Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[LordSlowpoke]

I voted independence, because anything that divides our enemies is a good thing...

so cute and adorable

i voted union

because things in unions have this unique way of fucking each other over

give scotland a couple years, and it'll come out just the same but dragging wales alongside it, with some outlying islands too maybe

[Loud Whispers]

Who says Scotland would be an enemy of Russia? I think we would be the best of friends. I mean, obviously we'd condemn the stuff in Ukraine and the attitude to LGBT rights and human rights in general but business-wise we'd be pretty close.

Britain is, divide Britain and you're left with a Scotland that wants to be friendly and an England that can't resist, leaving Europe in the hands of the USA, Russia and France.

[Owlbread]

Britain is, divide Britain and you're left with a Scotland that wants to be friendly and an England that can't resist, leaving Europe in the hands of the USA, Russia and France.

Of course England can resist. Why couldn't England resist?

[Guardian G.I.]

I voted independence, because anything that divides our potential enemies is a good thing...

Who says Scotland would be an enemy of Russia? I think we would be the best of friends. I mean, obviously we'd condemn the stuff in Ukraine and the attitude to LGBT rights and human rights in general but business-wise we'd be pretty close.

Unless Owlbread overthrows the government of newly-independent Scotland, the probability of Scotland becoming a militarily neutral state is very low. At the very least Scotland will be like de Gaulle's France - no NATO forces will be present in Scotland, but Scottish military will still take part in NATO's military operations. Thus, in relation to Russia, Scotland will become a "potential adversary".

[XXSockXX]

I voted "don't know". Owlbread's lobbying has made me sympathetic to the Independence cause, I'm just a sceptic and don't feel competent enough to make a judgement about the long-term consequences this might have for a)Scotland b)the UK and c) the EU.
As I said before sometime, I would rather see the UK in a more pro-active role within the EU and I feel like a decent implementation of federalism might be better for everybody than Independence, but I'm aware that's not very realistic, so yeah.

[Loud Whispers]

• 1] You mean better than the current system that was rated: excellent for clinical care and excellent for financial management by the Care Quality Commission and described by the House of Commons Defence Committee as world class care?

Yes, it's not good enough.

In what way? One criticism of critics is that they say something's bad without suggesting any improvements. Here that is not only true, but you're also not actually criticizing in so far as actually saying what's not satisfactory. This is especially odd because last I checked Britain's finest hospital was in Afghanistan! When people say Britain's healthcare is world class they're not lying. Each soldier has access to 10,000 medics, combat medical technicians, medical officers and consultants and that's before you factor in the helicopters and RAF planes ready to transport soldiers back to the UK or America for specialist treatment from innumerable GPs and civilian consultants e.t.c.
The MoD also directly funds a fast track system of healthcare for military trauma patients who get immediate access to both public and private sector healthcare immediately and all that.
When it comes to mental healthcare, mental healthcare nurses and mental healthcare military professionals are present in virtually all military operations both at home and overseas and is also available through 15 of the departments for community mental health or any of the partnered NHS trusts or any of the local establishments if overseas. Whether there are mental health issues of physical health issues after leaving the military, leaving soldiers are given a full summary of all healthcare problems they have which they are told should give to their new NHS doctor (they can't be directly given due to patient confidentiality) and there is a rigorous serious injured leavers protocol that is followed through that covers:
• Major disablement arising in medical discharge for Regular and Reservists, in the categories set out below:
• Severe complex multiple injuries;
• Head injuries requiring extended hospitalisation;
• Spinal cord injuries;
• PTSD and similar traumatic psychological injuries;
• Amputations;
• Loss of sight/hearing;
• Severe Burns;
And gives help on:
• Post discharge living arrangements;
• Finances;
• Employment;
• Potential benefit entitlements;
• Alcohol/drug dependencies;
• Engagement with other welfare support services/charities;
• Immigration control.

Again, like I said before, any illnesses that soldiers believe may have something to do with their service gets priority in the NHS.
All of these measures are also put in place to help avoid mental stresses in the first place:
• Personnel receive training and briefings to increase their awareness of mental health issues and stress management. This takes place throughout a career, but particularly prior to and after deployment on operations.
• All Medical Officers, Combat Medical Assistants and Nurses are trained to recognise the signs of mental illness, and Officers, Junior and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers (JNCO/SNCOs) are routinely trained in methods of suicide prevention and stress management.
• "Decompression" is provided. This is a scheduled period following a deployment on operations in which personnel are given time to mentally and physically unwind, with time to talk to colleagues and superiors - with whom they deployed - about their experiences.
• Families of returning personnel are offered presentations and issued with leaflets to educate them about the possible after-effects of a a deployment on operations. Welfare Officers, Padres and other associated organisations also provide information to families by email, through support groups, Regimental systems and so on.
• Increasing use is made of Trauma Risk Management (TRiM), a model of peer-group mentoring and support for use in the aftermath of traumatic events.

Part of the initial medical examinations prior to going on duty or indeed even joining is to identify who is at most risk of developing PTSD or other mental conditions, and so are given extra attention whilst in the services. There are so many medical and military protocols and all that here that I'm certain I've missed some, like until recently I didn't even know what TRiM was (they arose out of a need of getting soldiers to speak up about their problems, as often soldiers wouldn't talk to people they would feel ashamed to reveal what they think of as weaknesses to, so TRiM was enacted to remove that problem entirely) and there's a whole bunch of healthcare benefits even just for reservists, not even active personnel which I've not talked about.

• 2] The armed forces have gotten the highest public sector pay award in Britain.

Considering what they go through their pay is not good enough. From what I can find in 2006 the basic pay before tax of a private of two years in the British infantry was £15,000. I can't find enough information about the current wages but the army website claims "at least £17,000" which still isn't enough for a 16 hour working day, every day of the week in conditions that could lead to their legs being blown off.

That's the pay of a basic soldier that doesn't factor in:

• Military pension
• Extra allowances
• Not having to spend any of that pay on food or housing (meaning it all ends up in a bank or on a night out in Spain, the Royal Navy are infamous for this)
• Specialists getting additional pay (I.e. submariners for the Navy, snipers for the army, engineers/medical officers in all the branches, elite units and more e.t.c.)
• Advancements to NCO or CO
• If they get injured (such as getting their legs blown off) they get all the support listed above (and not listed above) in addition to be able to claim compensation of up to over half a million quid (if they got their legs blown off, they're definitely getting it), and this compensation scheme was recently scrapped to remove the bullshit three injury rule and also increased every claim on average by 30%. You can still get loads more than the £570k lump sum as one soldier got £1.5 million for serious injuries.

• 3] The armed forces quite literally fund scholarship and bursaries for education both before and after joining the military.

Not good enough. Secondary education should be free for everyone anyway.

Secondary is free, it's University tuition fees I'm talking about where bursaries and all that come in. The fact that University tuition fees cost money is a sad fact that is attribute to tuition costing money, and where do you get the money from? A national issue, unrelated to the armed forces, especially as the percentage of soldiers with pure military occupational skills in Britain decreases as more and more by necessity train and gain civilian transferable skills.

Can you explain what you mean here? I don't understand the question.

This one probably necessitates the full convo thread in one place:

Things the British military need:
~List of LW shit about codebreakers and carriers/nukes omitted~

Things the British military need:
~List of Owlbread shit omitted~
4] To be integrated into society as in other countries like Switzerland, not kept as some kind of other society-within-a-society

~List of other LW shit omitted~
4] Unless you're supposing Portsmouth has been absorbed by London I don't know what you mean.

So here we can see we both seem confused as to what the other wants. How about I say what I'm confused about, you say what you're confused about and then we both try and figure out what we're asking the other one here?
I didn't understand two things about point #4: 1. Switzerland's military is its entire male working population. Do you want countrywide conscription or...? I don't get it.
2. The British military is a society within a society? I brought up the Portsmouth thing because Portsmouth is a synechdoche (fucking love that word), where a component represents the whole, like how Westminster = Britain, Washington = America or Kremlin = Russia. The Royal Navy and the Royal Marines are pretty integral and woven into Portsmouth's society and Portsmouth basically represents every place where military and civilian society are rather blurred, with Portsmouth being the posterchild what with it being an entire city where this is the case.

• 5] WOT

Yes.

Now you're just having a laugh. Disband the British military? You can see why the Russians love you, I'd love you if I were Russian!

Britain is, divide Britain and you're left with a Scotland that wants to be friendly and an England that can't resist, leaving Europe in the hands of the USA, Russia and France.

Of course England can resist. Why couldn't England resist?

• Nuclear deterrent: Jeopardized
• This quote: Still relevant:

I honestly can't comment too much on the future of the UK post independence. The thing is though, the UK already can't really protect its overseas territories with the focus our government has put on the army rather than the Navy.

The focus has been on the army because of the degradation of the expeditionary force, within this decade we could be seeing the two largest ships ever created by the Royal Navy and the astute class submarines have been sailing since 2011, it looks functional for the first time since the harriers were scrapped. The UK can as of now, but Scotland's independence could change that. What immediately comes to mind is the loss of a quarter or so of naval bases, but then there are also things about the loss of specialist recruits and training centers alongside production facilities. Moreso when the modern ships of the fleet are not built in one shipyard and the modern aircraft aren't even built in one country. An easy example would be the Queen Elizabeth which is currently in Rosyth shipyard in Scotland.

You also no longer get the full coverage of the RAF and the RN working together for situations like this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Which I find unintentionally hilarious, as serious as they are. Those whacky Ruskies.

Point being, once England starts using its shale reserves to power Europe for mad stirling, Europe will no longer be dependent on Russia for gas energy and can begin waving its sabres. Take away Britain, only one sabre left to wave. Europe isn't looking very stable right now.

[Owlbread]

I voted "don't know". Owlbread's lobbying has made me sympathetic to the Independence cause, I'm just a sceptic and don't feel competent enough to make a judgement about the long-term consequences this might have for a)Scotland b)the UK and c) the EU.
As I said before sometime, I would rather see the UK in a more pro-active role within the EU and I feel like a decent implementation of federalism might be better for everybody than Independence, but I'm aware that's not very realistic, so yeah.

This may or may not shock people but until 2011 I was not a very strong backer of independence, rather I backed Federalism. I backed independence in principle but it seemed like we'd never get it. Now the tables have turned and Federalism is less likely than independence.

Once I am done playing games and messing about I will systematically assault Loud Whisper's king-sized post.

Unless Owlbread overthrows the government of newly-independent Scotland, the probability of Scotland becoming a militarily neutral state is very low. At the very least Scotland will be like de Gaulle's France - no NATO forces will be present in Scotland, but Scottish military will still take part in NATO's military operations. Thus, in relation to Russia, Scotland will become a "potential adversary".

Scotland will be a member of NATO and will generally ally itself with the West. That is not in question, we would, however, not participate in wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. Our role would become that of a peacekeeping nation.

If we take it along those lines then yes, we would be a "potential enemy" in the same way that Luxembourg is a potential enemy of Russia.

[Darvi]

Picked the third option for reasons obvious to anybody familiar with me.

[10ebbor10]

Don't count on shale gas for european gas use.  Reserves aren't proven, feasibility of extraction is doubtfull, and other things.

The largest problem however is that it's unlikely for shale to be profitable in comparison to russisn gas.

[LordSlowpoke]

mfc powered devices when though

[XXSockXX]

Scotland will be a member of NATO and will generally ally itself with the West. That is not in question, we would, however, not participate in wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. Our role would become that of a peacekeeping nation.

BTW that particular argument is not a strong one IMHO. In a war "like Afghanistan" you would have to participate as a NATO member, in a war "like Iraq" not so much. The UK participation in the Iraq war wasn't a decision based on popularity, but on strategic concerns by the government (that other governments like in France and Germany didn't share). So Independence would neither save you from NATO obligations nor from unpopular government decisions, though you might have more direct influence on the latter of course.

[Loud Whispers]

Don't count on shale gas for european gas use.  Reserves aren't proven, feasibility of extraction is doubtfull, and other things.

The largest problem however is that it's unlikely for shale to be profitable in comparison to russisn gas.

Estimated 330 [high end estimates of 2,200] trillion cubic ft of shale gas in the Bowland basin alone, feasibility and noise is an issue, investors will like Norwegian and English gas more than Russian ones especially since most investment pros cite political instability as the greatest threat to the economy... And... Shit. Would Scottish independence scare investors away from investing in shale, or would they be more skeptical of Russian gas?
This warrants looking in to.

Once I am done playing games and messing about I will systematically assault Loud Whisper's king-sized post.

Haha, missed this completely. Take your time to tear it apart, DF still devours my attention

[Owlbread]

BTW that particular argument is not a strong one IMHO. In a war "like Afghanistan" you would have to participate as a NATO member, in a war "like Iraq" not so much. The UK participation in the Iraq war wasn't a decision based on popularity, but on strategic concerns by the government (that other governments like in France and Germany didn't share). So Independence would neither save you from NATO obligations nor from unpopular government decisions, though you might have more direct influence on the latter of course.

Just a brief post before I get back to trying to finish off this DF nonsense.

Is there a clause you can quote that would show we would be obliged to send troops to Afghanistan? Even if we would have to send troops, Ireland, the independent nation most comparable to an independent Scotland, has 7 troops in total in Afghanistan right now.

[mainiac]

Thus far we have 4 Unionists. If any are willing to come forward (you do not have to, don't worry) I would be more than happy to gently massage your worried brains with my words of reassurance, dispelling whatever fears you may have about independence.

Hi!  I don't think you Scottish folk will very much enjoy not having any money.  I do not mean that I think Scotland will face a collapse in production or demand leading to you losing your jobs.  I'm talking about monetary institutions not stuff like natural resources.  The monetary ideas floating seem naive at best (Eh, how hard can a systematic overhaul of all legal contracts be?).  At worst seem to be an attempt at re-enacting the 1997 east asian credit crisis (Yeah, just let the BoE keep things running, it's not like trans-national interest rate exposure ever got anyone in trouble).  Maybe it's an attempt to get into the Guinness book of world records with the first nationwide multi-year LARPing event?  If so, try to get on team Taiwan!  They're politics are really entertaining!  Or perhaps you guys have decided that because Scottish independence ended with a monetary crisis you should start your new independence with a monetary crisis for point of continuity?

These questions need better answers yesterday.  As it is I would give you guys about a 50-50 chance of having a major financial crisis within 25 years.

[XXSockXX]

Is there a clause you can quote that would show we would be obliged to send troops to Afghanistan? Even if we would have to send troops, Ireland, the independent nation most comparable to an independent Scotland, has 7 troops in total in Afghanistan right now.

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. 911 was ruled as an attack on a NATO member.
How you get involved is a different matter, that might actually be limited to a single token soldier or logistical support, or nominal support even. That might be up to your government or your military strenght within NATO. Just saying, even with nominal support only, you would be obligated to join such a war.