All of Britain's nuclear weapons -- its only contribution to a Western nuclear deterrent -- are housed at the Royal Navy's base on Scotland's West Coast. A "yes" vote would throw into question the future of the Trident nuclear program, which consists of four Vanguard-class submarines armed with ballistic missiles on lease from the United States....ADDED: "Is it really imaginable today that if part of the United States genuinely wanted to secede, it would be stopped with the kind of violence we saw in the American Civil War?"
Also in dispute: an independent Scotland's ability -- and willingness -- to contribute to Western military coalitions, which have become ever-more visible as the U.S. rallies support behind its efforts against Russia and ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria....
In rejoining [NATO] Scotland would need to commit to spending 2% of its gross domestic product on defense spending, which given the uncertain economic outcome of an independence vote appears unachievable....
Perhaps the greatest fear for the United States is that a successful independence movement in Scotland could spark further movements in the rest of Europe. Potential breakaway regions in Spain and Belgium are already eyeing the Scottish vote carefully.
September 18, 2014
Why the U.S. opposes Scottish independence (though we can't say much about it).
CNN's Kevin Liptak explains.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
57 comments:
Amazing - 2% is a drop in the bucket to spend for a nation's defense yet the writer sees it as an insurmountable obstacle.
Maybe the Scots can supply bagpipers and drummers to any war efforts.
Scapa Flow is in the Orkneys - old Norse territory - and the Orkneys along with the Shetlands and the other offshore communities are threatening to secede from Scotland and rejoin the British Commonwealth, if the idiot Scots go through with this.
This article is more B.S.
Lots of NATO nations don't make that 2% - I believe that the US, UK and Poland are the only ones to exceed it.
The British Army still has battalions of Ghurkas from Nepal, and also allows Irish citizens to join the Bristish military. Even post independence, I could see them keeping a couple of Scottish regiments even without Scotland. The Black Watch at least. The infantry component of the British Army would certainly be the poorer for the loss of the Scots.
I would be hard to imagine the D-Day invation without Lord Lovat and Bill Millen.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1304179/D-Day-piper-Bill-Millin-played-Allied-troops-landed-beaches-dies.html
How about sparking independence movements in the good old U.S.A.?
Bill Clinton has weighed in on the No side. He speaks for the next President of the United States, without actually speaking for her, or for the current President.
If I were a Scot, my first instinct would be to vote Yes for independence. But I would vote No, because I would not want my rights to end at the River Tweed when they extend now over the whole of Britain.
How much of a material difference would this make regarding our military adventures? In the Iraq War I think the British pledged about ten thousand troops to help us out (and we'd committed over a hundred thousand)--how many fewer would they have committed if Scotland was no longer part of Britain?
As for the bases in the North, I'm sure London could work out a long-term lease deal to keep them, or otherwise move them south. I dont' think this would have all that much effect on the U.S.
Plus, Scotland will still be pretty closely tied to England, culturally and economically--and if their economy suffers as a result of independence the Scots are likely to try to strengthen those ties. That's how they got the union in the first place.
The interesting effect will be that on the remainder of Britain--would this inspire or discourage the Welsh or other groups to secede, will the British economy improve (as Scotland paid out less in taxes than it received in services) and will the Conservative Party in the long run grow stronger from the loss of several comfortable Labour seats.
I doubt this will inspire Texas to secede.
The naval base is a non-issue IMHO. The 4 subs at Clyde could move, as the 6 Attack subs currently are moving to Portsmouth, Hampshire.
AJ, only a few of the current NATO countries are meeting the 2% requirement. The UK is one.
@holdfast - they don't have Scottish regiments any more. They have Scottish battalions. The old regiments have been shrunk down to battalion size and consolidated in the new Royal Regiment of Scotland. This radical downsizing happened under Blair/Brown due to the way social entitlement spending ate up the British budget. The British Army is still very strong for its size but it is extremely undersized at this point.
My first instinct is a big YES, because Freedom! Down with the British! Etc.
There are definately other issues, the pound being the main one. If I were there, that would be my main concern about voting Yes. Of course, the Brits are pretty much using that as their main bargaining chip, by threatening the Scots that they won't have it, which kind of makes you understand why the Scots want to leave in the first place! The brits have handled this all wrong and their 'No Thanks' campaign is hilariously terrible.
The oil stuff seems ridiculous, as a pro-unity argument - oh no! One day you won't have quite as much extra money coming in. At least the oil money could give them time to get things together for moving on as a free country.
TCR James:
Since you seem knowledgeable on the subject of Great Britain's military, can I ask a small, off-topic question that's been bugging me?
- Royal Air Force
- Royal Navy
- Royal Marines
- British Army
Why?
JPS--is the reason that the Army was created by Parliament, and the other branches were created by the crown?
And closer to home...French speaking Canada
As another blogger (Diplomad II) points out, the biggest loss from Scottish secession would happen to the Labour Party, which is heavily supported by Scots voters.
"And closer to home...French speaking Canada."
I remember hearing from some teacher once that if Quebec ever did secede, the rest of Canada would ask to join the U.S. as states. I don't really think that's true, but I wonder why he thought so.
F said...
As another blogger (Diplomad II) points out, the biggest loss from Scottish secession would happen to the Labour Party, which is heavily supported by Scots voters.
If we ignore the fact that Cameron will be kicked out of power by the English voters for being so stupid as to allow the vote in the first place.
Personally I would like to see secession succeed. The Scots have had a rough time in recent decades and need to change the direction of their country. Independence might be a solution, sticking with Britain clearly isn't.
"If we ignore the fact that Cameron will be kicked out of power by the English voters for being so stupid as to allow the vote in the first place."
And replaced with a real Tory.
The cool part is that it's a vote.
Didn't BH0 already voice his opinion that the UK shouldn't leave the Common Market.
I guess he doesn't say anything about this as BH0 doesn't give a damn about military issues.
I believe in general we prefer more European cohesiveness and integration because it removes complexity. Scotland breaking off might not be a huge loss, since England's power would not really diminish, but the ripple effects might inspire additional secession movements in Spain, France, Italy, etc. All of this would be tolerable for us if the EU were to grow into a superstate with a single foreign and defense policies, but that's not going to happen.
One thing I've wondered about is whether the Conservatives are secretly rooting for secession. I know they are the more traditional, monarchist party, but the electoral consequences would be stunning. With secession, a sizable chunk of Labour support would suddenly evaporate.
Exactly. The greatest fear in America is that states will want to secede. Despite the token compensatory measures offered by the Federal government, including Obamacare and welfare, the progressive devaluation of capital and labor through trillion dollar deficits and a trillion dollar welfare economy continues. Worse yet, the moral hazards created by the Federal government continue. The sovereignty of states and civil rights of American citizens are violated by the Federal government's disinterest, or selective interests, to honor the terms of the Constitution. This is what the Scottish are facing: displacement and debt without recourse.
I do enjoy indulging in fantasies of anti-federalist successionism sweeping the EU. The further we get away from any kind of world government the better of we'll all be.
Juvenile rebellion. Scotland will be poorer if they secede.
Suppose that it were shown that by the use of Big Data in elections (meaning a combination of cheating and address lists) Metro would always outvote the rest of the state and the nation and by the use of judges and regulations they would oppress the rest - then would secession be the answer? And would the Army side with the Metro oppressors?
But why would secession seem to be the answer? - why not an understanding of the new techniques of Big Data?
In other words you need a cause to rally round. The problem in the US is just that IT is creating a new terrain which the Democrats are exploiting to cheat their way to electoral victory in Metro areas and in statewide and national elections and so everyone else is not represented. But this is a technology lag, not a cause.
If "Yes" wins, the leftist Scottish Parliament leaves the UK and the UK moves center-right while Scotland's two leftist parties try to out-left each other. Inevitably, this will fail, and Scotland will move center-right in response.
Win-win.
Sgt- thanks - that is a sad statistic that so few ante up even a small 2% to national defense. No wonder Putin is licking his chops and likely planning more "acquisitions".
If the state is black, then I can see the U.S. attacking for anything.
Once the lefty welfare state Scots are out of the picture, maybe we get a real ally in the UK.
I think Texas retains the right to secede at any time.
I'm torn on whether I'd like to see it succeed or not.
On the one hand, I'd like to see it succeed and watch it turn into Cuba as the leftists take over.
On the other hand, I feel bad for all the folks who will suffer because of that.
The "Two State " solution is strange. That will leaves Northern Ireland as the last Dominion. Maybe the Boomer Subs in Scapa Flo can be re-based in Belfast.
Belfast was once a major shipbuilding harbor. The Titanic was a Belfast built ship. But Submariners would not like their sub named HMS Titanic.
"But Submariners would not like their sub named HMS Titanic."
If the Titanic had been a sub, all those people would be alive today!
If the Scots pull out they will also pull out 40 plus labour MPs from the English parliament. There will never be another liberal government in England.
The Scots have a few issues they will have to deal with. They have no currency and will be at the mercy of the hated English as far as monetary policy goes if they try to use the GBP like Panama and El Salvador use the USD. They wish to be a part of NATO but also wish that the nuclear subs which port and refuel and are maintained in Scotland were not nuclear subs. Their current idea is a don't ask don't tell when the nuclear subs steam into port. Like many seeking a divorce for emotional reasons they want to sleep with someone else but still use the checkbook and credit cards. This will not happen.
Finally, they bring in less in taxes than they use, including the revenues of the NS oil.
God knows I love the place and the people but they often fire before they aim.
@JPS -- the reason is that the army regiments were originally raised locally. There are royal regiments while others are named after a region or a nobleman who raised them. The army as a whole was really a collection of local forces called together.
ALso, specialist forces were usually hired directly by the monarch -- hence the services to the Army are usually the "Royal" something (like the Royal Artillery)
The Navy was the purview of the Monarch. Hence the Navy and Marines are Royal
The Air Force started out was a specialist force within the army, hence it was Royal.
"Is it really imaginable today that if part of the United States genuinely wanted to secede, it would be stopped with the kind of violence we saw in the American Civil War?"
God I hope so. Today we see the war as being about slavery, but many of the hundreds of thousands who chose to walk into history's first modern war did so to protect the Union. It's not optional.
If you're a citizen of the United States that's final. It properly should take another Revolution to break it apart.
The Scots are fools if they vote for independence. They will be worse off independent than staying in the UK for any forceable future. England will always be their number one export market and number one supplier but as an independent they won't have the clout over England that they do under the UK. There are costs of being a sovereign nation that don't scale so easily. Embassies cost money and whether you have five million or fifty two millions its still one embassy per country you have diplomatic relationships plus consulates plus UN presence. National defense if it has any meaningful ability to defend has costs that must be born notwithstanding the size of the country.
The English will also suffer since their costs when it comes to these things and others don't get get reduced either by Scotland leaving. Its a lose-lose for both.
For example, as partisans on the left and right love to remind us, all the states are the recipients of enormous amounts of "investment"/spending extracted at gunpoint from American citizens living in other states. If Vermont (as a fairly implausible example) decided to go join Scotland in some kind of demographic-dead-ender-socialist-internationale, then the citizens of the remaining 49 would have every right to say "that's nice, but my parents and my children paid for your roads and your infrastructure and your farms, so get the hell off my property."
Questions of ownership and historical partnership are important and are often, inevitably, rightly, settled by force.
The Shetlands also have a nationalist movement-a movement to quite Scotland. The Scots didn't allow them the vote for independence. Must be about the oil.
I read that the EU won't let them use the British pound for some reason, so they would have to go back to the Scottish groat.
(As in: "Traitor Scot, sold his King for a groat!")
"The Scots have had a rough time in recent decades and need to change the direction of their country. Independence might be a solution,"
Sure. It would give the let another place to run their experiments now that the USSR is gone.
The "British Army" may not be royal but the doctors are the Royal Army Medical Corps and have been for as long as I know.
I don't know why the British don't use the term "Royal Army" to refer to their Army, but all modern militaries owe a lot of their organizational concepts, including promotions based on merit rather than by birthright, to Cromwell's New Model Army - which was decidedly NOT royal! In fact, they drove King Charles' army from the field and set into motion the chain of events that led to the King's beheading. The King, of course, had his own army, but if it were disbanded following the Royalist defeat at the Battle of Naseby, then the institution we call the British Army would not have royalist roots, but parliamentarian roots.
It's an interesting question, certainly! I don't know for sure.
The Scots want to move out of Mom's basement, but still want her to pay the bills.
Ah, I missed Anthony's comment above. Yes, the Regimental system is very strong in the British Army, and it does have its roots in units that were raised locally and fought together. This has its downsides, since if a unit got its guts torn out by the roots, you would have individual towns and cities hit exceptionally hard. But this is still the case even in the US when it comes to deploying National Guard and Reserve units.
And then bought themselves another king for a dukedom or two!
I've always liked the classic British names for their army units--"Coldstream Guards", "Royal Hussars", "Lancastershire Rifles"--sort of an adventurous ring to them.
The Shetlands also have a nationalist movement-a movement to quite Scotland. The Scots didn't allow them the vote for independence. Must be about the oil.
The think that the “Yes” vote proponents haven’t really addressed is that the oil is actually an asset of the United Kingdom not Scotland and while it’s possible that they’d get some of it, it’s going to be at the sufferance of the people they just voted to leave. Kind of like leaving your spouse and having your soon to be ex-father-in-law serving as the judge at your divorce.
Swings and roundabouts. The regiments themselves may not be "royal", but the regiments belong to the officers, and the officers belong to the Monarch!
The Oath of Allegiance is to the Monarch, and to senior officers appointed by the same. Not a word about parliament.
Brando,
"I doubt this will inspire Texas to secede. "
I'm with you there, but just dream with me for a moment--what if it inspired Massachusetts or New Jersey to depart?
Russia and Syrian terrorists
now:
Russia and ISIS terrorists
After their first draft was rejected, they're working on changes.
I wasn't aware that submarines were incapable of moving and being based anywhere.
Moreover, it seems that not getting entangled in the latest NATO or US military adventure is a feature.
I'm all for yes, because it would be an amazing and amusing cock-up for years to come.
Salmond's argument for independence is mostly pie in the sky. England financially would be better off without the Scots. Salmond told the Scots they can have a socialist paradise like Sweden while Sweden is abandoning its "socialist paradise." (disclaimer: I am 1/8 Scots (Presbyterian), 3/8 Irish (Catholic), and 1/2 Swedish.)
@Brando -- Most Americans have no idea how sparsely populated Western Canada is; 15 seats in the House of Representatives would be wildly optimistic, although 8 to 10 Senators would be possible. Ontario would never go for it. Remember also their First Nations people (Indians) were instrumental in killing the Meech Lake Accords and the last attempt by Quebec to secede. Now that Canada is prospering, forget it altogether.
I'd be fine with New Jersey departing so long as they gave the U.S. an easement for a ten lane highway connecting NYC, Philly, and Wilmington.
I figure Canadia prefers its independence from us--and after hundreds of years of British then self-rule, there's just nothing in it for them to give that up, even if they lost Quebec.
Secession in general just seems like the thing that makes sense when (a) your region is alien and distinct enough from the greater whole that the population feels natural distance from it; (b) the benefits of independence significantly outweigh the benefits of staying put; and (c) the greater whole is not more determined to use force to keep you in than you are to get out.
Before Americans can entertain the prospect of regional secession, we'd have to sort ourselves India-style, where Hindus migrated to modern India and Muslums migrated to modern Pakistan.
Contiguous homogeneous regions would have to be carved out of America for blacks, Evangelical whites, non-Evangelical whites, Hispanics, and Muslims. Then the country could happily and peacefully disunite.
I haven't seen any polls covering what the *other* parts of the UK think about this. Will the English, for example, actually be upset if Scotland takes off? That seems hard to believe.
What's next, Welsh independence? Where is a King Longshanks when you need him?
Post a Comment