Less Secure Britain?

[Khandro]

Gen. Sir Mike Jackson says that Scottish independence would leave Britain 10% less secure;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11030190/Scottish-independence-will-leave-rest-of-Britain-diminished-former-army-chief-warns.html
Doesn't that mean that Scotland would be 90% less so?

[sandyRoe]

When Ireland severed its links with the rest of the UK famous regiments like The Connaught Rangers and The Dublin Fusiliers were disbanded. Would Scottish regiments go the same way?

[scooping]

No. It means that Britain would be 10 per cent less secure and that Scotland would be X per cent less secure. The two figures you quote are not comparable.

[Kromovaracun]

Only 10% less secure?

I wonder if this is meant as a sly put-down against the Scots....

[ludwig]

He's saying it'll lose 10% of it's 'defence forces', so as the 100% of that capacity is currently dedicated to the whole UK, it does follow that an independent Scotland will lose 90% of that capacity - unless some deal is struck.

[scooping]

Nonsense. It does not follow that Scotland loses 90 per cent of its defence capability if, for example, it is a member of NATO. Can't see NATO turning them down. Should it become a member of the EU there are also defence implications.

[ludwig]

He's not talking about scotland's 'defence capability' though.

As long as it's got a single nuclear warhead or is a member of NATO its defence capability will remain pretty much the same as it is now.

He's talking about 'defence forces' which I take to mean number of troops/ships/hardware that we have direct control of. If the UK will lose 10% of that when Scotland leaves, it follows that 90% will remain with the UK, and will therefore not be available to Scotland.

[scooping]

But Scotland will not have a single nuclear warhead. Our four nuclear subs and their Tridents belong to the UK and, in any case, Salmond doesn't want them...

[ludwig]

It'll lose 100% of its nuclear subs then.

[Khandro]

But wouldn't an independent Scotland want to have some % share of the existing hardware, aircraft, ships, tanks etc., because it has contributed to them.

[ludwig]

^ Yes khandro - if they get a decent divorce lawyer, he could probably get them all of the Navy and Air force, and most of the army except leaving us with a small Home Guard platoon in Walmington-on-sea.

That seems to be how these things work.

[scooping]

Yes, it'll lose one hundred per cent of its nuclear subs. Not out decision - theirs.

[ludwig]

// Not out decision - theirs. //

Whose decision is irrelevant, we're just talking about numbers and percentages, and who'll have what afterwards - bearing in mind it's not going to happen anyway of course.

[scooping]

Don't think "whose decision is irrelevant". Seems rather important to me. Anyway, if they want to go alone good luck to them. It's all smoke and mirrors. Can't help but think there's some clever politics going on here. Struck by the ease by which Cameron signed the referendum agreement and the sudden transformation of Alastair Darling into a warrior. I even think that Salmond knows he's going to lose.

[KARL]

Defence against whom ?

The UK and US are engaged in defending their countries in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. In spite of the US having arguably the world's most effective and certainly the world's most expensive military, there was a traumatic attack on home soil against which all their might was useless in that not until months afterwards the reaction all came in flailing around: Now travellers worldwide are put through inconvenient and expensive screening in reaction to something that was purely aimed at the US.

If Scotland becomes independent then they are unlikely to want to emulate the UK's worldwide ambitions, after all independence will finally consign history of the Empire to the past. Granted, much of the No support is based on sentimentality regarding the past (note, it is otherwise not much use for the future) but it is mostly down to fear of change - the Nos may win, but the Yes also may win. As by most measures of social performance the UK is among Europeans rather low on the lists (infant mortality, life expectancy, education, health care efficiency and efficacy, social equality, women's participation in management and politics, peacefulness, happiness, etc., etc.), by breaking away Scotland would have a chance to outperform the UK rather than be locked/trapped within it (but celebrating that the UK was once a great power - which can still be celebrated even if it is divided). It will however take considerable effort for Scotland to reach the top of the lists from such a low start, although of course it would be possible. In this regard the UK's current task may appear nigh impossible - a smaller country/unit has a better chance, both Scotland and the remaining UK. That is the way I see it: Both resulting parts stand to gain, and I am convinced they would be on very good terms.

[youngmafbog]

Well for a starters one of our first defences - the sea - will no longer exist right around us.

Terrorists or anyone wishing us harm could enter via Scotland and come across the border. We could build HAdrians wall again I suppose.

He might also mean we could be invaded by hundreds of maruding Scots raping and pilaging our villages like before :-)

[Prudie]

Is Scotland a member of NATO? Surely it's the UK that is a member of NATO and if they leave the UK are they still a member? Bit like the EU dilemma.

[youngmafbog]

I'm sure they would be welcome in NATO.

The EU and the Commonwealth are a different story.

[KARL]

Why should the EU and Commonwealth be significantly different ? Mozambique applied and was welcomed - an ex-Portuguese colony. Scotland as a part of the UK is already a member of the EU and it is pretty unthinkable that it would be barred, although the formality of splitting EU membership between the two parts of the former UK would need to be arranged.