This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/mar/01/how-would-an-independent-scotland-defend-itself
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| How would an independent Scotland defend itself? | How would an independent Scotland defend itself? |
| (about 4 hours later) | |
| One of the most heated arguments about Scotland's future in the UK and Alex Salmond's independence plans will centre on its defence. For nationalists, the presence of the Trident nuclear weapons fleet on the Clyde and the UK's invasion of Iraq, both seen as deeply unpopular in Scotland, are causes of huge grievance. | One of the most heated arguments about Scotland's future in the UK and Alex Salmond's independence plans will centre on its defence. For nationalists, the presence of the Trident nuclear weapons fleet on the Clyde and the UK's invasion of Iraq, both seen as deeply unpopular in Scotland, are causes of huge grievance. |
| For nationalists, both are totemic examples of Scotland's wishes being swept aside to serve London's interests. | For nationalists, both are totemic examples of Scotland's wishes being swept aside to serve London's interests. |
| For Salmond's opponents, the greater security and shared burden being part of the UK's armed forces and Nato is one of the strongest reasons for preserving the United Kingdom; the armed forces helps bind the UK together. They believe that defence is one of the Scottish National party's weakest cards. | For Salmond's opponents, the greater security and shared burden being part of the UK's armed forces and Nato is one of the strongest reasons for preserving the United Kingdom; the armed forces helps bind the UK together. They believe that defence is one of the Scottish National party's weakest cards. |
| It is one of the most difficult policy areas for the SNP: it has to wrestle with whether to stay in Nato and by implication accept that its partners will field nuclear weapons; whether it should seek to share defence with the rest of the UK (rUK); how long it would allow Trident to remain on the Clyde; and, most central of all, define what is Scotland trying to defend, why and against whom? | It is one of the most difficult policy areas for the SNP: it has to wrestle with whether to stay in Nato and by implication accept that its partners will field nuclear weapons; whether it should seek to share defence with the rest of the UK (rUK); how long it would allow Trident to remain on the Clyde; and, most central of all, define what is Scotland trying to defend, why and against whom? |
| The argument roared into life in January after Phillip Hammond, the UK defence secretary, described the Scottish National party's plans to base a new Scottish defence force on the existing Scottish regiments, with one air base and a naval base, as "laughable". | The argument roared into life in January after Phillip Hammond, the UK defence secretary, described the Scottish National party's plans to base a new Scottish defence force on the existing Scottish regiments, with one air base and a naval base, as "laughable". |
| In a BBC Radio 4 interview, he said: | In a BBC Radio 4 interview, he said: |
| The UK armed forces are a highly integrated and very sophisticated fighting force. The idea that you can sort of break off a little bit, like a square on a chocolate bar and that would be the bit that went north of the Border, is frankly laughable. | The UK armed forces are a highly integrated and very sophisticated fighting force. The idea that you can sort of break off a little bit, like a square on a chocolate bar and that would be the bit that went north of the Border, is frankly laughable. |
| In a quick rebuttal, again on the BBC, Alex Salmond retorted that: | In a quick rebuttal, again on the BBC, Alex Salmond retorted that: |
| The great argument in favour of having a Scottish defence force is two-fold - one, you wouldn't have to have the biggest concentration of nuclear weapons in western Europe situated in Scotland, which many people support the removal, and secondly of course, we'd have the right to decide whether or not to participate in international engagements. | The great argument in favour of having a Scottish defence force is two-fold - one, you wouldn't have to have the biggest concentration of nuclear weapons in western Europe situated in Scotland, which many people support the removal, and secondly of course, we'd have the right to decide whether or not to participate in international engagements. |
| Salmond said the UK government's defence review had provided the blueprint for an SDF: | Salmond said the UK government's defence review had provided the blueprint for an SDF: |
| The configuration of the army in Scotland, the mobile brigade, which is the outcome of the defence review, looks exactly like the configuration you'd want for a Scottish defence force - so that's one naval base, one aircraft base and a mobile armed brigade. | The configuration of the army in Scotland, the mobile brigade, which is the outcome of the defence review, looks exactly like the configuration you'd want for a Scottish defence force - so that's one naval base, one aircraft base and a mobile armed brigade. |
| This is based on the MoD's plans to base an armoured brigade in Scotland – thought to be the 7th Armoured Brigade famously known as "The Desert Rats" - before it then moves the headquarters of 1st Armoured Division from Germany by 2020. It incorporates the Highlanders battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Royal Scottish Dragoon Guards tank regiment, the Mercian armoured regiment, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers light infantry, signallers and a reconnaissance regiment. | This is based on the MoD's plans to base an armoured brigade in Scotland – thought to be the 7th Armoured Brigade famously known as "The Desert Rats" - before it then moves the headquarters of 1st Armoured Division from Germany by 2020. It incorporates the Highlanders battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Royal Scottish Dragoon Guards tank regiment, the Mercian armoured regiment, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers light infantry, signallers and a reconnaissance regiment. |
| At other times recently, however, the SNP has said it would take control of the five battalion strong Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards tank regiment and the Scots Guards. In its most recent document released in January, Your Scotland, Your Future the SNP went much further, promising that "we'll also restore the historic Scottish regiments", without naming those it means. | At other times recently, however, the SNP has said it would take control of the five battalion strong Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards tank regiment and the Scots Guards. In its most recent document released in January, Your Scotland, Your Future the SNP went much further, promising that "we'll also restore the historic Scottish regiments", without naming those it means. |
| Several recent regiments have been lost through amalgamation or closure: the Royal Scots, King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Cameron Highlanders have gone in the last two decades. | Several recent regiments have been lost through amalgamation or closure: the Royal Scots, King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Cameron Highlanders have gone in the last two decades. |
| But these broad statements have came under intense attack from former defence chiefs. One major criticism is that simply grabbing what is currently in Scotland or "belongs" to Scotland, and making do is starting at the wrong end of the problem. | But these broad statements have came under intense attack from former defence chiefs. One major criticism is that simply grabbing what is currently in Scotland or "belongs" to Scotland, and making do is starting at the wrong end of the problem. |
| Professor Malcolm Chalmers, the director of UK Defence Policy Studies at the Royal United Services Institute, and a UK government adviser, argues that Scotland first needs to know what it needs and why: | Professor Malcolm Chalmers, the director of UK Defence Policy Studies at the Royal United Services Institute, and a UK government adviser, argues that Scotland first needs to know what it needs and why: |
| The separation of forces into two distinct entities would involve significant transitional costs - on new administrative structures, duplicated support and training capabilities, and probably also some new infrastructure and equipment. | The separation of forces into two distinct entities would involve significant transitional costs - on new administrative structures, duplicated support and training capabilities, and probably also some new infrastructure and equipment. |
| Beyond an initial period of disruption, though, an independent Scotland would have a wide range of defence options. If it were to follow Denmark and Norway into Nato membership, it would find it easier to gain the benefits of defence sharing, but would be expected to pay its way. A Scotland in Nato would be expected to have forces that could contribute - in ways proportional to its size - to future operations like Libya and Afghanistan. But it would have a range of choices on how to do so. | Beyond an initial period of disruption, though, an independent Scotland would have a wide range of defence options. If it were to follow Denmark and Norway into Nato membership, it would find it easier to gain the benefits of defence sharing, but would be expected to pay its way. A Scotland in Nato would be expected to have forces that could contribute - in ways proportional to its size - to future operations like Libya and Afghanistan. But it would have a range of choices on how to do so. |
| A decision to stay out of Nato - like the Republic of Ireland - would be less costly in defence terms. Scotland could focus on the risks that threaten its territory directly, make it clear that it was not interested in keeping major war-fighting assets, and cut its defence budget to Irish levels. This option, however, would be difficult to sell to Scotland's NATO neighbours - including the UK - who would see it as an attempt to free-ride on their protection. | A decision to stay out of Nato - like the Republic of Ireland - would be less costly in defence terms. Scotland could focus on the risks that threaten its territory directly, make it clear that it was not interested in keeping major war-fighting assets, and cut its defence budget to Irish levels. This option, however, would be difficult to sell to Scotland's NATO neighbours - including the UK - who would see it as an attempt to free-ride on their protection. |
| A decision not to join NATO would be seen as a signal that the new Scotland was stepping out of the European mainstream (not withstanding the Irish exception). It would raise alarm bells in both the US and in Europe, and make it more difficult to maintain good relations, and technical cooperation, with UK armed forces. It might also complicate Scotland's application for EU membership, the success of which is critical for economic stability. | A decision not to join NATO would be seen as a signal that the new Scotland was stepping out of the European mainstream (not withstanding the Irish exception). It would raise alarm bells in both the US and in Europe, and make it more difficult to maintain good relations, and technical cooperation, with UK armed forces. It might also complicate Scotland's application for EU membership, the success of which is critical for economic stability. |
| Senior SNP sources insist they are alive to these issues. Deeply frustrated by the spat earlier this year, they insist that no formal defence proposals are yet available to debate or attack. The Scottish government is essentially staging its own internal defence review, drafting a detailed policy on the purpose and shape of a Scottish defence force for publication in November 2013. | Senior SNP sources insist they are alive to these issues. Deeply frustrated by the spat earlier this year, they insist that no formal defence proposals are yet available to debate or attack. The Scottish government is essentially staging its own internal defence review, drafting a detailed policy on the purpose and shape of a Scottish defence force for publication in November 2013. |
| Angus Robertson, the SNP's defence spokesman at Westminster, has visited Norway and Denmark to study their defence policies and tour their naval bases. This gives a strong hint where the SNP's defence strategy is heading: looking at the Arctic and the "High North" Atlantic, a region which will be the focus of intense competition with the Russians for mineral and energy resources, as the ice cap recedes, as the main focus for a future defence force. | Angus Robertson, the SNP's defence spokesman at Westminster, has visited Norway and Denmark to study their defence policies and tour their naval bases. This gives a strong hint where the SNP's defence strategy is heading: looking at the Arctic and the "High North" Atlantic, a region which will be the focus of intense competition with the Russians for mineral and energy resources, as the ice cap recedes, as the main focus for a future defence force. |
| But at the core is this question: what would Scotland need to defend and why? Apart from civil defence, its landmass and coastal waters, there are the North Sea oil and gas platforms which currently provide the UK up to £12bn a year in revenues, and future oil fields west of Shetland on the Atlantic frontier. It would have to include offshore wind and marine energy plants, and Scotland's substantial fishing grounds. | But at the core is this question: what would Scotland need to defend and why? Apart from civil defence, its landmass and coastal waters, there are the North Sea oil and gas platforms which currently provide the UK up to £12bn a year in revenues, and future oil fields west of Shetland on the Atlantic frontier. It would have to include offshore wind and marine energy plants, and Scotland's substantial fishing grounds. |
| At present, the Scottish government already operates four unarmed fishery protection vessels. But because of the UK defence cuts, there are no maritime patrol aircraft. Scotland would also likely need a dedicated special forces for oil and green energy fields. | At present, the Scottish government already operates four unarmed fishery protection vessels. But because of the UK defence cuts, there are no maritime patrol aircraft. Scotland would also likely need a dedicated special forces for oil and green energy fields. |
| The best available Scottish government position on defence was set out in its independence white paper Your Scotland, Your Voice in September 2009. It was extremely short on detail on defence, but said there were four core objects: | The best available Scottish government position on defence was set out in its independence white paper Your Scotland, Your Voice in September 2009. It was extremely short on detail on defence, but said there were four core objects: |
| to uphold national sovereignty and secure the territorial integrity of the country; to secure internal security in the face of threats and risks in partnership with other nations; to help to prevent and resolve conflicts and war anywhere in the world in partnership with other nations; to further peaceful development in the world with due respect for human rights. | to uphold national sovereignty and secure the territorial integrity of the country; to secure internal security in the face of threats and risks in partnership with other nations; to help to prevent and resolve conflicts and war anywhere in the world in partnership with other nations; to further peaceful development in the world with due respect for human rights. |
But, as Chalmers argues, if Scotland were to join Nato or take part in a larger regional defence of the north east Atlantic and European Arctic waters, it would need to offer more than just a territorial defence force; it would need some form of expeditionary forces, air power and naval forces. | But, as Chalmers argues, if Scotland were to join Nato or take part in a larger regional defence of the north east Atlantic and European Arctic waters, it would need to offer more than just a territorial defence force; it would need some form of expeditionary forces, air power and naval forces. |
| So: what would an independent Scotland need for that, and where would they come from? Would the Scottish government expect to get a pro rata share of the UK's existing forces, and cherry-pick those ships and planes and land forces which suited its defence strategy, but not the UK's and Nato's? | So: what would an independent Scotland need for that, and where would they come from? Would the Scottish government expect to get a pro rata share of the UK's existing forces, and cherry-pick those ships and planes and land forces which suited its defence strategy, but not the UK's and Nato's? |
| One immediate question is how much Scotland could and should spend on defence. Chalmers, a Scot by birth and upbringing, has worked out a notional cost, again based on Denmark and Norway. | One immediate question is how much Scotland could and should spend on defence. Chalmers, a Scot by birth and upbringing, has worked out a notional cost, again based on Denmark and Norway. |
| He suggests this: | He suggests this: |
| Denmark and Norway spent 1.4% and 1.5%, respectively, of GDP on defence in 2010. If Scotland had done the same - spending 1.45% of GDP on defence - it would have had an 2010 defence budget of £1.7 billion, excluding extra-regio GDP, or £2.1 billion, if one includes the estimated share of offshore GDP. | Denmark and Norway spent 1.4% and 1.5%, respectively, of GDP on defence in 2010. If Scotland had done the same - spending 1.45% of GDP on defence - it would have had an 2010 defence budget of £1.7 billion, excluding extra-regio GDP, or £2.1 billion, if one includes the estimated share of offshore GDP. |
| This is considerably less than the £3.3bn which the SNP estimates Scottish taxpayers currently contribute to defence spending. The last regional break-down for defence within the UK found that in 2007/08, the MoD spent £1.57bn directly in Scotland. | This is considerably less than the £3.3bn which the SNP estimates Scottish taxpayers currently contribute to defence spending. The last regional break-down for defence within the UK found that in 2007/08, the MoD spent £1.57bn directly in Scotland. |
| That figure is very likely to include the costs of running the Clyde Submarine base at Faslane and Coulport west of Glasgow where Trident is based. It is also where all the UK's new Astute nuclear hunter killer submarines will be based with remaining Trafalgar class nuclear submarines from 2017. | That figure is very likely to include the costs of running the Clyde Submarine base at Faslane and Coulport west of Glasgow where Trident is based. It is also where all the UK's new Astute nuclear hunter killer submarines will be based with remaining Trafalgar class nuclear submarines from 2017. |
| And Faslane and Coulport are the trickiest issues of all for the SNP, military specialists believe. Becoming a non-nuclear weapons state is, said one SNP source, a "red line", non-negotiable issue. But removing and redeploying Trident will be very costly and laborious; it would require a long transition period and extensive decommissioning and decontamination work. Coulport has stored nuclear warheads since the 1960s. | And Faslane and Coulport are the trickiest issues of all for the SNP, military specialists believe. Becoming a non-nuclear weapons state is, said one SNP source, a "red line", non-negotiable issue. But removing and redeploying Trident will be very costly and laborious; it would require a long transition period and extensive decommissioning and decontamination work. Coulport has stored nuclear warheads since the 1960s. |
| That presupposes the rUK has another base to send them to, but crucially, it also presupposes the UK government, Nato and the US would agree to removing Trident if Scotland wanted to join Nato. Several Scottish defence analysts believe they would not, so could the Scottish government be forced to compromise, as the price of a future alliance? | That presupposes the rUK has another base to send them to, but crucially, it also presupposes the UK government, Nato and the US would agree to removing Trident if Scotland wanted to join Nato. Several Scottish defence analysts believe they would not, so could the Scottish government be forced to compromise, as the price of a future alliance? |
| 12.25pm: | |
| There are several key issues to tackle for the SNP and Scottish government, on the equipment and forces that a putative Scottish defence force would need, and on its membership or links to Nato. Many defence analysts believe membership of Nato will be essential. | |
| A central problem for the SNP being raised by Angus Robertson, the SNP defence spokesman at Westminster, is that the forces, bases and equipment physically present in Scotland are not suitable for an SDF or for meeting Scotland's likely defence needs. Successive UK government's have heavily trimmed back on once substantial military assets in Scotland after the end of the Cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. | |
| That process is continuing in the current defence cuts: many services are being condensed, cut back and focused in England, an issue raised this morning by sneakyboy and others. The MoD insists this is more efficient financially, that the UK's defence is a collective effort, and that Scotland is no longer geographically on the Cold war front line. | |
| In an STV Scotland Tonight special on defence on Wednesday evening, Robertson argued that the scrapping of the UK's Nimrod maritime patrol fleet and a widely-rumoured decision to move the Royal Marines 45 Commando from Arbroath to England, left Scotland unable to adequately protect North Sea oil rigs. An independent Scotland could have to buy its own. | |
| He also said Scotland no longer had any helicopters based there. Added to this, military sources have told the Guardian that the five battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland is likely to lose at least one more battalion, and possibly two, in the next round of defence cuts. | |
| The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards tank regiment – a core part of the 7th Armoured Brigade that Salmond believes would be the basis of an SDF - is also said to be very vulnerable: defence chiefs are expected to cut one of the UK's two surviving tank regiments. In modern, highly mobile expeditionary warfare based on force projection, tanks are no longer essential. | |
| On Scotland Tonight, Robertson said: | |
| As we know in Scotland to our cost, the UK has scrapped the entire [marine patrol aircraft] fleet, those were the Nimrod aircraft based at RAF Kinloss, so now the UK has none of the aircraft whatsoever. The Irish republic does, Norway does, Denmark does, the UK does not and that's a capability gap that we in Scotland will have to look at... | |
| The UK is not adequately protecting our maritime resources at the present time. [How] should we decide to deal with this gap? I think the best way to deal with it is to be able to make these decisions as close to home as possible. At the present time, Scottish taxpayers contribute over £3bn a year to the MoD in Whitehall but the government in London decides to only spend £2bn of that contribution in Scotland. | |
| UK government officials and ministers believe the regional spending issue is fatuous because the UK's defence is collective, and most military operations happen overseas; they also insist that with the UK spending deficit, financial efficiency is crucial. | |
| On Nato membership, Robertson is very carefully not ruling out continued membership of Nato. As Dr Philips O'Brien, of Glasgow university, pointed out on the programme, the country which Robertson is so keen to work with, Norway, regards Nato membership as absolutely essential. | |
Nato is an example of a country which is desperate to stay within Nato because of the defence of its old fields. In fact Norway believes Nato is the foundation of its defence because it has oil fields, and it's quite worried about Russia [There is] no way that Norway would somehow make special exceptions to defend a non-Nato Scotland. | |
| Robertson will publicly confirm that working with Nato is part of current SNP policy. He said that an independent Scotland would want to participate in UN-sanctioned operations overseas alongside Nato. He cited non-Nato Sweden flying sorties in the Libyan conflict. | |
| The SNP has said we're keen to work with our European colleagues through the common security and defence policy [of the EU] and indeed work within Nato's Partnership for Peace. We're quite content to work with Nato. If one looks at recent operations which we think were justified in international law, the UN thought them important, that would be the most recent example of that with Libya... | |
| But asked explicitly about whether an independent Scotland would remain in Nato, despite the SNP's current policy to withdraw from it, Robertson did not say no: | |
| Preparations are being made for the prospectus which will be put before the Scottish people and unlike decisions that have been made in Westminster, this happens in an orderly process. | |
| Our colleagues in the Scottish government are looking at the policy options for Scotland; they're looking at the challenges that one faces; one has to look at the options that are before you and then you move on to producing a prospectus which will inform the debate in Scotland in the run-up to the referendum. |