the British army and Scottish independence

Prima Nocte

What do you think will happen the British army if Scotland gets independence?

IRLConor

Prima Nocte wrote: »

What do you think will happen the British army if Scotland gets independence?

Presumably the same thing that happens with all the other shared assets. There would be a bloody great big treaty deciding who gets what. It would be something like the Indian Independence Act of 1947.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

tac foley

Read the thread on arrse.com

Some very interesting comments there, with such a shared history of military - much like that of Ireland and the British Armed Forces and the part played by Irish soldiers, sailors and airmen.

One thing is certain, IF independence happens, there will be good and ill-will in equal amounts on both sides of the new international border.

tac

Jawgap

What about Faslane? Wonder where they'll move / re-locate their Trident and attack boats?

Turbine

AFAIK the SNP's plan is to create a Scottish Defence Forces if independence is passed, and presumably there'd have to be negotiations between Edinburgh and London over what assets they'd assume from the British Army/RAF/Royal Navy.

tac foley

Turbine wrote: »

AFAIK the SNP's plan is to create a Scottish Defence Forces if independence is passed, and presumably there'd have to be negotiations between Edinburgh and London over what assets they'd assume from the British Army/RAF/Royal Navy.

Difficult one there - the British Army has, as you know, a number of Scottish Regiments, but there is no similar organisation within the RN or RAF.

I'd be guessing that the newly independent Scotland might opt for an island-wide defence strategy, whereby they offered locations to the RAF and RN in return for a share of protection. After all, Scotland is still part of the island of GB, regardless of its nation status.

This posit is fraught with danger, though. The permanent placement of what will then be foreign forces on the sovereign territory of an independent Scotland is bound to bring howls of anatagonism from the republican citizens of the new country.

YOU didn't do it, so I'm guessing that Scotland won't, either. Then the members of the new SPDF would have to swear allegiance to the Republic of Scotland...and its president, Alex Salmond.

Good luck to them, sez I.

tac

tac foley

Jawgap wrote: »

What about Faslane? Wonder where they'll move / re-locate their Trident and attack boats?

That's a very good question, as the Faslane/Holy Loch facilities are not just British, but US as well, and form a vital part of the NATO defence in this region.

If the Scots told them to poke off, they'd be cutting off around £100M a year, as well as severing ties withing the local communities.

There remains, however, Loch Foyle.

tac

Jawgap

The Foyle replacing Faslane - interesting!! Would still give them ready access too the North Atlantic.

Not only would Faslane be called into question, but training areas like Cape Wrath and Barry Buddon would presumably be lost to the MoD?

Defence contractors with operations in Scotland might also bail and move production south of the border.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the Jocks were going to keep Queenie on as the head of state rather than go for a republic?

I'd also assume the yanks will be piling on the pressure to make sure they stay in NATO? If they don't maybe they'll run Joint Warrior for real and stage it on the Royal Mile

tac foley

Jawgap wrote: »

The Foyle replacing Faslane - interesting!! Would still give them ready access too the North Atlantic.

It worked very successfully in WW2, and for a Sunderland base as well.

As for the contractors currently located up there, well, they would either have to re-negotiate their TOR vis-á-vis the new gubmint, or skedaddle. Me, I couldn't leave quick enough in a place where I wasn't wanted. They can go swivel.

tac

Lemming

Given the OP's username, postcount, history of posts thus far, and the thread title in keeping with that history, I smell a pot of something being stirred.

In any case, there wont be a (successful) vote on full devolution/Scottish independence. Having a rather large amount of family, and some friends, in Scotland, the impression I have always been left with is that whilst it's a nice idea on paper to most Scottish people, in reality it's not something that the masses really want nor crave. This whole matter is more about Alec Salmond trying to write himself into the history books as a modern day William McWallace than the Scottish people pushing for devolution.


Ps. Alec, more time dealing with important stuff like economics and crime and the like, less time fapping off to Braveheart kthxbye.

Turbine

Lemming wrote: »

Given the OP's username, postcount, history of posts thus far, and the thread title in keeping with that history, I smell a pot of something being stirred.

In any case, there wont be a (successful) vote on full devolution/Scottish independence. Having a rather large amount of family, and some friends, in Scotland, the impression I have always been left with is that whilst it's a nice idea on paper to most Scottish people, in reality it's not something that the masses really want nor crave. This whole matter is more about Alec Salmond trying to write himself into the history books as a modern day William McWallace than the Scottish people pushing for devolution.


Ps. Alec, more time dealing with important stuff like economics and crime and the like, less time fapping off to Braveheart kthxbye.

The man's name is Alex, and yes there will be a vote on independence (to take place in Autumn 2014).

In any case, this topic isn't to discuss the politics of Scottish independence, but rather what will happen to Scotland's military should it be approved, which is an interesting topic regardless of what the OP's intentions were.

Lemming

Turbine wrote: »

The man's name is Alex, and yes there will be a vote on independence (to take place in Autumn 2014).

In any case, this topic isn't to discuss the politics of Scottish independence, but rather what will happen to Scotland's military should it be approved, which is an interesting topic regardless of what the OP's intentions were.

I stand corrected on using a 'c' instead of an 'x'. I seem to recall the Daily Record at one period in time always spelling it 'Alec' and must have stuck in my mind. Google says "no" so I must have imagined the whole thing.

I also never said there wouldn't be a vote, just not a successful vote.

Edit: Noting the English located person's complete dismissal of the idea, then inserting the following

As an academic exercise if not as viable prospect.
I wonder is there an opportunity for the defence forces of the three nations to come together in some way? Not a single defence forces for the two isles (Not british, but britirish? North West Europe isles?) but a mutual partnership for training & service branches, a mutual appreciation of military traditions, with a national override in military action?

cyrusdvirus

Deleted User wrote: »

Edit: Noting the English located person's complete dismissal of the idea, then inserting the following

As an academic exercise if not as viable prospect.
I wonder is there an opportunity for the defence forces of the three nations to come together in some way? Not a single defence forces for the two isles (Not british, but britirish? North West Europe isles?) but a mutual partnership for training & service branches, a mutual appreciation of military traditions, with a national override in military action?

First and Foremost, it's not the Britirish Isles, it's the British Isles. That is the geographical name for the region, with Atlantic Archipelago becoming more popular in academic circles.

Anyway, now that I've stirred that little pot, is there not already an agreement regarding the defence of Irish airspace.... by the RAF?

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Donny5

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

IF Scotland break away, then the only defence forces between the 3 areas in question would be Ireland and Scotland , the British Armed Forces Can only be classed as a Defence Force when they have less than 100,000 full time soldiers. But im sure there would be some integration of training between the 3.

Why would it have to be below 100,000 bods to be a defence force? The JSDF calls themselves a defence force with 250,000 full-time bods, the same with Finland with 400,000 permanent and reserve.

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

Donny5

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

I read it somewhere ill try find a link, If im wrong im wrong!! hence the "As far as I know"

Fair enough.

Jawgap

Whether you are a DF or an army, air force etc probably has less to do with numbers and more to do with how your government perceives its role in the world - what does it want / need to defend?

The Brits (like the yanks) have 'interests' that need protecting, we don't. UN work aside, the Irish DF doesn't need to project force to different parts of the world in support of our foreign or national security policy, other countries do. A defence force is more concerned about protecting the homeland, than projecting force to support political objectives.

The 'other' (second-best:D) IDF - the Israelis - have a 'Defence Force' of - I think - 170,000 permanent and hundreds of thousands of reserves - and of course all their operations have been defensive.

Australia, too, has a defence force (not sure about the numbers) but again they probably don't see themselves as having to go charging around the world.

I'd imagine Scotland - if it went down the independence route - would have a defence force. There would be other questions to be answered and no doubt they'll crop up in the campaign, but what if they opt to go nuclear free or not apply for NATO membership or even PfP membership?

Will they have to apply for EU membership in their own right? might they look to join up and contribute to the Nordic Battlegroup?

as interested observer I expect it'll be an election campaign worth following

bluecode

I very much doubt the Scots will vote for independence. But if they do they will remain in the EU. I believe there is legislation that allows for this. Presumably there is a similar arrangement for NATO.

I'd say the transition would be quite smooth and there would be a few years of transition. It won't be like 1922 with the British marching back home and a new Scottish army marching into the empty barracks.

The way some people talk you would almost imagine border posts being thrown up and two semi hostile armies facing off at the border. Or English people needing visas to visit Scotland and vice versa.

This would be a friendly split.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

What would happen to Scottish soldiers who are in non Scottish regiments? My cousin is Scottish but his unit is based in York when not on tour. Will he just be moved to a Scottish regiment? Will he be allowed stay in the one he's in despite not being British anymore?

getz

i dont believe that the scottish people would vote for independence,but if they do there is a problem,first is that the SNP has a long standing opposition to the defence of NATO, for over 30 years with its anti - nuclear stance,so it would not be part of NATO,all british troops and resources would have to be pulled south of the border,it would meen tens of thousands of jobs and businesses would be lost to the scottish economy,and yes scotland would have to apply to join the EU,and that will not be that easy, also most of the UKs service providers would also have to move south

Jawgap

I don't think they will vote for it, and even if they do the transformation will be very orderly - where it might get interesting is around facilities like Faslane, especially if they insist they want to go nuclear free.

Anyway, time for a quick - but slightly relevant - story......

When I lived in England I used to go see Celtic play quite a bit. The supporters' club ran a bus and you nearly always had some "newbie" on it. On one trip there were two lads who literally had never been outside England in their lives but wanted to experience an Old Firm game.

No probs - their 'mates' who were in the supporters club invited them along and told them to bring their passports as they'd be crossing the border! So on the trip it was a bit of a giggle as everyone kept asking the lads if they had their passports and each time they duly showed them. After an hour the joke got a bit thin and died away.

.....however, as luck would have it, we were stopped that day just north of Gretna for a routine check (under the Football legislation the coppers could stop and check coaches they thought were going to matches) - two coppers got on and immediately the boys produced their passports!! Without batting an eyelid one of the coppers takes the passports and starts checking them very seriously and then starts questioning the lads if they had anything to declare?

He then asked them who they were going to support and they obviously said Celtic and he started going on that the quota of English Celtic supporters crossing the border had been filled and they'd have to get off - it was only when they'd grabbed their bags that he told them to sit down - I think they enjoyed ripping the p1$$ out of the English lads more than we did.

getz

a famous welsh darts player alun evens[world darts champ] did the same to a dutch darts player when traveling from england to cardiff for a darts tournament,alun told him as he had not got a visa he would have to hide in the boot of the car when crossing over the border,both alun and layton also loved taking the piss out of the english players as well

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

getz wrote: »

i dont believe that the scottish people would vote for independence,but if they do there is a problem,first is that the SNP has a long standing opposition to the defence of NATO, for over 30 years with its anti - nuclear stance,so it would not be part of NATO,all british troops and resources would have to be pulled south of the border,it would meen tens of thousands of jobs and businesses would be lost to the scottish economy,and yes scotland would have to apply to join the EU,and that will not be that easy, also most of the UKs service providers would also have to move south

That's assuming the SNP are still the majority party when the vote takes place. I have a lot of family in Scotland and from what I've heard from them the SNP really only got the majority vote because the Lib Dems went in with the Torys in England which pi**ed off most of their voters north of the border. It was more of a vote against the Lib Dems than for the SNP.

I think Salmond's insistence on allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the referendum shows he knows that it probably doesn't have as much support as he'd like people to believe it has.

I think the referendum is guaranteed now that it's been signed but there's no guarantee that Salmond will be the man calling the shots once it happens, or indeed doesn't.

Fratton Fred

I would suggest that it is very much in Alex Salmonds interests to sort the question of defence out. Not just because of the jobs involved in the number of bases threr, but also the soldiers and sailors themselves.

I remember a Scottish soldier in a Scottish regiment saying that no soldier should be made to choose between their country and their uniform.

imho, it is one of the numerous ambiguities that makes independence too difficult for most people to consider.

getz

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

That's assuming the SNP are still the majority party when the vote takes place. I have a lot of family in Scotland and from what I've heard from them the SNP really only got the majority vote because the Lib Dems went in with the Torys in England which pi**ed off most of their voters north of the border. It was more of a vote against the Lib Dems than for the SNP.

I think Salmond's insistence on allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the referendum shows he knows that it probably doesn't have as much support as he'd like people to believe it has.

I think the referendum is guaranteed now that it's been signed but there's no guarantee that Salmond will be the man calling the shots once it happens, or indeed doesn't.

i am led to believe that he does not want to give those scotts working and living outside scotland a vote on inderpendence, does that meen i will have to put up with the rowdy thousands of scotts living in blackpool ?

whitelines

An independent Scotland would wind it's forces down to Irish levels within twenty years. Whether in NATO or not. One of the major splits driving Scottish independence is that Scots are left of centre and The English right of centre. Following independence this would reflect itself in indifference or even contempt for the military. This would converge with Scotland's perceived needs. Scotland would have absolutely no interest in international military adventures across the globe such as Iraq or Afghanistan and would play no part in them (beyond the most nominal). It's amazing how even the most Loyal/Loyalist of Scots saw Iraq and Afghanistan as a complete waste of time, despite their support for those on active service. An insular place.

Scotland might well be correct in regarding military power as useless in a 'New' Scotland - where would the threat come from? England? Hardly - The UK State found it impossible to put down 2000 badly trained and initially badly armed Irish terrorists in it's own territory and might well have fled the field without the intervention of assorted Shankill welders and Portadown bin men.

Perhaps The Irish can buy Scotland's share of the weapons stock pile at a knock down price following Scottish independence and use it to build it's own empire? LOL

Geekness1234

Donny5 wrote: »

Why would it have to be below 100,000 bods to be a defence force? The JSDF calls themselves a defence force with 250,000 full-time bods, the same with Finland with 400,000 permanent and reserve.

That's one helluva a military Finland has,with 400000 permanent and reserve out of a population of 5387000.

dvpower

Jawgap wrote: »

What about Faslane? Wonder where they'll move / re-locate their Trident and attack boats?

A UK/Scotland defense pact leaving shared bases in a Scotland.
Or Treaty Ports.

tac foley

dvpower wrote: »

A UK/Scotland defense pact leaving shared bases in a Scotland.
Or Treaty Ports.

NOT unless the SNP change their minds on their non-nuclear policies......IF they remain in power after the transition.

We all have to rejoice in the fact that the 'Wee Eck' is not the universally-loved person that he sees when he looks in the mirror.

tac

Donny5

Geekness1234 wrote: »

That's one helluva a military Finland has,with 400000 permanent and reserve out of a population of 5387000.

Yeah, they maintain it as a deterrent against Russia. They have an interesting system, where have about 10,000 professional full-timers, mostly officers and technical roles, and 25,000 conscripts on 12 month terms. Conscripts are retained (and kept trained) in the reserve until they are fifty. They do all this, and maintain 150 MBTs, nearly a thousand APCs, over 700 arty pieces, MRLSs, over sixty F-18s and a sizable navy for about €2.8 Billion a year.

goldie fish

Well having been invaded a few times by Russia(and the soviet union) in recent history, one can understand their need for luch a large defence force.

Donny5

goldie fish wrote: »

Well having been invaded a few times by Russia(and the soviet union) in recent history, one can understand their need for luch a large defence force.

For sure. It's the economy with which they achieve it that most impresses me.

Rawhead

goldie fish wrote: »

Well having been invaded a few times by Russia(and the soviet union) in recent history, one can understand their need for luch a large defence force.

They gave the Soviets quiet a hiding initially. I remember reading about one sniper who wiped out a whole battalion on his own, I think he only died recently.

Geekness1234

Donny5 wrote: »

Yeah, they maintain it as a deterrent against Russia. They have an interesting system, where have about 10,000 professional full-timers, mostly officers and technical roles, and 25,000 conscripts on 12 month terms. Conscripts are retained (and kept trained) in the reserve until they are fifty. They do all this, and maintain 150 MBTs, nearly a thousand APCs, over 700 arty pieces, MRLSs, over sixty F-18s and a sizable navy for about €2.8 Billion a year.

That's actually really cool and impressive,thanks for that .

tac foley

Rawhead wrote: »

They gave the Soviets quiet a hiding initially. I remember reading about one sniper who wiped out a whole battalion on his own, I think he only died recently.

Simo Häyhä - December 17, 1905 – April 1, 2002.

Most of his shots were taken with either an open-sighted M-N rifle, or a Suomi sub-machine gun.

tac

Jawgap

Donny5 wrote: »

Yeah, they maintain it as a deterrent against Russia. They have an interesting system, where have about 10,000 professional full-timers, mostly officers and technical roles, and 25,000 conscripts on 12 month terms. Conscripts are retained (and kept trained) in the reserve until they are fifty. They do all this, and maintain 150 MBTs, nearly a thousand APCs, over 700 arty pieces, MRLSs, over sixty F-18s and a sizable navy for about €2.8 Billion a year.

Ireland has a comparable GDP to Finland - both around $265 billion.

However, they spend about 2% of their GDP on defence and we spend 0.9%.

Scotland has an estimated GDP of about $240 billion - the UK spends about 2.7% of GDP on defence - you'd wonder if (a) any hypothetical new Scottish Government would want to commit to that level of defence spending or (b) if they didn't, whether the remains of the UK would want a partnership with them where they were carrying an unfair share of the combined defence budget.

Tenger

Jawgap wrote: »

.........Ireland has a comparable GDP to Finland[/URL] - both around $265 billion.

However, they spend about 2% of their GDP on defence and we spend 0.9....

I can't see us equalling the Finns even if we tripled our Defense budget.

IRLConor

Tenger wrote: »

I can't see us equalling the Finns even if we tripled our Defense budget.

Well, it would take 30+ years worth of mandatory military service before you'd have an apples-to-apples comparison.

On top of that, there's also the motivation difference. Their neighbour with their biggest land border invaded and killed roughly 100,000 of them. When you have something like that in living memory it gets easier to persuade the general population to both spend on military budgets and to get behind the idea of military service.

tac foley

IRLConor wrote: »

Well, it would take 30+ years worth of mandatory military service before you'd have an apples-to-apples comparison.

On top of that, there's also the motivation difference. Their neighbour with their biggest land border invaded and killed roughly 100,000 of them.

....and stole 1/3 of their country. Karelia WAS Finnish, until the Sovs took it, and the equivalent of eu 100 Billion in 'reparation'.

You don't forget THAT in a hurry.

tac

Border-Rat

Lemming wrote: »

Given the OP's username, postcount, history of posts thus far, and the thread title in keeping with that history, I smell a pot of something being stirred.

Reported for uncivil conduct, read the charter!

Capt'n Midnight

Jawgap wrote: »

What about Faslane? Wonder where they'll move / re-locate their Trident and attack boats?

Remember the treaty ports.

The question is really would it be that much different to what happened when we gained independence ?

tac foley

I've already suggested Lough Foyle - used in WW2 with great success.

Nearby Derry/Londonderry would see the immediate benefit, too.

tac

TheLastLazyGun

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

It would probably suit them to be honest, it would mean they are way ahead of schedule to reduce their 2020 Target numbers of 80.000 Full time soldiers

And there is a lot of anger that, when it comes to army cuts, the Scots are, as usual, getting preferential treatment.

Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom which is NOT seeing any of its regiments axed. This is despite the fact that military experts say that Scottish regiments should be the ones which are first to be axed because they are more poorly recruited than Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish regiments and they therefore have to rely on people from elsewhere in the Commonwealth to join their regiments.

So there are many top brass within the army that are left mystified and angry as to why no Scottish regiment is being given the axe.