to Iraq yet, from media sources, I
read, watched and listened to what evidence there was on the situation. I
soon concluded that the military experts who were set on invading Iraq were
about to make a very big and expensive mistake, (in life, time and money). I
also concluded that the politicos knew this full well but for reasons other
than they were saying they would invade anyway. I was very right in almost
every conclusion I drew from those media sources. Chech back through Google
Groups and you will find I was saying all this before the Afghaistan
invasion.
So who were more right? Was it the military experts? Was it the media? Was
it the polititians? Meanwhile the real experts did not get a word in
edgewise. These experts were there. Robin Cook told the truth and he was in
a position to know at the time. There were others.
>
> >However, it was common for certain service personnel to have the same
> >attitude you show in the above post. You thought you were the experts and
> >knew better than all those stupid civvies. Well, laddie, here is how it
> >went. The instructor on the service's courses would go through the course
> >like this. (They used Fimms Diagrams, you know the kind of thing) , {Is
the
> >switch on or off? If off - do this, If on - do that}. "--- and if that
does
> >not fix it you go to the next step -- -- -- and this goes on till the end
of
> >the Fimms.
> >ew better.
>
> --
> Lochy.
> "You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest
and
> folk-dancing". Sir Arnold Bax.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

Lachie

July 10th 04, 12:22 PM

Robert Peffers > sgrìobh,
>
>"Lachie" ]> wrote in message
ght...
>> Robert Peffers > sgrìobh,
>> >
>> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> In message >, BUFF
>> >> > writes
>> >> >"Ian Morrison" > wrote in message
>> >> >news:34e07cb7f29311f1e07f330690f839b0.3570@mygate. mailgate.org...
>> >> >> Are they not a tank regiment now? An ex-neighbour of mine was sent
>to
>> >> >> Ir*q as part of the recent illegal invasion force and he was in a
>tank
>> >> >> (his mother reportedly said "can you imagine what it smells like in
>a
>> >> >> tank full of 18 year old boys?").
>> >>
>> >> >probably as mechanised infantry in Warriors APCs - tracked but not a
>> >tank.
>> >>
>> >> It's tracked, it's got a turret, it's a tank to any roving reporter.
>> >> (Just because the Army call it an 'infantry fighting vehicle' - what do
>> >> a bunch of illiterate squaddies know that a highly-trained reporter
>> >> doesn't?)
>> >>
>> >> Just like any rowboat with a GPMG is a "battleship" and a Piper Cub or
>> >> Cessna becomes an "advanced attack aircraft" when the meedja get
>> >> frothing.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
>> >> Julius Caesar I:2
>> >>
>> >> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
>> >Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
>> >Oh! Aye! I've met your type of people all my working life. I worked in
>> >Radio/RADAR/SONAR/RADIC and other military electronic fields from 1952
>until
>> >I retired. Now. in certain specialities, I also did work for other
>branches
>> >of the armed forces and even hospitals and, believe it or not, museums.
>> >
>>
>> I think the point he is making is that media always talk through their
>> arses pontificating on things military. He is not having a go at the
>> poor buggers stuck in the tracked, turreted tanky thing.
>
>I know just what he is saying. However, much of such criticism is just as
>bad as bad media coverage.
>>

Well to my mind he was not criticising the poor squaddies, he was having
a go at the media. Were you not having a go at him?

>> Mind you when Labour are finished with the RAF, the highly trained
>> reporter may be right designating the Cessna as a FGR.
>
>Look at it this way. I have never been to Iraq yet, from media sources, I
>read, watched and listened to what evidence there was on the situation. I
>soon concluded that the military experts who were set on invading Iraq were
>about to make a very big and expensive mistake, (in life, time and money). I
>also concluded that the politicos knew this full well but for reasons other
>than they were saying they would invade anyway. I was very right in almost
>every conclusion I drew from those media sources. Chech back through Google
>Groups and you will find I was saying all this before the Afghaistan
>invasion.
>So who were more right? Was it the military experts? Was it the media? Was
>it the polititians? Meanwhile the real experts did not get a word in
>edgewise. These experts were there. Robin Cook told the truth and he was in
>a position to know at the time. There were others.
>>

Totally agree with you. Invasion Iraq is a complete farce. The question
we should be asking is why and intelligent chap like Blair is getting
himself involved to the extent that he is willing to sacrifice his
political career and prime ministership on this ill thought adventure.
Possibly to limit Bush's idea of the US invading more Middle Eastern
countries and allowing Israel to hold on to the occupied territories.

Next time you see Cook ask him why he believes the UK went to war.

As indicated in my rather jokey riposte, the RAF is going to be savaged
in the summer defence cuts. Which I personally think is a big mistake.
Long live Eurofighter.

>> >However, it was common for certain service personnel to have the same
>> >attitude you show in the above post. You thought you were the experts and
>> >knew better than all those stupid civvies. Well, laddie, here is how it
>> >went. The instructor on the service's courses would go through the course
>> >like this. (They used Fimms Diagrams, you know the kind of thing) , {Is
>the
>> >switch on or off? If off - do this, If on - do that}. "--- and if that
>does
>> >not fix it you go to the next step -- -- -- and this goes on till the end
>of
>> >the Fimms.
>> >ew better.
>>
>> --
>> Lochy.
>> "You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest
>and
>> folk-dancing". Sir Arnold Bax.

--
Lachie Macquarie.
She ruled the Toads of the Short Forest and every newt in Idaho and every cricket
who had chorused, by the bush in Buffalo. FZ

Robert Peffers

July 10th 04, 12:31 PM

"Lachie" ]> wrote in message
ght...
>snip

> >> I think the point he is making is that media always talk through their
> >> arses pontificating on things military. He is not having a go at the
> >> poor buggers stuck in the tracked, turreted tanky thing.
> >
> >I know just what he is saying. However, much of such criticism is just as
> >bad as bad media coverage.
> >>
>
> Well to my mind he was not criticising the poor squaddies, he was having
> a go at the media. Were you not having a go at him?
>
> >> Mind you when Labour are finished with the RAF, the highly trained
> >> reporter may be right designating the Cessna as a FGR.
> >
> >Look at it this way. I have never been to Iraq yet, from media sources, I
> >read, watched and listened to what evidence there was on the situation. I
> >soon concluded that the military experts who were set on invading Iraq
were
> >about to make a very big and expensive mistake, (in life, time and
money). I
> >also concluded that the politicos knew this full well but for reasons
other
> >than they were saying they would invade anyway. I was very right in
almost
> >every conclusion I drew from those media sources. Chech back through
Google
> >Groups and you will find I was saying all this before the Afghaistan
> >invasion.
> >So who were more right? Was it the military experts? Was it the media?
Was
> >it the polititians? Meanwhile the real experts did not get a word in
> >edgewise. These experts were there. Robin Cook told the truth and he was
in
> >a position to know at the time. There were others.
> >>
>
> Totally agree with you. Invasion Iraq is a complete farce. The question
> we should be asking is why and intelligent chap like Blair is getting
> himself involved to the extent that he is willing to sacrifice his
> political career and prime ministership on this ill thought adventure.
> Possibly to limit Bush's idea of the US invading more Middle Eastern
> countries and allowing Israel to hold on to the occupied territories.
>
> Next time you see Cook ask him why he believes the UK went to war.
>
> As indicated in my rather jokey riposte, the RAF is going to be savaged
> in the summer defence cuts. Which I personally think is a big mistake.
> Long live Eurofighter.
snip
You are probably right. If Tony had stayed out of Bush's warmongering
offence we would have had more money left to invest in home defence.
>
> --
> Lachie Macquarie.
> She ruled the Toads of the Short Forest and every newt in Idaho and every
cricket
> who had chorused, by the bush in Buffalo. FZ

--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

Paul J. Adam

July 10th 04, 12:46 PM

In message >, Robert Peffers
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> Sure, but it means you get to pay for them (and most of the support and
>> TacDev is way down south, meaning you need to pay again to duplicate it
>> if it's a hostile split). Balkanisation isn't usually a good idea (I
>> mean, _look_ at the Balkans - would _you_ want to live there?)
>
>What do you meam by all the support is down there? We have the Clyde
>Submarine base and Rosyth Dockyard for navy

Need tactics? The Maritime Warfare Centre is in Portsdown, on the south
coast. Want to maintain the nuclear warheads? Aldermaston wasn't in
Scotland last time I looked. How about the torpedoes for self-defence?
Also southern UK. Countermeasures? Ultra Electronics, also based south
of the border.

>and Lossie RAF and so on.

Spare parts come from Warton, which is - guess where? Armaments are BAE
and MBDA, which again aren't Scotland-based.

>If a
>split comes about we are entitled to a FAIR share.

Sure, but just remember there's more to a military than counting tanks
(aircraft, ships, whatever)

>Also, what do you mean we would have to pay for it? We have paid our share
>of it all along.

Certainly - but how do you propose to equitably divide the staff and
facilities of HMS Collingwood? And who pays for moving your share north?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

July 10th 04, 12:48 PM

In message >, Robert Peffers
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> It's tracked, it's got a turret, it's a tank to any roving reporter.
>> (Just because the Army call it an 'infantry fighting vehicle' - what do
>> a bunch of illiterate squaddies know that a highly-trained reporter
>> doesn't?)
>>
>> Just like any rowboat with a GPMG is a "battleship" and a Piper Cub or
>> Cessna becomes an "advanced attack aircraft" when the meedja get
>> frothing.

>Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
>Oh! Aye! I've met your type of people all my working life. I worked in
>Radio/RADAR/SONAR/RADIC and other military electronic fields from 1952 until
>I retired. Now. in certain specialities, I also did work for other branches
>of the armed forces and even hospitals and, believe it or not, museums.

Congratulations. I've got fourteen years in weapon system development
(civilian side), five years in uniform, and currenty do operational
analysis direct for the Navy.

Now, what has your misguided little rant got to do with the general
idiocy of the press corps?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Robert Peffers

July 10th 04, 07:13 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Robert Peffers
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Sure, but it means you get to pay for them (and most of the support and
> >> TacDev is way down south, meaning you need to pay again to duplicate it
> >> if it's a hostile split). Balkanisation isn't usually a good idea (I
> >> mean, _look_ at the Balkans - would _you_ want to live there?)
> >
> >What do you meam by all the support is down there? We have the Clyde
> >Submarine base and Rosyth Dockyard for navy
>
> Need tactics? The Maritime Warfare Centre is in Portsdown, on the south
> coast. Want to maintain the nuclear warheads? Aldermaston wasn't in
> Scotland last time I looked. How about the torpedoes for self-defence?
> Also southern UK. Countermeasures? Ultra Electronics, also based south
> of the border.

Ever heard of Pitreivie?
>
> >and Lossie RAF and so on.
>
> Spare parts come from Warton, which is - guess where? Armaments are BAE
> and MBDA, which again aren't Scotland-based.
Ever heard of Almondale. BTW: There are armament depots very close to Rosyth
and the Clyde bases. Foreby which what would stop an independent Scotland
leasing the the former UK and then USA Gairloch base to say, an independent
India, Pakistan, Iraq, North or South Korea, Palistine or any other
potential enemy of England?

Who cares about spares anyway. Did you really miss the point by such a wide
margin?
That kind of scenario would only happen if England attempted to hold on to
everything and Scotland had to impound what was in Scotland. Thus England
would be creating an enemy from a friend. Now even England would not be so
very stupid, (would she). What would any country want to be creating an
enemy on her own front step? That would be crazy. Any tin pot nation in the
World could attake England and have a ready made treaty with the Scots just
begging to be signed. Not even England is that stupid. Just imagine trying
to stop terrorist activity from Ireland and Scotland while attemting to
fight of some enemy from the Far or Middle East at the same trime. There is
only one logical defence policy for an independent England and Scotland - a
joint treaty to defend each other.
>
> >If a
> >split comes about we are entitled to a FAIR share.
>
> Sure, but just remember there's more to a military than counting tanks
> (aircraft, ships, whatever).

I seem to know just a little more about that subject than you seem to do.
You it is seeing England and Scotland as enemies. That would be sheer
madness. considering modern warfare. Why, even those traditional old enemies
France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and so on are now banding together. What
with the rise of the USA and her protectionist and saber rattling designs on
World domination if Europe does not band together then the next step on a
global scene will see the middle and far east, the former USSR and sundry
other nations being the only possible power bloc to be able to stand against
them. Had you not noticed the change in how Empires are now controlled? No
more the gun boat up the river, no more the expeditionary force. Now it is
the Multi-national company and the value of their shares. What now is, "An
American Company", and just who holds shares in it?
>
> >Also, what do you mean we would have to pay for it? We have paid our
share
> >of it all along.
>
> Certainly - but how do you propose to equitably divide the staff and
> facilities of HMS Collingwood? And who pays for moving your share north?

The same ones who paid for it becoming centralised there in the first place.
You just have to purge your brain from this is our English this that or the
other. Are you really trying to tell someone who spent a major part of his
life on courses at Collingwood that every member of the staff were English?
Are you seriously attempting to say all the Jolly Jacks squaddies and fly
guys are English? Not so long ago the main Naval Artificers Training was
done at HMS Cochrane and the nearby Naval Shore Base. Rosyth Dockyard also
were the ones who first refitted the nuclear submarines and we were the ones
who developed the methods used. Last I heard Devonport had not yet quite
made it as nearly so efficient as we did it at Rosyth.
>
> --
> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
> Julius Caesar I:2
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Furthermore many of the guys who build the Royal Navy ships are Scots and
they are not, like myself, dead yet.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

Robert Peffers

July 10th 04, 07:31 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Robert Peffers
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> It's tracked, it's got a turret, it's a tank to any roving reporter.
> >> (Just because the Army call it an 'infantry fighting vehicle' - what do
> >> a bunch of illiterate squaddies know that a highly-trained reporter
> >> doesn't?)
> >>
> >> Just like any rowboat with a GPMG is a "battleship" and a Piper Cub or
> >> Cessna becomes an "advanced attack aircraft" when the meedja get
> >> frothing.
>
> >Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
> >Oh! Aye! I've met your type of people all my working life. I worked in
> >Radio/RADAR/SONAR/RADIC and other military electronic fields from 1952
until
> >I retired. Now. in certain specialities, I also did work for other
branches
> >of the armed forces and even hospitals and, believe it or not, museums.
>
> Congratulations. I've got fourteen years in weapon system development
> (civilian side), five years in uniform, and currenty do operational
> analysis direct for the Navy.
>
> Now, what has your misguided little rant got to do with the general
> idiocy of the press corps?
I think I answered that but as it seems to have wooshed over your head I'll
repeat some of it.

I, and a majority of UK people, read the facts about the Afghan and Iraqi
situation and the information came directly from that, "Idiotic", press
corp.
In view of the reports this week of the doings of the USA senate and the
expected report about to hit the UK government. It looks like that, "Idiotic
Press Corps", got it smack on and it was the military, "so called",
intelligence that got it wrong.

No WMDs.
No bin Laden,
Iraq in turmoil,
UK and USA now in far more danger of attack.
UK &USA's standing in the eyes of the World rated zero or in the minus.

Seems the majority of we UK citizens, on information from, "THE IDIOTIC
PRESS CORP", got it right.

Now as to your own record. I lived through WWII, I was call-up age at the
time of the Korean war and I did 50 odd years in defence posts, much of
which I cannot talk about, (none of which matters for the whole World now
knows that UK & USA military intelligence got it wrong and heads are still
polling because of it.
> --
> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
> Julius Caesar I:2
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

Paul J. Adam

July 10th 04, 09:49 PM

In message >, Robert Peffers
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> Spare parts come from Warton, which is - guess where? Armaments are BAE
>> and MBDA, which again aren't Scotland-based.
>Ever heard of Almondale.

No. How many of the design teams for Eurofighter, Harrier, Tornado,
Jaguar et al are based there?

>BTW: There are armament depots very close to Rosyth
>and the Clyde bases.

Yes, there are. Unfortunately, if you think you can support your torpedo
outloads through them, they're dependent on support from BAE SYSTEMS
Waterlooville, which is about as far from Scotland as you can get and
still be part of the British mainland. (Do those depots make their own
spare parts? No, they don't, they depend on the manufacturer)

You don't seem to understand the difference between "an armaments depot"
(which does routine maintenance and support) and the corporate backup
where you have the design authorities who have to sign off even simple
modifications like using self-amalgamating tape to seal an interface
cable (very few of whom are in Scotland)

>Foreby which what would stop an independent Scotland
>leasing the the former UK and then USA Gairloch base to say, an independent
>India, Pakistan, Iraq, North or South Korea, Palistine or any other
>potential enemy of England?

And you assume that simply because they're enemies of "the rest of the
United Kingdom" (more to it than just Scotland and England, Bob) they'll
be kind and friendly allies of Scotland with your best interests at
heart?

>Who cares about spares anyway. Did you really miss the point by such a wide
>margin?

"Who cares about spares anyway" shows that you have no idea about how to
*keep your forces fighting*. The difference between Third World armies
with thousands of tanks (only a fraction of which can actually move and
fight) and Western forces whose tanks are far fewer but can strike
hundreds of miles into enemy territory and actually *win wars* - is
logistics. Making sure that those vehicles have fuel, ammunition and
spare parts; that the crew have food, water and replacement NBC IPE.

>That kind of scenario would only happen if England attempted to hold on to
>everything and Scotland had to impound what was in Scotland.

Which is a SNP fantasy and irrelevant. If Scotland wanted to go, then
too bad, how sad, and it's damage limitation for the rest of the UK.

>Thus England
>would be creating an enemy from a friend. Now even England would not be so
>very stupid, (would she). What would any country want to be creating an
>enemy on her own front step? That would be crazy.

It was not I who suggested that the first step in the game should be
thermonuclear blackmail, Bob.

>Any tin pot nation in the
>World could attake England and have a ready made treaty with the Scots just
>begging to be signed. Not even England is that stupid.

Right - Scotland is going to be North Korea's bosom buddy.

Pray tell how they bring supplies, weapons and aid to you, and what
value this adds to your situation.

>Just imagine trying
>to stop terrorist activity from Ireland and Scotland while attemting to
>fight of some enemy from the Far or Middle East at the same trime.

Nuclear-armed terrorists? Call in the US and turn everything north of
Jedburgh into a glow-in-the-dark parking lot.

>There is
>only one logical defence policy for an independent England and Scotland - a
>joint treaty to defend each other.

Why, if Scotland's policy begins with nuclear blackmail and moves on to
overt terrorism?

You want to be an enemy, act like one. You want a peaceful split, sit
down and talk.

>> Sure, but just remember there's more to a military than counting tanks
>> (aircraft, ships, whatever).
>
>I seem to know just a little more about that subject than you seem to do.

"Who cares about spares anyway?"

Your words, not mine. Proves you know a damn sight less than you think
you do.

>You it is seeing England and Scotland as enemies.

No, I'm seeing you considering thermonuclear blackmail and sponsorship
of terrorism. These aren't friendly acts. If I lived north of the
border, I'd cut your keyboard cable. Since I live south of the border,
I'll settle for pointing out how your mixture of aggression and
ignorance makes even ethnic Scots like me wince.

>That would be sheer
>> Certainly - but how do you propose to equitably divide the staff and
>> facilities of HMS Collingwood? And who pays for moving your share north?
>
>The same ones who paid for it becoming centralised there in the first place.

The UK MoD?

But there is no United Kingdom in your scenario. You're asking for the
change in the status quo, it seems that it's up to you to propose an
acceptable scheme.

Meanwhile, how much compensation do you intend to pay for depriving the
rest of the UK of its nuclear deterrent? Lots of interesting intangibles
to go around.

Or are we into that playground attitude of everything in Scotland is
100% Scots, but we want 'our fair share' of everything else _as well_?

>You just have to purge your brain from this is our English this that or the
>other. Are you really trying to tell someone who spent a major part of his
>life on courses at Collingwood that every member of the staff were English?

Of course not. Are you telling me that any part of HMS Collingwood is in
Scotland?

Since it and its staff are resolutely stuck down in Gosport, how do you
propose to split off "the fair Scottish share" and transport it north?
And how well would the two fragments work afterwards? What happens when
there's no Scotsman in a given field and you're hauling an Englishman,
Welshman or Irishman up? Do you tell him 'instruct well or we nuke your
home?'

Who gets the Anti-Air Warfare Tactical Development desk officer?
(There's only one of them and he's neither Scottish nor inclined to move
north...) Have you budgeted and planned for training your own? Or are
you making this up as you go along?

>Are you seriously attempting to say all the Jolly Jacks squaddies and fly
>guys are English?

Of course not. I'd ask rather, how many of them are Scotsmen who'd
embrace secession?

>Furthermore many of the guys who build the Royal Navy ships are Scots and
>they are not, like myself, dead yet.

Indeed: but naval shipbuilding is an area of significant overcapacity,
so this is also a poor threat to make.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

July 10th 04, 09:57 PM

In message >, Robert Peffers
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> Congratulations. I've got fourteen years in weapon system development
>> (civilian side), five years in uniform, and currenty do operational
>> analysis direct for the Navy.
>>
>> Now, what has your misguided little rant got to do with the general
>> idiocy of the press corps?
>I think I answered that but as it seems to have wooshed over your head I'll
>repeat some of it.
>
>I, and a majority of UK people, read the facts about the Afghan and Iraqi
>situation and the information came directly from that, "Idiotic", press
>corp.
>In view of the reports this week of the doings of the USA senate and the
>expected report about to hit the UK government. It looks like that, "Idiotic
>Press Corps", got it smack on and it was the military, "so called",
>intelligence that got it wrong.

Which "press corps" were you reading? I had most of the UK daily press
on hand and other than the Daily Mirror and the Guardian, they were
baying for Iraqi blood. WMEs in development, dissidents fed feet-first
through industrial shredders, torture, rape, genocide, you name it.

(And I don't even like the Daily Mirror and the Guardian, I just go
through the Grauniad for an attempt at balance)

>Seems the majority of we UK citizens, on information from, "THE IDIOTIC
>PRESS CORP", got it right.

How remarkably revisionistic. Stories about how Saddam Hussein owned
hundreds of tons of fully weaponised WMEs that he could hurl at enemies
within the hour, prove that he was actually defenceless?

>Now as to your own record. I lived through WWII, I was call-up age at the
>time of the Korean war and I did 50 odd years in defence posts, much of
>which I cannot talk about, (none of which matters for the whole World now
>knows that UK & USA military intelligence got it wrong and heads are still
>polling because of it.

Congratulations.

Unfortunately, you seem to have learned very little from the experience.

You disagree that the press will report a frigate, a sloop, a corvette,
even an armed motorboat as "a battleship" to suit their story?

You can say "Who cares about spare parts?" with a straight face?

Either you learned nothing from your service, or your claims are
fraudulent.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Robert Peffers

July 10th 04, 11:22 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Robert Peffers
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Spare parts come from Warton, which is - guess where? Armaments are BAE
> >> and MBDA, which again aren't Scotland-based.
> >Ever heard of Almondale.
>
> No. How many of the design teams for Eurofighter, Harrier, Tornado,
> Jaguar et al are based there?
None. your point was supply parts. Have you still not understood the point
that is being made to you? We are NOT in favour of being a World power in
Scotland. We want shot of Nukes. We are very much against the invasion of
sovereign states by the UK and USA, (and no I am NOT assuming to speak for
ALL Scots. I am quoting to you the results of countless surveys carried out
over many years. Scots are very much more in favour of joining fully with
the rest of Europe than the English too. Now run along and play with your
little dangerous toys. If you understand them as well as you do what is
being said to you then I shudder to think of the consewquencies.
>
> >BTW: There are armament depots very close to Rosyth
> >and the Clyde bases.
>
> Yes, there are. Unfortunately, if you think you can support your torpedo
> outloads through them, they're dependent on support from BAE SYSTEMS
> Waterlooville, which is about as far from Scotland as you can get and
> still be part of the British mainland. (Do those depots make their own
> spare parts? No, they don't, they depend on the manufacturer)

IDIOT! GO PLAY YOUR SILLY WAR GAMES SOMEWHERE ELSE. You fail to understand
what is being said to you and seem determined to set a rediculous scenario.
If Scotland parts from England it is our right to have a fair share of the
assets we have paid for and it is in both countries best interests to deal
with each other for our mutual benefit only an idiot would even dream of any
other scenario. I mention that it would be disaserous for England to even
attempt to do other than deal with Scotland as a partner, for that is what
we are according to the treaty of union, and you are set on an all out war
between the two countries.Awa an bile yir heid.
>
snip

--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

Robert Peffers

July 10th 04, 11:24 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Robert Peffers
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Congratulations. I've got fourteen years in weapon system development
> >> (civilian side), five years in uniform, and currenty do operational
> >> analysis direct for the Navy.
> >>
> >> Now, what has your misguided little rant got to do with the general
> >> idiocy of the press corps?
> >I think I answered that but as it seems to have wooshed over your head
I'll
> >repeat some of it.
> >
> >I, and a majority of UK people, read the facts about the Afghan and Iraqi
> >situation and the information came directly from that, "Idiotic", press
> >corp.
> >In view of the reports this week of the doings of the USA senate and the
> >expected report about to hit the UK government. It looks like that,
"Idiotic
> >Press Corps", got it smack on and it was the military, "so called",
> >intelligence that got it wrong.
>
> Which "press corps" were you reading? I had most of the UK daily press
> on hand and other than the Daily Mirror and the Guardian, they were
> baying for Iraqi blood. WMEs in development, dissidents fed feet-first
> through industrial shredders, torture, rape, genocide, you name it.
>
> (And I don't even like the Daily Mirror and the Guardian, I just go
> through the Grauniad for an attempt at balance)
>
> >Seems the majority of we UK citizens, on information from, "THE IDIOTIC
> >PRESS CORP", got it right.
>
> How remarkably revisionistic. Stories about how Saddam Hussein owned
> hundreds of tons of fully weaponised WMEs that he could hurl at enemies
> within the hour, prove that he was actually defenceless?
>
> >Now as to your own record. I lived through WWII, I was call-up age at the
> >time of the Korean war and I did 50 odd years in defence posts, much of
> >which I cannot talk about, (none of which matters for the whole World now
> >knows that UK & USA military intelligence got it wrong and heads are
still
> >polling because of it.
>
> Congratulations.
>
> Unfortunately, you seem to have learned very little from the experience.
>
>
> You disagree that the press will report a frigate, a sloop, a corvette,
> even an armed motorboat as "a battleship" to suit their story?
>
> You can say "Who cares about spare parts?" with a straight face?
>
> Either you learned nothing from your service, or your claims are
> fraudulent.
>
> --
> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
> Julius Caesar I:2
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
PLONK!
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

Paul J. Adam

July 11th 04, 12:35 PM

In message >, Robert Peffers
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...

>> No. How many of the design teams for Eurofighter, Harrier, Tornado,
>> Jaguar et al are based there?
>None. your point was supply parts.

My point was being able to support fielded assets.

>Have you still not understood the point
>that is being made to you?

You keep changing it. One minute you're demanding large armed forces and
threatening nuclear blackmail, then you're claiming to be an
anti-nuclear pacifist?

>> Yes, there are. Unfortunately, if you think you can support your torpedo
>> outloads through them, they're dependent on support from BAE SYSTEMS
>> Waterlooville, which is about as far from Scotland as you can get and
>> still be part of the British mainland. (Do those depots make their own
>> spare parts? No, they don't, they depend on the manufacturer)
>
>IDIOT! GO PLAY YOUR SILLY WAR GAMES SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Well, that's a thorough rebuttal.

>You fail to understand
>what is being said to you and seem determined to set a rediculous scenario.

No, I'm just familiar with the task you're so idly dismissing. How,
precisely, do you 'fairly divide' a single facility, relocate Scotland's
share, and keep both functioning? Does the single AAW TacDev officer
have to work Mondays and Tuesday mornings in Scotland and the rest of
the week at Portsdown?

These are real problems: that you're determined to ignore them reflects
very poorly on your thought processes (or lack thereof)

>If Scotland parts from England it is our right to have a fair share of the
>assets we have paid for and it is in both countries best interests to deal
>with each other for our mutual benefit only an idiot would even dream of any
>other scenario.

So why do you keep threatening to nuke London or sell nuclear weapons to
North Korea?

Not exactly the way to improve relations and encourage dialogue, I would
have thought.

>I mention that it would be disaserous for England to even
>attempt to do other than deal with Scotland as a partner, for that is what
>we are according to the treaty of union, and you are set on an all out war
>between the two countries.

Mr Peffers, it was you - not I - who suggested auctioning nuclear
weapons off to the highest bidder. Then you manufacture a torrent of
rage when the idiocies in your plan are pointed out (while dodging the
real issues).

Thank God you're not a representative Scotsman.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

phil hunt

July 11th 04, 10:30 PM

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 18:23:35 -0400, Peter Kemp > wrote:
>
>4-6 fisheries protection vessels, alsae guid for keeping the damn
>English away fra the wee oil platferms.

Makes sense.

>A few MPAs (again 4-6) for long range patrol, plus C2 of any SAR work,
>plus a dozen Merlins for both land and naval work (SAR, troop
>transposrt, resupply).

What're MPAs?

>If Bonnie auld Scotland did ever split, I see them (if you haven't
>guessed I'm not a native Scottish speaker) more as an Ireland (minimal
>forces except for peacekeping and EEZ patrol), than a Sweden
>(extremely large and competant forces for the size of economy and
>population).

That's probably what would happen.

Though bear in mind Sweden spends a lower proportion of GDP on
defense than the UK does. The MoD doesn't seem to be into value for
money. Why do they employ more civil servants than soldiers?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

phil hunt

July 11th 04, 10:38 PM

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 01:51:28 +0100, Lachie ]> wrote:
>
>I think the point he is making is that media always talk through their
>arses pontificating on things military.

And on things anything else. The meedja know about newspapers and TV
news, they aren't experts on any other subject, also they are under
strict time deadlines, thus often make elementary mistakes.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

phil hunt

July 11th 04, 10:40 PM

>
>Look at it this way. I have never been to Iraq yet, from media sources, I
>read, watched and listened to what evidence there was on the situation. I
>soon concluded that the military experts who were set on invading Iraq were
>about to make a very big and expensive mistake, (in life, time and money). I
>also concluded that the politicos knew this full well but for reasons other
>than they were saying they would invade anyway.

In Tony's case he had aligned himself too closely to Bush to do
anything else.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

phil hunt

July 11th 04, 10:44 PM

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:50:23 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>>Well Denmark does very well as they are. Anyway Scotland would be entitled
>>to her share of the UK armed forces,
>
>Sure, but it means you get to pay for them (and most of the support and
>TacDev is way down south, meaning you need to pay again to duplicate it
>if it's a hostile split). Balkanisation isn't usually a good idea (I
>mean, _look_ at the Balkans - would _you_ want to live there?)

Last time I looked at a map Scotland was nowhere near the Balkans.
Denmark, Finland, Ireland, etc, seem to do OK as small countries in
Europe.

>>(or if not we could hang on to ALL the
>>nukes as hostages). If they don't give us our proper share the Indians,
>>Pakistanis, Israelis or even the Palestinians may pay well for them. Even
>>the Koreas have nuclear ambitions.
>
>Careful there - the US might remember the Auld Alliance and decide that
>Scotland is close enough to France to become part of the Axis of Evil.

Not if Scotland had a nuclear deterrent.

>Trying to auction nuclear warheads might get some unwelcome gatecrashers

The USA paid Ukraine to get rid of theirs, as I recall.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

phil hunt

July 11th 04, 10:50 PM

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:03:13 +0100, Robert Peffers > wrote:
>> Careful there - the US might remember the Auld Alliance and decide that
>> Scotland is close enough to France to become part of the Axis of Evil.
>> Trying to auction nuclear warheads might get some unwelcome gatecrashers
>> (besides, most of the customers are short on manners, and might decide
>> that it was easier to kill other bidders than match their price, then
>> the auctioneer gets hit in the crossfire, and where's your profit then?)
>
>You have to be kidding - I don't see coward Bushy invading the countries
>that actually HAVE nukes.

Nor do I. Though the idea that the USA would invade a western,
European democracy is ludicrous anyway.

> The situation you mention is that Scotland
>did not get her fair share and had impounded all the UK's nukes and the
>means to deliver them. Bushy is stupid but not that stupid.

The UK has 200-400 nukes so Scotland's share would be about 20-40.
Under the terms of the Vienna convention, Scotland would be a
nuclear weapon state as far as the Non Proliferation Treaty was
concerned.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

phil hunt

July 11th 04, 10:53 PM

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:46:46 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>
>Need tactics? The Maritime Warfare Centre is in Portsdown, on the south
>coast. Want to maintain the nuclear warheads? Aldermaston wasn't in
>Scotland last time I looked. How about the torpedoes for self-defence?
>Also southern UK. Countermeasures? Ultra Electronics, also based south
>of the border.

I'm sure these establishments would be happy to sell their services
for a fee. If not -- lots of other places make torpedos etc.

>Spare parts come from Warton, which is - guess where? Armaments are BAE
>and MBDA, which again aren't Scotland-based.

Though they do have establishments in Scotland (BAE does, I'm not
sure about MBDA). In any case, arms manufacturers are hardly likely
to refuse to sell arms.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

phil hunt

July 11th 04, 10:56 PM

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:13:09 +0100, Robert Peffers > wrote:
>
>Who cares about spares anyway. Did you really miss the point by such a wide
>margin?
>That kind of scenario would only happen if England attempted to hold on to
>everything and Scotland had to impound what was in Scotland. Thus England
>would be creating an enemy from a friend. Now even England would not be so
>very stupid, (would she). What would any country want to be creating an
>enemy on her own front step? That would be crazy.

Politicans are not always known for the sensibleness of their
decisions; but I agree it would be silly, so they probably wouldn't
do it.

> Any tin pot nation in the
>World could attake England and have a ready made treaty with the Scots just
>begging to be signed. Not even England is that stupid. Just imagine trying
>to stop terrorist activity from Ireland and Scotland while attemting to
>fight of some enemy from the Far or Middle East at the same trime. There is
>only one logical defence policy for an independent England and Scotland - a
>joint treaty to defend each other.

Makes sense.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

phil hunt

July 11th 04, 10:59 PM

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:49:16 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, Robert Peffers
> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>>> Spare parts come from Warton, which is - guess where? Armaments are BAE
>>> and MBDA, which again aren't Scotland-based.
>>Ever heard of Almondale.
>
>No. How many of the design teams for Eurofighter, Harrier, Tornado,
>Jaguar et al are based there?

I suspect the desgn teams for the last 3 are long since disbanded.

>Yes, there are. Unfortunately, if you think you can support your torpedo
>outloads through them, they're dependent on support from BAE SYSTEMS
>Waterlooville, which is about as far from Scotland as you can get and
>still be part of the British mainland. (Do those depots make their own
>spare parts? No, they don't, they depend on the manufacturer)

Who would be happy to sell to Scotland.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

Robert Peffers

July 11th 04, 11:56 PM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
rg...
> >
> >Look at it this way. I have never been to Iraq yet, from media sources, I
> >read, watched and listened to what evidence there was on the situation. I
> >soon concluded that the military experts who were set on invading Iraq
were
> >about to make a very big and expensive mistake, (in life, time and
money). I
> >also concluded that the politicos knew this full well but for reasons
other
> >than they were saying they would invade anyway.
>
> In Tony's case he had aligned himself too closely to Bush to do
> anything else.

That is neither here nor there. Anyone with half an eye and the other one
stuffed with rags could see that making stupid claims would end in disaster
for the guys making the claims. Hell! From what I see now Bush could have
raised the USA rabble by just telling them Saddam was a bad man and needed
killing. By the bloodhounds baying for blood even yet it looks like he could
have got away with it. The next election may yet see him get away with it
but it looks to me like Tony will have to go. The UK will stand a lot but
probably will shy at being lied to.
snip

--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 27/06/2004

phil hunt

July 12th 04, 12:00 AM

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 23:22:39 +0100, Robert Peffers > wrote:
>None. your point was supply parts. Have you still not understood the point
>that is being made to you? We are NOT in favour of being a World power in
>Scotland. We want shot of Nukes. We are very much against the invasion of
>sovereign states by the UK and USA, (and no I am NOT assuming to speak for
>ALL Scots. I am quoting to you the results of countless surveys carried out
>over many years.

I've always found this a little odd. If some Europeans dislike US
policy, regarding it as dangerously aggressive, surely the correct
response would be for Europe to have a larger military, to deter US
aggression against it?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

Robert Peffers

July 12th 04, 12:07 AM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
rg...
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:50:23 +0100, Paul J. Adam
> wrote:
> >>Well Denmark does very well as they are. Anyway Scotland would be
entitled
> >>to her share of the UK armed forces,
snip

> >Trying to auction nuclear warheads might get some unwelcome gatecrashers
>
> The USA paid Ukraine to get rid of theirs, as I recall.
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
>
>
Well! At least one person got the real point that I was making. The chances
of Scotland and England in a head to head confrontation with pea shooters is
almost laughable never mind lobbing nukes at one another. It is not in the
best interests of either Scotland or England not to co-operate on defence.
In fact the best thing that could happen for all concerned is for both
countries to realise we are just tiny little dots on the map and have no
right to be attempting to be World Powers. We must look to a European
military force if there is to be any hope of standing against the big
threats that will confront us in future. One of these threats is the Eastern
Bloc but another is the might of the USA who, make no mistake about it,
continue to attempt to dominate the World. Setting themselves against the UN
is a fair sign of where they are going.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 28/06/2004

Dweezil Dwarftosser

July 12th 04, 08:34 AM

Robert Peffers wrote:
>
> [ big snip ] We must look to a European
> military force if there is to be any hope of standing against the big
> threats that will confront us in future. One of these threats is the Eastern
> Bloc but another is the might of the USA who, make no mistake about it,
> continue to attempt to dominate the World. Setting themselves against the UN
> is a fair sign of where they are going.

The US isn't "setting themselves against the UN" - we've simply
stopped pretending that a Third World debating society has any
relevance at all to world affairs.

Paul J. Adam

July 12th 04, 05:13 PM

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:49:16 +0100, Paul J. Adam
> wrote:
>>No. How many of the design teams for Eurofighter, Harrier, Tornado,
>>Jaguar et al are based there?
>
>I suspect the desgn teams for the last 3 are long since disbanded.

Not even slightly - the Harrier's just been upped to GR9/9a status, the
Tornado to GR.4 (and is scheduled to remain in service towards 2020) and
Jaguar, for complicated reasons, remains popular because it's easily
modified.

>>Yes, there are. Unfortunately, if you think you can support your torpedo
>>outloads through them, they're dependent on support from BAE SYSTEMS
>>Waterlooville, which is about as far from Scotland as you can get and
>>still be part of the British mainland. (Do those depots make their own
>>spare parts? No, they don't, they depend on the manufacturer)
>
>Who would be happy to sell to Scotland.

Provided an export licence was forthcoming, sufficient profit was to be
made, and it didn't threaten other activities..

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

July 12th 04, 05:22 PM

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:46:46 +0100, Paul J. Adam
> wrote:
>>Need tactics? The Maritime Warfare Centre is in Portsdown, on the south
>>coast. Want to maintain the nuclear warheads? Aldermaston wasn't in
>>Scotland last time I looked. How about the torpedoes for self-defence?
>>Also southern UK. Countermeasures? Ultra Electronics, also based south
>>of the border.
>
>I'm sure these establishments would be happy to sell their services
>for a fee.

Oh, really? Trading in classified material is a serious criminal offence
:)

Would an independent Scotland be a NATO member? What would it offer, to
justify membership of the 'Four Eyes Forum' (the 'Australia, Canada, UK,
US Eyes Only' network)

Easy in theory, harder in practice. Trouble is, when folk start ranting
that it's simple and easy and they'll throw a few megatons at anyone who
doesn't dance to their tune, it leaves a very poor impression.

>If not -- lots of other places make torpedos etc.

Of course: but you're starting from scratch. New spares pipeline, new
handling equipment, redesigning the submarine fire control equipment,
new tactics, retraining just about everyone involved... it can be done
but it's not a quick, cheap or simple substitution.

Also, 'lots' is something of an exaggeration. There's the US, France,
Sweden and Italy: maybe Russia if you trust their after-sales service
(and are willing to risk one of your SSBNs imitating the Kursk).

After that, you're into relying on China or North Korea or similar -
good prices, but not much performance.

>>Spare parts come from Warton, which is - guess where? Armaments are BAE
>>and MBDA, which again aren't Scotland-based.
>
>Though they do have establishments in Scotland (BAE does, I'm not
>sure about MBDA). In any case, arms manufacturers are hardly likely
>to refuse to sell arms.

Depends how much pressure is applied. Remember, this is apparently being
conducted with a belligerent Scotland threatening nuclear death to
anyone who opposes it.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Jackie Mulheron

July 12th 04, 05:33 PM

In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> writes:

>In message >, Robert Peffers
> writes
>>Frae Auld bob Peffers:
>>Well Denmark does very well as they are. Anyway Scotland would be entitled
>>to her share of the UK armed forces,
>
>Sure, but it means you get to pay for them (and most of the support and
>TacDev is way down south,

Och I'm sure it won't be as bad as the constant Defence Reviews and
reorganisations we have in the UK at the behest of the Treasury. We'll just
give the contract to some Sandline type company - which is probably what the
UK will end up doing anyway.

>meaning you need to pay again to duplicate it
>if it's a hostile split). Balkanisation isn't usually a good idea (I
>mean, _look_ at the Balkans - would _you_ want to live there?)

This isn't the Balkans. More sedate like the "splits" with Canada et al. The
idea of a British Isles Balkans is just the fantasy hyperbole passing for
unionist political propaganda. Most countries go their separate ways quite
amicably. It's just that their stories don't make good movies.

>>(or if not we could hang on to ALL the
>>nukes as hostages). If they don't give us our proper share the Indians,
>>Pakistanis, Israelis or even the Palestinians may pay well for them. Even
>>the Koreas have nuclear ambitions.
>
>Careful there - the US might remember the Auld Alliance and decide that
>Scotland is close enough to France to become part of the Axis of Evil.
>Trying to auction nuclear warheads might get some unwelcome gatecrashers
>(besides, most of the customers are short on manners, and might decide
>that it was easier to kill other bidders than match their price, then
>the auctioneer gets hit in the crossfire, and where's your profit then?)

Be a tad dangerous hitting us in the crossfire when we still have the
capability of delivering the goods for free.

Jackie Mulheron

July 12th 04, 05:34 PM

In article >, Peter Kemp
> writes:

>On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:07:21 +0100, (phil hunt)
>wrote:
>
>>There's recently been speculation in the media that UK defence cuts
>>ewill result in some or all of Scotland's infantry regiments being
>>disbanded[1]. If Scotland became an independent state, what
>>sort of armed forces should it have -- if you were appointed
>>Scottish minister of defence, what would you do?
>
>4-6 fisheries protection vessels, alsae guid for keeping the damn
>English away fra the wee oil platferms.
>
>one of them Brewery ships sounds like a guid idee an all, fer keeping
>the troops mora...morae.....spirits oop.
>Now, are we goona join that Nato thingie or not?
>
>If we are, then a coople of battalians of infantree shood werk well
>fer yon peeckeepin roll, and we can gaw down and smack the damn
>Sassenachs occasionaly an all.
>
>A few MPAs (again 4-6) for long range patrol, plus C2 of any SAR work,
>plus a dozen Merlins for both land and naval work (SAR, troop
>transposrt, resupply).
>
>If Bonnie auld Scotland did ever split, I see them (if you haven't
>guessed I'm not a native Scottish speaker) more as an Ireland (minimal
>forces except for peacekeping and EEZ patrol), than a Sweden
>(extremely large and competant forces for the size of economy and
>population).

Hell, why not an Israel? Bigger population and no occupation
commitments...unless you include parts of Lanarkshire and the Glesga Strip.

Jackie Mulheron

July 12th 04, 05:35 PM

In article >,
(phil hunt) writes:

>There's recently been speculation in the media that UK defence cuts
>ewill result in some or all of Scotland's infantry regiments being
>disbanded[1]. If Scotland became an independent state, what
>sort of armed forces should it have -- if you were appointed
>Scottish minister of defence, what would you do?

The same as Iceland and thus save billions to build myself a Presidential
Palace.

Jackie Mulheron

July 12th 04, 05:39 PM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
rg...

> >Trying to auction nuclear warheads might get some unwelcome gatecrashers
>
> The USA paid Ukraine to get rid of theirs, as I recall.

Now there's an excellent argument for independence. Go independent and get
billions from the US. Wonderful fillip to the economy. Keep it up.

Peter Kemp

July 12th 04, 08:42 PM

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:30:49 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 18:23:35 -0400, Peter Kemp > wrote:
>>
>>4-6 fisheries protection vessels, alsae guid for keeping the damn
>>English away fra the wee oil platferms.
>
>Makes sense.
>
>>A few MPAs (again 4-6) for long range patrol, plus C2 of any SAR work,
>>plus a dozen Merlins for both land and naval work (SAR, troop
>>transposrt, resupply).
>
>What're MPAs?

Maritime Patrol Aircraft (e.g. Nimrods in RAF service)

>>If Bonnie auld Scotland did ever split, I see them (if you haven't
>>guessed I'm not a native Scottish speaker) more as an Ireland (minimal
>>forces except for peacekeping and EEZ patrol), than a Sweden
>>(extremely large and competant forces for the size of economy and
>>population).
>
>That's probably what would happen.
>
>Though bear in mind Sweden spends a lower proportion of GDP on
>defense than the UK does. The MoD doesn't seem to be into value for
>money. Why do they employ more civil servants than soldiers?

Because it's cehaper to have a civvy doing things like procurement and
support than a military bod who is wasted behind a desk (as long as
you have enough military types around making sure we deliver what they
need). Trust me, my equivalent military bod earns a hell of a lot more
than I do.

Peter Kemp

Peter Kemp

July 12th 04, 08:44 PM

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:34:39 +0100, "Jackie Mulheron"
> wrote:

>In article >, Peter Kemp
> writes:
>>If Bonnie auld Scotland did ever split, I see them (if you haven't
>>guessed I'm not a native Scottish speaker) more as an Ireland (minimal
>>forces except for peacekeping and EEZ patrol), than a Sweden
>>(extremely large and competant forces for the size of economy and
>>population).
>
>Hell, why not an Israel? Bigger population and no occupation
>commitments...unless you include parts of Lanarkshire and the Glesga Strip.

Small problem - to be an Israel you need to be beating the crap out of
the indiginous population (any Picts left?) and of couse get Billions
from the US to subsidise it all. I don't see the Scottish lobby having
a lot of power in Congress at the moment.

Peter Kemp

Paul J. Adam

July 12th 04, 09:24 PM

In message >, Peter Kemp
> writes
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:30:49 +0100, (phil hunt)
>wrote:
>>The MoD doesn't seem to be into value for
>>money. Why do they employ more civil servants than soldiers?
>
>Because it's cehaper to have a civvy doing things like procurement and
>support than a military bod who is wasted behind a desk (as long as
>you have enough military types around making sure we deliver what they
>need). Trust me, my equivalent military bod earns a hell of a lot more
>than I do.

Ditto. My "military equivalent" ranks make twice what I do, but I'm
current to searide and tabbed to deploy and most of them aren't. So
they're safe at home while I can be grabbed and dropped into a warzone
to *directly* support operations if needed. Oh, wait one... who's the
better deal? :)

I could complain, but then if I *do* end up in Basra I get various extra
allowances which my Navy oppos don't. (On the other hand even with the
allowances I'm *still* earning less in Basra than them Navy equivalents
in cushty billets back home...)

But I like the work, which is why I'm there rather than in the private
sector.

Also, at least where I sit, many of those 'civil servants' are
themselves ex-Navy who are contributing irreplaceable expertise for much
lower cost than keeping them in uniform. I'm not familiar with the
hinterlands of UK MoD, which is where I presume the huge 'waste, fraud
and abuse' must be - because the only reason the Forces are doing so
much with so little now is that they've contracted out so many 'non-core
tasks' to civilian staff who cost less and get less leave than Service
folk.

(Not knocking the Forces, either: they're the ones *fighting* when push
becomes shove, while we're just asked to get up with them to help,
advise and guide - and try not to get hurt while they do so.)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

July 12th 04, 09:38 PM

In message >, Jackie Mulheron
> writes
>In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> writes:
>>Sure, but it means you get to pay for them (and most of the support and
>>TacDev is way down south,
>
>Och I'm sure it won't be as bad as the constant Defence Reviews and
>reorganisations we have in the UK at the behest of the Treasury.

It'll be worse for both sides.

>>meaning you need to pay again to duplicate it
>>if it's a hostile split). Balkanisation isn't usually a good idea (I
>>mean, _look_ at the Balkans - would _you_ want to live there?)
>
>This isn't the Balkans. More sedate like the "splits" with Canada et al.

'Sedate'? The poster who got me into this argument was claiming that
Scotland would get what it wanted or start throwing Tridents around.

A peaceful, negotiated separation would mean significant loss of
capability on both sides, but could be managed to minimise the pain. But
the scenario presented was simple thuggery.

>The
>idea of a British Isles Balkans is just the fantasy hyperbole passing for
>unionist political propaganda.

Why? Two elements of a 'former nation-state', one breaking away with
significant expertise and strong will, another determined to crush this
'minority revolt' having most of the big guns (and please, consider
something called the Permissive Action Link)

It's a situation to be devoutly avoided. If Scotland really wants to
break free, then I have strong reasons for both sides to sort the issue
out peacefully.

But it was not I that advanced the notion of "if we don't get what we
want, we just nuke London".

>Most countries go their separate ways quite
>amicably. It's just that their stories don't make good movies.

Quite so. And as the son of a mother from Aberdeen and a father from
Perth, I'd devoutly hope that the separation would be as painless and
efficient as possible.

But that doesn't change the fact that some hard choices would have to be
made and the negotiations would get downright "frank and forthright" at
times..

>>Careful there - the US might remember the Auld Alliance and decide that
>>Scotland is close enough to France to become part of the Axis of Evil.
>>Trying to auction nuclear warheads might get some unwelcome gatecrashers
>>(besides, most of the customers are short on manners, and might decide
>>that it was easier to kill other bidders than match their price, then
>>the auctioneer gets hit in the crossfire, and where's your profit then?)
>
>Be a tad dangerous hitting us in the crossfire when we still have the
>capability of delivering the goods for free.

Deliver them to whom? Scotland doesn't have a DSP network or any BMEWS
stations. You know for sure you just got hit, you have the mushroom
clouds to prove it, but whose hand did the deed and where should you
retaliate?

For that matter, according to some you've just auctioned off some
nuclear weapons to the highest bidder: how can you be sure they didn't
just use you as a live-fire test of their new toys (and to avoid having
the cheque cashed?)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

phil hunt

July 13th 04, 12:48 AM

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 00:07:04 +0100, Robert Peffers > wrote:
>
>Well! At least one person got the real point that I was making. The chances
>of Scotland and England in a head to head confrontation with pea shooters is
>almost laughable never mind lobbing nukes at one another.

True

>In fact the best thing that could happen for all concerned is for
>both
>countries to realise we are just tiny little dots on the map and have no
>right to be attempting to be World Powers. We must look to a European
>military force if there is to be any hope of standing against the big
>threats that will confront us in future. One of these threats is the Eastern
>Bloc but another is the might of the USA who, make no mistake about it,
>continue to attempt to dominate the World.

If all European states modelled their armed forces on those of
Sweden or Finland, the EU's military would be quantitively far
superior to the USA's, and qualitively only slightly behind.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

phil hunt

July 13th 04, 12:50 AM

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:22:10 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>
>Depends how much pressure is applied. Remember, this is apparently being
>conducted with a belligerent Scotland threatening nuclear death to
>anyone who opposes it.

That's clearly not going to happen.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

phil hunt

July 13th 04, 01:06 AM

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:38:42 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>
>A peaceful, negotiated separation would mean significant loss of
>capability on both sides,

I'm not sure about that. The MoD is an extremely wasteful
organisation. Consider how many men, tanks and aircraft the UK could
mobilise for war with the numbers Sweden and Finland could, on much
smaller budgets.

An independent Scotland would be about the size of Finland, in terms
of population and GDP. Finland's armed forces include 22 brigades
(roughly 66 infantry regiments, plus various armoured, artillery,
etc units), and their air force has 60 F-18 fighters. I would note
that if Finland and the UK were hostile to each other and shared a
border, these forces would stand a good chance of beating those of
the UK in combat, despite Britain having 10 times as many people and
spending a hight proportion of GDP on its armed forces.

Scotland could afford something similar. If conscription wasn't
considered, the army would presumably be smaller, say 6-8 brigades.
The air force could take over some Tornados and operate the Typhoon
as it comes into service, for a total of about 60 aircraft. The
navy would consist of patrol boats with the possibility of attaching
extra armaments to them if there was a serious war, along the lines
of the Danish Flyvefisken ships.

If Scotland did decide to keep nuclear weapons, putting some of them
in Storm Shadow missiles would be an effective delivery system.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

Jackie Mulheron

July 14th 04, 09:04 PM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
rg...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:22:10 +0100, Paul J. Adam
> wrote:
> >
> >Depends how much pressure is applied. Remember, this is apparently being
> >conducted with a belligerent Scotland threatening nuclear death to
> >anyone who opposes it.
>
> That's clearly not going to happen.

It will if Bob takes control!!!

Hold on. That clearly not going to happen.

Jackie Mulheron

July 14th 04, 10:06 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Jackie Mulheron
> > writes
> >In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> > writes:
> >>Sure, but it means you get to pay for them (and most of the support and
> >>TacDev is way down south,
> >
> >Och I'm sure it won't be as bad as the constant Defence Reviews and
> >reorganisations we have in the UK at the behest of the Treasury.
>
> It'll be worse for both sides.

Well Phil Hunt seems to think otherwise and is posting some good detailed
stuff. You don't think the MOD is a model of efficiency do you?

I heard a tale (was a guy in the RAF as well) who said that the fly past of
Tornados at the Jubilee was backed up with another equal number so
unconfident were they of their ability to stay airworthy.

Inspirational stuff along with a Tescos style supply system. Or is it
Morrisons?

> >>meaning you need to pay again to duplicate it
> >>if it's a hostile split). Balkanisation isn't usually a good idea (I
> >>mean, _look_ at the Balkans - would _you_ want to live there?)
> >
> >This isn't the Balkans. More sedate like the "splits" with Canada et al.
>
> 'Sedate'? The poster who got me into this argument was claiming that
> Scotland would get what it wanted or start throwing Tridents around.

Well he isn't called "Auld" Bob because he's a sprightly adolescent. He's
pulling your chain (I hope he's pulling your chain!!!) and I doubt he will
be leading the movement for national liberation anyway.

> A peaceful, negotiated separation would mean significant loss of
> capability on both sides, but could be managed to minimise the pain. But
> the scenario presented was simple thuggery.

It could also mean they just keep the institutions and have them as a shared
resource with some designated units and bases under some form of sovereign
control. Sure it could be worked out. Probably please the Marshalls and
Admirals as well as the two governments avoid annoying each other with
calling for those incessant reviews.

> >The idea of a British Isles Balkans is just the fantasy hyperbole passing
for
> >unionist political propaganda.
>
> Why? Two elements of a 'former nation-state', one breaking away with
> significant expertise and strong will, another determined to crush this
> 'minority revolt' having most of the big guns (and please, consider
> something called the Permissive Action Link)

And unlikely to happen. Ghandi admitted that it was because the British were
essentially decent that they accepted the inevitability of Indian
independence.

Most of the countries becoming independent from London government did so
peacefully and with agreement. But their not as "interesting" to read about
as the the others. And in most of those other cases the violence was usually
an internal one which the British found themselves having to get through.

> It's a situation to be devoutly avoided. If Scotland really wants to
> break free, then I have strong reasons for both sides to sort the issue
> out peacefully.

And there's no reason to believe it won't be.

> But it was not I that advanced the notion of "if we don't get what we
> want, we just nuke London".

Again that's just Bob. It would be a bit difficult getting to that point in
the first place what with having to storm Faslane, make sure the subs don't
slip out and have the people to operate them or know the codes to fire them.
(Why am I even considering such a ridiculous scenario???!!!)

> >Most countries go their separate ways quite
> >amicably. It's just that their stories don't make good movies.
>
> Quite so. And as the son of a mother from Aberdeen and a father from
> Perth, I'd devoutly hope that the separation would be as painless and
> efficient as possible.

Just look up the Commonwealth countries in their site and the names of most
won't spring out as ones who had a "War" of independence. Where there was
conflict it was invariably cock up by the British in handling an angsty or
belligerent minority - Orangemen/Republicans in Ireland, Communist Chinese
in Malaysia, Hindus/Muslims in India, Mau Mau in Kenya or white
settlers/black nationalists in Rhodesia.

> But that doesn't change the fact that some hard choices would have to be
> made and the negotiations would get downright "frank and forthright" at
> times..

Oh they'll probably be a few cards kept close to the chest but which
Scotland is willing to throw away. Could end up with keeping the present
organisation on a shared basis, or have leased or sovereign bases a la
Cyprus, maybe do away with it all and let London do it a la Iceland. Nukes
may be the sticking point but not that Scotland wants to keep them.

> >>Careful there - the US might remember the Auld Alliance and decide that
> >>Scotland is close enough to France to become part of the Axis of Evil.
> >>Trying to auction nuclear warheads might get some unwelcome gatecrashers
> >>(besides, most of the customers are short on manners, and might decide
> >>that it was easier to kill other bidders than match their price, then
> >>the auctioneer gets hit in the crossfire, and where's your profit then?)
> >
> >Be a tad dangerous hitting us in the crossfire when we still have the
> >capability of delivering the goods for free.
>
> Deliver them to whom? Scotland doesn't have a DSP network or any BMEWS
> stations. You know for sure you just got hit, you have the mushroom
> clouds to prove it, but whose hand did the deed and where should you
> retaliate?

How could they do that when we haven't sold the good to "them" yet?

> For that matter, according to some you've just auctioned off some
> nuclear weapons to the highest bidder: how can you be sure they didn't
> just use you as a live-fire test of their new toys (and to avoid having
> the cheque cashed?)

We'd cash it first and do an Israel Dirty Harry style - "Did we only have
five to sell you or was there a sixth?"

By the way I was being facetious with the last comment.

Jackie Mulheron

July 14th 04, 10:09 PM

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:34:39 +0100, "Jackie Mulheron"
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, Peter Kemp
> > writes:
> >>If Bonnie auld Scotland did ever split, I see them (if you haven't
> >>guessed I'm not a native Scottish speaker) more as an Ireland (minimal
> >>forces except for peacekeping and EEZ patrol), than a Sweden
> >>(extremely large and competant forces for the size of economy and
> >>population).
> >
> >Hell, why not an Israel? Bigger population and no occupation
> >commitments...unless you include parts of Lanarkshire and the Glesga
Strip.
>
> Small problem - to be an Israel you need to be beating the crap out of
> the indiginous population (any Picts left?) and of couse get Billions
> from the US to subsidise it all. I don't see the Scottish lobby having
> a lot of power in Congress at the moment.

We're on to that one. We're going to sell the Brahan Seer's prophecies as
those of a lost Christian prophet and if they don't follow them to the
letter then their sorry raggedy assed souls are for the big inferno.

Robert Peffers

July 14th 04, 10:54 PM

"Jackie Mulheron" > wrote in message
...
>
> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> rg...
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:22:10 +0100, Paul J. Adam
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >Depends how much pressure is applied. Remember, this is apparently
being
> > >conducted with a belligerent Scotland threatening nuclear death to
> > >anyone who opposes it.
> >
> > That's clearly not going to happen.
>
> It will if Bob takes control!!!
>
> Hold on. That clearly not going to happen.
>
>
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
You have no idea what my view of defence is. I can tell you for nothing that
it does not include pre-emptive strikes or invasions of another country.
Defence means exactly that, defending yourself against someone who has
attacked you. Not just a daft perceived airy fairy lie that some country,
clearly not in any way able to attack you from where they are, has WMDs you
gave them so long ago they are useless.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004

Robert Peffers

July 14th 04, 11:09 PM

"Jackie Mulheron" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, Jackie Mulheron
> > > writes
> > >In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> > > writes:
> > >>Sure, but it means you get to pay for them (and most of the support
and
> > >>TacDev is way down south,
> > >
> > >Och I'm sure it won't be as bad as the constant Defence Reviews and
> > >reorganisations we have in the UK at the behest of the Treasury.
> >
> > It'll be worse for both sides.
>
> Well Phil Hunt seems to think otherwise and is posting some good detailed
> stuff. You don't think the MOD is a model of efficiency do you?
>
> I heard a tale (was a guy in the RAF as well) who said that the fly past
of
> Tornados at the Jubilee was backed up with another equal number so
> unconfident were they of their ability to stay airworthy.
>
> Inspirational stuff along with a Tescos style supply system. Or is it
> Morrisons?
>
> > >>meaning you need to pay again to duplicate it
> > >>if it's a hostile split). Balkanisation isn't usually a good idea (I
> > >>mean, _look_ at the Balkans - would _you_ want to live there?)
> > >
> > >This isn't the Balkans. More sedate like the "splits" with Canada et
al.
> >
> > 'Sedate'? The poster who got me into this argument was claiming that
> > Scotland would get what it wanted or start throwing Tridents around.
>
> Well he isn't called "Auld" Bob because he's a sprightly adolescent. He's
> pulling your chain (I hope he's pulling your chain!!!) and I doubt he will
> be leading the movement for national liberation anyway.
>
> > A peaceful, negotiated separation would mean significant loss of
> > capability on both sides, but could be managed to minimise the pain. But
> > the scenario presented was simple thuggery.
>
> It could also mean they just keep the institutions and have them as a
shared
> resource with some designated units and bases under some form of sovereign
> control. Sure it could be worked out. Probably please the Marshalls and
> Admirals as well as the two governments avoid annoying each other with
> calling for those incessant reviews.
>
> > >The idea of a British Isles Balkans is just the fantasy hyperbole
passing
> for
> > >unionist political propaganda.
> >
> > Why? Two elements of a 'former nation-state', one breaking away with
> > significant expertise and strong will, another determined to crush this
> > 'minority revolt' having most of the big guns (and please, consider
> > something called the Permissive Action Link)
>
> And unlikely to happen. Ghandi admitted that it was because the British
were
> essentially decent that they accepted the inevitability of Indian
> independence.
>
> Most of the countries becoming independent from London government did so
> peacefully and with agreement. But their not as "interesting" to read
about
> as the the others. And in most of those other cases the violence was
usually
> an internal one which the British found themselves having to get through.
>
> > It's a situation to be devoutly avoided. If Scotland really wants to
> > break free, then I have strong reasons for both sides to sort the issue
> > out peacefully.
>
> And there's no reason to believe it won't be.
>
> > But it was not I that advanced the notion of "if we don't get what we
> > want, we just nuke London".
>
> Again that's just Bob. It would be a bit difficult getting to that point
in
> the first place what with having to storm Faslane, make sure the subs
don't
> slip out and have the people to operate them or know the codes to fire
them.
> (Why am I even considering such a ridiculous scenario???!!!)
>
> > >Most countries go their separate ways quite
> > >amicably. It's just that their stories don't make good movies.
> >
> > Quite so. And as the son of a mother from Aberdeen and a father from
> > Perth, I'd devoutly hope that the separation would be as painless and
> > efficient as possible.
>
> Just look up the Commonwealth countries in their site and the names of
most
> won't spring out as ones who had a "War" of independence. Where there was
> conflict it was invariably cock up by the British in handling an angsty or
> belligerent minority - Orangemen/Republicans in Ireland, Communist Chinese
> in Malaysia, Hindus/Muslims in India, Mau Mau in Kenya or white
> settlers/black nationalists in Rhodesia.
>
> > But that doesn't change the fact that some hard choices would have to be
> > made and the negotiations would get downright "frank and forthright" at
> > times..
>
> Oh they'll probably be a few cards kept close to the chest but which
> Scotland is willing to throw away. Could end up with keeping the present
> organisation on a shared basis, or have leased or sovereign bases a la
> Cyprus, maybe do away with it all and let London do it a la Iceland. Nukes
> may be the sticking point but not that Scotland wants to keep them.
>
> > >>Careful there - the US might remember the Auld Alliance and decide
that
> > >>Scotland is close enough to France to become part of the Axis of Evil.
> > >>Trying to auction nuclear warheads might get some unwelcome
gatecrashers
> > >>(besides, most of the customers are short on manners, and might decide
> > >>that it was easier to kill other bidders than match their price, then
> > >>the auctioneer gets hit in the crossfire, and where's your profit
then?)
> > >
> > >Be a tad dangerous hitting us in the crossfire when we still have the
> > >capability of delivering the goods for free.
> >
> > Deliver them to whom? Scotland doesn't have a DSP network or any BMEWS
> > stations. You know for sure you just got hit, you have the mushroom
> > clouds to prove it, but whose hand did the deed and where should you
> > retaliate?
>
> How could they do that when we haven't sold the good to "them" yet?
>
> > For that matter, according to some you've just auctioned off some
> > nuclear weapons to the highest bidder: how can you be sure they didn't
> > just use you as a live-fire test of their new toys (and to avoid having
> > the cheque cashed?)
>
> We'd cash it first and do an Israel Dirty Harry style - "Did we only have
> five to sell you or was there a sixth?"
>
> By the way I was being facetious with the last comment.
>
>
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Just for the record what was said by me was quite plain. It was due to
someone's assumptions that the armed forces belonged to England. My reply
was that if this was true then Scotland would just
hang on to what was already in Scotland - Virtually the entire nuclear
fleet. The guy went of on a great tirade with way to much detail and some
garbled bluster about what England would do. My reply was, a bit tongue in
cheek, that Scotland would just auction off the nukes to the highest bidder.

The essential point was, though, that Scotland, as a partner in the UK
already owned and thus were due a fair share of the existing forces.

Not my fault the silly bugger could not see the wood for the trees. Far as I
go if Scotland does ever gain independence our best friends will still be
our best friends and these are England, Wales and Ireland. Furthermore
Scotland has shown no desire to gain independence in any way other than the
ballot box, (but what else can you expect out of a military genius with too
many weapons on his fevered mind).
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
E-Mail:-
(Tak oot the wee dug tae send e-mail).

---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004

Paul J. Adam

July 14th 04, 11:44 PM

In message >, Jackie Mulheron
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> It'll be worse for both sides.
>
>Well Phil Hunt seems to think otherwise and is posting some good detailed
>stuff. You don't think the MOD is a model of efficiency do you?

No. However, some countries have "Ministries of Defence" in the genuine
sense that their military capability is limited to their territorial
waters/airspace, and some UN blue-helmet work if they're so inclined.
That means you're planning for an unlikely contingency and if it
happens, it's on known home ground.

Other countries - like the UK - maintain the capability to send and
support most of a division to pretty much anywhere in the world. That
means that you may find your forces fighting anywhere from the South
Atlantic to the al-Fao Peninsula, and they have to be flexible,
adaptable and survivable enough to cope with that.

This becomes a *much* larger problem, involving large overheads in
everything from multiple uniforms in sufficient supply (witness recent
problems in Iraq where 9,000 soldier-sets of desert CS95 was nowhere
near enough) to having dozens of large ships with crews and security
detachments available at short notice to get to where the fighting is,
and keep the supply of beans, bullets and batteries flowing.

I would not want to fight the Finns or the Norwegians on their home
turf, but neither could they project power to any significant extent.
The UK currently can do so. Would an independent Scotland be willing to
maintain that capability?

>I heard a tale (was a guy in the RAF as well) who said that the fly past of
>Tornados at the Jubilee was backed up with another equal number so
>unconfident were they of their ability to stay airworthy.

Sounds a little exaggerated to me, but I'm working with the wrong shade
of blue to know. (Personally, I'm told that your only chance of support
from *any* air force is if it's before four o'clock on a weekday - or
lunchtime on Friday :) )

>Inspirational stuff along with a Tescos style supply system. Or is it
>Morrisons?

When Tesco has a Basra branch, the comparison may be valid.

>> 'Sedate'? The poster who got me into this argument was claiming that
>> Scotland would get what it wanted or start throwing Tridents around.
>
>Well he isn't called "Auld" Bob because he's a sprightly adolescent. He's
>pulling your chain (I hope he's pulling your chain!!!)

Doesn't seem to have been. Very ill-tempered fellow.

>and I doubt he will
>be leading the movement for national liberation anyway.

Are you sure he's not been planted by London? :)

>> A peaceful, negotiated separation would mean significant loss of
>> capability on both sides, but could be managed to minimise the pain. But
>> the scenario presented was simple thuggery.
>
>It could also mean they just keep the institutions and have them as a shared
>resource with some designated units and bases under some form of sovereign
>control.

And shared funding, and then you get the cries that Scotland doesn't
need this aggressive expeditionary policy and won't pay for it, but do
you still get access to the data even though you're refusing to
contribute to collecting it?

If necessary, solutions will be found, but I'm wary of notions that it's
simple, quick or easy.

>> But it was not I that advanced the notion of "if we don't get what we
>> want, we just nuke London".
>
>Again that's just Bob. It would be a bit difficult getting to that point in
>the first place what with having to storm Faslane, make sure the subs don't
>slip out and have the people to operate them or know the codes to fire them.
>(Why am I even considering such a ridiculous scenario???!!!)

Wasn't my idea either.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

July 14th 04, 11:50 PM

In message >, Robert Peffers
> writes
>Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
>Just for the record what was said by me was quite plain.

Yes - "give us what we want or we start throwing nuclear weapons
around".

>It was due to
>someone's assumptions that the armed forces belonged to England.

Not sure who said that, but I was only drawn in by the egregiously
stupid stuff rather than flagrantly foolish nationalism.

>My reply
>was that if this was true then Scotland would just
> hang on to what was already in Scotland - Virtually the entire nuclear
>fleet.

Apart from that part of it down at Aldermaston, a point oft neglected.

>The guy went of on a great tirade with way to much detail and some
>garbled bluster about what England would do.

Translation, poor Mr Peffers didn't understand the facts as explained to
him.

>My reply was, a bit tongue in
>cheek, that Scotland would just auction off the nukes to the highest bidder.

Oh, I *see*, it was all just a little wee joke, was it? Then how come
*you* didn't see the funny side?

>The essential point was, though, that Scotland, as a partner in the UK
>already owned and thus were due a fair share of the existing forces.

Surely. But then, those forces include the supporting infrastructure,
and the trained personnel, and the stockpiles of spares and supplies to
support them. (And if you think the UK struggles, that's because we
*use* the kit and that shows up the weaknesses)

For that matter, if you're planning to give up on aspirations to "second
division world power", how many offshore patrol vessels equal one
Landing Ship Dock?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Dweezil Dwarftosser

July 15th 04, 05:05 AM

Jackie Mulheron wrote:
>
> > Small problem - to be an Israel you need to be beating the crap out of
> > the indiginous population (any Picts left?) and of couse get Billions
> > from the US to subsidise it all. I don't see the Scottish lobby having
> > a lot of power in Congress at the moment.

That could easily change with threat of an embargo on
whiskey shipments...!

phil hunt

July 16th 04, 12:42 AM

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:44:31 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, Jackie Mulheron
> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>>> It'll be worse for both sides.
>>
>>Well Phil Hunt seems to think otherwise and is posting some good detailed
>>stuff. You don't think the MOD is a model of efficiency do you?
>
>No. However, some countries have "Ministries of Defence" in the genuine
>sense that their military capability is limited to their territorial
>waters/airspace, and some UN blue-helmet work if they're so inclined.

Yes. While Britain, on the other hand, seems to have a Ministry of
Being Bush's Poodle.

Our armed forces seem to be specialised towards being a small
"niche" force which can't really do much on its own but which can be
used as a component for any advanturism our masters^W valuable
allies the Americans wish to get into.

And I expect if the Tories ever won power (which they won't in the
next election, the electoral system pretty much guarrantees that --
if the Tories get more votes than Labour, Labour can still win an
overall majority) they would be even more sycophantic little
poodles.

They've no choice really -- Britain can either go with Europe or
with the USA and too many Tories hate Europe for ythe first
possibility nto happen.

>That means you're planning for an unlikely contingency and if it
>happens, it's on known home ground.

>Other countries - like the UK - maintain the capability to send and
>support most of a division to pretty much anywhere in the world.

Only as part of an Amnerican force, in which case it would be mainly
there for political reasons, to give the likes of Bush and Rumsfeld
a thin veneer of multilateralism.

And since it would only be for political reasons, why not just send
a battalion? It shows the flag just as well.

The RN is currently getting rid of its Harriers. This means it will
be without air defence capability until we get the new F-35s (I
wonder if the USA will deign to sell its loyal ally the fully
stealthed version, or whether like most foreign partners, we'll have
the "monkey model" foisted on us?)

In any case, the F-35 isn't going into production until the 2010s
and I doubt if it'll be operational with the RN in much less than 10
years. And until then it's pretty much unthinkable that the surface
fleet would go anywhere against any country with any significant air
capability -- even tuppeny-ha'penny ********s like Sudan would
represent significant dangers to an RN without air cover.

>That
>means that you may find your forces fighting anywhere from the South
>Atlantic to the al-Fao Peninsula, and they have to be flexible,
>adaptable and survivable enough to cope with that.

Once the Harriers are gone, Britain will lose the capability to
mount another Falklands operation.

>This becomes a *much* larger problem, involving large overheads in
>everything from multiple uniforms in sufficient supply (witness recent
>problems in Iraq where 9,000 soldier-sets of desert CS95 was nowhere
>near enough) to having dozens of large ships with crews and security
>detachments available at short notice to get to where the fighting is,
>and keep the supply of beans, bullets and batteries flowing.
>
>I would not want to fight the Finns or the Norwegians on their home
>turf, but neither could they project power to any significant extent.
>The UK currently can do so. Would an independent Scotland be willing to
>maintain that capability?

On its own? Of course not, since it's highly unlikely it would want
to pay the money to do so (10% or more of GDP wouldn't go down well
with the voters).

In concert with other European nations, as part of an EU that's a
full military alliance, it's a serious possibility. If you
extrapolate the armed forces of Sweden or Finland to the full EU you
get the possibility of very substancial foreces indeed -- e.g. 200
army divisions and 5000 fighter aircraft would be entirely possible.

As you correctly point out, logistics are an important
consideration. If there is a major war which the EU is forced into,
it is very likely to be in the Middle East. Turkey wants to join the
EU, and should be allowed in. Then, Europe would have a land border
with the middle east, which would make logistic constraints a lot
more manageable, especially if the road haulage, air feight and
airliner industries were made part of the war effort for the
duration of hostilities. Europe's substancial transport
infrastructure would be capable of supplying very sizable forces in
the middle east; certainly larger forces than the USA could put
there, which would have to be transported and supplied by ship or
air thousands from halfway around the world.

All this could be done without large extra spending on defence;
something like 2% of GDP, throughout the EU, would pay for it.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

Peter Kemp

July 16th 04, 03:14 AM

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:42:52 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:44:31 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In any case, the F-35 isn't going into production until the 2010s
>and I doubt if it'll be operational with the RN in much less than 10
>years. And until then it's pretty much unthinkable that the surface
>fleet would go anywhere against any country with any significant air
>capability -- even tuppeny-ha'penny ********s like Sudan would
>represent significant dangers to an RN without air cover.

Sudan? Air force strike force consisting of around 10 MiG 21 knock
offs and 3 (count em) MiG 23?

I think even without Harrier GR.9/A armed with Sidewinders the
T22/23/42 should be able to handle them.

Should we keep the SHARs - IMO hell yes, at least until we've at least
3 T45 in the fleet, but like it or not, we can't afford it.

Peter Kemp

Mike MacKinnon

July 16th 04, 09:37 AM

Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:34:39 +0100, "Jackie Mulheron"
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, Peter Kemp
> > writes:
> >>If Bonnie auld Scotland did ever split, I see them (if you haven't
> >>guessed I'm not a native Scottish speaker) more as an Ireland (minimal
> >>forces except for peacekeping and EEZ patrol), than a Sweden
> >>(extremely large and competant forces for the size of economy and
> >>population).
> >
> >Hell, why not an Israel? Bigger population and no occupation
> >commitments...unless you include parts of Lanarkshire and the Glesga Strip.
>
> Small problem - to be an Israel you need to be beating the crap out of
> the indiginous population (any Picts left?) and of couse get Billions
> from the US to subsidise it all. I don't see the Scottish lobby having
> a lot of power in Congress at the moment.
>
> Peter Kemp

Yeah, I think we're a bit too well educated and western oriented to be
like Israel or any Arab country. I mean, we do have some small
problems with religious loonies but not as much as those eejits have.
Let's face it, Arabs bomb Israelis and Israelis bomb Arabs. And why?
Coz they're a different religion. They'll tell you it's about land,
but it's all about religion at the bottom line.

We should go a little further and make any form of religious
proselytising a crime. Then all your loony Catholics, Protestants,
Islamists, Jews and any other w*nker could be safely locked up.

IMHO, religion is personal and should be kept as such.

M