In my first article in this series, I felt it was important to begin by laying out the sort of Scotland that I think independence can achieve; from there, we can move on to describe the context in which we think it will happen. I ended that article with a plea for a security offering that addresses the social and economic realities of our communities, so I want to begin this one with an attempt to understand the immediate external context.
The most important security relationship that an independent Scotland will always have will be with those closest to us, both geographically and in terms of security interests: the UK (rUK) and Ireland.
This is a straightforward and, for me, at least, obvious statement, but one which nonetheless bears repeating, as it never ceases to amaze me that people don’t expect me to say it. Because just as it is a healthier, wealthier, and happier Scotland that we wish to be defending, rUK and Ireland will be a vital part of that going forward – not only because of the familial, social, cultural, and economic bonds that will continue to flourish after Scotland regains its independence but because of the obvious mutual interest in securing our islands of the North Atlantic (IONA).
Written by Martin Docherty-Hughes MP, Member of Parliament for West Dunbartonshire since 2015 and SNP Defence Spokesperson since 2023, this article is part of our series exploring diverse perspectives on defence and security issues. While the opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the stance of the UK Defence Journal, we believe in the importance of presenting a variety of viewpoints. Understanding different perspectives is essential for a comprehensive grasp of complex subjects. For more articles in this series, please click here.
Three other immediate points spring to mind: firstly, the importance of ensuring ‘losers consent’ as the many Scots who voted against independence are able to see that they remain a vital part of our ‘common weal’. Secondly, the understanding that the wounded pride of a rUK coping with the loss of population, territory and prestige, which will inevitably flow from a Yes vote, will be an immediate source of tension and require a magnanimous and open-hearted attitude from Scotland’s leaders.
This is an understanding that is gleaned principally from the experience of Brexit we have all lived through in recent years. The relationship between Brexit and Scottish independence can often be overdone, but there is a constant and subtle interplay between both, which we don’t have enough time to examine fully in this article. Needless to say, as the Member of the Defence Select Committee who has mentioned the need for a comprehensive Defence and Security Agreement with the EU more than any other, I believe that a ‘Good Neighbourhood Treaty’ specifically with the rUK would be an important statement of intent for other international partners and a lynchpin in the building of a mutually focused security collaborative with our closest geographical allies and friends, but one where Scotland actually has a voice at the table to accompany our stake in the game.
This is also a reality which flows from an understanding of the other sovereign state we share our islands of the North Atlantic with: Ireland has an ambitious and opaque security relationship with the UK, which it has never been able to quite bring itself to publicly acknowledge. I do not believe that this will be the path Scotland will take for a number of understandable historical reasons, but it could also have the corollary effect of galvanising a more honest approach to security with three sovereign states instead of just two.
The first test of this new relationship, and the one that will hove into sight upon an independence vote, will be the negotiation to remove rUK’s Continuous at Sea Deterrent (CASD) from its base at HMNB Clyde. I do not wish this article to get too caught up in this debate, but instead, to acknowledge the part it will play in the negotiations for, and eventual international recognition of, an independent sovereign Scotland.
My party’s policy is well outlined and understood: we would seek the removal of the rUK’s CASD as quickly and as safely as possible. While there are some who currently advocate the Sevastopolisation of HMNB Clyde, the realities of this option would entail too great a loss of sovereignty for an independent Scotland and, arguably more importantly, would simply not be in the interest of rUK.
As I have pointed out on many occasions, in the history of the nuclear age, no nuclear weapons state has had the entirety of its arsenal surrounded by the sovereign territory of another state. And even if it is a friendly one, there is no way that this will be seen as an acceptable risk, as security experts such as Francis Tusa have argued.
The precipitous removal of CASD from HMNB Clyde to the Southwest of England – Devonport or Falmouth most likely – will become of immediate importance for rUK upon an independence vote. It will also be an important moment to recognise the changing reality of rUK nuclear politics: According to Matthew Jones’ excellent official history of the UK Nuclear Deterrent, one of the primary drivers of situating Polaris on the Gare Loch was satisfying American partners its proximity to a major conurbation: a reality which has significantly changed as the South West of England has developed, even if not as quickly as those folk I’ve spoken to there would like. Other advantages to rUK for this move would be a quicker ingress and egress into the North Atlantic, along with a more straightforward link with the Nuclear Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire.
The centrality to Scottish foreign policy of being a good neighbour in this regard will provide a strong foundation for what comes after that, and Scotland’s identity as a European state, anchored firmly in our North Atlantic neighbourhood, will inform everything that we do.
Geographically, it is essential to look at a map of Scotland’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to understand the change that independence will bring to our security posture and outlook. Scotland has 62% of the UK’s maritime area: a longer coastline than France, as well as borders with rUK, Norway, Denmark and Ireland.
Considering this new map, we see the centrality of three areas to Scotland’s security: The Greenland / Iceland / Scotland Gap, the entrance to the North Sea, and the emerging Northern Sea route from Western Europe to East Asia. It will be of absolutely no surprise, therefore, to conclude that an independent Scotland will see security, primarily, in maritime terms.
Here lies the potential for a most significant change to our security posture after independence. Since the Treaty of Union, Scotland’s primary contribution to the UK’s armed forces has been through the infantry. As the brother of an infantryman with experience of tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I understand how central that contribution has been. Yet, at the point of independence, an irrevocable shift will be necessary to ensure that our contribution to the security of our North Atlantic neighbourhood is a central pillar of our national interest.
From a maritime perspective, that means moving away from the UK’s strange Napoleonic-era hangover with bases on the south coast of England that lie far from potential threats. Not only would the opening of facilities on Scotland’s east coast be preferable, but the possibility of secondary bases in Orkney or the Western Isles would be a clear statement of intent – not only to allies or potential adversaries but also to those communities who will undoubtedly want to see a state more willing to invest in their communities than the current UK Government.
In a context where the UK finds itself currently reconciling immediate threats in Ukraine, the ongoing reality of Brexit, and the security gap it has created, not to mention the more self-indulgent fantasies like the Indo-Pacific tilt – it is more important than ever to stress the clarity of vision regarding an independent Scotland’s security interests within our North Atlantic neighbourhood. Consistent contributions to NATO SMG1, cooperation with neighbours through formations like the Northern Group or JEF, and work through the European Union to ensure the alignment of these aims with our economic security will be Scotland’s bread and butter, in the way that it similarly has been for the Kingdoms of Norway and Denmark.
The interaction between these three principal spheres of our security – the rUK / IONA, NATO, and the EU – will be Scotland’s primary concern. Therefore, continuing to develop a deep and informed understanding of all three will be the primary concern of a nascent Scottish foreign policy community. The role of small states in International Relations may be poorly understood in a UK context, especially given the blunders of the UK Government in recent history regarding their role on the international stage. However, there is ample material on how similar states to Scotland have used the international system to their advantage and have had a positive impact on the global community. The key to this success is a narrowly defined – but broadly understood – concept of the national interest.
In defining this national interest, we will be building on the demonstrable commitment of the SNP to the international institutions of the post-war consensus and to the laws and rights which sprung from that time. It will still be a surprise to some – although not those who have been paying attention since 2016 – that in the coming election campaign, it will be SNP leader Humza Yousaf, and not the leaders of the two Westminster parties, who can clearly state his commitment to the EU and NATO as the twin pillars of our security.
There has been a tendency in the past, beginning with the 2014 referendum, to frame an independent Scotland’s security offering in terms of what it cannot do rather than what it can offer – something I like to call the ‘aircraft carrier conundrum’ after one particular paper that spent a rather inordinate amount of time lamenting Scotland’s inability to field a strike formation that no similar-sized country operates, and which even the UK can often struggle to make relevant to the threats it currently faces.
One thing that I believe has changed since then that will make this conundrum less relevant to the debate, other than the ongoing decline of the UK’s defensive and security capacities, is the accession to NATO of Sweden and Finland: two internationally-minded but regionally-focused small states. The demonstration that their own niche capabilities and individualities of the industry can so positively contribute to the total strength of the collective has led many to extol the virtues that such states can offer – and this is good news for Scotland.
The more worrying aspect of international relations to emerge in the decade since the first referendum is a more unstable world order, with the emergence of a multipolar/polyvalent system of shifting alliances and temporary mutual interest sharing, which has made the broader West feel less secure in its place.
While I share many of these concerns, especially in the possibility of asserting universal values, this is a new reality which will nonetheless need to be adjusted to, and one again which I cannot help but conclude will favour states with a clear understanding of their own interests, as Scotland will. And with the potential for growing regionalisation in emerging economic and security politics, having a clear understanding of where our primary alliances and partners are will be paramount.
In sum, I think it is safe to say that an independent Scotland will not seek simply to be a mini-UK in its international relations, though that is not to say we will not seek to be different simply for the sake of it. I hope the building of a fruitful new security relationship will begin at the moment of independence, with a clear statement of mutual interests and values, defending our shared island of the North Atlantic and, from there, working with allies and partners in our immediate neighbourhood and beyond.
Click here to explore the ‘Scotland’s Defence: Perspectives and Possibilities’ series, an exclusive UK Defence Journal series by Martin Docherty-Hughes MP, SNP Defence Spokesperson.
At the heart of the UK Defence Journal’s mission is our commitment to journalistic integrity. Our role is not to dictate opinions but to present information in a fair and balanced manner, allowing our readers to form their own informed views. This series exemplifies our dedication to offering diverse perspectives in the realm of defence and security. Our aim is to ignite discussions and deepen understanding among its readers, irrespective of their stance on Scottish independence. The importance of exploring varied viewpoints in shaping an informed public discourse cannot be overstated.
You can read the rest of the series here.
Well I suppose the first question would be “defend” Scotland and the North Atlantic with what?
Think about it yourself. You missed (ignored) all the points in the article with a single very simplistic comment. You can extend your own argument with parallels with what goes on already!
What I have asked is with what assets does the SNP intend to defend Scotland etc with! Not too hard a question really is it? So yes it is a simplistic comment.
The assets that Scotland as a tax contributor already has a part share in and already house! And those that would be created post independence. Some people seem to forget that we pay taxes too! Those same taxes that pay for all the collective services and infrastructure we all ‘enjoy’. The exact details would of course be down to negotiation in the event of independence, until then we continue to contribute on the basis set out by Westminster Parliament.
You do pay taxes however you have the biggest deficit in the union I believe, and assets ? Scotland doesn’t get it break a bit of the uk off and take it with them if they leave they don’t get to take a % of anything unless Scotland is going to then take the debt as well , when the uk left the e.u we didn’t get to take a % of the buildings etc
I hit 18yo in 1979. Over my lifetime the UK has lived off Scotland’s oil and gas and London’s finance sector. They carry the country. The rest of the UK is dead weight by comparison.
I think the SNP exists because the UK gov. fiddles the books to hide this to avoid upsetting the English nationalist vote that lumbered us with leave. If Scotland’s contribution was honoured as it should be the Union would be stronger, we might have avoided lunacy like leave, and the Scots would probably be happy to accept that there have been times in the past when it was the other way around.
If we do end up fragmenting which will be a pity, then a fair division would be Scotland and London split the military equipment and nukes, rump England/Wales takes half the debt and NI the rest.
Oh please. If you really believe what you’ve just said you must be in a parallel universe. In excess of 76 per cent of the GDP of the United Kingdom is generated in England. Hard for you perhaps but true.
England including London is 82% of the UK’s population so your 76% is underperforming. It is also mainly London which prior to being stabbed in the back by England’s benefit scroungers and pensioners used to contribute between 12 and 20 billion a year more in taxes than we got back from Westminster.
As I said Scotland and London have carried the UK throughout my adult life.
“Englands benefit scroungers” mmmm so any of those types in Scotland then? You seem good at statistics, have a peruse!
If you understood the demoraphics you would realise how stupid your statement is. England has approx 10 times the population of Scotland so the majority of any deficit arises from England. And on your figure of only 76% of our collective GDP being generated by England with 84% of the population, who then contributes the most? 16% of the population (Wales, NI and Scotland) generates 24% of the GDP! The problem in UK is that what England votes for is what the UK gets, and the sheep allowing the corrupt money launderers and vested interest establishment let it happen. The parallel universe is yours!
So it’s Chris and Nick, the crazy gang. Just carry on as you are guys, then the rest of us can ignore you.
The problem with your approach is that you follow the sheep ‘received wisdom’ and completely fail to think about the issues beyind your cognitive dissonance. Instead of focussing on your silo opinion completely ignoring everything else that is relevant you would see all the potential benefits as well as the potential pitfalls. Focussing on one of these out of preference while ignoring the other is a classic mistake of inept strategic management and analysis. But then Westminster and big UK business live by that all the time. They cannot comprehend that any view other than their wishes and control can possibly have any merit. Nimbyism on steroids!
Take out UK Naval ship building and you loose a large part of Scotlands GDP when you also deduct the multiplier effect.
This Scotlands oil and gas nonsense amazes me! The whole of the UK has contributed to the development and management of the oilfields in the North Sea not just Scotland🙄 there has even been talk of Shetland and the other islands becoming a BOT in the event of independence,so who’s oil would it be then?
Correct! You don’t resolve a grievance by continuing the policies that cause the grievance! The UK is run for the benefit of the South East based corrupt money launderers.
Scotland is it seems run for the benefit of the corrupt SNP. This is child’s stuff.
So English nationalist that voted us “with leave” are bad, but Scottish nationalists who want to, er, leave, are good? State the difference between a Brexiteer wanting to leave a union they don’t like/agree with, with an SNP nationalist wanting to leave a union they don’t like/agree with? I always find the sheep following the Shepard that feeds them amusing, don’t you.
Pity that you take such a narrow silo based approach to the debate. If England (the majority vote came from them nobody else) wanted independence from EU, what is so different about Scotland wanting independence from UK? The reasoning is much the same, the big difference in Scotland is to have a more realistic trading arrangement with neighbouring countries rather than a handful (yet to be completed anyway) the other side of the world.
Not narrow at all, questioning the mind set of “English” leavers wanting to leave the EU, bad, SNP and nationalists wanting to leave the UK union, good! The arguments are the same no matter how you want to spin it, and an entrenched echo chamber opinions rarely change!
Aside from this article being about defence, you have just stated two opposing comments which collectively make no sense! England decided it wanted to leave the EU, dragging Soctland and NI with it, and Scotland wanting to leave the UK parliament, for much the same arguments (apart from borders obviously). Yes the echo chamber of all the UK good, anything else bad of this journal’s forum contributors. Thinking about alternate ways of doing things is the hallmark of competent strategic thinking. That means discussing what may be unacceptable to received wisdom. Dismissing and ignoring foreseeable and predictable consequences because they undermine that received wisdom wish list is what causes so many problems.
My my you like to waffle in the grey zone without actually saying anything! That comment wasn’t opposing, it was a statement. Bad England took us out of the EU, bad, but good SNP people will take us out of the UK, good! Why is one bad, one good in your opinion? It’s a choice, one was made, the other to be made, but it seems you can’t quite see the ludicrous way your thought process and justification efforts move forward.
I didn’t say that. I didn’t say ‘Bad England’ or even ‘Good SNP’. I just pointed out that the population of England forms 85% of the UK, while the rest have to lump it. You have actually illustrated my point, the Independent activists are making exactly the same arguments as the Brexiteers, yet they were right and when faced with the same arguments suddenly those same points are wrong. NOTHING to do with whatever you mean by ‘grey zones’. The ludicrous and unsustainable arguments are those by those who merely argue by saying ‘you can’t so just shut up do what we tell you and lump it’.
So, England (AND Wales by the way) dragged Scotland out of the UK against it’s will, will Scotland drag the Boarders out of the UK against their will or will they be allowed to stay in the UK if that is how they vote?
The reasoning is the same, nationalism and exceptionalism both supply the desire to leave a larger group and set out on your own.
Brexit was stupid, and I strongly suspect that Scottish independence will be as bad for Scotland as Brexit was for the UK.
I need hardly remind you it was exactly because of England’s successful trading with a handful of countries on the far side of the World that Scotland joined the Union. Moreover Scotland did very well indeed out of the opportunity. The SNP’s destructive hankering after trading with a few regressive countries in Europe as the B all and end all is delusionary and sad to see.
Utter rubbish, economics definitely not your strongpoint.
You misread and misinterpret lots of stats. Scots deficit is part of the UK deficit, it does not exist as a separate entity. The economy which produces the deficit is run by Westminster. If independent Scotland would run its economy differently, in particular not pandering to the vested interests of the money launderers! Perhaps if you proof read what you wrote it would be less of an ill-informed rant. So if a partnership breaks up the assets are not shared? bearing in mind that Scotland contributed to the creation of those same assets. Any assets in UK collectively from the EU were inherited by the UK, so you are wrongly interpreting what happened. And yes the UK DID pay an ‘exit’ fee based on commitments and share of the collective economy. The amount of debt to be transferred is down to negotiation, recognising that some of the UK’s deficit has benefitted Scotland. There will be a quid pro quo obviously. And what happens will not be down to your ill-informed prejudices.
Firstly I did no “rant” I pointed out correctly that Scotland isn’t going to break of part of the U.K. and walk away unless it’s going to do the same with the U.K. debt I also pointed out that the U.K. didn’t take e.u assets yet paid into the e.u as a net contributor u like Scotland with the U.K. over hundreds of years Scotland has been in deficit far more than it hasn’t Scotland pays in yes and then gets given more back
You are NOT in a position to determine the process. So therefore it is an ill-informed (rant?) on your part to make such assertions. I suggest you proof read too! The EU DID have assets in the UK which we retained, also paid for jointly. Historical timescales are irrelevant and meaningless in this context though obviously would form part of negotiations, which neither you nor I will be party to. Nobody but nobody said that taking on historic debt would not necesarily happen. Stick to what is actually formally announced not fake news and inuendo. Yes there would be negotiations on mamy matters, but we cannot prejudge the outcomes. It is not necessarily doom an gloom on either side.
Argh yes this will be the frigates and typhoons etc will it?although of course you will have no contracts to keep such kit operational let alone crew to man the platforms not to mention all sensitive kit will be removed as the licences for kit operated by the RN/RAF will not apply to a SDF!
Have you actually thought your commets through? Part of the negotiated transfer of ‘currently shared assets’ will also include the contracts where necessary and appropriate. It is pretty obvious that Scotland doesn’ have any specific now, but that cannot be extended to post independence. Also manpower will be looked at. You make the significant mistake of looking at what is in place now and stupidly assuming that it will remain unchanged later! Therefore your argument is completely baseless. Unfortunately far too many people suffer from silo thinking and fail to realise and recognise that any change also includes adaptation to new circumstances.
You love that silo thinking comment! Anyway, ignoring everything else, no matter what kit is shared in whatever proportion, it has to be manned! In my military career, and now in my new one I have yet to come across more than a small handful of Scottish soldiers who would be prepared to move from a operational military, where combat tours, courses, promotions and careers are available to a “defence force” type posture!
It is also quite amusing to see that the jocks who have left Scotland and have seen the world, and currently reside in let’s say England, are more anti-independence than those who have stayed in Scotland. Why is that do you think, also amusing to see that very same group not allowed to vote in the last indyref….funny that eh!
Once again you are making false extrapolations and certainty based on a very small sample of probably ‘drinking buddies’. Yes manning will be part of the negotiations and as long as it isn’t based on a repeat of the lies and misinformation allows those affected to make an informed choice. Until the details emerge it is NOT possible for you to assert that something will or will not happen. The question remains open. In fact there are better opportunities from being part of a small tight organisation than being a very very tiny cog in a much bigger one! What do you mean by ‘defence posture’ as opposed to an ‘aggressive attack posture’? Since it is proposed that Scotland would focus more on defence than aggressive power projection you have a bit of an anomaly in your argument. And who is to say that part of the negotiations will not also cover the Commonwealth style contribution and shared careers and opportunities? Being dogmatically assertive about what (you wish to occur) will or not happen is not a debate about resolving the minutiae of future negotiations. Disputes and future actions or decisions are not resolved by prejudging and imposing outcomes.
I see you are having trouble understanding things! First thing it is also NOT possible for you to assert what will happen (however you do try), second, drinking buddies, oh dear, quite patronising again, more like hundreds of colleagues over a 30 plus year period! Third, your comment about attack/defence posture shows you have no clue about a professional military persons thought process, career progression and hopes and needs! Like I said very very few professional military people will move from a larger organisation with prospects to a smaller defence force with limited openings for a career or promotion! But alas I’m sure you know better!
It is you who are patronising! You make statements of certainty when all you can say is that they are issues that need to be resolve. You don’t know my background (any more than I know yours) so you do have a patronising approach. You make statements of absolute certainty which shows that you are not thinking about strategic options. You also make statements of absolute certainty. People make decisions at the time of needing to make a decision based on information they have at the time. Your analysis is not allowing for potential negotiation and structural arrangements at a future time. You may be right, you may be wrong, I may be right I may be wrong, neither of us knows that with certainty. Yes there will be issues but we haven’t even started to think about the detail of what would be discussed in the possible future event so you cannot be absolutely certain about the outcomes, options or posssibilities. I have not made a statement with any certainty about any position other than to say that those who do are not thinking things through across the spectrum of options, other than to take a preferred starting point and stick with that regardless of any other consideration. I have an open mind.
Please cut and paste any part of my comment which I state anything with absolute certainty? My comment like yours is an opinion, mine is based on my experiences and previous communications with hundreds of people, all with opinions and their own experiences!
Really! Moving contracts that have taken decades to implement and improve upon will have to rely on said contractors seeing they will get paid etc! Manning said vessels? As no Scot serving would be transferred to a SDF from HM forces against their will I would suggest you would be starting from scratch. What facility would Scotland have to train such personnel as the UK training route would be cut off! Or do you think that we would do you a favour and train your lot for free?
You are making assertions about things that haven’t happened (and may not anyway). So UK doesn’t train anybody else? UK doesn’t share facilities with anybody else? Payment to and from UK for those shared facilities and opportunities doesn’t happen now? Nobody has said anyone would be transferred against their will! You are arguing and making assumptions that would be down to negotiation detail at some possible future time. Contracts would of course be negotiated as well, why wouldn’t they? And why would they actually stop something happening? Just because something is difficult, protracted or complicated does not mean it cannot be done.
The core assumption that undermines your argument is the idea that assets are “shared” between nations in the Union. This is demonstrably untrue; they are the property of the Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom and would remain as such in the event of Scotland crashing out. A new country would be formed, not a splitting of one country into two. As such, the assets would have to be exchanged in a settlement if at all, probably involving Scotland paying its portion of the National Debt, which would cripple its economy for decades.
Are you a Scot, Nick? So Scotland would want 8% of two aircraft carriers, 9 frigates, 6 destroyers etc?
Why not put some thought into your comments? So you think that peple are saying we take a massive cutting torch to assets and divvy them up? What would remain would be down to negotiation. Even a primary school child understands that half an aircraft carrier or frigate would sink. And it isn’t just those resources anyway. Do we currently not have basing arrangements with other countries and shared access and facilities within NATO?
Nick,
I had not expected anyone to take my comment quite so literally. So perhaps I need to re-phrase my point thus: ‘my understanding is that the SNP consider that the Scottish Government should receive a percentage of the UK’s military assets following independence, following negotiation’.
The issue will be that UK originally purchased those assets to defend the UK and to use on UK deployments overseas. Equipment fleets (I don’t just mean ships) are taut. It would be hard to see how Scotland could have a significant (say 7-10%) proportion of a small UK equipment fleet without prejudice to the defence of rUK and its ability to prosecute successful operations overseas. Those negotiations will be very tough.
Scotland would also negotiate about bases. Yes, I get that.
Think about analogies. Yes, the UK (including Scotland) paid for joint shared assets. Think about a married couple jointly purchasing a house and other property, what happens f they split up? If the current fleet(s) of significant assets are sufficient for current purposes why will splitting them up be any different? What would almost certainly happen is that Scotland would focus on the GIN gap and Baltic while England could then concentrate on more southerly areas, and contributing to its residual imperialist whole world ambitions. Obviously command structures would change but the overall effect will not to any significant extent. And focussing on geography and existing skil contributions would allow more tailored approaches at a British Isles level. There would be joint agreements in addition to those of NATO.
You don’t win over many folk by talking about England’s ‘residual imperialist whole world ambitions’. We don’t deploy service personnel on expeditionary operations for glory or prestige or because we feel imperial. We use our forces on expeditionary operations as a force for good in the world, and that is not without its sacrifices.
Interesting to compare the divorce of Scotland from rUK to the divorce of a married couple. Maybe that will be how the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government will approach this. Scotland will have to take away and deal with its share of the National Debt or ask Westminster to write it off in exchange for some sort of ‘favours’. Who knows how it will end up.
I think the window for achieving Scottish independence has waned however. The SNP, who would deliver it, is in decline.
But it’s not two people. I have previously warned you against Scottish exceptionalism. The house would be bought in the name of the marriage. In this case it is unlike a divorce, as the marriage would still exist, just one person has left it, so the house would retain with the remaining partner. More like someone leaving a joint business, where the business still exists and retains assets.
Scotland is not a tax contributor to the UK. More gets spent specifically in Scotland than is collected from Scots in tax. This does not include Defence, which is assumed to be spent in England
Of course Scotland is a tax contributor. Look up the real facts not just those that pander to your preconceived notions. Don’t forget that what is spent in Scotland (Wales and NI) is pro-rata of what England decides it want to spend, decided by the 85% UK population of England.
If 85% of the United Kingdom decide on something through democratic channels, then they will have their way. I know the SNP have had issues with accepting the will of the majority ever since 2014, but that is how democracy works.
Don’t blame poor standards in Scotland on English penny-pinching. More gets spent on each Scot in tax money than each English person.
And, in answer to your denial of my statement:
Both from the Scottish Government website:
Total public sector expenditure for Scotland in 2021-22 is estimated to be £97.5 billion, a decrease of 1.0% from 2020-
The three largest taxes, income tax, national insurance contributions, and value added tax account for around two thirds of total non-North Sea revenue. Overall, Scotland raised £73.8 billion in 2021-22, or 8.0% of total UK income.
Perjorative comments do not enhance debate. What you remain oblivious to is that while yes on a UK basis the majority gets its way, it doesn’t mean that the remainder have to be happy with it. And what has SNP got to do with it? ANY substantial group of people with an ideological wish retain that wish. Nothing to do with ancient majorities. On the basis of your argument, we should have scrapped elections because on 2016 a majority was held by one party! Do the then and current opposition not continue with their own ideological positions? Has anyone suggested that Labour shut themselves down because they haven’t won a UK election since Blair/Brown. Opinions and circumstances change, they are not set in stone as an immutable law of physics. The majority of people realised they were lied to and deliberately misled in 2014, which is why independence rose from the pre 2014 of about 20% to hovering around 50% now.
Arguing with the SNP is entertaining stuff, bit like whacka-mole, they never give up till they do.
The SNP think they have a right to take 7-10% of UK Defence assets upon independence, because their taxpayers have been paying into the national ‘pot’.
Yawn … 😴
Hi Marius, do you need a nap?
Hi George. The quest for Scottish independence died in the 2014 Referendum. If that outcome does not convince you, and I can see it doesn’t, then two failed and shamed SNP leaders is more proof. Finally, the current incumbent is an embarrassment, and is simply a Sturgeon stooge . . .
Now here’s the bottom line – to keep banging on ad nauseum about some discredited and failed fairy tale, called Scottish Independence, is futile. It is not going to happen!
Stick with military matters – the clue is in the name UK Defence Journal.
Yes. I picked the name.
Yes and I think you have highlighted how important the UK is to our collective defence with a wee emphasis on Scotland
Keep the good work going from a Lancastrian
Instead of just responding with the same unthinking tropes why not think about it instead of repeating the same old misinformation and fake news? Your first paragraph is a pile of blinkered nonsense. You don’t have the faintest bit of knowledge of what you are spouting about. The only thing that remotely conforms is that completely contrary to your illogical assumption is that there is a 50/50 split in opinion, which varies from time to tme either side of that. The idea and opportunities behind that split remain, regardless of the fake news and lies skewed outcome from 2014. The ideology is not dead and in fact reinforced the more we see of the self interest of the Westminster Establishment. The ideology has not changed or gone away, however the piece is not about independence but how Scotland would remain part of the defence world in that event. If you bothered to actually read the article you would see for yourself. There is nothing in it that undermines the common goals of mutual defence. It is a considered and well written analysis of what could be.
Nope, all the metrics show the desire for independence dropping back again, the pendulum is swinging back the other way now and the SNP has missed its chance.
Most observers expect the SNP to loose a good few seats to Labour in the next GE.
Sadly the SNP’s obsession with independence has meant they have made a mess of the powers they currently have, most have zero confidence they could actually run a country, based on the general balls up they have made!
I would suspect it will be another 25 years before a new generation try to pin all their woes on Westminster, scream ‘Scotland the brave’ and have another pop…..
Your statement is only valid for a single moment in time. The actual figures have swung a few percent either side of 50 since 2014. Anyway your argument is not related to the thread of the article. I am amazed at the poor understanding of all the right wing xenophobes who rant in these comments.
A well argued position Nick, you missed Sassenach basta*d, so I’ll pop that in for you….🤣
Anyone who doesn’t believe in the SNP’s glorious workers paradise, is a right wing xenophobe. Yep that strategy is certainly a winner, keep it up.
No wonder your argument is on its arse, good lord Labour will eat you for breakfast.
You have just clearly failed in any of your arguments. Resorting to abuse because you cannot respond with anything else. If you were capable of thinking and analysing you would see that the very things you accuse others of is exactly your position. It has nothing to do with believing any party political position (and you do NOT know my preferences in this so making assumptions really undermines all of your arguments anyway). The point is to THINK things through in all their various directions and come up with possibilities and options. Then weigh them up. If you can only resort to perjorative and abusive comments then you have very clearly lost!
“right wing xenophobes”
Yep, looking in the mirror are we Nick😴
WTF? Do you actually understand the definitions of ‘right wing’ and ‘xenophobe’. Obviously not, still less able apply that to what happened in recent years.
Nick my dear chap, you appear to have anger issues, I recommend a nice soothing calamine tea, too much Irn bru perhaps?
I’m not angry just trying to rationalise lots of blinkered arguments. Things look so simple over a pint, or across the dinner table.
xenophobe (noun) · xenophobes (plural noun)
NOUN
(THE RIGHT WING)
It would seem John is correct, as the definitions are quite easy to understand, and I have cut and pasted them for you to peruse. So this is what they mean, what context in regard to contributors of this site, did you mean, as above? and why did you use them?
I already knew that, look in a mirror! Most of the arguments round whatever may or may not happen in the event or otherwise of Scottish Independence fit the xenophobe definition! Most of the comments are very anti-Scottish. Such attitudes also invariably inhabit the right wing which is usually based around pursuing what they perceive as traditional ideas and anything that upsets what they perceive as the status quo! As I started with – look in a mirror! At the end of the day nobody but nobody has ever actually justified being a United Kingdom aside from a very narrow subject viewpoint. Anyway the article is about future potential options, which need to be debated and discussed from an informed perspective recognising the validity and alternate viewpoints. Shutting that down with NO, NEVER, CANNOT POSSIBLY, coupled with perjorative (invariably false or mistaken) assumptions when an alternative equally valid possibility is mentioned is not advancing the debate or having a rational examination of the issues. Usually the preserve of the political extreme (right and or left) resolutely dismissing anything that doesn’t fit with their preconceptions. Invariably extremists and those others with fixed immutable ideas (and I promote balanced debate and not any extreme position at any cost) dislike being labelled as such!
Oh wow, “look in a mirror” so you are now calling me a right wing xenophobe? Oh dear how silly and presumptuous you are! That little snippet is the funniest of all your flannel! I see you are getting angry and starting to gnash your teeth somewhat 😂👏🏽
The comments are very much anti SNP, not anti Scotland. Conflating the two has been one of the SNP’s greatest pieces of hubris and the reason many have fallen out of love with them.
What do you mean “no one has justified a United Kingdom”? We’re one island, with little by way of a natural border, we have a common language and customs. Not my use of the word “we” because, to most of us, the Union is “we”, not an English idea. It was a Union of equal crowns, not an invasion.
Why anti SNP? is it because they are the main public face of the ideology of independence which is there regardless of the SNP? No one has justified the Union, other than to say No. No one has actually produced anything that supports it other than to say No to any suggestion of doign something differently and even less to do anything constructive about the things that cause around half the voters to seek independence. Saying no is not a justification. The Union of the Crowns is a different entity. It predated the Union of Parliaments by app 100 years. It is the unequal Union of Parliaments that is the problem, when the currently devolved nations are massively outvoted by the one that doesn’t have its separate parliament. England has 85% of the population, and is the principal problem with the Union. What England votes for is what everybody else has imposed on them.
I consider the United Kingdom to be a single nation. Every constituency has the same power in Parliament; indeed, those in Scotland are often those with smaller populations so the average Scottish voter has more power than those in England. The Scots also have the power to elec their own, devolved government specially for their needs, something denied to the English.
What the Kingdom votes for is what we get. England cannot be blamed for Scotland voting for parties that do not get into power. The alternative is independence, which the SNP have already tried and which was, even on the basic level explained to voters, decided to be unworkable.
You cannot explain independence as inequality in voting. To extrapolate your logic (always a sensible thing to do to determine extremes) I should be an independent nation because there are more of other people than of me. It is illogical to reject authority simply because it exists. You may have misrepresented your argument, but that is how I see it.
Yes the UK is a single nation, nothing to with what you as an individual consider. The constituencies have been changed for the next election and while also supposedly based on regional relevance there are still anomalies. And the national differences increased (Scotland will have less MPs)! The changes somehow or other seem to have been arranged to benefit the Conservatives, funny that! The whole concept of democracy (and the supposed Union of Equals (Treaty of Union refers) allows for multiple parties. Those parties reflect their electors interests. If you understood the overwhelming number of constituencies in England compared to the other three nations combined you would see that most of the time their votes are irrelevant. There is no baance of interests across the home nations. Whoever wins in England wins the lot! You may as well say that Scotland, Wales and NI don’t need any MPs, especially as they are frequently ignored and shouted down. Scotland Wales and NI did not devise the basis of devolution. Blame Tony Blair for omitting to give England it’s own devolved body, and yes this was the mistake, but again none of us had any say in that. Which is the basis of English Votes for English Laws by David Cameron, but the English Votes are held in Westminster and not a different place. This of course means that whatever Westminster decides on the basis of overwhelming English interest is what we all get. The whole basis of independence ideology is predicated on the fact that Scotland frequently wishes to do things differently or not at all but is not allowed to do so. No amount of Unionist blethers changes that. Being told to shut up and do what you are telt is what fuels the demands for independence. If only Unionists had the sense to realise.
You misunderstand my point. I meant that you should completely ignore the concept of Scotland and England in considering the United Kingdom.
My point was that, from this perspective, the Kingdom is equal. Indeed, as I said above, every Scottish person’s vote counts for as much as an English person, and often more. Pointing to national boundaries to “show” that Scotland is left out is misrepresentative of how democracy actually works. Yet again you undermine your point that Scottish nationalism is not anti English by assuming that all English will vote a different way from Scots. All of the same names (bar the SNP) are on the ballot paper.
“Whoever wins in England wins the lot” is another highly misrepresentative statement based on the idea above. Yes, the majority of the population is English, so if they all vote for something, that is what will happen. That is how democracy works. If the whole kingdom voted for something except London, then that is what would happen. Complaining “But it’s always Scotland” says more about Scotland than the rest of the Kingdom. Indeed, if the Scots want to do it differently then they can vote for independence, but with the main leaders of that movement largely discredited, there is little appetite for that at least until a fresh crop of decent SNP politicians emerges.
You still don’t get it. No I did not assume or state that all English will vote differently to Scots. The English proportion comprises 85% so they outnumber the rest by 6 to 1. Which means that it is English voters who set the scene. If a majority of English voters don’t want something then nobody gets it. That is the problem. Made worse by not having an English devolved parliament. You are right that at an individual level each person counts but policies are decided by majority. Of course it varies from time to time,but Scotland has not voted Tory for around 70 years, yet most of that time there has been a Tory Government. What would make much more sense would be for each Home Nation to have its own parliament and then the Lords to be replaced by representatives from each administration. Which is even less likely to happen. Until the perceived grievances are addressed demands for Indpendence from Scotland, Wales and also growing in NI (or in their case uniting with Eire) willand can only increase. Continually snubbing localised changes merely reinforces and encourages demands for change. And there are clear Home Nation and even English Regional differences in social and cultural drivers and demands. One size does not fit all. And the at times blatantly corrupt nepotistic and self interested culture of who actually runs the Establishment which runs Westminster does everybody down, not just the devolved nations.
You can’t ignore the differences of opinion. And it is because our current democracy fails to recognise them and respond approriately (NO is not appropriate) it fuels demands. Unfortunately there is a significant democratic deficit in UK, and it is caused by FPTP. Having a majority of MPs would work up to a point if that actually reflected voting intentions, but it doesn’t. FPTP only ever works if there are only two parties to choose from and every constituency was exactly the same size. We haven’t had a government that commands actual public majority support for many decades. The problem is that it means whoever is in power gets to do what they want even if the majority of the public didn’t vote for those policies. That is exactly why we are in the mess we are, and unpopular decisions get foisted on everyone (England included) just because MPs who are supposed to represent our interests get forced to follow the party liine. If that was outlawed and MPs did actually vote with their consciences then much better compromise and less dictatorial outcomes would be achieved. We would also be far less likely to embark on unwanted ventures too. We need collaborative not tribal adversarial politics. Until then there will always be mounting levels of unresolved grievances. And the current elite ruling Establishment (which goes beyond parties and controls what happens in their own selfish interest) wouldn’t be happy.
the independence movement in Scotland has profound implications for geostrategy and geopolitical thinking not just in the European high north but across the globe.
This is actually one of the key fault lines of the 21c geopolitical struggle.
if war is politics by other means then politics is war by other means..any fault lines are being used and abused by the enemies of the west..that includes the Scottish independence debate. I will repeat this as many times as needed the Chinese communists party employs 3 million people in active political warfare against the west and one of their aims is to create rifts and create political conflicts..so when we talk about the Scottish independence debate we are talking about defence.
Scotland is already an Independent country. To Nationalists it is not independent enough. It has to be anti-English. That is what drives Scottish nationalism. It what drives all nationalisms – not what we are for but who we are against. Nationalists are always everywhere stunted by this outlook. A collection of bizarre views and sketchy futurology is about par for the course.
Scottish nationalism is not anti -English. It is anti the corrupt practices of the Westminster cabal and establishment. As an identifiable nation with its own identity it sees Westminster for what it is. You don’t understand!
No it’s not Scottish nationalists are absolutely anti English
So SNP are honest and upright biggest bunch of self indulgent thieving politicians eve and you have been outed the people of Scotland see you for what you are self serving leeches you will never get independence now the Scots don’t want your lot running the country they see as our the frying pan and into the fire
Come on look in the Westminster mirror. I suggest you start learning how to interpet fake news so cancel your GB and Fox news subscriptions. You seem to be a sucker for fake news conspiracies! If you proof read what you have written it would be a start. Rants do not constitute a rational debate and cognitive dissonance masks the refusal to look at things holistically.
A bit vague and perhaps focused too much on asserting sovereignty. For example, while they talked about building new bases on Orkney, there was no mention of an independent airforce.
Playing a ‘taking back control’ narrative is a vote winner for indys; but it’s also necessary to talk about the unsexy stuff, like will an independent Scotland be patrolling its own airspace, or will a deal similar to the one with Ireland be necessary?
The article was focussed on the maritime aspects. There is shared interest in defence, which will not necessarily be hampered by independence, and in fact allows focus on what contribution each nation can make, within NATO and other mutual defence pacts. UK already relies on NATO support to plug gaps in its own capability anyway. We do not patrol Irish airspace, but do act when mutually beneficial or when it suits our needs. Defence as a whole is far more complicated than just immediate resources. It could be argued that we spend far too much on Far-Eastern posturing with our limited naval resources anyway.
Yes there are various solutions to these problems, and really you can’t begin negotiating these solutions until after a referendum, but the important part is openly acknowledging the problems.
So far this is just a more well informed version of the usual game of getting people excited with the sexy powerful stuff and ignoring the unsexy or inconvenient stuff.
Obviously they’re a politician and I see the incentives to do so, however personally I expect better on such an important matter.
A well wrtten and thought provoking piece, far removed from the usual negative narrow and blinkered diatribes of those who cannot think in such broad terms.
I’ve got a couple of views on this:
First Scottish independence would be a significant blow to one of the key western powers..the UK has always been one of the western powers with the greatest will to intervene against enemies of its own and enemies of the west. So to lessen the power of the UK and potentially reduce its will to fight would be a major political warfare win for the anti western powers ( china, Iran, Russia) so to expect them not to use their very significant political warfare capabilities to try and bring about Scottish independence and strengthen Scotlands nationalist movement would be bizarre..this would be a win and they will try and make it happen.
Now that does not remove the validity of the Scottish independence movement…and the people of Scotland have a right to decide on their future..but with the right to decide comes the responsibility of understanding what your decision means and the nationalist movement in Scotland may be good or bad for Scotland ( depends who you ask) but geopolitically it’s a bit of a catastrophe for the west and would be one of the things china would balance out on any plans to fight a war with the west.
So the Uk needs to make the very clear case of why Scotlands future is better in the UK..not trash the nationalist argument..but show why unity and union has a better one…this includes the geopolitical argument and maintaining western hegemony and deterrent against a world war that would shatter the economy of every nation even an independent Scotland ( if an independent Scotland was the final straw on the camels back of China deciding it could beat the west, it would be catastrophic for all…now I know this is a fear type argument..but we are in that place at present the world is heading for a possible world war and this needs to come into peoples thinking and understand).
But and this is also important if Scotland did leave the Uk the open and frank discussion of how the geopolitical and geostrategic damage is limited needs to have been had very early on. Scotland insisting on the rebasing of the deterrent ( which is a European deterrent not really just a Uk one ) without long term planning and agreements would be proudly bad. Scotland retreating into the same position as Ireland would also be very bad..
From reading this article my worry is that the SNP is not really considering the wider geopolitical picture and threat of a global conflict on Scotland instead, they are arguing only on a local security issue type picture..that ignores the fact even a pacific only conflict between the superpowers would devastate the Scottish economy and the chance of that conflict suffering contagion and spreading to NATO is in my view very very high ( china will attack the US mainland in a pacific war..which will trigger article five..even if we tried to stay out of it)….
every little bit more weakness in key western powers reduces the deterrence against a global war…and increases the chance the Scottish economy will be shattered and Scotland itself attacked in that potential war.
Its time for western politicians to start looking at the reality we face and not what they want their politics to look like….in five years time it will/may be different and the highest level of risk over…for now what western politicians need to do is promote unity of purpose and resolve or else we will enter a new time of extreme levels of conflict just as they did in the first half of the 20c…
As a great man said..you cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth…in the same way you should not argue with yourself in the same situation..we may not quite be in the tigers mouth…but china and the anti western block has opened its mouth and is measuring the size of the wests head.
That is an area of concern, but UK is part of NATO, and it should be noted probably the most war-like of the all nations. UL on its own is relatively powerless, given the cut backs in defence. There is no reason why NATO is weakened with the prospect of Scottish Independence, but why should we (the UK) pander to the post empire aspirations of the self-interested Establishment Elite who controls Westminster? How does getting over-involved in Pacific and Far East activities help defend our home islands? Scottish Independence allows a dose of reality into global politics.
Because the whole world is essential to our economic security. Unless the SNP convince the Scots they can exist on a diet of milk, beef and crude oil, they will have to take imports from the rest of the world. A significant proportion of that will come from China, Japan and South East Asian countries. Check your SNP flag. Where was that made?
NATO is not actually the key here, it’s fundamentally important for regional security, but I’m taking about a more global risk. What happens in the pacific and Indian Ocean is fundamentally important to our future security and that in reality is not related to NATO…china looks at the individual nations of the western world and how willing and able they are to combat it on a global stage..just thinking of NATO is profundity provincial…NATO will not prevent the pacific war that will destroy the world’s economies. If you don’t know why a pacific war will destroy Scotlands economy I suggest you read Dr Babbages “The next major war” it’s a major academic piece on that will show you why Scotland, England and every European nation will be buggered if there is an U.S. china war….basically what do you think happens to your economy and well being if the 2 major superpowers engage in a no holes barred global conflict for years and years…china and the U.S. will force each other to strategic exhaustion and that will mean the distruction of the other’s economies..do you think the world economy would survive the U.S. and china sinking every enemy merchant they can find…insisting their allies blockade their enemies…no access to half the worlds resources etc…and finally even if Scotland and Europe stays out of it and the US and china go nuclear we are all dead…a nuclear weapon does not need to come anywhere near Europe but the nuclear exchange between china and the U.S. would kill us all…slow over years of global starvation but Scotland would still be dead….just do the research on black soot and crop modelling..basically a rule of thumb is 100 nuclear warheads reduces world food production by 10% for up to 10 years…the U.S. and china would fire 2000+ warheads at each other..that would equate to a total collapse in world for production for 10 years…I’m sure Scotland would be fine…
Basically a U.S. china war will be catastrophic for everyone everywhere..the only way to prevent that is to convince china that it cannot win..the only way to convince china it cannot win is to have very strong unified western nations that show they are as committed to mutual destruction and to fight to the end in a pacific war as we were in the Cold War when we faced off the USSR..we know the only proven way to prevent this ( the Cold War) and we know what happens when you show weakness and disunity ( WW2).
Up to a point yes, NATO is not the only consideration. The point really is to focus on our strengths and position. Being able to send an aircraft carrier group to the North Pacific doesn’t do much for local defence. That is the key issue. Pandering to dreams of post empire domination are the real problem. If we manufactured more locally within the UK and EU we could ignore the Far East economically, and that is starting to happen with reshoring. The only reason we have things made there is because of businesses exploiting the very cheap labour. In which process we provided the machinery and technologies for them to do that! Lets focus on our own back yard. Having more and flexible resources in UK om a self sustaining basis instead of two carriers which could be taken out by merely two half a million pound missiles from the enemies in the Far East is probably a much better use of funds.
Unfortunately as I said ignoring the Pacific will not make the pacific go away…the only way we keep a peaceful world is by convincing china it cannot win. Have a UK Carrier battle group helps that..china will not just fight the west in the pacific..it will fight across the globe..our security is not just about Northern Europe it’s about every single sea on the planet…
I don’t disagree with developing our own supply chain an production..but that does not lessen the need for hard power..you cannot produce if you have no markets you cannot produce if you have no raw materials..it’s simply not possible for Europe to curl up in its shell and say bye bye to the rest of the world..a war in the pacific is and will be our war if we want it or not, it’s got nothing to do with Empire building on our part and everything to do with how the modern world works…It even worked that way in the 19th century so to think any different know is just not reality…what will happen to our economy if china owns and controls Africa, the Asian continent, the pacific trade routes, South America, the gulf states…..turning our eyes away now is dooming our selves to misery.
I’m not arguing against the Pacific as such, yes global interests are of significant importance. The point is that we are putting a disproportionate amount of effort in that area when we probably have higher and more immediate local priorities around our Islands. Two floating airfields which in operational terms tie up the vast majority of our Navy are not necessarily much help apart from not being tied to a single geographic location. Our entire major presence in the Pacific can be eliminated by a single anti-ship missile or torpedo, that is the point. We are vastly outnumbered by the potential ‘enemies’ operating from their home nations. Aside from ensuring that the Far East can still supply us with cheap manufactured goods, we still have to get them to our ports! I would argue that we need at least two more carrier groups to have any meaningful presence and we still need to ensure we have enough ships, aircraft, and manpower of all services on shore. All of which are inadequate. As Grant Shapps I think said this morning the era of Peace Dividend is over ( so the off-shore money launderers had better get used to it). It is doubtful if we could defend our homes as it is without worrying about the other side of the world.
April the 1st already ? I’ll have to change my tin foil hat it’s obviously giving me faulty signals. It’s up there with typhoons on special escort duty on Christmas Eve. Scotland and the rest of the UK cannot defend its self so Scotland on its own 😂😂😂
First and clearly, the SNP DO NOT WANT INDEPENDENCE!
If they truly wanted independence they would not want to join the EU.
They want to be away from England and Westminster and that is entirely different. There’s nothing wrong with that view even though I happen to believe it would lead to negative outcomes for the Scottish people. My opinion for all that’s worth. Thanks for the engagement and the effort to put your view across but to me it seems wishy washy with no real logical thinking.
.
You do not lose independence by joining a democratic union; You do regain independence by leaving an undemocratic one. I understand why they are anti westminster, I just think working with Lib Dems and Greens to clean it up and drag it up to modern European standards is a better option.
Of course you lose independence. Whenever you join any organisation that you have to comply with it’s rules rather than make your own choice it’s not independent.
As I say if they want to leave Westminster/England for what ever reason that’s perfectly valid. Just don’t treat people like idiots and be honest about it.
You have looked across at the EU lately haven’t you? They are not a bunch of happy bunnies are they?Sweden,Netherlands,Italy,Poland,Hungary and even France are having a wobble at the steady rate of Brussels controlling agenda! So good luck with the independence bit.
And that is amusing regarding the greens and the Lib Dem’s!
So you KNOW everything? Your first sentence is a complete and utter nonsense! The EU is a different political animal to the UK. You have not based your opinion on anything other than a statement. You are the one jumping to false conclusions based on your narrow opinion. The outcome of Independence is of course an unknown option, so how are you so certain that doing things differently on behalf of all the population instead of the vested interests of money launderers going to be negative. You completely miss the point which is that Independence allows Scotland to chart its own course doing things to suit itself no someone else with off-shore bank accounts. There is only one real reason why the EU looked bad and that is because a handful of people objecting to constraints of money laundering exagerrated lots of nonsense to divert attention, fooling the majority in the process. Think about the benefits of the EU rather than focus solely on one or two of the bad. All political entities have bad points as well as good. Those of Westminster are becoming increasingly obvious. Anyway there is no automatic assumption that in the event of Independence Scots would wish to rejoin the EU nased on whatever negotiations happen. Independence in Europe is seen as better than being tied to Westminster’s wishes. Have a debate yes, but don’t be so assertive and certain about potential outcomes. The full consequences of Brexit are yet to be seen! Oven ready trade deals, bureaucracy for exports, human rights,……..
Do you like the bit where I said ‘My opinion for what it’s worth’. I don’t claim to know it all nor even half. I just put my opinion out there. It’s dishonest to say that you don’t lose independence by joining an political that has rules you must follow. It’s common sense.
There’s many reasons why the EU is a fantastic organisation. There’s many reasons why its terribly undemocratic political body. All organisations have their positives and negatives. It’s about making a choice as to whether you feel the benefits out way the negatives. Just be honest about it, joining the EU is not independence it’s just you prefer that to the UK. There’s honestly nothing wrong with that opinion just others will disagree.
Why is it the first resort of the nationalists to attack with the GB News/Fox/Daily Mail News? Though what Fox news has to do with this I have no idea.
There’s no conspiracy to suggest Salmond and Sturgeon have something fishy about them (see what I did there 😉 ) Salmond has been pulled up a number of times with his RT links and by the interfighting within the Nationalist community. Sturgeon is going through her own legal woes what with the missing cash and campervans and whatnot.
I don’t think its a stretch to say that the people of Scotland as well as the rest of us have bigger fish to fry (again, sorry). Fantasy thinking doesn’t help any of us but honest discussion and dialogue does.
It is fair for people to have opinions. However to be valid the opinion has to be based on known facts, otherwise it is merely cognitive dissonance and wishful thinking. Your opinions are not based in verifiable fact, more based on what you want to believe, which again is fine for you but does not necessarily change facts. (Trumpism on steroids!) The EU is not undemocratic. It agrees things based on majority opinion (as does Westminster) from the elected representatives. Such systems generally (Westminster has blown this apart for many decades anyway) work on the basis of common good and common benefit. As always some win, and some lose, but the balance is generally good. Either way there is no certainty of going back into the EU as was. It is however seen in Scotland (and NI) as more of a good thing than bad, the benefits outweighing the costs as in all things in life.
‘The EU is not undemocratic’ Well buckle up buttercup here’s some interesting questions for you.
Who did you vote for as your EU president? Oh You didn’t? that’s right you can’t.
Who did you vote for for Commissioner? Oh you couldn’t then either? oops
You can vote for your MEP, well done you. What? Really? Your MEP can’t propose legislation that can be voted on? Only what’s passed to them by the commission? But at least you can vote on who’s on the commission eh? No? Oh dear?
But at least your country can stand its ground in the EU yes? No? What do you mean when countries have voted against treaties they have been told to vote again?
That doesn’t seem that democratic to me, again, my opinion based on what I know
You have a very polarised view, and ignore the benefits that did come from being a member, and yes you along with the rest of us have already lost out as a consequence of leaving. The EU was a different system, which on balance was better for most people. And there WAS and IS scope within the EU to implement things (or not) to suit national wishes. The only things that were mandated were common standards, allowing much less trading bureacracy, standards which we still have to comply with but now can no longer influence and of course freedom of movement. So while we can control legal movement we still cannot and will never be able to stop illegal migration which is really what the xenophobes are against. They conflated freedom of EU citizen movement with the illegal and non-EU migrants. So we cut off legal movements which fed the care, health and agricutlural sectors on the premise of stopping illegal migration whch since Brexit rose significantly. Why was that? Because while in the EU France accepted a shared responsibility, and now we are not part of the EU France doesn’t care, it is facilitating the removal of unwanted people to somewhere else. Beware the unintended and (usually dismissed) consequences which are what actually defines whether or not a policy fails.
Ah lot of stuff in your answer there, Bearing in mind we weren’t discussing anything about there not being obvious and many benefits to being in the EU, You want to have a discussion on that I have no problems, there were many many fantastic things about the EU.
We, however, were talking about the EU and it being undemocratic. was anything I said wrong?
The EU is not undemocratic, certainly not any worse than Westminster. We don’t have a say in the civil service appoiuntments, which is paralleled by the eu commission. Your observations where not comparing like with like. The baby (free and simple trade to common standards along freedom of citizen movement mainly) was thrown out with the bath water and we all have to live with it. The ONLY reason that Farage and co wanted out of the EU was because of the imminent money laundering and off-shoring constraints. To justify their stance they exagerrated all sorts of things. Classic of this was a promised uplift of NHS spending – what happened to that? Even more pertinent was ‘controlling our borders’ which as an island nation should be easy, but what happened with that? Anyway that is not what the thread and article is about which is joint defence issues, which have nothing to do with EU relations anyway.
I ask again, what anything I said incorrect?
Everything. There is in fact no real substantial difference. You make statements abut the EU and fail to recognise that the same system applies to UK.
So just to be clear everyone I said is incorrect? interesting.
Want to show me the process for voting for a European president? and don’t try to change the goalposts and go whataboutism with the UK. were talking about the EU and nothing else for the moment.
bet you cant show me how we vote for the EU president
We did spend more on the NHS, it just didn’t achieve much because the NHS is bloated and inefficient. £350m in defence, however…
By what measures do you mean ‘bloated and inefficient’? What is efficiency? By bloated you perhaps mean too many and overpaid staff? You do not get throughput without staff to process them, and until patients are well enough they cannot be moved until they have a safe place to go to. The demands on the NHS are down to the public wanting or needing treatment. Instead of parrotting sound bites try and think about what the words actually mean in relation to the subject. The difficulty is that the current Government wants to cut costs so they drive down wages and reduce staff as that is the only thing they can do. And then wonder why the remaining staff cannot throughput the demand, none of which is predictable or consistent. If the staff are working flat out then they cannot process any more. Unless of course you can wave a magic wand and fix the unfixable with a wave. The only way of reducing queues is to stop people being ill and having accidents. Neither of those is under anyone’s control neither NHS nor politicians. Managing demand by creating queues is the only way the Government can do anything about costs (which is their meaning of efficiency ie (try to) do something for less).
Didnt think so
I have to say a lot of bluff and bluster in your answer and very little definitive information. Very grey zone!
Like uninformed opinion asserting things that are yet to be negotiated or agreed? Certainty of ‘no’? Things can and do change, as should opinions depending on circumstances. None of the opinion that states ‘NO’ is based on actual fact or contract.
“Uninformed opinion” who’s yours or mine? Rather presumptuous don’t you think?
Uninformed opinion is one where people have not applied facts to an argument. Uninformed opinion relates to wishful thinking and the assertion of certainties not backed up by actual facts. Assertions with absolute certainty about something that may or may not happen are also uninformed opinion. The article if you care to read it talks about options and possibilities. The armchair general strategists largely occupying (not all as some do take part in intelligent debate and analysis) these forums make so many simplistic statements of absolute certainty, which shows they have not actually either read the article or really know much about the subject. Particularly since none of them come from those who can actually make related decisions. Wishful thinking about sticking with the status quo without an actual corresponding rational argument is not debate certainly not an informed one.
Another response whereby you give no information but like the look of your own typing, making an effort to cheer yourself up maybe?
Have a debate yes, but your opinion doesn’t equate to facts, no matter what your echo chamber reverberates back to you.
Have you actually applied your own statement to yourself? I have not stated any opinions but related actual facts and discussed options adn options in the face of the blinkered silo mentality emanating from many contributors. Asserting wishful thinking or assuming that the status quo cannot and should not change in the face of circumstances is not a debate.
Lot of grey zone waffle my friend, however you are keen to go independent, go for it, no skin off my nose, cheers.
Yes grey zone, which means nothing is certain. Option appraisals and strategic analysis are not countered by assertions of opinion. Anyway where have I said anything about going independent? All I have done is look at the various options and argued through them. It is the automatic assumption made by many that leads to partisan and ill-informed dogmatic argument. Listing options, alternatives and opportunities is all about thinking things through and not constraining thinking through assumptions.
Again a reply with little or no information! Your initial post stated why would Scotland not automatically remain in NATO, some commentators challenged that including me, but rather than say it’s possible, you entrench yourself against that view, and argue, not debate, but argue your view in a rather unreasonable and unrealistic way!
The trouble with discussing things with Zealots is it doesn’t matter what you say or what facts are presented. I asked him clear questions about a defined subject but he has to add waffle, whataboutism and completely ignore what’s actually been asked.
Do what I did and give him up as pointless arguing with a zealot
Certainly a lot of waffle mate 👍
Sorry but that picture of scotlands EEZ makes no sense why does it turn right and take English waters
That is historic and the map does not form part of any formal agreement. It relate to the redrawing of the national boundaries contrary to international norms some years ago. It’s actual position would be determined by agreement based on the norms at a future date.
It’s not historic in any way
Go and do some research. Look at how international waters are defined. Then look at relatively recent history and see when it was changed to allocate more oil fields to England than were previously the case.
It strike me that the nuclear policy is hypocritical. They want British SSBNs removed from Scotland but would wish to join NATO a nuclear alliance so it can be protected by other people”s nuclear deterrents including the very ones they seek to remove from Scotland. There is also the issue of NATO accepting Scotland into the alliance. In the same way the SNP talk about needing independence for Scotland not wanting to be run from London. However as soon as they a independent they wish to join the EU and be run from Brussels. As the EU is moving towards becoming a federal state with no national vetos in practice the Scots would have less independence and sovereignty than under the current arrangement. I hope that the Scots will resist a course of delusion and continue within the union.
How many nations in NATO have an independent nuclear deterrent? Scotland is ALREADY IN NATO. You cannot even mantain a consistent argument, points in favour of one view are dismissed when they conflict with the looking at it from the other! Brussels NEVER did run Westminster. Look at the treaties, there was ample scope for cultural and social differences across the EU. It is just that the civil service and mainly Tory sceptics who refused to do anything other than abide by the letter deliberatelty to make it look worse than it was. The current UK arrangement means that we have no independence, so even a limited change under the EU is better. The collective view that England determines what is best for the whole of the UK and imposes it is far from independence. The Union was supposed to be (look it up) a partnership of equals. And in EU there are more socially and like minded countries then within the UK, based on Westminster’s 85% overwhelming majority.
Point of order!Scotland is not in NATO! The UK is in NATO leave the UK you leave NATO. You will not get automatic membership either.
So you are in control of things? Scotland is already part of NATO or are you the one who decides on NATO matters? You have just jumped on a soundbite and fail to think it through. Where does it say that Scotland cannot be a member of NATO?
Not really have I?it is fact that the only reason you can claim to be in NATO is you are part of the UK! Leave and Scotland becomes an independent country that would have to apply for membership like any other new country.
You are not in any position to make thse statements. Scotland may or may not have automatic continuing membership. How many independent countries comprise of NATO now? Are you employed by NATO as chief negotiator or authorised to sign anything off of that nature? You cannot make such statements with any authority. Scotland is already in, becoming an independent country within NATO merely means setting up the necessary infrastructure and transferring it. Fundamentally what makes you think that NATO would disrupt continuation of service and membership? What would NATO gain by such a position? Yes Scotland would no longer be part of the UK, but there will be many many negotiations and agreements as part of any transition. All you have done is focus on one particular part of the transition from Westminsters Apron Strings. You cannot assert that something will or will not happen. Your cognitive dissonance is preventing you from thinking things through. If you did you would realise that what you are saying is merely one more item (of the long list) to be resolved, which is not the same as outright denial of it happening.
Righto you obviously are of the opinion that no matter what anybody tries to tell you everything would be ok on the night!can I point you in the direction of ‘The Pin Striped Line’ go back to 2014 and all these points have been laid out for all to see they are as relevant then as they are now.
Oops wrong about Scotland, it’s not actually in NATO as a named member. But I’m sure you know that yes. Cheers.
Who said anything about being a ‘named’ member? Iceland is not a named member yet they take part and do not seek to be a member! Pity that you can’t think beyind the simplistic soundbite which nobody has ever stated anyway. Scotland is already part of NATO, along with Wales and NI? Do you really think that NATO would not let Scotland identify as a national member or cut its nose off by not allowing that? So what is the actual basis of your statement?
What is the actual proof you have NATO will allow Scotland to remain? No proof, my statement, however is factually correct as Scotland is not a member of NATO, UK is. Yours is presumption and hope. I have little doubt NATO, rUK and Scotland will work together smoothly to ensure the military status quo, but I always find it amusing how defensive and presumptuous the various SNP “armchair” warriors become when their dream is challenged!
What is the actual statement that Scotland would NOT continue to be in NATO? Where has it been stated with certainty that Scotland couldn’t be in NATO? Fundamentally think why would NATO not want Scotland to be part of NATO, especially considering geography and that we already play a major role? Why do you assume I am SNP? There is no ‘hope’ about intending to be part of NATO with all that entails, which if you care to read up on it is actually what the SNP have said. The problem, looking at it from a neutral and wider perspective is that opponents of independence have never ever actually substantiated why they are opposed! Understanding the enemy means putting yourself into their shoes and thinking things through from their perspective (playing devil’s advocate testing the strength of any argument), it doesn’t mean they are right and more importantly also doesn’t mean they are wrong! Just saying ‘no’, ‘you cannot’, ‘you will not be allowed’, is not an argument or any basis for rational debate. If we are being pedantic about this digression from the article, in 2014 there was a 650 page document outlining possibilites and opportunities, of independence and at that time the opposing argument was a mere double side A3 folded poster with meaningless vows and promises, absolutely no detail. Recently there has been the publication of 8 further white papers of 500 pages. Which is a pretty in depth analysis, countered by what? More of ‘no’, ‘you cannot’, ‘you will not be allowed’ dismissals.
Oh dear this is the problem debating with a nationalist, never directly answer a question, then repeat the same nonsense without ever actually saying anything! Ok, what and where is the actual statement that Scotland WILL stay in NATO? Try to answer that without the flannel, cheers!
It’s pointless mate! He will not except any diversion from his narrative despite this very subject being discussed many times before🙄
Agreed 👍
If you cared to think about what I said, it is not diversionary to point out flaws in arguments, especially certainties that have a) not ever been confirmed, b) not yet happened, c) may not happen, and d) never said otherwise. The inability to appreciate this is the flaw in all the rants about what may or may not happen in future. Nobody knows what the circumstances will be. A preference is not the same as absolute certainty. Your mode of thinking is exactly the same as we see playing out with the Post Office inquiry.
What rant? All that is going on is pointing out your false assumptions about Scotland being able to stay in NATO and the struggle you would have even forming a DF! There are multiple threads on this subject on various defence sites(even on this very one), if you can be bothered to Google them..In fact I have one of George’s articles waiting for approval below,perhaps you can read it and learn,I doubt it though you will still bend it to your way of thinking but hay ho it’s up to you.
Perhaps if you learnt to critically analyse and understand what you read and jump to conclusions about you would not need to resort to unhelpful, distracting and plain wrong responses. The problem is that when something you say has been challenged and corrected you have no answer other than resorting to assumptions and unsubstantiated diversionary accusations. You are of the Johnsonian ‘throw a dead cat into the argument’ persuasion. You conflate future possibilities with certainties. Your second last sentence illustrates exactly my first sentence above. Are the BritNats not nationalists? Were those voting for Brexit not being nationalists? Are those arguing against change not also nationalists, UK ones if not solely English? If people do not examine all possible options are they not misleading themselves? Jumping to conclusions and excluding options are the worst way of making decisions. There are plenty of written and stated commitments that an Independent Scotland will be and remain part of NATO. Don’t invent rubbish just to suit your own lack of understanding. Read what I said I HAVE stated things but instead of actign with your uncritical certainty I HAVE pointed out that your absolute statements are not based on any authority, knowledge still less actual management control over what you say. All I have done is point out options and opportunities. You on the other hand respond with your own uncritical certainty about singular things that haven’t, may or may not happen. You are not the only long standing ex-serviceman and given the nature of your responses were never involved in any sort of strategic analysis role. Tactical roles are not the same. Strategic analysis is all about being prepared to acknowledge the unthinkable and keep in mind alternatives and being able to change perspectives and decisions. Blindly following one preferred opinion in the face of evidence is futile and dangerous. I have merely argued against and pointed out flaws in your uncritical certain opinion.
Oh dear now you are getting grumpy and still waffling, spouting an opinion thinking its fact! More flannel pal, give yourself a tea break please, as you unable to debate, as its your way or the highway. You do not even read others comments and take them into consideration, as all you do is try to bully others with your “opinion”. And for future consideration, if you continue to spout such a large amount of grey zone flannel, put them into paragraphs, as its easier to skim read your nonsense then. Good lad, cheers pal.
Where is the the actual statement that Scotland WON’T stay or join NATO? Try to answer that without flannel, cheers! Where is the statement that Scotland will leave or not be allowed to join NATO? Try to answer that without flannel, cheers! Repeating the same ‘nonsense’, who is actually making nonsense certainties without any authority to do so? I have answered the questions you just refuse to think about the answers that obviously cnflict with your fake news based opinion. This all stated because someone decided to prejudge things that have not yet and may not actually happen. All I did was point out that anomaly. It may well be the case if in the event of independence Scotland decides it doesn’t want to be in NATO. It may be that NATO decides it doesn’t want Scotland to be a member. Does that mean that NATO will be happy with a defense gap at a crucial geographical location? These are all maybes. No one knows the answers until they get to the point of needing an answer and that will not happen until independence is achieved. So nobody, but nobody can say anything with absolute certainty. Please explain how any nationalist perjorative comments relate to these obvious points, which are not arguing for or against any actual position or opinion? Have you ever heard of critical analysis and playing devil’s advocate? Pointing out flaws in arguments or dismissed issues does not necessarily mean agreeing with any difference of opinion! Ignoring and dismissing an inconvenient point is leaving an opening to be exploited by an enemy!
Oh dear, you just repeat the same chuff. I respond to you challenging a statement and you repeat the same stuff, very much like a child. Very immature and shows a lack of real subject matter knowledge, experience and confidence in your own posts.
Iceland isn’t a member of NATO, they just have security agreements and participate in exercises. Scotland could exist like this, but as an external country not a member. Scotland is not a member of NATO, so they would have to apply as an external country. The logic is that simple.
As a Cornishman born in Wales with a bit of the Irish I tell you what I think makes sense for all our futures. It’s called the United Kingdom.
Agree, with a bit of everything in me I’d suggest it wouldn’t end well. Westminster would want all its good bits back to be spread in the rest of the UK. How many jobs would be lost in the fallout. The SNP might talk about investment but as has been mentioned an Independent Scotland will have to take on its share of national debt. They might also have to content with Independence calls from the Northern Isles. Would be a giant can of worms in my book.
What sense? Explain please, as nobody has ever actually done that? You might think it does, but can you actually validate the statement and options for doing things better (with facts not inuendo and false predictions)? Some things may well be better but far from all, that is the point and such debates need to look holistically at all factors not just those that suit one perspective ignoring the inconvenient. (Which incidentally plagues British business and even politics as seen recently with the Post Office).
You’re going to find something wrong with whatever I say because you’re driven by dogma, So apart from this post I see very little point in responding further.
Dogma! Take a look in the morror of your own comments. Rational debate is not dogma. Sticking to some outdated narrow wishful thinking refusing to consider anything else is the definition of dogma! You are the one being dogmatic! It may be a bit intellectual but you need to understand the consequences of the Dunning-Kruger effect and cognitive dissonance. The flaw in many of the responses to the this well considered and written article which merely talks about the options that are available.
The land of milk and honey eh Nick! I always love the parties with a “national” in their title, always do well for peace and prosperity in Europe….
There is nothing wrong with aspirations, after all everybody has them. Those aspirations may often conflict with received wisdom, and seek to improve society, especially if they reflect differing social ideas from the mainstream. And your point about a title is? The Art of War is abut understanding your enemy. Find out what they wish to do (without making any assumptions) and then you can devise an effective strategy. Without resorting to force the way to resolve any grievance or difference of opinion is not to double down on things that form the grievance in the first place! It is all about compromise, which cannot be achieved by dictating what someone can or cannot do. Different ways of thinking about things or alternate solution need to be discussed not ignored. (Which is the mistake we see so often nowadays in UK big business and politics).
Like I said, parties with “national” in their title do concern me.
Why and on what basis? And what has that got to do with the core discussion? You are concerned that some political parties are trying to do what they think is right for their beliefs and goals? A name means nothing, it is actions that count. You read far too much into the trivia. If all you can counter corrections to your initial statements is yet more perjortative inuendo then you have lost!
“I have lost”, that does show how you think, is this an immature competition, wow please grow up, I’m sure your quite mature really.
Not going to happen move on
What won’t happen and why? So the solution to a different view or outcome is to ignore it?
So Scottish defence and foreign policy will be based on the premise that ‘we will really hack off our neighbours, the accursed English, by leaving the UK, evicting their bases, creating a major security weakness for the British and NATO, be led by a political party in thrall to CND and hard left extremists, many of whom favour neutrality and intimate relations with Russia and then we will have good close defence and foreign relations with those despised foreigners south of the border, who will go on building their warships here, using the Scottish defence industries and providing the security that our pathetically weak Forces cannot supply, just like Ireland. And by becoming independent we will magically be wealthier, happier and better run by the highly competent and incorruptible SNP who will free ride on the rest of the UK’s defence spending’.
Did I just see the Loch Ness Monster fly past, piloted by Elvis?
Read all the information. Scotland must be kept in the UK because of selfish English (85% UK population) want it? NONE of what you imagine has ever been stated, implied or certified. You are guilty of believing fake news and misinformation and in fact making completely untrue and unsubstantiated statements. More arguments like yours merely reinforce what some see as reasons for independence! Far too many people nowadays only ever listen to what supports their prejudices and fail to fact check.
Well Mr Cole, (or are you really an SNP AI bot, given the time you spend making excessive numbers of slightly unhinged comments to complete strangers?) perhaps you would like to identify exactly which bits of my statement are untrue or fake disinformation.
In my personal experience most English people who know nothing about defence or foreign affairs would be delighted to be shot of Scotland and the swivelled eye fanatics who spend their time frothing at the mouth about being oppressed and exploited.
You appear to believe that there is only one arguable view and that nationalists like yourself have a monopoly of correct thinking and moral virtue. Strangely, you don’t and there are is a majority of Scots who despise the nonsense spouted by the terminally aggrieved dunderheads who seem to comprise the dwindling nationalist cause.
“Scotland must be kept in the UK because of selfish English (85% UK population) want it?”
You must have forgot the Referendum that the SNP lost? Of course, convenient when necessary. As far as you and the Seps are concerned Nick, you will want a referendum until you get the result YOU want.
FFS! The referendum was 10 years ago. In case you haven’t noticed the world has moved on a bit since then. Aside from anything else the unfulfilled promises, vows, backed up by blatant lies and misinformation renders it meaningless. ‘You can only stay in the EU if you vote no!’ being one of them, let alone more powers and greater devolved responsibilities! When the world moves on opinions change and they are NOT set in stone, which is why we have elections every few years, in case you also haven’t noticed that fact. Or do you propose stopping elections and keeping one party in power permanently? Your argument is as full of the same holes as the unhelpful ‘England lost the last world cup so we should never try again’. An ideology and view that things could be better does not go away. Currently despite a request to check public opinion Scotland is not allowed to do so. How else do you know the basis of your obvious view that Scotland should just lump it and only do what Westminster deigns to let them do? Stop repeating the same old tropes and put a bit of thought into things.
The EU referendum of 2016 was not about whether each region of the state would stay in or leave the EU, it was about the whole country. There was no ‘Scotland vote’ as such. Scotland is part of the UK, therefore its population were able to vote just like those of England, Wales and Northern Ireland – and the majority of the UK population voted Leave. That is what happens in a democracy. If Scotland had voted to depart the UK in 2014 it would not have been in the EU, but instead would have been an external third party that would have had to apply for EU membership like any other country. So the original argument was correct in 2014 – voting No was to remain part of the EU.
No-one could have predicted the outcome of a referendum two years later. You may have lost on both counts – tough, that’s what happens in democracies and only a poor, anti-democratic loser whinges for years afterwards. Incidentally, on the basis of your argument, if Scotland had become independent after 2014 you must surely agree that every decade or so there should have been a referendum to see if the population now wanted to rejoin the UK. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Another from the Neverendum party.
Why has the 1999 borderline at North East England/Scotland been changed? You cannot keep on writing falsehoods and damn lies and think the world must accept it. The 1999 convention was agreed.
How on earth can you feel you can speak on military matters at all Martin? Your only job has been politics. You have only been in education before managing to spend an inordinate amount of time in one university or another.
Trying to steal hundreds of thousands of miles of English sea bed, will not get your figures reading right, will it?
The 1999 convention was imposed not agreed. It would revert to international norms in the event of independence. You don’t advance any argument by resorting to slurs and ill-founded accusations. Strategic analysis is political by its very nature. Argue about something real not imagined.
How is the truth a slur? A “defence” spokesman who has never done a day’s real work, let alone a day with the military.
Just because the Seps want to change something, it doesn’t mean it will be changed.
Anyway, the people of Scotland saw through the SNP’s folly. Polling results show that. The Labour Party will wipe the SNP out at the General Election.
As far as the Scots keep their awesome accent, the rest of the world will be happy
The SNP are a pack of carpetbaggers, who will confiscate [steal] private property and asset-strip the country for their own enrichment. Another “parcel of rogues.” The good news is – they won’t succeed.
WTF? What on earth are you actually talking about? If that is the level of your debating ability then it is just as well you have no say in anything apart from sniping onthe sidelines, provign people’s case for them.
Sober up.
Hi from Australia, family of Scots/English descent.
1) What would happen to shipbuilding – would a large amount spring up in England and Wales (I see Belfast is growing already)
2) Is UKDJ based in Glasgow? If so, would you become the Scottish Defence Journal?
3) UK – you’ve got oil at the Falklands, you know you could grow big. You have wealth and opportunity in those locales all over the worlds oceans, you have friends like us out here. You have the tradition. Get some ambition, go big, you “must always choose the open sea.” Don’t wonder what your place is in the world, come back and take it!
4) Old mate’s article doesn’t look far from home. It lacks vision.
Anyway, we will have enough challenges of our own down under. Hold on to Albion and Bulwark if you can, you will need them, perhaps even we might need you to have them.
Probably 1) quite likely, but that would be RN building anyway, 2) irrelevant and far too early to know, 3) yes but the world is moving away from oil so it is only any use in the ‘short’ term. There is also more oil in immediate UK waters, whch doesn’t help us directly but because of the way it is sold only really benefits the oil companies and money launderers. And yes there are friends around the world, but our resources for party political reasons are spread too far thin to do much anywhere. We don’t have enough ships, aircraft, manufacturing and resupply, or trained manpower and equipment because of the ‘Peace Dividend’ which largely benefitted the aforesaid money launderers.
Hi Nick and thanks for the reply.
This reply doesn’t relate to the Scotland article above too much but rather the ‘what to do?’ aspect for the UK and/including Scotland in my post and your reply.
How thinly spread are we talking? What’s the budget of the UK look like at present, after a decade of austerity? Where do the earnings come from (London I assume) and where does it get spent? Oil will end at some point (probably used for plastics etc for a long time), but in the meantime while it might not be the best, it could be extra earnings. See how the Americans rebooted themselves with shale.
Doesn’t have to be oil exclusively – UK overseas territories would have fishing rights, surely? There is opportunity for sustainable management and enforcement of these, particularly when mass fleets of fishing boats are strip mining the sea with little regard to fishing zones. Perhaps British ingenuity could design far more economical, big, deepsea fishing trawlers (toroidal propellers, there’s 20%+, thank me later!) More fishing boats out there will need a bigger… navy! You wouldn’t have to raid the Spanish Main, but rather enforce what’s yours and use it wisely. Probably closer to home, too.
Then, following the sea, there’s opportunity in sea freight. What would it take to be a Maersk, or successful mass oceanic freight and bulk commodity transport power? The UK’s location is superb for this. What preconditions would have to be in place for this? One dividend here is building the ships at home would afford scale, expertise, and a very healthy fleet auxiliary. How to build ‘best in the world’?
Technology, renewable steel: use Australian iron ore and gas to produce the best and cleanest steel in the world. What would it take? Australia currently has most of it’s contracts heading north, there might be a time when we would want to diversify who we supply to…
I’m putting forward suggestions, to get the minds going from ‘we can’t’ to ‘how can we?’ Australia is a different place, like a frontier nation where the frontiers will never be conquered (although this is perhaps not the right word, two reasons, one, the ‘dead heart’ and two, the ecology of the continent is unforgiving to those who over-take.) Because of this frontier situation, a different mindset develops that seeks opportunity.
Here in Oz, we earn a lot from our mineral exports, the scale of it is huge up in the north west and quite exciting to work on to be honest. We are declaring surpluses, and I think our military spending is healthy. The only problem is size – we are 26 million where our biggest trade partner and potential expansionist aggressor is enormous and has over 300 ships… It’s good to have friends!
Good to see this website is supporting fantasy, I do enjoy a good fantasy novel; reading Joe Abercrombie at the moment; it is a lot more realistic than this.
A hypothetical article in extremis; a total waste of time and effort for an event that will NEVER happen.
The SNP is a dead duck and becoming deader by the day.
You start off with a sensible observation and then revert to some stupid unsustainable argument. You also forget that independence is not the SNP it is an ideology which regardless of what may happen to the SNP (it is not dead or dying anyway) remains. The same thinking that if you kill off Hamas peace and tranquility will resume in the Middle East! Ideology is not killed off by those actively pursuing it. And political parties all have varying levels of support on specific policies, it all depends on what is the priority or concern at the time.
There is a major difference between a political aim as with the SNP, it is not an ideaology as it is with hamas an extreme cult of hate against another ethnicity, unless of course you are suggesting as some have that the Scots are rabid nationalists against the English and some of them certainly give that impression.
The two ideologies are not comparable, BUT a political objective is an ideology! So if someone thinks something could be done better or differently or to benefit society or a group it isn’t an ideology? Wasn’t the NHS created out of an ideology? Didn’t we defend the Falklands out of an ideology? The term ideology does not necessarily mean genocide it just means that someone prefers the idea of something else. Some Scots may be rabid anti-English, but also some English are rabid xenophobes! In general the movement (another term for ideology) is not anti-English it is anti corrupt Westminster expressed through an identifiable and historic different nationality. In the same way that the ideology of Labour counters the ideology of the Conservatives, or the ideology of Irish unification and even Welsh independence. All political parties are about pursuing their ideologies, just as the Conservatives pursue Austerity as a goal meaning the low paid pick up the tab for society leaving the money-launderers alone. An ideology is a political aim and a political aim is an ideology. Brexit was another classic example.
The virulent and intense dislike north of the border has almost nothing to do with Westminster as the SNP is an encumbent albeit a ratrher useless one BUT I repeat anti English to the core.
I fully support Scotlands right to self determination if they choose it. I do however feel it is a pretty terrible idea but the UK does need to step its game up to convince them to stay. Campaigning on “look how much worse it can get!” is destined to fail as hard as the EU ref did. The UK has had terrible government after terrible government for 50+ years now. Our measure of success seems to be finding a G7 or “developed economy” doing worse than us in some respect. Hell, I’ve convinced myself. English independence now! Let’s bail first and leave the others to pick through the remains.
Thank you , interesting article and subsequent discussion albeit a lot of hot air involved.
I’m 70 , a Scot , specifically a Fifer , I’ve been waiting for independence since I could vote . I voted to join the common market a long time ago , not the EU as it has become . I doubt if I’ll see an independent Scotland in my lifetime but I can hope . I’d like Scotland to be a member of EFTA and the Scandinavian council. I don’t hate England or the English , I simply want my country to control it’s own destiny .
You had it in the 18th century and in receipt of a substantial payout from the English treasury but it didn’t take too long as the equivalent of the SNP of that time made a right Horliks then as they do now.
Well this will be a completely academic exercise for the forseeable future so no point contemplating it. If there was an independence referendum tomorrow the vote would be to remain in the UK despite the shockingly bad government that we suffer under at the moment. That is how bad the SNP are.
Why do people still push this crass idea? Lets be brutally frank; its just more of the same medieval I’ll chop u back stuff and is utter nonsense in its most literal sense. If lucky an Independent Scotland would be yet another uber weak defence asset at the strategic tip of Europe; if not it would be at best another tiresome neighbour like Ireland or France. Hopefully though England could offload lots of illegal unwanted guests; when it would be goodnight and goodbye Scotland.
Dream on SNP, most of us have moved on, suggest you do the same.