It is 2020. Scotland is now independent. You have been tasked by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to re-equip the Scottish Army. You must:
- ensure interoperability with NATO, EU, and Nordic allies.
- Keep within a budget of 5bn GBP (around 8bn USD)
Your missions:
- Air defense of Scottish airspace, including the Shetland Islands, Outer Hebridies, and Rockall
- Sea defense and fishery protection of Scottish waters
- Defense of the Scottish mainland
- Contribute to UN peacekeeping missions around the globe.
Map of Scotland.
Map of North Sea Offshore infrastructure
>>30477662
Wups.
Map of key infrastructure.
----
So, how would you defend Scotland, /k/?
>>30477689
Fucking hell, I'm retarded.
>>30477626
> 5bn GBP (around 8bn USD)
First mistake, did you look at the exchange rates lately?
>>30477626
This should be a nice thread
> Inb4 super tucanos
Try to get a deal on some gripens, leo 2A-something from the poles/germans/canadians. Ditch all L85s would be mandatory too.
Other than that, speedboats with dakka to keep with the trend of more with less.
Other than that, try to get some good deals from your allies, in order to "upgrade" your army step by step.
>>30477748
Problem being that Scotland is a liberal shithole that wants nuclear disarmament, and is in the worst state economically it has ever been.
Independently, it wouldn't manage much more than Northern Ireland's defence force.
>>30477626
The GDP of Scottland is of estimated $ 245bn. It would give a military budget of $4.9bn, if it would spend the required 2%. Being the leftist part of the U.K., it would surely be less.
>>30477758
>Problem being that Scotland is a liberal shithole that wants nuclear disarmament, and is in the worst state economically it has ever been.
Pretty much this. It'd field a half-assed local defense force with almost no air capability and no navy because London would have none of it. It'd fall into a sort of protectorate state under the UK, much like Ireland. There would be no "real" Scottish military.
You'd also have to deal with the issue of the long-standing tradition of Scottish involvement in the government and military of the UK.
Short answer: Scotland ain't going nowhere. Not over Brexit at least.
>>30477758
Not if scotland gets the control of it's oilfields back, it could be a huge increase of GDP, not to mention than an andvantageous taxation could drive more funds towards scotland, even more if they go full jersey/guernsey and become a tax haven.
Btw nuclear disarmament doesn't mean that you can't have a proper army.
7.9999 billion dollars worth of zu-23s dotting every inch of the coast and an oz of weed
The idea that Scotland will still be using the pound if they break free is laughable. They'll board the Eurozone train and end up as Ireland 2.0
Those Jock cunts don't deserve/want a proper military anyway.
>>30477814
It's still fucking stupid.
FA50. Cheap to purchase and maintain. Can be equipped with modern sensors and NATO compatible weapons. Capable in both the air to air and air to ground roles.
>>30477851
what the fuck
who fucking designed that and who approved its construction
>>30477963
It's progressive, anon. It's the pride of Edinburgh.
>>30477989
>>30477851
Dear lord that is the ugliest government building I have ever seen.. and I've seen some bad ones.
t.Canadian
>>30477626
>>30477657
>>30477679
>>30477696
Looks like I'm buying a few (6~8) cheap but capable frigates for the new Scottish Navy.
Equipping the new Scottish Army with Stryker combat companies / brigades and put in an order with Kel-Tec for enough RDB to equip them troops.
Give them organic air defense by getting some Roland & Stryker-AD turrets for the LAVs.
The airforce shall be eighty eight F-35A fighters, purchased in batches of 11 per year to spread out the costs.
And sixteen C-17 Globemaster III's to transport shit, purchased in batches of two per year.
>>30477887
looks like an F16/F18 lovechild
>>30477626
>- Keep within a budget of 5bn GBP (around 8bn USD)
The SNP's budget for defence is £2b, not £5b.
>>30477814
>Not if scotland gets the control of it's oilfields back, it could be a huge increase of GDP
1 - They won't.
2 - Oil isn't worth shit compared to even in 2014, when it economically still wasn't enough for Scotland alone
3 - The SNP fucking hate spending on defence and would never spend more than £2b.
>>30477887
Wouldn't be able to afford.
>>30478094
>Looks like I'm buying a few (6~8) cheap but capable frigates for the new Scottish Navy.
SNP declare they will only have 2 second hand old frigates with no ASM, nothing more.
>The airforce shall be eighty eight F-35A fighters, purchased in batches of 11 per year to spread out the costs.
Couldn't afford.
>And sixteen C-17 Globemaster III's to transport shit, purchased in batches of two per year.
1 - Couldn't afford
2 - C-17s aren't made any more after the last run. Last "new" builds have already been bought ahead of time.
>>30478094
You really think Scotland could afford 88 F-35's? Jesus. You are retarded.
In line with Austria, Hungary etc. 14-20 max.
>>30478249
More like 0.
Scotland would not be able to afford fast jets. At all.
>>30478094
>88 F35s, 16 Globemasters
Try "no airforce whatsoever"
Which is fine because Scotland doesn't need an airforce at all really. An army air corps with a few jets for air policing would be fine
>>30477626
>You have been tasked by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to re-equip the Scottish Army.
That will not happen, would it? SNP voters are opposed to all military expenditure.
>>30478094
Laughing so fucking hard right now
>>30477989
Am I the only one who sees the motif of dozens of handguns all over the sides of that building?
>>30478212
>£2 billion for defense only
>no new C-17s
Just fuck my whole plan up brother.
>>30478249
>>30478277
Well yeah, now that I get that the starting budget numbers is completely wrong.
Also, isn't it odd that a "Nationalist" party (SNP) is against military funding? Don't most nationalist parties have "nation stronk!" part of their platforms??
>>30477989
>It's the pride of Edinburgh.
Spoken like someone who doesn't live here.
>>30477989
It actually looks quite nice from that angle. Whoever did the detailing on those windows should be ashamed, though
>>30478341
It would have worked out just fine if the budget remained at 8 billion USD a year.
Canada was about to get 65 F-35As for 9 billion up front, I was going to break it down over 8 years of budgets for the purchase...
But now the SNP is breaking my balls.
>>30478386
And I'm damn happy that I don't.
>>30478299
Scotland doesn't need an army. The only conceivable foe would be England, or rather the remainder of the UK. In which case they'd instantly lose anyway.
Not bashing them or anything, it's just impossible for them to win so they might as well spend those billions elsewhere
>>30478387
Some catalan ape.
>>30478094
Holy fuck you're retarded.
>6-8 old Frigates
Completely dumb, what do they need Frigates for? Their armed forces will literally only be for defence, and Scotland has a crazy coast with lots of bays and islands. Anything bigger than Offshore Patrol Vessels and Corvettes are a complete waste of time for Scotland. They need to follow Sweden and FInland's model for a Navy.
>88 F35A and 16 C-17s
Holy fuck no. The Netherlands Armed Forces, with a budget of £6.7b, can only afford 37 F35's and 3 C17s. What makes you think poor as fuck Scotland can afford 88 F35s and 16 C17s?
>>30478385
A lot of left-wingers and literal communists have attached themselves to the SNP as the next hope for a People's Democractic Workers' Republic in Europe. They can 'reconstruct society' once a split occurs.
The SNP itself like to take advantage of these witless dupes and spouts a lot of left-wing rhetoric to keep them voting but their actual policies tend to the right. They wailed and whined about getting tax-raising powers for years - when the UK parliament gave it to them they refused to raise them.
>>30477626
Buy 100 F-35 and 500k M16A4(the best rifles in the world btw.). Throw out everything else cuz it's not needed
England (or the Rump UK, as pro-independence Scots were dismissively referring to it prior to the 2014 referendum) would be forced to provide equipment cheaply such as RAF Typhoons and then afterwards subsidize their upkeep. This is in line with the expectation that they would allow Scotland to continue using the GBP as their currency and to hand back control of the North Sea oil fields. To do anything else would be considered an unprogressive act against poor tiny helpless Scotland. This was the belief of the SNP.
>>30477626
The Tornado GR4 is fully the equal of the F-15E, and the F2 of the F-15C.
>>30478385
The SNP likes to style themselves "anti-colonial" nationalists - they are oppressed by the heartless exploitative imperialists in London.
Never mind that Scotland was a cheerful participant in centuries of British imperialism (Glasgow was even the "second city of Empire" in the 19th centruy), the Prime Minister who led us into the Iraq War, Tony Blair, is himself Scottish, and the England-Scotland union happened in the first place because Scotland was bankrupt from its own attempts to build its own colonial empire with blackjack and hookers - perfidious Albion made them do it!
>>30478678
Wait, they expected to just inherit billions in military equipment? Why would the UK not just take everything that wasn't nailed down back to England?
>>30477626
>It is 2020.
Okay
>Scotland is now independent
Lololololol no
>>30478385
OP, the SNP are the party than banned friggin' AIR RIFLES. Even by Bongland's shitty standards their gun laws are retarded and their defence policy isn't much better.
If we fix on the SNP though this thread isn't going to go anywhere. Let's just for the sake of argument assume that the SNP doesn't apply and the OP's scenario can go ahead as it was originally suggested.
What does Scotland need and how can they pay for it?
-Defence of oil fields.
-Inshore coastal police and coastguard patrols
-Sufficient blue-water ships to make a nominal contribution to NATO and air assets to patrol northern waters.
>>30478714
Protip: They would.
>>30478757
Even without the SNP the budget is wrong.
You're not getting a blue water navy on that budget, either. It would be a defence force at best.
>>30478580
The North Sea/Atlantic is not anything like the Baltic. I can imagine the Scots needing more substantial ships than the swedes if they want to patrol their waters
>>30478714
Because, they would be abused by progressive millennials all over the world who support Scottish independence, the name of England would be worth dirt on tumblr, twitter and facebook. Many English progressives could themselves not live with it, and would petition Westminster to bend over backwards for every Scottish requirement.
>scotlands largest bank is owned by the british government
>scotland has no military after England reclaimed it all
>scotland is run by socialist retards
>1.9/3 million scots have fled south of the border
yeah, scotland wont exist as a country if it leaves.
Scot
>>30478678
>>30478714
They were hardly going to give up potential demands before negotiations had even begun.
>>30478775
>It would be a defence force at best.
What's the problem? Have the Scots got many imperial ambitions left? Many enemies on the other side of the world
A small defensive military to patrol their waters and police their airspace is entirely sensible
>>30478861
riiiiight, and the 49% of scots who vote to stay in the UK will just be silent right? there wont be a mass exodus, right? The pro-uk government and media will suddenly do a heel-turn, right?
only 1.4 million scots and however many catalonians there are actually want Scots independence
>>30478923
The pro-remain Scots and those in the rest of the UK opposed to Scottish independence were regarded (and continue to be regarded) as being on the wrong side of history, and therefore not progressive. They can therefore be ignored, mocked, and even abused at will.
>>30478768
Even if somehow they were allowed to keep maybe 1 astute class sub and maybe a type 45 or two, they would never be able to afford the upkeep.
>hypothetical scenario asking /k/ how they would outfit a newly independent country in western Europe
>basically no serious answers, instead flocks of personally-insulted brits insisting scotland will never be independent
>>30478364
Guns everywhere in political center of liberal anti-gun country. Basically it's build to be hated. They will probably hold 2 minute hate ceremonies for members of SCOSOC in front of it.
>>30478945
you're not getting the point here. There is noone mocking and abusing them, because everyone, the EU included, wants scotland to remain part of the UK. Even the most liberal of cucks *nonscots* are not saying shit re: scots independence, because literally no one outside catalonia and scotland want it
>>30478946
>Scotland
>Wanting anything nuke-powered
>>30478955
Probably because its boring as hell. Can't afford any neat toys and its more fun just to laugh at the SNP and their ideals.
>>30477626
Why the fuck would anyone want to invade Scotland.
>>30478946
SNP is socialist lad they literally appose any form of war.
>>30478955
It's the English way!
a military would not be needed
what would you need to protect? 1.5 million people (post exodus) with 0 wealth
UK should rebuild hadrians wall if this happens, and just wait 20 years for scotland to collapse
as soon as a referendum comes back saying 'were out', all the scotish wealth will immediately flee south, where society is. No one wants to live anywhere in scotland other than edinburgh. 1 city a country does not make
>>30478980
wow fuck them right
>>30477963
I don't think you understand the mind set of the Scottish.
They literally are begging for migrants to come over 'if' they leave the UK.
Sturgeon has even offered to house them in her home.
They love anything progressive, liberal and multicultural.
Guns would be flat out banned and would have stricter laws then the UK.
>>30478982
[spoiler]WE WON[/spoiler]
>>30479004
friendly reminder that 1.7 million scots voted to stay, and are vocal as fuck about it
of course Sturgeon would need to invite millions of migrants over - millions of scots will have left south
>>30479003
Wars for a just cause are entirely necessary, as are those in self-defence.
>>30479017
I know i was too quick to react, there are decent scots mainly Ranger fans.
>>30477626
siphon the money and flee to Russia
So, if one was supposed to invade the U.K., is Scotland a good place to set up a beachhead, or whatever?
>>30479053
tis an empty wasteland mostly, so the logistics would fuck you over
so no
>>30479053
Sub bases are up there.
One of the UK's main jobs is to police the GIUK gap, so trying to get to the Scottish shore through there is basically playing right into a scenario they've been planning to fight against for decades.
>>30479060
You can drive from one end of Scotland to the other in a few of hours. Honestly this thread is full of the biggest imbeciles, /k/ is dead
>>30479085
lad... driving a car that does 300km on a single tank is far different from moving, and im quoting here >>30479053
a force to 'INVADE THE UK'
>>30478955
the honest answer is
> no fast jets
> no blue water vessels
> no heavy equipment
Scotland by itself has a GDP of about 200 billion USD, and likely lower after it leaves the UK due to economic disruptions.
SNP has said they have no intentions of meeting NATO spending requirements, so they'll spend 2 billion USD on defense at best (1% of GDP).
That's about the level of the Czech Republic or Romania. However, those countries have lower GDP/capita than Scotland, and out of a 2 billion USD budget, Scotland would have to spend far more on personnel and less on equipment.
The closest equivalent is probably New Zealand, a highly developed country with a 2 billion USD defense budget, and what do the Kiwis have?
> 2 Frigates
> 6 Patrol boats
> 6 P-3's
> 7 Transports
No heavy vehicles, the heaviest ground equipment operated by the RNZA is their 100 LAV's they bought from Canada.
>>30479053
Not really. Rough terrain on both sides of the border, no decent port facilities to keep follow-on logistics running and GMLRS batteries from Northumberland parked in the mess of hills, valleys and ravines that is border country ensuring that anything within 70km would be under continuous fire from the second it hit dirt.
>>30479206
>SNP has said they have no intentions of meeting NATO spending requirements
I love that they actually make that offical policy and yet expect to be a part of NATO.
Which they wouldn't be automatically.
one requirement of devolution will be an proportionate share of assets from the UK armed forces, and given the Russians' habit of sending Backfires or Bears over the Hebrides, interception capability from Lossimouth will be maintained at the very least because the rest of the UK doesnt want them getting overhead any more than the Scots do.
So the airforce is simple: probably a single unit of Eurofighters, maybe some Tornados. Those would operate out of Lossiemouth, and probably a reopened Kinloss or Leuchars as a secondary base. Training would come from Hawks, they're getting a bit old, but there seems to be no plan to replace the design with anything more than updated versions.
Non-fixed wing airforce will likely be focused towards naval rescue and SAR operations (Although SAR are mostly privatised now) likely a more pressing concern than combat on a regular basis - so Sikorsky S92As for that are likely, though there's still a handful of Sea Kings in use too. Most likely a mix of the two with the Sea Kings getting phased out over the decade. A small number of Westland Merlins are likely to end up being used for both long-range patrol and on naval vessels.
Navy, most likely a single type 45 and a pair of Type 23s inherited from the UK will be the main vessels into the 2030's. The main purchase could be coastal patrol vessels, but the direction of where devolution takes Scotland is the big question there - if a scandinavian link begins to form (especially pre-EU membership) then the Norwegian Skjold-class corvette / MTB are perfectly suited to particularly the west coast environment.
The biggest question about naval operations would be: Will the scottish government lease Rosyth to England, for the Trident forces, in return for access to the type 26 and offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) that are scheduled for 2019-2021? Hard to say. the SNP, and scotland in general are anti-Trident, but they're not daft enough to let the infrastructure there crumble.
None. Spend it all on shitty vanity projects.
>>30477626
>Nicola Sturgeon
>re-equip the Scottish Army
You mean you've been tasked to disband it
>Scotland is now independent
>Scotland
>independent
Could never happen. Modern day Scots would hurry to throw themselves into a prison. They'll sign a declaration of dependence to who ever hints at wanting them. As long as the Scots can have that sweet statist cock in their ass they're fine.
>>30479325
And where would Scotland get the money for all this? Even throwing out that there is no chance in hell of England giving this stuff away for free
>>30479325
Unless the Scots suck Westminster's dick during negotiations, the English aren't going to leave the Scots a single Eurofighter.
After all, the RAF doesn't have enough as is.
Even if the Scots got a squadron of Eurofighters, they don't have the budget to keep them running.
>>30477626
>- Keep within a budget of 5bn GBP
If the filthy Scots go independent, why would they still be using the pound?
>>30479325
>Will the scottish government lease Rosyth to England, for the Trident forces
sorry, brainfart. I meant will they lease Faslane.
(Rosyth: east coast, where the QEs are built. Faslane, west coast, where the subs are based)
>>30479354
>>30479357
The UK must give the Scots the Eurofighters. Anything less would be an unfriendly act against a sovereign nation, and be condemned by progressives and supporters of Scottish independence.
>>30479378
Do you actually believe what you're posting?
>>30479391
hes said the same bullshit 4 times already ITT, so probably, just ignore
>>30479391
It is the belief of supporters of Scottish independence.
>>30479354
>Even throwing out that there is no chance in hell of England giving this stuff away for free
As I say, one of the requirements of devolution going by the previous referndum whitepaper, was a proportionate share of assets - effectively, scotland gets dumped with about a 1/6th of the UK national debts, and in return gets a share of the military infrastructure, as well as other stuff like data from GCHQ which is in the interests of england to ensure security of the border. a lot of this got hammered out back and forth 2 years ago when the first referendum was being proposed.
So, in effect, it inherits most of that from the UK as part of the divorce. Most likely also leveraged by things like England (or whatever the remainder of the UK will be called, more accurately) getting a lease on Faslane for 100 years, or something similar. There's a lot of infrastructure there which means that the UK would be unwilling to lose access to it, after all, and it would likely be used as a bargaining chip in return for stuff that the scottish navy/airforce will then use well into the 2030's or longer.
the simple fact is, if scotland splits, its not going to see every UK asset being rolled down south into england. thats simply impractical.
>>30479423
>Thats simply impractical.
As is Scottish independence, really.
>>30479423
England cannot afford to lose those planes. They barely have enough already. Also, as many others have tried to tell you over the course of this thread, Scotland is both unwilling and unable to pay for such military upkeep costs, especially if they get that debt as well.
>>30479000
I'd love to live in endinburgh or glasgow or any other city. I'd love to live in the countryside more though.
>>30479423
>a lot of this got hammered out back and forth 2 years ago when the first referendum was being proposed.
..No, what happened was a white paper on what they wanted, not what would happen. For instance, they wanted to take over every military base in Scotland and get almost £8 billion worth of equipment.
Which is hilarious.
>>30479451
hence why it will most likely be a single squadron, and two old boats at most. the ideas of some people who've been saying they should get dozend of f35's etc are utterly laughable.
I'd actually wager that having secured rights to a type 45 by the terms of devolution, the first thing they'd do is trade it back to the former UK, alongside the rights to Faslane, in return for more practical stuff like continued cooperation with/from GCHQ.
>>30479441
>Thats simply impractical.
>As is Scottish independence, really.
Impractical, yes. but courtesy of Farage, Johnson, and Gove, its now almost an inevitability - if Article 50 is invoked, its unavoidable. Even those who voted no last time have moved more towards supporting it, because its absolutely clear now that england and scotland now have an almost irreconcilable difference in public opinion on political issues.
>>30479548
>its now almost an inevitability - if Article 50 is invoked, its unavoidable
No, not really.
Scotland isn't getting back in the EU. They're not wanted by Brussels and Spain specifically will veto them. Independence would just be a way of fucking themselves. Moreover, they don't even have the capability to start a referendum without permission.
>>30477626
Your airforce is going to need to be cheap as fuck for 2 billion pounds.
Caihong-4 drones, and the infrastructure to fly them. Utility helicopter, because they will be doing a lot more good as Air Ambulances, maybe a airfield or two to run them. Maybe some super cheap fighters to be a credible threat to aircraft.
Any Radar systems you could get.
It is going to cost over 1 billion pounds for field gear, ammo, weapons and salary for 10,000 combat infantry for one year. this includes shitty trucks and fuel to drive them to and fro. Possibly some Cougars and LAVs from Canada.
I have no idea what to say about a navy, other than obviously a amphibious capability.
This is also assuming that the British will take everything with them, they might leave a lot behind if they can not maintain them practically or it is not worth the money/hassle to move it, (field gear, weapons, fixed infrastructure)
>>30479558
> They're not wanted by Brussels and Spain specifically will veto them.
Spain do not want to, because of the catalan independence faction there. Saying that Brussels does not, however, is a plain lie. They've distanced themselves from the entire split, saying its a UK issue. However, Dr Kirsty Hughes, former senior political adviser in the European Commission has stated that they have had off-the-record considerations for a "holding pen" status for Scotland if it does split from the UK. (that was in the news just yesterday.)
And you have to remember, a majority of scots want to remain in the EU, and have again seen Westminster does not represent them. They have little to lose by independence - they're out of Europe against their will after all.
>>30477626
>Keep within a budget of 5bn GBP (around 8bn USD)
lol fuck no
more like three bottles of scotch and last night's haggis
>>30477626
>scrap all armed forces and submit to EU federalization
>accept the millions on refugees allocated to the Province of North Britainistan by Brussels
We will finally have a free and independent North Britainistan(The name Scotland is no longer in use due to the implied ownership that the Scots would have over the land, which is contrary to our goal of a multicultural Europe).
>>30479639
>a majority of scots want to remain in the EU
41%, actually.
>>30479548
no, they won't get shit. that stuff belongs to the uk and there is no way they're going to let that slip into the hands of a bunch of northern commies and from there into the eu. it is hard to describe how hard the scots will get fucked.
all of that shit is technically the queen's, and the regiments take their oath pretty seriously. it will be an absolute minority that stick around post indpendence, and the scots won't have the readies to pay for any of it anyway.
>>30479558
spain has already told them to fuck off. it's not happening.
>>30479712
a majority of registered and active voters then. happy?
>>30479548
On the face of it at least, but the SNP has internal issues of its own. The SNP garners probably the bulk of its support from disaffected Labour voters who were left out in the cold when Labour shifted its focus on winning over London. Perhaps a shorthand way of saying this is that 'a vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence'. Something that was borne out with the last referendum when their support was at an all-time high.
This time around Scotland's position is much weaker. The drop in oil prices makes fielding an economic argument for independence hard, not to mention that Sturgeon was pretty harshly rebuffed by Brussels this week when making probing gestures to negotiate on an independent Scotland remaining a member of the EU. It was made bloody clear they would have to re-apply with a fresh deal, which is a solid kick in the teeth that will delay a Scottish EU entry for years even in a best case scenario. That is a problem: Spain at least will VERY likely veto a Scottish ascension to the EU, and it is unclear if Brussels itself would be willing to take a nation that may well be operating at a net loss with the continuing issues that wrack the EMU. Italy is trying to put together a 40bn bailout fund, France still has stagnant economic growth and Greece needs another massive wad of cash to keep itself solvent by 2018 or its taking the Euro to hell with it. Not the best time for Sturgeon to poke her head in and ask if she can join the club.
That isn't to say that a referendum won't happen; it is entirely possible that Scotland will indeed vote to leave the UK, especially as the BREXIT issue has proven to be so divisive. I don't think it a coincidence that the majority of Sturgeon's approval rating comes from under 35s, the same demographic that is particuarly pro-EU, and she might well force a referendum just to appease them. It will be rather interesting to see how they react when she can no longer buy them off on talking points.
>>30479325
>So the airforce is simple: probably a single unit of Eurofighters, maybe some Tornados.
Tornados would be retired immediately, no point of keep burning money for non essential missions.
Socttish AF would be most likely dozen to 20 or so Typhoons, some Hawks, maybe few C-130's and maritime patrol aircraft that won't be inherited from RAF as there aren't any to inherit from them. Likely candidates for that would be C-295MPA or something similar.
>Navy, most likely a single type 45 and a pair of Type 23s inherited from the UK will be the main vessels into the 2030's.
Type 45 might be too expensive for them on long run and 23's are getting pretty old. Type 26 too is probably too big for their budget and would end up being a white elephant for 'em.
>The main purchase could be coastal patrol vessels
I'm more inclined to believe that mainstay of Scottish Navy in future after Type 23's are retired would be half dozen or so bit bigger variants of F2000 frigates/corvettes that are built in Scotland for export. Money to local economy and good enough for job. Add few smaller patrol boats to the mix and maybe couple minesweepers.
Also keeping their only relevant domestic defense industry alive could be a factor.
>>30479357
>Unless the Scots suck Westminster's dick during negotiations, the English aren't going to leave the Scots a single Eurofighter.
They would do so because it's also in Englands interests. Leaving Scottish airspace an uncontrolled free for all for Russian recon planes isn't in their interests.
>>30479451
>England cannot afford to lose those planes. They barely have enough already.
They can't afford to have military vacuum in their neighbor either. Dozen or couple dozen Eurofighters isn't really an life or death issue for RAF, especially if they benefit from it.
>>30479859
>>They would do so because it's also in Englands interests. Leaving Scottish airspace an uncontrolled free for all for Russian recon planes isn't in their interests.
Lots of other ways to prevent that other than handing over valuable fast jets.
>>30477814
I'd actually met with a member of the UK House of Lords a 2 years ago and they told me that if Scotland votes leave, then they plan on taking Shetland from the Scots
>>30479713
>spain has already told them to fuck off. it's not happening.
Spain isn't doing that well economically, if everyone else in EU votes in favor of Scottish membership... all EU projects that benefit Spain might start to get unfunded one by one. They would be told to accept Scots by everyone else in a polite way and some sort of face saving compromise for everyone.
>>30479889
>Lots of other ways to prevent that other than handing over valuable fast jets.
Few fighters are pocket change when you compare it to short term cost of having your nuclear deterrence based on a dockside with no maintenance facilities. All of Royal Navy nuclear submarines are based in Scotland, building a new base for 'em takes few years. It's more practical to lease it at least for decade or two, bunch of fighters with third or so life cycle spent and still aren't state those were meant to be in late 90's are non issue.
>>30478466
It's actually really nice, I went to uni there.
>>30479918
I highly doubt that a freshly independent Scotland will bring enough to the table to interest the EU into overturning a veto of one of its major players. The only real reason they'd do it would be to spite the rump of the UK. Bad idea. The Euro took a hit almost as bad as the Pound over the BREXIT referendum, suggesting that if one is hurt the other will follow suit. In this regard it is in the EU's best interest to see that the UK remains an intact and strong trading partner rather than inciting another financial panic by opening doors to Scottish Independence.
>>30479802
You're talking logic, numbers and facts though.
None of that matters to the SNP followers.
All it takes is one subtle boost from post-Brexit people and they've got it.
Trying to say "but these facts" etc are pointless. They literally don't give a fuck about them. It's the same as anti-gunners in the US, you can show them the evidence and numbers, and they'll immediately just find someone else and start spouting the same bullshit all over again even thought they KNOW they got proven wrong inside. Because facts don't matter to nats.
That was the catchphrase of the indyref. "Facts don't matter to nats", lots of people use it.
>>30480192
Sadly it seems to be the case that objective reasoning doesn't matter to them. They're happy enough to quote figures from sources that are biased ad nauseum; but such seems to be the way of the collectivist left. When faced with a conflicting viewpoint, attempt to silence. Should that fail, break out the authoritarianism...
In this there seems to be some overlap between the anti-BREXIT faction and the pro Scottish Independence part. The irony being, I have yet to see them substantiate their positions on both counts beyond vague feelings of 'muh economy' that are often loaded with hyperbole. RE: BREXIT, the fears of the Remain camp largely seem to be unsubstantiated, yet they're still banging on about economic doom even as the markets stabilise and trade delecations line up outside no 10 by the dozen on week fucking 1. In any other situation this would be considered a promising development. To them it is a calamity. I have to wonder if they ar not conflating 'economy' with 'ideological self interest'.
This is where I think a Scottish Indyref will skid into the gravel. If they can't make an economic argument promising, they're going to have to go with the straight-up bitterness, and reveal just how driven by their idological leanings they actually are. Might well drive a few of their supporters back into middle ground. BREXIT won not because of any particuarly stellar arguments in its favour, but because the population in general were so sick of being fed bullshit and told it was cake.
No wonder the political parties are in upheaval. What do they do now that lazy media-driven populism and talking points no longer work?
>>30480454
>In this there seems to be some overlap between the anti-BREXIT faction and the pro Scottish Independence part. The irony being, I have yet to see them substantiate their positions on both counts beyond vague feelings of 'muh economy' that are often loaded with hyperbole. RE: BREXIT, the fears of the Remain camp largely seem to be unsubstantiated, yet they're still banging on about economic doom even as the markets stabilise and trade delecations line up outside no 10 by the dozen on week fucking 1. In any other situation this would be considered a promising development. To them it is a calamity. I have to wonder if they ar not conflating 'economy' with 'ideological self interest'.
Good deal of British economy is in Financial sector, it's something that can easily relocate to stay inside EU if eventual EU-UK trade deal will make it preferable to them. It's just offices and lots well paid employees in suits.
Lots of European companies run their global operations from UK due to good connections to world. Same thing with non-European companies running their European operations. Add customs border between EU and UK, they might scale down their operations in UK to what just serves their UK clients. While London was ideal place due to best air travel possibilities and global business language... it might not be the best place for those companies after terms of Brexit become clear.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if EU will give positive incentive for corporations relocate from UK with things like tax refunds for few years.
Little instability immediately after referendum results is just a storm in a tea cup. It takes few years to see actual short to medium term results of Brexit. Long term results are another matter.
>>30479334
thats kinda cool
well considering the only people who want an independent scotland are lefties, and the fact its a liberal stronghold
They likely will decide they don't need a military
None of their oil is profitable, nor would britain let them keep it because fuck them
>>30481188
At the same time that can be countered by incentives from the UK for them to stay. Not to mention the possibility of free trade agreements diminishing the negatives of the Brexit on trade. After all, 63% of their imports are from Europe and no one is wanting to lose their piece of $420 billion in trade.
>>30478486
They will only form an Army to try and get Scottish military personnel in the British Army to vote Yes to independence. Promising easy jobs and to be a higher rank to fill up the new Army. Obviously that didn't work.
>>30479918
>if everyone else in EU votes in favor of Scottish membership
Noone will because all of them have seperatist or potential seperatist problems
>>30479918
>They would be told to accept Scots by everyone else in a polite way and some sort of face saving compromise for everyone.
That'd only inflame the Euroskeptics by proving them right. Not to mention that the Eastern European nations would make sure that Scotland does everything they had to do to get membership while many more would oppose their joining as a risk to receiving economic help for their continuing issues, and Germany and France would be loathe to add on another nation in need of financial support. Then you've got all the concessions that EU member nations would want out of Scotland, namely access to fishing areas.
Call up Putin and see what he wants and what he'll give you for it.
A pretty moderate fleet of modern interceptors, with a couple of tactical bombers and transport planes should be good for an air force. Retain strong interception ability for incoming chopper and tactical bombing strikes, and have the ability to, while not necessarily strike out, strike targets within Scotland's border once invaders inevitably break through. F-15s or F-16s, depending on what you could grab, are pretty reliable and starting to be phased out in the USAF.
Can't really compete with the British navy on that budget, so it may just be best to concede naval defense and put out token coastal fleets to dissuade piracy or other small scale shit. Britain won't allow any other country's navy, no matter how friendly, that close to them with an intent to harm, so they'd be the only threat in that regard.
Could probably grab a good amount of basic kit from private companies. The US might be a little hesitant to sell more advanced weapons, but you could likely get everything you'd need to kit out.
Honestly, the best bet would be friendly relations with Britain, even separated.
>>30481280
>Noone will because all of them have seperatist or potential seperatist problems
Separatists might be beneficial to EU as whole as it would lead to weaker and smaller member states. That is pretty much perfect situation for federalists.
Pretty much half of European separatist movements are in Spain, more than that if you only count ones that have even remotely viable movements. In rest of Europe there are Flanders, Scotland, Corsica and maybe northern Italy. Huge majority of separatist movements have problems in just keeping their political parties registered. Some of 'em probably have more support in their host countries as those are autonomous areas that mostly just drain tax money from their host country.
>Know a cute Unionist Shetlander girl who loves the Navy
>Was in tears over Brexit because it's given Ireland and Scotland an excuse to leave the UK
>In a few years the United Kingdom her family fought for might not be something she can be proud of anymore
>>30481662
>>30479859
>>30479423
Many Scots wish to see a credible Scottish armed forces post-independence. They believe English taxpayers will give it to them and pay for its maintainence, because so far, the English have been cucks who have indulged the Scots' whim.
Scots are all raging socialists and think guns are evil.
So we will disarm our military and turn them into a humanitarian aid force. We'll send ships to Africa and the Middle East and transport NEW SCOTS straight to Glasgow.
where we will house them in homes seized from racist Celtic and Anglo natives.
The Uniform will be the Kilt. Not because of any sense of Scot tradition or nationalism. No, that would be xenophobic and patriarchal. We wear the kilt because pants are sexist.
>>30477758
>liberal shithole that wants nuclear disarmament
That doesn't mean general military disarmament
(Also, most Scots are simply NIMBY on the issue, by a narrow amount.)
>>30477851
Scotland couldn't join the Euro even if they wanted to.
Scotland has a de-facto opt out [refuse to join ERM2, as Sweden does.]
I was hoping when I opened this thread I'd find people actually acting within the confines of the given scenario, instead of arguing over the viability of said scenario. It had the potential to be interesting.
>>30477814
nigger tier countries base their government budget and economy around oil/gas.
It doesn't work unless you are Saudis and can just crap that shit out in massive amounts for cheap and control market share.
Look at Russia and Venezuela.
They are both broke because oil prices bottomed out.
>>30478980
Curious point of note (and also technically rebuttal): SNP MPs backed the Falklands war.
Their position isn't anti-war, it's just built a lot over the political coup for them that was Iraq. That's why the SDF wasn't "never war" but "never war without UN approval"
>>30479206
>SNP has said they have no intentions of meeting NATO spending requirements
Source?
Their position in 2014 was
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/11/9348/10
>maintaining the commitment to a budget for defence and security in an independent Scotland of £2.5 billion
Which is well above NZ. (I'm too lazy to go back and check whether it's also above 2% of projected GDP.
>>30479558
>>30479713
>Spain specifically will veto them
No it won't.
If Spain did that, far from calming Catalonia it would inflame it.
The official Spanish government position is that Catalan independence can't happen because it's unconstitutional. Similarly, Kosovo can't go because it's unconstitutional.
If Britain accepts Scotland leaving (it would, or else Scotland wouldn't be leaving) then that would be constitutional. Spain vetoing Scotland in those circumstances would demonstrate that the constitutionality argument is bullshit (let's be honest, it is.) and that Spain are just being nasty (let's be honest, they are.)
Spain doesn't want to face the question at all, hence why they won't outright refuse to veto, but once Scotland has left and Spain is forced to bite the bullet, they've no other option.
The Spanish veto meme needs to die.
>>30485403
The general argument (which is lost on a lot of people) in Scotland is that it should control it's own oil so that it can invest the money elsewhere so that when it runs out or prices crash they aren't totally fucked.
Unfortunately for them, people only started listening to that idea when supplies were already past peak and the price was on the edge of going to shit.
Amusingly: Typical British politics.
>>30485523
Spain vetoing entry to the EU wouldn't be "unconstitutional" in any way.
Scotland is in such a budget deficit that its easily spun to be just not wanting another Poland leeching off the EU at a difficult time.
>>30486510
>Spain vetoing entry to the EU wouldn't be "unconstitutional" in any way.
That isn't the point I'm trying to make.
Spain's excuse for not letting Catalonia go is in short that it would be against the Spanish constitution.
Refusing Scotland entry as punishment for independence granted "constitutionally" from Britain [i.e. with London acceptance of that independence.] would demonstrate that Spain doesn't give a fuck about constitutionality and just doesn't want to lose Catalonia.
>>30486510
>Scotland is in such a budget deficit that its easily spun to be just not wanting another Poland leeching off the EU at a difficult time.
Spain is one of biggest leeches in EU.
>>30479206
Hey, you forgot our C-130Hs that we brought in 1965 that Lockheed want to put on display because they're still fucking flying
>>30486591
>only 9 member states actually contribute more than they take
>that leaves 19 who actively drain
ALL HANDS-ABANDON SHIP
>>30479916
>house of lords
>of any importance whatsoever
It's a meme institution mate.
>>30486660
To be fair, the fast majority of drains are decimal-point-error tier tiny.
>>30486689
>fast
vast.
and with that, i know it's time for bed.
>>30486689
>>30486591
According to that, he contributing countries add €26.64bn
The leeches remove €40.86bn.
Seems like a sustainable system. UK leaving also puts the contribution to the EU almost down to just €20bn
>>30477657
Army: small professional force + paramilitary force organized into units ranging from company to battalion, each unit tasked with defence of certain area, training and equipment from the army (FALs rather than L85s), some NH90s and Longbows operated by career personnel.
Navy: number of small & fast craft with decent firepower like Hamina class of the Finnish Navy + funding construction of multi-purpose civilian vessels that can be turned into naval auxiliaries in a day or two.
Air force: Number of Gripens for multirole fighter duties, weapons systems include RBS-15 anti-ship missiles.
>>30486750
edit: Army also equipped with mobile RBS-15 launchers, artillery provided by self-propelled heavy mortars, incorporate medium mortar (~81mm) platoon into each infantry company, making infantry company organization something like 3x rifle platoon, 1x mortar platoon and 1x command/supply platoon, add anti-tank platoon to companies that are more likely to encounter tanks than the rest.
Spend entire budget to research a bulletproof kilt and louder bagpipes
Arm entire army with Steens and the air force with budget hang gliders, The navy can function with inflatable boats from the local superstore, for force projection on sea we can have a few bouncing castle armed with homemade mortars
Put every EU refugees into a mandatory 5 years military service in the new Black watch regiment
this way we will be ready if our economy should go bonkers
Fear what you cant comprehend
>>30477626
Nothing.
An independent scotland under sturgeon will be a cesspool of liberal, handwringing pacifists who wont spend a single pound on defence or even lift a finger to defend themselves
At most it'll be a few muslim, transgender, turkish monopeds armed with pepper spray and rape whistles
>>30486715
EU is funding system is a complicated as fuck, but in addition to membership fees of member countries it gets customs payments from imports, it effectively taxes it's own employees, interest payments to ECB and European investment bank... plus all sort of payments from non-member countries that participate in some cooperation ran by EU.
>>30486750
>some NH90s and Longbows operated by career personnel.
They would be likely to inherit two roughly same size transport helicopters as NH90 from UK, both cheaper and more functional than NH90. Merlin has some issues, but on general level it works pretty fine. S-92 military versions are as dysfunctional as NH90, but civilian version UK operates for maritime rescue is just fine.
NH90 is one of most fucked up military programs in recent history. We are talking about readiness rates worse than beaten to death 30 or 40 on brand new helicopters, delivery delays of more than fucking decade and ridiculous cost overruns.
Longbows on their proposed budget? Not going to happen.
>Navy: number of small & fast craft with decent firepower like Hamina class of the Finnish Navy
Shallow draft low endurance coastal fast attack craft purpose built for Baltic archipelagos for patrolling North Sea and Atlantic... sounds like a cunning plan.
>Air force: Number of Gripens for multirole fighter duties, weapons systems include RBS-15 anti-ship missiles.
Endurance might be an issue here as well, not to mention money.
>>30486886
>Shallow draft low endurance coastal fast attack craft purpose built for Baltic archipelagos
I mentioned Haminas as an example of the kind of size/firepower -combination I was thinking of
Independent Scotland would be Baltic-tier at best. So some light boats, light infantry, and maybe a few Helos.
>>30486897
Size is exactly the issue. It limits endurance, even if hull design would be ocean worthy.
Generally your ideas are pretty stupid on all level. One good idea in it pushing for single missile for ships, fighters and coastal artillery.
In reality Scottish priority number one due to geography is at sea. That means almost all beans will go to Navy and Air Force, that would have some fighters, but even air forces priority would be maritime patrol operations. Ground forces being veeeeeeeeeeeery distant third.
It's safe to assume that they have lost everything if they have to fight on land. A brigade and bunch of support units for it as professional part of ground forces and one or two more brigades as part time militia.
Personally I would ditch branches as it's we are building entirely new organization, make whole organization unified command and focus on missions.
>>30486966
>Size is exactly the issue. It limits endurance, even if hull design would be ocean worthy.
fair enough
>A brigade and bunch of support units for it as professional part of ground forces and one or two more brigades as part time militia.
sounds about right
>Generally your ideas are pretty stupid on all level.
at least I didn't suggest stuff like ~90 F-35s and ~20 C-17s (what would Scotland even do with that kind of airlift capability?), not to mention formation of mechanized infantry brigades that someone else also suggested...
>>30487049
>what would Scotland even do with that kind of airlift capability?
then again, I guess being able to say that you can airlift half of your army in one go might be cool...
>>30477626
Army:(1 mech-cav brigade/1 support brigade/1 artillery regiment/1 territorial reserve brigade)
-60 Leo2s
-300 Mowag Piranha V
-24 L118
-18 AS-90
-15 Rapiers
-1-2 batteries of S-400/Patriots
Army Aviation:
-12 Westland Wildcats
-8 Westland Puma or NHI NH90
Air Force:
-18+6 Gripens/trainers
-2 Saab 340 AEW&C
-6 A400Ms
-4-6 P-3s or P-8s
Navy:
-3-4 Type 23s (replaced later by 3 Type 26s)
-2-3 Type 214 subs
-6 River-class patrol vessel (they are built in scotland)
-10 inshore patrol boats
-1 replenishment ship
-8 Westland Merlins
-8 Westland Sea Kings (SAR etc.)
>>30479351
It's a hypothetical you inbred
Any aircraft the Scots take from the RAF would rely on the English keeping them flying though.
The Tornado depth maintenance is at Marham, and Typhoons are depth maintained at Coningsby.
The F-35 will again be depth maintained at Marham.
Do you think the Scots will throw money at new facilities and staff to keep them flying? I don't think so. They will once again rely on English generosity.
>>30486826
>Phantom
Oh baby. I pass one at the gate at Coningsby every day and that shit still looks awesome.
>>30489590
>Tornado
Too old, I don't think scots would take it, considering it has 5-10 years to live at max.
They could take 15 eurofighters though, that's all they need, like Austria. Equipping a single fighter base won't be so financially crippling. And they can take them for maintainence to Germany for maximum banter.
I'd so Switzerland and begin by training and equipping a majority of the population with 7.62 real Nato Battle Raifus. Obviously only a small piece of the plan.
>>30489655
I suspect they'll still make use of the Typhoon Maintenance Facility at Coningbsy because it doesn't rely on military personnel.
Indeed the majority of engineers there myself included are civilians.
The Germans don't have such a set up including logistics that are dedicated for that role.
The reason the RAF's Typhoons are upgraded far past their European counterparts is because of that infrastructure.
>>30489696
Honestly, as I see it, if matters get too complicated, leftie scottish politicans might give back the fighters back to the UK altogether and just lease 14 Gripens from Sweden, considering that they want to get close to the nordics. It's not like they need more than 12 fighters and 3-4 surplus P-3 from the US for north sea patrolling.
>>30489819
I suspect an independent Scotland will rely on England for North Sea patrols, with a small QRA force of their own perhaps consisting of as you say a small number of Gripens.
>>30489841
It really depends on the post-secession relations. I suspect that brits will feel betrayed and would frown upon military cooperation for the next 1-2 decades. And, besides, even 5-million Scotland can afford several P-3s and offshore PTs.
>>30479558
>>30479639
>>30479713
If the EU ref showed us anything, people will vote for an idea even if it's impractical based on anything from belief in an idea to 'kicking the establishment in the teeth' and the SNP does seem to be a party capable of exploiting the current mood. At this point Sturgeon is pretty much a lefty Farage and just like Farage she knows that appealing to the disenfranchised is a winning strategy. The inmates are running Bongland asylum and it's honestly quite terrifying to be here watching it all in motion
>>30486826
>ifscotlandwon.webm
Ironic, given the first line is "First salvo hits NATO military targets" when your point is that Scotland would be completely devoid of military targets and quite possibly a NATO non-member.
