Why you should be skeptical of the skeptics

[Peter Cairns]

Lars,

Like most of western europe we' don't need an army of any real size at the moment.

In fact just as we don't need a large army as we are not going to invade England, Britain doesn't need one for the same reason, we're not a threat and in conventional terms neither is anyone else at the moment, not to the UK mainland anyway.

Put the same way, the US doesn't need aircraft carriers for domestic defence either.

As to needing C-5's, Australia has been in Iraq since the start and they don't have anything bigger than a C-130, nor do they have plans for anything larger.

Nor for that matter has Canada, with a bigger population and economy than Scotland yet they have been contributing to UN and other operations for years.

As I said earlier if you look at peacekeeping and making around the world over the last quarter century or so you see that the vast majority of those involved have not depolyed by solely national means.

You seem to hold to the arguement that unless you can do it all by yourself you can't do anything, which is patently nonsense, as post war history shows it to be totally untrue.

On one of the topics on this site I saw photos of Chinese peacekeepers in either Haiti or Puerto Rico, China doesn't have any real long range air transport capacity, and I doubt they sent an assault ship across the Pacific and through the Panama Canal.

Does that mean China should disband it's armed forces.

The principle difference between what I am suggesting and the likes of Denmark, Holland, or Belguim is that although they don't have anything bigger than a C-130 either, their armies are made up of heavy armour they can't lift and conscript infantry that are too light and not up to the job.

What we are suggesting are quality medium weight forces that can be transported by air rapidly to where they are needed. That could be by charter or by allies.

I don't see this as a problem because whether we pay for it or the UN does( and believe me the likes of the Japanese would rather contribute by paying to transport us than sending their own), there will never be a shortage of people asking us to help and willing to help us.

If Scotland was to offer to send an Infantry regiment to Basra, do you really think Blair would turn it down, if it meant the RAF providing the air lift. Nonsense, hell he'd probably offer to pay the bill for the transport and the bloody deployment.

People will help us deploy because they will want us too, which makes putting the money in to the core deployable capability that will do the long hard bit in theatre at the expense of the high cost transport capability that you will only use intermitantly the smart thing to do.

When there is already sufficent Naval capacity in Western Europe to see off any credible threat for decades ( Britain and France along have two of the worlds top five Navies), why should Scotland waste money augmenting it.

What Europe lacks ( and needs) are quality medium wait forces and people willing to send them, not the assault ships to take them.

Britain, France, Italy, and Spain all have the capacity to lift a medium weight Battalion for someone else, and at no time in the last twenty years, has their been a day that at least one of them didn't have a capable ship sitting doing nothing that could do it.

The alternative is to do waht Denmark does at build two 6,300, Patrol frigates with a RoRO deck that are big and expensive for patrol and fishery protection, and can only just transport a full medium weight battalion between them.

I say it again why replicate or add to an existing provision when you are well placed to contribute something that is short supply.

Scotland has a proud military tradition, based particularly round the army. We are good at it and it's in need and will be for the forseeable future so for me it makes sense to focus on enhancing what we are good at, rather than trying to do at little bit of everything because, that will somehow prove we are doing it properly.

Final point, (for now).

In terms of the debate on Scottish Independence, Defence doesn't even show on the radar. Virtually no one in Scotland will make a decision on the basis of the defence debate.

Indeed if you check the net you'll be hard pressed to even find there is one.

Because I mentioned it here people might have picked it up as if having our own army was the reason for Scottish independence. It's not, for most Scots for or against, it's probably just in the top ten and for ninety percent plus, not in the top five.

What I am talking about and working on is the kind of defence budget an incoming Scottish government could expect to have, and the type armed force we could and shouldcreate with it.

Other than the SNP (and believe me, not even many of them) no one is considering any of these questions, not even thinking about them..

It's a bit like saying

" Should we have a plan to get the kids out if the kitchen goes on fire".

and answering

" No theres no point, the kitchens not going to go on fire".

Lets turn this about Lars, Flame and GSX, (you can play too Steve).

Lets assume that whether you support it or not, or want it, the SNP form part of the next Scottish execuitive in May 2007 and get an Independence referendum in 2008.

No likely but certainly possible, (The part of government in 2007 is areal possibility).

If we were to win and you had to put together a meaningful armed force for £2bn in todays money, that could defend the country against current threats and make a contribution abroad, what you you do, how would you organise it.

Oh and just in case you try to dodge round it I'll put it like this

" Your Boss says,

" Things are tight Lads so i want a plan to improve your departments performance next year but with a 20% budget cut",

If you say " It can't be done Boss", the first part of next years 20% saving will be your wages, if you get my drift.

The issue isn't

"Do I want an independant Scotland with it's own army",

it's

" if there was one how would you do it".

Peter.

[Lars]

Or option B.

Send England $1.5 billion for protection and stick the rest in the bank.

[SSgt Viljuri]

Peter!

You should check what the ERRF concept consist of! Just a friendly suggestion...

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

If Scotland was to offer to send an Infantry regiment to Basra, do you really think Blair would turn it down, if it meant the RAF providing the air lift.

I was rather hoping that one of the conditions of Scottish independence would be that you got to keep Mr. Blair, as he was born in Edinburgh.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Nonsense, hell he'd probably offer to pay the bill for the transport and the bloody deployment.

Hang on, there's an important lesson here.

I was told at a "Human Factors in NEC" symposium at Shriv that there were a whole bunch of multi-national naval forces that spun up to assist the US in coalition for the First Gulf Unpleasantness (I think it was) -- the usual multi-national bag of allsorts, think STANAVFORCHAN but bigger. Some navies were equipped as best their governments could afford to the latest STANAGs, and thus hoped to be interoperable with other coalition members. Fat chance; apart from the wildly varying national budgets and interpretations, nobody could talk to most of the USN contingent anyway, as they were from the West Coast and didn't care a stuff for NATO comms standards. Coalition intercommunication, then, depended largely on how much Gucci comms kit you could beg, borrow or surreptitiously acquire from our American cousins. Consequently, the national contingent with the best tactical comms was the Turks, who had turned up with a numerically strong contingent of enthusiastically-manned and hugely obsolete ships. The Americans therefore rigged the whole lot of them with complete fits of the latest kit, the whole lot "Harry Freeman's", as they say in the Navy.

Surely that's the kind of equipment policy that should appeal to a Scot?

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[snips]

If we were to win and you had to put together a meaningful armed force for £2bn in todays money, that could defend the country against current threats and make a contribution abroad, what you you do, how would you organise it.

This reminds me of taking a copy of the WRG modern rules, giving yourself a budget of, say, 10,000 points, and trying to work out the best way of spending that budget to equip a small and fictional country such as San Seriffe.

It's a fun game, but in real life the things that are going to matter most are much messier things with less grog-appeal, like what the overall aims and tasks of the defence forces are, what the forces' career structure and training programmes look like, and how the budget for the Edinburgh Tattoo is carved up between the ministries of Defence, Tourism and Culture.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[snips]

If you assume a profile of 6 months deployed and two years home, then to sustain a long term deployment you need five Regiments.

(...)

Therefore in order to give minimum cover without over stretch you need a minimum of six,

(...)

The arguement for six medium weight and reinforced combined arms regiments similair to British battle groups or use BCT Stryker Battalions, is about how best to organise an army of 10,00o men to meet our objectives.

You don't need six battalions' worth of Strykers, though; battalions could be re-roled as light for much of their rotation, and enough vehicles retained for, say, three in-role medium bns (one deployed, one training, and one in the "spearhead" quick reaction role).

How many battalions of Special Forces are you thinking of raising? And why not add a couple of battalions of Gurkhas?

All the best,

John.

[GSX]

As to needing C-5's, Australia has been in Iraq since the start and they don't have anything bigger than a C-130, nor do they have plans for anything larger.

Some nice well thought out replies. However, I do seem to notice that every few months or so an RAF C-17 flies to Oz to pick up some heavy equipment for them?

I still dont buy into the whole premise though. What happens when the British Army decides to keep the Scottish Regiments? Do you allow Scots to serve in the British Army, as Irish citizens can? You will then have to compete against a full career structure in a proper Army then?

Then there is the question of which peacekeeping duties you send them on, Im sure it wouldnt be Iraq. It would also take years for a Scots Army to precure this kit and be preficient with it.

Interesting debate though.

Any ideas on what terms of service would be on offer?

And of course there is the old Chestnut of military base closures that would upset the locals. I believe that there are 2 Naval bases, 3 Large Airbases and various Army units stationed in Scotland. Two in Morayshire alone for the RAF, funnily enough in an SNP area, and I seem to recall that when they were rumoured to be closing the SNP were amoungst the most vociferous in arguing for their retention as they pump so much money into the area.

Then again, you can always recruit time served Scots into the Scottish Army I suppose, and the other forces.

How would you train them though? Im sure HMG wouldnt just release all Scots signed up to the UK AF. Then of course you will have to set up training facilities etc..............

[Peter Cairns]

Lars first,

As far as I am aware no country other than Iceland is currently doing a "here you look after us deal", and it's got a smaller population than Edinburgh.

The difficulty with the we pay you deal is that if at any point they say "The games up we don't want to any more", you are in deep trouble, so people generally don't do it.

In certain circumstances such as the Baltic States, who are skint small a temporary deal with basing can work for a while, but generally people don't want to be that dependant on someone else for their ultimate security.

John,

If you want us to take Blair back you'll have to pay us, but I don't think it's an issue as I see him far more likely to retire to Texas.

The kind of thing that happened with support for the Gulf war was pretty unprecidented since at least Korea and probably WW2.

Comparing moving a Medium weight regiment to an invasion that evolved half a million people isn't really credible as an arguement, there will be issues and hickus but nothing that can't be overcome, especially as we'd all essentially be on one boat.

Tasks and the like are broadly similiar to the UK's though thebit about overseas colonies and territories is out ,as we don't have any. Actually if you look about most nations sections on aims and tasks they are broadly similar.

The option to have both Light role and Medium role is something I thought about, and you could argue that we needn't equip all six with Stryker because, if we are planning to have one out long term and one for emergency use, then all we really need is one more for training.

That would half the purchase number from six regiments to only three.

However I tend to favour just one class of Infantry and a standard vehicle because as I said, I feel that with modern weapons soft skinned vehicles are just too vulnerable for day to day use.

Also in the highly unlikely event of a "big war" either at home or that we really needed to go to then we have a residual capacity.

Even if they are under utiliesed most of the time full mechanisation lets you have a stock of additional vehicles for replacement and spares, or just to rotate out of service for refurb. still money is tight and its probaly £300-£400m

I don't actaully think we will have a Scottish Commando regiment or Special regiment as such.

So far the option I favour is that over and above the Six line regiments there would be a national training establishment come regiment.

It would provide basic training and then later specialist training. Over time experienced personnel would be seconded and train as trainers and then either return to regiment or undergo further specialist training.

Therefore with the "Training Regiment" , you would have your basic training, Artillery School , Engineers School, Armour training school and "An Advanced Infantry School"( AIS).

It is within the Advanced Infantry School part where by selection and secondment you have a speciallised Combat Infantry unit, and that is in effect your "special forces", in this respect it is more like the system for the SAS than the Paras or Marines.

If you look at the size of the forces we have available I wouldn't think we could justify or sustain a full "Commando Regiment", so I would suspect it would be more like one or more WW2 sized commandos of about Company strength.

A second option that could go along side this is to take some of the best and most experience infantry in each regiment and put them ( after AIS training) in with the armoured recon element or as a tenth Infantry platoon doing LR Recon and other "difficult" tasks.

I know it sounds small but what I think we should be wary of and try to avoid is creating a Special forces regiment because we ( or others) think we should have one and then having to pad it out with average personnel to make it work.

So start with the best and select and start small and if we have enough good people expand it over time, the world is full of "special" forces that turn out to be nothing special when the shooting starts, and I don't want that.

I am not sure if the Gurkhas would want to join up, but if they did we'd probably let them, but it would be like the Fijians, they would join a Scottish regiment as individuals not a regiment of their own.

GSX, your next.

I can tell people are if not warming to thi, at least being far less dismissive,

I suppose the British could claim copy right or something and they may decide to keep a "Scottish regiment" that Scots as commonwealth citizeans would be free to join.

If they did and given their recruitment problems, I would if I was them, I've no doubt they could and would fill it.

Obviously I'd prefer Scots to choose their own regiments first, but if the UK did it I don't think we would object. Apart from anything else we have an open border that people could just walk across and join the British army anyway.

(Could you imagine the joint excercises when they met ours).

It wouldn't be Iraq, but Afghanistan is a possible and then their are the likes of Timor, SL, Congo ( sooner or later everybody ends up doing a stint in the Congo), Cyprus and possibly the Lebanon if it's still on going.

Like I've said before the problem won't be finding missions it will be fending off the constant requests. High quality Infantry are in almost constant demand.

Initally we would inherit our share of the UK's approximately £80-£90 bn, worth of Kit, roughly the £7.5bn we've paid to buy with Scottish taxes. Much of the UK kit particularly the heavy stuff we don't need or want so if anything we will struggle to find £ 5bn that we need let alone over £7 bn.

As long as it can do a job and will last 5 years or more it will be OK.

Given that Scotland has four year fixed term Parliaments I can't see us starting any major procurement until in to the second one as the transistion and adaption will take at least 3 or 4.

Apparently the Czechs and Slovaks done it in under a year, (although to be honest much of it was junk anyway).

I wouldn't see us fully up and running as a totally different force till between years seven to ten, but as the level of domestic conventional threat is so low, thats an acceptable risk.

We would also be keen to minimise distruption to the UK and we have a few ideas as how we can best do that. Regardless of the acrimony amoung politicain independence generates, the last thing we want is to damage or undermine an on going UK or UN mission.

Initial terms of Service will be as the UK but as I said with the shift towards 50% personel budget, we'd like to better them and might well have too just to fill the ranks.

Bases is a good one and here I expect as you rightly suggest I'll have as many if not more problems from my own side as opponents.

I am keen on using development potential as a starting point.

Take the three RAF bases, The two in Moray are close together so could act in tandem as a main and feeder/emergency. If we were to close them it would be a local disaster because not only are they big employers but also there is no real viable alternative use that could replace them.

That leaves Leuchers in Fife. Now it just so happens that the distance from it to the centre of Dundee ( which has 250,000 population plus the same again within 25miles or so) is the same as Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports are from their town centres (about 1O miles).

Currently Dundee doesn't have a decent airport, so the potential is there to covert Leauchers in to a proper airport for Dundee that can handle both low cost European and trans atlantic flights ( As its less than five miles from the old course I'd market it internationally as "Dundee, St Andrews").

The intention would be that it would, in time with investment, creat more jobs than a military base, or anyway thats the theory.

As you say many of these places face threats in the future ( we had a set of defence support redundancies just this week), so I'd rather offer a credible alternative and a well worked out transition that will be better in the long term for the community, that give a bland Guarentte that "Every Job is Safe".

Apart from anything else I doubt there is a service man or women or a defence contractor or MOD civilian employee who believes any job guarentee a politicain gives them, and to be honest I don't blame them.

We would initially offer service to any Scot in the armed forces who wanted to transfer on the same pay and conditions as they were on, which if all 18-20,000 came across would be a short term problem as we only plan on 15,000. ( another reason why there wouldn't be much procurement in the first few years).

However with Voluantary packages and by raisng the recruitment standards we could work that down over five years or so.

As to the UK not letting them leave, whats it going to do, stop them leaving England or going home on leave, lock them in their barracks in Edinburgh and not let them out, arrest and imprison all 18,000 of them, Hell Shoot them.

If they don't want to stay and you won't let them leave, just how operationally effective do you think they'd be.

Scotland has 9% of the UK population and over 33% of the land area, with 50% of that mountain, forest and moorland, plus lochs and island galore, believe me space for training isn't a problem.

As to firing ranges etc, one of the advantages of Medium weight forces, with 40mm turrets, Javelin and 120mm mortars is that you don't need the kind of space or range size you do for live firing with Challenger, Braveheart or MLRS.

As I said above we would need to establish a national training centre, possibly around RM Condor near Abroath, but to be honest given the amount of cheap land we have, it could be anywhere ( Though I like the idea of ex-mining Ayrshire, because it's currently an economic black hole).

Peter.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

If you want us to take Blair back you'll have to pay us,

Oh, I don't think so, not once he becomes an enemy alien, as I suspect Scots might be declared once you start trying to lure away personnel from the English Army.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Tasks and the like are broadly similiar to the UK's though thebit about overseas colonies and territories is out ,as we don't have any. Actually if you look about most nations sections on aims and tasks they are broadly similar.

But the sort of force you are talking about would be completely incapable of carrying out most of the UK Armed Forces' tasks, which are in any case very different from those of most other powers.

Custody of the deterrent you have disclaimed as a task.

ASW and Air Defence you would have zero capability for.

Likewise MCM. Should (say) a new Viking dictator arise in Iceland, or the Lithuianians come over all expansionist, and decide to blockade Scotland with a couple of conventional subs and a slack handful of sea mines, your strategic choices are reduced to surrender or running cap-in-hand to your southern neighbour.

Your airlift and sealift is apparently going to be on the basis of "Got any spare change?" from other coalition partners, so you cannot offer any assistance in the way of humanitarian aid or support to the civil power in the way UK forces have traditionally done.

Your capability for high-intensity warfare, however you may have managed to get the force conveyed to the seat of war, is going to be negligible; a single deployed battalion, reliant on the charity of others for log and air support. The tiny scale on which you have drawn your plans makes me think that you are going to suffer badly for want of adequate engineer and gunner support, too. Even this force, essentially a one-shot proposition, you probably dare not commit to the one decisive action it would be capable of, because you cannot risk the mauling of effectively the whole deployable strength of the Scottish Army.

With such a derisory conventional capability, it is impossible to imagine Scotland ever being framework nation in a multi-national deployment.

You seem to be planning to have no capability for ship-to-shore manoeuvre, counter-bombardment, deep recce, deep strike, CBRN, battlefield EW, hostage rescue, or air maneouvre. To think you can take on the same kind of military tasks as the UK seems to me to be utter madness.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

However I tend to favour just one class of Infantry and a standard vehicle because as I said, I feel that with modern weapons soft skinned vehicles are just too vulnerable for day to day use.

Light infantry don't ride into battle in softskins, you know. As light infantry is one of the few roles a putative independent Scottish army could expect to take on and do well, it seems bizarrely perverse to discard it.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Also in the highly unlikely event of a "big war" either at home or that we really needed to go to then we have a residual capacity.

The force structure you are talking about simply isn't capable of sustaining a "big war", so there's little point keeping more shiny toys "just in case".

If there is a "big war at home", you will need some kind of Territorial force, something I have not yet seen you mention at all. How do you propose to structure the reserves?

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Even if they are under utiliesed most of the time full mechanisation lets you have a stock of additional vehicles for replacement and spares, or just to rotate out of service for refurb.

Keeping them for spares is worse still, and strikes me as nothing short of criminally incompetent. If you want a stock of spares, buy a stock of spares -- initial provisioning is not that much of a black art -- don't treat a multi-million-dollar vehicle as a box of hundred-dollar spare parts.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

So far the option I favour is that over and above the Six line regiments there would be a national training establishment come regiment.

It would provide basic training and then later specialist training. Over time experienced personnel would be seconded and train as trainers and then either return to regiment or undergo further specialist training.

So, when you have to do a high-risk hostage rescue, you have to do it like the Israelis at Entebbe, and risk losing an entire generation of experienced instructors? Not a good plan, I think.

If you really want to win prizes for popularity in multi-national deployments, being able to lend George a couple of hundred top-quality English-speaking (or, in a pinch, Glaswegian) SF would be low-risk, low-cost, high payoff, and one of the very few things easily within realistic reach of a putative independent Scottish army (which I'm going to start abbreviating to PISA).

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

It is within the Advanced Infantry School part where by selection and secondment you have a speciallised Combat Infantry unit, and that is in effect your "special forces", in this respect it is more like the system for the SAS than the Paras or Marines.

If you look at the size of the forces we have available I wouldn't think we could justify or sustain a full "Commando Regiment", so I would suspect it would be more like one or more WW2 sized commandos of about Company strength.

At company strength, even without any instructor or demonstration duties, that will give you at most a deployable troop.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I can tell people are if not warming to thi, at least being far less dismissive,

I hope you haven't got that impression from me. Previously, I had never considered the question of how to organise a PISA. Having been invited to do so, I find that the more one thinks about it, the more clearly is it shown to be a project of starkly lunatic unreality.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

We would also be keen to minimise distruption to the UK and we have a few ideas as how we can best do that.

Mr. Picky points out that were you to revoke the Act of Union, there would be no UK. It's hard to think of a greater disruption than that. The idea that the (overstretched, under-strength, under-funded, ill-equipped and mercilessly buggered-about) British forces could carry on functioning adequately after Peter has robbed £7.5bn worth of kit, a shedload of training ranges, and tried to persuade a good chunk of its personnel to go AWOL is every bit as believable as the proposition that salmon are marsupials that live in trees and eat pencils.

This is an amusing wargamer's game we are playing here, "What's the best Army I can get for 5,000 points?"; it scarcely touches any political, economic or military realities at any point.

All the best,

John.

[GSX]

Im sorry Peter. I have to agree with John in everything he says. So far your description of a PISA just does not work.

You cannot be serious that you can offer transfer to a Scottish Army of the Scots members of a British Army. I have signed up to terms to the MOD, I would be a deserter indeed if I suddenly left and run North to join a Scots defence force.

Anyway, its all academic. I dont really forsee an independant Scotland controlled by SNP. No one much likes the SNP anyway apart from a few sorry areas.

In fact the Scottish Parliament has been a real joke so far. Bad news to break up a great country just for the sake of a few Highlanders, isnt that what the Jacobites failed to do anyway? There were more Scots fought for the British than there were Highlanders.

Anyway, I carried out a staw poll of the Scottish members of my unit, 200 guys of which 90 are Scots, only 3 said that they would seriously consider joining what you propose, and 2 of them said they would have to be offerred more money.

In fact, double my wage and you may even get me.

[ November 12, 2005, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: GSX ]

[Peter Cairns]

We would offer the same terms as the Uk army to anyone who wants to join, and the UK would agree that anyone who wanted to go could.

Why,

Because Scots in the UK armed forces who didn't want to be their would be militarily useless. If you say no to them when they ask to leave, and next day they just lie in bed, what are you going to do, lock them up. what 1o,000 of them.

How do you stop any Scots pilot in the RAF just turning North, ground them all, make sure that the other plane in the flight is armed and ready to shoot him down if he does.

Any Scot in the British army could any time he choose walk in to an embassy and claim asylum, and if they were abroad they could walk in to any police station and do it.

Regardless of the numbers or whether you want them to go, trying to force them to stay is just daft. You have two choices, let them go and loose them as effective servicemen, and have us pay their wages, or force them to stay loose them as effective personell because they don't want to be in your army and you pay their wages, which seems pretty dumb to me.

GSX

90 out of 200 , well if it's not a Scottish unit ( and 200 rules that out) thats 45% which is a very high percentage for Scots, Just exactly which unit is this and of the 90 how many did this straw poll involve, if it was all ninety, which is impressive it was only 3%, but if you only asked 10 then it's 30%.

You have me at a disadvantage because you use an alias and I don't. If you want to know about me check the press for reports of this years SNP conferemce in Aviemore and you'll see I spoke five times.

John,

Dealing with them in turn, after the daft notion of trying to prevent people who want to go leaving that is.

We would not have dedicated ASW in terms of Frigates, but then both the Danes and new Zealand do it by utiliesing demountable modules, as to Air defence I have already said we would have acombat capable airforce with intermediate aircraft, in the class of the F-16, actually I quite like the look of the S. Korean T/F-50.

And of course you have to look at the level of threat, just who's subs are you suggecting will be preying on scottish Trawlers, Brazils...

besides more than 80% of our trade comes through England anyway, so even in the fanciful scenario of Submarines picking on Scotland and the rest of Western Europe looking the other way.

( Mind you there were thoses dark days in the sixties when Kruschevs Submarines were torpedoing Irish coasters and the world just stood and watched while the people of Dublin were forced to eat leaves... NOT).

Your example of the Icelanders or Lithuainians just show how daft your arguements are becoming, when you have to resort to quite laudicrious scenarios to justify weapons or equipment you should really just give up and stop embarrising yourself.

Britain isn't goiing to invest £50 bn over ten years on a laser ABM system to defend us against surprise US attack, because no one with an IQ over 50, thinks there is the slightest chance of their being one.

If you want me to divert more resources to the Navy or Airforce do us both a favour and come up with a scenario that wouldn't be far fetched for an Austin Powers Movie.

Better Still, start a post suggesting and Iceland attacks Ireland module for CMx2, and see the response you get.

What about the air threat you think we should be preparing for , right now I doubt the Russains could scrap up enough fuel to get a Flanker as far as Scotland let alone.

I didn't say they would be kept just for spares but they would be there in an emergency. The UK's Challengers in Germmany weren't their just for spares, but over a hundred of them were stripped and their engines send out to the Gulf in GW1.

Spares was never a principle reason. I am in Favour of mechanising all six regiments, but if we don't I'd rather by a 100 extra than find half way through a fight that we didn't have enough.

I don't see us doing an Entebbe at least not on our own, we don't have an airline for a start. The Special forces would be based at the training regiment but I never said it was the training regiment. In the falklands the Marine Artic warfare people deployed as a unit ( about 20 of them) but even if they had all died, I doubt the Royal Marines would have fallen apart.

Besides Entebbe was almost Unique, and if you look at Mogadishu which was far more typical you'll see that the SAS did it, For The Germans, which kind of proves my point about people cooperating in a crisis.

I don't have a problem and indeed would be delighted to lend you a ful company of SF, whenever you needed them, as long as it was a on a mission we both supported and agreed on.

Would I like more than 200 or so yes, but If we are talking about SAS standard, 3% of the size of your army is about right, Like I said calling them SF doesn't mean they are. Total SAS/SBS is probably well less than 2% of the British army.

If ant any one time we could deploy a troop of 40-70 and they were of SAS standard ( which they would be) they would be enough to cover all but the most dire situations, over the last 50 years apart from the obvious example of Northern Ireland, it is only in GW1 and now that a full regiment of SAS has ever been deployed.

Saying it's looney and can't be done, really shows you should get out more or perhaps try reading. On numerous occasions I've mentioned countries of Scotlands size who have their own armed forces. Now if No nation in europe less than 10 million population had an army, or they all bought in defence from a big neighbour you might have a point, but you don't.

Though I shouldn't labour the point because you are looking daft enough, heres a short far from comprehensive list.

Ireland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Portugal, Bosnia, Estonia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, , do you want me to leave Europe and go on our are you fed up of looking like a monkey.....

Of all the daft objections you've raised " A nation of Scotlands size can't do it", when more than a dozen, many smaller and worse off, do takes the biscuit.

Mr Picky the act of union would not be revoked it would be disolved by mutual agreement. If Scotlands people voted for independence the UK would accept it. Given that there are suprising fw people south of the border so dense as not to see that they would have no other option, given that every democracy in the world would immediately recognise us as an independant country.

As I made plain we would be struggling to find all £7.5 bn in Kit and I also made it clear that because of different requiremeents we wouldn't be asking for most if any of the big new high tech stuff anyway ( thats what generates a potential cash surplus).

As to training there is a bombing range at tain and Cape Wrath, and a scaled down missile range on benbeccula. I said we had plenty of space for training not that we had plenty of big training ranges. As to kit and personnel when it comes to us we strt paying the wages and support costs, so the burden shifts to us.

There is an annual £300-£400m hit as thats the difference between the cost of what transfers to us and the amount of Scottish tax payers money the Uk currently gets.

And again this AWOL nonsesnse, any partition would be by mutual agreement, so the idea that the UK would forbid people to leave is just nonsense as keeping them against there will would be worse than letting them go.

The extent to which the UK could keep going would depend on it's commitments and how we managed them, I said we had some ideas heres three.

Displacement.

We don't want Scots in Iraq, but don't have a problem with Bosnia, Kosovo or Afghanistan. Therefore when say the Black Watch finish a tour in Basra, we send a regiment to Kabul which in turn frees up the Afghhan contingent for deployment elsewhere. Thus the total number depolyed remains the same, but we gradually disengage from the ones we don't support.

Secondment.

Personel who want to transfer do, but are then for an appropriate period allowed to remain in their current position in the UK armed forces, for a limited period ( although by limited we could be talking two to three years if needed). In this case the best thing would be for us to jointly pay them as they are our troops but working for you.

Delayed.

In certain circumstances (and this might include people who had access to highly classified material, particularly anti terrorist operations) people wishing to join the scottish armed forces would be told they could not transfer for a set time, rarely more than a years delay, although it could be longer for the likes of a pilot newly trained at a cost of £5m plus.

I think these three alone show two clear differences , firstly I tjought about this a lot longer than you, and secondly that when faced with a problem, I look for a solution where as you throw your hands up in horror, and say " NO NO It Can't Be Done",

GSX

I know you don't like the idea of Scottish independence but if you are going to stray from the Military in to politics especially Scottish politics, at least try to have some facts will you, because I really don't think you'd like it if was to put you right in no uncertain terms.

I have never said we would form the Government, but we could well be part of it, and even if we don't, a post independence Scottish govermnet of whatever shape would still have to come up with some form of defence strategy and armed forces.

No likeing the idea doesn't mean it won't happen, hell for someone in the army you seem to have the bizarre notion that if you don't want something to happen you shouldn't plan for the event.

Whats your units badge,"An Ostrich with it's Head in the Sand".

As to the Scottish parliament, well so far it's been pretty awful, but then as it looks like Britain might not have enough gas to get us through this winter, three cheers for Westminster.

As to breaking up Briatin, well by definition it will only happen, if a majority want it, ( like the Scottish parliament that got more votes for than Tony Blair did in Scotland). So the few Highlanders line hardly has any merit given that the total highlands and Islands accounts for less than 6% of the population.

SNP support is currently running between 20-25%, actually just under 20% for Westminster, but over 28% for Holyrood (the Scottish Parliament), It has been higher indeed as high as 35%, so we are still well omn target to be the second largest party in 2007.

Despite my own parties claims we can win I think we will get less seats than labour, but we could make 40. That figure is enough to form a coalition with others, as the majority ids only 65. If we can themn an independence referendum within 4 years is a 405 chance.

Now as a soldier if you want to dismiss and not plan for an unwelcome scenario that has a 40% likelyhood of happening your the worst soldier I've ever come across.like it.

Current and constistant polls put support for independence at 35-45%, and as anyone who stiudies politics will tell you, an option that consistantly commands 40%+, can get a majority.

Do I honestly think we "Will" be independant within five years No, do I think we could be, Oh Yes.

Peter.

[thewood]

Do you think people had these same forum debates about theusefulness of armed forces in 1930?

If BFC had been releasing CMX2 in 1930, would it have been called CM: Cruiser Tank and located in Poland?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[snips]

Because Scots in the UK armed forces who didn't want to be their would be militarily useless. If you say no to them when they ask to leave, and next day they just lie in bed, what are you going to do, lock them up. what 1o,000 of them.

You cheerfully assume that 10,000 Jocks will wish to leave the British Army. I don't think you have the slightest basis for that assumption beyond your own wishful thinking. The idea that the oath of allegiance and the Army Act can be wished away solely for the purpose of indulging your fantasies is not one I am prepared to accept.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[snips]

Any Scot in the British army could any time he choose walk in to an embassy and claim asylum, and if they were abroad they could walk in to any police station and do it.

Presumably any Irish national serving in the forces of the Crown could do much the same thing, if he wished. How many do?

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Dealing with them in turn, after the daft notion of trying to prevent people who want to go leaving that is.

I'm not suggesting anyone be forced to stay in the forces who doesn't want to stay, British officers have always been able to resign their commissions and soldiers to buy themselves out (provided it's not an emergency). What I'm saying is that they won't want to leave. GSX's straw poll seems to confirm that.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Your example of the Icelanders or Lithuainians just show how daft your arguements are becoming, when you have to resort to quite laudicrious scenarios to justify weapons or equipment you should really just give up and stop embarrising yourself.

You started it with this nonsense about an army for an independent Scotland. Viking dictators and expansionist Balts seem to me to be exactly as likely. Please don't get ratty just because my lobster-lunch fantasies happen to differ from yours.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I don't see us doing an Entebbe at least not on our own, we don't have an airline for a start. The Special forces would be based at the training regiment but I never said it was the training regiment. In the falklands the Marine Artic warfare people deployed as a unit ( about 20 of them) but even if they had all died, I doubt the Royal Marines would have fallen apart.

That's because the RM is strong enough to field a brigade -- half the strength of your entire proposed army.

A single troop of SF, as you propose, could be lost at a stroke in an accident such as the Chinook cross-decking loss in Op Corporate. That was a very severe blow to the SAS, which consists of one regular and two TA battalions. Your proposed SF strength is a ninth of that.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Besides Entebbe was almost Unique, and if you look at Mogadishu which was far more typical you'll see that the SAS did it, For The Germans, which kind of proves my point about people cooperating in a crisis.

The Mogadishu rescue was done by GSG9, with SAS assistance.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Now if No nation in europe less than 10 million population had an army, or they all bought in defence from a big neighbour you might have a point, but you don't.

If I'd ever made any statement that could even remotely be construed as saying that small nations can't have armies, then your argument might be reasonable. What I pointed out, and still maintain, and you have failed to provide any adequate counter-argument to, is that forces on that scale simply cannot undertake tasks like those the UK forces do. You desperately need to define the tasks a PISA will be expected to undertake. "Much like the UK but without the colonies and Iraq" is so far beyond the capabilties of the force you're describing it's laughable.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Though I shouldn't labour the point because you are looking daft enough, heres a short far from comprehensive list.

Ireland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Portugal, Bosnia, Estonia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, , do you want me to leave Europe and go on our are you fed up of looking like a monkey.....

Tell me, Peter, how many of these nations do you imagine to be capable of undertaking military tasks like those the UK does? "None at all" would be a pretty good estimate, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Of all the daft objections you've raised " A nation of Scotlands size can't do it", when more than a dozen, many smaller and worse off, do takes the biscuit.

Thank you for the biscuit, but I think I would prefer you to answer my objections, rather than misrepresenting them.

Which of these nations has the capability for air maneouvre? Deep strike? Ship-to-shore maneouvre? Framework nation status? The Nordic nations in that list have an MCM capability, which seems to be more than you've planned for.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Mr Picky the act of union would not be revoked it would be disolved by mutual agreement.

I fear I must ask you to clarify what difference in meaning you understand to exist between "revoked" and "dissolved" in this context. At any rate, it is clear that no entity called the UK would exist after Scottish independence, so it makes little sense for you to keep calling it that.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

If Scotlands people voted for independence the UK would accept it. Given that there are suprising fw people south of the border so dense as not to see that they would have no other option, given that every democracy in the world would immediately recognise us as an independant country.

There are probably quite a few English nationalists who would be quite pleased to see the UK dissolved. I think you are indulging yourself in more wishful thinking if you imagine that Scotland would be given a large chunk of the armed forces as a going-away present, though. I think an independent England would be wanting to keep the North Sea oil, too.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

The extent to which the UK could keep going

For a Scottish Nationalist, you seem to have a very hard time comprehending that without Scotalnd there is no entity called the UK.

Who would the recruits to a PISA swear allegiance to, by the way? Will there be a King of Scotland when the crowns are separated? Sean Connery would be my choice.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I think these three alone show two clear differences , firstly I tjought about this a lot longer than you, and secondly that when faced with a problem, I look for a solution where as you throw your hands up in horror, and say " NO NO It Can't Be Done",

You may well have spend longer cogitating on these matters than I have, but it is clear that your thinking has remained wholly innocent of any idea of military practicality.

And this isn't a problem; it's a self-indulgent fantasy. If it were a real problem, then you would recognise the necessity of stating the problem clearly, instead of airy declarations of doing things pretty much like the UK, but smaller and without the nukes and colonies.

The Master Principle of War is "selection and maintenance of the aim". As you still have yet to define the aim of a PISA, all your pipe-dreams about how you would organise it don't amount to a pile of beans, and wouldn't do even if Scottish independence for defence purposes were a realistic prospect.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Now as a soldier if you want to dismiss and not plan for an unwelcome scenario that has a 40% likelyhood of happening your the worst soldier I've ever come across.

If you can't tell the difference between 40% of votes cast and a 40% probability of happening, you might not be the worst mathematician I've ever come across, but it's between you and the education spokesman who found it unacceptable that 25% of schoolchildren had exam results in the lower quartile.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Lars:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

They have to be just about every major nation in europe plus the Us, in which case you'd have to be pretty nuts to go.

The US can go to places like Iraq, without the UN or EU, but not the likes of Scotland, ( or Norway, or finland, or Denmark, or Austria),.

Small Western European nations just don't do it, unless they have some special need or mandate, usually ex colonial, which Scotland doesn't.

Besides given the kind of budget we'd have by the time we bought a couple of assault ships we'd have a pretty thread bare army, and then we'ed be back to Sierra Leon, being able to independantly transport a force that was too lightly and poorly equipped to do the job, which would be a bad idea.

Peter.

Which brings us right back to why have an independent Scottish Army?

All you've done is added an extra layer (or three) of paperpushers, and the first time you pick kit that's not in the standard buy, you've increase costs. </font>

[Soddball]

An England independent from interfering Scots. What a fabulous idea.

[Efraim]

C'mon guys, this guy Peter Cairn is just a troll, there's no point in answering his hooks.

"In sum, your fantasy world of a Scots military is just that..."

Well said. The very idea of an indipendent scottish military is quite balooney (to keep it diplomatically).

Many feudal phantasists drivel on such dream-thoughts, here in belgium we have many similar idiots in "Flanderen" and in "Walonien" :-P

Some (fortunately few) manage to drive the point through some Balcan wars where they kill each other just for the sake of it.

[Battlefront.com]

OK... locking this one up. It's gone waaaaaaaaaay off topic.

Steve