Armed forces of an independent Scotland

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

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

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)

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

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:14:55 -0400, Peter Kemp wrote:
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.

What if they are armed with anti-ship missiles? They would certainly
be able to get off the missiles before reaching Sea Wolf range, and
Sea Dart didn't do particularly well against Exocets in 1982.


--
"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)