Armed forces of an independent Scotland

"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.
;-)

"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

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" 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

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.

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" 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.

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.

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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)