Britain's strategic buffer.

So to try to be down to the point... What do you need this strategic buffer for? To protect Britain from who? From Germany? From the EU? From the US? You said that a war with the last 2 might be realistic in the future.

 

Yes I do, I liked what you wrote. you have shown me another angle to view us from

( Our wars have been fratricidal )

 

That's why Greece and the Balkan Peninsula was a nightmare for let's say the Ottomans to keep under control even though it became an official part of their empire. Speaking of the British Empire the thing works vice-versa. That's why it never could create a world-wide British nation even though I believe it must have honestly tried to at different times. The case of India and others. It's all about religion but more importantly the principles that derive from it.

I too have seen ourselves from another angle after the year I lived in England.

 

I hope England was kind to you Where were you?

It is important to see every thing from different angles - which is rarer for us past travellers who once 'owned the world' since the end of the last War - which we in fact lost. We may holiday abroad and back pack as kids but it isn't quite the same as living with the people and seeing things from their view point - and speaking other languages which again we are not very good at any more

No the British didn't want a World Nation - we did have contracts with the peoples of every Land we were 'protectors' of - but that is quite complicated and I would have to dig deep into my memory to remember the wording - and I have to get on with stuff to day and for the next few days -


keep up the good work xxx

 

It sure was as kind as it could get. Too bad I was an antisocial kid at the time. Used to talk to few people apart from my university lecturers (though I dropped out eventually). North Yorkshire. Uni of York. The area is very nice, clean, natural, quiet. The campus itself includes wild fauna and isn't short of a natural resort.

Yes, cultural angles are near endless and so is the potential of living far from home.

Life is all ahead. Why not just go, explore... see countries and places. The past things don't mean you can't start new things, languages etc! Time is yours. Just make sure it gets spent on interesting things so that later you won't look back with regret!

Busy at work?

thanks!

 

Ottomans have been in Balkans from the thirteenth century to the present, they ruled for centuries: Beograd til 1867, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece, some lands in Serbia, etc etc until XX century. True, there was resistance and small states, but none of them disputed the hegemony to Grand Turk.. nor Scandelberg nor Vlad were able to impose over "The Gate". The Ottomans were almost invencible..

Constantinople in 1453, Athens in 1456. Serbia in 1459, Bosnia in 1462-66, Albania in 1468, Herzegovina in 1481. So hypnotic was the Turks' advance... that two centuries later Luther himself . . . wondered piously aloud whether they should be opposed at all. The same Venice, the Serenissima knelt before them and signed a humiliating treaty .. France had alliances with the Great Turk and sent great presents Only Spain faced them for centuries (and Austria): in Mediterranean, Anatolia, Greece, Montenegro, Croatia, Hungary, Austria...

 

It is the fact that the West, and a lot of it due to UK, rearranged boundaries to suit themselves, without considering if they were mixing lions, tigers and lambs, without a by your leave, which is at the root of most of the trouble in the world today, and over the last few centuries.

I do agree with your Most of their bad decisions were a result of internal politics, having to do with bad appointments and a leadership that was sometimes not very bright or downright incompetent, and out of touch of realities away from the home counties in large part. because not a lot has changed there in the last few centuries either..not even in the last few decades, when you'd have expected, given the increase in methods of communication, there might have been some acknowledgement of the parts of the UK outside London and the South which wouldn't be doing so well, if we weren't sending them the money with which to gamble.

 

I must post your first paragraph all over FaceBook! Scotland isn't really a country. should get us a few more undecideds! And By this I mean England will to try and take Scotland back through manipulating its non-core regions and there could be conflict because of it. will just confirm that Westminster politicians are just the nasty buggers we already think they are (even most of those who will vote NO)! Btw, they are trying to buy Glasgow for NuLabour atm!

You are, I assume, aware that the Union of Parliaments is what is hopefully going.......the Union of the Crowns will still exist unless/until we vote in a referendum at some time in the future to become a republic! The Queen is as much a Scotswoman as she is an English one.I kinda think we will likely end up centre-left, if, as I hope we have, due to our voting system, more consensus politics preventing excesses from either side of the left/right divide.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your British strategic buffer will continue to be, as it is now, Scotland and you want to add Wales and the Republic of Ireland....in other words, it won't be a British strategic buffer.it will be an English strategic buffer to ensure England is troubled last?

 

What happens when King Charles the 3th takes the throne? When that happens I see people in Scotland not accepting it and wanting their own Monarch, rather than a Republic or democracy. So the Union of the Crown will be broken not long after independence when the Queen dies. You will start off left of center, but you be become ever more socialist to keep the country together and this will cause problems. It is my view independence will be a deeply dividing issue in Scotland. After that you will have to become national socialist to keep the economy and nation going. You will have 3 main parties a centre right nationalist Progressive Conservative party, The Socialist Labour party and the SNP.

No the goal for England will be creating a united nations and keeping Wales and Northern counties in England, aswell as the Conish. Northumberland and Cumberland where I live have nothing in common with the South East core of England. Ulster will leave the England and Join a United Ireland. It is my view that Scotland early would be the one causing problems for England in the places I just talked about. If Scotland leaves the Union, I would support Cumberland independence from England and Northumberland and Cornwall. I am not sure if that is possible it all depends how quickly England, Scotland and Ireland get a grasp of the new geopolitical realities. In the long run ofcourse England is the dominating power in the British Isles, however it does have external regions which can be made to leave it.

 

At least King Charles III will be correctly numbered, which is more than Queen Elizabeth 2nd of England and 1st of Scotland is (see what I mean when I always say the Union is just England enlarged.....and "Britishness" is just imposed Englishness)!

If we did continue to have a monarchy, I'd rather Anne and her offspring to any of her brothers, who have always seemed to me to be fairly unintelligent and self important. Don't see why we can't be a Republic and elect a member of the monarchy as President. When I think of the current crop of political wannabes who would be likely to take a punt at it, she seems the best option.

If we vote for independence, it might make Westminster take a tumble to itself and introduce a more federally inclined system for the rUK, in case they end up ruling over only the City State of London. That is all it would ever have taken to stop the possible breakup of the Union in the first place, something approaching democracy.

Do you realise how irritating it is when Scotland, in the Union, can't afford to dual the deathtrap A9, but Scotland, in the Union, can afford to pay £4 billion plus to help fund 120 miles of HS2 so folk down south can get to London 20 minutes faster?

 

I don't think the Scot's want to secede and they'll vote just like every other Briton; quietly.
And it's not really feasible anyway and they have their autonomy which they don't seem to be doing a very good job with.

Having recently come back from Edinburgh, I can safely say that independence doesn't seem that important to them.
But militarily if Scotland does go independent it won't mean a change in the basing of the forces.
And realistically Scotland is not an easy place to invade by sea anyway so really the only real danger is if other countries perceive secession as weakness and try to take advantage.
However the world isn't about empire building any more.

 

The idea of sending forces to invade a country is old tat. What you want to do these days is manipulate and gain control of countries so they are more likely to do what you want. Sure Scotland can do as Norway has done and be protections against foreign capital being used in its energy sector, or limit its banking sector for the fear of foreign manipulation. All this will do though is make Scotland less competitive and with no economic counter balance. Norway for all its wealth currently has a poor economy because it is refusing to invest in other sectors using its energy wealth. It can take decades to buildup a sector of the economy and Norway will be left in the lurch if oil and gas prices drop as I expect. Scotland will need an economic market, banking isn't it. So it will in my view look to turn Glasgow into a transport and trade hub, creating large amounts of exports and inward investment from outside. Edinburgh will be the capital, however Glasgow will be the economic driver for the whole country. This could put Scotland in direct conflict or competition with Ireland over this economic windfall, as Ireland will be trying to do the same with Belfast. This is the way I see Scotlands economy for 20-40 years after independence if Scotland wants to remain independent that is. If not it will be manipulated by England, Ireland and other countries and lose control. It could cause wars or it could just mean Scotland giving up economic power.

On the Scottish military it all depends if Scotlands economic plan works. It takes decades to buildup military infrastructure and Scotland shouldn't be over doing itself until it can handel the military improvements. The SNP plan is way over the top in my view. They are trying to do it to quickly, they should be starting of small and build over a decade to the force structure and asset capabilities they want. However in the end Scotland has a large coastline, a land border and an air space which needs protecting. So they will need to improve.

 

I don't think they'll have a choice. The so called "white paper" already highlights budgetary shortfalls and it is banking on two major things.
1. Being able to keep the pound
2. North sea oil which not only is it declining but many companies will reach the point of profitability long before the 30 year estimate.
And of course Britain will still fight for North sea oil as per the continental shelf conference of 1958 which stipulates that if any two countries EEZ overlap then they must negotiate for equal or fair sharing.
So because of that the Scottish government will have to make it attractive for foreign investment much like Ireland has to it's detriment.

True. There will be less jobs for people.

I don't think that Norway has that poor an economy. I mean I know many Swedes who migrate there for work because the pay in much better

Of course. Economies don't just suddenly blossom unless it's something really special.

I think the RBS crisis only proved the poor management of Scottish banking.

I don't know Glasgow well enough to comment.

Well Ireland still has serious economic links with Britain.

I see a country considerably worse off. But be they vote yay or nay Britain wins because now Scotland will realise that Scottish problems really are Scottish.

I'm doubtful that war in the British isles could occur because I actually think that we are all a but more civilised than that.
But Scotland will give up economic power the moment it leaves the UK.

 

Certainly they were not in a position to impose anything but they were more than a headache for the Ottomans.

That is true to a military and economic extent.

But not Romania.

Did Spain have landings against the Ottomans in Greece and Anatoilia itself? wow I never knew that!

 

Yes, Spain not noly landed in Greece, also in Gallipoli (but won not like Entente in 1915) and in Anatolia... in fact the Kings of Spain are Duke of Athens and Neopatria.... Yes, Spaniards fought against Ottoman in Greece, Bulgaria and Anatolia.. and Also in Montenegro, Hungary, Croatia etc.

Now you know something more... My congratulation!

Regards

 

Very interesting post. There is a theory that the British kept such a firm presence in Northern Ireland during 'The Troubles' because they thought that if the Cold War became hot, the Soviets would come through Ireland first, and launch an invasion from there.

 

I doubt that. We were there to keep the peace because Northern Ireland is British.
I would also doubt a Soviet invasion because if the cold war went hot then it would be a matter of hours that would determine the positioning of troops and there isn't really any strategic advantage to invading Ulster.

 

In fact, It never was a plan to invade Ireland.. It was absurd. The plan was to conquest West Germany... and Low Countries. France, which was not in NATO (not in the military structure), it was thought that it would be neutral. Nor Britain nor Ireland were objects for invasion plans. With Germany, Belgium, Netherland, Luxembourg and Denmark conquered ... UK was no serious threat to the USSR and USSR had a very limited projection capabilities .. could not invade Britain.

Regards