The SNP’s latest defence proposals for an independent Scotland are both unrealistic and unnecessary, yet at the same time they indicate a singular lack of imagination on the part of SNP policy makers. Sadly, it appears that party politics have in this case taken priority over serious nation-building. No Scottish politician can ignore the fact that the armed forces and defence industries are major employers in Scotland, and therefore Alex Salmond has taken the easy way out by arguing that the Westminster government’s defence review can provide the template for the shape of a future Scottish Defence Force.
In reality, it is inappropriate and unnecessary for Scotland to have its own Defence Force. The SNP must not go down a route of dogmatic nationalism, demanding a separate army as a badge of independence – surely a party of progressive social democrats is more grown-up than that? Bearing in mind that between 1660 and 1707, Scottish regiments fought alongside their English fellows as soldiers of the Crown, the concept of the British Army is older than the Union itself. A precedent for a binational military unit exists in the 1 German/Netherlands Corps, and England and Scotland have rather more in common than Germany and the Netherlands – a shared language, a shared monarch and a less complicated recent military history. If Germany and the Netherlands can make military co-operation work, why not England and Scotland?
It might be objected that, in any agreement on joint defence, Scotland would essentially be without an army of its own and therefore rank as a second-class state beside England. My answer to this would be twofold. It must be made clear that the British Army (as such a force should still be called) is not the army of the UK, but a binational force defending both England and Scotland. The monarch, as commander in chief of the army, will provide a centre of unity and allegiance for both English and Scots. In a union of crowns, which England and Scotland will remain after Scotland’s independence, compromises must be made; obviously, a binational British Army could not be engaged without the consent of both governments. However, for centuries Scotland has provided the backbone of the British Army – it is only fair that Scotland should get a say in its deployment.
An essential implausibility in the SNP’s defence proposal is the assumption that Scottish units in the British Army would automatically become Scottish, or indeed that Scottish soldiers would be willing to serve in a Scottish Defence Force without the international prestige, traditions and capabilities of the British Army. Given that Irish citizens are permitted to enlist in the British Army, the idea of barring Scottish citizens from doing the same thing seems absurd and unworkable.
On one issue Alex Salmond is quite right – the removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil is an absolute prerequisite of independence, and there is no reason why Scotland should pay for the removal of nuclear weapons from its territory. Scotland has already endorsed a party in favour of unilateral disarmament and a vote for independence would be a further endorsement. A sensible Westminster government would of course solve this problem by disarming the UK in advance of independence and scrapping Trident.
It’s disappointing that you assume an independent Scotland would need any kind of armed force. Why? Even if Scotland were a member of NATO, would it be necessary to have a standing army? Iceland doesn’t. And if Scotland were not a member of NATO, presumably NATO would nevertheless insist on certain privileges (and whether or not Scotland had an army would make little difference on its ability to refuse them). Some military resources could be converted to peaceful civilian use (eg rescue operations), but otherwise what is the point? To quell strikes and demonstrations?
I’d agree with much of what Tony says, though with some provisos.
Scotland doesn’t really need much in the way of an army, it faces no threat at all on land. The land it does have it mostly rough terrain, with lots of peninsulas and islands, a threat would come from the sea. It would need an navy of reasonable size (say comparable to Norway), given the number of islands and the rough terrain any infantry component of Scottish forces would need marine capability. An air force would simply be there to support the navy/marines and intercept (the Russians haven’t gone away yet).
Using the example of Norway again, they have around 23,000 fulltime personnel. It would be hard to see Scotland requiring anything larger than that.
Given the historic nature of Scots serving in the British army, England could easily keep a number of Scottish battalions – supply of Scots will outstrip demand back home.
As someone who lives south of the border (in Wales ) your article seems to based that Scotland and the rest of the UK wil have an amicable divorce. However the way that Alex Salamond and the SNP are busy piosoning the water there could be a nasty backlash and therefore a more likely yes vote in the 2014 vote.
I think that the idea of a binational army with Scotland financing 8-9% of it but having the right of veto on operations is just plain daft. Indeed if the SNP have their way Scotland WILL NOT BE A MILITARY ALLY of the UK . It will be out of NATO and possiblely out of the EU. Spain has said that she will block her membership as will Italy .
The likely blueprint for the Scottish Defence Force will be that of the Republic of Ireland not Norway. Norway spends more than double the amount being proposed by the SNP and its navy and airfoce are indeed modern and expensive . ( 5 new frigates cost alone 6.5 billion dollars)
The UK does not have any defence treaty with Eire and if that country would be invaded do not hold your breath for the UK to come to the rescue. Indeed as time goes by despite the N Ireland agreements and the Queens visit the relationship with Eire is and will become more distant.The number of UK residents living there is dropping all the time , as is the amount of trade ( although still very large) and the number of UK companies operating there.
The UK will not be ordering any new warships from an independent Scotalnd and it could well be the case that Scots loose the right to be automatically allowed into the UK armed forces ( along with the Rep of Eire).
The point where I think that you are right is that a seperate Scotland will force the Uk to loose Trident and therefore its seat on the UN Security Council. Scotland will be blamed for this demotion and the Bank of England will not be a lender of last resort for Scotland.
Inshort Alex Salmond seems to go out of his way to sow the seed of bitterness in the UK . The Balkans have seen what such people can do!