The Scottish Government today released a comprehensive proposal titled “Building a New Scotland: An Independent Scotland’s Place in the World,” laying the groundwork for the nation’s defence and international posture in the wake of independence, should that option return to the table.
Crafted by the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs, and Culture, the document outlines the strategic framework for the defence and security of an independent Scotland.
Here’s the summary.
“An independent Scotland would have its own armed forces, supported by a modern contract for personnel and strong support for veterans. Decisions on future forces capability would be informed by a comprehensive, expert-led Defence and Security Review. This would ensure that planning and capability were responsive to the threat environment and geopolitical challenges in play at the point of independence. This would be aligned with Scotland’s priorities as an independent country – joining NATO, committing to the EU’s Common Security and Defence
Policy and building a collaborative, mutually beneficial defence and security relationship with the UK as well as other key strategic partners.
This Scottish Government proposes that an independent Scotland would apply to join NATO and would seek discussions with NATO leaders at the earliest opportunity following a vote for independence. It would commit to defence spending of 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), recognising NATO’s enduring commitment to invest in defence capabilities.
As part of the EU, this Scottish Government would also participate fully in the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. Scotland would contribute to missions that support global peace and security, and in doing so, join the family of nations fully committed to the international rules-based system and multilateralism.
The third pillar of an independent Scotland’s defence and security policy would be our relationships with our nearest neighbours in the United Kingdom and Ireland. An independent Scotland would build on our strong relationships with the other nations and governments across these isles to ensure our mutual safety.
This Scottish Government would make it a cornerstone of defence policy that an independent Scotland would only participate in overseas military operations that are lawful, approved by Scottish Ministers, and authorised by the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, nuclear weapons should be removed from Scotland in the safest and most expeditious manner possible following independence. Neither of these proposals would prevent Scotland’s ability to act in self-defence or join NATO.”
Key Highlights of the Proposal:
- Comprehensive Defence Review: A priority is the completion of an expert-led Defence and Security Review by independence day, aimed at establishing a versatile military force comprising land, sea, and air components.
- Joint Forces Headquarters: The establishment of a Joint Forces Headquarters, ideally located at Faslane, to coordinate the strategic development of Scotland’s defence capabilities.
- Scottish Security and Intelligence Agency: The introduction of a dedicated national security and intelligence body to ensure focused efforts on national security.
- Interoperability and International Alliances: The framework emphasizes building a collaborative defence and security relationship with the UK and aligning with international bodies like NATO and the EU.
Defence Force Structure:
The paper states that in addition to undertaking a strategic Defence and Security Review and threat assessment, other priorities following a vote for independence would include:
- “identifying arrangements for joint working with the UK for a transitional period, and a timetable for UK forces to gradually draw down their presence in Scotland as our independent capability builds up, while recognising that our most enduring security partnership will be with the UK
- the creation of a Joint Forces Headquarters at Faslane that would lead the build-up of our armed forces
- establishing a high level of confidence in our capabilities across Scotland, the UK, the EU and with NATO to allow our key allies to understand and trust our capabilities”
Building on these initial priorities, and without presuming the outcome of any future assessment, the broad shape of an independent Scotland’s initial capability is expected to include the following elements according to the paper:
- “a land component, with units whose role would be to operate on the frontline of any operation. This would mean a mix of infantry, artillery, and combat service support units such as medics, engineers, and logistical troops
- a maritime component that would focus on Scotland’s strategically important geographical location that sees us bordered by the North Sea, and the North Atlantic. Our maritime forces would patrol and secure our territorial waters while protecting critical national infrastructure such as the subsea cable network that surrounds Scotland. Given our strategically important location as the most northernly non-Arctic nation our maritime defence measures would support not just Scotland but also our allies
- an air component that would consist of aircraft and supporting infrastructure able to undertake core tasks, such as securing Scotland’s airspace, transporting personnel, materials and equipment by air, both across Scotland and overseas, protecting our territory and armed forces from a range of threats”
Proposed Armed Forces Size:
Reflecting on the strategic considerations, the Scottish Government proposes a phased approach to reach a target of:
- 15,000 regular personnel
- 5,000 reserve personnel
This size aims to position Scotland’s defence forces comparably with nations of similar size and strategic context, according to the paper.
Transition Offer to UK Forces:
The Scottish Government has thoughtfully addressed the integration of UK defence personnel into the future Scottish Armed Forces, emphasizing voluntariness and respect in the transition process. Key aspects include:
- Voluntary Transition: No UK service personnel will be compelled to join the Scottish Armed Forces.
- Negotiated Transition Process: The transition will be subject to negotiation between the Scottish and UK governments.
- Attractive and Flexible Contracts: Transitioning personnel are promised appealing contracts with modern pay and conditions.
- Support for Personnel and Families: Comprehensive support measures for service members and their families.
The Scottish Government’s publication presents a set of ambitions and principles rather than a concrete military blueprint. It signals the intent to conduct a thorough Defence and Security Review, which will be critical in defining the specific capabilities, size, and structure of Scotland’s armed forces in the event of independence.
Ross Greer?
One is forced to ask if the SNP are all congenital idiots
Why? Have you actually read the document? What is wrong with outlining proposals? What is actually wrong with them based on your no doubt wide ranging expert opinion?
Yes… It looks just like he has….
Nick wrote: “”Have you actually read the document? “” Ive just finished reading it and all I see is nothing more than a load of bunf based on famed Scottish mist which peddles half-truths, suppositions and a large dose of whoppers in which to blindside those who don’t know any better that the SNP have a plan of action designed not to lay out what will take place once they achieve independence but as a tool designed to garner more support for independence. Which is why the article spends a lot of time and effort gushing about what a victim Scotland is… Read more »
Your PS. I thought the SNP only had about £100k in the bank!
That was the figure reported over the weekend by the SNP and by the media:
Scottish Government pledges £250,000 to assist refugees from conflict in Sudan
Thanks Farouk. It is rare for Governments to send money to Charities.
They’d have more if they sold off the campaign vehicle aka Nicola Sturgeons Camper van purchased out of SNP funds for +£80k
Unfortunately they don’t have £100K anymore wee Jimmy Krankie nicked it all.
The SNP do not fund the Government. Unlike the oligarchs, money launderers and trade unions that fund the 2 bigger parties and thir self-interests.
The SNP wouldn’t really exist if we had a better Labour and Conservative party. The fact they are so dismal gave room for the SNP to nationalist campaigning. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair thought they shoot the fox of independence if they had devolution but they they put it in steroids. Wee Jimmy Krankie and the SNP are just symptomatic of a wider malaise in British politics.
While your seemingly well written response has taken some time to put together, your use of language like ‘gushing’, ‘mist’ half-truths’ belies the basis of your own interpration and fixation with one specific outcome. The whole point that you appear to have been unable to comprehend is that the paper is an option appraisal which means that nothing can be ruled in and nothing ruled out. It is a paper for consideration and to point out your opinions of possible irregularites or mistakes is a valid response but such responses need to be based on fact not inuendo and fixed… Read more »
Hi Nick,
In my humble opinion the SNP would do anything, say saything to get independence regardless of the consequences. Just writing a document which to me just demonstrated how little the SNP know about or care about the subject failed to impress me and by the sounds of it the rest of the guys here don’t seem that impressed either. Defence is important. You need a way to retain all of the defensive arrangements we currently have, in the place and strength we have them. They are there for a reason.
Agree say everything is fine, they have a working plan, it’s all going to be great. Reality will be all capital flows leaving Scotland and an IMF / ECB bail out required within 5 years.
Not to mention NATO being less than happy with what Scottish independence will have done to a key NATO nations military structure, it’s not just the nuclear deterrent.
The SNP are already writing cheques they can’t pay for.
bail out within 5 months, more like!
No mention of what they would do to one of NATOs key nuclear deterrent forces.
Blindly ignoring the fact that the UK deterrent force, based in Scotland would likely be crippled by Scottish independence and the SNPs policy of removing the deterrent from Scottish territory.
Then NATO is expected to welcome them with open arms?
It’s full of daftness. Scotland wants independence, but wants to join the EU a federated superstate.
Apparently so
I had to look up this man. Is he still in short trousers? He looks young (29). This is the guy who has said the following:
It’s funny really when you realise the Scot’s were far more avid I imperialists than the English…and per capita..invested more..sent out more people, had more colonial politicians than England. They do tend to forget that Scotland was just as much imperial Britain as England was…and infact one of the driving benfits for Scotland joining the union was for profit and wealth on an imperial mission.
The Act of Union came about because of Scotland FAILED American colony. Of course all of the Mel Wallace fans fail to read their own history. Anyway, l want reparations for when they sacked York.
Yes indeed they wanted to exploit the network of English colonies and go out exploit the natives….
Ah yes but apparently the young feel they can cleanse their souls by cutting themselves adrift from colonial Britain and filling themselves full of health foods. It hasn’t occurred to them to just live a decent life themselves and try to support efforts which deter war.
Very good and informative post. Thanks.
Ah the would explain ….
What independence ? If there is a referéndum after the results we,ll see.
Perhaps you should read it as that is exactly what it says!
Another waste of tax payers money, Labour will likely take a big bite out of their support base in October/ November, so that might finally stop the continuous SNP whining and bloody moaning…
Were so hard done by, blah, blah , blah 😴😴😴😴.
As one of the panel on QT said when it was in Scotland the other week, ‘the SNP spend £1000 for every £750 they earn’, sums the SNP up really… Not a bloody clue.
Let’s hope and pray that the loon SNP voters wise up and vote labour. The SNP are nothing but a bunch of idiotic morons pledging the world but delivering nothing.
It’s time the Scottish voters woke up to that reality.
A strong labour government north and south of the Scottish border will deliver over at least 2 terms of parliament. Will take at least 2 terms to repair the huge damage done to the UK by successive sell everything off and invest nothing Tory governments.
Morning Mr Bell, I believe the SNP will likely emerge from the election considerably weakened. Regarding Labour, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did two terms, our parliament tends to swing like a pengalim and it’s time for it to swing in Labours direction. Do I think there will be any difference, no. Labour and the Tories are two sides of the same coin. There’s no money to spend and the most important thing for whoever is in charge has to be to pay down the national debt. That will feature for the next 10 years….. I have zero faith… Read more »
identifying arrangements for joint working with the UK for a transitional period, and a timetable for UK forces to gradually draw down their presence in Scotland as our independent capability builds up, while recognising that our most enduring security partnership will be with the UK
As the late great Tommy Cooper* so memorably said ‘Just like that’.
*Tommy Cooper, served seven years in the Royal Horse Guards from 1940 as part of the 8th Army and developed his comedy act in Cairo during the war.
NATO may not welcome having the nuclear umbrella being taken away or even EU. Poland etc may have a view. And yanks losses holy loch ?
Not to mention Turkey, Hungary and Spain
The nuclear umbrella is not being taken away! It would be relocated somewhere else. Did the document say it would be scrapped entirely? Do not the the other 29 NATO members have nuclear weapons? Why would the ‘yanks’ lose Holy Loch?
And who would pay for this magic relocation?
The rest of the UK would have to along with moving any other assets south that would remain.
Ahem, that would be a Scottish cost as part of the divorce bill. You want some military eqpt? Divorce bill. All those extras costs to consider too. Pensions, any service paid for from UK funds. Seriously, it wouldn’t be that long before the Scots will have to pay for Prescriptions, University’s. Poor, sorry, no its Really Very Poor Scotland. No illegal immigrants from there allowed.
Whoever wants to keep them! Not forgetting that Scotland has already contributed towards all defence and other assets anyway. Negotiation at the time! It is not up to use to decide what may or may not happen if this eventuality arises abut our elected representatives.
Scotland takes more out of the UK GDP than it contributes. Technically armed forces costs has not been paid for by Scotland. As a member of the UK we say ‘so what, doesn’t matter were all part of the UK’ and carry on. But, if Scotland were to leave the UK and wanted some military equipment then that could be added to the Scots Divorce Bill. Nothing is straight forwards, a lot has either not been identified by the SNP or they have deliberately ignored it. Either way, Scotland is incapable of fully funding itself. Then of course there are… Read more »
Just as a matter of Interest… where “else” would it be located…. ?
Somewhere outside of Scotland but within what’s left of the U.K. would seem a sensible option. Only other option would be to base it at a USN SSBN base.
The Orkneys and Shetland islands have made noises they would vote to stay in the UK! Scapa Flow anyone?
the orkneys would very likely tell the rest of Scotland where to to go…independent is not well though of in Orkneys at all…infact my family up there have not truck with the nationalists at all. It would make a right old mess of any independence Scotlands EEZ as ma rather large chunk of the north see oil fields would stay in the UK EEZ if Orkney stayed in the UK…and there is no way the nationalists could ever refuse Orkney the right to choose its own destiny….distinct culture and the Scot’s did steal Orkney 600 years ago…so….
MS I take it you read the previous suggestions as to what to do if 2014 had gone the other way ?
Short term SSBN all off to Kings bay Geo, USA, SSN back to Plymouth, meanwhile find a location for a new base.
And if some idiot suggests Barrow, I’m not playing.
Straight choice IMHO is Milford Haven or Falmouth.
If Scotland were independent and the nuclear assets were to be relocated it wouldn’t be up to the Scots to where they were relocated! There are plenty of big cities in England that have facilities within 30 miles!
NC how do you justify junking faslane and not getting rid of holy loch? the dark beauty of a constant nuclear deterrent at sea is it will survive a surprise all out nuclear attack. probably discussed here before but north west Scotland has quicker access to deep water.
Yanks left Holy Loch in 1992! It then closed.
I’m embarrassed and thank you for the correction
What nuclear umbrella? Until Trident is successfully launched and flies to its targeted test range, there is no credible UK deterrent.
US will insist use of Scittish bases and with it nukes so its really just a removal of UK nukes.
While there are alternative locations that where studied back in the Polaris days, it’s impossible to pretend that closing our current facilities in Scotland wouldn’t have a major disruption on British and NATO nuclear deterrents for at least 10 years, and the cost of the move might just be enough to end the UK’s Nuclear Deterrent.
Also, no the other 29 NATO members do not have Nuclear Weapons, that’s just Britain, France and the US.
Yes it would have a major effect, but if you read the actual wording it is about starting the negotiations to relocate them. Quite clearly there would be probably a long drawn out transition. Underground bunkers exist in England already so one more wouldn’t be a major issue and the Trident fleet undergoes maintenance at Devonport so thye could easily be based there. The argument that Scotland cannot be independent because of the nuclear weapons sites is absurd, and is the underlying message behind the criticism. Also if you read what I have said it is that all the NATO… Read more »
The Yanks have been out of Holy Loch for decades, they very occasionally pop into Faslane.
Yanks left Holy Loch in 1992 and so it closed down.
Waffle, and how would they get in Nato? Spain has already stated it will not vote for them, plus we would move or scrap the UK nuclear deterant. And how will they pay and equip this force on top of having to find all the funds to run an country that is under populated,has the highest number on benefit. As always the SNP never clearly say how any thing will be paid for.
We would be introducing another command element in what already exists. Instead of jumping the gun by making an unfounded statement, RTFM! It will be paid for out of taxation, just like the rest of the world. Of have you forgotten that Scotland pays taxes too! Scotland pays nearly twice as much in tax to the Exchequer as we get back in block grants. And the collective GDP is more than sufficient. Also HMT is a currency creator unlike Scotland within the UK. If independent we would also be a currency creator just like all the other nations around the… Read more »
I always enjoy reading your stuff….. keep up the good work, I just sent the wife to get some Beers for the evening….. Och aye the new…….
During 2022-23 tax revenue generated in Scotland, including North Sea oil revenues, amounted to £87.5 billion (8.6% of UK total). During the same period, Scotland benefited from about £106.6 billion in public spending (9.2% of UK total). These were both more than Scotland’s 8.2% population share of the UK.
But please don’t burst his bubble George… It’s so entertaining….😄
So the thinking must be that either spending would need to go down or ways of generating cash goes up.
Can the difference be made up from other things that come with starting a country? Stock exchange, energy exports, currency creation, export controls and so on? I’m totally clueless on that part. I assume some extra money is found but along with that extra expenses will arise.
It’s all hypothetical as no referendum is coming soon.
Maybe new veins of Scottish shortbread can be mined, or new Scotch whiskey fields discovered & drilled, or the Haggis hunting industry expanded?
Or the SNP produce so much hot air that they stand next to a wind turbine and blow it all out over the next 100 years producing ample electricity to export.
Ha! That takes me back to the Goodies mining Cornish cream, jam and scones!
Makes one wonder if the SNP are being deliberately rubbish at governing the Scotland to artificially create a drain on the rest of the country. “I know we could run this country into the ground and then blame the English then they would have no choice but to let us vote ourselves out”
It has been theorised in the past.
George I am a Scot, I am British and I am a European (though not pre EU). Every sane human being in Scotland knows that the constant Elephant in the SNP garden has always been the finances. They can never give a truthful answer to the post Independence finances. “How do you finance Scotland with all its present benefits with no annual Westminster Settlement ? How do you intend to get EU membership without accepting the Euro ? How do you raise funding with no modern direct access to export / imports by sea ? And how do you cope… Read more »
OK can I vote for English emancipation and get our money back…..🤣😂🤣😂..14 billion would do wonders for social care and health care in the English NHS..which is underfunded compared to Scotland.
So.. to summarise income is £87.5 billion expenditure is currently £106 billion . So a £19 billion a year deficit currently. Paid for by rUK and treasury.
I think it’s blatantly obvious a vote for independence would mean Scotland could not afford a decent defence force. It would likely mean the end of free university. Free prescriptions. Free social care etc etc etc.
I was just about to say the same thing when I saw your post. Imagine dumping a defence budget on top of that plus a foreign service. Plus debt to build your military. How many tax bands do they have now in Scotland, six? Best add a few more, me thinks.
And if the SNP decide to adopt Net Zero (as they do some days, but not others) how can they justify oil drilling? Where does the money come from then?
Interesting fairy tale, as always lacking on real facts. You forget when you ever get kicked out of the UK which I hope Scotland one day is, Companies will move south, Warship building will stop, military bases will close such as HMDF. You have the highest tax rate in the UK. We all like a dreamer.
Keep talking the meds and good luck
Sir Would you kindly let the ball pass to us Scots, I realise you
may be a bit upset by certain Rugby results, but play the game.
We Scot’s are quite capable of dealing with the SNP without your assistance which is why they consistently keep losing the argument.
If you ever want a laugh Google the 2014 results but do so by geography.
i’ll leave you to it
I love the wonderful blind hopeful naivety of your argument Nick, good for you… Apparently Scotland spends £100 for everyone £85 it erns at the moment and it’s public services are Fubar. Actually getting the keys for the Castle and running everything, adds a whole level of added responsibility and complexity. So that might represent a ‘slight’ issue for this theoretical independent Scotland…. You would have to implement an austerity package that would cast a dark shadow over Scotland for a generation, massively reduce public spending right across the board and massively increase taxation to make ends meet… The world… Read more »
Same for EU membership, Spain would block it.
They publicly stated this more than once. independance , its a pipe dream but anoying as keeps coming up.
Actually the opposite in regards to Spain.
Really?, its odd as they do not Catolona to breakaway, so you are saying they would support Scottish independence? That is not was publicly said. i live in Scotland my wife is Scottish as are our boys going on about independence bores me and anoys me.
The SNP will never be up front about the cost etc its say any thing, claim any thing to win when its all a load of crap.
Saying that this site does keep bringing it up, stoking the flames.
They stated that as long as it was done constitutionally (ie referendum) then they wouldn’t have any reason to block membership. Catalonia doesn’t have that option as the Spanish constitution forbids breakaways (hence the vote a few years ago was illegal in Spain), unless the SNP tries to pull a “UDI” type action it shouldn’t matter, now granted that was several Spanish governments ago at this stage.
not interested the whole independence thing is a pain in the arse, stoking hatered etc for no gain just to annoy people.i am not saying any more on it.
Chance of Spain letting as they see it a “separatists” nation into either NATO or the EU would be zero.
Not just Spain. Hungary, Poland and possibly Italy.
If and it’s a big if Scotland are granted legally binding right to another referendum and Scotland were daft enough to vote for the loon SNP proposal then I’d say it should be the rUK policy to make said independence as fiscally realistic as possible. So the newly independent country can start with a debt of £300-400 billion as a proportion of national debt they have in no small manner contributed too developing. The rUK should withdraw all capital flows and businesses south. The MOD should accept Scotland’s wishes but ignore the do called transition agreement offer and just pull… Read more »
I hope that all made you feel a bit better, now for a bit of reality. UK national debt is @£2.700 billion, Scotland has 8.25% of population so the share would be @£223 billion. Immediate this and that is not only impossible it would be economically and financially suicidal to both parties. UK business and Defence are fully integrated and you would need time to separate them. You can’t just decide to shift everything south and not disrupt it all. The daft thing is a 10 year Transition period would probably be more in UK interest than Scotland. Just remember… Read more »
Very considered response. You can’t even build a roundabout quickly so can’t see anything envisaged happening except over several years….10 almost seems optimistic. If shipbuilding were to be concentrated in the North (Cumbria, Newcastle?) it would be even more of a draw for Scottish shipping workers I suspect.
You don’t even need to go that far: Scotland thinks it’ll get a portion of the British Army, but frankly, how many British Soldiers will want to serve a Scots Nats government? You might say “Well just give them the Royal Regiment of Scotlands and be done with it, but a lot of the enablers, even there, are from south of the border. I doubt very much any CMT, Mechanic, or HR rep working out of Tidworth will be hugely thrilled at suddenly working for a foreign power in Lossiemouth.
“No UK personnel will be compelled to join the Scottish armed forces”…. No UK personnel are compelled to join current UK forces….. WTF and who writes this rubbish… What do they get paid and why is this even a thing….. The Referendum was had, a decisive vote was given, move on now……. bugger me this will get all the Remoaners coming out of retirement next…..🙄
A) You need to read the document and think about what it says.
B) There hasn’t been any decisive results in elections or referendums for many many years. Opinions change, especially if a previous decision is found to have led to a worst case or circumstances changed, which is how and why we change Governments from time to time.
C) It is an option appraisal and opinion piece of work.
D) Nah mate, It’s just Guff.
E) Referendum was had, You Lost….
F) It is a waste of Time, Effort. Money and you need to get over it.
That was in 2014, or have you forgotten to update your calendar? The world has changed and moved in the last ten years, or have you just woken up? Why should anyone not be allowed to reconsider previous decisions? Your response D) adds nothing intelligent to an interesting discussion! Who said ‘I’ lost? Lies, misinformaion, unfulfilled vows do not substantiate a win which was marginal only, which means there is plenty of scope to reconsider and change, fundamentally it was not overwhelming anyway and the causes of dissatisfaction remain and are worse than they were then.
Hey Nick, thanks for the entertainment. Why don’t you reply to those who embarrass you with facts like George? You seem to do selective replies!
What ‘facts’? I’m not embarrassed. It is the ones who jump to ill-considered selective interpretations presented as unassailable ‘truths’ which are nothing more than ome soet of extrapolation presenting one narrow point of view! The papers are reasoned dicussion points. The negative responses are some sort of preferred and biased view and imagined certainties. Think about it.
Perhaps they mean Scottish personnel will be compelled.
Perhaps… who knows…. who cares ?
But what about the islamists the first minister wants to import from Gaza. I mean they are already trained in warfare against women, children and goats
No British serviceman can be compelled to leave by a foreign county and to join a foreign army.
At best they can force Scottish Personnel to choose between a UK and Scottish Passport, they can’t actually force them to resign.
It doesn’t say that. So implying that as a statement is completely incorrect. Also don’t forget that the Defence staff are already thinking about national service call ups, which amounts to the same thing!
As a founding member of NATO we could just block them from joining NATO and let Russia have them.
Backfire if we did that symbol of English repression. Pressure would have come from usa and europe
Basically if Scotland scuppered the UK nuclear deterrent they would have very few friends in NATO..AKA none.
So how does moving the weapons out of Scotland scupper the UK deterrent? Or are you saying that UK only has it as long as Scotland sites it? There are plenty of places in England that would happily take it on. Think of all those jobs, hi-tech and construction that Scotland wouldn’t have!
Cost..cost..cost and time time time…estimates from RUSI and the government but the cost of creating a new base at around 20billion and if rushed as a national priority with all the entailed in extra costs and if all went well the min build time would be a decade..more realistically it would be 20 years…realistically the UK would be forced to scrap it deterrent…at which point the UN Security Council seat would come under attack..as its only the major nuclear powers that have seats…and all of a sudden the western world has lost big…i know it’s not something that the independence… Read more »
Yes costly, but are you saying that solely because it would cost some money to relocate two bases that Scotland cannot possibly be allowed to be independent? Negotiation, negotiation and you are really failing to think things through, by making absolute certainty statements about things over which you have no control. It is all hypothetical anyway and if it did occur there would be an extended transition period. Nobody, but nobody has said it would happen overnight. And as far as money is concerned UK can find funds to support all sorts of things, usually very wastefully if it chooses,… Read more »
No I’m not saying because it would cost the UK 20 billion and two decades to create a base for its deterrent that Scotland should not have independent….but If an independent Scotland required the removal of UK nuclear weapons from Scotland it would likely see the end of the UK deterrent….the UK does not have endless money…every decision has consequences and risks…denial of risk is a fools game…id sovereign of Scotland is what you want you need to accept the risks of that and one of the keys risks and likely outcomes is profound damage to one of the key… Read more »
What would that achieve?
Nothing. All anyone has to do is look at a map to see why the UK would be pressurising all NATO countries to allow Scotland to join in the event of independence.
One look at map tells you Scotland will need to spend pretty much all 2% on airforce and navy, it can forget land forces, particularly navy as it wants to be this offshore energy titan.
And?
It is not in NATO’s interest to cut its nose off! If Scotland were compelled to host the weapons think of the income that would generate? This is not without precedent either look at two SBAs in Cyprus for example.
Oh great idea ! Not. Russia and China take one look at a Map and all of a sudden massive loans and investment from China in Scotland and Russia gets a lovely warm water, ice free harbour that outflanks the GIUK gap.
You actually want Scotland in NATO and having to grow up and take responsibility to its partners.
Ah the hypocrisy, we don’t want nukes in our country!!!!
Please can we join your Military alliance thats underpinned by the said nukes.
As with the rest of their statement it seems to be based on the premise that Scotland will get what it desires no matter what other countries opinions.
It’s funny really because if England got hit by a large counter force or counter value nuclear attack..Scotland would be utterly buggered anyway. They would just have more of the population die slow as apposed to die fast.
Meanwhile in Narnia…….
Just a thought, does the graphic at the top of the article represent the Scottish Armed Forces?
2x helo
1x patrol boat
Just wondering.
Probably. Don’t forget the sailing boats. Dunkirk in reverse?
As. Scotsman, resident in the country. This is total and utter pie in the sky BS. Scotland is running a 1.5 billion deficit , if we were an independent country. So there would be brutal cuts in the public purse and our borrowing rate would be crippling yet they “ propose” to spend 2% of gdp.’ This document is a classic case of with zero likelihood of Indy happening , in anything other than the very long term , they can write whatever fiction they like. It is in the same bracket as the EU will ignore Scotland cannot meet… Read more »
I just don’t get this agenda though….. We are one big adjoined Island/Islands NI included Politically…. We have functioned pretty well as such for Many Many Years…. Why do a small Minority in Pictland still want to separate themselves from the single most successful union of Kingdoms ever to have existed ….. ?…… is this a Race thing ? (I’m 50% Scottish BTW)
There are a minority who want Scottish independence at any cost, England is the root of all Scotlands problems. Etc etc etc.
The fact is the Indy would be a disaster for Scotland. Can Scotland survive on its own, yes but are the people prepared for the massive drop in the standard of living NO.’
The Nats know it, which is why they won’t be open and honest about the REAL cost.
As a former colonial subject, I’m amused by SNP prattle about being a “colony”. The Scots were up to their bloody elbows in Empire from Malaya to Kenya. They haven’t the faintest clue what real imperial repression is like. Look at photos of Putin and Robertson. In Putin you see the hungry eyes of a shrewd predator. Robert son’s eyes are set in a smug, well-fed face – testament to one danger of turning weapons into ploughshares – and his common sense is lost somewhere behind the untouched can of shaving cream in his bathroom.
Deficit is £19.5 billion per annum. Otherwise agree.
No it isn’t ! Scotland is running an active ongoing capital defecit of £1.5 billion. That’s basically borrowing which they pay interest on, just like a local Authority does. As George make clear there is a difference of £19.1 billion between revenue raised and expenditure that difference is made up by the annual settlement. Which is why if Scotland voted for Independence they would have an immediate operational defecit of £19.5 Billion to deal with as the settlement would vanish. The SNP would either have to cut out all the extra SNP payouts or try to raise extra revenue.via taxation.… Read more »
scotland independent may happen but if they are in the UK than defence should remain at westminster parliament the ideal that if a war would happen would stop at the border is a mad way of thinking . and why would the uk give them arms and ships aircraft if they went along utter madness
If they gained independence they would not be part of the United Kingdom they would be a separate sovereign entity.
We could delegate loads of powers to the Scotish parliament (except defence) how about that? 😂
Interestingly I have very little issue with the UK becoming a federal state. I think it’s a good answer to a lot of questions.
Hey as long as we get an English Parliament and stop being oppressed by those Scots and Welsh MP’s voting on our laws I’m okay with it.
It is actually something I think we should have to be honest..but I would go farther and have regional parliaments.. the Scottish parliament covers 5 million the Welsh assembly 3.5 million, so I would actually like to see: South west regional assembly south east regional assembly midlands region assembly north east regional assembly north west regional assembly the UK is one of the most centralised nations in the western world and it’s massively misshaped our politics as well as wealth distribution and creation…I also think it’s that which is creating a lot of division across our society I would also… Read more »
Reject Modernity, Embrace the Heptarchy. If you missed out at least calling two of them the Wessex and Mercian Regional Assemblies it would be a crime. But other than that very little I’d disagree with. I don’t think it would be feasible to move the National Government out of London, too expensive, people too wedded to living in London etc, and I can already see the arguments around uncertainty in the financial sector. But at a minimum the English Parliament should be based in a Northern or Midland City like Birmingham or Manchester (just imagine how quickly HS2 would get… Read more »
? If Scotland became independent then it would no longer be in the UK.
So 20,000 in the SDF + 30,000 for the SMOD!!! It’s a good job the Scottish Gov managed to get so many people to get onto the electoral register in 2014. They will conscription.
From what I gather an Independent Scotland would be just as likely to support Russia. Nuff said, now they and the RoI can have a dram on the UK.
I thought the separatists lost this vote? Are they going to keep trying until they win one?
Yes they are.
The old EU referendum lark: Keep voting until they vote for the EU & then allow no more votes.
Scotland would become another Eire, completely unable to defend itself. The Scottish forces would comprise a few OPV, likely no fast jets (insufficient funding, career paths for pilots etc.) and a couple of light infantry battalions. No doubting the quality of the personnel, but a defense budget of around 4 billion (Scottish GDP is roughly 211 billion) simply does not equate to a realistic modern military.
Denmark is about the 4 billion defence spend right now, they have frigates, fighters, transports, 25k of regular army. There are a host of factors that shaped Irish defence policy, few if any automatically translate to any potential independent Scotland, that’s just lazy thinking.
Denmark are serious about defence – for good reason. Ireland & Scotland (SNP) simply think it is something to be cut from the budget. The document is in my view a work of fiction.
The point I made is that the suggestion that 4 billion a year can’t buy modern hardware/capabilities doesn’t hold up.
Denmark needs to (and has plans to) increase it’s defence spending from 1.4% to 2%. Currently it is amoung many countries trying to pay it’s way. Being a NATO member, paying 2%, hosting all the current & necessary bases to project the necessary force required is the bare minimum which will be required of Scotland. Scotland would require a massive initial injection of capital just to get the basics. Denmark already has decades of investment behind her. So £4 Billion won’t scrartch the surface.
The thing is Denmark has been defending itself as a nation for hundreds of years. It has it’s own military academies, engineering schools etc etc. Scotland has none of these. Even if Scotland gets a portion of the UK’s military equipment (it shouldn’t), it’ll struggle to keep it operational without major help from the UK setting up the relevant training pipelines.
The question on equipment/infrastructure would be an interesting one, because I can imagine a few different angles, I mean I imagine someone in Treasury is going to be asking how much money is it going to cost taking down the existing investments in Scotland and whether they could then be cheaply reinstated in England? (kind of like the question of withdrawing kit from an operation, versus writing it off). Then even leaving aside the nuclear question surely theres going to have to be discussions on issues like the Weapons storage and wharf for the Carriers? Hell even for radar systems… Read more »
The issues (stand fast Nuclear we’ll get to you) in general aren’t really so much about Infrastructure per say. The RAF has no shortage of old Runways in England that it could relocate to with minimal issues. The bigger issue is as you said things like Radar stations which even if Scotland does put up it’s own Radar station in the same location, raises HUGE questionmarks. Scotland won’t be a party to any of the UK’s information sharing agreements, or similiar extant agreements with the US. It’s even a big question whether Scotland could operate military air search radar because… Read more »
15,000 Regs intuitively sounds too few – Norway has 23,250 and Finland has 23,800 Regs and an almost identical population size.
They would have to spend more than 2% of GDP on Defence in the early years of independence – they have to procure all the kit and ammunition required as a Start State – unless they think UK MoD will freely gift them 8% of their kit and stocks!!
I suppose they could argue the precedent is already there, the U.K. gifted the Free State a considerable amount of small arms and ammunition in 1922, along with allowing “cheap” purchases of small levels of equipment.
In reality I would imagine it might end up as horsetrading and what would be the cheapest option for London.
Thanks. The problem is that UK military equipment has been procured for the needs of HMG – and it has been reduced massively over the last few decades.
Eg1. If we ‘gave’ Scotland one T45 destroyer, then 5 would not be enough for the UK….and 1 would not be enough for Scotland.
Eg2. If we gave Scotland 50 of the 623 Boxers ordered (ie 8%), then UK would not have enough to equip the Infantry in two armoured brigades.
Horse-trading is not going to work (for rUK) with our depleted inventories.
The other thing is in 1922 if there was one thing the UK had an excess off it was spare military kit. The Army alone went from 3.8 million men to about 300,000. That’s a lot of Rifles we could give to Ireland and it just meant we had less admin storing and decomissioning them. But even then:
The RN had 35 Battleships and Battlecruisers when the Free State left the Union. 0 of them where given to Ireland, despite the fact that they where being scrapped at a silly rate (7 would be scrapped in 1922 alone!)!
You do know the Treaty explicitly forbid any Naval force for the Free State? Something again unlikely to happen in whatever form a potential independence would take, for an Independent Scotland.
I mean I have no dog in this fight, just commenting.
Yes, but the Treaty terms where not an immutable force of nature that Britain and Ireland had to go along with (unless you have a deterministic view of the Universe of course). The point is the UK ultimately had the say in what they did, or did not give to Ireland, and where they decided it was in their national interest to retain, or scrap, rather than hand over, they did so.
I don’t think it would be any different here.
Technically the U.K. set a review period for the naval question, but had no interest in changing the status quo they had set, so it went nowhere. But I think that is the point, arguably it wasn’t in the UKs interest for Ireland to have developed the defence policy we did, even though U.K. actions/policies played a role in that development, and could have produced something more beneficial to the U.K. had other choices been made. To me, going the route of pulling every person, nut and bolt, out of a potential iScotland and basically telling them to feck off… Read more »
Would it? I don’t think so. Look even if the UK and NATO leant in to rebuild Scottish defence capability, that sort of thing is not build overnight and would require at least a decade of work to even be close to approximating the UK’s defence output currently, and in the mean time it would demand a slice of the UK’s defences (which it couldn’t maintain or operate) and a big part of the UK’s defence budget to put it on it’s feet. From a NATO perspective the better option by far is to retain UK sovereign bases in Scotland,… Read more »
In fairness about 18,000 of the Finnish regulars are conscripts undergoing training which kind of changes the equation a little bit. Norway is a closer example. But even if the MoD did freely gift Scotland a load of kit…hows Scotland going to maintain it? Are we giving Scotland dibs on the relevant engineering staff, even if people in those pids happen to be English and not Scottish? And how is Scotland going to train replacements, not a single academy or military school is in Scotland, so they’ll have to set all that up, find trainers, etc etc… Indi Scotland, unless… Read more »
Thanks Dern, I had overlooked that Regulars can be conscripts.
I agree that Scotland might have difficulties maintaining UK-gifted kit, especially if they could not quickly recruit experienced people in their equivalent of REME.
You are right that they lack training academies etc and that they might take a decade ‘to reach FOC’.
I do hate it when political parties in power us tax payers money to create propaganda material….it’s not just an SNP thing they all do it…It really hacks me off as they have specific taxpayer funded budgets to spend to create their specific manifesto policies etc..but the parties in power still insist on using the normal workings of government to create propaganda.
Snowballs chance in hell.
for a government like the SNP that presumes to hate and despise everything about us, they presume a lot to much, Voluntary Transition: No UK service personnel will be compelled to join the Scottish Armed Forces. one may interpret this as, if one decided otherwise one [snp] may compel all brits to be compelled to join the Scottish military, leaving the British military with nothing,,, surely perhaps they will diminish at the next election. the SNP can we suppose say what they wish, until they ever get independence . then one will see if they take all the British military… Read more »
3 independent militaries?
Math doesn’t really add up. 15k (around 10%) personal with a gdp of of 7-8% of the current uk’s.
I assume the calculation is based on cutting down on hardware available to them 15k troops.
Fortunately the SNP is immensely unpopular right now, that if there was another independence election they would probably lose it, even if the majority of Scots wanted independence. The trust isn’t there over what would come next after the mess of recent years with the SNP leadership.
That’s likely to swing back over time but right now it’s not looking good for them if there was a national election tomorrow.
Utter fiction and total Bull. Who do these people think they are kidding!!!
Not sure why this posturing on the SNP is relevant here
It’s fun James, the SNP are like the village idiots who give everyone a good laugh with their nonsense, don’t spoil it….
This has a Nutty McNutjob rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic just before it hits an Electoral Iceberg feel about it, but what do we expect from the SNP?
The numbers are interesting – proportionally 20k personnal is equivalent to roughly total armed forces for the UK of 250k, which is 30% larger than they actually are.
If these SNP fellows would spend half as much energy on non-independence related activities, mayhaps the region would benefit from some sort of effective policy? Post-independence defense/international relations when independence is nowhere in sight seems like a waste of time and resources.
Then again, politicians are mostly useless anyway so perhaps Scotland functions better while the ruling party are engaged in drum sessions with their independence drum for the supporters in the upcoming national elections.
It is a lovely document that sounds like someone’s wistful wish list. The notion that Scottish yards will continue to build for the RN seems hopeful if the island ferry fiasco is any example. The RN will make its decision on financial and strategic grounds (preserving shipbuilding ability in the UK) There is no other reason to give work to Scottish yards. The promises in the independence paper makes Boris’ “sunny uplands” seem positively wintry. Financially however, I can see no real chance of Scotland building up an Armed Forces comparable to those of the Scandanavian countries. Something akin to… Read more »
Why? There is no reason to expect a potential future Independent Scotland would follow the path of Ireland in defence matters, as virtually non of the factors that shaped that exist for Scotland.
Both are (effectively) islands in that both have no threatening neighbours. Both face seas that can be threatened by Russia (the only near-credible opponent). Both therefore need a decent maritime and air defence, an army being less important. Ireland is pretty much defenceless: no AWACS, no fighters, barely a navy. Unless Scotland can come up with the money for fastjet interceptors (possessed by all the Nordic nations bar Iceland) and preferably some AWACS (even baby ones) they will be equally defenceless, which makes a mockery of “independence” in a country that the SNP think will be a global player. I… Read more »
And again, you seem to be mistaking domestic choices (poor ones without question) by Ireland due to a number of factors not relevant to Scotland in limiting investing in defence capabilities as somehow an upper limit of either Ireland or any potential Independent Scotland, Ireland spent over 1.5% on defence during the Troubles for example, if the choice to sustain that had been made from 1998 onwards then you are talking more than enough funding for a Defence capability, as in over an extra €50 billion easily for defence funding. Moreover if Scotland unlike Ireland planned to join NATO then… Read more »
During 2022-23 tax revenue generated in Scotland, including North Sea oil revenues, amounted to £87.5 billion (8.6% of UK total). During the same period, Scotland benefited from about £106.6 billion in public spending (9.2% of UK total). These were both more than Scotland’s 8.2% population share of the UK. In the event of independence the oil/gas revenues would or should reduce drastically given the SNP commitment to climate change. What will replace this given that in the event of independence companies and capital will flow away, unless there are huge changes in the tax environment? You are assuming that Scotland’s… Read more »
The SNP have had 14 years to ponder defense which makes this new paper all the more baffling. Why not ask other NATO members what they need/expect from Scotland? The Americans may say focus on naval forces and maritime surveillance. Build the paper around those responses.
In all likelihood Scotland would need a defense spend of six to eight billion USD. 4 or 5 frigates, a couple of fighter wings, 4 or 5 maritime patrol aircraft, a light air mobile division. Train on Abrams or leopard tanks and APCs. Come up with some plan at least!
I don’t see the Scottish Army having tanks and other ‘heavy metal’ kit. They are likely to be more of a self-defence force than an expeditionary army.
It would take years until Scotland could train the personnel to operate jets, transports and modern naval vessels. They have no access to NATO training schemes and it will cost billions to set up their own.
Why is it that the Scottish Govt are publishing this when it is outside their authority? Surely it should be the SNP publishing this, having prepared it without using Civil servants that are paid and employed by the UK.
The Scottish Government is clearly doing some advance planning, unlike the UK Government which did not have a plan to implement Brexit, following the June 2016 referendum result.
A Mr Selby thinks that Scotland pays more than it’s fare share of defence tax. Let’s examine the facts ( l know I risk being called a right wing racist !) Scotland pays half of its VAT return, around 2 billion to Westminster. Barnett consequencesals was around 10 billion. Given the state of the Scottish economy one can suspect the latter amount will increase more than the former. Now Westminster might get a little more on other things but we are talking millions. That means that Scotland approximately receives a subsidy of 7.5 billion, plus emergency funding in a crisis… Read more »