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)