From the SNP website - Policy on defence
All of the text below is verbatim from SNP.org – the bold and red highlighting is mine.
The SNP wants Scotland to be a normal country making its own decisions about defence and peacekeeping. Only when priorities are set in Scotland can we prevent our brave servicemen and women being ordered into illegal conflicts. The historic regiments of Scotland have been destroyed through amalgamation and downsizing; an independent Scotland will redress this.
A Scottish Defence Service
The priority of the Scottish Defence Services (SDS), in partnership with Scotland’s neighbours and allies, will be to safeguard our land, sea and air space. The SDS will initially be equipped with Scotland’s negotiated share of UK defence resources. Service and pension conditions will be at least equal to those of the UK forces.
The SDS will be a professional force supported by reserve forces with employment opportunities open to everyone meeting the appropriate standard. MoD civilian support personnel employed in Scotland at Independence will have the opportunity to remain in the Scottish MoD or Scottish civil service. Scotland will maintain active defence commitments with its friends and allies through the United Nations, European Union and Partnership for Peace.
No to Nuclear
The SNP reaffirms that no nuclear weapons will be based on independent Scottish soil.
An independent SNP government will not be part of a nuclear-based commitment such as NATO.
SNP priorities in defence are that:
• Defence policy should be made in Scotland’s national Parliament.
• Scotland’s armed services should be well remunerated, equipped and trained.
• Historic regiments will be re-established as part of the SDS.
• Military facilities, including strategic airforce stations, should not be downsized at the present time.
• Nuclear weapons will be banished from Scotland forever.
• Counter terrorism provision will be enhanced, and plans will include elements of the regular and reserve SDS as part of a co-ordinated strategy.
• Military practice will be reviewed to balance the necessity of training against the disturbance to communities.
A fair deal for our soldiers and their families
Our soldiers and their families deserve to be treated with respect, both during and after service. Bereaved families should not have to wait years to lay loved ones to rest, or to find out the circumstances surrounding the deaths.
The Scottish Government will continue to work with the UK Government to find a way to allow military inquests to be heard in Scotland requiring changes to current legislation. No family should have to wait 3 years to put loved ones to rest, and by moving inquests to Scotland, we can remove current backlogs in the system.
Posts
When you write it, it seems so logical, normal and reasonable.
ReplyDeleteYet, the Brit nats feel that £100bn (Gordon Brown's decision in the end) spent on nukes is money well spent; rather than spend that on a million other things that could help society.
VOTE YES
I didn't write it, Stevie - it's an SNP policy statement. I agree with every word of it, but I would have added a few ...
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this. It shows that the defence policy questions supposedly left open on this topic (or so the dependence parties claim) have actually been answered.
ReplyDeleteCertainly the fundamentals for me, Jeanne, and about all the average voter - and member of the armed forces - needs to know. The details are complex, of course, as are the details of everything else about Scotland's independence, but they are for negotiation after the referendum, when the Scottish people have said YES to freedom.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine the Founding Fathers of the United States of America responding to a demand from King George for all the details before he condescended to talk?
They, having no other choice, did it the audacious and brave way - Scotland hopes to do it democratically.
I couldn't agree with this. It seems to be no more grounded in reality than UK defence policy is.
ReplyDeleteTo take just one point, the commitment to reestablish "historic regiments" sets the *minimum* size of the army on a par with Ireland. But Ireland's armed forces, although improved from historic levels, are still equipped to more or less Third World standards. There is no rational case for an army of this size and type in Scotland, just as there is none for its retention in Ireland. We do not need it for ourselves and the UN plainly has no need of yet more poorly equipped peacekeepers with rifles and not much else when Bangladesh, India, Fiji, Nigeria and many other countries can provide them at much less cost.
Stewart Crawford was interviewed on Newsweek yesterday regarding defence in an independent Scotland - here, beginning at about 42 minutes 50 seconds - and it is worth a listen to what he has to say.
One thing we could learn from the recent stushie over the "emergency towing vessels" and the earlier one over search and rescue helicopter provision is that defence, broadly defined, includes a lot more than aircraft carriers, fast jets, tanks and submarines. And for many of those other things, far from "punching above its weight" the UK is very poorly served indeed: no tugs for emergencies, no search and rescue aircraft or helicopters, no coastguard worth the name. Our neighbours, whether in France, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, or Germany, do much better.
Re-establishing the historic regiments says little about the size of the armed forces - just about identity and re-grouping. Scotland will have the defence capability it needs and can afford, just like the neigbouts you quote, Angus.
ReplyDeletePunching above its weight - an unfortunate phrase - in the context of the UK means strutting on a global stage and fighting ruinous foreign wars that are none of our business.
Relieved of the ruinous costs of WMDs, not to mention the corruption and incompetence of the MOD, Scotland's commitment to the Scottish Soldier will be maintained. And we won't have more admirals than we have ships ...
It is indeed possible, in theory, that the "historic regiments" could be recreated in such a way that this had no bearing on the size of the army. But this is unlikely.
ReplyDeleteThe decision to perpetuate UK military tradition in an independent Scotland, especially if combined with officer training at Sandhurst as suggested by Crawford yesterday, is likely to result in the Scottish Defence Forces resembling the UK forces on a smaller scale.
Anyone indoctrinated into UK-style thinking on defence, whether soldier or civil servant, will have a basic preconception of what "The Royal Scots" or "The Black Watch" should be in terms of size and structure and cost. Indeed, this applies much more widely. The basic infantry battalion building block of the UK army is broadly comparable to those found in the Australian or Canadian or Irish one in numbers. Without some radical new approach there must be a link between the number of regiments in the hypothetical SDF and its overall strength.
Armed with a blank sheet of paper and a vague idea of what an army "ought" to look like, it is a fair guess that a committee of experts given no more guidance than is contained in the SNP defence policy statement would produce a scheme for an army whose strength was at least 10,000 men and women, and quite probably more. This, or so it seems to me, is a very large number.
As for the admirals joke, you may end up eating those words as outside of army equipment and helicopters, the UK armed forces have relatively little material which would be useful to Scotland. Let's consider ships. In round numbers, we might expect that our share would be one in twelve of the Royal Navy's mighty (expensive) fleet and that anything less that one means no ship and less debt. The end result is that we could expect to inherit precisely two seagoing ships: one frigate and one minesweeper. If only three of the many princes were admirals in the Royal Scottish Navy, we would indeed have more admirals than ships.
Scotland has about 50% of the island of Britain's coastline and about the same proportion of the UK's 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone. We might even inherit the UK's supposed responsibility for maritime search and rescue out to 30 degrees West for the rUK will surely want to be relieved of this. (You can see the various search and rescure zones on this map.) There seems to be a very large gap between requirements and the likely resources available from a division of UK assets, at least where ships are concerned. (I believe the same would be true of fixed wing aircraft, but I won't bore you or your readers with the grisly detail.)
You seem to have a very clear idea of defence resources, Angus, and I would guess you have some claims to real experience and expertise in this area. Perhaps a military background?
ReplyDeleteBut since I know nothing about you from your Google profile, I can't judge how authoritative your concepts and figures are, and I wouldn't have the expertise to challenge them even if I did.
I have no doubt what my priorities are as a voter committed to an independent Scotland - they are -
no nuclear weapons, no nuclear-powered submarines
a defence force and defence commitment with a raison d'etre of defence, not aggression
a defence capacity that is appropriate to a small nation
the end of the concept of defence spending as a job creation scheme and a wealth generator for armaments companies and politicians.
I believe the Scottish government either has or can call upon the requisite expertise to judge and structure an independent Scotland's defence policy and strategy.
But I do agree with you on one thing - the UK and the MOD defence strategy is either incompetent or corrupt, and almost certainly both.
The nuclear issue, the defence issue and foreign policy are my fundamental reasons for wanting to be free of the UK. I don't trust them with Scotland's future, but I do trust the Scottish National Party.
Now you know my agenda, if you were in any doubt. I have no idea of yours.
Thanks for posting, Angus.
I have no real-world expertise and no knowledge beyond what can be found on the internet and in print, so I will probably be wrong to some degree in much that I say. My interest is much the same as yours, only I have less confidence in the infallibility of the SNP leadership.
ReplyDeleteWe should all be thinking about how to avoid the mistakes made by the UK (and other countries) and not leaving it to just a handful of people in Edinburgh, much of whose time and energy will be taken up with the routine of government. And that doesn't just apply to people like you or me who are in favour of independence. Even those who are opposed or undecided should be "thinking about the unthinkable".
And with so many countries having become independent in the C20th, we can surely learn a lot by other people's mistakes. A very important lesson might be learned from those countries who agreed to give their former "partner" rights to military bases on their soil. It is nearly fifty years since Cyprus became independent, and the UK still controls bases on the island.
It's easy to say that this kind of thing couldn't happen, but if you read this commentary piece on the Royal United Services Institute website you'll be left with the impression that thinking hasn't changed much at all in some places. Being good neighbours is one thing, but I wouldn't let my neighbour keep his pet tiger in my bedroom, or coup his rubbish in my garden, and neither would anybody else.
You've given me a lot to think about, Angus, and thanks for doing so.
ReplyDeleteThe problem for me is that I try to think as the ordinary intelligent and informed voter thinks, and even as the less informed but committed Scots thinks, because in a democracy, they are the people who determine our futures.
I cannot be expert in every aspect of government anymore than they can, so simple but not simplistic messages are necessary if Scotland is to achieve its independence. We will be subjected to a barrage of propaganda and a blizzard of 'fact' in the run up to the referendum, and the Unionists will try to bury us in detail and minutiae.
Only clear thinking and constant reduction to fundamentals will give voters a clear idea of just what they are voting for.
Democracy demands awareness of the voter, but there must be trust - nations are not built on facts alone.
A long career in management taught me this at least - that you can always find an expert who will argue a viewpoint backed by 'facts', and experts can not only be wrong, they can also be bought, as any lawyer will tell you.
At the end of the day, clarity of objectives, grasp of the essential of conflicting arguments, and ultimately deciding who to trust are the factors that make for good decision making.
Thanks for posting, Angus.