Implications of Scottish Independence

[StobieWan]

The thing about the frigates is that they'll expect a share of the UK forces, & since they can't have the big ships (you can't give them 20% of an LPD), they'd have to get a bigger share of the rest. That's logical, as they have a big EEZ. Otherwise, they could demand cash compensation, & I don't see that being agreed to.

If they don't get any frigates, what do they get? All the OPVs? Still less than their share of the navy, & we'd have to build more OPVs to make up for those we've handed over.

Denmark & Norway (similar populations, lossa fish-filled waters, offshore energy, particularly Norway) have frigates/destroyers, & intend to keep them. Both have built or are building new ones. They also both have much bigger patrol fleets (look at the Norwegian Coast Guard!) than Scotland can inherit from the RN.

I take your point but we could always just say "Ocean, here, take her away...or Lusty if you prefer?" Ocean is almost reasonable but not very useful for the Scots and Lusty would be a poison chalice given her crew requirements.
Scotland really would want OPV's as they're cheap to run - it'd be dirt cheap for the UK to just buy out the commitment by some adjustment in cash to the order of a couple of hundred million to provide for a fleet of new build OPV's - instant political success for Salmond as it's "new jobs for Scotland" and win for the UK as we'd not be letting go of surface combatants we still need but Scotland can't realistically crew.

The Navy element is the worst, most complex conundrum to resolve - the army has plenty of spare heavyweight gear in mothballs to hand over, thanks to recent cuts, the RAF can let go of Tiffy Tranche 1 - but the RN has a job to do that doesn't get less stretched if we let go of Scotland.

Scotland realistically doesn't want to spend a lot of cash on defence - the SNP is basically a left wing, socialist undertaking, nationalistic and inward looking. The less they spend on defence, the happier they get in terms of balance of payments.

It'll be like most divorces, difficult and unsatisfactory in terms of who gets which car, but possible.

Ian

 

[exPrivate]

The issue with Trident is that AFAIK there are no bases to move them too nor any plans to create any (any information to the contrary would be welcomed), some ideas thrown around is to keep them there but pay the Scottish government for the privilege but it's unlikely.
If Trident is to be moved + rebasing Trafalgar/Astute class SSNs, where do you think would be the most likely location?

Probably this could be moved somewhere south of the new border?
http://cat.army-uk.com/news_detail.php?id=1133

 

[RobWilliams]

Probably this could be moved somewhere south of the new border?
New floating jetty for Astute submarines arrives at naval base. Vehicles FOR SALE! CATERPILLAR

AFAIK that jetty is specifically designed for the Astute class (but can accommodate the Trafalgar class) but can't find anything about it being Vanguard compatible.

Then there's the issue of still having to base the jetty which - i think - has a displacement of around 44k tonnes.

 

[JGA]

Firstly Scotland would not need as much independent defense for its boarders as some of you would presume, England would not allow a none UK nation to invade Scotland in anyway, both politically and militarily for England's sake it would not be allowed by the allies.

Secondly I highly doubt that England and Scotland would not be allies, let alone hostile. Why has the joint army been ruled out? ANZAC's are a good example.Just cause they are an independent nation does not mean that they can't have joint ventures, even if England is the first in command, they would still work together. The military could not really afford not too.

 

[Equinox]

Firstly Scotland would not need as much independent defense for its boarders as some of you would presume, England would not allow a none UK nation to invade Scotland in anyway, both politically and militarily for England's sake it would not be allowed by the allies.

Secondly I highly doubt that England and Scotland would not be allies, let alone hostile. Why has the joint army been ruled out? ANZAC's are a good example.Just cause they are an independent nation does not mean that they can't have joint ventures, even if England is the first in command, they would still work together. The military could not really afford not too.

The Australian and New Zealand militaries may cooperate heavily, and have/are moving towards greater integration, but they aren't a joint force. Even the WWI/II forces weren't joint, so much as they were (generally) in a unified command and used together. They were still completely different units.

Also, just because the UK would not 'allow' an invasion of Scotland doesn't mean they shouldn't take responsibility for their own defence. You only need to look at the resentment the perceived reliance NZ has on Australia for defence (real or imagined) to know that it doesn't do anything to help relations or the image said country presents to the world.

The primary reason a unified force wouldn't work is for the same reason certain parties in Scotland want independence... different priorities, policy and objectives. What's do you think would happen if the UK goes to war with Argentina over the Falklands again and Scotland wants nothing to do with it? If Scotland gets independence, it would be better for both parties if it's a clean, sweeping break so they can both do their own thing, rather than being dangerously entwined without the ability to act in concert.

 

[JGA]

The Australian and New Zealand militaries may cooperate heavily, and have/are moving towards greater integration, but they aren't a joint force. Even the WWI/II forces weren't joint, so much as they were (generally) in a unified command and used together. They were still completely different units.

Also, just because the UK would not 'allow' an invasion of Scotland doesn't mean they shouldn't take responsibility for their own defence. You only need to look at the resentment the perceived reliance NZ has on Australia for defence (real or imagined) to know that it doesn't do anything to help relations or the image said country presents to the world.

The primary reason a unified force wouldn't work is for the same reason certain parties in Scotland want independence... different priorities, policy and objectives. What's do you think would happen if the UK goes to war with Argentina over the Falklands again and Scotland wants nothing to do with it? If Scotland gets independence, it would be better for both parties if it's a clean, sweeping break so they can both do their own thing, rather than being dangerously entwined without the ability to act in concert.

Some good points... Although this is a none point I was making reference to the Anzac's as you describe them a "unified command" which is why I stated England would be the higher command but this is irrelevant.

I would disagree with your complete break theory though, although a lot of time and thought will need to go into it, the UK will need to stay somewhat unified despite a Scottish Independence. A miny EU if you know what I mean.
Perhaps a joint defensive force as this is where both countries will forever share a common need? thoughts?

 

[Equinox]

Some good points... Although this is a none point I was making reference to the Anzac's as you describe them a "unified command" which is why I stated England would be the higher command but this is irrelevant.

I would disagree with your complete break theory though, although a lot of time and thought will need to go into it, the UK will need to stay somewhat unified despite a Scottish Independence. A miny EU if you know what I mean.
Perhaps a joint defensive force as this is where both countries will forever share a common need? thoughts?

Fair enough, but if they are working together then that brings up other issues, such as force structure, requirements etc. From what I understand, that and the stuff that goes along with it would be opposite of what those who wish independence for Scotland want. Especially with the UK being the higher authority, as if I am not wrong, that's a pretty central part of why Scotland wants independence...

Why would it need to stay somewhat unified? Frankly if I was the UK I'd do what StobieWan suggested and tell the Scottish Government to shove it up their collective posteriors. If they want independence, they can have it--along with everything that comes along with it. The UK can't be expected to shelter Scotland. Also, once again, something like a 'mini-EU' would be contrary to the idea of independence in the first place. On that note, I have also read that Scotland was more interested in working with the Scandinavian countries? Or something like that, rather than the UK/Europe.

 

[StobieWan]

Some good points... Although this is a none point I was making reference to the Anzac's as you describe them a "unified command" which is why I stated England would be the higher command but this is irrelevant.

I would disagree with your complete break theory though, although a lot of time and thought will need to go into it, the UK will need to stay somewhat unified despite a Scottish Independence. A miny EU if you know what I mean.
Perhaps a joint defensive force as this is where both countries will forever share a common need? thoughts?

Well, as far as I understand it, the SNP are stating they want to keep the pound as a currency, continue to acknowledge the Royal Family as a constitutional head - and I'm sure that both countries will work well together and create structures that permit common security of borders. There's certainly no suggestion that the two countries would be in any sense anything less than close working partners.

I've Scots blood on both sides of my family, come from an area of England which culturally and socially has more in common with Scotland than England (the North of England, where voting patterns and so forth are similar to Scotland) I'm also sure we'll continue to recruit heavily from the Scots for the UK forces there's a scary percentage of the paratroops and SAS that are Scots so there's no argument that there's a strong common martial tradition.

The SNP however, would be impossible to work with as a national unified military command - at least from all that has been said in terms of their attitude towards international military ventures.

If they vote for independence, that's what they get - all the good stuff that makes money comes home - the SNP continue to promulgate the odd notion that they can dispose of Trident at massive impact to the UK but retain Lossiemouth, Kinloss, and probably Faslane if can make it a nuclear powered but not nuclear armed limitation.

 

[Methos]

Hi All,

Just wanted to start a topic on the Implications of Scottish Independence if the Scottish were to vote for full Independence.

Such as what would happen to the :

Trident nuclear weapons
Defense industry as a whole
EU implications
NATO Implications
Permanent seat at the UN

will we both have to re-negotiate memberships?
My main question is what effect this would have as a whole to the UK and its military, any input would be grateful

Scottland would very likely not gain controll of nuclear weapons, if they became independent. It could be juged as break of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if the UK gives the Scotts nukes.
Defence industry will very likely not be affected by the theoretical declaration of Scottish independence, at least unless one of the countries (UK or Scottland) decided to adopt new laws.
Scottland would likely be accepted as member of the EU and NATO if they decided to become independent. There are quite a lot things in Scotland which have been financed with EU money (like streets in the middle of nowhere). Germany didn't have to join NATO/EU again (or to vote wether they want to be in it), after they reunited (which is exactly the opposite).

 

[StobieWan]

Scottland would very likely not gain controll of nuclear weapons, if they became independent. It could be juged as break of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if the UK gives the Scotts nukes.
Defence industry will very likely not be affected by the theoretical declaration of Scottish independence, at least unless one of the countries (UK or Scottland) decided to adopt new laws.
Scottland would likely be accepted as member of the EU and NATO if they decided to become independent. There are quite a lot things in Scotland which have been financed with EU money (like streets in the middle of nowhere). Germany didn't have to join NATO/EU again (or to vote wether they want to be in it), after they reunited (which is exactly the opposite).

There's never been any suggestion of Scotland *wanting* nuclear weapons - the SNP have a policy of a nuclear free Scotland, and are insisting that in the even of independence, we'd need to relocate any nuclear weapons from Scotland.

If you think the Scottish defence industries won't be hit by suddenly finding themselves in a country with no major desire for defence spending, you're badly wrong Scotland would be a separate country, raising it's own taxes, spending it's own budget, managing it's own deficit etc.

Some suppliers may keep up existing relationships but Rosyth will be hit badly for one.

 

[Methos]

Which Scottish defence companies are not part of a larger company (like BAE)?

 

[RobWilliams]

Which Scottish defence companies are not part of a larger company (like BAE)?

As far as I know there are no sole Scottish defence companies (although i could easily be incorrect)

 

[StobieWan]

As far as I know there are no sole Scottish defence companies (although i could easily be incorrect)

BAE is a global player - it's got places all over the place. However, a fair amount of the larger MOD contracts are placed with reference to how much of the work will be done in-country.

So, if you get two bids of seemingly equal worth, but one has 40% UK involvement and t'other has 30% UK and 10% Scottish involvement, where do you think the work would go?


For the smaller stuff, and in cases where a UOR has been placed, not so critical. For major work, I honestly think you'll see stuff placed south of the border.

 

[RobWilliams]

BAE is a global player - it's got places all over the place. However, a fair amount of the larger MOD contracts are placed with reference to how much of the work will be done in-country.

So, if you get two bids of seemingly equal worth, but one has 40% UK involvement and t'other has 30% UK and 10% Scottish involvement, where do you think the work would go?


For the smaller stuff, and in cases where a UOR has been placed, not so critical. For major work, I honestly think you'll see stuff placed south of the border.

I was just commenting on if there are any pure-Scottish defence companies rather than the multinational types like BAE

 

[swerve]

Scottland would likely be accepted as member of the EU and NATO if they decided to become independent. There are quite a lot things in Scotland which have been financed with EU money (like streets in the middle of nowhere). Germany didn't have to join NATO/EU again (or to vote wether they want to be in it), after they reunited (which is exactly the opposite).

The SNP has a long-standing policy of joining the EU, but staying outside NATO.

Neither NATO nor EU membership is automatic for a seceding country. Germany is a different case, not a precedent. The existing German state, with the same constitution, changed its borders. It's a precedent for the UK being able to automatically remain within NATO & the EU, but not Scotland, which would be a new state, with a new constitution. There would have to be negotiations prior to secession to establish whether membership could continue, & on what terms. I'd expect Scotland to be accepted as a new EU member with no gap, but to have to sign an accession treaty.

 

[EXSSBN2005]

Please pardon my ignorance on the topic but would the border remain the same as the current one or would the border be possiably moved (north or south) depending on the local populance votes or just stick with what is currently on the map from Berwick upon tweed in the east to Gretna on the west side.

 

[RobWilliams]

Please pardon my ignorance on the topic but would the border remain the same as the current one or would the border be possiably moved (north or south) depending on the local populance votes or just stick with what is currently on the map from Berwick upon tweed in the east to Gretna on the west side.

I wouldn't expect the border to change, but it'd like to know what others think.

 

[Rythm]

+1 on Rob.

However, Scotland would IMHO not be wrong to consider claiming land, assets and other wealths that the UK has gathered since 1707. For instance Pitcairn Island or the Turks & Caicos Islands all came under UK control after 1707, So i think there would be some merit in claiming parts of or some of, these.

On a different note:

Lets assume that you represent Scotland in the negotiations with the UK. What units and weapons systems would you try to transfer into the new Scottish Defence Force?

The Scottish Government has allocated 1,6% of GDP towards Defence. Its primary purpose is to prevent conflicts and war, preserve the sovereignty of Scotland, secure the continuing existence and integrity of an independent Scotland.
Its primary tasks are; Detect and repel any sovereignty violation of Scottish territory, defence cooperation with EU members, international missions in the area of conflict prevention, crises-control, humanitarian, peacekeeping and finally maintain a sizable and well trained force to execute these tasks at all times.

 

[swerve]

Speedy:

that's a lot more of some things (e.g. tanks, Warriors, Merlins) than the size of the Scottish population & economy merit. And what would a neutral, non-NATO Scotland with no land borders with anyone except England want with all those Challengers? Are they for capturing Carlisle or Berwick?

And about those Gripens or FA-50s - what about the cost of buying them, & establishing a complete new infrastructure, vs the cost of taking over existing Typhoons, together with spares, trained crews, & everything else needed?

+1 on Rob.

However, Scotland would IMHO not be wrong to consider claiming land, assets and other wealths that the UK has gathered since 1707. For instance Pitcairn Island or the Turks & Caicos Islands all came under UK control after 1707, So i think there would be some merit in claiming parts of or some of, these.

If Scotland tried claiming any of them, the response of the UK government should be very simple indeed: it should say "We'll do whatever the local population wants".

If the Pitcairn islanders would prefer to be associated with Scotland, & Scotland wants them, then it's settled.

If Scotland claims Pitcairn, & the islanders say "Sod off", then it's settled.

I expect that Scotland would end up with absolutely no offshore territories, because no British dependencies would have the slightest interest in becoming Scottish dependencies. Raising the topic might even provoke Shetland & Orkney to start agitating for secession from Scotland & continued membership of the UK. It's been mooted before, & after all, they were part of a separate Scotland for a shorter time than they've been part of the British state: 1468-1707, vs 1707-2012 - so far. The islanders still spoke a Norse dialect at the union of the crowns, & there were a few speakers in the 19th century.

I really, really, don't think the SNP wants to stir up any questions about territorial changes.

 

[StobieWan]

Does anyone have a grasp of what the SNP are suggesting they need to deliver for a Scottish Defence Force or whatever they've said it'll be?
I don't think sensibly they need or would want to be stuck with the maintenance burden of a lot of the heavier army kit. Neither to be honest do I think they'd want to be landed with the bills for much else.

Their whole view seems to be very inward looking, apart from occasional waves at "Europe" in terms of trade. Fundamentally, the SNP will have a tricky time balancing the books so I think some border security force with fast boats, OPV's, light helos, some Chinooks more or less for disaster relief (assuming Haggis supplies run low in the wilder parts of Scotland or there's an unprecedented Earthquake or flood)

Nothing expensive to run as with a budget of 1.65% they don't want to acquire large capital costs as a mill stone around their necks. Some Tornado and Tiffy possibly, probably just hold out for a single fleet. Buying any foreign type brand new is almost certainly out of the question as it'd be a massive hit while establishing the whole new command and support structure for a Scottish force.

So, some light armoured vehicles for counter terrorism, maybe some UAV's for border security, assuming they can get sat comms access? A small professional force of light infantry with a slant for engineering most likely.

I doubt the SNP will be interested in getting involved in peacekeeping ops although I suppose tantalisingly there's a money spinner there in that it can be a nice earner for some countries.

In short, ROI would be my nearest template.