Armed forces of an independent Scotland

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 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)

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)

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)

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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

"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

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