Defence: Who will we be fighting for post-Referendum?

Military experts and politicians from both perspectives of the debate weigh in on vision for post-indy armed forces.

NO

‘SNP’s plans are embarrassing’, by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Scottish Secretary and former Secretary of State for Defence

I am sure that Alex Salmond understands the absolute necessity for any independent Scottish state to have a credible defence policy.

The defence of your country is the supreme responsibility of any government.

If he is with me so far, Mr Salmond better get a grip. The SNP’s policy for a separate Scottish Army, Navy and Air Force is an embarrassing mess which has been rejected by every serious military spokesman and defence analyst. The SNP, simply, have not done their homework.

Firstly, they began by saying the existing Scottish regiments, such as the Scots Guards, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and the Royal Regiment of Scotland would be the core of the new Scottish Army. To a man, these regiments told the SNP to head homewards and think again. They are part of the British Army. Most of the Scots Guards, and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards are soldiers who live in England and Wales, but have some family connection with Scotland. They would have no interest in transferring to some small Scottish Army that would be of little military significance.

Secondly, Scotland’s proud tradition of building ships for the Royal Navy would disappear. The Royal Navy has only ever had ships built in British yards. The Clyde would no longer be eligible as it would not be part of the United Kingdom that would be inevitable.

Thirdly, why on earth should NATO accept a separate Scottish state as a new member when Mr Salmond would simultaneously be expelling the Trident nuclear submarines which are an integral part of NATO’s defence strategy from Faslane? It doesn’t add up. Scots share a small island with our fellow citizens in England and Wales. We have been free from invasion for over 300 years because of a single Army and Navy. That is what the United Kingdom is all about.

We are better together.

‘Deeply worried about defence’, by General Lord Dannatt, former head of the Army, Chief of the General Staff 2006-2009

Viewed from south of the Border, the future defence of Scotland seems to be the weakest link in the SNP’s case for independence. The fundamental requirement of the government of any sovereign state is to provide fully for the security and defence of that state and its citizens. The SNP say they can do that for between £2bn and £2.5bn per year, but that reveals they have little or no understanding of the real costs of defence nor what their real responsibilities are to provide for the security of the Scottish people.

As someone who loves Scotland, I am deeply worried about its future defence, as are many of my Scottish friends.

The cost of the commitments the SNP have made about the size of a future Scottish Defence Force and inheriting ‘Scotland’s share’ of current UK defence assets just do not add up. Manning all current Scottish regiments and ‘restoring’ former Scottish regiments, as pledged, plus appropriate combat support units and some Special Forces, would take up the majority of the 15,000 Scottish Defence Force on her land forces alone. But what about command and control, intelligence, countering terrorist and cyber-threats, let alone protecting Scotland’s 11,000 miles of coastline and her airspace?

Scotland’s ‘share’ of current assets would give her five Chinook helicopters, 10 Typhoon jets, two Hercules C-130 transports, 1.6 destroyers or Frigates, half an Astute submarine, one sixth of an aircraft carrier and just under one Red Arrow! These capabilities only make sense within an integrated UK.

And the Scottish people in the UK Armed Forces today? They joined a fully professional set of Armed Forces committed to the defence of the entire UK. Do they really want now to be part of a local home defence force, outside NATO and the EU, along the lines of Denmark and Norway?

I doubt it.

YES

‘Historic chance to improve defence’ by Angus Robertson, SNP Westminster leader and Defence Spokesman

Independence offers a historic chance for improving conventional defence in Scotland.

At its heart is a commitment to deliver the defence and security priorities of the people of Scotland rather than leave it to Westminster governments that we often don’t elect and make bad decisions on our behalf. Normal countries make defence decisions and Scotland should too.

The Scottish Government has provided an impressive amount of detail in the White Paper. Plans are based on key domestic, regional and foreign policy priorities and will deliver the appropriate conventional capabilities, providing security for Scotland and our neighbours and allies.

There are very clear and welcome commitments to raising personnel numbers and conventional defence spending in Scotland, retaining military bases, widening capabilities and enhanced terms and cond-itions for servicemen and women.

The Scottish Government is crystal clear on the speediest, safest departure of nuclear submarines from the Clyde as a key priority with Faslane having an important future as Scotland’s main conventional naval base and Joint Forces Headquarters.

The White Paper stresses the importance of properly phasing personnel. This is important for our national defence, but also for service-men and women, their families and defence-dependent communities. Currently serving personnel will be able to transfer to the Scottish Defence Force and there will be significant improvements in terms and conditions of service. This is great news for personnel and their families who want a long-term future in Scotland.

Under Westminster, Scotland does not have what it needs. With independence, Scotland will make defence decisions that are better for Scotland, but also beneficial to our neighbours and allies. We will be able take our security responsibilities seriously within NATO as a conventionally armed country.

‘UK Army doesn’t meet Scots’ needs’, by Andrew Parrott, retired Army Lieutenant-Colonel and fellow of the Scottish Global Forum

The White Paper sets out priorities for the phased build-up of a Scottish Defence Force. This suggests an understanding of the need to concentrate at first on developing an appropriate defence infrastructure and recruiting and training personnel to serve in the SDF. Without these steps, equipment and military units would be ineffective.In the context of an independent Scotland, the suggested roles of the SDF make sense. The budget proposed and the force structure of the SDF would be quite similar to the defence budget of Denmark and their armed forces. This shouldn’t come as a surprise given that Denmark has almost the same population as Scotland.Reflecting geography, the SDF might, compared with Denmark, emphasise naval and air forces slightly more and land forces slightly less. At present, within the UK, Scotland pays a large price for the upkeep of armed forces that, while very capable, do not properly meet Scotland’s defence needs. In an independent Scotland, a smaller price would be paid for forces that better meet Scotland’s needs.What’s more, the defence budget would nearly all be spent in Scotland supporting Scottish jobs and industry. With armed forces comparable to other small European states, why shouldn’t Scotland feel as secure as they do?At present, defence industry in Scotland leans heavily towards shipbuilding and a Scottish Navy would need some new vessels to carry out its roles. In an independent Scotland, with its own armed forces, there would also be new opportunities for defence contractors. And defence contractors offering high-quality products and servicesat competitive prices would have a Scottish government ass-isting them in every way they could in global markets.