Russell Bruce: A case of ‘unfriendly fire’ from the Scottish Institute defence study experts

Maj Gen Andrew D Mackay

Defence and Security in an Independent Scotland from The Scotland Institute is certainly a contribution to the debate, but the early released summary findings ahead of the launch suggested a lot of people have been consulted and invited to stare down a narrow tunnel.

The emphasis on the headline bullet points and tone of Dr. Ibrahim’s press release at the weekend could just have easily have come from Better Together, undermining the proposition that this was an unbiased study. Indeed this early material did something of a disservice to some aspects of the full report.

If anything is uncertain it is the future – and that applies to the present defence arrangements for the UK. The UK is currently downsizing its defence capabilities having conducted two versions of a strategic defence review in recent years. Service numbers are being cut, soldiers returning from duty are given their redundancy papers and George Osborne has just agreed cuts in the MOD civilian staff.

MOD projects are notoriously over budget. Specifications don’t match up – as in aircraft with aircraft carriers or submarines with the role of protecting Trident armed subs that do not have the capacity to travel at the same speed. Sending out troops to do what they are asked without the necessary equipment or protection is legend, all because the MOD’s stomach is bigger than its purse.

Relying on the past as an example does not provide confidence. The immediate future of UK defence capability is in turmoil. How it has been is not how it will be in the years ahead. The obvious proposition for those planning for the defence of an Independent Scotland is simply to argue that Scotland can do this better.

With clear strategic objectives combined with efficient procurement there is no reason an independent Scotland could not match resources with the requirements of Scotland’s Defence Force. The SNP have set out the range of roles expected of the SDF and also been clear about the type of operations they would not take part in.

Determining capacity to take part in a multi task force operation that a future Scottish Government thought was justifiable would be a matter of contributing at a level according to the resources available at that time. This is the case for every government engaged in these calculations and discussions at the time of such events.

Issues and commentary

The following are the summary points from the initial material released to the press with comments added

  • An independent Scotland would have to develop its own fleet of ships and open a Ministry of Defence as well as a training academy. This would prove costly and there is no reason to believe it would make Scotland any safer.

This states the obvious. An independent country requires a Defence Ministry and training capacity. This statement does not imply Scotland would be any less safe – a point conceded at the launch in Edinburgh today.  The naval complement Scotland would need would be comprised of the resulting split of UK assets, and in all probability, augmented by new purpose built ships.

  • The SNP’s intended defence spend would be able to deliver a notional Scottish Defence Force (SDF) – but its role would be limited and modest.

Like realistic. We would not have world domination in mind.  The SNPs proposed £2.5bn spend is in line with defence spending in Scandinavian countries.

  • Scottish independence will lead to difficulties in recruitment and retention in an SDF.

A new Defence Force offers opportunity for the brightest and ablest to get in on the ground floor in establishing a Defence Force for a northern European country in the 21st century. That could be both challenging and exciting and no doubt a welcome break from the monolithic and ponderous MOD.

Recruitment objectives can be met by providing opportunity, skills development and training. Present problems in army recruitment are not helped by the UK’s down sizing operations shedding doubt on job security. A new defence force should be able to command assurance in that regard because it was being planned for the future.

  • A defence industry of some sort will probably survive in an independent Scotland, but it is unlikely to be near its current size. As such, jobs and economic growth are at stake.

The defence industry is international. BAE may be a British company, but it is global with operations in the US where it has more locations than in the UK. It has locations in Sweden, India, Israel, South Africa, Australia and more. It is already in Scotland and the proposition that Scotland would not be able to contribute research and expertise, especially in niche markets, is unrealistic. Defence equipment is complex and involves many companies in the delivery of projects. The inference the UK only buys ‘British’ is quite simply not true.

The defence industry internationally is currently going through consolidation and increasing capacity to meet civilian demands (e.g. oil supply vessels and civilian aircraft) in response to Western Governments cuts to defence budgets. We can expect increasing collaboration with the defence industry in Europe in the years ahead, despite the failure of the merger of BAE and EADS.

Collaborative procurement may have its challenges, but is undoubtedly set to increase. Such options would be available to the Scottish Government in addition to the SNP’s expressed interest in entering joint procurement with rUK.

Defence industry contraction is taking place everywhere. Hampshire based Chemring has recently reported a drop in profits and closed two locations. Its air and navy defence systems could to be in the frame for the protection of North Sea installations. Scotland is an open economy. We trade with the world and will have to buy from other countries. Scots are unlikely to view buying some defence equipment from an English based company as dealing with a foreign country. A different country yes, but the suggestion that we might not be considered an ally tells us something about the people we are supposed to have been with in the most successful union the world has ever seen, according to Better Together. In an extraordinary conclusion to his foreword to the Scotland Institute report Major General Andrew Douglas Mackay CBE, wrote ‘It is easy to argue – from the comfort of a nearly 300 year old union – that an independent Scotland would only require a small fighting force. It is not likely to be so comfortable after you have jettisoned your allies and you are on your own.’ (My emphasis)

•    Independence is likely to pose a risk to our defence contractors threatening thousands of jobs and billions of pounds in turnover.

A Scottish Defence Force is projected to spend more money in Scotland according to SNP plans. Current MOD spending in Scotland is below our contribution to the UK defence budget. Scotland’s strength is its ability to retain a defence industry through further developing university and research collaboration with our engineering base. Developing niche markets would be in line with Scotland’s present economic development strategies.

  • An independent Scotland would find it extremely difficult to set up an effective intelligence arm quickly and therefore find itself much more vulnerable to terrorist and cyber-attack.

This implies that there would no longer be cross border co-operation and collaboration which is unthinkable for serious minded people considering the growth of inter country travel and ever increasing inter-nation co-operation. Scotland has contributed to the considerable cost of the UK’s intelligence services and intelligence gathering operations. Intelligence sharing would be in our joint interest following independence.

  • NATO membership would need to be renegotiated which may prove difficult with the SNP’s commitment to remove trident.

This is not an out and out ‘NATO won’t have you’. The term renegotiation suggests we would be inside the tent talking terms. I get news releases from NATO every day. Today’s release is a report of a meeting with the NATO-Georgia Commission.

NATO talks to everybody. The panel at the Edinburgh event thought there would be serious difficulties in Scotland being accepted for membership. So Albania is welcome but Scotland, strategically placed in the North Atlantic, is more problematic.

How is that for strategic thinking?

More to come on the report detail and on some serious omissions

Russell Bruce

The photograph above is of Major General Andrew D Mackay and is by Russell Bruce.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

17 Responses to Russell Bruce: A case of ‘unfriendly fire’ from the Scottish Institute defence study experts

  1. Good old Bitter Together scare mongering at its best

    “An independent Scotland would have to develop its own fleet of ships and open a Ministry of Defence as well as a training academy. This would prove costly and there is no reason to believe it would make Scotland any safer.”

    yes but the very fact not being partnered with the UK & US and starting illegal wars would make us safer

    “Scottish independence will lead to difficulties in recruitment and retention in an SDF.”

    Is there a problem now with recruitment and retention …..no so why will independence make a difference

    “A defence industry of some sort will probably survive in an independent Scotland, but it is unlikely to be near its current size. As such, jobs and economic growth are at stake.”

    Jobs and growth are at stake now. Havent the MoD just signed a ship contract with france ?

    ” Independence is likely to pose a risk to our defence contractors threatening thousands of jobs and billions of pounds in turnover.”

    Likely so not definate then ?

    “An independent Scotland would find it extremely difficult to set up an effective intelligence arm quickly and therefore find itself much more vulnerable to terrorist and cyber-attack.”

    Surely if we are not part of the “bully boy” UK US global police force we will be less likely and less vulnerable to terrorist and cyber-attack.

    “NATO membership would need to be renegotiated which may prove difficult with the SNP’s commitment to remove trident.”

    There are only 3 yes 3 nuclear armed countries in Nato

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 13

    • There is serious concern that an independent Scotland would be utterly incapable of defending itself should the Dark Lord Voldermort return to threaten the Muggle world.

      As Scotland is home to Hogwarts, it seems likely it could be at the forefront of any resurgence in black magic and, if Salmond’s army is unable to contain this, it would be necessary for the rump UK to step in and take whatever measures were deemed necessary, up to and including the total annihilation of Scotland.

      Time these damnable separatists faced up to their responsibilities.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  2. Mr Bruce seems to think that the Naval section of a Scottish Defence Force will be made up of a resulting split of UK assets, and in all probability, augmented by new purpose built ships.
    That’s all very well, but who is going to man these ships?
    Are present trained members of the RN going to volunteer to leave the RN to join a SDF?
    There is only a handful of sailors (non-submariners) that are already resident in Scotland. Will these people volunteer?(assuming they can be released by the RN)
    So, who will be the SDF Admirals, Captains, Maintainers, Operators, Trainers etc, etc?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5

  3. Congratulations, Newsroom a sensible critique of this seriously flawed, and frankly biased report.

    Some very senior retired military figures, like Sir Hugh Beach are openly questioning the logic and expense of maintaining a UK nuclear capability.
    The prospect of Scottish Independence, as Bruce Kent has said, is the best chance of the rUK seeing sense and saving the long suffering rUK tax payer the exhorbitant cost of building and maintaining a system that has no defence logic and could not be used anyway.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10

  4. The commitment to abandon Trident is one of the strongest and most persuasive arguments for voting ‘Yes’.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 15

  5. I can imagine recruitment getting more difficult. People join the services for an active life there. They will have a choice of joining the UK forces with involvement in various military actions around the world or joining an Independent Scottish force that will probably do a bit of United Nations work (which I would not think that is very popular with servicemen), a bit of guard duty around North Sea installations and ceremonial duties. This will all be done with inferior kit. The Navy will just have a few inshore patrol vessels whilst the air force a few helicopters.

    If the UK forces cut back then recruiting of foreigners will be the first to go.

    I read an article in a military magazine on the subject and was surprised at the total number of people employed directly or indirectly around Faslane. I can’t imagine an independent Scottish navy needing anywhere near that number, there will be vague promises of using the site for non-military work but I can’t imagine that amounting to much. The article pointed out that most of the sailors in the submarine force at Faslane are from South of the border and they would welcome a move to Devonport or Portsmouth.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

    • It is sad that you have no imagination.

      I imagine that there are very many in UK forces who are not terribly happy at the treatment meted out by UK politicians. I also suspect that if the money is decent in SDF then people will join!

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 7

  6. SinceNorway is providing our maritime defence in Scottish waters at present I don’t think it’ll mind helping out for a couple of years post Independence as we build up our naval power.

    Let’s challenge the UK government to ask Scottish service personnel to indicate if they wish to be part of the Scottish or rUK defence forces on the basis that terms of employment are the same.

    It’s nonsense to suggest that being a middle ranking nation denies your service personnel international engagement. Since the war Denmark has contributed to more UN and NATO missions than any other country

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9

    • How can you ask Scottish service personnel if they do not know anything about the defence forces of an independent Scotland? They need information on its structure, equipment, policies etc before you can ask them. We do not even know yet how citizenship of an independent Scotland will work, will there be dual nationality or will people be given the choice of staying a UK citizen or one of a new country. Even if Salmond wins his vote (which seems unlikely at the moment) it is going to take years to make all the changes. Just look what a mess is being made of the merger of the Scottish police forces – no badge yet, £60 million trying to sort out the IT system (means it will actually be nearer £100 million), very low morale amongst serving police officers from what is being said but at least some senior officers will be making a lot of money out of the merger,

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

    • You are priceless ! You want the UK Government to consult “Scottish service personnel” , but your SNP administration in Edinburgh has denied those serving in the armed forces a VOTE on Scottish separation .

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

      • Islay, I fear you are misinformed.

        Armed service personnel in the UK or overseas who are registered to vote in Scotland will be able to vote in the referendum. This was confirmed in legislation passed at Holyrood on Thursday.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

        • Most service personnel will be denied a vote as will their partners and their 16 and 17 year old family members living with them .
          This is another deliberate attempt by Alex Salmond and the SNP to twist the result in favour of a yes vote .
          If the rules could be altered to let most 16 and 17 year olds vote , it should have been possible to let the brave members of our armed forces serving in the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in some of the most dangerous places on earth have a say on separation .
          Had they been likely to support the break up of Britain , I bet Salmond would have stood on his head to get them franchised .

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

          • You not listening, are you Islay?

            Eligibility to take part in the referendum includes members of the armed services serving overseas who are registered to vote in Scotland.

            Kindly explain how you interpret this as Most service personnel will be denied a vote

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          • Longshanks is right that any service personnel who are registered to vote in Scotland will be allowed to vote.

            The Scottish service personnel who will not be allowed to vote are those who are registered to vote in another UK constituency outside of Scotland. That really just means they are being treated the same as any other Scot who is currently not registered to vote in Scotland.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.