Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Scottish Independence

This is a discussion on Scottish Independence within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by FirstSpear Oh, I agree completely that if they go their own way they will HAVE to take ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old September 14th, 2014   #61
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,893
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstSpear View Post
Oh, I agree completely that if they go their own way they will HAVE to take a chunk of the UK's debt but that is also where, in the pre-split negotiation, there would have to be an initial "allotment" of all assets, with the immobile ones essentially being assigned a value against with some fraction of debt is assigned.

In theory, the Scots would, if let's say population was used as the initial guide for fractioning, "inherit" 5/65th of all debt and assets, (1/13th) so although they'd own all the mineral rights on their territory, they might have to 'buy back' the majority of any UK owned drilling gear in place... Where the proverbial rUK couldn't get too cute about this is the Scots might be assigned one of RN's nuclear subs in theory which in practice rUK would have to also buy back. Of course all the back and forth 'buying' is 'only' in the form of taking on additional existing debt.

So, in the end, the Scots would have a fair chunk of debt but because the UK is no Norway in terms of prudential management, it might take them decades to improve their balance sheet enough to start their own sovereign wealth fund and so on... SNP dreams notwithstanding...

I don't really believe the oaths taken pre-independence by commissioned officers would be the issue as I'd expect some royal decree releasing all who chose to serve Scotland from this oath. Remember the royals like to vacation there so they wouldn't want to piss off the locals any more than absolutely necessary... Now, about those royal castles...

I wasn't referring to oaths so much as simple legal protections for service personnel on both sides - no-one should be compelled to transfer against their will to a foreign country (on either side) There may be compelling reasons for any particular person to stay (or go)

The force structure doesn't really break down neatly or correctly for a portion to go to Scotland - the basics, rifles, body armour and personal kit, yes, some of the light vehicles. The heavier stuff, that's going to be a harder bargaining situation and this is where things get interesting as they will certainly be entitled to bases they either won't want or will find expensive to keep running and may be pressed to accept a full market value for a base that realistically, they don't really want.

Faslane is slated to become a conventional base for instance, for what would be the entire Scots surface fleet - but it's not ideally sited to protect their oil and gas fields. The SNP *have* to make it work or the entire area becomes an economic disaster zone - so that's one economic embuggerance to work with. The pattern is repeated across a number of other areas.

The rUK may be able to scare up several large and expensive chunks of assets which will legally have to be transferred to the Scots and might find that this mops up a bigger financial impact than they'd expected. That may leave the issue of larger mobile units to become a moot issue.
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2014   #62
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 734
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post

The Defence Ministry in London has said the policy will be British warships from British yards, but the debate is clouded by the fact that BAE’s Clyde yards are the only current facilities capable of building warships bigger than offshore patrol vessels.

“In the event that Scotland voted to become independent, we would need to discuss the way forward with the MoD and UK government and work with them to deliver the best solution in those circumstances,” BAE said.

The company, Britain’s only significant surface warship builder, will make a decision on whether to proceed with a £200 million investment on the Clyde after the vote. ■[/COLOR][/I]
What about refitting the covered building halls at Cammel Laird in Birkenhead?
KiwiRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2014   #63
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,655
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiRob View Post
What about refitting the covered building halls at Cammel Laird in Birkenhead?
If the yes vote gets its way the remaining UK elements whilst not ideal should look at the impending new infrastructure upgrade as a mini stimulate's package it should mean a mini boom for the construction industry with all money remaing in the UK system
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2014   #64
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,619
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiRob View Post
What about refitting the covered building halls at Cammel Laird in Birkenhead?
Indeed. Cammel Laird could potentially build everything short of carriers, & we won't need to build any more of them for a long time. We can get them maintained in an existing repair dock, e.g. in Belfast.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2014   #65
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
Systems Adict's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 854
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Indeed. Cammel Laird could potentially build everything short of carriers, & we won't need to build any more of them for a long time. We can get them maintained in an existing repair dock, e.g. in Belfast.
Hmmm...

I thought that most of the plot around Harland's facilities in Belfast had been sold on & turned into industrials estates / housing, etc.

Cammel Laird is the logical choice for rUK, as Swan Hunters site was raped & pillaged in 2007 after it closed. Portsmouth is out, as BAE have 'shut it' (no doubt with assistance with UK Govt), & repair facilities still exist on the Tyne, then there's Plymouth.

The issue has always been about dry docking facilities & most of the big ones are all North of the Border (Greenock, the Upper Clyde, Rosyth & at a push Nig Bay / Aberdeen).

Anyway, I am literally sick to the back teeth with this bleeding thing. The pettiness of individuals, how comments are being twisted & yet still the YES campaign are ramming the "We'll be better getting rid of Engerland" rubbish down peoples throats. With still no explanation of how it's all going to work.

Yes social media is a wonderful tool for perpetuating scandal & lies. The latest one in the last hour is " Make sure you take a pen to the polling booth, as they only have the little pencil on the string & pencil lines can be rubbed out !"

JEEZ !

Gimme strength & roll on Thursday, so I can vote & get this over with...
Systems Adict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2014   #66
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,655
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Systems Adict View Post
Hmmm...

I thought that most of the plot around Harland's facilities in Belfast had been sold on & turned into industrials estates / housing, etc.

Cammel Laird is the logical choice for rUK, as Swan Hunters site was raped & pillaged in 2007 after it closed. Portsmouth is out, as BAE have 'shut it' (no doubt with assistance with UK Govt), & repair facilities still exist on the Tyne, then there's Plymouth.

The issue has always been about dry docking facilities & most of the big ones are all North of the Border (Greenock, the Upper Clyde, Rosyth & at a push Nig Bay / Aberdeen).

Anyway, I am literally sick to the back teeth with this bleeding thing. The pettiness of individuals, how comments are being twisted & yet still the YES campaign are ramming the "We'll be better getting rid of Engerland" rubbish down peoples throats. With still no explanation of how it's all going to work.

Yes social media is a wonderful tool for perpetuating scandal & lies. The latest one in the last hour is " Make sure you take a pen to the polling booth, as they only have the little pencil on the string & pencil lines can be rubbed out !"

JEEZ !

Gimme strength & roll on Thursday, so I can vote & get this over with...

How does that work voting on a workday, is that the norm in the UK as all Australians generally vote on a Saturday majority of the nation works m-f
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2014   #67
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 307
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
How does that work voting on a workday, is that the norm in the UK as all Australians generally vote on a Saturday majority of the nation works m-f
Govt might declare voting day a public holiday so as to ensure sufficient turnout.
bdique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2014   #68
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Systems Adict View Post
Hmmm...

I thought that most of the plot around Harland's facilities in Belfast had been sold on & turned into industrials estates / housing, etc.
Pretty sure some of it is a film studio.....
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2014   #69
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,754
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
Pretty sure some of it is a film studio.....
Where would you get that idea from? I wonder...

On a more serious note, I myself do have to really wonder about the motivations behind the leadership for the Yes vote.

Apart from the usual BS and "honesty" from politicians, given the number of things which Salmond & the SNP have indicated would be non-issues (NATO & EU membership, currency, share of UK national debt, etc) and the fact that several of them are outside the control of an independent Scotland, I have to wonder what their real endgame is.

With important issues involving sovereignty like maintenance of a credible defence force, support of needed national infrastructure, and indeed even national identity, from my POV more realistic plans should be getting brought up and discussed. For instance, who would be the Head of State? Does an independent Scotland devolve back into the Kingdom of Scotland, or does the SNP wish for Scotland to become a republic? IIRC a senior SNP member had voiced that Scotland should be a republic, and if this is part of the plans of the Yes vote leadership... Then perhaps people should be paying more attention to what they are not saying.

EDIT: Additional comment for historical perspective. Except for the period from 1649 to 1660 when the Lord Protector or a committe of Parliament ruled, Scotland has shared a monarch with England and Ireland (including Wales and what is now just Northern Ireland) since 1603, when a Scotish king, James VI inherited the crown of England and Ireland, becoming James I and VI ruling the countries in a personal union.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2014   #70
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,117
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
Where would you get that idea from? I wonder...

On a more serious note, I myself do have to really wonder about the motivations behind the leadership for the Yes vote.

Apart from the usual BS and "honesty" from politicians, given the number of things which Salmond & the SNP have indicated would be non-issues (NATO & EU membership, currency, share of UK national debt, etc) and the fact that several of them are outside the control of an independent Scotland, I have to wonder what their real endgame is.

With important issues involving sovereignty like maintenance of a credible defence force, support of needed national infrastructure, and indeed even national identity, from my POV more realistic plans should be getting brought up and discussed. For instance, who would be the Head of State? Does an independent Scotland devolve back into the Kingdom of Scotland, or does the SNP wish for Scotland to become a republic? IIRC a senior SNP member had voiced that Scotland should be a republic, and if this is part of the plans of the Yes vote leadership... Then perhaps people should be paying more attention to what they are not saying.

EDIT: Additional comment for historical perspective. Except for the period from 1649 to 1660 when the Lord Protector or a committe of Parliament ruled, Scotland has shared a monarch with England and Ireland (including Wales and what is now just Northern Ireland) since 1603, when a Scotish king, James VI inherited the crown of England and Ireland, becoming James I and VI ruling the countries in a personal union.
I think that the plan is for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second and her Heirs and Successors to remain Head of State. That would work because she is Head of State for the likes of Canada, NZ, Australia etc. A Governor General would have to be appointed and that would be a Scottish Govt decision and the name would be submitted for Royal approval. The Queen Mother was Scottish I believe and the Queen has a very strong personal affinity with Scotland. Also in the historical perspective, as you stated, it was James VI of Scotland who became James I of England, Ireland and Wales on Elizabeth Is death and he had the Act of Union of the Two Crowns enacted in 1603, but the actual Act of Union between England and Scotland was passed by the English Parliament in 1706 and the Scottish Parliament in 1707 forming a single Parliament and a new country, Great Britain.

Now if the Yes vote succeeds what form of Govt the new Scottish nation would eventually decide upon would be interesting. Would it stick with the current Westminster system or will it have some other form? Personally I believe that the current system would be best because that is what people are familiar with and is what they have had for centuries. they know it well and know that it works.

On whether Scotland should ceded from the UK, my personal view is NO because I believe that any perceived benefits would be grossly outweighed by actual detrimental, if not some deleterious, negative impacts upon Scotland.
________________
The Rules - read them. Ignorance of them is not an excuse.
The Introduction thread for new members to tell the rest of us something about you.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2014   #71
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,754
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
I think that the plan is for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second and her Heirs and Successors to remain Head of State. That would work because she is Head of State for the likes of Canada, NZ, Australia etc. A Governor General would have to be appointed and that would be a Scottish Govt decision and the name would be submitted for Royal approval. The Queen Mother was Scottish I believe and the Queen has a very strong personal affinity with Scotland. Also in the historical perspective, as you stated, it was James VI of Scotland who became James I of England, Ireland and Wales on Elizabeth Is death and he had the Act of Union of the Two Crowns enacted in 1603, but the actual Act of Union between England and Scotland was passed by the English Parliament in 1706 and the Scottish Parliament in 1707 forming a single Parliament and a new country, Great Britain.

Now if the Yes vote succeeds what form of Govt the new Scottish nation would eventually decide upon would be interesting. Would it stick with the current Westminster system or will it have some other form? Personally I believe that the current system would be best because that is what people are familiar with and is what they have had for centuries. they know it well and know that it works.

On whether Scotland should ceded from the UK, my personal view is NO because I believe that any perceived benefits would be grossly outweighed by actual detrimental, if not some deleterious, negative impacts upon Scotland.
I brought up the Head of State issue because of things which have appeared in the news in the past six months or so.

SNP minister: 'Independent Scotland may not keep the Queen' - Telegraph

Republican plot to ditch the Queen after Yes vote - The Scotsman

As for Scotland staying within the UK... I personally of the opinion that the whole of the UK is greater than the sum of the parts, and should Scotland become an independent nation, both the rUK and Scotland will end up weaker than many might anticipate based off the overall current power/strength of the UK.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2014   #72
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,893
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiRob View Post
What about refitting the covered building halls at Cammel Laird in Birkenhead?
Just fire Portsmouth back up, it'd still be warm. For maintenance, there are a couple of really big dry docks in the North East, and the facilities at Pallion may even be better for construction than Portsmouth.

Here's one of the big docks

ABLE Seaton Port | Able UK
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2014   #73
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 734
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
Pretty sure some of it is a film studio.....
The dock plus Sampson and Goliath are registered historic places so I'm sure they are going anywhere soon, I'm sure the other facilities needed to support CVF could be built there is necessary.

However I think the vote is going to be a NO, after all the major companies this week announcing they will move south I thing the folk who have decided will come down firmly on the NO side.
KiwiRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2014   #74
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,893
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
I brought up the Head of State issue because of things which have appeared in the news in the past six months or so.

SNP minister: 'Independent Scotland may not keep the Queen' - Telegraph

Republican plot to ditch the Queen after Yes vote - The Scotsman

As for Scotland staying within the UK... I personally of the opinion that the whole of the UK is greater than the sum of the parts, and should Scotland become an independent nation, both the rUK and Scotland will end up weaker than many might anticipate based off the overall current power/strength of the UK.

The SNP have been very specific about retaining the Queen as head of state - rather cynically so in fact as they know the familiar touches will help capture the centre/centre left vote who may not share core SNP values - ie, most of Scotland. Which is why the SNP has also campaigned on retaining the pound - they want all the creature comforts of home combined with the dynamism of a Scottish economy freed from the tyrannical yoke of an uncaring "Westminster". Never mind that they had 14 years of rule by Labour with a Scottish PM for several of those years.
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15th, 2014   #75
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,117
Threads:
Quote:
As for Scotland staying within the UK... I personally of the opinion that the whole of the UK is greater than the sum of the parts, and should Scotland become an independent nation, both the rUK and Scotland will end up weaker than many might anticipate based off the overall current power/strength of the UK.
Me too. Whilst there was a case before the 17th Century now there are three or four centuries of a single national and cultural history between them, so you just can't severe that with a tick in a ballot box. Don't get me wrong, I'm Maori and Irish catholic and we have our own history with English and British colonialism, but there is a shared identity under the British empire and the Scots forged that with the English. Purely on the military side there is even a stronger identity, especially in the British Army and how many times have pipers lead British troops into battle.

I agree fully that Scottish secession would weaken the rUK in many aspects. On the defence front it would have very serious implications. Also the same could be said on the financial and economic fronts and even in foreign diplomacy as the UK could be perceived as a lesser nation.
________________
The Rules - read them. Ignorance of them is not an excuse.
The Introduction thread for new members to tell the rest of us something about you.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:27 PM.