Implications of Scottish Independence

dHAKAPETE said:

Rob. It was you who mentioned the type 45 and suggested the Scots had better not demand one .....and that you wouldn't let them have one. I was merely pointing out it may not be as simple as letting (or not) Scotland have such asset. However, I tend to agree with you. I don't believe they will want a type 45, especially if they have a small fleet of batch 1 typhoons. Type 23.....and 26 may be different.

Click to expand...

So me making a throw away comment about a Type 45 (which they could potentially be annoying over) can then be extrapolated to mean nuclear submarines + aircraft carriers?

They won't want one, but what they may do is try argue they are justified to ask for one (seeming as Scotland helped pay for them) but won't in exchange better deals in other areas, that type of thing. They won't seriously request one but may use it as leverage for better kit in more favourable areas.

It won't be simple, there'll be large amount of negotiations about kit but I can 100% guarantee it won't be they get X% of every type of asset the UK has because that'd be a worse scenario for Scotland.

dHAKAPETE said:

On the financing of future projects, there is a revenue stream that doesn't currently get captured under most Scottisheconomic analysis. The royalties from Oil production gets booked directy to HM Treasury and doesnt get compared alongside the revenues generated onshore. Such oil revenues ihave become insignificant to a 60m UK population, relative to where it was a couple of decades ago. However, to a 5m population in Scotland the royalty revenues that will be generated for the next 10 to 15 years will be significant and has the potential to extend for further decades as extraction techniques improve.

Click to expand...

The issue isn't how to finance it, they've got a rough idea of what the defence budget is going to be (+ how small it's going to be). But the issue is getting the right kit for what they want in the right numbers, most kit the UK could offer is VERY high spec and designed for operations which an independent Scotland won't/don't want to be operating in, meaning it'll be expensive to run + effectively have little to no use.

StobieWan said:

we've got a fair few AS-90's laid up as is - they can have pretty much as many as they want, same with CR2.

My earlier point on the lack of any logistics train to get that stuff anywhere and support it on a remote deployment still stands. No point in buying stuff you expect to use overseas if there's no method of reliably getting it there.

I expect the Scots to form up some light infantry and to donate that to UN peacekeeping ops in return for disbursements from the UN - a number of the poorer UN members make money this way and the Scots would be in demand as a disciplined, well trained and reliable force. Adding in the battlefield helicopters to move artillery around and resupply it with ammunition etc, it's more strain on the tail end.

The heavier stuff? It can be done but trying to get and keep the entire sea and air lift capability to do this is expensive. I'd avoid it like the plague if I were the SNP as it won't win a lot of votes (the average punter looks at a transport aircraft and shrugs)

My 2c worth.

Click to expand...

The seaborne supply chain is easier for them, they just build ships at Govan. 2/3 Absalon class would be ideal....they just can't make heavy commitments in landlocked countries like Afghanistan! But best to avoid the really heavy stuff like the AS90, which is why suggested the cost of buying M777 and HIMARS.

There's the rub - the UK (as is) has a selection of capabilities that give us an all around global reach - trying to replicate that in a Scottish defence force is not going to be viable unless they want to start spending a *lot* of their money on small niche capabilities.

I'm thinking of the various connectors and enablers like cargo aircraft, AAR etc, plus battlefield elements like heavy armour and artillery. I guess they could put an airmobile formation of some size together based around some light arty like the 105's plus other kit but how to get that overseas? We'd stick it on board a series of C17 flights right now but how otherwise unless the Scots want to run 2-3 C17 or similar ?

I'm guessing not. It's hard to glean from the SNP's policies as expressed so far however - I don't recall much specifics about what they want to do militarily, but quite a bit about what they seek to accomplish in terms of guaranteeing jobs.

swerve said:

So . . . you reckon Scotland, as an independent NATO member with a huge, largely maritime air space subject to frequent probing by Russian long-range aircraft, would copy the Irish model & not bother with any air defences at all & air policing only of slow prop-driven aircraft near the capital, hoping that the people they've just thumbed their noses at would provide air defence for free, as we (implicitly) do for Ireland - except that Ireland is much better placed. Or would Scotland try to get other NATO countries to rotate air defence fighters, as the (much poorer) Baltic states do?

Not very likely, IMO.

Click to expand...

I have mixed views whether they should have advance aircraft like the Typhoon but I can't see them doing so. If you look at their position its clear, they would join NATO just for votes, its as cynical as that, and only on a non nuclear basis. If they win an independence vote I doubt they will actually be able to join. Do the old Russian bombers come to threaten Scottish oilfields or to challenge a UK government stance on other matters.

I am sure a reasonable number of fixed wing MPA & logistic and helicopters would keep the air bases open.

I certainly could not see them replacing them operating them long term and replacing them.

1805 said:

The seaborne supply chain is easier for them, they just build ships at Govan. 2/3 Absalon class would be ideal....they just can't make heavy commitments in landlocked countries like Afghanistan! But best to avoid the really heavy stuff like the AS90, which is why suggested the cost of buying M777 and HIMARS.

Click to expand...

They're not going to be buying new kit at all I should think - the existing 105's are light, air portable and they already have experience with them - and they're at no cash cost. The triple 7 may come later but I think every single decision will hinge on it not costing money and looking good for the papers.

StobieWan said:

There's the rub - the UK (as is) has a selection of capabilities that give us an all around global reach - trying to replicate that in a Scottish defence force is not going to be viable unless they want to start spending a *lot* of their money on small niche capabilities.

I'm thinking of the various connectors and enablers like cargo aircraft, AAR etc, plus battlefield elements like heavy armour and artillery. I guess they could put an airmobile formation of some size together based around some light arty like the 105's plus other kit but how to get that overseas? We'd stick it on board a series of C17 flights right now but how otherwise unless the Scots want to run 2-3 C17 or similar ?

I'm guessing not. It's hard to glean from the SNP's policies as expressed so far however - I don't recall much specifics about what they want to do militarily, but quite a bit about what they seek to accomplish in terms of guaranteeing jobs.

Click to expand...

I think this is a problem for many countries. Trying to maintain balanced forces, of any size and quality must be a real challenge. They could probably get most equipment fairly cheaply (if not from the UK plenty of other hard up countries... Greece has U214 up for sale who knows in a few years even FREMM) but how do they maintain it. Look at NZ, Eire, Canada, Netherlands and many others. Complex MBT and tracked heavy vehicles are just to expensive to maintain & move about. But the rise of the IED is increase the weight of APC, all those MRAP are not light. Although heavy commercial freight is more cost effective if they don't have a regular requirement. The focus for small countries should be maritime logistics, cheaper although slower they normally have the time for such deployments. Even in relief operations, ship can act as useful mobile infrastructure with medical/helicopter facilities.

A Stanflex modular weapons approach would make sense, for all the ships in home waters little more than a 30mm, for the few ships that are outside, CIWS, CAMM/ESSM and a 76mm.

Just for clarity I was not suggesting Scotland buy or operate SSKs.

Interesting paper published under RUSI, written by a Scottish analyst, and former serving member of UK forces

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Scottish_Defence_Forces_Oct_2012.pdf

He's suggesting no to fast jets as well - but yes to frigates of some sort - I'm finding the idea of a country right under a number of international air corridors, with such a large EEZ trying to police that lot with some Hawks as being frankly less than credible however.

Interesting read, costs out a possible SDF at much less than 2% GNP (much less...)

StobieWan said:

They're not going to be buying new kit at all I should think - the existing 105's are light, air portable and they already have experience with them - and they're at no cash cost. The triple 7 may come later but I think every single decision will hinge on it not costing money and looking good for the papers.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think there would be a focus on making themselves look different at low cost. One think I bet they will do is drop the SA80 and go for the Steyr...even if it cost them.

1805 said:

Yes, I think there would be a focus on making themselves look different at low cost. One think I bet they will do is drop the SA80 and go for the Steyr...even if it cost them.

Click to expand...

Why? It works, and bloody well?

StobieWan said:

Interesting paper published under RUSI, written by a Scottish analyst, and former serving member of UK forces

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Scottish_Defence_Forces_Oct_2012.pdf

He's suggesting no to fast jets as well - but yes to frigates of some sort - I'm finding the idea of a country right under a number of international air corridors, with such a large EEZ trying to police that lot with some Hawks as being frankly less than credible however.

Interesting read, costs out a possible SDF at much less than 2% GNP (much less...)

Click to expand...

The loss of strategic bases to us could also be significant as it was in Eire...very said if it happens.

I fear Alex Salmond will now campaign for 2 years with solid focus, changing any unpopular policies and approach as surveys dictate. The No coalition of eveyone else, lead by an increasingly incompetent and remote Tory government, focused on other things 90% of the time....I could easily see a comfortable lead squandered ;-(

StobieWan said:

Why? It works, and bloody well?

Click to expand...

I agree, but it would be a good politcal one for them, and its very popular even the Falkland Island Defence force uses it!

Mind probably only for their special forces.... I wonder what they would call that SAS, Rangers....

StobieWan said:

Interesting paper published under RUSI, written by a Scottish analyst, and former serving member of UK forces

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Scottish_Defence_Forces_Oct_2012.pdf

He's suggesting no to fast jets as well - but yes to frigates of some sort - I'm finding the idea of a country right under a number of international air corridors, with such a large EEZ trying to police that lot with some Hawks as being frankly less than credible however.

Interesting read, costs out a possible SDF at much less than 2% GNP (much less...)

Click to expand...

Interesting paper, I personally think it is very poor that a country seeks to benefit from the security others provide, but does not want to pay for it. The size of the army would be 50% larger than Eire, which has had serious internal security issues, requiring support to the civil authorities.

Traditionally, the cheapest way to fund defence has usually been to live next to a more powerful but benign country. Guess what...

:sigh:

Interesting turn of events on the Faslane issue

Defence Secretary Announces Further £350M For Successor Submarines| Royal Navy

"The Faslane complex is the largest employment site in Scotland with over 6,500 jobs underpinning the local economy.

"We have no plans to move the nuclear deterrent from the Clyde.

"On the contrary, we intend to move the Astute and Trafalgar Class attack submarines to Faslane, creating a further 1,500 jobs.

...

All Royal Navy submarines will be based at Faslane by 2017, including the Astute and Trafalgar class attack submarines, which - along with the Sandown Class Mine Counter Measure vessels - will increase the workforce at the site to over 8,000 by 2022.

Click to expand...

Seems to be a nice carrot on a stick initiative going on, "We'll guarantee your jobs + create 1500 more, now how d'you like independence?" to the locals.

RobWilliams said:

Interesting turn of events on the Faslane issue

Defence Secretary Announces Further £350M For Successor Submarines| Royal Navy



Seems to be a nice carrot on a stick initiative going on, "We'll guarantee your jobs + create 1500 more, now how d'you like independence?" to the locals.

Click to expand...

On the Telegraph website, it states that Alex Salmond, would write into Scotland's constitution about no Nuclear weapons on Scottish Soil and there have been estimates of relocating south of the border @ around £3.5 Billion, but i happen to agree with you this is very much a big carrot, could the local economy lose so many jobs?, but this would also be a big test for Alex Salmond, looks like they have ratcheted up the pressure be interesting to see how he will handle this.

Ricey said:

On the Telegraph website, it states that Alex Salmond, would write into Scotland's constitution about no Nuclear weapons on Scottish Soil and there have been estimates of relocating south of the border @ around £3.5 Billion, but i happen to agree with you this is very much a big carrot, could the local economy lose so many jobs?, but this would also be a big test for Alex Salmond, looks like they have ratcheted up the pressure be interesting to see how he will handle this.

Click to expand...

Yeah I read that, making the posession of nuclear weapons "illegal", i'm sure the US and France will LOVE that

Well, the general opinion here is that the Scottish Navy will probably include a number of OPVs (around 10 I reckon) and maybe a couple of ex-RN frigates. Then in regards to deploying them, most of which probably wouldn't end up based in Faslane because their most valuable resource (North Sea Oil) is in the North Sea whereas Faslane is facing the North Atlantic so unless they fancy going all the way around the Scottish coast and then doing a patrol, most will be dotted around the East coast in my opinion.

So although I don't know how many jobs are directly linked to Trident and how many will be lost with the loss of that system, I highly doubt the SNP could sustain the ~6500 jobs on site with almost zero prospect of being able to add 1500 more.

Ricey said:

On the Telegraph website, it states that Alex Salmond, would write into Scotland's constitution about no Nuclear weapons on Scottish Soil and there have been estimates of relocating south of the border @ around £3.5 Billion, but i happen to agree with you this is very much a big carrot, could the local economy lose so many jobs?, but this would also be a big test for Alex Salmond, looks like they have ratcheted up the pressure be interesting to see how he will handle this.

Click to expand...

I don't see that the SNP have left themselves any room to wiggle - they're absolutely committed to a nuclear free independent Scotland. If we have to relocate Coulport, that's going to be very expensive and time consuming. I dare say that the location of the replacement for the Chapelcross reactor will be determined by this as well.

StobieWan said:

we've got a fair few AS-90's laid up as is - they can have pretty much as many as they want, same with CR2.

My earlier point on the lack of any logistics train to get that stuff anywhere and support it on a remote deployment still stands. No point in buying stuff you expect to use overseas if there's no method of reliably getting it there.

I expect the Scots to form up some light infantry and to donate that to UN peacekeeping ops in return for disbursements from the UN - a number of the poorer UN members make money this way and the Scots would be in demand as a disciplined, well trained and reliable force. Adding in the battlefield helicopters to move artillery around and resupply it with ammunition etc, it's more strain on the tail end.

The heavier stuff? It can be done but trying to get and keep the entire sea and air lift capability to do this is expensive. I'd avoid it like the plague if I were the SNP as it won't win a lot of votes (the average punter looks at a transport aircraft and shrugs)

My 2c worth.

Click to expand...

WR to y'all and with apologies for the one liner, I'd expect Scotland to go much along the NZ lines, minus the frigates but with the OPVs.

exported_kiwi said:

WR to y'all and with apologies for the one liner, I'd expect Scotland to go much along the NZ lines, minus the frigates but with the OPVs.

Click to expand...

AS90s were mentioned because there was chat earlier about Scotland aquiring M777 howitzers for heavy artillery + AS90/L118 artillery pieces were suggested because they're part of the UK inventory from which Scotland could easily demand a share which they helped pay for. We've probably got loads of L118 (like we have AS90) now in storage so that'd be easy enough.

I expect a ROI model myself.

exported_kiwi said:

WR to y'all and with apologies for the one liner, I'd expect Scotland to go much along the NZ lines, minus the frigates but with the OPVs.

Click to expand...

Scotland already has three patrol vessels, one of 780 tons & two of 2180 tons. There's an organisation called the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency . . .