UKC

If we vote yes.

If it were the other way round I'd say sod em.

I don't think we can complain if we vote yes and the British decide to take their defence business elsewhere.

But maybe we will need Scottish warships. We can build them on the Clyde. Although with England as a buffer there probably isn't much need for a defence force. We could threaten the Shetlanders with force if they decide they want independence and take away the SNP's oil.

In reply to estivoautumnal:
We're not likely to try for an independent Shetland. We'd like to become part of Norway. Hjaltland Kommun.

In reply to estivoautumnal:
Genuine question:

How would people react if An independent Scotland announced it will spend nothing on defense - have no army, Air Force or navy, no weapons of any description.

Would people regard it as a very positive stance, an abdication of responsibility to the international community, a cheeky way of taking advantage of the rest of Britain or plain naive?

In reply to estivoautumnal:

If Scotland vote for independence i firmly believe we (England) should promptly annex them and enslave them as a 'worker caste' and thus set them all back several hundred years.

Yup...

In reply to Chris the Tall:

My personal opinion would be a mix of being a positive stance, and a cheeky way of taking advantage of the rUK and other countries.

In reality all Scotland needs is a few patrol ships to police fisheries and local waters etc. There is no need for a military/active defence force Scotlands position in the north Atlantic with the neighbours it has not just England but Norway, Ireland and the other close European neighbours means that any actual threat will have been intercepted long before it gets any where near Scotland.

Now there's a moral question about whether Scotland should arm itself to help out in UN or Nato or European military or peace keeping operations etc.

In reply to Alan M:

Don't be pinning your hopes of an international defense cordon on the Irish Defense Forces! Our minature navy does fisheries protection and the occasional drugs bust.

In reply to Kevin Forde:
But realistically does the UK (+|- Scotland) need more than that?

I guess that depends a bit on how important international force projection is
And
What we see as the likely external threats in the next 50-100 years

In reply to KingStapo:

funny! we were thinking the same about you actually... no not the whole of England... i like loads of English people



... just you

Scotland won't be allowed to spend nothing on defence (at least initially). It's bound to be part of any independence deal that they pay a fee for MOD support for X years. Either that or wouldn't all Scottish serving members be made redundant.

Then there's the pensions for former soldiers, Scotland would have to contribute to those as they benefited at the time.

Clearly neither side of the Yes / No is going to detail what they expect the settlement to be in the case of Yes, but it isn't going to be Scotland leave debt-free. There's also the issue of international membership.

In reply to Philip: There's also a lot of jobs with the defence, directly and indirectly..

No or a small military would hit the economy.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Talk of no military is not realistic.

I tend to agree with you Dave but in the event of independence, the game changes and whilst it is true that the UK hasn't built any "complex" warships (another pointless use of simple words) outside the UK, that may have to change.

If it didn't the rUK would be liable for compensation to BAE systems.

Keep up the trolling!

In reply to estivoautumnal:
and the British decide to take their defence business elsewhere.


"the British"? You are British.

In reply to Philip:

I think you are probably right. There is every probability that there would be a shared structure initially, there would have to be, and probably a long way into the future. Some things like Trident would have to be scrapped or moved but given the level of cooperation between NATO members and elsewhere the most likely situation is a deep level of integration.

The UK wont exist so using it as a benchmark to what will happen in the future is not that useful.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Exactly. British can refer to nationality or a geographical description.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

I don't think it's realistic for the UK to build all its own warships no matter what happens. The UK no longer buys enough warships to amortise the development costs across sufficient units.

The same thing is going to happen with warships as already happened with military aircraft. The outcome will be a mix of buying off the shelf, developing in a multi national consortium and targeting one particular subsystem or warship type and doing it well enough it can be sold to multiple nations.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Just for discussion purpses:

In the event of Scottish independence and the UK’s reluctance to build warships (i.e. aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, submarines etc) abroad

Can you not see a situation were the rUK government awards the contracts to BAE with a provision that the final assembly of the Type 26 frigates are in the rUK? (Note I do not say build the full ship in rUK)

The new aircraft carriers show exactly how it could work you build the ships in module format at several yards so BAE would still build sections in Scotland supporting its Scottish yards but final assembly would be at an other yard i.e Portsmouth   ( I would guess if this decision was taken BAE would receive significant government funding)

Or how about just to put another thought out there as no full commitment to the Type 26 or any other future warship has been given (no contracts until after 2014 for Type 26) No one can you say for certain that in the tender process other dock yards such as those owned by Babcock or maybe Cammell lairds who both can call on significant global expertise won’t win the future contracts to build naval warships? They have both built significant sections of the new carriers and also hold naval repair and refit contracts.  They are also both active ship builders in the commercial sector, BAE might be defence bidder of choice at the moment but it doesn’t mean it will stay that way.

I read an article from a defence analyst the other day saying that the most important part of the ship i.e. the Type 26 is the systems that go inside not the metal box around them.  Basically saying that he envisaged a situation were future contracts would allow Royal Navy warships to be built in Scotland at a BAE yard but fitted with its weapons, navigation and all other computer systems within the rUK.  Other reasoning was that they are hoping for the Type 26 to attract global sales so building the Hulls/metal work outside of the rUK is not that important, which ties in with your point.