An Independent Scotland?

Laudrup

There is a very long analysis of the SNP's defence plans. In summary, the SNP#'s ideas hold less water than a sporran.
Before you leap on the Westminster propaganda bandwagon, it was contributed to by a member of the SNP.

your plans and reality parted company a long time ago on the subject. So, how many other lies are you being sold?
 
Nick, why do you think any of that is a problem? Scotland will have no ambitions or need to send ships away on extended patrols so no need for that kind of provisioning. No top cover? well I suppose we could always borrow some from rUK..oh..no we can't can we? never mind since as above there's no real reason why the SAF couldn't fill the role within our territorial waters. Minesweepers hhmm, I suppose we could multi task a couple of the ocean patrol vessels. I do agree we need minesweepers, the MOD has dumped an awful lot of dangerous stuff off our coast in the last 100 years.
This hasn't been thought out very well...by me...but then I'm just a forum member and not an expert on defence. I have to assume that during the negotiating period someone will sit down with a view to sorting out just exactly what we would need. The thing is though, none of it is exactly going to be top of the list in the first couple of years, I honestly doubt anyone is likely to want to invade any time soon.
 
Bernie174 said:
Laudrup

There is a very long analysis of the SNP's defence plans. In summary, the SNP#'s ideas hold less water than a sporran.
Before you leap on the Westminster propaganda bandwagon, it was contributed to by a member of the SNP.

your plans and reality parted company a long time ago on the subject. So, how many other lies are you being sold?
Click to expand...

How about some links to this long analysis you've kindly summarised?
 
gman said:
Well it's gone awfully quiet in this thread. Has Salmond been phoning you all? hehe
Click to expand...

The man's never off the phone, the advice I've had to give him this last few weeks is shocking, I mean blue socks with a brown suit? come on! not even the Scots CG athletes will be that badly dressed!
 
Bernie174 said:
Laudrup

There is a very long analysis of the SNP's defence plans. In summary, the SNP#'s ideas hold less water than a sporran.
Before you leap on the Westminster propaganda bandwagon, it was contributed to by a member of the SNP.

your plans and reality parted company a long time ago on the subject. So, how many other lies are you being sold?
Click to expand...

Faslane would be turned into a conventional naval base and house the Scottish joint force HQ and retain capacity for shared arrangements with the rest of the UK and other allies. Which makes sense given the geography and deep water. There would be no sense in shutting down a perfectly good naval base.
 
I do love how when it's a positive it's screamed from the roof tops, but when it's a negative then it's turned into a joke. Unfortunately, it's difficult to hear the joke when the head is buried deep in the sand lol
 
Steep said:
Nick, why do you think any of that is a problem? Scotland will have no ambitions or need to send ships away on extended patrols so no need for that kind of provisioning. No top cover? well I suppose we could always borrow some from rUK..oh..no we can't can we? never mind since as above there's no real reason why the SAF couldn't fill the role within our territorial waters. Minesweepers hhmm, I suppose we could multi task a couple of the ocean patrol vessels. I do agree we need minesweepers, the MOD has dumped an awful lot of dangerous stuff off our coast in the last 100 years.
This hasn't been thought out very well...by me...but then I'm just a forum member and not an expert on defence. I have to assume that during the negotiating period someone will sit down with a view to sorting out just exactly what we would need. The thing is though, none of it is exactly going to be top of the list in the first couple of years, I honestly doubt anyone is likely to want to invade any time soon.
Click to expand...

The simple reason why that's a problem is that Scotland couldn't support a standing NATO commitment or exercise.
 
gman said:
I do love how when it's a positive it's screamed from the roof tops, but when it's a negative then it's turned into a joke. Unfortunately, it's difficult to hear the joke when the head is buried deep in the sand lol
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're referring to there.
 
Bernie174 said:
HUGH

I'm sure you can use google, but if you insist, you'll have to wait until next week, as I am away from home and only have limited access to the Internet.
Click to expand...

I could use Google yes but I've learned not to make statements without providing evidence to back them up so it's only fair that others do too.
 
Nope, sorry.
 
Oh, really High? I'd not noticed you making statements with proper evidence! patient, after all, its only your Country's leaders telling porkies. I do however look forward to your excuses, trouble is they are your excuses, not the SNP's, and thats where it all falls down.
 
If you have a problem with anything I've posted let me know and I'll try to sort it.
 
Hugh
as requested. I understand the Lt Col who did the did the foreward is or was an SNP candidate.
It's also interesting that the report calls on experts in a number of fields, and uses a great deal of common sense.

http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-c...7/HJS-In-Scotlands-Defence-Report-LOW-RES.pdf
Click to expand...

So, I'd be interested in the real answers, not the SNP propaganda, with reasoning, and costings. None of which is evident from the SNP, or indeed your answers on defence so far.

The point still remains though, you have been mislead over defence, how much more are you being misled over?
 
As you say, a big read and I'm reading but one thing jumped out at me from the off, the commissioners of the report - The Henry Jackson Society - this organisation is about as far right wing as it's possible to get without having KKK in the name. Seriously, supporters of Golden Dawn, U.S. white supremacists?

I'm not saying George Grant hasn't done good work, I'll comment on that after I've read properly but I have serious reservations about HJS, as do others

http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/alan-mendozas-putsch-in-the-henry-jackson-society/
http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/08/he...uslim-propagandist-robert-spencers-british-a/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/hilary-aked/student-rights_b_4894854.html
and many many others.
 
Bernie174 said:
Hugh
as requested. I understand the Lt Col who did the did the foreward is or was an SNP candidate.
It's also interesting that the report calls on experts in a number of fields, and uses a great deal of common sense.

So, I'd be interested in the real answers, not the SNP propaganda, with reasoning, and costings. None of which is evident from the SNP, or indeed your answers on defence so far.

The point still remains though, you have been mislead over defence, how much more are you being misled over?
Click to expand...

The first part I skipped to it already said Scotland would need 3 or 4 submarines when only 2 have been proposed. MOD procurement has never been known for being the greatest at controlling a budget. They spend money like a drunk sailor on leave.
 
Laudrup said:
The first part I skipped to it already said Scotland would need 3 or 4 submarines when only 2 have been proposed. MOD procurement has never been known for being the greatest at controlling a budget. They spend money like a drunk sailor on leave.
Click to expand...

Abysmal paper with zero thought to keeping a ship sustained at sea in respect of fuel, stores and provisions replenishment. Let's face it who needs tankers or supply ships. That's an opportunity to save money. Why spend fuel in the first place. Just keep them moored on the wall in Scottish Naval Base Rosyth. They will only need a skeleton crew to maintain them which will be all they can muster in the first place !

Have you ever been at sea in defence watches for months ? Nothing wrong with getting drunk ashore and letting off a bit of steam !
 
Last edited:
I wasn't going to come back until I'd finished reading but this beggars belief, George Grant has cited a document on page 44 of his report relating to the SNPs proposed defence budget. The paragraph says this..

As of March 2013, however, the SNP’s
entire case surrounding the pledge
to spend £2.5 billion on defence has
been cast into serious doubt. The
reason is an internal memo, authored
by John Swinney MSP (the Scottish
Government’s Cabinet Secretary for
Finance, Employment and Sustainable
Growth), which was leaked on 6 March.
The document significantly downgrades
Scotland’s post-independence economic
prospects from those which the SNP
have given in public, with the result
being that “a much lower budget must
be assumed.” 66

The 66 at the end is the reference to the document.

66. The truth about taxes, spending and
oil in a separate Scotland., Better
Together, 6 March 2013, http://b.3cdn.
net/better/c1d14076ee08022eec_
u9m6vd74f.pdf (last accessed 4 June
2013)

You can download this and read it from the link there, it was uploaded by Better Together claiming that it was a "Top Secret" memo presented to the Scottish Cabinet, hold on, it's either Top Secret or it's presented to the Cabinet, it can't be both surely? but never mind this document as shown is presented to look like pictures of a badly lined up fax which oddly seems to twist and turn in different directions from page to page and has absolutely no identifying marks on it to say where it came from!

George Grant uses this document to support a position in a report that he's being paid to produce, iffy provenance for evidence obtained from a partisan source in a report for an extreme organisation and I'm supposed to take him seriously?
 
Even though they have a reputation for being "tight", the point is that Scottish Independence has nothing to do with money and stuff like that
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Abysmal paper with zero thought to keeping a warship sustained at sea in respect of fuel, stores and provisions replenishment. Let's face it who needs tankers or supply ships. That's an opportunity to save money. Why spend fuel in the first place. Just keep them moored on the wall in Scottish Naval Base Rosyth. They will only need a skeleton crew to maintain them which will be all they can muster in the first place !

Have you ever been at sea in defence watches for months ? Nothing wrong with getting drunk ashore and letting off a bit of steam !
Click to expand...
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Abysmal paper with zero thought to keeping a ship sustained at sea in respect of fuel, stores and provisions replenishment. Let's face it who needs tankers or supply ships. That's an opportunity to save money. Why spend fuel in the first place. Just keep them moored on the wall in Scottish Naval Base Rosyth. They will only need a skeleton crew to maintain them which will be all they can muster in the first place !

Have you ever been at sea in defence watches for months ? Nothing wrong with getting drunk ashore and letting off a bit of steam !
Click to expand...

Being a large oil producer I don't think fuel or the logistical expertise of resupplying things out at sea will be too much of a problem. As for the drunken sailor yes he can let off steam but I wouldn't let him do it with my money.
 
Logistical problems will be solved as they need to be. Firstly it's doubtful that Scottish naval ships will be operating for extended periods out of reach of land based support for some time after independence. Second, if fuel and stores provisioning become necessary for long range operations then the appropriate vessels can be hired/bought/built as and when. This is a complete non issue Nick.
 
Laudrup said:
Being a large oil producer I don't think fuel or the logistical expertise of resupplying things out at sea will be too much of a problem. As for the drunken sailor yes he can let off steam but I wouldn't let him do it with my money.
Click to expand...

Well fuel and oil is one requirement. However, it's incredibly naive not to have included specialist logistical ships in the requirement. It does not inspire any confidence whatsoever and demonstrates a general level of ignorance in this area.
 
I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier reply and repeat my assertion that's this is a total non issue.
 
A Navy that can't support NATO, and can't operate over the horizon. Like you say a complete non issue ! Just another example of yet another conceived idea to file with all the other cases. I keep hearing it'll be fine we'll get that sorted if we need too later on. In the interim capabilities are denied and esculationg costs spiral.
 
Ok m8, you have it your way and I'll have it mine. Come the Yes in September we'll find out which of us is right.
 
Steep said:
Ok m8, you have it your way and I'll have it mine. Come the Yes in September we'll find out which of us is right.
Click to expand...

Opinions are healthy 'm8' if I can use text speak for a moment. I love your optimism. Even if it is a 'yes'vote there will be no overnight decision made. That will just be the start, could take months or years.
 
Hugh

If you don't need to operate beyond your shores, you don't need frigates. I think the point about submarines, is, you cannot operate 2 and have one available, something that your policy does not seem to have taken account of.

Leaving aside who wrote the report, in actual fact much of it makes a great deal of sense, and he has used expert witnesses. I think the SNP just made it up as it went along to be honest. And thats the nub here isn't it. There's been no real thought put into this, and you are just making excuses up to suit your view.

I think we have to accept, that the expert opinions expressed in that report, versus the very suspect thinking in the SNP policy show up quite clearly. So the question remains, you have been missled on defence, you have been lied to on the subject. So how can you trust the rest of what you are told by them?
 
Bernie, Frigates are a good compromise between fighting power and cost. The SRN? would primarily be responsible for guarding Scottish waters, the oil rigs, fishing grounds etc and would not need to have masses of floating logistical support for that role. As I have said if the force needs to be extended then it will be, Nick has this idea stuck in his head that everything has to be in place from day one and that's just horlicks.

Getting to your report which incidentally is more than a year old and pre-dates the white paper, again we seem to have to disagree, I believe that a report commissioned by right wing 'fascists' for want of a better description is going to be slanted to their point of view. The fact that the author has used tainted evidence and presented it as fact is typical of the target audience it's aimed at.
He also claims that the SNP has guaranteed to reinstate all the lost Scottish regiments which again is untrue. They've said they'll reinstate lost regiments but have never included that word 'all' anywhere. I have no doubt that Scotland's immediate defence needs will be more than covered by gains from the pre indy negotiations, I also have no doubt that in the long run we'll need more, if and when we do we can raise/build/buy more.
 
Eddi Reader talking about why she's Yes.

 
Last edited:
Steep said:
Bernie, Frigates are a good compromise between fighting power and cost. The SRN? would primarily be responsible for guarding Scottish waters, the oil rigs, fishing grounds etc and would not need to have masses of floating logistical support for that role. As I have said if the force needs to be extended then it will be, Nick has this idea stuck in his head that everything has to be in place from day one and that's just horlicks.

Getting to your report which incidentally is more than a year old and pre-dates the white paper, again we seem to have to disagree, I believe that a report commissioned by right wing 'fascists' for want of a better description is going to be slanted to their point of view. The fact that the author has used tainted evidence and presented it as fact is typical of the target audience it's aimed at.
He also claims that the SNP has guaranteed to reinstate all the lost Scottish regiments which again is untrue. They've said they'll reinstate lost regiments but have never included that word 'all' anywhere. I have no doubt that Scotland's immediate defence needs will be more than covered by gains from the pre indy negotiations, I also have no doubt that in the long run we'll need more, if and when we do we can raise/build/buy more.
Click to expand...

I can't believe I wasted my time reading a flawed and now I learn out out of date report. ( flawed as in why I picked holes in it )

Where is this White Paper if that that's up to date then then would be more relevant to read.
 
Bernie174 said:
Hugh

If you don't need to operate beyond your shores, you don't need frigates. I think the point about submarines, is, you cannot operate 2 and have one available, something that your policy does not seem to have taken account of.

Leaving aside who wrote the report, in actual fact much of it makes a great deal of sense, and he has used expert witnesses. I think the SNP just made it up as it went along to be honest. And thats the nub here isn't it. There's been no real thought put into this, and you are just making excuses up to suit your view.

I think we have to accept, that the expert opinions expressed in that report, versus the very suspect thinking in the SNP policy show up quite clearly. So the question remains, you have been missled on defence, you have been lied to on the subject. So how can you trust the rest of what you are told by them?
Click to expand...

There hasn't been negotiation yet for the assets so it's just the opinion of people who don't have all the facts yet. As for misleading I'd hardly think Westminster rated very highly in the trust stakes in Scotland (or the rest of the UK for that matter). Even less so when you have a Conservative government that Scotland would never vote for. It also isn't just the SNP voters pushing for independence. Labour voters could theoretically jettison tory rule forever and get back the 'Old Labour' which is something that seems almost impossible to do in the current political setup.

It's a big opportunity to see a fairer and more just Scotland.
 
Hugh

But we are talking about the conditions of Scotland leaving the Union, and it will effect you, the Scots. You've claimed that the New world of Scots politics is based on truth, not the Westminster way. Yet, as you clearly now can see, the that isn't the case, the SNP are misleading, or to put it in direct English, they are lying through their teeth to get people to believe they are the way. They aren't, and therefore I go back to my original point, you are being led up the garden path, and once you realise that, its going to be too late.

Old labour was as dishonest as new labour, the Tories and any other politician, you are dreaming if you think otherwise. Still, it's your funeral, and I very much doubt anyone sensible wants old labour back!
 
As you say it will be our responsibility, what you consistently fail to grasp is that we accept that responsibility, totally. We will finally get the government that we vote for, I can't stress how important that is to those of us looking for independence. If they turn out to be lying baskits we'll deal with it, if we have to send the navy to sea in pedalos at least we'll have Chris Hoy to teach them how to pedal.
What I'm saying is, there is no problem you can think of that we will not be able to handle (outside of the Borg turning up) and we'll do it with style.
 
Anyone know what the current situation is with the NHS ? Are the people who want independence quite prepared to go your own way. What does the Scottish Health Service look like ?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Anyone know what the current situation is with the NHS ? Are the people who want independence quite prepared to go your own way. What does the Scottish Health Service look like ?
Click to expand...

"The Scottish Parliament and Government already control Scotland's NHS and its budget." Can't complain about it really. Free prescriptions, don't have to wait long to see a GP, plenty of hospitals near me that are clean and modern and not huge waiting lists. From hearing anecdotes about England and Wales I'm glad I don't have to rely on it down there.
 
Steep said:
As you say it will be our responsibility, what you consistently fail to grasp is that we accept that responsibility, totally. We will finally get the government that we vote for, I can't stress how important that is to those of us looking for independence. If they turn out to be lying baskits we'll deal with it, if we have to send the navy to sea in pedalos at least we'll have Chris Hoy to teach them how to pedal.
What I'm saying is, there is no problem you can think of that we will not be able to handle (outside of the Borg turning up) and we'll do it with style.
Click to expand...

So long as we can afford to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top