UKC

The assasination of the top Iranian general by the US while he was being driven from Baghdad airport by Shia militiamen.

I originally thought it a really dumb thing for the US to do but on reflection I wonder if they had much choice given his likely intentions.

Anyway, at least the world is short of one more tosser.

Wow! You must be very well informed to be able to reflect on his "likely intentions" and to be able to judge him as a "tosser".

Not really, no.

Do you think he was in Baghdad for a weekend break?

I saw a clip recently of their guy at the UN, he was quite annoyed and saying of course we have weapons, for defence, you funded Saddam for years, he attacked us with chemical weapons and you did nothing.  He then goes on to quote the cost of weapons sold to the Middle East by western governments, 10-100 times Iran’s defence budget and says it should stop.

Cheers

Toby

Nothing has changed or will ever change, I remember being shocked when, as part of my degree course, we studied American involvement in Latin America in the 60s and 70s. The CIA would stop at nothing to protect US interests, engaging in some quite disgusting behaviour. Richard Nixon said of one country: "I don't see why we should stand by and watch a country turn communist because of its own stupidity". 

In the end it's all in the name of business. I make weapons, I get rich, I give money to my preferred politician who gets elected and uses US/British assets to create more business for me and my buddies.  

Yes, probably.

I take the view that the Middle East is full of arseholes. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Hammas, Hezbollah, Likkud, the list is practically endless. The Americans should have stayed out but keep getting dragged in and of course are probably adding to the slaughter of innocent people ,who want the whole phuqing lot of them to bugger off. They're mainly, I suspect, sick and tired of having to choose between tyranny and anarchy. 

I started the thread not to re hash the tired old "they did this ... but they did that" discussion but rather on the narrower point of whether given the situation the US finds itself in, they were right to assassinate this guy and what the consequences would be.

A bit of further reading round the subject tells me that the US have killed the equivalent of their Secretary of State and it does in fact seem inevitable that bad things are going to happen. Almost certainly we can kiss goodbye to the remnants of the nuclear deal and there may well be attacks on US interests around the world. Who knows how Trump will respond to all that? He has always been cautious about taking military action despite his bullshit but if the US is subject to sustained terrorist attacks what will he do?

No, I presume he was visiting Shia forces in Iraq, who Iran supports. Iraq is dominantly Shia, not some odd fringe group, and Shia militiamen have been largely responsible for beating back ISIS. So the Shia in Iraq are allies of the west in that respect, at least.

I presume you have bought into the Iran-as-bogeyman theme?

We have had a few of our western "tosser" leaders visiting ME countries in recent weeks without being assassinated!

Killing this Iranian general is an extremely provocative and dangerous move.

Why don't you read my post. 

I'd hazard a guess that most Iranian generals don't have peace envoy on their career path? 

Regardless of your thoughts on Iran and Iraq, attacking another countries embassy is a line generally consider unwise to cross. 

if you are really cynical....could it be Trumps move to try to win the 2020 election? Provoke conflict in the ME > be the strongman/ US hero standing up to bad guys > patriots vote for US heros. Maybe over simplistic but you get the gist.

Aside from that, QS has been the pre-eminant military strategist in the Islamic world for 10-20 years so there are bound to be multiple repercussions, intentional or otherwise.

Why what were they? 

Of course it is. It isn't cynical, it's logical.

I would not describe as a tosser, I would describe him as a highly successful intelligent person whose life was shaped by the world he lived in 

Who is Qassem Suleimani? Farm boy who became Iran's second most powerful man

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/03/who-is-qassem-suleimani-profi...

My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend. Also Shia is not homogeneous, most Shia in Iran would be happily rid of the republican guard...

Iran is not a bogeyman. But its foreign policy isn't based on peace and roses either. So it is possible to both support president Rouhani's agenda and be against QS's foreign policy objectives. And think QS was a proper bastard.

Yes, it is a very scary time for the people in Iraq and Iran.

Jeremy Corbyn is very quiet this morning. 

Not that it's significant really, but scanning the BBC news I see statements from Dominic Raab (our Foreign Secretary, god help us) and Corbyn, but nothing yet from Johnson.  Did you have some point to make?

What a strange thing to say. Jeremy Corbyn and Dominic Raab have both commented on the action. The prime minister has not commented and is currently happy to continue his holiday in Mustique. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iran-war-general-death-trump...

esit: see I was beaten to the same point 

Well, he’s appeared now.

How do you know that? What evidence is there for that? 

What is their foreign policy objectives? 

It’s all about oil. The new pipeline and the same reason why the woman in Cyprus has been kept quiet. 

Article was published at 10.22, well before you posted.

No. He tweeted at 10:55 and BBC picked it up at 11:06 as I was posting. I had already looked at Twitter thanks. 
 

Anyway he’s made a fairly bland statement indicating his feelings towards the US. No surprise there. 

No doubt Corbyn is already on the phone to Interflora and Johnson is wondering where he can get some jets for his aircraft carrier.

This is another classic example of why Scotland needs independence.  We have plenty of oil and renewable energy and have zero skin in this game.  If anything a war over oil in the middle east pushes the price up and makes us richer.   But if Johnson decides to pile in - which he will need to do since his whole strategy depends on Trump - then Scotland will get dragged in and we will get handed 10% of the no doubt colossal bill as 'our share'.    The cost of the UK's determination that nobody should hold a war without us is another reason why the GERS accounting is total bullsh*t.

What was bland about it? 

In reply to Removed Usercapoap:

It's not about blood though is it? It's about oil.

FFS! What's wrong with you?

Is there any headline event that wouldn't be?!

Sorry, I'm basically very sympathetic to your views but this is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?  

Yes, and one of the things that allowed us to take the moral high ground when dealing with such characters used to be our adherence to international law and not indulging in arbitrary extraterritorial and extrajudicial execution where there are no declared (or actual) hostilities taking place.

I think more likely distract from Impeachment. But certainly a President at war is generally considered in a positive light. Pelosi has played a blinder holding on to the articles of impeachment. Nobody could work out what she was doing but day by day more and more incriminating evidence is coming out..

This will escalate. 

You could be right, Trump/ Republicans want that process over and dealt with soon but if the Democrats can draw it out/carefully build the case then significant damage to his presidential hopes could be the result. War/conflict could throw a blanket over all that. 

And Iran has never really forgiven the west for their oil companies bleeding them dry in the early days, taking 50,60,70% of their oil money in return for 'expertise'. 

Most of the big western oil companies only grew because they exploited one ME or another in the early days of exploration. 

Johnson's aircraft carrier's? Would those be British navy carriers, funded by UK taxpayers and mainly built in Scotland?

No.  The UK is continually engaging in foreign wars because of English dreams of its great-power history and because England is dependent on energy imports:   Falklands, Iraq 1 and 2, Afghanistan.   These wars cost trillions of pounds and thousands of lives.

Part of the economics of independence is that, as a small energy exporting country in the north of Europe Scotland has no need to continually get involved in wars thousands of miles away.  When England say we can't afford our current levels of spending on healthcare, social care and education what they actually mean is we can't afford it because we let England spend our money on nuclear weapons, fighting foreign wars and building high speed railways that stop hundreds of miles away from Scotland.

I thought it was the US that made the strike not the UK?

I think its very unlikely to be a boots on the ground style war, the US has very little stomach for more bodies coming back. The recent documents coming out about Afghanistan will hurt any public support. They lost thousands of troops there for nothing. 4000 US citizens killed, 20,000 injured. That's just in Afghanistan alone. 

Yes.  Those ones.  The white elephants Gordon Brown originally approved as a unionist bribe for his constituency and which Tories like Raab want to sail near China and into the Gulf to prove we're a world power.

Also 'mainly built in Scotland' is a bit of a stretch.  Yes, the large sections were assembled in Rosyth which is the most visible part of the project but the big money in a ship like that is not going to the guys who assemble bits of metal.   You'd want to look how much the people doing procurement at the MOD in London were getting paid, the legal bills to lawyers in London for all the contracts involved, where all the electronics, computer software, engines and weapons systems came from to see where the bulk of the spending went.

I think the US isn't going to get to choose what kind of a war it is.   Iran will make the next move at a time and place which favours it.  Probably they will use their militias to try and push the US out of Iraq and Trump will need to choose between getting defeated on the ground or ramping up forces again.

Years ago Trump claimed Obama would kick off a war with Iran as a distraction because he wasn't doing well in the US election cycle.   That shows his thinking.  Not a coincidence he does something this provocative when he's on the ropes over Ukraine and there's a US election coming up.

Calm down dear. I know independence and all that, but a quick google gives a rough figure of £30bn financial cost for the UK's involvement in the 4 conflicts you mention. So you are exaggerating by a factor of approx 350. Maybe tone it down a bit?

I actually agree with much of this paragraph - I'd just add that the other reason we cant afford the things you mention is that we are not keen as a nation to pay the tax necessary to afford such niceties as social care and education. I would also change your first sentence, in the light of our impending "independence" from the EU to:

"Part of the economics of independence is that, as a small country in the north of Europe, the UK has no need to continually get involved in wars thousands of miles away".

That's the worry! How does he and his campaign benefit from a war he's starting that he can't even plan to fight or win conventionally? None of the possible answers are very appealing.

jk

The even bigger money is in the aircraft, at a total of some £190m each, and without which an aircraft carrier isn't really much use.........

Yeah I am surprised this happened. I thought there would be more control over him. Iran will respond.

They are saying probably strikes on Oil installations.

TBH I'm just glad I'm too old for the draft. I just can't see how this can end anytime soon. Any withdrawal from Iraq will now be seen as a defeat, and he's basically now uniting the region against the USA.

Unless they are getting more confident at actually attacking and killing the leaders (as this strike demonstrates, although there could have been a large element of luck involved)

It's all very well sitting at home 10,000 miles away from the US strategising on how to attack their interests, but these days you will have to live in a hole in the ground, in top secret and have a lot of trouble sleeping at night I expect. 

Drone tech could be the game changer ?

Show your working.

Not just the immediate cost of the consumables like bombs, bullets and fuel and extra payments to soldiers during the actual war but also the cost of the equipment that got destroyed or damaged, new equipment and upgrades specific to desert warfare or counter insurgency that we wouldn't otherwise have purchased, long term costs of treating injured soldiers, operating costs of bases and garrisons in the middle east, afghanistan and falklands and costs of programs in other departments like international aid which are related to UK involvement in wars.

Only works so far before new leaders and new survival tactics emerge and another massive power vacuum and chaos in the middle east is in who's interest anyway? Maybe Putin as refugee flows from the chaos and great replacement propaganda from the internet destabilises Russia's margins? Hard to see how the US benefits strategically other than perhaps by boosting Russia to divide China's attentions. Do we really believe Trump is thinking strategically for the US, he's an opportunist grifter promoted miles beyond his capability.

Expendable 'drones' are nothing new, what the US can do with a stealthy ROV others could equally accomplish with a zealous sniper and planning. Sure the Drones have a higher work rate once you're fighting an open war but at the tit for tat assassination stage they're both deadly if you're willing to accept the consequences of an attempt.

jk

I was wondering how his supports will spin this, given his promise in the campaign to take the US out of endless wars in the Middle East. 

This looks to be the biggest 'game changer' since 9/11.  This is the assassination of a senior political / military figure of another nation in another nation, whatever he may or may not have been planning.

From an article in the Independent:

President Trump defended his decision to withdraw troops from Northern Syria in a statement from the White House, and reiterated his plan to get American troops out of “endless wars” in the Middle East.

He announced that there will be a permanent ceasefire in the area and took credit for achieving a “better future” for Syria. Mr Trump took a hit at his predecessor Barack Obama for not leaving Syria after what was supposed to be a short period, and slammed political pundits who he said were calling for “yet another American military intervention”.

Getting American troops out of costly wars in the Middle East has long been a promise of Mr Trump

This, and toppling the elected government and reinstalling the Shah when thez tried to do something about it.

American crimes against Iran have a long tradition, including supporting Saddam, in full knowledge of his use of illegal chemical weapons, during the true first gulf war.

CB

We do need aircraft carriers for conventional surface craft.  lack of airborne EW and surveillance was a key failing that could have lost the Falklands war.

However, you could argue that we don't have enough craft available to form a viable carrier task group Falklands style any more.

I think I'd be exploring the idea of a swarm of really fast small cheap surface and submersible craft heavily armed, some even with remote control, and a fleet of stealth underwater carriers to get them in theatre.  Such a very fast swarm fleet plus drones would render the carrier requirement gone.

This swarmfleet could also work with and give and receive mutual support and protection to conventional surface task groups which could include helicopter carrying assault ships

I'll be impressed if someone in the White House has calculated that this is not going to start a war and they are proven to be correct. I really can't see how this is going to pan out better than having not done it, other than if, "panning out better" is purely judged on re-election prospects.

www.google.com

"cost of falklands war"

"cost of gulf wars to uk"

give amongst other responses

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

which is probably the best one, as it is the additional cost of going to war over doing nothing, so includes replacement / damaged equipment etc, cost of bases etc.

I suspect it does not include the long tem cost of treating personnel, as it appears from media reports / news articles that the UK military aren't particularly good at this, and prefer to leave that to the charity sector. Might be wrong, but thats how it appears to me.

And it doesn't put any value on the dead.

Other cost estimates all come out at about the same; and for cost purposeswe might as well ignore the falklands; it comes out at under £2bn, and was in the early 80's, and has had very low ongoing costs given it is essentially past history, whereas the ME conflicts are very much ongoing (hey, thanks Trump!).

Now, how do you get your cost to the UK of £trillions?

"This is another classic example of why Scotland needs independence.  We have plenty of oil and renewable energy and have zero skin in this game. "

On the contrary, should Iran decide to retaliate against Trumps interests then you could have Scuds falling on Aberdeenshire golf courses quick smart...how would independence help prevent that?

This and hacking, i would imagine there are geeks on both sides wotking quite hard right now. 

Iranian government unlikely to have the internal support for a conventional war in the name of someone who was despised by a significant number of Iranians. The likelihood would be escalation of proxy wars in Iraq and Syria but so much of that was driven by Soleimani that there will be a lot of head-scratching in Tehran about how to respond.

I don't think for a second Trump thought past "bagging a bad guy" to distract his domestic audience, but Soleimani's campaigns and attacks in the region have long been waiting for a response. It may escalate things hugely but just as likely put Iran back in its box for a little while. Soleimani's completely irreplaceable for them.

Invaluable if very long profile of Soleimani from 2013: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-commander?verso=tr... 

I don't believe the Falklands War only cost £2Bn in *2019* pounds.

The replacement cost of the two destroyers, a frigate, a container ship and a landing ship that were sunk would easily exceed 2 billion on their own.  

There's no way it is nearly free to keep 1200 soldiers, 4 Typhoons, a refueling plane, an A400 transport, a few helicopters, a destroyer, an RFA ship, the occasional hunter/killer submarine and an ice patrol ship in the South Atlantic.   Two military airfields - one on the Falklands and another on Ascension Island to refuel planes on the way to the Falklands and a General in charge of it all. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Falkland_Islands

The reasons for UK involvement in those 4 wars were very different and, with one arguable exception, nothing to do with energy.

- For the Falklands, a direct response to the invasion of UK territory and strongly against the will of the inhabitants. Arguing that cold wet islands, a long way from anywhere, of little economic value, unknown and unvisited by most UK citizens aren't worth defending seems a dangerous precedent for a Scot to set. 

- Iraq 1. This is the only one that could realistically be argued to be about oil but it was also a direct response to an invasion, under UN auspices and supported by the neighbouring countries. Also we and the UK had given Kuwait security guarantees. Are you really advocating small independent countries being abandoned to their fate when bigger neighbours decide to take what they want by force?

- Iraq 2. Nothing to do with oil - UN sanctions had been stopping Iraq selling oil - if we had just wanted the oil, we could have bought it just as easily from his regime as from its successors. 

- Afghanistan - no oil there. UK (and Danish, German, Canadian, French...) took part after the US invoked NATO article 5. I thought SNP policy, since 2012, was to be in NATO - or are you wanting a pick and mix approach where NATO would be obliged to defend an independent Scotland but Scotland would have no reciprocal obligations?

Those wars didn't cost the UK trillions of pounds. You shouldn't just make numbers up to suit your argument.

Your maths on government spending doesn't add up either. In  2016-17 figures - the latest year I found - the UK spent £517bn on health, education, social protection and personal social services. Defence spending was £46bn. Over the longer term 5-6% of the defence budget is on nuclear weapons. HS2 is what - £60bn spread over 20 years or so? Adding together nuclear weapons, HS2 and foreign wars (always the preferable type) it is hard to see them averaging more than £10bn per year so it doesn't make sense to say that if those weren't there, there would be no pressures on that >£500bn per year health, education and social cost.

https://fullfact.org/economy/trident-nuclear-cost/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_Kingdom

a. Thatcher didn't want to lose face.   She was showing the UK was still a big 5 power and boosting her domestic political standing.

b. The Falklands give the UK a territorial claim over a vast area of sea in the South Atlantic.  Thatcher was advised there was oil and other minerals to be had, maybe not immediately but of immense value when the technology was available to mine it.

Iraq 2 was a continuation of Iraq 1 and therefore absolutely about oil.  We've got an alliance with Saudi/Kuwait etc because of oil and that alliance drags us into their fights with Iran and Iraq.

- Afghanistan - no oil there. 

Afghanistan wasn't about oil, it was about our relationship with the US and the UK's desire to be seen as a global power and the major partner of the US.   My guess is that an Independent Scotland as a member of NATO would have got involved in Afghanistan.  The US was attacked by terrorists based in Afghanistan and the NATO mutual self defence pact was legitimately triggered.  But the involvement would have been more like other small EU nations, nothing like the same scale and cost as the UK.

Who mentioned 2019 prices? In 2019 prices it would be approx £6bn (very approx)

In early 80's prices, contained within the £2bn.

Those 1200 soldiers already exist. No additional wage cost, as with all the hardware you mention. None of it is additional because of the falklands, its just deployed out there. The ascension island facility already existed (built 1939). The general already existed as a role, and might as well be deployed there as anywhere.

So, how do you get to your £trillions (2nd request, try to answer it this time, and avoid indulging in more whataboutery / wild guesswork / exaggeration).

All these years I thought McGlashan was a fictional comic character. It would appear I was wrong on one point, but right on the other.

youtube.com/watch?v=zaJPOVGlEPs& 

T.

This was once our only hand in many places, sadly I think we've f*cked that now, supporting Gitmo, Blair's rendition of people to Libya, etc., etc.

It's along road back to where we were, and I can't see anyone likely to even get us on the road back to be honest.

I think you're wrong on this one, while I generally agree with the other stuff, the Falklands are a great fishing area, there are sea bed mining right to be had and part of Antarctica because of the proximity of the islands

I think at the time prior to the invasion the Falklands were regarded as a bit of a pain by the UK. Had Argentina behaved, its quite likely they would have them now. I dont think resources were a significant factor - unlike say an invasion.

Yeah don’t you hate it when people won’t let go of the past....

The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) puts the number of civilian deaths since the US-led invasion at between 183,535 – 206,107 people.  

It must be great having the US "look after" you!

New decade-. New war. Here we go again! 

Filled up the car yesterday. That's a relief.

How many Iraqis have you discussed the US with? In my experience they are ambivalent about it - regret the violence but glad Sadaam has gone. Im sure there are a wide range of opinions but assumming they all hate the US is misguided. 

Yes, Biden has described it as throwing a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox. 

The guy was an arsehole but killing him seems pretty stupid.

Hopefully the UK government will keep their traps shut on the matter past the usual calls for restraint and let Trump own it.

While in many ways it is the least of things to worry about, how this pans out will have a big effect on next year's US election and I'm sure the Iranians will be very conscious of this.

No need to read any of this. "world leader" arranges the assassination of prominent military figure in war torn region of the world. Makes a balanced, coherent statement justifying and explaining his actions, or posts his "tag" on social media like some fourteen year old cardboard gangsta? 

Obviously we are talking 2019 (or I guess 2020) prices.  It makes no sense to talk about the cost of wars except in terms of today's price.

So £6bn in real money according to your conversion and nearer £9bn according to some others.

That's accounting nonsense.   If we didn't defend the Falklands we could defend the UK to the exact same level as today with 1,200 less soldiers in the army, 4 less Typhoons in the airforce etc etc.  It is a cost that could be eliminated saving the taxpayer money.   The airfields were extended and re-equipped because of the need to defend the Falklands.   There's substantial additional wear and tear on equipment and fuel cost due to operating in the South Atlantic.

I've not got to my whataboutery yet    The whataboutery is to consider the opportunity cost of all those wars and all that additional military hardware.   Suppose we weren't trying to still be a great power and for the last 40 years we'd been spending that money on education, research and public services in the UK (or collecting less tax and letting people and companies invest it themselves).  A bit like a country like Germany which has avoided getting drawn into wars.   

I would argue that is an investment and over 40 years it would have brought in huge returns compared to fighting wars.   We'd have a more educated workforce,  fewer people who'd been indoctrinated by service in the military into the queen and country nonsense or been traumatised or injured in wars and hence less economically productive throughout their life.   Probably if we had spent a bit more on education and less on militarism we would have avoided the whole Brexit debacle.  One of our problems is not enough people speak or understand other languages so they don't take advantage of the opportunities of Europe.

I suppose that depends on how you view posting to the Falklands.

If personal and hardware cycle through them, it functions as a training rotation overseas, far from support and in a very different environment.  If we didn’t rotate stuff through there, would we send it elsewhere for training or just have less stuff?  

To my understanding, the presence there and in other islands in the general area is a useful staging ground for the UK’s presence in Antarctica - an ugly brooding turf war that we probably want to be part of as well as the scientific benefits.  I suspect the secret squirrels also find it very useful to have a sizeable land base in that part of the world.

I don’t know enough to balance the tangible and intangible benefits and the costs, but I’m not going to resort to calling “accounting nonsense” like you have.

Perhaps we can build a prison there for Alex Salmon if he’s found guilty, and anyone else in the SNP found to have been assisting him in his despicable ways.  

Pretty simple.  If it takes n Typhoons to defend the UK and we have n + 4 because we also want to defend the Falklands then we have spent about £400 million quid on planes we wouldn't have needed if we didn't want to defend the Falklands.

We could have less stuff and still defend the UK to the same extent as today.

He's innocent until proven guilty and under Scots law you can get nicked for saying anything about the case beyond what he's been charged with.

I think you rather missed my point. I thought I made it quite clearly.

To maintain readiness, some fraction of our personal and hardware is always deployed abroad in a different terrain and environment for training.

If deployment to the Falklands is done on rotation for training, it is costing us 0 extra aircraft and 0 extra personal, because if we didn’t send them there, we’d send them to Arizona or Canada or who knows where.

Not unlike how the armed forces did mountain rescue flights at no extra cost because they were treated as training exercises.  If they didn’t fly rescue missions, they’d have to fly mock missions to maintain readiness etc.  For whole fighting units I gather that deployment to a different and distant environment can be very useful for training and readiness.

I just don't buy it.  I think calling it training is a way of doing something you want to do and pretending it is free.

I don't see what you train for by being in the Falklands except defending the Falklands.  It has to be a lot cheaper to use an established air base in Europe or the US for training than to base equipment in the middle of nowhere on the other side of the world.

If Scotland, as a small nation in a peaceful part of the world, decided the primary purpose of its armed forces was to defend Scotland and the seas around it we wouldn't need to train for combat in deserts or the arctic.   We'd need some maritime patrol planes, some fighter jets, maybe a couple of anti-submarine ships and a token force of infantry to man the border wall and keep the Tories out.

I see the US has killed some leaders of the Shia militias tonight. Brilliant.

This seems like a sensible assessment of Iran's likely response.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2020-01-03/will-irans-response...

Imagine some bizarre scenario where you finished up in some conflict over fishing rights, say with Iceland. Crazy I know but go with it. Iceland decided to escalate things and the military on both sides were involved. Unlikely I know. Iceland decided to do this in winter knowing you had no artic training or long range bombers etc.

It's hard to know where the future will take you, so most countries try to cover every scenario, however unlikely.  

So only defend the bits of UK you happen to approve of? 

The current scenario is that Russia is now testing out air defences round the U.K. as is widely reported. The interesting issue from both  U.K. and Scotland’s future perspective is recognising  this reality and how to respond. 

By remaining part of nato, which will require expeditionary forces, not just static national defence. 

All military activity is training until you you are actually at war.

A lot cheaper in McPounds (or whatever you end up using), but expensive in the long run; there is zero point in training in an arena that is disconnected from the likely battlefield. I've not done any big alpine route for >20 years now, and i suspect my recent climbing diet of bouldering and single pitch uk (and spain) routes and indoors wont serve me too well should i decide to rock up in one of the greater ranges anytime soon.......

You might as well not bother; as soon as some nasty foreigner (or Tory) wants your precious oil, they'll bomb your wall defences to rubble and simply walk through.

and to the cost thing; quite happy to go along with your £9bn for the falklands at current costs. You are now only exabberating by at least 300 rather than at least 350 times. Your opportunity costs wont cover that gap.......

Yes, but it’s anyone’s guess what Trump’s plan is here.  Killing Bad Guys scores well with his target constituency but I wouldn’t underestimate his sheer pettiness about unravelling anything Obama did.  Trump hates the Iran nuclear deal as much as Obamacare and encouraging the Iranians to abandon it completely might be part of the plan to prove both their untrustworthiness and Obama’s lack of judgement.

Still, on the up side, he may succeed in encouraging Iran and Iraq settle their differences, if only to act against a common enemy.

Useful article on this here:

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/middle-east/2020/01/qasem-soleimani-brut...

What a load of imperialistic BS straight out the ar*e of the US State Dept. 

Iceland has a population of 330,000. It's only armed forces are the coast guard.   I really don't think Scotland would need to invade it with arctic trained troops or use long range bombers to resolve a fishing dispute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iceland

Covering every scenario no matter how unlikely is a recipe for pissing away vast amounts of money and is a game for global powers.   

Both sides locked in an asymmetric war. Trump ultimately wants out and isolationism. What does Iran want?Iran hardly a paragon of socialist virtue, a religous state run by a few autocrats proclaiming allegiance to Islam. 

Didn't read it did you? Can't really imagine the State Department saying this can you?

"Nobody should fool themselves into thinking that Trump’s decision to assassinate Soleimani had anything to do with justice for Soleimani’s victims. The American president has proved his own brutality towards Middle Eastern civilians. "

Or this:

"But Trump’s unpredictability and the previously unthinkable situation we find ourselves in today has torn the conventional rule book to shreds. We are in uncharted waters without a compass, and Trump’s abysmal record on foreign policy proves there is absolutely nobody at the wheel."

It was only an example of how a conflict can appear in places never imagined. 

Plus, with its national coastguard, it does have some armed forces and special forces. It's been involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, obviously in a relatively small scale.

Why break a habit of lifetime for any Scottish government?  

The population of the Falklands is less than 4,000 people.

There's getting on for £2 billion pounds worth of military equipment and 1,200 soldiers defending them.

A new hospital costs about £150 million to build.

Sooner or later there will be a negotiated deal where the islanders get paid off and we leave.  As the South American economies develop the military power the UK can project to the South Atlantic gets weaker compared to the capabilities of nearby countries.

Well you need to speak to Falklanders for an opinion on that( jokingly a referendum would reveal almost universal support for U.K. presence)  and reflect on Argentina’s continuing disastrous economic performance. Also as others have said it’s a useful   to have considering what is going on geopolitically with globally warming in the South Pole.

Argentina’s military power has weakened anyway.

The sensible thing would be to stay in the EU and get involved in joint European defence procurement.  The economics of scale from standardising military equipment across the EU nations and, instead of having hundreds of wasteful national programs each of which has large up-front development costs and small production volumes having EU level programs with much larger volumes and hence lower unit costs are compelling.

You’re somewhat over-simplifying things with your statements about the Falklands, but I think that’s probably intentional to be argumentative.

I can't think of any industry more skewed by national self interest than the arms industry, and I can't think of any national institutions mored wedded to their own equipment than the armed forces. To give you just one example; in 1970 NATO decided to standardise the assault rifle issued to all alliance troops. On the surface, a simple task, assessing a straightforward and well understood bit of kit with easily definable performance parameters. Ten years later, no agreement was reached and while a single calibre of ammunition had been decided on, dozens of companies supplied that ammunition. That situation has remained unchanged for the last 40 years.

As an aside, bit odd that you can recognise the benefits of multi-national purchasing unity but are entirely blind to immeasurably greater benefits of national unity.

We'll see. A billion gallon basin is supposedly there. That's always subject to change as prices change, technology improves and we can go deeper. Add other reserves and fisheries, a landing stage Antarctica and that 2 billion isn't a huge amount. They knew the oil was there when the war was happening, how much of a factor it was we will never know but they were considering giving the islands back until around the 70's when the reserves were found.

You seem spectacularly blind to the idea that the nation might not be the UK.

Yes.  My point is England thinks nothing about spending billions to defend the Falklands but is also convinced things that Scotland does such as free University Education are not affordable.  

It's not just the immediate cost either.  Education and infrastructure investment brings a long term economic return, fighting wars brings long term economic costs.

Yeah, but it is pretty clear the UK can't exploit it because the South American countries aren't going to allow a European nation to do so.   To start producing oil or mineral mining the company's would need to work out of ports in South America and they'd need to build large facilities in the middle of the ocean which would be totally vulnerable to attack.  Even when it becomes technically feasible there's no way for the UK to make it happen while there's a territorial dispute with Argentina.

It wasn't just about cash and territorial posturing though. Britain had just emerged from a decade as 'the sick man of Europe' and was primarily regarded as a cautionary tale of the 'how the mighty have fallen' variety. When the expeditionary force set sail for the South Atlantic, the assessment of most international defence experts was that the forces available were inadequate to the task and that Britain was about to get its arse kicked. 

The rest is history. International prestige and standing are immeasurably valuable for a whole host of reasons, but that value won't show up on any balance sheet.

At the last count 1.6 million Britons agreed with you. Unfortunately 64 million of us got no say on the matter.

You continually claim insight into 'what England wants' against 'what Scotland wants'. Do you truly believe that not only do you speak for the whole of Scotland, but also you know exactly what England is thinking too?

Personally, I couldn't make any claims into knowing what the 12 households in my cul-de-sac are thinking, let alone nations of millions.

Again such spectacular blindness. There are not 64 million voters in Scotland or even the UK. Are you so blind to the concept that there are nations within the UK or that it is a union of nations?

In your previous post you wrote; " You seem spectacularly blind to the idea that the nation might not be the UK."

Are you confused about where you stand on the issue? Have you suddenly changed your mind since 15:01?

Not at all. Are you blind to varying and split allegiance to UK and the nations within it?

To TiE, England/Westminster/Tories is all the same thing .... the "enemy"

He intersperses his posts with one word or the other, but it is so transparent. Has he ever joined a thread to mention anything other than Scottish independence BTW?

I'm not assuming ALL Iraqis hate America. But I'm pretty sure there are 183,535 – 206,107 people who might be better off, and if you add in there relatives, sons, daughters, wives, husbands, brother and sisters, there could be quite a few more who'd rather the US hadn't invaded.

Saddam wasn't great for many people, but even rule under him might, just might, be better than being dead. Let's not forget Saddam was once the blue-eyed boy of the US at one point in the history of mucking around in our countries leaders.

I have no idea why you seem to think, I think ALL Iraqis hate the US, it looks like you're the one doing the assuming, to be honest.

It was your sarcastic comment above, and others. Sadaam was pretty efficient at killing people you know too. It was never a choice of no deaths vs US invasion. (And to avoid any doubt, I always opposed our involvement, and still think it a disaster). 

Which other bits should we abandon then? How about if Russia invades Shetland? Leave them to? Afterall, it would be expensive. 

Is it war driven by re-election with Trump doing what he said Obama would do?

Considering Mike Pence is pushing debunked 9/11=Iran it doesn't seem to have been done for a convincing case.

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/trump-claimed-in-2011-2012-that-obama-wou...

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-01-03/pence-suleimani-terro...

I realise that, and think most people know Saddam wasn't a great leader to live under if you were on the wrong side, but you chose to assume, I'd assumed ALL Iraqis hate the US, obviously this is ludicrous, many Iraqis have made good and profitable lives for themselves out of the US invasion, that doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't excuse extrajudicial executions.

You accused me of making assumptions, by making them yourself; that I didn't know Saddam was a murderer, or that some Iraqis are happy the US are in their country.

You also seem pretty sure the number of dead during the US invasion, would be greater if we'd left Saddam alone.

My "sarcastic" comment above, was based on quite few previous US interventions to "protect" people, Vietnam for one. In reality it's not that sarcastic at all is it? I'd put it more in the "irony" section of the Venn diagram.

No. All that is pretty much wrong. Never mind. 

I thought it might be, well discussed.

As for never mind, I think you're right your assumptions made no sense apart from trying to contradict my post, without any evidence.

Understatement of the Year candidate already. Aren't you aware that rule under him often involved dying?

Marsh arab genocide... 

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm

Anfal genocide...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_genocid

Gassing of the Kurds...

https://www.institutkurde.org/en/info/latest/when-saddam-gassed-thousands-o...

Start with your idea that only Iraqis who made money from the invasion like the US. It's wrong. There isn't much worth discussing if that's ulyour view until you have read a bit more and  perhaps spoken to some Iraqis. 

Tom, it just doesnt work like that. The garrison stationed on the falklands is not there purely to defend the falkland islanders. It is an asset of the UK military that is used, in conjunction with all other assets to defend UK interests wherever they may be. If Argentina were to invade again, there would be a bloody sight more than the 1200 or so involved in the UK response, and if there was a requirement elsewhere in the world, than part of the falklands garrison would no doubt be deployed there. And the personnel change every few months anyway. Similar to the Navy; significant numbers of armed forces personnel are in international waters at any one time; do you suggest they should just hang around in Portsmouth until required?

And for Scotland to stay with the UK......

That's an accounting argument designed to make a crazy situation look a bit less crazy.  No sensible person would put a pooled resource somewhere as remote as the Falklands.

The rate at which they can fly in reinforcements is going to be severely limited by the need for air-to-air refueling.  If Argentina wanted to invade the Falklands they'd not sit back and watch while the UK built up reinforcements over a few months.

I've got no problem with more of the Navy spending time near the UK rather than being thinly spread all over the world.   I wouldn't spend money on bases in the Gulf and Singapore or deploying stuff to the Falklands.

But you’re lumping the total cost of all equipment currently deployed to the Falklands, as being spent and irretrievable. We could bring it all home tomorrow and have that 2bn sat on an airfield in Lincolnshire. In the South Atlantic Islands it’s providing a return on investment.

While you talk about positive externalities regarding investment in education, you seem to completely ignore those for military and overseas expenditure. 

We just had a General Election.  England voted for the Tories. Scotland voted for the SNP.

It pretty much is.  We've had substantial assets allocated to defending the Falklands continuously since the mid 80s.  May as well be honest and book them as defending the Falklands rather than pretend it is cost free.

 Only the Argentines won't invade whilst there are uk military assets there, because their losses would be huge. Not just that but many of the assets are battle hardened or test over the last 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

But this is largely irrelevant. There are British citizens there on British territory, who deserve security as much as a Scottish person on Shetland. You can't really put a price on it, it's whatever it takes. 

In your view we should leave them undefended because, arguably, there is a cost? 

Having the falklands as part of the UK is not really logical, but we are where we are. And as a result of the early 80's conflict, we have the physical assets there.

Indeed, they would (again) try to take us by surprise. More difficult now because of the military presence, which didnt exist (as far as I can tell) pre 1982.

This thread needs a new title!

Bit like 'The Irish Navy' song by The Dubliners? 
youtube.com/watch?v=Vp_y-xGa8gs&

We are a seafaring nation
Defence of our land is a right
We'd fight like the devil all morning
Provided we're home by the night

I seem to remember there was a small force of marines stationed at the governor(?)'s residence in the capital. The Argentinians had several fatalities before the marines surrendered. Obviously they were under orders to inflict no casualties on the UK forces in the hope of avoiding retaliation.

Alternatively they might have been placed there just before the Argentinian invasion.

In reply:

This is an extremely bad situation Trump has made a historic mistake. 

This goes back to Bolton I believe designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation which then in the eyes of Americans legitimises the killing of any of its members or staff by the US military.

The Iranian nation are rightly going nuts about this right now, I think this terrible assassination could lead to an all out war. God I hope not. 

Wrong on both counts. The majority in England did not vote for the Tories and the majority in Scotland did not vote for the SNP.

I suspect not directly to war but to normalising political assasinations. Strategically unwise of the US I would say. 

I'm being pedantic but I think under 50% voted for the Tories in England (and under 50% for the SNP in Scotland). Admittedly he Tories did get a majority of seats in England, quite unlike Scotland. However I don't think that is a basis for assuming what all the Scottish or all the English want.

It might have all been a very cunning plan to withdraw from Iraq; the Iraqi government goes ape at the assassination, insists on US pulling out troops, Trump gets to save face having not been militarily stalemated/beaten but asked to leave for being too badass.

Seems unlikely, and wouldn't do anything to address the reasons US troops are still there, but maybe Donald Trump's idea of strategic thought detours markedly from classic norms

There was a Marine unit based there already.
The Argentinians had one fatality and they definitely didn't have orders not to inflict British casualties as they attempted to kill all the Marines whilst they were still in their beds at Moody Brook Barracks. 

Apparently there were some marines present, but not many.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Seems vanishingly unlikely;-

America - <kills bad man in Iraq>

Iraq - "you b*st*rds!! How dare you kill Iranian bad man on our soil!! Get out!!!"

America - "Sorry. Byeee. Sorry again."

Any form of withdrawal / retreat will be seen as a climbdown by Trump, and I really dont see climbdowns in his playbook, especially if it could be hinted at that it was precipitated by the Iraqi's, of all people.

I've always been struck by the paucity of political assassinations in the West. If you've got people who are prepared to commit suicide in assassinating someone, then low-tech solutions are quite likely to work.

I suspect Iran can quite easily get hold of a significant number of martyrs who would sign up for that.

Yes, I was wondering how putting 84mm rockets and several hundred rounds of 7.62mm into what they thought was a barracks full of sleeping Booties could be classed as being under orders not to inflict casualties.

Again, that isn't what I said. I never said ONLY, once again that's something you chose to assume I'd said.

Of course there were a number of tribes and factions that were enemies of Saddam, and therefore targets for Saddam, so they were probably a little more happy once Saddam was gone, but again, some of them might have been killed during the invasion, or even since the invasion, the marsh Arabs,the Kurds suffered greatly under Saddam. That doesn't mean a lot of people in Iraq still hate the US, or more importantly the money flowing into Iraq to rebuild, quickly flowed back out in the hands of US and to some extent British companies hands. I worked for a company that exported fire engine to Iraq soon after the war ended. It was a bit like the wild west with western companies sucking as much money as they could get away with out of the country, rather than helping to rebuild it.

The US and western alliance destruction of the infrastructure by ridding the civil service and government of Ba’ath Party members was also a great cause of resentment, and did little to help Iraq get back on it's feet.

It's not arguable.  There is obviously a substantial cost in keeping £2 billion worth of defence equipment and 1,200 soldiers on the other side of the world in a place which can't be reached without mid-air refueling.

It's become clear the UK is not going to be able to access the mineral/oil because there's enough solidarity among the South American countries about European colonists none of them are going to let companies involved in that use their ports.   Also, nobody is going to build oil rigs if Argentina declares them possible military targets.

The thing to do is negotiate with the residents and Argentina and make a reasonable deal such as an agreed handover after 50 years.  

Thanks Bob, but I already knew about that.

It still doesn't mean there aren't people who don't hate the US in Iraq, and I never said there weren't Iraqis that where happy to have the US in their country, try read what I wrote rather than what what I didn't write.

I really don't know what point you're trying to make, other than to point out I didn't post enough information! I took it for granted that most people knew about the information in the links you posted.

Everything is relative and by posting the body count during the US era but not one for the Saddam era you gave the appearance of painting the US era as being awful whereas another view is that it is *less* awful than the Saddam era.

Still, the post Saddam era should have been a lot less awful than it was/is.  What a mess.

FTFY 😊

Then why didn't you consider it?

Not the point I was addressing. I know what you wrote: it ignored the full facts. 

You tried to minimise the scale of Saddam's terror. That's the point. 

Assuming that every person in a country wants the same thing would be a very odd thing to do. 

However, surely is clear to anyone who's paid even a passing glance at the results of elections, that the political consensus in Scotland and England are heading in very different directions?

I don't doubt at all that it was partially for other reasons for the UK did realize the Falklands hold real economic value.

That's always been the case though, we saw Clinton attack Iraq during his impeachment. Of course political and social pressures play a part on decisions of the day.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/clinton-orders-air-attack-on-ir...

I think Trump knows what he is doing, short term. Longterm I don't think he has a clue.

Not true. There are companies such as Desire and Falklands oil & gas who have had rigs there doing exploration drilling for a decade plus. Companies have come and gone. What's stopped it or delayed the development is the fact they haven't found a large extractable reservoir of oil, many have looked good geologically, they drilled and tested only to find high water content(des), or other problems(fog). Proximity to south America hasn't been an issue. 

I’m not sure - the ‘offer’ to the electorate is different after all - some of the drivers for the SNP vote are the same drivers for the Brexit vote. The resultant votes may be different, but the underlying motives/desire of the electorate may be the same.

Errr no - the last general election was a UK election 

In which English and Welsh constituencies voted decisively for tor the Tories, and Scottish constituencies voted overwhelmingly for the SNP.  What’s your point?

Try telling they to the Islanders. P###i g in the wind springs to mind. No chance. 
 

you seem to lack historical perspective on this one. 

Putting arbitrary bounbries round UK regions for the results of a national UK election is pointless.  You could equally well put a ring round any other bunch of constituencies and say the same thing.  Unfortunately,  at the end of the day, the UK voted Conservative. 

Thanks, and To Ian W for the Wikipedia ref. Odd discrepancies: Argentine officer claimed: "Our orders were not to cause casualties if possible." They also claimed to have used tear gas to drive the marines out, Perhaps after the non-lethal gas they were making absolutely sure nobody was inside without risking their own personnel, but I'm not military. Differences in the number of Argentine fatalities claimed by each side though one would think the Argentinians at least knew the correct figure. Again as far as I remember the Argentinians must have taken some care not to kill any civilians.....the only Falklanders killed were due to British naval shells (if I remember correctly).

I remember talking about the crisis to a Bulgarian at the time, who said it was worth all the deaths for the 18,000 population, but they changed opinion when I said the figure was nearer 1800. Perhaps a battle on an island where there are few non combatants to be harmed has something to be said for it. Personally I suppose two other justifications for the UK operation were that it might make some states think twice before occupying a weaker one, and it did lead to the overthrow of what was an unpopular (probable reason for their invasion) and nasty regime in Argentina. Of course victory also handed Thatcher the next election which she would probably have lost otherwise. 

You're obviously right. An increasing number of Scots want independence (though no evidence at least from from the elections that is over 50%, yet) and a majority want to be in the EU. And in England there is a much greater desire/acceptance about leaving the the EU, though the Tories plus Brexit Party still got just under 50% in the GE.

I suppose I just get annoyed about this "England wants" thing.

National boundaries within the UK are not arbitrary. They're legally recognised and reflect history in a way that "a ring round any other bunch of constituencies" does not.

It's fundamentally ignorant of the UK not to recognise the aspect of union of different and distinct nations.

Perhaps a fundamental ignorance of how the UK is viewed outside of England where even unionists would not describe their nation as equal to an arbitrary collection of constituencies.

There's less than 4,000 of them.    The smallest parliamentary constituency in the UK has a population of 60,000.   Just the 4 Eurofighters represent an investment of £100,000 per islander. 

Try and sweeten it as much as possible but leave anyway. 

iirc the CG fires a shell being a recoilless gun?  don't stand behind it (posted in a lucid moment while suffering snotbrain)

So self determination for Scottish but not for the Falklanders.

Of course you can put a price on it.  The whole purpose of money is to provide a quantitative way to make decisions between various options.

The trouble with 'whatever it takes' is that there are far too many possible places you might want to spend money where a substantial number of people would say 'whatever it takes'.  But you've only got so much money to go round.  If you spend it on defending the Falklands you aren't spending it on cancer medicine or education or social care for the old.   

So, for the third time, you would not bother defending the Falklands because it's too expensive?  

What about Shetland?

Tell you what - lets station them on the Ascension islands or in Belize. That reduces the cost of defending the falklands to zero. Happy now? And why should we English pay the vast majority of the Trident nuclear program costs to the benefit of the scots. Its based in Rosyth, so surely its only there to defend Scotland?

Now, in the spirit of joining in with the debate, how about answering my question about how you get to £trillions - this is now the third time of asking.

In the interest of fairness and taking everything to the nth degree per capita..  perhaps start by scrapping the Barnett formula so Scotland can enjoy the same spending as England? Oh what about mps in parliament, Scotland has more per capita of them too..  

Yep, you're right. I seem to have created a Charlie G / Milan hybrid in my own snotbrain!

They do not want to..And if you take one serious look at Argentina’s economic and political issues who would blame them.

Until Argentina sorts those out and makes the Islanders feel welcome, then you have a long way to go.

Off topic but I wondered why Argentina don’t just massively incentivise the relatively small population of The Falklands to actually want to become Argentinian. Provision of free universal healthcare and (up to and including) higher education which is already a provision for all Argentinians and subsidised and easy travel to and from Argentina could easily - financially speaking - be provided to Falklanders who might then within a generation or so actually want to become Los Malvinos.

Maybe a choice between either geographic isolation on a windswept South Atlantic archipelago or that same archipelago plus the likes of Buenos Aires, Mendoza, Córdoba, Patagonia and access generally to the eighth largest country in the world, just a couple of hours away, might just flip their self determination on its head.

Apparently this is to much for short term political manoeuvring in Argentina to bear however as it would apparently be met with derision from much of the electorate who just assume Argentina’s right to The Falklands to be beyond doubt. So any conciliatory move like this which would appear to concede that the Falkland Islanders should actually have some say over their own future is political suicide and nowhere near being on the cards for either the now incumbent Peronists or the previous more right/centrist lot.

A shame really since it seems entirely within Argentina’s powers just to peacefully assimilate The Falklands over a few decades were they to play the long game.

It's a ridiculous comparison when you go beyond nationalistic pride and look at the numbers.  People who don't look at the numbers make terrible decisions about how to allocate limited resources.

You can't make decisions on spending billions based on 3,900 people not wanting something.   If 3,900 people in the UK didn't want their local hospital to be shut would government be diverted from saving money?   If 3,900 people didn't like having their property compulsory purchased for a railway or motorway would that stop it happening?   If 3,900 people needed a cancer drug that would cost billions to provide would they get it?

Very happy for Scotland to have no Barnett formula and no MPs in Westminster.  In fact I intend to vote for it in indyref2

Not such a bad comparison... many of those outer isles are nearer Norway..  There comes a point where maybe it's better or cheaper to let them go back to Scandinavian ownership? Just like mainland Scotland wants to wind the clock back to a given time. 

Because the Argentine economy is usually a mess? It would be a massive gamble to say the least. 

Like much of the stuff you think is unarguable, it obviously isn't.

Argentina has enough troubles as it is without attacking the assets of international oil companies. History would suggest that as far as huge geopolitical mistakes go, that would be right up there with invading Russia or becoming involved in a land war in Asia. Also..."solidarity among the South American countries about European colonists", 90% of Argentines are descended from European colonists.

Based on what? Their geographic proximity to a much larger and more powerful neighbour? What's your argument for Scottish independence again Tom?

LOL

...and if 3,900 people in the UK didn't want their freedom taken away and property invaded by heavily armed strangers, should the authorities just turn a blind eye cos police armed response units are a bit pricey?

It is and I agree it would be a massive gamble for Falkland Islanders, but if the decision was effectively in their hands with a referendum at some point that both the Argentine and U.K. authorities were happy to accept the result of, then they could have that referendum whenever they wanted I guess; say in 30 years when the Argentinian economy might not be in a mess? 

Economically, even though their economy is poor, those sorts of provisions for the equivalent number of people to be found in one small Argentinian town, doesn’t seem like much of a gamble economically for Argentina. But it is apparently the case that yeah, it’s completely politically unacceptable for either of the two main Argentinian parties to pursue this course (according to Argentinian friends at least). 

Not in the context of a UK general election

The Argentine economy won't improve much because of political and financial reasons. They over sold high rate bonds to generate revenue, they couldn't meet these rates and had to sell more just to maintain them. A bit like Greece, the future isn't rosey for many decades and that's if future Argentine leaders don't make it even worse. 

https://www.falklands.gov.fk/self-sufficiency/

 

Yeah, agreed, but I don’t think it’s a bar per se to them entertaining this idea at least, nor of Falkland Islanders availing themselves of it were it to be a reality. Decades, hundreds of years, whatever it takes, neither Argentina, The Falklands, or The UK (??? Hahaha) are going away, nor is the problem without at least something being attempted. 

Hell of a lot cheaper for them than another invasion anyway. 

There isn't a problem is there. Argentina only really wanted the island because they thought it was a massive oil and gas reserve. The quality of the fields isn't as good as surveys even just 10-15years ago indicated. This plus a move away from fossil fuels, there is no financial incentive for Argentina, only ego. Their population probably isn't prepared to fund a war costing billions and a few thousand lives. 

Did you miss the memo about global warming and fossil fuels?
Typical SNP, claim to be super green and will soon be a 100% renewable energy country, but you're quite ready and happy to make a quick buck out of selling oil & gas!

only ego

There’s a Argentinian joke: 

- How does an Argentinian commit suicide?

- Climbs to the top of his ego and jumps off.

Ego probably is the problem.   Around Argentina, in the north, in Patagonia, in Buenos Aires you see car stickers everywhere Las Malvinas son Argentinas.

Yeah, it may only be an ego thing, a massive national pride thing a political football whenever there’s an election, but it’s certainly a problem in their minds.

It’s not a problem for Falkland Islanders granted since clearly the U.K. is going to keep defending their interests, it may or may not be a problem for the U.K. as a whole since (as arguments further up suggest) it’s probably quite expensive defending them. 

I’m just trying to see it from the POV of Argentina and I think since they apparently want it so much, they’re daft not to make any sorts of moves which might actually facilitate it in future. 

Insofar as who actually ‘owns’ the territory, I rather think that should be up to the Falkland Islanders to decide.  

Edit: yeah agree there’s no way they’ll be prepared to fund another war they'll lose though.  

Wrong. In the context of a GE and English/Welsh/Scottish/NI constituency  a politician who said England/Wales/Scotland/NI respectively is equal to  "a ring round any other bunch of constituencies" would be committing electoral suicide. 

Have you ever heard such a claim by a candiate made about the nation within the UK in which they are standing?

Political suicide maybe, but it doesn't alter the fact that a UK general election is just that. 

Ok. Might is right in your world. No rules or law. Got it. Very zeitgeisty too. 

Which shows my point.  Their entire GDP is £100 million and there's about £2billion worth of military hardware defending them.  Then they say it is 0.177% of the UK defence budget but that's because of the accounting assumption I've been arguing against the whole time.   If they counted the stuff which is in the South Atlantic against the 'defending the Falklands' budget it would come to a lot more than 0.177%.  UK has 126 Eurofighter Typhoons, 40 available to be used swiftly (i.e. actually working) and 4 in the Falklands.  That's 10% of our Typhoon fleet.   UK has six nuclear hunter killer subs and six destroyers and one each of those is defending Falklands 16%.   81,500 men in army, 1,200 in Falklands - 1.4%.

I did, which is why I later mentioned Vietnam, another country "protected" by the US.

It didn't really though did it, I was simply pointing out how well things turn out for ordinary people when the US get involved. A bit like MG you assumed I had ignored the full facts.

I didn't, I just didn't make a long list of them. Like I said, I think most people were already aware of the terror of Saddam and what he'd done. It doesn't make the death figures any less since the US invasion.

If the UK is pawning off remote corners of its kingdom, can we (the Dutch) have Gibraltar?

It would keep Gibraltar in the EU without becoming Spanish and there is a historical argument as we helped with the original invasion...

I can sort of see your point, but I really wasn't comparing, simply pointing out having the US "protect" / "rescue" you doesn't always mean you are going to be better off. Vietnam, Korea, the war on drugs, Libya, Panama, Somalia, etc., etc.,

Agreed, no exit strategy and removal of Ba'ath party civil servants amongst other blunders. The major problem is they seem to keep repeating his shit time and time again. Defence stocks in the US have rocketed though

The police in some places in England are already doing things like not investigating burglaries on houses on one side of a street because they don't have enough resources.   The MOD is leaving decades old nuclear submarines with their reactors full of radioactive material to rot in docks at Rosyth because it doesn't want to allocate the substantial cost of decommissioning them and dealing with the fuel. 

It is stupid to decide we can afford to spend a fortune defending less than 4,000 people on the other side of the world but we can't afford to make old submarines parked near a major city safe or investigate burglaries in half the houses on a street or give free University education to kids with good exam results.

When you become the glorious Northern Independent state of Northern Europe, will you be chipping your 2%s worth into the NATO pot, or will you be shirking your responsibilities, a bit like the Germans?

Probably it will vary over time.  It wouldn't worry me if it was a bit less than 2% for a while.

Google "mod ship building contract goes to scotland"

I seem to remember we didn't hear any complaints from north of the border when you got the ship building contract several years ago.

You're like some rubbish comedian that they wheel out at some second rate, cheesey comedy venue, "And for your delectation this evening, we have Tom, the Fanatical Independentist"
You'd bring the house down

In reply to Archy Styrigg:

The Westminster government used a promise of an order for 13 type 26 frigates to be built at the BAE systems 'frigate factory' on the Clyde as one of their anti-independence 'union dividend' arguments in the 2014 referendum.  Then in 2015 they changed it from 13 to 8 ships.  Then in 2017 they decided that the orders should go to open competition for yards throughout the UK.   The order in 2019 is for much cheaper type 31 frigates and it is to a consortium of yards.  They're getting assembled at Rosyth but the work is spread out all over the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-49670332

The frigate thing, like the 'vow', is an example of the unionists making promises to win the 2014 referendum and then reversing them as soon as it was over. 

If Scotland were part of NATO and the current situation escalated we’d probably draw Kazakhstan in a play off for WW3 and fail to qualify on away goals.

Does'nt that infer that Scotlands economy is worse than Kazakhstan's?

If you remove non climate friendly oil and gas, UK owned and funded wind based power generation, UK military revenue,  etc etc. What's left? A lot less than the snp are suggesting. 

First off, when Scotland splits from the UK if the UK wants Scotland to take on a share of UK debt then Scotland is going to want a proportionate share of UK assets.  

We aren't about to 'remove' our oil and gas.  

The wind power is owned by private companies and located in Scotland.  It will still be there and contributing to Scotland's economy after independence.   

After independence the taxation and regulation for the Energy industry will be done in Scotland and energy companies will need to move managers that currently work from London to deal with UK authorities to Scotland.

Scotland gets charged a proportionate share of UK military expenditure and we don't get a proportionate share of UK military spending.  We will be just fine after independence.

The ability to afford this has nothing to do with the Falklands, and everything to do with the Austerity policies of the last 10 years in the UK. if we paid tax at anything like the rates of other EU nations, we'd be able to afford policing on both sides of every street, and to decommission subs, and to defend far flung parts of the UK.

If Scotland was part of NATO in its own right, rather than part of NATO via the UK, and spent slightly less of its GDP on defence than it does now but far more sensibly than the UK then there would be a small increase in overall NATO capability.

Would seem fair. 

No. But one week Scotland sells the green dream..  the next it's factoring in oil revenue in it's financial estimates. 

Much of it funded by the find A added to every electricty bill in the UK. 

How many jobs? Compared to the removal of all oil and gas related employment in the next 30 years? Most of the north east coast will die, will the central belt focussed parliament do enough for those areas? 

You don't get charged, you pay tax, just like every other person in the UK. But you do get more back because of the Barnet formula. 

Have you been invaded? No. I'd suggest you have the same level of military cover as the England and Wales. 

Scotland and Yorkshire, roughly the same population. I'd guess Scotland sees a lot more consideration when it comes to milatry spending, no one is thinking let's keep Yorkshire happy because they are ranting, again. 

there’s a specific problem with your amendment which is that U.K. involvement in Trump’s big adventure is going to be heavily influenced by the need to get aforementioned Trump to play over a trade deal. Not even to play nicely, just to play at all. So as a small country in the north of Europe, at this point in its history the U.K. has a compelling reason to play with trump’s matches.

If Scotland had been an independent country within the EU the question would never have arisen.

Yes, but I don't think the financial case for Scottish independence is so overwhelming that it justifies the Scots' demand for self-determination whilst denying the Falklanders' clear wishes as too expensive. 

You undermine your own mandate (which I'm minded to accept) if you are prepared to ignore the inconvenient wishes of the populations of places like the Falklands and Gibraltar.

The wind turbines are in Scotland because the mountains are in Scotland.  That's not going to change.  The reasons for buying green electricity will be exactly the same after independence.

No, we will find something else to do when the oil runs out because we are smart, hard working people.  Scotland has a higher proportion of University graduates than the UK as a whole.  Like every other country our economy will change over a 30 year period.  But we will be fine.  

Not true.  We get billed for 'our share' of a bunch of stuff that England wants which we wouldn't choose to buy ourselves if we were independent.   Like HS2 or Eurofighters in the Falklands.   Spending someone's money on stuff they don't need or want isn't 'giving more back'.

We could have zero military expenditure and still not get invaded in this part of the world.  The Tories have been shutting down military bases in Scotland.  Leaving the ones in the Tory voting constituencies which is why they've still got four MPs.

I've no idea about Scotland vs Yorkshire,  vs the UK as a whole Scotland gets less MOD money spent.   Assembling ships is very visible but it's not the most expensive of the MODs activities.

Why is the wish of 4,000 people on an island on the other side of the world to remain a UK colony a higher priority than the wishes of 200,000 people in the UK to get reasonable social care when they are old and frail?

Some guy just posted the current status of the Royal Navy's fleet on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1152873506968940549

There's only 19 frigates/destroyers, 10 of them aren't working.   Of the 9 that are active 5 are near the UK, the rest are p*ssing about in ones and twos all over the face of the planet pretending we are a global power and providing photo-ops for the Daily Mail. 

They actually don't have a ship near the Falklands at the moment, but they're going to send one of the fancy ones so the UK will be down to 4 ships.    Four ships to defend the 60 million people in the UK and one for the 3,900 in the Falklands.

I reckon independent Scotland could do a better job of defending Scotland with less than the money Scotland currently pays towards the UK armed forces.

But if you don't own them, you didn't build them etc.. they aren't really a Scottish asset as such are they? 

Words from the magic money tree.. any links to show folk there are smarter than elsewhere?

A degree proves what exactly in this day and age?

Only you don't. You pay UK tax, same as everyone. But you get more back per capita than England. 

You'll find the forces have been slashed across the whole of the UK, or even Europe since the end of cold war. 

Because they don't trust the snp to look after anyone beyond the central belt? Which is kind of ironic when the northern highlands are the only truly Scottish part, that hasn't really been ruled by various other countries, kings, queens and empires over the past 2000 years. 

yes, we're all really looking forward to this..........especially when Trump works out that they import more from us than they export to us and wants a level playing field, and access to some specific UK markets...........What could possibly go wrong.

That twitter thing is quite depressing, isn't it? How the hell does an organisation get to the point where so many of its assets are unusable? And even if they were all miraculously available next monday, we couldn't use them though lack of personnel...

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/progress-on-extending-the-life-of-the-roya...

I think it is pretty simple - Westminster have chosen to do a lot of things which they can't afford to do properly - carriers, nuclear deterrent - in a half-arsed way.  They would rather pretend to be a global power than actually be a competent local one.

Not disagreeing there. But stop saying we cant afford it; we can, as many other countries do - it just takes a higher level of taxation than many people are willing to accept. And add Adult social care, education and policing to that list. Amongst others.

Wouldn't it be good if we could join a large bloc of other countries and share resources.......oh, wait.....

Still no answer on the trillions, I see.............

I managed to watch some old digitised cine family holiday film my father took in the early/mid 60s of one of the Navy display off the Devon coast.  It looks like D-Day footage the fleet is so vast by modern standards, submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers etc as far as the eye can see.  Shame it was such poor quality from a very small camera. Might have been Plymouth perhaps

Why shouldn’t one of the wealthiest nations on the planet be a global power?  We aren’t “little” by any measure - land area, population, GDP, research outputs, industrial capabilities.  We are a global country, not a local one.