Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5
Discussion
DuncsGTi said:
???????????????
Last time i checked, myself and all the other serving soldiers in Scottish regiments, took an oath of allegiance to the Queen. In the unlikely event of a yes vote, we would remain within the service of the crown, not wee fat eck.
There is no reason the British army could not continue to recruit from Scotland and maintain these units, at worst we would possibly have a slight name change (my regiment used to be called the Royal North British Dragoons anyway)
I think those already in would probably have the choice of staying in the rUK forces or joining the SNP iScot forces. I'm not sure how many would want to do one or the other. Its sounds like the SNP only have something like the Eire armed forces in mind (nothing wrong with that in itself, though I don't agree with it) - but the stuff about Typhoons & Frigate(s) is just not affordable within the white paper budget. For some that would be a big turn off, for others they may relish the chance to be a bigger cog in a much smaller machine. Last time i checked, myself and all the other serving soldiers in Scottish regiments, took an oath of allegiance to the Queen. In the unlikely event of a yes vote, we would remain within the service of the crown, not wee fat eck.
There is no reason the British army could not continue to recruit from Scotland and maintain these units, at worst we would possibly have a slight name change (my regiment used to be called the Royal North British Dragoons anyway)
There would probably be cuts in the rUK forces though with 8% less revenue coming in, plus the costs of e.g. trident relocation that can't be stuck on the SNP that the UK would have to bear.
Why would the British Army recruit from an iScotland? They don't recruit from Eire or France do they?
Edinburger said:
Yes, still undecided.
Question for you: why would iScotland need a comparable defence budget to the UK? We'd be a small nation withot the need to play billy big balls on the world stage invading other countries.
Because defence has very high fixed costs.Question for you: why would iScotland need a comparable defence budget to the UK? We'd be a small nation withot the need to play billy big balls on the world stage invading other countries.
Let's say you want to take the RAF's 120ish Typhoons and salami slice it, giving Scotland about 12, or about a single squadron. So far, so good.
But what about pilots? You'll need to train them. So you either send them south of the border to the RAF, who have a nice sideline in training foreign pilots, or set up your own fighter training school. Either way the cost per pilot is much higher than the economies of scale of being part of a bigger country.
Then there's maintenance. I understand it takes 4 men to remove the engine from a Typhoon. That job could not be done by .4 men in an independent Scotland. Again, economies of scale - you'd need to employ many more maintenance engineers per plane than the UK does.
What about air to air refuelling? The RAF has 14 aircraft that mostly work. If we salami slice again, the RSAF (possibly) would have 1.4 tankers, which rounds to 1 tanker. Let's hope it doesn't break down.
I could go on, but you'd probably ignore me. The point is that 1/10 of the money won't pay for anything like 1/10 of the capability.
///ajd said:
Why would the British Army recruit from an iScotland? They don't recruit from Eire or France do they?
I doubt that the Army actively recruits in the Republic of Ireland but citizens of ROI can apply to join the British Armed Forces.http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-recruit...
Edinburger said:
Interesting: Talks begin on devolution for whole of UK
Who's for a series of devolved governments with significantly more powers than at present, and a significantly reduced central government for defence, EU, international relations, etc.?
I'm really not sold on the idea that devolution actually makes peoples lives any better. Where is the evidence that devolved governments are better at improving our lives?Who's for a series of devolved governments with significantly more powers than at present, and a significantly reduced central government for defence, EU, international relations, etc.?
Whenever there has been devolution, all I have seen is a tendency for power and money to end up in the hands of incompetent local politicians, who often make a mess of things. From health to education, and absurd cock ups like the Scottish parliament building or trams, local politicians have merely shown that when given power, money and responsibility they are shown to be lacking.
I see no evidence that proves otherwise. I'm not saying that central government is perfect either. But devolution has not proven itself to be a solution for improvement.
Perhaps the basic problem is that the people who choose to be public servants in local government just aren't good enough.
toppstuff said:
I'm really not sold on the idea that devolution actually makes peoples lives any better. Where is the evidence that devolved governments are better at improving our lives?
Whenever there has been devolution, all I have seen is a tendency for power and money to end up in the hands of incompetent local politicians, who often make a mess of things. From health to education, and absurd cock ups like the Scottish parliament building or trams, local politicians have merely shown that when given power, money and responsibility they are shown to be lacking.
I see no evidence that proves otherwise. I'm not saying that central government is perfect either. But devolution has not proven itself to be a solution for improvement.
Perhaps the basic problem is that the people who choose to be public servants in local government just aren't good enough.
Whenever there has been devolution, all I have seen is a tendency for power and money to end up in the hands of incompetent local politicians, who often make a mess of things. From health to education, and absurd cock ups like the Scottish parliament building or trams, local politicians have merely shown that when given power, money and responsibility they are shown to be lacking.
I see no evidence that proves otherwise. I'm not saying that central government is perfect either. But devolution has not proven itself to be a solution for improvement.
Perhaps the basic problem is that the people who choose to be public servants in local government just aren't good enough.
Top stuff from topstuffdavepoth said:
Edinburger said:
Yes, still undecided.
Question for you: why would iScotland need a comparable defence budget to the UK? We'd be a small nation withot the need to play billy big balls on the world stage invading other countries.
Because defence has very high fixed costs.Question for you: why would iScotland need a comparable defence budget to the UK? We'd be a small nation withot the need to play billy big balls on the world stage invading other countries.
Let's say you want to take the RAF's 120ish Typhoons and salami slice it, giving Scotland about 12, or about a single squadron. So far, so good.
But what about pilots? You'll need to train them. So you either send them south of the border to the RAF, who have a nice sideline in training foreign pilots, or set up your own fighter training school. Either way the cost per pilot is much higher than the economies of scale of being part of a bigger country.
Then there's maintenance. I understand it takes 4 men to remove the engine from a Typhoon. That job could not be done by .4 men in an independent Scotland. Again, economies of scale - you'd need to employ many more maintenance engineers per plane than the UK does.
What about air to air refuelling? The RAF has 14 aircraft that mostly work. If we salami slice again, the RSAF (possibly) would have 1.4 tankers, which rounds to 1 tanker. Let's hope it doesn't break down.
I could go on, but you'd probably ignore me. The point is that 1/10 of the money won't pay for anything like 1/10 of the capability.
Deadweight loss due to inefficiency.
rovermorris999 said:
toppstuff said:
Perhaps the basic problem is that the people who choose to be public servants in local government just aren't good enough.
Bang on the money. Local government is parish councils writ large. Mostly either busybodies or people with vested local interests.Any implied reference in that analogy to anyones name is in this case actually unintended but possibly applicable.
///ajd said:
Why would the British Army recruit from an iScotland? They don't recruit from Eire or France do they?
Not openly. Although you'll find plenty of Irish folk in the Irish regiments. Its quite easy to walk over the border and give your address as being in N.I., after all not everyone wants to be a glorified border guard.///ajd said:
Why would the British Army recruit from an iScotland? They don't recruit from Eire or France do they?
Why not? The British Army has been recruiting from Nepal for the best part of 200 years, so it's not like there's no precedent for obtaining soldiers from foreign countries.Gaspode said:
Why not? The British Army has been recruiting from Nepal for the best part of 200 years, so it's not like there's no precedent for obtaining soldiers from foreign countries.
Interesting, looking at wiki, there were 7% in the army from the commonwealth a few years back. The army has set a cap of 10% which it seems might have been met in 2012. If a further 10% are Scots, this would make 20% from outside rUK. I guess it would be easy to make an exception to allow higher recruitment from Scotland if it suited the politics.Gaspode said:
///ajd said:
Why would the British Army recruit from an iScotland? They don't recruit from Eire or France do they?
Why not? The British Army has been recruiting from Nepal for the best part of 200 years, so it's not like there's no precedent for obtaining soldiers from foreign countries.Should iScotland come to pass, all the guys I train with who are still in will seek to continue as a servant of the English based crown from Whitehall. They have no interest in being part of whatever iScotland puts together as teeth arms.
Watching that marine commando program, one of the sergeants was French and one of the followed recruits was Maltese.
I think we can all agree that the UK army ain't all from the UK
The question is - what happens if we leave the UK, and where does Scotland get its troops from if a significant number want to "be the best" as they did when they signed up?
I think we can all agree that the UK army ain't all from the UK
The question is - what happens if we leave the UK, and where does Scotland get its troops from if a significant number want to "be the best" as they did when they signed up?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff