Defence - who defends Scotland?

[Ad Lib]

What a mess you have turned into. I presume that you have some evidence to support the current make up of the defence resource allocation is the most cost effective?

I didn't say it was. I said that should be the criterion against which defence spending is assessed. We should not give a f**k how many service personnel are based in Scotland.

Given that the likely conflict zones are so far away that location does not confer strategic advantage it seems fair that military expenditure is spent fairly evenly around the UK, given the secondary economic benefits to local communities. Although shifting the Faslane resources down south would remove a massive X from Scotland's map and perhaps be a price worth paying in terms of jobs and trade etc.

Location probably does matter for cost efficiency of training, secure but accessible storage of military hardware and speed of deployment. Those are strategic advantages.

Defence spending shouldn't be spent broadly equally throughout the UK unless that happens to provide the optimal level of security. Secondary impacts on local economies should be below "will the Typhoons look pretty in the photographs" on the list of priorities.

[Ad Lib]

What exactly do you/they mean by "global security"?

If you mean NATO contributions, then that would be more honest than trying to hide behind some vague term.

By global security I mean taking all feasible steps to eliminate, prevent and respond to, anything and everything which has the potential to create military conflict and civilian suffering everywhere.

[Hillonearth]

Most of the UK's defence estate is located in where it was thought would strategically be the best place to put it when it was planned, hence the fact the Army is located mainly in Hampshire/Wiltshire to counter a mid-19th century French invasion, the RAF is mostly around Kent/East Anglia to counter an aerial German threat in the mid-20th, and historically the Navy has laregly been based in Plymouth and Portsmouth to protect the Channel.

It's telling that once it was realised that there were going to be no more armed insurrections north of the border post-1745, the only significant defence installation to be built is the one that nobody wanted - the one that painted a target on the back of most of the Central Belt.

[AUFC90]

By global security I mean taking all feasible steps to eliminate, prevent and respond to, anything and everything which has the potential to create military conflict and civilian suffering everywhere.

Sounds a lot like Team America, in the name of democracy, type foreign policy.

[Zetterlund]

By global security I mean taking all feasible steps to eliminate, prevent and respond to, anything and everything which has the potential to create military conflict and civilian suffering everywhere.

Hopefully the budget for this is larger than the budget for taking all feasible steps to encourage, facilitate and turn a blind eye to everything which has the potential to create military conflict and civilian suffering everywhere.

[Fotbawmad]

By global security I mean taking all feasible steps to eliminate, prevent and respond to, anything and everything which has the potential to create military conflict and civilian suffering everywhere.

Judging by our actions over the past 20 years, it looks like we're adopting an American style attack policy; rather than a defensive one.

[Fide]

What exactly do you/they mean by "global security"?

He uses global security with the same all encompassing vagueness he uses when he cites "international law".

[Thumper]

For "global security" read "world police". I see the frothier Decents and their lapdogs in Scottish Labour are singing from the same hymn sheet here - one that says "if we stop paying billions of pounds a year for weapons and troops we'll never need, we won't be able to retroactively prevent the Rwandan genocide which apparently didn't happen because of these things".

[Ad Lib]

For "global security" read "world police". I see the frothier Decents and their lapdogs in Scottish Labour are singing from the same hymn sheet here - one that says "if we stop paying billions of pounds a year for weapons and troops we'll never need, we won't be able to retroactively prevent the Rwandan genocide which apparently didn't happen because of these things".

The Rwandan genocide happened because UN Peacekeepers stood by and did nothing. Liberal interventionism is the biggest slam dunk of a justification for having a military for more than purely defensive purposes you'll ever find.

[Thumper]

The Rwandan genocide happened because UN Peacekeepers stood by and did nothing. Liberal interventionism is the biggest slam dunk of a justification for having a military for more than purely defensive purposes you'll ever find.

And yet it happened. The idea that it wouldn't have gone exactly the same way under current reich-wing governments is fantasy. And yet it's somehow the fault of us good guys, and used as an example of something that would never have happened under you. When it did.

[parahandy1]

For Scotland defence spending should be zero percent. We face absolutely no tangible threat whatsoever. Conducing fewer illegal invasions will likely mean people will be less annoyed at us too.

If, in the future, Russia or someone decides to invade Scotland - fine. In that case it wouldn't matter if the budget was 0% or 100% the outcome would be the same.

No Scottish people died in 9/11, or Bali, or Algeria, or even on the beaches of Tunisia?!*

[welshbairn]

No Scottish people died in 9/11, or Bali, or Algeria, or even on the beaches of Tunisia?!*

Only foolish people who chose to leave this blessed haven into the nasty dangerous world outside.

[parahandy1]

Most of the UK's defence estate is located in where it was thought would strategically be the best place to put it when it was planned, hence the fact the Army is located mainly in Hampshire/Wiltshire to counter a mid-19th century French invasion, the RAF is mostly around Kent/East Anglia to counter an aerial German threat in the mid-20th, and historically the Navy has laregly been based in Plymouth and Portsmouth to protect the Channel.

It's telling that once it was realised that there were going to be no more armed insurrections north of the border post-1745, the only significant defence installation to be built is the one that nobody wanted - the one that painted a target on the back of most of the Central Belt.

To be fair bases in Molesworth, Greenham Common, Lakenheath and others made the south of England an obvious target in any nuclear conflict too. At the height of the cold war the Royal Artillery had more nuclear weapons in Germany alone than the RAF and Royal Navy combined.

Almost every defence installation north of the border was constructed well after 1745. Scotland has a disproportionately high number of deep water ports to sneak in and out of the north atlantic from.

[Ad Lib]

And yet it happened. The idea that it wouldn't have gone exactly the same way under current reich-wing governments is fantasy. And yet it's somehow the fault of us good guys, and used as an example of something that would never have happened under you. When it did.

Literally no sane person has suggested that the Rwandan genocide was prevented. What the f**k is wrong with you?

[Double Jack D]

Our defence spending isn't about defending ourselves against invasion. It's about taking our share of the responsibility for global security.

If by "invasion" you mean domestic attack then I agree with this but I would say the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I think the state of much of the world where our militatry has been involved in the last 20 years and the current domestic threat levels are a damning indictment of the UK's "defence" performance during this period.

[Thumper]

Literally no sane person has suggested that the Rwandan genocide was prevented. What the f**k is wrong with you?

I've heard on at least two occasions by Decents this week that we couldn't possibly have Corbyn because he'd have allowed the Rwandan genocide to happen. Which quite firmly implies that it didn't.

[Whitnail]

No Scottish people died in 9/11, or Bali, or Algeria, or even on the beaches of Tunisia?!*

What does this question have to do with defence spending?

Our defence spending isn't about defending ourselves against invasion. It's about taking our share of the responsibility for global security.

Global security being defined as.....what? Lets take Scotland, it's taxpayers money and should be used to defend the country itself. This is entirely separate from DFID, I'd happily move all armaments spending into increasing our foreign development budget- helping people rather than killing them. If the requirement exists for "arms" this should come exclusively from larger nations with genuine defence needs. As we have no defence needs, no spending is required. It's as wasted as a Zombie defence force.

With a world population of 7.3 billion and Scotlands population at circa 5 million that leaves the percentage of global security assigned to us as being....well I don't understand the number on my calculator but the implication is that the share is very small.

[Ad Lib]

Global security being defined as.....what? Lets take Scotland, it's taxpayers money and should be used to defend the country itself.

Not exclusively it shouldn't. Scotland, as a developed and prosperous nation, should b actively involved militarily in conributing to multinational forces committed to stopping miltary aggression or violence against civilians, wherever and whenever it occurs. As citizens of the world that have benefited from domestic peace we have a moral duty to use our resources in ways that give parts of the world with conflict and instability a fighting chance of enjoying the same.

This is entirely separate from DFID, I'd happily move all armaments spending into increasing our foreign development budget- helping people rather than killing them.

DFID is great. I'd significantly increase the foreign aid budget. You're the one that's saying it's zero sum. Go speak to the Kosovans if you don't think military intervention can save lives. The harsh reality is it doesn't matter how many aid pacakges, well installations or roads you build, in some parts of the world there are people with guns, and they are kiling othe people and the only way to make them stop includes the use of guns.

If the requirement exists for "arms" this should come exclusively from larger nations with genuine defence needs. As we have no defence needs, no spending is required. It's as wasted as a Zombie defence force.

Forgive me for thinking it's not a desirabe world where the only major supplier of arms and multilateral military support are the US, the Russians and the Chinese. Giving them more power and influence to leverage over sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia isn't going to reduce global conflict and oppression. It's going to increase it. Substantially.

With a world population of 7.3 billion and Scotlands population at circa 5 million that leaves the percentage of global security assigned to us as being....well I don't understand the number on my calculator but the implication is that the share is very small.

We are one of the richest nations on the planet. Our commitment to global peace shouldn't be diinished just because others lack the resources or will to step up to the plate.

[strichener]

Forgive me for thinking it's not a desirabe world where the only major supplier of arms and multilateral military support are the US, the Russians and the Chinese. Giving them more power and influence to leverage over sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Eurasia isn't going to reduce global conflict and oppression. It's going to increase it. Substantially.

So in summary, your answer is to have more countries with higher spending on military equipment. Which should then be used to negate the influence of other countries that spend vast amount of money on their military.

I am at a loss to see how this differs from the last 30 years. Have you seen the state of the world and our own threat level.

[Thumper]

A candidate who stood for the coalition government explaining earnestly that we need to become major world arms dealers so that Egyptian autocrats can buy their guns and bombs from us instead of the Americans.