View Full Version : Post independence scots army 'would struggle'.
Interesting piece.
Think tanks, experts and lobbyists, as well as the UK and Scottish governments, have been producing their own reports on the impact of independence.This latest one, titled Defence and Security in an Independent Scotland (http://www.scotlandinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Defence_Report_-_Scot_Inst.pdf), had input from armed forces personnel, defence academics, former secretaries of defence and senior officials from Nato, UK MOD and the EU.
It was chaired by Major-General Andrew Mackay who commanded a Task Force in Afghanistan and served in the army for 27 years.
In the report's foreword, he said: "I cannot see how slicing up a competent and well established military will aid either the United Kingdom or an independent Scotland.
"Indeed, I see very real risks to the people of Scotland, be it from the loss of jobs and the local economic impact that the inevitable removal of the Faslane naval base would bring, the huge costs necessary to start building the armed forces from afresh, the loss of access to sensitive intelligence materials and the inevitable dilution in the quality and number of the armed forces of this small island, which to date have had such a profound effect upon the course of world events."
The report suggested that after independence Scotland would be more vulnerable to terrorist and cyber attack because it would need time to establish an intelligence body capable of dealing with these threats.
It insisted that post-Yes Scotland would not be either "cheaper or easier to defend".
The authors believed what would result would be a "very small military force, able to perform a limited number of niche functions such as protecting Scotland's fisheries and oil refineries".
It also judged that an independent Scotland would find it difficult to maintain an air force "of any consequence" and would possess a "truncated navy stripped of submarine forces".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23026827
This think tank has released some dodgy stuff in the past.
It's my opinion that in general all think tanks should have to disclose their funding and political affiliations in any piece of work they produce or in any interview its members give.
From: http://wingsoverscotland.com/shifting-the-centre/ (Read the entire link, there's a lot there to indicate this 'Think Tanks' biases)
The Institute is the brainchild of “Scottish academic and philanthropist” Dr Azeem Ibrahim, who is also providing the financing for the venture. Its mission statement is “to generate cutting edge research into Scotland and its people as well as drive innovative policies and ideas, especially aimed at this country’s disadvantaged”, but an examination of the good doctor’s previous work doesn’t necessarily suggest that the redistribution of wealth to the poor (http://www.scotlandinstitute.com/?page_id=29) is his biggest priority.
Dr Ibrahim is a Fellow of the “Institute for Social Policy and Understanding”, and his entry (http://ispu.org/people/Azeem-Ibrahim) on its website lists a wide “Area of Expertise” encompassing “Foreign Policy, South Asian Politics, Pakistan, American Muslims, Economy, Counter-terrorism, and International Relations”, conspicuously failing to mention either social justice or, notably, Scotland. Of 100 articles by him for the ISPU, the only one concerned with Scotland is the brief “Why we need an Islamic Tartan” (http://ispu.org/GetArticles/48/2518/Publications.aspx).
The most substantial mention of Scotland we can find in the doctor’s writings appeared on right-wing US site The Huffington Post at the beginning of 2012, in a piece entitled “Scottish Independence And Unanswered Questions” (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/azeem-ibrahim/scottish-independence-and-unanswered-questions_b_1224209.html) in which Dr Ibrahim expressed the apparent belief that Scotland had already held an independence referendum, over a decade ago. Seemingly, the outcome was that “In 2001, only 27% of the Scottish electorate wanted independence with the majority wanting to retain the present parliament but with extended powers”. If any readers can recall this referendum, we’d very much appreciate if you’d write in and tell us about it. It escapes our memory entirely, and if Dr Ibrahim is referring to a mere opinion poll rather than a full-scale plebiscite we’re not sure why he’d pick one from 11 years ago. (And even if the Post has inserted a clumsy typo and he means 2011, we haven’t been able to find a poll from that year which matches his 27% figure.)
He has, as far as we’ve been able to determine so far, shown little to no other published interest in Scotland. He lives on the shores of Lake Michigan, near the US-Canadian border, and in a 2008 interview (http://www.asianimage.co.uk/newsfeatures/2372250.From_a_Glasgow_council_house_to_dinner_at_ the_White_House/) about his strikingly successful and illustrious life (his self-made personal fortune is stated in the feature as £60m, in addition to the management of a hedge fund valued at £100m and with a goal of £1bn), he was described as a man for whom “His Britishness is a source of great pride”.
He’s written extensively (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/azeem-ibrahim/) for the Conservative Home website, including pieces on why the UK must retain Trident (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/08/azeem-ibrahim-why-we-must-keep-trident-.html) and how the long-term unemployed “just couldn’t be bothered” (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/05/azeem-ibrahim-the-welfare-state-cannot-sustain-the-current-levels-of-longterm-unemployment.html) to find work. Other articles for the same site see Dr Ibrahim expressing his views that “defence funding is more important than other departmental spending” and must be protected above all other budgetary concerns (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/03/azeem-ibrahim-why-the-next-government-must-ringfence-defence-spending.html), that austerity is the only way of dealing with the national debt and deficit and that only the private sector (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/09/azeem-ibrahim-only-private-enterprise-can-get-the-economy-back-on-track-so-the-government-must-do-mo.html) can offer a solution, and that the crime of treason (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/10/azeem-ibrahim-the-law-should-recognise-that-terrorists-are-not-just-criminals-they-are-traitors.html) should be brought back for terrorists. Were you to list this set of beliefs to an impartial observer, we very much doubt they would reach the conclusion that Dr Ibrahim’s political persuasions lay on the “centre-left”. That the Scotsman describes his think-tank in such a way reveals, we suspect, more about the paper’s own inclinations than Dr Ibrahim’s.
Should you hear more in the Scottish media over the next two years about the findings of reports commissioned by the Scotland Institute – such as the fact that it entirely coincidentally thinks Scotland’s poor would be better off under a Westminster government committed to spending tens of billions of pounds on a new Trident than an independent Scottish Government with a policy of removing it, for example – you might wish to adjust your calibration of those findings accordingly.
That being said: The authors believed what would result would be a "very small military force, able to perform a limited number of niche functions such as protecting Scotland's fisheries and oil refineries".
It also judged that an independent Scotland would find it difficult to maintain an air force "of any consequence" and would possess a "truncated navy stripped of submarine forces".
In other words we won't be able to go round the world invading countries we no longer like, sounds fair enough to me.
This think tank has released some dodgy stuff in the past.
In other words we won't be able to go round the world invading countries we no longer like, sounds fair enough to me.
Oh for goodness sakes, you mean we won't be able to pretend we're a big important country any more?
Does that mean we should look for a much larger country that we can kowtow to, asking them to allow us to be their first line of defence?
So maybe we wouldn't have to spend billions on a defence system over which we have no control?
RecQuery you're such a killjoy! (But in a good way).
This think tank has released some dodgy stuff in the past.
Not as much as Eck and his spin doctors are doing at the moment.
Not as much as Eck and his spin doctors are doing at the moment.
I was tempted to post this as a new thread but for the time being I'll reply with it here:
While being interviewed in the Sunday Herald, Blair McDougall the Better Together campaign director said that "Privately, some inside Better Together even refer to the organisation as Project Fear.”
You can get the Sunday Herald from http://www.pressreader.com/ at 69p for a digital copy if you want to confirm this or there are chunks of the interview transcribed at http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-story-of-project-fear/
I was tempted to post this as a new thread but for the time being I'll reply with it here:
While being interviewed in the Sunday Herald, Blair McDougall the Better Together campaign director said that "Privately, some inside Better Together even refer to the organisation as Project Fear.”
You can get the Sunday Herald from http://www.pressreader.com/ at 69p for a digital copy if you want to confirm this or there are chunks of the interview transcribed at http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-story-of-project-fear/
Wings over Scotland is a rabid anti-anything-South-of-the-border propaganda site, so I'll give that a miss thanks.
Wings over Scotland is a rabid anti-anything-South-of-the-border propaganda site, so I'll give that a miss thanks.Wings over scotland lives south of the border
Wings over Scotland is a rabid anti-anything-South-of-the-border propaganda site, so I'll give that a miss thanks.
Then I'll dismiss the BBC as a Unionist mouthpiece, actually all the of the mainstream media. Just some more than others... at least Wings announces it's affiliations and provides references that you can check independently of their comment or analysis.
In this particular instance, the BBC is just an outlet which simply regurgitated a press release with no actual journalism? Perhaps they should go back to stacking and sensationalising their 'political' programmes.
Here's the post microcosm:
Flynn: Posts a dodgy report via BBC news story, which takes everything it says for granted.
Me: Links to a story that analyses the think tank that produced the report with references a good chunk of which are from the think tanks own website.
Golach: Obligatory cringe-worthy, reaching Salmond or SNP insult.
Flynn: Lalala not listening, dismisses proof with claims of biases despite impartial references, lalala...
The politicians will debate endlessly about what kind of defence force they want or need for an independent Scotland. They will also have to consider this alongside whether Scotland wants to be in/out of NATO and in/out of Europe. I would imagine most voters will want to know sooner rather than later. However the fundemental question is where is this new defence force going to get the experience cadre to lead and train this new force?
As far as I am aware no one has asked anyone in the Military if they are prepared to give up their current careers to take up a post in the new Scottish Defence Force. It has already been pointed out that it is impractical for Scotland to attempt to just break off an 8% chunk of the British Military and everything will be hunky-dory; that's not how any military organisation works.
Members of the military I have spoken with have little or no interest in transferring to any new diminished military organisation until terms and conditions are publicised, and I can't see that happening anytime soon.
Unless the SNP can come up with a negotiated 'road map' for Scotland's future military security the 'struggle' is going to be a gross understatement.
Golach: Obligatory cringe-worthy, reaching Salmond or SNP insult...
And your point is??? Eck and his cronies are fair game as far as I am concerned, I will continue to insult them long after they are defeated.
In this particular instance, the BBC is just an outlet which simply regurgitated a press release with no actual journalism? Perhaps they should go back to stacking and sensationalising their 'political' programmes.
Journalists report the news. The BBC reports the news. If it was an opinion piece it would have been noted as an opinion piece.
Wings over Scotland is just one big opinion piece that blatantly misrepresents the truth.
Think tanks won't be much good on the battlefield.
macadamia
25-Jun-13, 18:47
In 5 years time, there will only be drones.
a) Armchair Generals
b) Nanodrones - unmanned aerial weaponry which can deliver a fatal dose of ricin on to the specified nose-hair of a passing mad mullah, or swivel-eyed member of a political party.....or you!
Hypertargetisation will join the Pantheon of American euphemisms to do with killing and doing nasty things, such as rendition, overkill and mutually assured destruction.
And we will still be trying to second guess the lunatics whose bread and butter this is.
The politicians will debate endlessly about what kind of defence force they want or need for an independent Scotland. They will also have to consider this alongside whether Scotland wants to be in/out of NATO and in/out of Europe. I would imagine most voters will want to know sooner rather than later. However the fundemental question is where is this new defence force going to get the experience cadre to lead and train this new force?
As far as I am aware no one has asked anyone in the Military if they are prepared to give up their current careers to take up a post in the new Scottish Defence Force. It has already been pointed out that it is impractical for Scotland to attempt to just break off an 8% chunk of the British Military and everything will be hunky-dory; that's not how any military organisation works.
Members of the military I have spoken with have little or no interest in transferring to any new diminished military organisation until terms and conditions are publicised, and I can't see that happening anytime soon.
Unless the SNP can come up with a negotiated 'road map' for Scotland's future military security the 'struggle' is going to be a gross understatement.
Why would we need to break off a 9% chunk of the members of the UK services to form a Scottish defence force....though I'd be surprised if the Scottish contingent in the various UK services didn't equate to more than 9% of the total..and unless you have discussed with every Scottish serviceman, I'd hazard a guess that some would be fine with coming home to a Scottish Defence force. And we will have some of our population who might prefer to be in a Scottish defence force rather than a UK attack one. The only countries liable to be invading us, on past history would be the Romans, the Normans, Scandinavian Nations or England...so maybe the rUK will decide Scottish mercenaries are persona non grata in the rUK military....it would certainly jibe well with all the other things we are, according to them, not going to be allowed/able to do if we have the temerity to vote for independence. Scotland's security, imo, would rely on us not traversing the world invading other countries, not having Nuclear weapons in our most heavily populated area....(and building a fifteen foot high wall atopped by razor wire and broken bottles along the border! :Razz)
(and building a fifteen foot high wall atopped by razor wire and broken bottles along the border! :Razz)
Why do you hate them so much?
Green_not_greed
26-Jun-13, 23:09
In 5 years time, there will only be drones.
a) Armchair Generals
b) Nanodrones - unmanned aerial weaponry which can deliver a fatal dose of ricin on to the specified nose-hair of a passing mad mullah, or swivel-eyed member of a political party.....or you!
Hypertargetisation will join the Pantheon of American euphemisms to do with killing and doing nasty things, such as rendition, overkill and mutually assured destruction.
And we will still be trying to second guess the lunatics whose bread and butter this is.
I think you're missing those endless drones which go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the benefits of Scottish independence but that haven't quite been through any of the ramifications yet. They are called SNP MSPs......
GNG
Green_not_greed
26-Jun-13, 23:12
Why would we need to break off a 9% chunk of the members of the UK services to form a Scottish defence force....though I'd be surprised if the Scottish contingent in the various UK services didn't equate to more than 9% of the total..and unless you have discussed with every Scottish serviceman, I'd hazard a guess that some would be fine with coming home to a Scottish Defence force. And we will have some of our population who might prefer to be in a Scottish defence force rather than a UK attack one. The only countries liable to be invading us, on past history would be the Romans, the Normans, Scandinavian Nations or England...so maybe the rUK will decide Scottish mercenaries are persona non grata in the rUK military....it would certainly jibe well with all the other things we are, according to them, not going to be allowed/able to do if we have the temerity to vote for independence. Scotland's security, imo, would rely on us not traversing the world invading other countries, not having Nuclear weapons in our most heavily populated area....(and building a fifteen foot high wall atopped by razor wire and broken bottles along the border! :Razz)
If the rest of the UK are considering handing us over to the fish party, why would they ever invade to take us back ?
secrets in symmetry
26-Jun-13, 23:42
A seceded Scotland wouldn't struggle with defence - not with Colonel F A T Eck in charge:
http://i.imgur.com/jPgm4.jpg
If that wondrous figure of a man doesn't make you feel safe in your beds, I don't know what would. :cool:
Why do you hate them so much?
Do you mean the folks south of the border or the Westminster government? If the first.I don't..and if the second, who doesn't?
Do you mean the folks south of the border or the Westminster government? If the first.I don't..and if the second, who doesn't?
I certainly dont "Hate" the Westminster government. "Hate" is a terrible word!!!!!
(and building a fifteen foot high wall atopped by razor wire and broken bottles along the border! :Razz)
To stop the flood of economic migrants heading south?
Do you mean the folks south of the border or the Westminster government? If the first.I don't..and if the second, who doesn't?
Which government, there has been many administrations down the years? What has it done to you to merit such hatred?
Which government, there has been many administrations down the years? What has it done to you to merit such hatred?
Every one since Thatcher! What have they done? They've gradually moved the UK to the right with no differentiation among them so no real options to change things. I don't want to be Republican USA-lite.though I suppose many do.
secrets in symmetry
27-Jun-13, 23:37
To stop the flood of economic migrants heading south?No. Unemployed economic migrants would be encouraged to go south - in order to cut the welfare bill of the doomed seceded state.
To stop the flood of economic migrants heading south?
Nah....to stop the flood of Southerners disillusioned with permanent right wing Governments of whatever colour heading north.:lol:
We do not need an imitation of the armed forces the UK currently has. Why would we need to do that? The plans are for a defence force not an all out attack force. An Independent Scotland would set up a defence force like any other organisation would set up something new. It will use existing expertise - retirees, secondments, redundant personnel, transferees. It will likely look abroad for assistance from NATO and other EU countries - I would expect that the opportunity to be involved in setting up and implementing a new defence force is something that senior officers in other forces - worldwide - would enjoy being involved in and therefore would volunteer for detached duties if they could. It will also recruit new people.
I dont really understand why people think this cant be done - its not rocket science, its just what civil servants, military personnel and good managers do whenever they set up something new. Independence will be challenging, it may be hard work but it isnt impossible. Given the Scottish emblem is a thistle I am surprised so many people are scared of the jaggy bits.
Why bother at all? If we are no threat then there is no need. The UK will still need to defend the coast, we will still be on the same island after all, so we could save a fortune.
Why bother at all? If we are no threat then there is no need. The UK will still need to defend the coast, we will still be on the same island after all, so we could save a fortune.
But they don't defend the coast now...how long did it take to get anything useful to Scotland that time the Russian ships were floating about looking really vicious!
Wasn't it policy during WWII that if it came to it that Scotland was invaded from Norway, that the rest of the UK would stick their fingers in their ears and go lalala, while defending the rest of the country? And that was in the days of conscription and lots of soldiers etc. Fat chance of being defended by rUK given how much servicemen and military equipment we don't have anymore.
But they don't defend the coast now...how long did it take to get anything useful to Scotland that time the Russian ships were floating about looking really vicious!
Wasn't it policy during WWII that if it came to it that Scotland was invaded from Norway, that the rest of the UK would stick their fingers in their ears and go lalala, while defending the rest of the country? And that was in the days of conscription and lots of soldiers etc. Fat chance of being defended by rUK given how much servicemen and military equipment we don't have anymore.
You only need a couple of Typhoons to see off an armada.' Course we won't be able to afford 'em.
Was it policy? The entire British Navy sitting in Scappa Flow would be a reasonable defence force I would have thought.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.