I have been thinking for a while that the SNP needed to seize the initiative to get their not-quite-floundering-but-not-quite-fizzing independence referendum campaign off the ground. Thoughts that I personally have had included announcing that an independent Scotland would disband all private schools and/or would renationalise the railways. Something that would put clear blue water between an independent Scotland’s future and that of the United Kingdom’s.
Well, the SNP has made their move, though it’s not anything that I had seen coming…
The Scottish National Party (SNP) has confirmed that delegates attending its Annual Conference in October 2012 will debate an updated defence policy presented by Westminster SNP Leader and defence spokesman Angus Robertson. The resolution proposed by the Moray MP and seconded by Angus MacNeil MP follows a detailed review process which has included input from throughout the SNP, involved external experts and has been informed by discussions in neighbouring countries.
Amongst the key elements of the policy proposals are:
That the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government should determine defence, security and foreign policy.
An SNP government should allocate an increased budget to conventional defence in Scotland compared to the UK but will make substantial savings by ending support for nuclear weapons which will be withdrawn from Scotland.
A professional defence force of 15,000 regular and 5,000 reserve personnel, including restored Scottish infantry regiments will increase the current conventional footprint in Scotland. All military bases will remain in operation with Faslane becoming a major conventional naval base and home to Joint Forces Headquarters. Lossiemouth and Leuchars will both operate air force capabilities.
Scotland will inherit its international treaty obligations including those with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and will remain a member, subject to agreement on withdrawal of Trident from Scotland.
Gentlemen, start your engines. If this isn’t upping the ante in the stakes for independence then I don’t know what is and it will guarantee that the momentum and the impetus swings back into the SNP’s favour. Debating whether the fossil fuel levy and control over air guns should come to Scotland was all well and good but this is big game hunting that Angus Robertson and Angus MacNeil are going for at (and in the run up to) the SNP’s Autumn Conference (Perth, Oct 18th-21st). The Scottish public, I reckon, will be sympathetic to the arguments being made as it would allow greater control over the location of Trident, greater control over the forces under threat within Scotland, greater scope to make savings that are foregone at Westminster and provide the opportunity to swell the powers at Holyrood and test the Scottish Parliament one level further.
The official confirmation that the SNP will seek to remain a part of Nato under independence is no less significant despite how expected it has come to be these past months. The opposition will try to poke fun at this u-turn and suggest generously that SNP members should be outraged, but it was always a sensible step towards the civic (as opposed to radical) nationalism that Alex Salmond has pushed for in his long tenure as leader.
The specific wording of the resolution being proposed can be read on the Moray SNP website.
#1 by Aidan on July 16, 2012 - 7:00 pm
Aside from the long-trailed NATO shift isn’t this just “SNP support independence”? Am I missing something?
#2 by Jeff on July 16, 2012 - 9:53 pm
There might have been an over eagerness on my part (and I’m three pints down so that might continue) but it’s the timely shift in focus that’s a winner here. If the summer (or what’s left of it) is spent discussing the rights and wrongs of an independent Scotland’s defence and foreign policy, devolved to Scotland irreespectibe of the referendum, then I think that’s a potential game (poll) changer.
#3 by James on July 16, 2012 - 7:02 pm
The NATO bit is the killer change, indeed. That’ll be seriously unpopular amongst activists, who’ll bite their tongues and vote for it anyway. Curiously, SNP rebellions are even less plausible and less frequent than Lib Dem rebellions.
#4 by Indy on July 16, 2012 - 7:34 pm
Let’s be clear what the change is.
We have gone from a policy that says: “An independent Scotland will inherit its existing Treaty obligations on independence, including NATO membership. The SNP is opposed to an independent Scotland remaining a member of NATO while it continues to be a nuclear weapons based alliance.”
That has gone to: “On independence Scotland
will inherit its treaty obligations with NATO. An SNP Government will maintain NATO membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and NATO continues to respect the right of members to only take part in UN sanctioned operations. In the absence of such an agreement, Scotland will work with NATO as a member of the Partnership for Peace programme like Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland.”
The Partnership for Peace commitment is already policy.
What has changed is that we make membership of NATO conditional on Scotland not hosting nuclear weapons whereas previously policy said that we would not be a member of a nuclear-based alliance i.e. we would not be in NATO because other member states had nuclear weapons.
So those are the terms of the debate and it’s a discussion which has been going on within the SNP since about 2002. I have been to at least 2 National Assemblies discussing this.
If people are expecting blood on the walls they will be in for a disappointment. Equally if they assume that it will just pass because it has been put in by the defence spokesperson they could equally be in for a disappointment.
The reality is that this is a much more finely balanced debate than is generally recognised.
People tend to see NATO as a kind of indicator for the SNP’s stance on nuclear weapons – and I’ve seen a few comments already on twitter from people saying that it will be nuclear weapons next.
That is not the case though. The SNP’s position on nuclear weapons is fixed, immutable, it absolutely will not change. In fact the debate around NATO has always been around the nuclear issue – is membership of NATO possible while retaining a non-nuclear policy? The answer to that really lies with NATO. It’s not something we can establish at this point in time. The other element was military actons initiated by NATO with no UN authority but that is also addressed in the resolution.
If changing the position removes another stick to bash us with by unionists wanting to portray us as isolationst nutters etc then that’s something worth considering. It is not a done deal though. Conference will decide this but will decide it in a much more reasoned manner than the press will be anticipating I am afraid.
#5 by Dubbieside on July 18, 2012 - 1:55 pm
I’m an atavist but I am not bothered by the NATO bit as currently proposed for discussion, but my absolute bottom line is nuclear weapons and Trident. Any fudge on that and they can have my card back.
Can anyone suggest an other way, other than Scottish independence, that will enable us to get rid of Trident?
#6 by Iain Menzies on July 16, 2012 - 7:16 pm
Yeah unless this means something that it doesnt actually say here, that the Scottish parliament should control those issues WITHIN the UK then there is nothing here.
Where i think you have gone wrong is that you didnt spend that pound the other day to buy the Telegraph ;). There is nothin here that hasnt been reported there (and plenty of other places) for AGES. Maybe not in a this is what we shall be talking about, but certainly in such a way so to make it clear that they would come out and say this bluntly.
This does make the SNP look stupid on two counts,
First, they have basically been saying this for months but just wouldnt admit to saying it.
Second, its a silly defence policy.
Why 15,000 troops? Yeah its nice to keep the regimental names….but it seems like the number is set up to allow that, rather than any serious consideration as to defence needs. Why Faslane (well jobs obviously but its not like this will be admitted) the principle operating area for any scottish naval force will be the north sea….so why exactly do the SNP plan to have the Scottish Navy on the wrong side of the country? The bit about it becoming a major naval base is abit silly too, the Vanguards and the Astutes will be based there, that is ALL of the UK’s subs, Faslane IS a major base, within the UK. If the Joint forces HEadquarters is an equivelant of Northwood, then why is it at the other side of the country from the seat of government? Dont you want to keep the heads of your armed forces near by incase you need to have a meeting? Withouit them spending half a day on the M8 if there is something going on? As for the part about air bases….why two? i mean seriously why would a nation like scotland need two large airbases? Leuchers is probably the best place to base any air defence assets so what are you going to put in lossie? MPA’s? Maybe but then why a dedicated base? Is it really going to be such a large fleet that it cant be based at Aberdeen or Inverness (there is an airport at inverness right?). And thats before we start talking about assets. Will the SAF take a few typhoons? If so why? It is a really rather expensive bird to fly and does FAR more than we would need it to do.
As for the spending….well what does that actually cover? Is it wages? what is it they say that the UK spends in scotland that the SNP want to match or better? How much, if any will be spent on new equipment?
Seriously the SNP are in a hole with regards to defence, not just in political terms, but also in terms of there is no evidence that they have any idea what they are talking about, or even that they have thought about it. This does nothing to change any of that.
#7 by Commenter on July 16, 2012 - 7:23 pm
I support the NATO change, but then I’m an entryist slash dilletante, not an ‘activist’.
This is not synonymous with ‘SNP support independence’ – it tries to present a picture of the military in an independent Scotland that is more attractive than the current situation.
#8 by Nikostratos on July 16, 2012 - 8:29 pm
‘Its the Economy stupid’
Yes well while this may? enthuse the likes of jeff on the doorstep it wont matter a hill beans to those considering whether to follow Alex samonds snp down the path to
hardship poverty and pain.
#9 by Colin Dunn on July 17, 2012 - 9:50 am
I think you underestimate the impact of this on ‘ordinary’ voters. As I see it (and I’m not a member of the SNP, by the way) this is just one more part of the ‘SNP as a safe pair of hands post-indy’ process that they have been building on over the last few years.
The mainstream media recently went to town on the SNP’s apparent lack of proper planning for defence, and this looks to be a strong effort to rectify that and enable debate as well. I think that’ll probably go down pretty well with the undecideds. Just one less reason to vote NO.
#10 by Doug Daniel on July 16, 2012 - 11:30 pm
I think this bit is pretty important, especially the bold bit:
An SNP Government will maintain NATO membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and NATO continues to respect the right of members to only take part in UN sanctioned operations. In the absence of such an agreement, Scotland will work with NATO as a member of the Partnership for Peace programme like Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland. Scotland will be a full member of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the European Union and the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE).
Surely this adequately answers both those who say the SNP doesn’t have a credible defence policy, and those who are strongly opposed to NATO membership? To those who thought the SNP were “going all Lib Dem” on the nuke issue, this tells them that opposition to nuclear weapons remains absolute; and to those who think opposition to NATO is too idealistic, it tells them that withdrawal would only happen upon the failure to meet certain conditions, and highlights the practical alternative in place.
In short, this just seems like a realistic, sensible and responsible policy that meets the overriding criteria – an independent Scotland that is nuclear-free but can still defend itself. I would be surprised if genuinely undecided voters who are worried about defence would find much to argue with here.
On top of all that, I just find it utterly refreshing to read a something about Scottish defence that emphasises working with neighbouring countries, rather than banging on about how powerful and influential we are as part of the UK. Also, despite the criticisms that will come from unionists (and those that have already been made), it’s the first thing I’ve read that actually seems to spell out what it is Scotland needs to defend, rather than just an unnamed enemy.
Roll on October, I say…
#11 by Iain Menzies on July 17, 2012 - 12:48 am
This isnt a defence policy.
Saying you will, possibly if the membership of my party decides to be sensibl, be a member of NATO is no more a defence policy than membership of the World Health Organisation is a health policy.
The nearest it gets to a defence policy is a one billion pound cut in defence spending.
#12 by Richard Thomson on July 17, 2012 - 4:40 pm
“The nearest it gets to a defence policy is a one billion pound cut in defence spending.”
Which would still manage to be a significant increase in the level of defence spending currently taking place in Scotland, and a damn sight more useful to boot.
#13 by Indy on July 17, 2012 - 5:17 pm
That’s not really the case though is it?
The policy commits to an annual defence and security budget of £2.5bn. This is in fact an annual increase of more than £500m on recent UK levels of defence spending in Scotland.
It is nearly £1bn less than Scottish taxpayers currently contribute to UK defence spending – but that money is not spent in Scotland.
#14 by Iain Menzies on July 18, 2012 - 5:20 pm
Im sorry (thats a lie) but there really is only one way to describe what you and Richard thomson are saying, and thats REALLY STUPID.
If you were talking about the Transport budget using the same numbers, then you would have a point. Since it doesnt make much sense to have a scottish transport department building roads in germany or cyprus.
To say that spending is going up because a greater proportion of what scots get taxed for defence will be spent within these borders is nothing more than playing with numbers. It is at best misleading.
Why should you even care if it is spent in scotland? Are you saying that an indy scotlands armed forces would not, or should not be based abroad? The SNP is mad keen on the whole nordic model and alliances with them, if we had a bilateral co-operation agreement with, say, Norway over protection of oilfields, and the norwegians, in accordance with SDF commanders were of the opinion that certain personnel and assets should be based in Norway would you seriously refuse on the basis that the defence budget must be spent in Scotland?
#15 by Don Francisco on July 17, 2012 - 8:44 am
It’s a bit more coherent than their previous efforts, but there is still some glaring flaws. The focus on maritime defense is sensible, but for example, what is with the ‘restoring regiments’? Does Scotland really need more infantry? I read that as a cheap attempt at vote winning rather than a practical requirement.
In all honesty I don’t think UK defence policy is any less muddled. At least the SNP did some thinking before they made the announcement this time.
#16 by Indy on July 17, 2012 - 5:18 pm
Restoring regiments is to do with the wishes of soldiers I understand.
Presumably their opinion has some merit?
#17 by Commenter on July 17, 2012 - 10:24 am
From the Herald[1]:
Sir Menzies Campbell, the former LibDem leader, told The Herald: “For all the time I have been in Parliament, the SNP has been vehemently opposed to membership of Nato. This policy, if approved, does not make sense. It is based on a doubtful assumption Scotland would automatically inherit all of the Treaty obligations entered into by the UK.
“It’s hardly likely that Nato, which acts by unanimity, would accept Scotland on such conditions.”
and
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, described the Nato resolution as “staggering”, coming as it did from a party “so furiously against the concept of nuclear deterrent”.
She added: “Much like its misguided stance on the EU, the SNP seems to think an independent Scotland would be waved through to join Nato automatically if they reverse their decades-long opposition to the Alliance. They are making it up as they go along.”
What I want to know is this: is there a single multi-national organisation that, in the opinion of the proud patriotic Scots of the No campaign, would deign to allow Scotland membership? The Eurovision perhaps? This reflexively negative stuff sickens me.
[1] http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/snp-reveals-plans-for-policy-switch-on-nato.18165779
#18 by Alec on July 18, 2012 - 1:32 pm
There comes a point when reflexively dismissing any and all criticism as “negativism” becomes a form of negativism itself.
~alec
#19 by Iain Menzies on July 18, 2012 - 5:20 pm
Look behind you, think you will find we passed that point a while back.
#20 by Ben Achie on July 17, 2012 - 2:46 pm
This is a sensible approach given Scotland is already in Nato as part of the UK, and withdrawal could upset many of our neighbours. The approach is principled, predicated as it is on no nukes. It’s maybe worth reminding ourselves that we cannot influence Nato from outside, and that the potential use of any of nuclear weapons by members would surely have to be agreed to by the Nato command structure, which is very unlikely in practice, given there are no longer any tactical nukes.
Proposed membership of Nato by an independent Scotland would allow the fundamental lack of logic in the deployment of nuclear weapons to be examined. Could the rUK exercise a veto on Scottish membership on their own? I doubt it, given they would be preventing our joining on the one hand, while on the other, arguing that a strong Nato is essential! In seeking to retain nukes at Faslane, they would also have to explain why they are required militarily (and the top brass don’t want ’em).
#21 by Craig Gallagher on July 17, 2012 - 4:40 pm
While I do think Jeff is getting a bit too excited that this might be a policy coup de grace by the Angii, it’s nonetheless an important issue to be talking about, given the relentless assertions in the No camp that the Nationalists don’t have a defence policy to speak of (for which Iain Menzies stands out as a particularly blunt partisan).
The fact is, this is a reasonable move, one fully costed and reasonable for the purposes of an independent Scotland. About the only angle anyone could have a go at the SNP from (assuming sensible people ignore the shrieking about NATO) is that it’s a major cut in defence spending. But we then must ask ourselves, is that a bad thing? The UK is already a bloated military state, freakishly obsessed with security above and beyond any notion of social welfare or human rights. Scotland could, frankly, do with reinvesting some of the savings we could make on abolishing Trident and rolling back much of the military infrastructure we employ and putting it towards the common weal.
Of course, I fully expect the Unionist response to be “but what if you’re invaded by Russia?” which fits absolutely perfectly alongside their assumptions that NATO and the EU will possess the same level of loathing and contempt for Scotland as these proud folks have for their native land.
#22 by Iain Menzies on July 18, 2012 - 6:23 pm
Well lets tackle the russian invasion issue since you mention it.
This ‘policy’ will leave scotland unable to defeat a russian invasion. A force ten times what the SNP is proposing will be unable to defeat a russian invasion. Scotland alone could not defeat a challenge by any power which has the capability, or potential capability to directly threaten Scottish interests. NATO membership helps with this. It makes no end of sense to have an indy scotland a full member of NATO. What doesnt make sense is everything else about this so called policy.
Why 15,000 troops? As things stand that is about a sixth of the British Army. I dont think that a Scottish Army would ever get to 15,000 strong because i dont think it would be able to recruit that many men and women. As it is the British army recuits from across the commonwealth to fill its ranks, and it struggles to do that. There are thousands of Irishmen from the republic in the British army, largely because its a much better career in the BA than in the Irish Army. Why anyone would think that you wouldnt have better promotion options in the Birish Army than the Scottish army is beyond me. Thats before we start talking about the Scots that are in the British Army right now, i dont know how many there are but i doubt its 15,000. But lets assume it is, i do not for one second believe that they will all want to transfer to a Scottish Army.
What this is is politics, not a defence strategy. Its more about the names of the regiments than what a scottish army would be needed for. What i have heard form the SNP suggest that they see a Scottish Army doing much the same as the Irish Army does now. Basically support of the civil power and UN peacekeeping. The Irish Army is less than 9,000 strong. So why does scotland need 15,000?
Why does scotland need two airbases? Hell why does Scotland need fast jets? No i dont want Scotland to be independent, but if we are, and we are in NATO, then i wouldnt vote for a party that is proposing wasting the kind of money that the SNP are proposing to waste on defence forces. An independent Scotland would be better off, in or out of NATO with out most of what the SNP is suggesting that we would have. The money that would be spent on fast jets, and would providing nothing for our allies in combinded operations that they dont already have enough of would be better spent on, for example, naval minesweepers. The Baltic States are unable to defence their own airspace in any meaningful way. NATO does it for them. I see no reason why the SNP propose spending money on this capability when it could be more usefully spent on something else.
And on the naval front, what reason, other than not wanting to risk the votes of the people who’s jobs depends on faslane, is there for basing the whole of a scottish navy as far away from their main area of operations as is possible without basing them outside the country?
My object to this isnt that its from the SNP. Nor is it that it is a possible defence policy for an indy Scotland. Its that it doesnt make sense.
You want to assert that this is reasonable thats fine. I might even accept that its costed, tho i dont think it is or at least not realistically so, but at least try to answer the points that are made rather than coming over all cybernat and dismissing objects on grounds that i am ‘partisan’.
#23 by Craig on July 18, 2012 - 1:04 am
Just to further highlight the sophistry of the “restore regiments” proposal – which line infantry (or even the single Rifle) regiments would be revived?
Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)? (2006)
King’s Own Scottish Borderers? (2006)
Royal Highland Fusiliers? (2006)
Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment)? (2006)
The Highlanders (Seaforth, Gordons and Camerons)? (2006)
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders? (2006)?
What about older regiments?
Queen’s Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons)? (1994)
Gordon Highlanders? (1994)
Cameronians (Scottish Rifles)? (1968)
Queen’s Own Cameron Highlanders? (1961)
Seaforth Highlanders (Ross–shire Buffs, The Duke of Albany’s)? (1961)
Highland Light Infantry? (1959)
Royal Scots Fusiliers? (1959)
92nd (Gordon Highlanders) Regiment of Foot? (1881)
75th (Stirlingshire) Regiment of Foot? (1881)
26th (Cameronian) Regiment of Foot? (1881)
90th Regiment of Foot (Perthshire Volunteers)? (1881)
72nd Regiment, Duke of Albany’s Own Highlanders (1881)
78th (Highlanders) Regiment of Foot? (1881)
91st (Argyllshire Highlanders) Regiment of Foot? (1881)
93rd (Sutherland Highlanders) Regiment of Foot? (1881)
71st (Highland) Regiment of Foot? (1881)
74th (Highland) Regiment of Foot? (1881)
42nd (Royal Highland) Regiment of Foot? (1881)
73rd (Perthshire) Regiment of Foot? (1881)
The first reality is that single-battalion regiments are not sustainable (unless you’re the Foot Guards!) – something recognised as long ago as the Cardwell and Childers reforms of the late 18th Century.
While many of the post-1881 regiments raised 20+ battalions during the world wars, the other reality is that the infantry have accounted for an decreasing proportion of the Army, and indeed overall Armed Forces, strength – certainly in unit terms. Go back a hundred years and the Army organisation was fairly simple – infantry, cavalry, Royal Artillary, Royal Engineers and various other support Corps. But almost immediately after that the Army saw an explosion in specialist units and corps utilising new technology and new tactics – Intelligence Corps, Signal Corps, machine gun corps, tank corps, Royal Flying Corps, transport corps. We’ve also gone from a Naval Service and a Military to the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force.
In the modern British Army the teeth Combat Arms now includes the Army Air Corps alongside the cavalry and infantry. The Combat Arms are also heavily reliant on the Combat Support (Artillary, Engineers and Signals) and Combat Service Support (RLC – a huge Corps in its whole right – REME, RAMC, AGC, etc) arms.
Even within the infantry itself the historical Foot Guards, Line Infantry and Rifle regiments have faced competition from upstarts such as the Parachute Regiment, the special forces and the Brigade of Gurkhas (previously part of the British Indian Army) – all of which post-date the separation of most of the Irish regiments in 1922.
Fundamentally the number of infantry regiments required has declined with the development of new tactics and new technologies, the loss of Empire, the end of National Service and the end of theCold War (there won’t even be a British Force Germany in 10 years, let alone a British Army of the Rhine). That is why the British Army has undergone several rounds of amalagations over the past 130 years. If anything our infantry regiments got off relatively lightly (contrast the RIFLES with SCOTS for example). Reviving infantry regiment names for non-infantry, and especially non-teeth arms, regiments doesn’t work either – because the likes of artillarymen and sappers have their own traditions and battle honours that they’re proud of – even if these might not make headlines and stir public nostalgia.
So what are the SNP planning here? An Army fit for the 21st Century or a Historical Reenactment society?
#24 by jim Bennett on July 18, 2012 - 4:40 pm
@ Commenter:
” is there a single multi-national organisation that, in the opinion of the proud patriotic Scots of the No campaign, would deign to allow Scotland membership? The Eurovision perhaps? ”
Oh God, please no, no… not the Eurovision, don’t do that to us…