Scottish Independence & Defence: A Welcome Opportunity

Many people have told me that ‘Defence’ is a key area for them in the decision on independence – it is unquestionably a topic that strikes the heart and head of the debate.

Many commentators derided George Robertson’s claim that the ‘forces of darkness would simply love it’ if Scotland democratically votes for independence.  George Robertson’s claims that Scotland’s independence would be ‘cataclysmic in geo-political terms’ was classed as an effort to bully the Scottish voters from Owen Jones and Ian Bell took it as an insult and a threat.

However, in a rare moment of common ground between George Robertson and myself, I think that we should look beyond his language and analyse the basis of his argument.  George Robertson’s statements reflect the agenda of the UK government to which Scotland currently belongs – indeed the Westminster parliament (Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems) intends to commit £100billion of the UK taxpayers money from 2016 in an effort to ‘protect us against North Korea and Iran’.  This was a case made by David Cameron in Scotland last year – Alex Salmond explained why the UK position is superficial and flawed during his 2013 Brookings Institute address which is well worth a watch – but it is worth reflecting on the priorities that are currently set at Westminster.

History plays an important role in the issue of Defence for the UK – the British Empire was essentially started by the conquests of England from as early as the 15th century – much of the Empire was established when Scotland and England formed the UK in 1707.  For centuries the Empire was seen to rule the waves and from a military perspective it was incredibly successful.  However, as I touched on in my last blog post, this history should not pass without some shameful reflection as there are several areas where the destructive nature of the Empire should be noted.

The 2nd World War was a pivotal moment where the role of the UK, the USA and the Soviet Union formed the ‘Big Three’ of the Allies of World War II forces that were formed to fight against Nazi Germany, saving much of Europe from unthinkable fascist terror.

The end of World War II led to the United Nations (UN) being formed and with that the establishment of the UN Security Council.  The great forces of the moment were the ‘victors of World War II’ (as Wikipedia phrases it) with China, France, Russia, the UK and the US appointing themselves as the 5 fixed member states on the Security Council.  This fixed membership brings with it veto rights on any motion brought to the UN – a set-up that was justifiably attacked as an antiquated system by Argentina last year (this article is worth a read to see some of the recent examples that bring the veto rights into disrepute).

The UN is potentially an excellent organisation to progress world peace, with most of the world’s population represented within the 193 UN member states.  Unfortunately the role of collective governance is significantly undermined by the Security Council states acting to preserve their own strategic interests, a reality which partly explains the existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).  NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.  Moreover, NATO ostensibly enabled the US Government to create a collective opposition to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but NATO has also acted as an alliance for global military intervention without the need for UN Security Council approval (such as the ongoing war in Afghanistan).

The Cold War doesn’t get brought up much in discussions about Scotland’s vote on independence but the UK’s decision in the 1950s to spend vast amounts on nuclear weapons was largely driven by the US and their strategic positioning against the Soviet Union.  UK taxpayers have continued to finance this position since and Scotland still lives with the consequences, with the majority of Scottish citizens living within a blast range of the existing base for our weapons of mass destruction (it is worth reading Harry Reid’s article on how the UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, failed to represent Scottish interests in his dialogue with the US when deciding where to store the weapons).  As a point of note, France is the only other European nation to have nuclear weapons – a capability that they also developed during the 1950s and they currently own the 3rd largest nuclear-weapons force in the world.

This brings me back to the ‘forces of darkness’.  I’m not entirely sure who they are exactly (Darth Vader has not been ruled out), but the mystique is part of the process.  You see, to justify spending £100billion of taxpayer’s money on weapons that will never be used, it is essential to make citizens think that the government knows an important secret that is keeping us all safe.  They truly hope that no-one questions whether all of the other 185 countries in the world without nuclear weapons manage to survive without nuclear weapons.  We are told that these weapons serve as a ‘deterrent’ to potential enemies – with the US, France, Russia and China owning enough nuclear warheads to bring the human race to an end I think we can safely say that enough is enough.

Disarm a nuke

The opportunity the Scottish people have in the referendum is so vast that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament have aligned themselves with the movement for Scottish independence.  With the UK set to start the development of a next generation system of nuclear weapons in 2016, a Yes vote will prevent this from happening.  This is what George Robertson means by the global impact of Scottish independence –he knows that without the financial contribution of Scotland and also the Faslane facility – it will not be possible for the UK to retain its status as a ‘nuclear power’.

This symbolises the point of Scottish independence being one that will not only be for the benefit of Scottish citizens, but we will be showing solidarity with citizens across the British Isles by preventing more of their tax cash being wasted on such an abhorrent status symbol.  In global terms, perhaps reducing the scale of one of the fixed Security Council members will lead to a review of the relevance of having 5 fixed members in today’s context.  Surely it would be more important for each geo-political region to be represented in the Security Council, with a democratic voting system enabled to avoid one nation acting exclusively on behalf of its own vested interests?

As a closing thought for this post, I like the expression ‘bairns not bombs’ as it highlights that the government makes a conscious decision on how to spend the national budget: we need to consider childcare, education and healthcare requirements alongside the spending on a Defence Force that is fit for purpose.

About stuartmdarling

I live in Motherwell & work in Edinburgh in the Oil & Gas sector, which has been taking me around the world for 15 years now. My passion for politics and music go with me every step of the journey...
This entry was posted in Defence, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Scottish Independence & Defence: A Welcome Opportunity

  1. Stu says:

    I do enjoy your blogs on the whole, they give me a different perspective. But I think the defence section of the White paper is weak, and some of your thoughts in this latest blog seem to have missed a couple of simple options GB has available. What about putting nuclear bombs back on Tornado GR4s? To suggest that Great Britain would have no way to afford Nuclear weapons or no delivery platform post a YES vote is a little dodgy mate. I’d be happy to place a bet right now!

    The White Paper on a Scottish Air Force is so light on detail it is frightening. On part 2, I would like to see you cover what version of typhoon we will be getting, why only 12 when other nations of a similar size have around 40 fast jets. Why no air to air refuelling capability? How would we deploy in support of NATO with only one FJ Sqn on a long term Op? Why no strategic air lift capabilty? What helicopters are we going to get? Are we going to use UAVs? Apaches? F35?

    With no Air to Air Refueling, 12 jets, 3 on deep maintenance, leaves 9 on the line, max 6 serviceable (that is being generous), then operating as pairs, we could just about escort a Russian bear, each pair flying for around 90 mins before landing to refuel and go again. I am not convinced NATO is going to be that impressed by our capability. That said, a EU military might be quite happy with that!

    In my opinion, NATO will not want Scotland to join, unless they come to the table with some decent assets. They may allow entry if Faslane etc is allowed to continue as a nuclear base, and I know how that would go down!! I think the SNP should be honest about that. If the Scottish people are happy to move forward without the protection of NATO, good luck to them. I personally think you would do ok without being part of NATO, but the SNP needs to start being honest about the choice!!


    • Hi Stu, thanks for the comment and your insights. I’ll explore a few options in Part 2 but you’ll find more detail on the Air Force possibilities for an independent Scotland in the Royal United Services Institute paper A’ The Blue Bonnets:

      With respect to the capacity of the UK to spend on a next generation system of Nuclear Weapons after Scottish independence – I have been following the topic closely and even senior military figures have acknowledged that an implication will be nuclear disarmament: Essentially that was the heart of George Robertson’s point about what he sees as the ‘weakening of the West’ – I see it as the empowerment for those around the world who are keen to see an end to this type of megalomaniac posturing with the process of nuclear disarmament. You may also want to read the UK governments log on the issue of nuclear weapons – you’ll note that several people have raised concerns about the lack of contingency plans from Westminster on this topic:

      With respect to NATO, it seems inevitable that the negotiations that will follow a Yes vote will be framed with the aim of keeping Scotland in NATO but with the condition that removal of the existing nuclear weapons are factored into this. I’ll expand on that in Part 2, but my own preference is clear – I think NATO undermines the role of the UN as a force for progressing world peace and setting humanitarian standards.

  2. Stu says:


    Unfortunately my work internet will not let me open the blue bonnets article so I can’t comment on that for now.

    The telegraph article was written by a Naval Officer, one thing you will find with military topics, each branch always defends their corner. There are clearly issues with trident post independence, my point was that the US have B61 nuclear bombs that are stockpiled in Europe and can be carried by GR4 Tornado’s, so there is a low cost nuclear alternative readily available. I am not saying the capability would be as good, less surprise, less standoff, increased risk to aircrew, but nevertheless a capability that is readily available. I am not pro nuclear weapons, just don’t agree that independence would force Nuclear disarmament.

    The doc didn’t really tell me anything new, although I thought the final paragraph kinda summed up my initial point, just with better English!

    “There is not enough information about the defence policy of an independent Scotland to enable Scottish voters to make an informed judgment in next year’s referendum. We recommend that the Scottish Government should make a sustained effort to clarify the issues before the vote, giving an indication of its expected defence budget, military establishment, scale of procurement and impact on Scotland’s workforce skills base, as well as indicating the terms of Scotland’s application to join NATO. This would help Scottish voters assess the employment and economic as well the security implications of an independent defence policy.”

    The white paper totally fails to explain how Scottish Defence will work. I understand why you want Independence, I don’t agree, but I see some sense in your views. I see no sense in independence followed by joining NATO, it goes counter to the Indy logic. If Estonia gets invaded for instance, Scotland would then have to provide a fighting force to defend it, that is no different to Scotland getting dragged into conflicts now.

    The equipment choice seems strange too, If the typhoons are only being used for QRA there are many cheaper alternatives. Who is going to train the pilots, the English? Again, why be Independent, if you are then going to be dependent on the country you just left. I would have gone for Gripens perhaps instead? Who put the Air Force white paper section together? It looks like it was written by an infantry officer. Honestly, I could spend a night in the pub discussing holes in it.

    I agree with you to a certain extent with your thoughts on NATO vs the UN, though if we were around in the 70s we may have had a different view. The UN could definitely do with restructuring, but it will never be perfect. In recent years, NATO has taken over after the UN has failed to act. I would argue the security council undermines the UN principles significantly more than NATO does. By the way I’m off to a NATO job in August, so I may be biased!!

  3. Pingback: Scotland, the UK & the Global Peace Index | Lanarkshire Forum for Independence

  4. Pingback: Finance and the Referendum | Darling Blogs

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s