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

Geo-politics of Scotland. Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    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.
    Do the Americans and Canadians have strategies for fighting wars against each other?

    You'll have to let me know how you have access to such top secret information. The Americans and Canadians I used to work with must have kept that one incredibly quiet.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Do the Americans and Canadians have strategies for fighting wars against each other?

    You'll have to let me know how you have access to such top secret information. The Americans and Canadians I used to work with must have kept that one incredibly quiet.
    You know that nations have plans and strategies to fight their bordering countries. It isn't something major or a problem, it is the military doing its diligence. So it is only logical that the US and Canada have strategies to fight one another. Same with France and Germany or with Britain and Ireland.

    My point about this thread is Scotland having such a strategy against England is nothing out of the ordinary, it isn't imperialist or nationalist if an independent Scotland does such a thing.

    You know about the US war plan Red against Canada, also the Canadian counter strategy against the US plan. Or the British plan to invade the USSR, then the USSR's plans to stop such an invasion. Or the Chinese plan of how they would deal with the US if a war broke out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    You know that nations have plans and strategies to fight their bordering countries. It isn't something major or a problem, it is the military doing its diligence. So it is only logical that the US and Canada have strategies to fight one another. Same with France and Germany or with Britain and Ireland.

    My point about this thread is Scotland having such a strategy against England is nothing out of the ordinary, it isn't imperialist or nationalist if an independent Scotland does such a thing.

    You know about the US war plan Red against Canada, also the Canadian counter strategy against the US plan. Or the British plan to invade the USSR, then the USSR's plans to stop such an invasion. Or the Chinese plan of how they would deal with the US if a war broke out.
    Can't say during my time in the army I came across any plans to fight allies.

    You've made an assumption......and got it wrong.

    Plan red was written 90 years ago.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Opiece)
    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.
    Shockingly I believe our defence policy has to look beyond five decades, and indeed on being rather more cautious than taking the word of some bloke on the internet who "don't see" any possibility of a threat to our national security.

    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.
    "Progressive and open-minded"? We're talking about a nationalist party here. We're talking about breaking up progressive unions for the sake of homogeneity and basing polities on the antiquated view that people of different cultural backgrounds cannot possibly work together. Forgive me, but those are certainly not the sort of words I would associate with that repugnant ideology or the Scottish movement that supports it.

    The most laughable assertion in this piece must surely be that the "reason the SNP wants independence is because they feel the British government does not correspond to the views of the Scottish people". In case you haven't noticed, their raison d'etre does not - and never has - corresponded with the views of the Scottish people, who have consistently demonstrated a settled will to be part of the United Kingdom. If the SNP tried to make that case against the British state, they'd be guilty of spine-shuddering hypocrisy.

    I'm being rather forthright on this, and it isn't simply out of unkindness or being an ********, it's genuine frustration that people continue to peddle nationalism as if it is some sort of cheerful, pleasant force. It isn't. Of course, it comes packaged with a friendly face, it tells you it will restore your confidence and your pride, it tells you all would be fantastic save for the interference of "them" - just like every sort of demagoguery that's held any sort of sway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Can't say during my time in the army I came across any plans to fight allies.

    You've made an assumption......and got it wrong.

    Plan red was written 90 years ago.
    My assumption is correct. Just because you didn't know anything in your time in service doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    My assumption is correct. Just because you didn't know anything in your time in service doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    What I'm saying is I wasn't aware of them because they didn't exist.

    Do some reading up what J5 stands for.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    What I'm saying is I wasn't aware of them because they didn't exist.

    Do some reading up what J5 stands for.
    All I got was a load of stuff about the Jackson 5.

    How do you know they don't exist?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    All I got was a load of stuff about the Jackson 5.

    How do you know they don't exist?
    I served. You didn't. I'm saying they don't exist. You're saying they do.

    Somebody who worked in a planning environment within the military isn't aware of plans to start a war against close allies.

    Some sock puppet says they exist.

    Who to believe?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You're an SNP political activist and I claim my £5.

    I'm such an SNP political activist that I'm French and member of no party. Let me know next time you wanna bet on something!

    (Original post by L i b)
    Shockingly I believe our defence policy has to look beyond five decades, and indeed on being rather more cautious than taking the word of some bloke on the internet who "don't see" any possibility of a threat to our national security.



    "Progressive and open-minded"? We're talking about a nationalist party here. We're talking about breaking up progressive unions for the sake of homogeneity and basing polities on the antiquated view that people of different cultural backgrounds cannot possibly work together. Forgive me, but those are certainly not the sort of words I would associate with that repugnant ideology or the Scottish movement that supports it.

    The most laughable assertion in this piece must surely be that the "reason the SNP wants independence is because they feel the British government does not correspond to the views of the Scottish people". In case you haven't noticed, their raison d'etre does not - and never has - corresponded with the views of the Scottish people, who have consistently demonstrated a settled will to be part of the United Kingdom. If the SNP tried to make that case against the British state, they'd be guilty of spine-shuddering hypocrisy.

    I'm being rather forthright on this, and it isn't simply out of unkindness or being an ********, it's genuine frustration that people continue to peddle nationalism as if it is some sort of cheerful, pleasant force. It isn't. Of course, it comes packaged with a friendly face, it tells you it will restore your confidence and your pride, it tells you all would be fantastic save for the interference of "them" - just like every sort of demagoguery that's held any sort of sway.
    Sure, let's ignore their whole manifesto and forget that independence is only a means to an end!
    I must be stupid, really, because I can't see how the independence movement can be related in any way to what we commonly define as "nationalism". Sure, they want Scotland to become a nation-State. Other than that, there really is little to no similarity: they're not racist, authoritarian, segregationist, discriminatory, etc. They actually are a democratic, progressive, moderate left-wing party that wants Scotland to become independent. It doesn't mean they believe in the inner superiority of the Scottish people.
    Whether you want to believe it or not, a good chunk of the people that support Scottish independence do actually want to build a fairer society. That is also the reason why some foreigners, such as me, actually support Scottish independence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I served. You didn't. I'm saying they don't exist. You're saying they do.

    Somebody who worked in a planning environment within the military isn't aware of plans to start a war against close allies.

    Some sock puppet says they exist.

    Who to believe?
    Where did I say we had plans to start a war with our allies? I said we likely have strategies in place for a war with Ireland and a number of other countries.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Opiece)
    I'm such an SNP political activist that I'm French and member of no party. Let me know next time you wanna bet on something!



    Sure, let's ignore their whole manifesto and forget that independence is only a means to an end!
    I must be stupid, really, because I can't see how the independence movement can be related in any way to what we commonly define as "nationalism". Sure, they want Scotland to become a nation-State. Other than that, there really is little to no similarity: they're not racist, authoritarian, segregationist, discriminatory, etc. They actually are a democratic, progressive, moderate left-wing party that wants Scotland to become independent. It doesn't mean they believe in the inner superiority of the Scottish people.
    Whether you want to believe it or not, a good chunk of the people that support Scottish independence do actually want to build a fairer society. That is also the reason why some foreigners, such as me, actually support Scottish independence.
    Progressive? By advocating old policies?

    Moderate? By saying they'd renege on national debt if they didn't get their own way

    Non authoritarian? Seems like you haven't been keeping up with how the SNP Operates. Thy don't really like dissenters. Remember this blast from the past?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...eferendum.html

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...-intimidation/

    So yes. The warm fuzzy look the SNP try to portray doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Opiece)
    Sure, let's ignore their whole manifesto and forget that independence is only a means to an end!
    Of course it isn't. It's the only thing that unites the party. Do you seriously believe there is anything else politically that, say, Sandra White and Christina McKelvie share with Mike Russell and Fergus Ewing other than nationalism?

    I must be stupid, really, because I can't see how the independence movement can be related in any way to what we commonly define as "nationalism". Sure, they want Scotland to become a nation-State. Other than that, there really is little to no similarity: they're not racist, authoritarian, segregationist, discriminatory, etc.
    Right, the SNP says it is a nationalist party and believes Scotland should be an independent state because it constitutes what they believe is a nation. If you can't see nationalism there, I have no idea how I can possibly spell it out more effectively.

    I am unaware that nationalists had to be racists or authoritarian. That sounds to me distinctly like other political positions. A bit like suggesting to be a socialist you have to be an environmentalist or something.

    Independence wasn't an end, nationalism was: they would have carried on pursuing nationalist politics in an independent Scotland and little else.

    Whether you want to believe it or not, a good chunk of the people that support Scottish independence do actually want to build a fairer society.
    First off, it is an absurd idea that you build a fairer society by dividing that society and pursuing your ideals in one part of it.

    Secondly, it was undoubted baloney - hints of more welfare on the back of a £6 billion black hole in public expenditure? It'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

    Finally, the SNP did not have a single redistributive policy in its White Paper. Instead they ask you to judge them on their record of taking money out of things like college budgets and throwing it around in the form of freebies for the middle classes.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Where did I say we had plans to start a war with our allies? I said we likely have strategies in place for a war with Ireland and a number of other countries.
    Stretching the definition of war a bit. Neither Ireland nor Scotland would last a week against England.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Stretching the definition of war a bit. Neither Ireland nor Scotland would last a week against England.
    Yes they would. It would become an unconventional war and last years if not decades.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    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.
    There isn't arable land on the islands? Try telling Kilchoman that!

    Aberdeen and Edinburgh aren't capital rich?

    A Conservative Party based around Glasgow?

    Isn't Islay Scotland's economic centre - surely the highest GDP/capita is there?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    There isn't arable land on the islands? Try telling Kilchoman that!

    Aberdeen and Edinburgh aren't capital rich?

    A Conservative Party based around Glasgow?

    Isn't Islay Scotland's economic centre - surely the highest GDP/capita is there?
    I talk about arable land and you come back with a whisky factory?

    They have capital because money goes through them for curtain reasons. For trading in Edinburgh or shipping and oil in Aberdeen however the capital isn't created their.

    Yeah once Glasgow becomes the economic center of Scotland which huge amounts of capital generation it would be the political base of the Conservative party in Scotland.

    Only 3,500 people live their.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I talk about arable land and you come back with a whisky factory?

    They have capital because money goes through them for curtain reasons. For trading in Edinburgh or shipping and oil in Aberdeen however the capital isn't created their.

    Yeah once Glasgow becomes the economic center of Scotland which huge amounts of capital generation it would be the political base of the Conservative party in Scotland.

    Only 3,500 people live their.
    Where does Kilchoman get their malt from?

    The additional capital does, hardly like they have no capital per capita otherwise - likewise Dundee.

    I thought you said it was the economic capital of Scotland already...?

    The most economically productive 3,500 people outside the City of London on a per capita basis.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Where does Kilchoman get their malt from?

    The additional capital does, hardly like they have no capital per capita otherwise - likewise Dundee.

    I thought you said it was the economic capital of Scotland already...?

    The most economically productive 3,500 people outside the City of London on a per capita basis.
    I don't know.

    GDP is a terrible number for judging capital accumulation and profit making. As GDP is just turnover within the economy that the government can tax.

    No Glasgow is currently constrained by Edinburgh and Aberdeen in its ability to have the laws and economy it wants. This is why people in Aberdeen and Edinburgh voted against independence, where as Glasgow voted for it.

    London has a city of 8 million people around it and the ability to export through the Thames river.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I don't know.

    GDP is a terrible number for judging capital accumulation and profit making. As GDP is just turnover within the economy that the government can tax.

    No Glasgow is currently constrained by Edinburgh and Aberdeen in its ability to have the laws and economy it wants. This is why people in Aberdeen and Edinburgh voted against independence, where as Glasgow voted for it.

    London has a city of 8 million people around it and the ability to export through the Thames river.
    Islay.

    What metric do you prefer?

    Glasgow's economy is constrained by the dumb ass council asking like its the 1970s still. Glasgow voted Yes because of the prospect to improve social welfare rather than to create a stronger economy.

    The City of London has a population of 7,300 as of 2011... Greater London has 8m.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Islay.

    What metric do you prefer?

    Glasgow's economy is constrained by the dumb ass council asking like its the 1970s still. Glasgow voted Yes because of the prospect to improve social welfare rather than to create a stronger economy.

    The City of London has a population of 7,300 as of 2011... Greater London has 8m.
    Good. What is your point about arable land in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland compared to the Lowlands?

    Net wealth or pre-tax profits as a percentages of revenues.

    Better social welfare and stronger economy are the same.

    True.
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
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.