The Scottish Parliament is a devolved body and is answerable to the UK Parliament, a Parliament that has reserved powers over the constitution, defence, treason, the funding of political parties and international relations.
Of these reserved powers, it is Defence and International Relations that have been the focus of attention as many of the SNP’s opponents seek to suggest that foreign policy in an independent Scotland is somewhere between unworkable and unpalatable.
It’s not often that political parties communicate through actions rather than words but, if one looks around, it’s quite possible that the SNP’s view of what an independent Scotland’s foreign policy would be has already been put into practice.
There is the low hanging fruit of how an independent Scotland would look of course – Scotland inside the EU, quite possibly no nuclear weapons and we’d have the Queen as Head of State but let’s look at some examples of an existing Scottish foreign policy that many may not have noticed:
The Scottish Government is already promoting the development of a sub-sea electricity transmission super grid with Norway, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, assisted by several visits to Norway by the First Minister. (Incidentally, no UK Prime Minister has visited Norway in 25 years)
The SNP is considering the economic and military changes that the melting ice caps bring and is seeking to work alongside the countries that have seen this challenge as a top priority for a while now – Iceland, Faroe Islands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada etc. This is not an area that the UK has dedicated much attention, if any.
Scotland could and should join the Nordic Council if it does become independent. The SNP regularly talk up membership, Alex Salmond mentioned it in his recent Hugo Young lecture, and Lesley Riddoch has an excellent piece exploring Scotland potentially joining.
Alex Salmond’s visits to China and Abu Dhabi bore the hallmarks of state visits and would be much the same as visits from a Scottish Prime Minister.
One issue that many claim remains outstanding is how Scotland would defend itself if independent. For me, there is an easy solution to this and we only need to look to other similarly-sized, anti-nuclear countries for it. Norway is leading calls for Nato to be nuclear-free while still enjoy the security of full membership. The SNP simply needs to change its policy on Nato, if it hasn’t already, and a clear picture of how an independent Scotland could look in an international context is locked into place. I maintain that the SNP changing tack on Nato is a no-brainer.
The image that most people have in mind when it comes to Scotland defending itself is an attack on our airpsace and how we would unilaterally action a defence. And yet, the current ‘Quick Reaction Alert‘ system (involving scrambling fighter jets to intercept unidentified aircraft) is already split into North Britain (from Leuchars) and South Britain (from Lincolnshire). Contact is then made from HQ to Nato allies, typically via Denmark. Would the system work any differently under an independent Scotland, particularly if the north-south divide already exists?
The SNP will be launching its Preparation Prospectus soon but don’t be too surprised if its contents look familiar. We are surrounded by similar-sized prosperous countries who have the means and the alliances to defend themselves. Scotland isn’t just well placed to join those same alliances and create the same means, it is doing so already.
#1 by Craig Gallagher on March 8, 2012 - 5:56 pm
This is a great piece Jeff, one that is balanced and cuts through much of the overheated rhetoric surrounding arguments about how “Scotland would defend itself”.
I think, in particular, you’ve hit on one of the SNP’s most potent strategies for achieving independence as well. Rather than simply talk about what you’ll do when you’re sovereign, instead act like it, demonstrate that it is not as far-fetched as the Scottish Cringe would have you believe. Salmond in particular has worked very hard to emboss Scotland’s image in Europe and the wider world, a job I think he has been largely successful at.
Personally, the way the SNP have approached foreign policy has been one of the most attractive aspects of their campaign for independence. A non-nuclear, non-aggressor Scotland more concerned with collaborative energy policy and strategic North Sea initiatives with the Nordic countries. That said, it’s becoming more likely that one of the major defence issues of the next few decades is going to be Russian naval access to warm water ports in Europe again, so whether that policy can be borne out remains to be seen. But that’s a bridge we can cross when we get to it.
#2 by Andrew Skea on March 8, 2012 - 7:01 pm
Defence of Scotland’s land air and sea is a small part of defence of the people of Scotland’s interests. It is the responsibility of free people (which Scottish people are) to come to the aid of our neighbours where their freedom is threatened and where possible. These neighbours may be in Poland and Norway as in WWII, or they may be in Libya, or Syria or elsewhere in the world in the 21st century. An independent Scotland would be virtually impotent in most of the worlds current flash points just as the Netherlands was during the Srebrenica massacre and most small countries are in Afghanistan.
While many Scots back Alex Salmond’s ‘I’m all right Jack’ stance and the view that that the problems of the oppressed are not our problems. I compare this with a person living in a secure house and not caring about the neighbour being robbed or mugged. I find it particularly ironic that poeple to seem to place such high emphasis on freedom seem to care so little for the freedome of others.
The UK seems to be the only country aside from the USA that is capable of defending freedoms. Many disagree with our military activities and I have some reservations, but I think modification rather then dismantling of the capability is what is required. Some people would prefer that the UK was rendered impotent.
#3 by Doug Daniel on March 8, 2012 - 8:32 pm
How successful have UK and US interventions been, though? Many of the world’s dictators, past and present, have been put in place because of UK and US backing, as they were deemed a better alternative to what was there before. It doesn’t take long before the person we’ve put in place starts acting in a way that we disagree with, and then we’re looking to have him removed as well. It happened with Saddam, it happened with Mubarak, it happened with many dictators in South and Central America like Noriega and Pinochet, and it might just happen again in Egypt and Libya.
I’m finding it hard to think of a military intervention the UK or US has been involved in that has turned out well. I heard someone recently (I think he was a Conservative lord or something) saying that Afghanistan would be a success if the country went “a few years” without the regime we leave there collapsing, or words to that effect.
So it’s not just a case of people thinking “not my problem”, it’s a case of asking if military intervention actually helps these countries in the long run. Maybe sometimes it does, but in these instances, they are always military interventions that draw on a wide range of support, meaning there is no need for any one country to be able to perform them alone.
If the West hadn’t meddled in so many countries during the Cold War, the Arab Spring might very well have happened decades ago.
#4 by Iain Menzies on March 8, 2012 - 8:42 pm
Germany and Japan?
#5 by Doug Daniel on March 8, 2012 - 9:13 pm
World War II was a bit different- that was a case of stopping countries being invaded by others. I’m referring to going into a country and taking sides in what is effectively a civil war.
#6 by Iain Menzies on March 8, 2012 - 9:27 pm
No i dont think you are talking about intervening in civil wars.
If you are then why talk about Iraq or Afghanistan, neither country was in a state of civil war at the point of intervention.
And Germany and Japan are valid examples.
You, being an evil cybernat ;), want to disband a 300+year union, yet you want to judge the validity of that union, in this case, on what the last 10 years?!
In both Germany and Japan, their ability to invade other countries had been wiped out, in the case of Japan, before a single American soldier set foot on japanese soil. In the Case of Germany, occupation was not nessecary….unless the objective was, which of couse it was, regime change.
Both Germany and Japan are fine examples of modern democracies.
But if you dont like that example, what about South Korea, you could certain call our involvement there an intervention in a civil war, was that such a bad thing?
Similarly, there was the Malay and Mau Mau operations, which i would suggest left countries in a better state after the actions than then would have been without.
Certainly there are places that the west didnt intervene in that some would say they should have. Unless you think it was ok not to do anything about genocide in Rwanda for example?
#7 by Craig Gallagher on March 8, 2012 - 10:05 pm
Choose the ones you want. Anyone could easily retort with the failed British actions in Egypt (the Suez crisis), the failed American intervention in Vietnam or the continuing disaster that is Afghanistan. It’s absolutely absurd to say British and American intervention in Germany and Japan secured democracy there. In both cases, war was provoked by the Axis powers, after both the Allies in the this case had continually advocated the very non-interventionist policies you are deriding.
Besides, as we all know, once you invoke the Nazis, you’ve lost the argument.
#8 by Iain Menzies on March 8, 2012 - 10:26 pm
Godwins law is about comparing a position to hitler or the natzis, not invoking the nazis.
Also it aint absurd. Germany provoked war in 1914, we didnt go all in for regime change, nor did we HAVE to in 45. Japan by 43/44 was crippled, so by 45 there really wanst a need to occupy.
But this is beyond the point. it doesnt matter WHY you intervene, the point is that it can be done effectively.
And im not deriding non-intervention. Im objecting to broad stroke inaccurate depictions of western power politics.
Anyway, Britain didnt fail in Suez, that we were forced to pull out had nothing to do with egyptian resistance.
There is a case to be made that Vietnam was a sort of non intervention….but lets not go into that.
And as it happens, If i had been in charge (would have to have been of the US) I wouldnt have put troops into iraq or afghanistan.
#9 by Richard on March 9, 2012 - 9:33 am
You can’t say that Germany provoked war in 1914; countries all over Europe were engaged in an arms race of silly proportions. When that was coupled to a messy network of bilateral mutual defence pacts, it was only a matter of time before the whole lot exploded.
Germany were far from innocent in the whole proceedings, but they certainly weren’t the only ones. They simply got all the blame because they lost.
Anyway, if Scotland had been independent at that time, it is inconceivable that they wouldn’t have join forces with their neighbour (much as they did anyway).
#10 by Craig Gallagher on March 9, 2012 - 2:53 pm
“Im objecting to broad stroke inaccurate depictions of western power politics.”
As am I, Iain. To blame Germany for 1914 is to believe the propaganda of Versailles. Britain was the country escalating their naval armoury in order to bully the Germans out of their fleet ambitions. They didn’t back down. Even the most odious British imperial apologist, Niall Ferguson, acknowledges that.
I agree intervention can be done effectively. But it depends why you do it. If you intervene to change the regime in a country with no history of democratic government, it can’t be done successfully. But if you intervene to secure your status as a preferred recipient of that country’s oil trade, it’s surprisingly easy to achieve that.
#11 by Doug Daniel on March 8, 2012 - 10:51 pm
Note the word “effectively” when I talked of civil war. We went in to Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, and into Iraq to remove Saddam. So although neither was in the midst of civil war when we went in, we went in to meddle with internal affairs. Whereas in the case of Germany, it wasn’t until they invaded Poland that we took action. But then, what has been the result of our interference in these countries if it is not civil war? That’s even worse than meddling in existing civil wars.
As for Malaysia and Kenya, you’re on very shaky ground if you’re having to bring up conflicts in British colonies. These situations wouldn’t even have occurred in the first place if it weren’t for British imperialism.
But that’s beside the point anyway. There’s a reason we often refer to “post-war” – 1945 was a year zero moment. After WWII, with the creation of the UN to take over from the failed League of Nations, everything changed. Well, everywhere except the UK, US and maybe France.
And this is the point – thing’s change, which is why it doesn’t matter how long the union has been going. When something has stopped working, you don’t keep it going just for nostalgia’s sake. I’m not judging the validity of the union on the past 10 years, I’m judging it on 29 years, which is all I really can judge it on since I wasn’t around before then. I don’t feel the union has worked in my lifetime, so why should I care how long it was going before that?
There have been so many changes to the world’s geography over those 300 years, it’s absolutely bizarre to suggest that we, exclusively, must remain static. The past can inform the future, but it must not dictate it.
#12 by Alec on March 9, 2012 - 3:28 pm
I’m going to pull rank on you and state that the Mau Mau was down to as much – and probably more – internal tribal conflicts in which black Africans were more at risk from other black Africans than the Colonial authorities. The reason I can say this is ‘cos my mother’s family were there at the time (and knew victims of the Lari massacre), with both her parents and one sister speaking at least two local languages.
~alec
#13 by Andra on March 9, 2012 - 6:58 pm
you’re right that there is no point remaining static for static sake. But we live in a much more global world than 300 years ago, so going backwards to 1706 nation states is a backward move. Even the current nation states are becoming less relevant. People commute between countries for work, and families are increasing spread over different nations. Nationalism if the only justification for smaller nation states and nationalism is a character flaw like sexism, racism etc.
#14 by Angus McLellan on March 8, 2012 - 9:19 pm
What about Germany and Japan? They were occupied before the Cold War started as a result of the Very Hot War which had gone before. And WWII wasn’t about regime change.
#15 by Iain Menzies on March 8, 2012 - 9:28 pm
If WW2 wasnt (at its end) about regime change, then why did the Emperor deny his divinity and why isnt Germany now run by the Nazi’s?
#16 by Alec on March 9, 2012 - 3:15 pm
That was part of the Mystery (note the capitalization) of the War, just as the American Civil War went from Federal Government imposing its control over member States to one about the emancipation of all slaves.
~alec
#17 by Andrew Skea on March 8, 2012 - 8:48 pm
It is wrong to measure the actions of the cold war by today’s standards. Many compromises were made in these days because the main priority was backing people who would do our bidding before they were recruited by the other side.
We won the cold war and we are now in a new phase where such compromises are not required. By helping countries to democracy we can repay the debt we owe for turning a blind eye in the past.
It must be clear that we want nothing in return.
#18 by Alec on March 9, 2012 - 8:46 am
The criteria for such backing often turns out to be acquiescence or simply not doing something to oppose it (which, in itself, would be a violation of the Prime Directive), and invariably disregards Soviet efforts to install her own clients.
And why does France not get mentioned?
Off the top of my head, clear-cut examples might be Grenada in 83 or Iran in 53. A third one would be gratefully received, or even reaching into double figures.
~alec
#19 by Indy on March 8, 2012 - 10:15 pm
You will have every opportunity to put the case for Scotland continuing to be part of Team America – World Police when these matters are debated in the referendum campaign.
#20 by Fred Barboo on March 9, 2012 - 2:52 am
The idea that nations should act unilaterally is not only fantasy but dangerous. How far would you take it? Spend all a nations wealth and enlist the entire population until utopia is achieved? How do we select what problems are ours and those that aren’t? How do you prioritise? Is Russia “free”? China? Pakistan?
“Defending freedoms”. Ha!
#21 by Allan on March 8, 2012 - 7:10 pm
I would have thought that a lot of decisions would be dependent on the make-up of the post Independence Scottish political landscape and what happens to the Scottish National Party itself!
If the landscape remains as it is, with the same parties, this does outline the choices that Scotland could take, with the SNP making strides in those areas as you point out. Of course that depends on the landscape staying as it is, and takes no account of a post Independence re-alignment of the Scottish Political landscape (maybe prompted by a break-up of the SNP into left and right constituent parts, or by a newly constituted party on the right). That, and the question over Scotland’s entry to the EU are other posts for another day though.
#22 by R Pollock on March 8, 2012 - 8:06 pm
Personally I think Defence is, like a lot of topics, one of those topics which leaves the SNP in a catch 22 situation.
They are damned if they answer and damned if they don’t answer.
Many Unionists want gaurantees on certain topics post-independence that are simply not in the gift of any political party to give. They then cackle away as if they have marked a bruise in the march to independence.
Simply put the SNP is a party of the idea of independence. It is a movement that wants future Scottish Governments to be mandated by the people of Scotland undiluted.
Once independence is achieved future Scottish Governments will be at liberty to change policy on whatever aspect of Scotland’s way as it sees fit with it continually accountable to the people.
That is what I want. It’s very simple and I think it will create a more accountable, efficient government.
However, many in the media and unionists want impossible answers before accepting the principle of independence. As much as I actually agree with the SNPs stance on many things it is simply impossible for it to impose SNP policy as an independent Scotland’s ideology forevermore. Some seem to equate SNP policy today with how independence will work in all aspects as if SNP policy will form part of the new Scottish written constitution!
It goes without saying that the SNP are the main vehicle of change and as such it is only right that they present their idea of how Scotland will work in the immediate term as its likely they will be the main negotiators. Therefore, I agree that they should be under scrutiny on their ideas. However, that should be critiqued with a mind on the limitations of what can truthfully be described.
Problem is, in ordee to be credible and convince, the SNP need to appear to have strong answers.
Therefore, there damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
#23 by Iain Menzies on March 8, 2012 - 8:39 pm
On the Arctic issue, Canada is investing in a considerable long-term military build up to defend its interest there, principally from Russia. Should the UK, as is, be paying more attention to that area, possibly, but then the UK, doesn’t have territory near there in the way that Russia, Norway, Denmark and Canada do. Mind the UK isnt the only ‘major’ power that isn’t paying that close attention to the area, neither is the US, and the US covers Alaska.
is reasonable to ask what is the UK doing to address possible security issues ‘up north’ and ask if there is more that should be done. Since the suggestion in this post is that this is an area of interest for Scotland that is being neglected by the UK. At present, from open source info, there are certainly 2, and at most 3 powers that can make their presence felt in the Arctic. The two being the US and the UK, and the third, and there is a real question mark over this one, is Russia. The reason for this is that all three, represent the 90%(ish) of the worlds expertise in military operations under the Arctic ice. The Royal navy is in the process of bringing into service at least 7 first rate (as good as if not better than any other in the world) Fleet Submarines (SSN’s). Such boats are the only realistic way of maintaining a military posture in the Arctic (unless the whole ice cap melts and i dont think anyone seriously thinks thats gonna happen).
Two factors have to converge to secure any national interests in any area. Capability and policy.
The UK has (and is improving) its capability.
This post would suggest a concern as to the policy. As things stand there may, or may not be a British SSN in the Arctic, 30 years ago you could say with certainty that there would have been. If there is not, and a need arises, then there will be a Sub (or two, plus half a dozen American boats) there in a matter of days.
Now unless I am very much mistaken, an ‘SNP model’ independent Scotland will make it less likely that such a posture can be maintained as the cost of maintaining it will be spread over 5 million people rather than 60+million and the SNP dont seem to like the idea of nuclear submarines.
As for an independent Scottish Air Force, I seriously question is Typhoon is the most appropriate aircraft for the job. If all it is going to be tasked with is intercepting a 40 year old Russian bomber, or being capable of shooting down a hijacked airliner over an Old Firm match, then the SAAB Gripen would be a damned sight cheaper.
Fundamentally it comes down to what kind of country you want to be. See Andrew Skea above, the possibilities are HUGE. realistically, Scottish Armed forces could range in capability and size from Ireland, to Israel. Its all down to what you want it to do, how much you are willing to pay……and in the case of those nordic countries, how you feel about conscription.
#24 by Angus McLellan on March 8, 2012 - 11:21 pm
It’s true that Canada’s episodic interest in the Great White North owes something to their neighbours, but those neighbours include the US and Greenland/Denmark as well as Russia. Canada proposes to rely on existing icebreakers, on “slushbreaker” patrol ships and on aircraft to maintain sovereignty in the north. That’s what they can see Greenland/Denmark doing next door.
So, no nuclear submarines anywhere in the Canadian picture. No submarines at all in the Danish one for over a decade now. And it remains to be seen whether Norway will replace its aging submarines or do as Denmark did and choose to spend the money elsewhere. The Norwegians are signed up for the hugely expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and are likely customers for the expensive P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, so I have my suspicions. Even the Norwegian defence budget isn’t a bottomless pit.
With all that in mind, the idea that an independent Scotland might have nuclear-powered submarines appears rather fantastical. No non-nuclear state does, not even significant naval powers like Japan, Spain, Italy and Australia. Even conventional submarines have to be at the far distant edges of the possible, given the monetary picture. And it’s not as if there are shipyards in Scotland with recent experience of building submarines anyway.
As far as Denmark is concerned only the army contains a significant number of conscripts. Although the Norwegian forces have more the peacetime size of the Norwegian military is really fairly small by any reasonable standard. Not a major issue unless you want a massive Home Guard prepared at all times to defeat a German, sorry Russian, surprise invasion like Norway has.
Shooting down airliners isn’t likely to happen. You need a much more credible reason than that to be spending the best part of a billion pounds on equipment and over a couple of hundred million a year on keeping them flying. It’s easy to find reasons – from search and rescue to humanitarian interventions – to have maritime patrol and transport aircraft and various sorts of helicopters. But finding reasons for buying fighters that don’t involve things like “because NATO would be expecting us to take a turn flying over the Baltic States to send a message to Moscow” or “because the Russians might decide to start WWIII” is much, much harder. In the first case, we should probably remember that when the future Marshal Foch was asked in around 1912 how many British soldiers he needed in the event of a future war with Germany he said something like “just one and we’ll make damn sure he gets killed”. We could just as well do the same job by ensuring that NATO always had one soldier near the Russian border in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Much cheaper than buying fighters. In the second case, fighters are no defence against ballistic missiles or fallout and not great against cruise missiles either.
Finally, I’m not sure why Ireland is always the “cheap” yardstick. First of all it’s nothing like a “minimal” force. I am sure you could come up with a plan to spend well under £500 million a year on defence and be better protected against most plausible threats than Ireland is. Secondly, unless you believe that a land invasion is the most likely threat it’s an entirely bizarre way to spend money, a job-creation boondoggle with added guns and uniforms. Ireland really has no navy as the Icelanders and Norwegians, among others, call the sort of thing that Ireland has a Coast Guard. Ireland also has nothing resembling an air force as again many Coast Guard services have similar equipment, only sometimes without weapons.
#25 by Doug Daniel on March 8, 2012 - 8:59 pm
Good piece, Jeff. I think a lot of people think foreign policy is all about embassies, but the truth is it’s how you interact with other countries, which is far more important than some bricks and mortar. Salmond has been forging good relations with other countries, and seems to do a far better job of it than Cameron does. That’s quite a shocking statistic about no PM visiting Norway for 25 years – they’re the UK’s closest neighbour except for France, Belgium and the Netherlands. In fact, UK PMs don’t seem to bother much with any European countries other than France, Germany and Italy – all the big ones. I would like to think an independent Scotland would be forging ties with all these smaller countries, and indeed, that seems to be how the SNP would like to do things.
People say Scotland would have no voice on the international stage, but by forging close ties with other similar sized nations, we would be playing an important role, particularly in Europe.
As for NATO, it does seem like the SNP are gearing towards ditching the anti-NATO stance, or at least relaxing it a bit. However, I remain unconvinced that we need to do so – no reason why we can’t just be part of the Partnership for Peace programme like Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland. But if people really feel it is a necessity, then I suppose we have to do what the people think!
#26 by Iain Menzies on March 8, 2012 - 9:11 pm
Diplomatic relations are about MUCH more than Prime Ministerial Visits. A network of Embassies are essentially to maintaining good diplomatic relations.
On Norway, well they send us a Christmas tree every year so i dont think you can say they dont like us….
Never mind that we are both members of NATO, telling a country (which had a border with the USSR) that if they are attacked we will treat it as an attack on ourselves seems to be the basis of pretty decent relations. And thats before you get to the constant drum beat of military exercises that went on between Norway, the UK and other allies, some people call that defence diplomacy.
I dont know of anyone that says that Scotland would have no voice on the international stage ( i would infact call that a nationalist myth 😉 ) rather that Scotland’s voice would be near to irrelevant.
The Bricks and mortar DO matter. Or rather what they represent matters. None of Salmonds international grandstanding would be possible without the support of the UK diplomatic service.
#27 by Craig Gallagher on March 8, 2012 - 10:09 pm
This is a mind-boggling reply. What border exactly did Norway have with the USSR? I believe you’re thinking of Finland, which by the way was a war we strictly did not intervene in. And fat lot of good we did protecting Norway from the Germans – they were occupied for three years.
And it’s frankly ridiculous to imagine that only the UK provides the means to have an effective diplomatic service. The huge worldwide presence of Canadian embassies is a far better analogy, given that they are routinely used by the USA as a means to speak with states that have no formal relationship with the Americans. I can envisage Scotland performing a similar role for the rUK.
#28 by Galen10 on March 9, 2012 - 8:58 am
Norway has had a border with the USSR/Russia since 1945 when the Russians annexed slices of Finnish territory, including the slice giving access to the the sea in the North.
The reason “we” didn’t intervene in the Russo-Finnish was was that it would have been logistically improbable; it would also have pitched us against the Soviet Union which given later events may have had an impact on the outcome of WW2. The Swedes did a fair bit to help the Finns short of actual intervention, including materiel and a volunteer force to fight, and of course the Finns ultimately threw in their lot with the Germans, which didn’t exactly work out too well for them.
#29 by Craig Gallagher on March 9, 2012 - 2:57 pm
Exactly, Norway and the USSR didn’t have a border prior to the end of WWII, which was the claim made in the post I was replying to.
And yes, that’s the same reason there were no British troops on the ground in Poland either. Despite our much-vaunted “intervention”, it wasn’t until our 1940 expedition to Norway that British soldiers saw any material action on the ground.
As for the Finns, considering they won the Winter War, I doubt much intervention was really required. That was a pasting on the scale of the USSR’s later disaster in Afghanistan
#30 by Indy on March 8, 2012 - 10:22 pm
You would almost think that Scottish taxpayers contributed nothing to the cost of these embassies and so on. Our First Minister is allowed to go abroad simply as an act of huge generosity by the UK Government.
Have you ever read any of Paul Scott’s books by the way? He is a guy who reads like a modern history book in person. Fought in the 7th Armoured Division in the campaigns in Belgium, Holland and Germany. From 1945 to 49 in the Political Division of Military Government of Berlin, including the period of the Soviet blockade and the Air Lift. Then appointed to the Senior Branch of the Diplomatic Service and served in Foreign Office, and in Bonn, Warsaw, La Paz, Havana, Montreal, Vienna and Milan. Stationed in Havana during the Missile Crisis of 1962.
So knows a bit about the Diplomatic Service and thinks Scotland would be much better off having an independent one focussing on our own specific interests. As other countries do,
#31 by Alec on March 9, 2012 - 8:58 am
I have to confess, until I saw his being plugged here, I would have said this was the author of the Raj Quartet; and I know of a lot of esteemed history and politics writers.
Assuming I’ve found the right Scott, he was a minor senior officer during the Second World War, and didn’t rise to the dizzy heights of the diplomatic service (although, as we saw with Suez, the Argentinean build-up in the South Atlantic 1981/2 and the intel for Iraq – to name but three – appeals to authority of those chaps can sometimes be fraught with difficulty).
What are his qualifications?
~alec
#32 by Indy on March 9, 2012 - 10:26 am
Point is he worked in the Diplomatic Service most of his professional life. So it’s an opinion based on experience.
#33 by Alec on March 9, 2012 - 11:09 am
Okay, what if I can find two others who disagree?
~alec
#34 by Craig Gallagher on March 9, 2012 - 2:59 pm
He’s also rather Marxist in his interpretations though, which doesn’t do many of his conclusions a lot of favours.
#35 by Alec on March 9, 2012 - 3:30 pm
Seriously, where can I find online texts of his bon mots?
~alec
#36 by Doug Daniel on March 8, 2012 - 11:40 pm
“Never mind that we are both members of NATO, telling a country (which had a border with the USSR) that if they are attacked we will treat it as an attack on ourselves seems to be the basis of pretty decent relations.”
Partnership for Peace would allow us to continue doing that. Or are you saying that Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Switzerland don’t have good relations with other countries just because they aren’t in NATO?
“I dont know of anyone that says that Scotland would have no voice on the international stage… rather that Scotland’s voice would be near to irrelevant.”
Same thing. Come on, don’t be tedious.
#37 by Angus McLellan on March 8, 2012 - 11:43 pm
Of course a physical presence matters, and I’m sure there are some benefits from having an imposing embassy and residence. But even the UK isn’t represented everywhere. And we can question whether the benefits from a flash address matter all that much.
The British embassy in Brussels, for example, has a decent address, but it’s a bloody ugly building with no parking and probably very expensive. If it was moved out to be next to Ikea (not technically in Brussels, but this is only a thought experiment) it would be just as easy to get to by public transport, possible to park there and much, much cheaper to own/rent. The future of the hypothetical Scottish diplomatic service involves working in an embassy in a tin shed somewhere in a business park on the edge of a foreign capital? Seems fine to me.
As for defence diplomacy, bilateral cooperation is always possible. But I do wonder how many Norwegian defence ministers have ever stopped and considered that the last time they were actually at war with Russia, they were also at war with the UK as well. And indeed with Sweden too.
#38 by Commenter on March 9, 2012 - 12:45 pm
I dont know of anyone that says that Scotland would have no voice on the international stage ( i would infact call that a nationalist myth ) rather that Scotland’s voice would be near to irrelevant.
See, what you’re not realising is that vicarious influence is not real influence. Although individual Scots can rise to positions of influence in UK foreign policy, that doesnt mean that Scottish interests contribute disproportionately to UK foreign policy.
A child twiddling a toy steering wheel while his dad drives the car is not being influential.
#39 by Craig on March 8, 2012 - 11:23 pm
Northern QRA, at RAF Leuchars and soon RAF Lossiemouth, is only the tip of the spear.
The system is dependent on the two Control and Reporting Centres at RAF Boulmer and RAF Scampton, which track and identify all aircraft in our Air Policing Area. They also provide tactical control to the Typhoons. In the event that the aircraft is identified as a threat to British airspace, RAF Air Command at High Wycombe has to get involved to coordinate the situation and get a decision from the Prime Minister. It only goes to NATO in Finderup if they pose no threat to UK airspace.
If the unidentified/hostile contact is sufficiently far away from Leuchars/Lossiemouth or Coningsby, RAF Brize Norton will also have to scramble tanker support.
And that’s not counting the rest of the RAF that enables these six stations to their task: Initial Officer Training and Elementary Flying Training at Cranwell; Basic fast jet training at Linton-on-Ouse; Advanced Weapons training at Valley; Operational Conversion Units; second and third line maintenance units; groundcrew training; logistical supply; and countless others.
So you cannot simply take RAF Leuchars/Lossiemouth and say the “north-south” divide already exists – at least not if you by north-south, you mean Scotland-England.
#40 by Indy on March 9, 2012 - 9:22 am
So what?
If that is the way things are currently set up why would it have to be any different with independence?
Practically the only difference independence really has to make is that rUK will have to find somewhere else to store their nukes, if they decide to keep them.
In other senses things can carry on pretty much as they are. There are such things as Conference calls you know. If the PM has to be consulted I am sure they can get the FM on the phone at the same time.
#41 by Angus McLellan on March 9, 2012 - 3:58 pm
The UK has a particularly complex flying training system, not changed all that much since the end of WWII. But just because the UK does something in a particular way doesn’t mean that that is the only way, never mind the best way. Try looking elsewhere to see how it could be done.
Sweden, Norway and Denmark all operate fighters. Their flying training infrastructure consists of old basic training aircraft – their Saab Safari/Supporter aircraft are not all that different from a Cessna or Beechcraft single-engined private light aircraft that you might see at Cumbernauld or wherever – simulators and a small number of 2-seat versions of their fighter aircraft. The Netherlands’ training system replaces the light aircraft with larger turboprop trainers similar to the RAF’s Tucano aircraft.
So there is no need to make things as complicated as the RAF have done. But even if it could be done cheaper, I still don’t see any good reason to actually have a standing Quick Reaction Alert type of thing. The Cold War is long over, the USSR is dead and gone. So what would it be for?
#42 by Alec on March 9, 2012 - 9:07 am
Defence is a major weakness in the SNP proposals for independence. During reviews, Salmond was campaigning vociferously for the retention of all or most of the Scottish cap-badges and the retention of all or most of the five regular infantry battalions in Scotland.
A country is under no obligation to station her armed forces on foreign soil when economic benefits could be brought to her own populations (as would be seen with an independent Scotland and rUK). Maybe a deal could be struck, but an independent Scotland would be in almost precisely zero position to pick and choose between nuclear weapons or the fluffy lambs which gambol amongst daffodils and make-up the rest of the British military.
~alec
#43 by Indy on March 9, 2012 - 10:31 am
Eh not only would the rUK be under no obligation to station armed forces in an independent Scotland, they would need to obtain our permission to do so.
I think the SNP has made it clear that they would be perfectly willing to continue to co-operate with rUK on defence matters by, for example, allowing them to continue military exercises, flight practice and so on as well as policing air space etc.
#44 by Alec on March 9, 2012 - 11:07 am
A perfect example of the lack of forethought referred to in my first sentence.
An independent Scotland wants RAF bases or Army garrisons remaining? She might very well be able to get that. But the moment she declares that nuclear facilities would have to relocate at considerable expense to rUK, then I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the latter decides to cut her loses and pull-out more or less entirely.
Recently Salmond bloviated that “weapons of mass destruction” and their clean-up costs had been foisted on Scotland for decades. Either he’s taking a McAlpinesque view that those local communities which welcomed them and Scottish politicians/representatives which facilitated their presence are anti-Scottish, or he’s not thinking it through.
~alec
#45 by Angus McLellan on March 9, 2012 - 4:44 pm
The rUK defence budget will fall by about 10% if Scotland votes for independence. That’s 10% less money now and forever and not – as with present cuts – smaller increases than expected in the future. Some defence costs are pretty much fixed – Aldermaston costs what it costs and so do pensions – so the other parts of the budget would need to be cut by more than 10%.
It won’t be just a case of losing “Scottish regiments” – a repeat of 1922 and the exit of the Irish Free State – but something much bigger. The rUK MoD would’t need or want bases in an independent Scotland – Faslane and Coulport excepted. The idea that Leuchars or anywhere else might host the RAF’s “QRA (North)” is nearly laughable as there’s little chance that there would be two sets of fighters on quick reaction alert when the dust settled. And the Tornados at Lossiemouth today would be a prime candidate to be cut altogether and ground attack missions “gapped” (done without in MoD-speak) until the far distant day that the RAF took delivery of its F-35s.
Desperate times, desperate measures. But maybe the MoD would end up running a defence establishment commensurate with the rUK’s economic strength. Good news then for folks in the rUK.
Of course the MoD isn’t going to come out and say anything like this. It doesn’t do to think about the unthinkable, never mind talk about it in public. Even off the record. To date, leaks and rumours in the Times and Telegraph have been limited to worries about Trident and nothing more. Beckett’s committee are wasting their breath.
#46 by Galen10 on March 9, 2012 - 9:12 am
An interesting piece Jeff; I think the SNP should be making a big thing out of the positive aspects of both the diplomatic/FP angle and the defence/security angle.
If you look at comparable countries like Norway and Denmark, we could have far stronger conventional defences than we currently have, for less than our current contribution to the UK defence budget. Every opportunity should be taken to hammer home the potential opportunity savings this represents, and the fact that it would leave us better defenced and more secure.
As others have mentioned, the minutiae of what weapons systems we need, how many, what type etc, and how we disentabgle logistics and organisation/command & control are things to be worked out in the post independence negotiations.
What the SNP have to promote, hard and often, is the message that in defence terms we would be financially better off, more secure, and less prone to be involved in ill advised escapades like Iraq.
In general foreign policy terms, as others have mentioned, there are many strong arguments to be made about co-operating with our Nordic neighbours, Canada etc, as well as with other smaller European states which share many of the same concerns; this ties in nicely with being the progressive beacon of Big Eck’s dreams…. after all few (even convinced Unionists) would claim that UK foreign policy has benn a shining example in recent decades.
#47 by Don Francisco on March 10, 2012 - 2:01 pm
SNP policy on defence is pretty weak – an independant Scotland defence force would look very different from the current UK establishment, given how small the budget avaliable will be.
Practically we couldn’t do much more than protect the air/sea/land of our own country. The only possible threat is Russia. Look at the structure of the armed forces of the Scandanavian countries – mandatory national service to create large units to act as a deterrent. Very different from what we have at present.
We would need a sort of coastgaurd/coastal navy to patrol out long coastline, probably much of which would be auxiliary. We would still need interceptors for the ageing Russian bombers – though typhoon is ruinously expensive. Buy something cheap that does the job. What land force we would have would probably have to rely on a large TA contigent; not neccesarily a problem, but you can forget about foreign deployments (not that this would be much of a loss) and expensive equipment e.g. challenger tanks.
More practically speaking, a close alliance with the rest of the UK would make the most sense. If the UK & France are sharing aircraft carriers, I’m sure Scotland and England could easily share island defence! An alliance with Scandanavia wouldn’t be much help to either those countries or ours – there is a sea between us and them.
#48 by Angus McLellan on March 12, 2012 - 3:13 pm
You can only judge any proposals on a defence policy for an independent Scotland if you first have some idea of how the UK is defended today and how it was defended in the recent past.
As far as Russian bombers are concerned, since the introduction of air-launched cruise missiles in the 1960s the UK has had very little defence against air attack. The RAF’s limited surface-to-air missile system, scrapped in 1991, only protected airfields in eastern England. The army had a small number of mobile long-range surface-to-air missiles in service until 1977 but none after that.
So, if Russian bombers didn’t – and don’t – seem to concern the MoD and RAF planners very much, even during the Cold War, why would they play any significant part in determining defence policy in an independent Scotland?
#49 by Andra on March 12, 2012 - 3:52 pm
Defense of the land sea and airspace of Scotland is only a small part of the defense of Scotland’s interests.
The British and Italian workmen killed in the failed rescue in Africa last week are an example. The UK was monitoring the situation from GCHQ, and the rescue attempt was carried out by SBS. I would not be at all surprised if Scots were involved at GCHQ or SBS. After independence what will we do if a Scots worker is kidnapped somewhere – will we go cap in hand to the English military? Or will we have our own security service and military with global reach?
#50 by Andra on March 12, 2012 - 4:24 pm
As things stand BP is an example of a British Company with interests and workers worldwide. The UK (including Scotland) has a good number of global companies with global interests. If a BP tanker is hyjacked then the UK military might be able to help.
After independence the defence of Scotland’s global interests will be at best the resposibility of a foreign country. We might not have much control of the UK military now, but after independence we’ll have no control, no influence, no obligation, no defence.
#51 by Don Francisco on March 12, 2012 - 8:46 pm
Andra – I would say in response to your question that Scotland would almost certainly go cap in hand to a larger political/military player/power, or at best work in conjunction with one.
Angus – to the UK the Russian bombers are little more than a nuisance, but not something to ignore. For that purpose an independant Scotland would need interceptors – an unavoidable expense.
#52 by Angus McLellan on March 13, 2012 - 12:52 pm
If you ignores things which are clearly not possible – nuclear submarines for example – and things which cannot be avoided then the single decision which probably has the greatest impact on budgets and personnel is whether or not to have fighter aircraft. The Royal New Zealand Air Force, in a report intended to support the retention of a fighter capability, reckoned that maintaining a force of just 18 combat aircraft – about the minimum number possible – and all the supporting paraphenalia for maintenance and training consumed about 14% of the New Zealand defence budget. That budget may have been about the equivalent of £1.2-1.5 billion in today’s money at the time. And the combat aircraft which New Zealand operated – the A-4 Skyhawk – was a simple, subsonic jet, closer to the RAF’s Hawk trainers than to any “real” fighter aircraft of today.
But after saying that it was hard to see the nature of the threat that would compel a Scottish govt to buy expensive fighters, along comes Lord Fraser of Carmylie to show me how mistaken I was. He thinks that England, or rUK if you like, would be the problem. See this story (English ‘would bomb our airports’) in today’s Herald.
#53 by Don Francisco on March 13, 2012 - 8:34 pm
I’m with you on planes, Angus. Very expensive things to have. And you are right about the ‘minimum’ – you couldn’t have less than a couple of squadrons.
Good of Lord Fraser to give us our days light relief! Or not when you consider he used to be Lord Advocate.