Rossy Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/mod-announce-closure-of-8-sites-in-scotland-1-4280592 Fort George gone. Glencorse gone. No navy presence in Fife. You could have seen this coming after the wee titbit Scotland has been thrown about maybe building ships. Maybe. Sometime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 56 sites closing. 8 of them in Scotland (14%). Good to see the load being shared on the broad shoulders of the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 8 minutes ago, Rossy said: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/mod-announce-closure-of-8-sites-in-scotland-1-4280592 Fort George gone. Glencorse gone. No navy presence in Fife. You could have seen this coming after the wee titbit Scotland has been thrown about maybe building ships. Maybe. Sometime. I imagine a lot of folk in army, and with family in army voted no ................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 If this is all about concentrating into better, more suitable facilities then Edinburgh Castle would be first on the list. Of course it's nothing to do with it continuing to be a British Army base which means that the butchers apron has to fly from the top of the castle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 (edited) I imagine Fort George will remain open as tourist attraction? Can't be doing that bad if the gov can splash £100m on maritime patrol aircraft to replace the perfectly useable Nimrods that were scrapped.... Edited November 7, 2016 by Toepoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted November 7, 2016 Author Share Posted November 7, 2016 Somewhere in the north of Scotland there's an 'ardent Unionist' on a forum, making posts saying that all of his family and friends used to be Tories but now they're considering voting SNP..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flumax Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 2 hours ago, Rossy said: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/mod-announce-closure-of-8-sites-in-scotland-1-4280592 Fort George gone. Glencorse gone. No navy presence in Fife. You could have seen this coming after the wee titbit Scotland has been thrown about maybe building ships. Maybe. Sometime. Good . I don't want to have a military led economy . Immoral Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 15 hours ago, Rossy said: Somewhere in the north of Scotland there's an 'ardent Unionist' on a forum, making posts saying that all of his family and friends used to be Tories but now they're considering voting SNP..... Murrayfield_Teuchter8287 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacTaz Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Let me explain just what is going on here . Most military bases in UK are on sites with a very high property value , London, South East etc. Citadel in Plymouth is also a prime location. What will happen is the Tories will flog off these sites to their rich public school buddies to build executive housing for their other rich public school cronies . The sites will go for a song ostensibly because they will need to be "leaned up " due to environmental issues. So big bucks for all concerned. My old Alma Mater and spirituaal home of my Corp Arborfield nr Reading well within the commuter / stockbroker belt has been demolished and a new village built ....... again executive homes , not affordable housing ... which incidentally means housing 10% cheaper than the area average ... so really still not affordable for most ! The Tories are selling off our country to their chums and getting away with it , whilst the soldiers and their famiies are being stuck in basically condemned accomodation !! Part 2 of the plan includes the destruction of the Regimental recruiting system ie local regiments recruiting from specific areas reducing the British Army to one amourphous mass much like the US Army. Numbers instead of Regimental names . The reason for this is very simple . When and it is a when and not an if ... when the people of UK have finally grown a pair and revolt against Westmidden they will be able to send in the troops without having to worry about local loyalties. What they fail to grasp is British soldiers aren't quite that easy to fool. I have also never met a single British Soldier who would allow himself to be used in such a way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacTaz Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 On 07/11/2016 at 10:53 PM, flumax said: Good . I don't want to have a military led economy . Immoral And a banking led economy isn't ?? cAPITALISM is possibly the most immoral concept on the planet ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 On 11/7/2016 at 10:53 PM, flumax said: Good . I don't want to have a military led economy . Immoral Hear, hear! Peace dividend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErsatzThistle Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 4 hours ago, MacTaz said: Let me explain just what is going on here . Most military bases in UK are on sites with a very high property value , London, South East etc. Citadel in Plymouth is also a prime location. What will happen is the Tories will flog off these sites to their rich public school buddies to build executive housing for their other rich public school cronies . The sites will go for a song ostensibly because they will need to be "leaned up " due to environmental issues. So big bucks for all concerned. My old Alma Mater and spirituaal home of my Corp Arborfield nr Reading well within the commuter / stockbroker belt has been demolished and a new village built ....... again executive homes , not affordable housing ... which incidentally means housing 10% cheaper than the area average ... so really still not affordable for most ! The Tories are selling off our country to their chums and getting away with it , whilst the soldiers and their famiies are being stuck in basically condemned accomodation !! Part 2 of the plan includes the destruction of the Regimental recruiting system ie local regiments recruiting from specific areas reducing the British Army to one amourphous mass much like the US Army. Numbers instead of Regimental names . The reason for this is very simple . When and it is a when and not an if ... when the people of UK have finally grown a pair and revolt against Westmidden they will be able to send in the troops without having to worry about local loyalties. What they fail to grasp is British soldiers aren't quite that easy to fool. I have also never met a single British Soldier who would allow himself to be used in such a way. Ladies and gentlemen, Enoch Powell has risen from the grave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weekevie04 Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) A bit harsh, Ersatz. I've always found MacTaz a good dude, if not a bit deluded when discussing the British military. As for the Tories flogging off 'our' bases. I'm all for it. When, or more like, if, we ever become a proper country, I'd like to see us have as minimal as possible army/defense force as possible - a bit like Ireland - let's just keep the peace and have a basic defense force. As for folk who wanted to vote yes, but voted no due to some form of civic duty to the British army then who gives a shit. We all tried to warn the naevoters (was hoping for a pun on naysayers) that what is happening - not just to the military, but everything, roll that Alan Bissett video - would happen, but oh well, seems most likely from polls that the majority of the people who live in Scotland seem to support Scotland being an insignificant region of this world rather than a less than insignificant country in the world - even if there are 'only' 5.3 million people in Scotland (bang average) at least if any other Libya, Iraq came up we could at least make it, UK 1 - Scotland 1 at the prospect of bombs and more wars. Edited December 22, 2016 by weekevie04 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Where are they relocating the "troops"? While I'm quite pacifistic (spellcheck says that's a word?) if we (Scotland) are paying for an army we don't necessarily want or need, we should at least get some of the economic benefits of having them based in Scotland. Mactaz also seems to make a valid point from his point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) 28 minutes ago, sbcmfc said: Where are they relocating the "troops"? Wherever they have decided to invade next? Edited December 22, 2016 by Orraloon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckielugger Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 An independent Scotland would certainly need decent defence forces...a big fleet of patrol vessels...a sizeable air force...and at least enough troops to retake and hold Berwick... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flumax Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, buckielugger said: An independent Scotland would certainly need decent defence forces...a big fleet of patrol vessels...a sizeable air force...and at least enough troops to retake and hold Berwick... Nah. Comparable force and spend to similar sized European nations. Ireland, Slovakia, Croatia, Denmark, Finland. http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp Scotland already has patrol vessels and planes http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Compliance/resources/Vessels Not sure what extra would be needed. Coast guard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffer Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Armed forces in an independent Scotland really depends how we want to project and involve ourselves in global affairs. Do we want to be a partner in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, and to what extent? What sort of capability do we need to be able to do that? It could easily be argued that we should have two naval units each with a helicopter carrier, couple of frigates and associated support / defence vessels, and have one in our own waters and one on deployment on humanitarian missions at any time. For the Air Force if we want to be a full partner in NATO we have to be able to patrol our own large and strategically important airspace (which the UK barely does at the moment). Otherwise being part of NATO will likely involve other countries having planes based in Scotland to do that job. just taking a direct comparison with Denmark or any other country doesn't work as we have different strategic issues in relation to armed forces. I think we'd have a higher percentage spend relative to GDP than most, but I'd have no objection to that and a lot of the money would work its way back into the wider economy as it wouldn't be pissed away on trident or spent on the south coast of England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuNsTeR Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 (edited) On 22/12/2016 at 2:59 AM, weekevie04 said: When, or more like, if, we ever become a proper country, I'd like to see us have as minimal as possible army/defense force as possible - a bit like Ireland - let's just keep the peace and have a basic defense force. i would like to see a Independent Scotland capable of defending itself against foreign towards our country in other words a Self Defence Force i would like to see us purchase new tanks T-90MS and new aircraft like SU30s or 35s Eurofighters are extremely costly to maintain and i would like to see our navy have a mix of frigates and corvettes i cannot see Scotland being in Nato ... Nato would stipulate that we would have to house the rUK's nukes in faslane Edited December 23, 2016 by FuNsTeR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antidote Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, FuNsTeR said: i would like to see a Independent Scotland capable of defending itself against foreign towards our country in other words a Self Defence Force i would like to see us purchase new tanks T-90MS and new aircraft like SU30s or 35s Eurofighters are extremely costly to maintain and i would like to see our navy have a mix of frigates and corvettes i cannot see Scotland being in Nato ... Nato would stipulate that we would have to house the rUK's nukes in faslane I've no idea why Scotland would need tanks in a defensive role, unless England were to attack. On another thought. I'm sure Alan is happy that we are paying more to the MoD for less jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, antidote said: I've no idea why Scotland would need tanks in a defensive role... If Scotland were to be invaded do you think tanks would help in repelling other tanks? Might not be english ones. They can drop them from planes now and everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antidote Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 7 hours ago, thplinth said: If Scotland were to be invaded do you think tanks would help in repelling other tanks? Might not be english ones. They can drop them from planes now and everything. Fighter jets, attack helicopters, anti tank missiles and artillery are just as, if not, more effective. Do you mean smaller scimitar type tanks dropped from planes? The great tank battles of the wars have been on vast open plains, Sahara, Kursk etc. Scotland doesn't have that type of terrain. I can see the sense in having some smaller type tanks in an Independent Scotland, but not huge numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunchy Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 5 hours ago, antidote said: Fighter jets, attack helicopters, anti tank missiles and artillery are just as, if not, more effective. Do you mean smaller scimitar type tanks dropped from planes? The great tank battles of the wars have been on vast open plains, Sahara, Kursk etc. Scotland doesn't have that type of terrain. I can see the sense in having some smaller type tanks in an Independent Scotland, but not huge numbers. Ye don't think Abraham size tanks would be of much use to us but certainly smaller more mobile armour. Fighter jets wouldn't be effective against tanks you need ground attack jets such as the a10 warthog which are designed to hunt tanks. Apache helicopters would be great as well as long as it's in the current UK configuration. Our ground forces should be a smaller but highly trained army with a larger reserve force. We only need it for defence so having a large standing army is of no use to us. Navel wise I would keep a couple of helicopter carriers such as HMS ocean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antidote Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 4 hours ago, hunchy said: Ye don't think Abraham size tanks would be of much use to us but certainly smaller more mobile armour. Fighter jets wouldn't be effective against tanks you need ground attack jets such as the a10 warthog which are designed to hunt tanks. Apache helicopters would be great as well as long as it's in the current UK configuration. Our ground forces should be a smaller but highly trained army with a larger reserve force. We only need it for defence so having a large standing army is of no use to us. Navel wise I would keep a couple of helicopter carriers such as HMS ocean Not much to argue about there. Fighter jets, maybe the wrong description there, nowadays are capable of carrying out multi roles now, like air to air combat as well as ground attacks with guided missiles. They go armed with a variety with weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunchy Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 2 hours ago, antidote said: Not much to argue about there. Fighter jets, maybe the wrong description there, nowadays are capable of carrying out multi roles now, like air to air combat as well as ground attacks with guided missiles. They go armed with a variety with weapons. Sort of it all comes down to what weapons configuration they have on. An air to air will have all sparrow and sidewinder missiles where an anti tank will have brimstone missiles and only a couple of sidewinders for defence, then there is the pathfinders who would carry something along the lines of alarms or shrikes to take out the anti air systems to make a path for any heavy bombers. These of course are just examples of what might be carried as I said it all depends on the role the airframe is needed for it also means that being multi role they are not great at one thing but ok at several. The tornado is a great example of this. It's not a great fighter or ground attack aircraft but does well enough at both to be viable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.