Implications of Scottish Independence

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
The Snp white paper was basing a independent armed forces similar to Denmark with a budget of £2.5-£3 billion
£2.5bn

the shipyards won't be idle as you all know Scotland is anti nuclear that includes energy, I would be expecting the shipyards to diversify by building wind turbines and wave turbines
The yards are owned by BAE and Babcock Marine IIRC, the former has no interest in the energy sector and Babcock's involvement in the energy sector is very much support and maintenance of sites but that's an entirely different division to who runs the yards.

The idea that they'd be put to work building wind turbines is a bit silly, these are naval shipyards and would - should the military market not be right - be better served trying to get commercial orders instead. Even then it'd be incredibly hard considering countries like S-Korea are in the game.

At best, Scottish yards would be hard pushed to sustain the current work the UK is putting through places like Rosyth.
 

Kampgruppe1970

New Member
£2.5bn



The yards are owned by BAE and Babcock Marine IIRC, the former has no interest in the energy sector and Babcock's involvement in the energy sector is very much support and maintenance of sites but that's an entirely different division to who runs the yards.

The idea that they'd be put to work building wind turbines is a bit silly, these are naval shipyards and would - should the military market not be right - be better served trying to get commercial orders instead. Even then it'd be incredibly hard considering countries like S-Korea are in the game.

At best, Scottish yards would be hard pushed to sustain the current work the UK is putting through places like Rosyth.
their was talk a couple of years back that the proposed new type 26 frigates might be built in S Korea at the Daewoo shipyard .... I don't know if it is a goer or not as BAE won the contract so I would expect them to be built at a English shipyard, one of the ex shipbuilding sites in Scotland is being used to manufacture wind turbines and military ships will still be built on the Clyde as the type 23 frigates are nearing the end of their shelf life ... the £2.5 billion figure was bandied about by Angus Robertson but said the figure was a rough figure, the thing is if the yes campaign wins the Snp will cease to exist as part of it's constitution the party would break up on Independence,

The Yes campaign is backed by several political parties in Scotland . The Snp, The Green Party, Scottish Labour for Independence, the Scottish Socialists, and 2 independent MSPs ... whoever was elected in 2015 would not win on the back of keeping Trident on the Clyde as their is no support in Scotland for Trident
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
their was talk a couple of years back that the proposed new type 26 frigates might be built in S Korea at the Daewoo shipyard
Never heard about it, but not going to happen. The UK has a requirement to retain an indiginous complex warship design and construction capability and as such can't just flog the deal to S-Korea,

As an aside, the Tide class tankers don't class as 'warships' per se as they are auxiliaries.

I don't know if it is a goer or not as BAE won the contract so I would expect them to be built at a English shipyard, one of the ex shipbuilding sites in Scotland is being used to manufacture wind turbines and military ships will still be built on the Clyde as the type 23 frigates are nearing the end of their shelf life
Non goer, as I outlined above. Not neccesarily English yards, we have Portsmouth but we know that BAE would like to base UK military shipbuilding in Scotland (something which it would lose in the result of a yes) and it's pretty reasonable to assume heavy Scottish involvement.

I'd like more info (not neccesarily I link as IIRC you've not hit the min post requirement) as I suspect it's either come about from another company buying out the shipwright and working up the production or a civilian contractor looking to diversify rather than the situation you are proposing here; that a UK defence company (or division, whatever) ditch shipbuilding for wind turbines.

the £2.5 billion figure was bandied about by Angus Robertson but said the figure was a rough figure, the thing is if the yes campaign wins the Snp will cease to exist as part of it's constitution the party would break up on Independence,
Interesting.

The Yes campaign is backed by several political parties in Scotland . The Snp, The Green Party, Scottish Labour for Independence, the Scottish Socialists, and 2 independent MSPs ... whoever was elected in 2015 would not win on the back of keeping Trident on the Clyde as their is no support in Scotland for Trident
If the SNP get elected in 2015, they'll have to make some real decisions (in terms of defence, we don't get into the politics here as it tends to wind people up easier) like about NATO. That's a puzzler to me, why does the SNP want (now) to join NATO - a nuclear alliance - and oppose nuclear weapons? It'd be like trying to join the Catholic church if you're anti-Jesus.
 

Kampgruppe1970

New Member
Never heard about it, but not going to happen. The UK has a requirement to retain an indiginous complex warship design and construction capability and as such can't just flog the deal to S-Korea,

As an aside, the Tide class tankers don't class as 'warships' per se as they are auxiliaries.



Non goer, as I outlined above. Not neccesarily English yards, we have Portsmouth but we know that BAE would like to base UK military shipbuilding in Scotland (something which it would lose in the result of a yes) and it's pretty reasonable to assume heavy Scottish involvement.

I'd like more info (not neccesarily I link as IIRC you've not hit the min post requirement) as I suspect it's either come about from another company buying out the shipwright and working up the production or a civilian contractor looking to diversify rather than the situation you are proposing here; that a UK defence company (or division, whatever) ditch shipbuilding for wind turbines.



Interesting.



If the SNP get elected in 2015, they'll have to make some real decisions (in terms of defence, we don't get into the politics here as it tends to wind people up easier) like about NATO. That's a puzzler to me, why does the SNP want (now) to join NATO - a nuclear alliance - and oppose nuclear weapons? It'd be like trying to join the Catholic church if you're anti-Jesus.
the ex shipyard manufacturing wind turbines was on Scotland today (Scottish news programme on STV/ITV last year about how Scottish industry was fairing and how it saw the future prospects during the recession .

the break up of the Snp has always been part of the Snp's constitution from day 1 of the partiy's founding on gaining independence ... most people outwith Scotland don't understand that the Snp is made up of politicians from all political spectrums in Scotland for 1 goal Independence I dare say some could stay under the umbrella as a rebranded "National Party" but I suspect a large percentage go to their roots Labour, Tories and Liberals.

in 2015 I very much doubt the Snp will still exist probably rebranded as the national party minus some well known faces as for Nato what the Snp are saying that they are not ruling it in or out it gave them the option but I think it was their way of saying the next government might want to join Nato ... it really can't be decided until their is a yes vote and a new government elected. the Snp cannot decide the next government's policies

as for churches jesus and Christianity in general I have little time for that stuff being a Athiest and coming from a long line of Athiests god does not feature high on my list of priorities
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
the ex shipyard manufacturing wind turbines was on Scotland today (Scottish news programme on STV/ITV last year about how Scottish industry was fairing and how it saw the future prospects during the recession .
Not particularly helpful, what I was looking for was company names, locations, stuff like that rather than vague timeframes.


as for churches jesus and Christianity in general I have little time for that stuff being a Athiest and coming from a long line of Athiests god does not feature high on my list of priorities
The analogy was laid out to show the stupid logic of wanting to join an organisation but opposing the foundation of said organisation, so I don't know why you're talking about the content of it as that is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
their was talk a couple of years back that the proposed new type 26 frigates might be built in S Korea at the Daewoo shipyard ...
Nope- there's a commitment to retaining major surface combatant construction in the UK and there's a terms of business agreement written around that to provide BAE with a steady stream of work. If Scotland ceased to be a part of the UK, they're not getting military construction work *unless* it got tendered out internationally. That would have to be on a competitive basis. Scotland would be unlikely to be capable of putting together a bid that could stand alongside DCNS, Fincantieri or Daewoo.

In terms of Trident, irrespective of the parties leading the "Yes" vote campaign, they don't have a majority - there are more folk in England in favour of Scottish independence than there are in Scotland. You run the figures across the Scottish population and they've been broadly in support of Trident as have the rest of the population of the UK - every survey over the last twenty years has plumped more or less in the same direction, that a bit more than half the population tends to be in favour of an independent nuclear deterrent. You can dig out the odd poll commissioned by some left leaning organisation or another where the phrasing of the questions has skewed that number down a bit but fairly consistently the support is there for Trident.

In short, a vote for independence is not a vote of confidence in the SNP, nor is it whole hearted support for all their policies.

I've seem some spectacularly biased comments from the various Scots nationalists about the English littering Scotland with nuclear submarines, which completely ignores the fact that the entire Polaris fleet is laid up in England awaiting disposal. Ditto comments on leaving all our dangerous nuclear weapons up there when in fact there are many more warheads in England.

Scotland has also seen some tremendous benefits from Trident - the Coulport Arsenal and special munitions jetty was the second biggest engineering project in Britain in the 1990's - second only to the Channel Tunnel. Faslane is one of the larger employers in the area. It's interesting that one of the first results of the announcement regarding a vote for independence was the mayor of a town in Wales offering to host Trident...

Post independence Scotland would have an awkward and imperfect balance of high end platforms with a stack of low end ambitions, little in the way of logistic train that could help support Scots forces operate at distance and little to promise it's members in terms of career progress.

And yes, there would be barbed wire going up along the border - because for the first time since the Union of the two countries, England would be on the border of a foreign country to which it would have to close it's borders. Scotland won't automatically inherit the UK's exception to the Schengen Treaty, meaning that every job mobile Rumanian or what have you will travel to Scotland and then to England via the border unless we institute checks...

Or, of course, Scotland does blossom to become the socialist workers paradise the SNP promise, in which case, they'll all stay that side of the border. Best of luck...

And I speak as someone with Scots blood on both sides of the family :)
 

1805

New Member
Post independence Scotland would have an awkward and imperfect balance of high end platforms with a stack of low end ambitions, little in the way of logistic train that could help support Scots forces operate at distance and little to promise it's members in terms of career progress.

And yes, there would be barbed wire going up along the border - because for the first time since the Union of the two countries, England would be on the border of a foreign country to which it would have to close it's borders. Scotland won't automatically inherit the UK's exception to the Schengen Treaty, meaning that every job mobile Rumanian or what have you will travel to Scotland and then to England via the border unless we institute checks...

Or, of course, Scotland does blossom to become the socialist workers paradise the SNP promise, in which case, they'll all stay that side of the border. Best of luck...

And I speak as someone with Scots blood on both sides of the family :)
This is the real issue for an independent Scotland, its all very well saying they are entitled to x% of the MOD assets, as a negotiating position, but in reality hardly any of it suits their likely requirements.

The SNP did say at the DSC hearing they would maintain special forces, and I could see some of the land equipment being useful for a version of a special forces support group, but then they seem much more keen on the votes around cap badges!
 

swerve

Super Moderator
There's the NATO issue to consider. NATO membership requires acceptance of NATO nuclear policy. Pointing to Norway & Denmark, as the SNP has done, is a red herring. They joined NATO before that became a requirement, so are exempt. Scotland would not be eligible for that exemption. The SNP has said that it would inherit UK NATO membership, & that its membership would thus pre-date the requirement & it could claim the same exemption - but that has been declared invalid by NATO.

An independent Scotland would therefore have to make a choice between 1) NATO membership, & 2) being nuclear weapon free. It can't have both - but the SNP doesn't want to accept that.
 

Kampgruppe1970

New Member
There's the NATO issue to consider. NATO membership requires acceptance of NATO nuclear policy. Pointing to Norway & Denmark, as the SNP has done, is a red herring. They joined NATO before that became a requirement, so are exempt. Scotland would not be eligible for that exemption. The SNP has said that it would inherit UK NATO membership, & that its membership would thus pre-date the requirement & it could claim the same exemption - but that has been declared invalid by NATO.

An independent Scotland would therefore have to make a choice between 1) NATO membership, & 2) being nuclear weapon free. It can't have both - but the SNP doesn't want to accept that.
quite honestly I wouldn't want Scotland to be part of Nato, I simply don't trust the Americans and I wouldn't want our troops/forces under the command of a foreigner , I would like to see Scotland forge closer links to our Scandinavian neighbours but that will not be decided by me.

the Whole Nato membership is a red herring , the Snp are not saying they want to join Nato ... they wanted the option to join
 

Kampgruppe1970

New Member
a bit of stupidity from the MOD saying that it would consider making Faslane part of UK sovereign territory ...now I don't believe Cameron when he said the option was not put on the table after all the UK doing the US's spying dirty work on our European nieghbours

MoD looks to make Faslane UK sovereign territory in indy Scotland | Herald Scotland

me personally I am quite happy for the UK establishment to make these types of gaffs because it helps the YES campaign
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
the Whole Nato membership is a red herring , the Snp are not saying they want to join Nato ... they wanted the option to join
Alex Salmond gains slim SNP vote for joining Nato | Politics | The Guardian

Alex Salmond has won a narrow victory in his attempts to overturn the Scottish National party's long-standing opposition to membership of Nato. After a debate that split the party's annual conference, delegates voted by 394 to 365 to back a new policy to support membership of Nato if the SNP wins the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.
That's not an "option of joining", that's a vote on changing SNP policy to support NATO membership if the SNP wins. So what swerve said is correct, just like their assumption that EU membership would be automatic and was swiftly rejected by the EU.

The main enemy of the yes campaign is the yes campaign itself, in terms of defence (as this is a defence forum) it's the most half baked "policy" (if that) i've ever seen.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
I do hope this can steer away from the politics it's currently skirting so close to, because as Rob has noted above, this is a defence forum. It's for discussing military issues, not domestic politics.

So Kampgruppe, if you wish to continue talking about Scottish independence and how you feel about the United States and all the rest of it, in a political sense, it's important you understand this isn't the place for it. If you want to discuss the military aspects of this issue then that's just fine, but you seem to be veering towards strong political overtones, and that's not what Defence Talk is for.

You're welcome to discuss things here but please make them relevant to the intended subject of the forums.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
the UK currently has 6 type 45 destroyers, 12 type 23 frigates and will have 2 QE2nd class carriers by 2016
Just gunna pick up a few technicalities like the anal person I am.

The UK has 13 Type 23 frigates, the carriers have ISDs of 2016 and 2018 and they are NOT the Queen Elizabeth II class either, this is a common misconception that the class is named after the current monarch.

They are just the Queen Elizabeth class, taking the name from a class of WW1 dreadnoughts which in turn were named after Queen Elizabeth I who was queen in the 16th/17th century.
 

Kampgruppe1970

New Member
I do hope this can steer away from the politics it's currently skirting so close to, because as Rob has noted above, this is a defence forum. It's for discussing military issues, not domestic politics.

So Kampgruppe, if you wish to continue talking about Scottish independence and how you feel about the United States and all the rest of it, in a political sense, it's important you understand this isn't the place for it. If you want to discuss the military aspects of this issue then that's just fine, but you seem to be veering towards strong political overtones, and that's not what Defence Talk is for.

You're welcome to discuss things here but please make them relevant to the intended subject of the forums.
no problem Bonza thanks for the heads up,

Robbie I thought both were to be commissioned in 2016, and everywhere I've looked online refers to them being named after the current monarch so they must be getting this information from the same source ?
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'm afraid your source is wrong, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be commissioned in 2016 and HMS Prince of Wales in 2018. We can only put together one carrier at a time (in the drydock) so it's impossible both can be commissioned together. It is 2016 & 2018 respectively, that's the dates, 100% sure.

Your source is also wrong on the name, they're not named after the current monarch, they're using a name with a past RN history which is Queen Elizabeth not creating a new name Queen Elizabeth II. The following is courtesy of the ACA (the consortium building the carriers)

The Queen Elizabeth Class - Aircraft Carrier Alliance

There have been more than twenty ships named Elizabeth, the list of Battle Honours for which extends from the Armada in 1588 to Guadeloupe in 1810. However, only one ship by the name HMS Queen Elizabeth has served with the Royal Navy - as the lead ship of an important and innovative class of battleships which served with great distinction in both World Wars.

With 15 inch guns as her principal armament, the first HMS Queen Elizabeth was a 33,000 ton battleship. Built in Portsmouth, she was launched in 1913 and was completed the following year. Her service history during the World Wars included the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet during World War I. Despite damage from torpedoes during World War II, she went on to take part in operations in the Indian Ocean before returning home
They're using the name from the past class of battleships which were named after Queen Elizabeth I.

But this really should be in the Royal Navy thread :)
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
So Salmond has released lots of documentation about how an independent Scotland would work, with respect to defence he says the resulting SDF will be made up of the following components

* blue represents the specific kit which is applicable, but not specifically mentioned in the paper

  • Maritime forces
    • two frigates from the Royal Navy's current fleet Type 23 frigates
    • a command platform for naval operations and development of specialist marine capabilities (from the Royal Navy's current fleet, following adaptation) LPD? LSA?
    • four mine counter measure vessels from the Royal Navy's current fleet Hunt or Sandown MCMV
    • two offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) to provide security for the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). However, as the Royal Navy only has four OPVs currently, a longer lead time for procurement might be necessary River class
    • four to six patrol boats from the Royal Navy's current fleet, capable of operating in coastal waters, providing fleet protection and also contributing to securing borders Archer class PB
    • auxiliary support ships (providing support to vessels on operations), which could be secured on a shared basis initially with the rest of the UK
    • These arrangements will require around 2,000 regular and at least 200 reserve personnel.
  • Land forces
  • An army HQ function and an all-arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, and supported by
    • a deployable Brigade HQ
    • two light armoured reconnaissance units
    • two light artillery units L118
    • one engineer unit deploying a range of equipment for bridging, mine clearance and engineering functions
    • one aviation unit operating six helicopters for reconnaissance and liaison
    • two communication units
    • one transport unit
    • one logistics unit
    • one medical unit
    • Special forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel.
  • Air forces
    • an Air Force HQ function (with staff embedded within NATO structures)
    • Scotland will remain part of NATO's integrated Air Command and Control (AC2) system, initially through agreement with allies to maintain the current arrangements while Scotland establishes and develops our own AC2 personnel and facility within Scotland within five years of independence
    • a Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) squadron incorporating a minimum of 12 Typhoon jets based at Lossiemouth
    • a tactical air transport squadron, including around six Hercules C130J aircraft, and a helicopter squadron
    • flight training through joint arrangements with allies
    • In total this would require around 2,000 regular personnel and around 300 reserve personnel.

With future aims (~5 years of)

  • A second naval squadron to contribute to NATO and other operations outside home waters, incorporating the naval command platform, and a further two frigates with tanker and support ship capacity.
  • Overall the model would involve around 2,400 regular and at least 270 reserve personnel. While most of the personnel would be required by the five year point, this model envisages increases continuing through the first ten years following independence (due to procurement of new Scottish naval vessels).
  • Developing the All Arms brigade's capabilities to include:
    • increases to strengths of the three infantry battalions (to a combined total of 1,500 regular and 300 reserve personnel)
    • upgrading of the light armour, artillery, aviation and medical units
    • increasing the strength of the special forces unit
    • increasing the number of personnel deployed to conflict prevention, disarmament and defence diplomacy
    • Increasing the fast jet fleet of Typhoons potentially up to 16 aircraft which would enable Scotland to contribute to alliance operations overseas.
    • Increasing the Scottish contribution to capabilities for air defence, as part of an integrated system within NATO.
    • At present, the UK has no maritime patrol aircraft. During this period options for procurement will be taken forward and airborne maritime patrol capability delivered. A detailed specification of requirement will be developed as a priority and final numbers of aircraft required will depend on this. However, the numbers maintained by comparable nations suggests a potential fleet of four.
    • Following on the 2 Type 23's with +2 frigates "preferably procured with the UK" i.e Type 26 and then +2 more to replace the Type 23's

Scotland's Future

Lots to digest there, unsurprisingly the older desire for SSK's has evaporated as has ideas of running CR2 or SPG's. Good luck trying to get an LPD from the Navy, we might have one in mothballs but that doesn't mean she isn't useful for us.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Lots to digest there, unsurprisingly the older desire for SSK's has evaporated as has ideas of running CR2 or SPG's. Good luck trying to get an LPD from the Navy, we might have one in mothballs but that doesn't mean she isn't useful for us.
Read through the post. One of the first things which came to mind was, "is he daft?"

The personnel numbers IMO are too few to support and sustain those forces, nevermind if there is any activity or active deployments. Those personnel numbers listed are less than are currently in the NZDF.

Also, the issue of NATO membership was completely ignored, with the assumption that Scotland would automatically be a member. IIRC the SNP and others connected to an independent Scotland are decidedly against nuclear weapons. Unless that has changed significantly, then I do not see Scotland being allowed to join NATO.

-Cheers
 

Kampgruppe1970

New Member
He also seems to assume that they can get the weapons gratis from the UK. Not likely unless paying with 'other' considerations.
considering Scottish taxpayers have contributed £3.7 billion per annum for that military hardware ... if the rest of UK declines our right to that military hardware the Scottish government will be well within it's right to refuse to take on any of the UK national debt as the debt is the Bank of England's and the UKs as we would not be part of the UK we wouldn't have to pay it . We don't want to go down that road we want to be responsible neighbours
 

Kampgruppe1970

New Member
Read through the post. One of the first things which came to mind was, "is he daft?"

The personnel numbers IMO are too few to support and sustain those forces, nevermind if there is any activity or active deployments. Those personnel numbers listed are less than are currently in the NZDF.

Also, the issue of NATO membership was completely ignored, with the assumption that Scotland would automatically be a member. IIRC the SNP and others connected to an independent Scotland are decidedly against nuclear weapons. Unless that has changed significantly, then I do not see Scotland being allowed to join NATO.

-Cheers
if Scotland is not within Nato it posses problems for the US and other nato countries as a large section of Europe's Airspace would be denied to them US cargo/military planes would be unable to land in any Scottish airport (ie Prestwick Airport) thus US aircraft would either have to stop off at Iceland or N Ireland when heading to the EU, anyways American commanders have already stated that it is in their best interst to have a independent Scotland in nato due to Scotland's strategic position in the Atlantic

just out of interest the whole point of this is short term as we can shape the military to fit our needs who's to say we don't increase the size of our Army, Navy or Airforce ... the white paper is looking to have 20,000 military personel this figure cannot be reached overnight it has to be built up over time
 
Top