Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Geo-politics of Scotland. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    In this threat I am going to go through an independent Scottish state from a Geo-political point of view. This will be unbiased, however I will add that I am a Loyalist Reactionary High Tory of the Church of England.
    First Geography. Internally Scotland has three distinct geographical regions the Highlands, Lowlands and Islands. This means the only arable land in Scotland is in the Lowlands, that building infrastructure from north to south is hard and expensive. The majority of the population of the Highlands lives on the coast making trade easier. The Islands shelter the western Highlands from the weather and allow Glasgow to be the only capital rich part of Scotland as it is able to import food from the Lowlands and export production through the Clyde river. Externally Scotland has sea on three sides and a land border to the South. Further afield Scotland borders the Island of Ireland, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Denmark and Norway. Given its geographical position Scotland has the potential to be a major power in the North Sea.

    Demographics. Scotland has mixed but deteriorating demographics, its population will stablise and start falling within 20 years without increasing immigration. Until that time though Scotland would be in a decent position with a slightly growing population and steady immigration.

    Culture. Scotland is partly atheist and partly Christian, with the main Christian faith being Protestant. This basically means Scotland will lean towards secularism. Scotland's language is English with a regional Scottish accents, which is a distinct and uniting factor. Environment of Scotland is similar all over in terms of weather.

    Economics. The economy of Scotland is different from Glasgow and everywhere else. Glasgow is Scotland's export center along the river Clyde. It is the key to Scotland's economy success or not. The Highlands and Islands provide fishing, livestock, tourism, stone, water and hydro-power. Also oil and gas exports from the North Sea allowing Scotland to make extra investments and giving it greater economic security. So it could maintain a large financial sector in Edinburgh with high government spending. However this would a risk and a drain on resources.

    Military. Scotland must have an army capable of defending its Southern border with England and mountain combat both for attacking and defending against England. The air force must have the ability to protect Scotland's air space and intercept foreign aircraft and shot them down. Also the ability to support the army in its actions. The navy needs to able to protect Scotland's territorial waters, its energy resources, its fishing rights and its ports from enemies from Russia, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, England and Denmark, with support from the air force. Scotland needs defensive capabilities from air, land, sea and sub-surface to protect itself and its interests as best it can.

    Politics. Scotland will have contrast between cities and more rural area's in terms of policies. It will also have differences based upon geography and economics. This will lead to a Conservative party based around the Lowlands and Glasgow, likely a Progressive Conservative party. Also a nationalist Liberal party like that of the SNP. A third party like the Labour party which will decide elections between the nationalist Liberals and Progressive Conservative parties. The aim for Scotland politically will be to balance between its economic center in Glasgow and make sure everywhere else is able to trade with it and maintain themselves with government spending.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Military. Scotland must have an army capable of defending its Southern border with England and mountain combat both for attacking and defending against England.
    You wot?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    This will be unbiased, however I will add that I am a Loyalist Reactionary High Tory of the Church of England.


    On an unrelated point , your posts are always enjoyable to read, and make this board a better place. It's like having Thomas Hobbes randomly coming in and giving his take on things.







    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I find it hilarious that william walker is able to claim his views are 'unbiased' given his extremely forthright views on things. I suspect he doesn't understand what the word means.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I find it hilarious that william walker is able to claim his views are 'unbiased' given his extremely forthright views on things. I suspect he doesn't understand what the word means.
    He's as right as anyone, I would say. Given his world view he has constructed an assessment of Scotland that doesn't unfairly disadvantage Scotland against England, even though he clearly favours England.

    Of course you may not accept his world view and therefore some of his conclusions, e.g. that Scotland would need a military defensive and offensive capability against England.

    However this is true of everyone, who constructs predictions and interpretation, both honest and dishonest, on the basis of some underlying theory about the world which is never quite the same as anyone else's. In the case of william walker it is just more obvious because his world view differs from the mainstream more than most peoples'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    He's as right as anyone, I would say. Given his world view he has constructed an assessment of Scotland that doesn't unfairly disadvantage Scotland against England, even though he clearly favours England.

    Of course you may not accept his world view and therefore some of his conclusions, e.g. that Scotland would need a military defensive and offensive capability against England.

    However this is true of everyone, who constructs predictions and interpretation, both honest and dishonest, on the basis of some underlying theory about the world which is never quite the same as anyone else's. In the case of william walker it is just more obvious because his world view differs from the mainstream more than most peoples'.
    He isn't biased in that he favoured England over Scotland, he is biased in his choice of topics that he thinks need to be brought up while discussing Scottish independence.
    He is so stuck in his imperial/belligerent mindset that the very thought a small country like Scotland would not deem military power to be important doesn't come through his mind. Had he really been unbiased, he would have brought up other topics that are much more important in the eyes of the Scottish people: the environment (an issue right-wingers seem to forget a lot), social welfare, education, healthcare, protecting local cultures, ...
    Maybe I'm just naive and stupid, but I tend to think that if Scottish nationalists wants their independence, it's probably because they believe they can improve people's lives and build a fairer society - not because they want to attack and overthrow the English government in order to create the Scottish Empire.
    The reason I really like william walker's threads is because they never fail to amuse me - he really seems to think international relations and governments work exactly like a Risk game.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The England-Scotland border can't be defended so Scotland must either retreat back to a place than could be defended or move the fighting forward away from its border. So this means the ability to attack into England. Military planning shouldn't really take into account political pandering, only what is need to survive a war with the only country you have a land border with.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    He's as right as anyone, I would say. Given his world view he has constructed an assessment of Scotland that doesn't unfairly disadvantage Scotland against England, even though he clearly favours England.

    Of course you may not accept his world view and therefore some of his conclusions, e.g. that Scotland would need a military defensive and offensive capability against England.

    However this is true of everyone, who constructs predictions and interpretation, both honest and dishonest, on the basis of some underlying theory about the world which is never quite the same as anyone else's. In the case of william walker it is just more obvious because his world view differs from the mainstream more than most peoples'.
    He was claiming that the UK had to come out of NATO in order to orepRe for a French and German attack.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    The England-Scotland border can't be defended so Scotland must either retreat back to a place than could be defended or move the fighting forward away from its border. So this means the ability to attack into England. Military planning shouldn't really take into account political pandering, only what is need to survive a war with the only country you have a land border with.
    Or accept that there never would be a war between England and Scotland....


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Or accept that there never would be a war between England and Scotland....


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Don't say that AJ12. You'll be bursting the fantasy bubbly that some of te SNP supporters have created for themselves.

    After never having left Scotland in their lives, they're convinced that everything in somehow differnent down south.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    The England-Scotland border can't be defended so Scotland must either retreat back to a place than could be defended or move the fighting forward away from its border. So this means the ability to attack into England. Military planning shouldn't really take into account political pandering, only what is need to survive a war with the only country you have a land border with.
    Without the more isolationist Scotland in military terms, it is much more likely that Scotland would barely have a military and England would increase spending.

    Though personally I'd want a defense agreement in which Scotland agreed to have no army and in return England would protect it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Or accept that there never would be a war between England and Scotland....


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The likelihood is that it is possible for their to be a war/conflict between England and Scotland at some point. In any case you build military capabilities to stop war and not to fight them. If Scotland has the capabilities to hurt England in a war/conflict such an event is less likely to happen.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    The likelihood is that it is possible for their to be a war/conflict between England and Scotland at some point. In any case you build military capabilities to stop war and not to fight them. If Scotland has the capabilities to hurt England in a war/conflict such an event is less likely to happen.
    You had an interesting thread laying out some of the geopolitics Scotland would face if it was independent. That's enough if a stretch. But in top of that for Scotland to end up in a war with England? It would't happen. It's about as likely as Wales invading russia.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    You had an interesting thread laying out some of the geopolitics Scotland would face if it was independent. That's enough if a stretch. But in top of that for Scotland to end up in a war with England? It would't happen. It's about as likely as Wales invading russia.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I was talking about what Scotland's military strategy would have to be, it would have to include a possible war or conflict with England. Given the importance of the border region and England being the only country with a land border with Scotland. I never said their would be a war, I was saying the Scottish military must plan to defend its territory.

    Oh now you are just being daft.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I see everybody has totally missed out what I am saying would mean Edinburgh giving up its place as a financial center and capital of Scotland. The capital and base of political power would move to Glasgow. Also the demographics of Scotland mean that it would have to actively seek immigrants giving them incentives to move to Scotland. This could cause problems as the people already living in Scotland would want those same incentives. These would be the major Geo-political trends underlying Scotland for the next 30 years. Scotland's military strategy within this context is of less importance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Without the more isolationist Scotland in military terms, it is much more likely that Scotland would barely have a military and England would increase spending.

    Though personally I'd want a defense agreement in which Scotland agreed to have no army and in return England would protect it.
    Scotland wouldn't need a large military 2% of GDP would be enough. 3 ASW corvettes, 4 SSK submarines, 6 minesweepers, 3 large patrol boats, 6 small patrol boats and a multi-purpose replenishment ship with a dozen helicopters would be all the navy would need. All of this could be bought second hand and refitted or built in Scotland. The number needed to run the navy would be no more then 2,500 people in two bases with say 3 other stations.

    The army would have to be small 5,000 regulars with 2,000-3,000 reservists and territorials. It would have to give up its heavy armor tanks, mobile artillery and bomb resistant vehicles in favour of artillery and maneuver with infantry. This would make the Scottish army much more effective in its own environment. Of course the capabilities of the SAS and SBS would need to be maintain and training altered to fit Scotland's needs.

    Scotland's air force need fighter jets a 12-16 to protect its air space. Likely aircraft being the F-16 or Typhoon second hand. After which the air force role would be to support the army and navy, so maritime patrol aircraft, UAV's, SAR helicopters and radar stations for the navy. For the army light attack helicopters, light transport helicopters, medium transport helicopters for artillery, specialist helicopters for the army special forces and tactical transport aircraft. Total number of aircraft 80 with 3,200 personnel on 3 air bases and 3 stations.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Opiece)
    He is so stuck in his imperial/belligerent mindset that the very thought a small country like Scotland would not deem military power to be important doesn't come through his mind. Had he really been unbiased, he would have brought up other topics that are much more important in the eyes of the Scottish people: the environment (an issue right-wingers seem to forget a lot), social welfare, education, healthcare, protecting local cultures, ...
    Very few people ever deem military power important during a lengthy period of peace. It is only when some aggressor starts using force against them that they fall back on hoping that more sensible heads have been planning for such a scenario.

    Anyway, things like the environment and "protecting local cultures" don't win elections.

    Maybe I'm just naive and stupid, but I tend to think that if Scottish nationalists wants their independence, it's probably because they believe they can improve people's lives and build a fairer society - not because they want to attack and overthrow the English government in order to create the Scottish Empire.
    Bluntly, no. Nationalism has never been about the betterment of people: it's about power and division. One of the interesting scenarios that was never really faced in the Scottish referendum was that the old "it's the economy" cliché didn't really matter here.

    Realistically the economic case for the UK was never in question. True, the SNP devoted time to invent some rubbish rebuttals with the hope of pushing over some undecideds, but realistically it was never a great plank of their campaign. Why? Because most of the people inclined to that mindset would happily see Scotland - or any other nation where such a movement exists - poorer if their central objective was satisfied.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Don't say that AJ12. You'll be bursting the fantasy bubbly that some of te SNP supporters have created for themselves.

    After never having left Scotland in their lives, they're convinced that everything in somehow differnent down south.
    Sorry, I must have missed something. Did any Scot come here and say he wanted independence only to declare war on England? The only person to have mentioned this idea is William Walker, who doesn't seem very Scottish to me.
    You're just trying to blame the SNP for absolutely anything even when it's not relevant at all. If you're going to make strawman arguments, make them convincing at least.

    (Original post by william walker)
    The likelihood is that it is possible for their to be a war/conflict between England and Scotland at some point. In any case you build military capabilities to stop war and not to fight them. If Scotland has the capabilities to hurt England in a war/conflict such an event is less likely to happen.
    No. The likelihood is that it is completely irrealistic for there to be a war between England and Scotland in the foreseeable future. If Scotland was to become independent, the likeliest thing would be that Scotland would make a military agreement with England. Because, you know, we're not in the 19th century anymore, and the Scottish government would have much more important things to spend their money on.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Very few people ever deem military power important during a lengthy period of peace. It is only when some aggressor starts using force against them that they fall back on hoping that more sensible heads have been planning for such a scenario.

    Anyway, things like the environment and "protecting local cultures" don't win elections.



    Bluntly, no. Nationalism has never been about the betterment of people: it's about power and division. One of the interesting scenarios that was never really faced in the Scottish referendum was that the old "it's the economy" cliché didn't really matter here.

    Realistically the economic case for the UK was never in question. True, the SNP devoted time to invent some rubbish rebuttals with the hope of pushing over some undecideds, but realistically it was never a great plank of their campaign. Why? Because most of the people inclined to that mindset would happily see Scotland - or any other nation where such a movement exists - poorer if their central objective was satisfied.
    Please. An independent Scotland would be a small, unimportant country with only one border with England. Apart from the UK turning fascist once Scotland leaves, I don't see any reason to believe Scotland will face a war in the fifty years to come. If that were to happen, you know, there are institutions that would sort this problem out, like the UN, the EU or other European countries.

    And really, you should stop acting like the SNP was a racist, dangerously nationalist party. If you want to see violent independence movements, you should come to Corsica, the Basque country or Northern Ireland (in the past, mainly). The SNP is the teddybear of independence movements, and also one of the most progressive and open-minded. The reason the SNP wants independence is because they feel the British government does not correspond to the views of the Scottish people, and even more so today. So yes, in the end, it's about them building what they believe would be a fairer society. You believe the environment and the protection of local cultures do not win elections. I'd say the Scottish people beg to disagree.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    How do you know that a war between England and Scotland is unrealistic for 50 years? Or for that matter how do I know a war between England and Scotland would happen. I don't know and you don't know. The point is that the military must plan for the worst case against the greatest threat, create a strategy and build the means to fight it. England is the only country in a position to invade Scotland by land, so the Scottish army must plan for it, create a strategy and build the means to fight it. If England doesn't care about Scotland and no war happens then great the Scottish military has done its job.

    I can tell you that the US and Canada have strategies to fight war against one another, the France and Germany do, the Britain and Ireland do. So Scotland having a strategy and building the means to support it is perfectly fine.

    The institution which would sort out a war/conflict between England and Scotland would be the US navy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Opiece)
    Sorry, I must have missed something. Did any Scot come here and say he wanted independence only to declare war on England? The only person to have mentioned this idea is William Walker, who doesn't seem very Scottish to me.
    You're just trying to blame the SNP for absolutely anything even when it's not relevant at all. If you're going to make strawman arguments, make them convincing at least.



    No. The likelihood is that it is completely irrealistic for there to be a war between England and Scotland in the foreseeable future. If Scotland was to become independent, the likeliest thing would be that Scotland would make a military agreement with England. Because, you know, we're not in the 19th century anymore, and the Scottish government would have much more important things to spend their money on.



    Please. An independent Scotland would be a small, unimportant country with only one border with England. Apart from the UK turning fascist once Scotland leaves, I don't see any reason to believe Scotland will face a war in the fifty years to come. If that were to happen, you know, there are institutions that would sort this problem out, like the UN, the EU or other European countries.

    And really, you should stop acting like the SNP was a racist, dangerously nationalist party. If you want to see violent independence movements, you should come to Corsica, the Basque country or Northern Ireland (in the past, mainly). The SNP is the teddybear of independence movements, and also one of the most progressive and open-minded. The reason the SNP wants independence is because they feel the British government does not correspond to the views of the Scottish people, and even more so today. So yes, in the end, it's about them building what they believe would be a fairer society. You believe the environment and the protection of local cultures do not win elections. I'd say the Scottish people beg to disagree.
    You're an SNP political activist and I claim my £5.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.