• Scottish independence: Commons defence inquiry gets under way
    20 replies, posted
[QUOTE]An inquiry into the defence implications of possible Scottish independence is due to get under way at Westminster. MPs on the Commons Defence Committee will carry out the investigation. Among the issues being looked at are the potential impact on the UK's defence capability should Scotland become independent. The possible shape, size and role of Scottish defence forces will also be discussed. Among the first witnesses to give evidence are the defence expert Lt Col Stuart Crawford and defence academic Professor Malcolm Chalmers. Prof Chalmers told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme that one of the major issues in post-referendum negotiations would be the fate of Trident, Britain's nuclear weapon system currently based at Faslane. "I think there would be an incentive on both sides to fudge this issue a bit and find some sort of short-term arrangement pushing the issue to the side, to a post-independence situation where it could be properly considered at leisure," he said. "Of course, there would be political pressures on both sides but the reality is this is the UK's only nuclear force - it could not be redeployed to the rest of the UK without a very long period of construction of new sites somewhere in England. And even then, it's uncertain whether it could be done within a 10 or 15-year timeframe. "If Scotland were to insist on these weapons departing within a year or a very short period of time, then you would effectively be forcing the UK into unilateral nuclear disarmament - whether it wished it or not - and that's not the actions of a country which seeks good relations with its neighbours." The academic said an independent Scotland would almost certainly not require the level of armed forces currently based north of the border. "The land, the infrastructure, a lot of that would be inherited because it's in Scotland and a lot of it is not mobile, but the sort of advanced aircraft Tornado and soon Typhoon aircraft based in Scotland are far too expensive to run, for a small country like Scotland," he said. "Similarly, the nuclear-powered attack submarine that will be based in Scotland, the Astute class, are also far too expensive. They're the sort of ship that only the top six or seven countries in the world can afford to have. "So I think you'd be looking for something that was more comparable to the forces of Denmark or Ireland, or countries with a comparable population and geography." MPs on the committee also want to examine the means and timescale of any potential separation and any possible defence shortfall. The inquiry will also examine the extent to which, and circumstances in which, an independent Scotland might continue to contribute to defence goals shared with the UK and other countries. The committee is expected to report next year. First Minister Alex Salmond has previously said a Scottish Defence Force would consist of one naval base, one air base and one mobile armed brigade. However, UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has expressed worries about the potential break-up of the UK's defence which he has described as "a highly integrated and very sophisticated fighting force". [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18683868[/url] I would say another good reason we don't go independent! It will cost us more money to strip down the old military and rebuild a new one than it would just to stay in the UK.
If the majority of the population wants independence, then there shall be independence.
which they don't
I believe this is silly, but I don't blame them.
We need some William Wallace quotes in here. "FREEEEEEDOOOOOOM!!!"
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;36602801]We need some William Wallace quotes in here. "FREEEEEEDOOOOOOM!!!"[/QUOTE] more like the voice of the ignorant nationalist idiots
What is with all this talk of independence. It is not like you will suddenly become some massive power if you break off from the UK, hell that is the opposite of what you will end up doing.
[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;36602631]If the majority of the population wants independence, then there shall be independence.[/QUOTE] Not all of the population wants independence and breaking up the UK isn't a simple task.
Don't see why this is a big issue, Alex Salmond (:downs:), seems to be the one who brought this up in the first place, but for Scotland to become independent, it would need the support of English and Scottish government officials and the public, which a lot of Scots are very opposed to the idea, so I would say that it is safe to say that this will never happen, at least not in my lifetime anyway. I think Westminster should just have a little sit down with Alex and tell him that this is in no way a good idea because of the economic impact that it would have, not to mention the fact that sorting this out would have the most attention from either government and therefore be less likely to solve other problems that already exist right now...
I really don't see what Scotland gets out of this. They're pretty well autonomous as it is, and get quite a bit of financial benefits from the rest of the UK. Just seems like everyone would be weaker and worse off.
Just got to tear up a perfectly good relationship.
[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;36602631]If the majority of the population wants independence, then there shall be independence.[/QUOTE] Tyranny of the majority.
It's funny because there is literally only a handful of people who want independence. Everyone else , the ones with braincells, would realise we would be pretty much gangbanged left right and centre if we split from England
Hmm, in a time of global economic crisis, what can we do to weather the storm? Oh I know, lets make a completely unnecessary and woefully expensive political move with which we shall bankrupt our country and ultimately gain nothing from! Get a fucking clue.
I'm from Scotland and sometimes I get a wee-bit nationalistic. Even I think this is a horrid idea..
This bit sounds like Orwellian doublespeak: [quote]then you would effectively be forcing the UK into unilateral nuclear disarmament - whether it wished it or not - and that's not the actions of a country which seeks good relations with its neighbours."[/quote] Nuclear weapons, which would kill millions if used, are key to GOOD relations. Damn, what kind of weapon do you need then if you have neighbors you [i]don't[/i] like? On a more practical note, I think Scotland, if it went independent, shouldn't spend one dime on national defense. The rest of the UK could not allow an enemy to invade Scotland. So if Scotland were attacked, there would be immediate help from the UK and US military(and probably the rest of NATO). So who the hell would attack Scotland? No one. Therefore they need no defense spending.
I await the day where England becomes independent and conquers the world again only to lose it
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;36603525]I really don't see what Scotland gets out of this. They're pretty well autonomous as it is, and get quite a bit of financial benefits from the rest of the UK. Just seems like everyone would be weaker and worse off.[/QUOTE] Scotland in general actually has a higher GPA than everywhere in Britain except for London and the immediately surrounding areas. The North of England actually receives more from the rest of the UK (Scotland contributes, rather than takes if you look closer at the figures) [QUOTE=Instant Mix;36605720]It's funny because there is literally only a handful of people who want independence. Everyone else , the ones with braincells, would realise we would be pretty much gangbanged left right and centre if we split from England[/QUOTE] We can manage easily, and well. There's just a few problems that need sorted out before I'd be willing to vote for independence though: Which currency we would use, how it would be controlled, and how we would organise our military. I'd also need Salmond to become pro-nuclear. [QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36608233]On a more practical note, I think Scotland, if it went independent, shouldn't spend one dime on national defense. The rest of the UK could not allow an enemy to invade Scotland. So if Scotland were attacked, there would be immediate help from the UK and US military(and probably the rest of NATO). So who the hell would attack Scotland? No one. Therefore they need no defense spending.[/QUOTE] The bigger danger would be from within Scotland. For example, if there were mass unrest like the London riots a few years back, we don't have the police infrastructure to handle it (as we haven't had the need for riot prevention recently - so the police are presumably lacking on training in that field). We would need the military to be called in.
[QUOTE=Not Flapadar;36609341]Scotland in general actually has a higher GPA than everywhere in Britain except for London and the immediately surrounding areas. The North of England actually receives more from the rest of the UK (Scotland contributes, rather than takes if you look closer at the figures) We can manage easily, and well. There's just a few problems that need sorted out before I'd be willing to vote for independence though: Which currency we would use, how it would be controlled, and how we would organise our military. I'd also need Salmond to become pro-nuclear. The bigger danger would be from within Scotland. For example, if there were mass unrest like the London riots a few years back, we don't have the police infrastructure to handle it (as we haven't had the need for riot prevention recently - so the police are presumably lacking on training in that field). We would need the military to be called in.[/QUOTE] Firstly, whether Scotland puts in more or gets out more depends on whether you include the oil, which will almost certainly not all go to scotland. Secondly, the main problem with no armed forces is that it would be bad for relations to just piggy back other countries armed forces. [editline]3rd July 2012[/editline] I think if Scotland refuses the nuclear base they won't be allowed independence, it will be a case of keep it or we won't sign.
[QUOTE=Not Flapadar;36609341]The bigger danger would be from within Scotland. For example, if there were mass unrest like the London riots a few years back, we don't have the police infrastructure to handle it (as we haven't had the need for riot prevention recently - so the police are presumably lacking on training in that field). We would need the military to be called in.[/QUOTE] When I think 'defense' in national terms I think of defending against foreign forces. Internal defense would fall under law enforcement or domestic spending. For example, national defense helicopters would be for fighting another army, domestic helicopters would be used for riot control. The difference is in amount needed, and type needed. National defense- you'll want lots, and you'll want them heavily armed. Domestic- you'll want multi-use, for rescue/recon/fire suppression/etc. You won't need so many for domestic and you won't need them heavily armed.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;36610356]Firstly, whether Scotland puts in more or gets out more depends on whether you include the oil, which will almost certainly not all go to scotland.[/QUOTE] Aberdeen is the 'oil capital of Europe' because of its infrastructure and close proximity to most of the north sea oil. Aberdeen is in Scotland. Hence, the majority of the oil will be going to Scotland.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.