Enlightening the Constitutional Debate The third in a series of discussion events to enlighten the public debate on Scotland’s constitutional future. Defence and Interna(onal Rela(ons 29 May 2013 at the Royal Society of Edinburgh Introduc(on This seminar examined ques3ons on how the UK’s role within NATO might be affected by cons3tu3onal change, and about the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrence, given the SNP’s an3-nuclear policies. The seminar also discussed how the UK’s posi3on on the interna3onal stage might be affected by cons3tu3onal change, and what the implica3ons of separa3ng the Sco5sh and UK armed forces might be. The la4er half of the seminar addressed ques3ons from the audience. The subject of Defence & Interna3onal Rela3ons was addressed by a panel of four expert speakers: • Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Crawford, Stuart Crawford Associates, former SNP defence advisor • Dr Phillips O'Brien, Reader in Modern History and Convenor of the Global Security Network • Professor William Walker, Professor of Interna3onal Rela3ons, University of St.Andrews • Rt Hon Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Former Secretary General of NATO and former Secretary of State for Defence The discussion was chaired by Lieutenant General Sir Alistair Irwin, President of the Royal Bri3sh Legion for Scotland. The seminar was conducted as an open, public discussion seminar. This report provides a summary of the posi3ons outlined by the speakers, and of the subsequent discussion. Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Crawford, Stuart Crawford Lieutenant Colonel Crawford began by defining what Associates, former SNP defence advisor the wider func3ons of a na3on’s armed forces are. Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Crawford began by observing The three main tasks of any armed force, he suggested, are: that the ques3on around how an independent Scotland • ensuring the survival of the state against internal might organise its own armed forces has been central to enemies (for example insurrec3on, non-democra3c recent debate on Scotland’s future. He suggested that in uprising and terrorism) and providing disaster relief; recent years the focus of this ques3on has shi#ed, so that it is no longer about whether or not Scotland could • protec3ng the state against external aggression; run its own armed services, but rather about whether it • promo3ng stability in regions where the state has should . In making this point, he suggested that there is strategic interests, for example through exchange li4le doubt that Scotland could, if it wished to, manage training and diplomacy. an independent armed service. He also pointed out that a na3on’s armed forces may be In addressing the ques3on of whether Scotland should deployed in voluntary ventures being undertaken by the seek an independent armed force, which would be a UN or by NATO. consequences of a ‘Yes’ vote in the Referendum, When considering what an independent Sco5sh defence which is around 1.3% of Scotland’s GDP. This compares force might look like, Lieutenant Colonel Crawford observed favourably with the Sco5sh defence expenditure of that a convenient sugges3on is that Scotland would have £3.3 billion in 2010/11, and the SNP’s recently declared armed forces around 10% the size of those the UK has at defence budget of £2.5 billion per annum. the moment; or that Scotland’s armed forces would look Summing up, Lieutenant Colonel Crawford suggested the same as those of roughly equivalent countries, for that there are three ques3ons to ask when considering example Denmark or Norway; or that Scotland would the poten3al for an independent Sco5sh armed force: have a defence budget equivalently propor3onal to its GDP as the current average for EU countries. While • Is it necessary? these sugges3ons make sense, or are at least cceptable, • Is it feasible? from the point of view of a straigh2orward size or GDP comparison, this sort of approach actually tackles the • Is it affordable? ques3on from the wrong direc3on. A be4er way to On the basis of the model he had proposed, Lieutenant approach the ques3on, he suggested, is to look at the Colonel Crawford declared that we can answer ‘Yes’ to all level of risk faced by an independent Scotland. This can three of these ques3ons. The evidence, therefore, is that be achieved by asking the following ques3ons: Scotland could have an independent armed force if it • What might Scotland have, which others might want to a!ack? wanted to; the ques3on which remains to be answered is whether this is an op3on that Scotland should pursue. • What would Scotland need (in terms of military resource) to protect this? • What would this cost? Dr Phillips O'Brien, Reader in Modern History, University of Glasgow, and Convenor of the Global Security Network There are no clear predic3ons about what an independent Scotland’s foreign policy might be, but Lieutenant Colonel Following on from Lieutenant Colonel Crawford, Dr Crawford hypothesised that the focus of an independent Phillips O’Brien referred to the nature of the debate Scotland’s armed forces would be regional and not global, around Scotland’s cons3tu3onal future, and conducted and that this focus would be primarily on defence; although a brief analysis of what the big issues to feature in this an independent Scotland would have the op3on of debate have so far been. He observed that the ques3on contribu3ng to allied engagements overseas, if it wished to. of defence has been one of the largest issues to feature so far and that, under the heading of defence, the largest On the ques3on of what an independent Scotland would ques3on has been around the Faslane nuclear base and want to protect, he suggested that the main focus would be what would happen to this base in the event of Sco5sh on territorial integrity, oil and gas revenues and fishing independence. Dr O’Brien pointed out that Faslane is grounds. He observed that Scotland is not at high risk from currently one of the largest employers in the west of conven3onal military a4ack, but that a more likely risk is Scotland, accoun3ng for around 6.5 thousand Sco5sh from elements such as cyber warfare, terrorism and jobs, with current plans to see this rise to eight thousand. organised crime. Taking these interests into considera3on, The SNP has expressed a desire to maintain all of the jobs he suggested a model for what an independent Scotland at this base; however, Dr O’Brien pointed out that the might need in order to best protect its na3onal security Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has a loud voice and assets from likely threats. This is as opposed to a model in the independence debate and will want an independent of what Scotland might want in terms of defence structure. Scotland to commit to removing all nuclear weapons and Lieutenant Colonel Crawford suggested that Scotland would bases from Scotland. Dr O’Brien suggested that this may need something like 60 aircra#, 20 to 25 ships and two army prove problema3c for the SNP if Scotland does become brigades, one deployable and one for reinforcement and independent. He pointed out that the issue of an independent home du3es, amoun3ng to between 13,000 and 17,000 Scotland’s rela3onship with NATO is also a large one, armed forces personnel across all three services. He sug - especially now that the SNP has declared a change in policy gested that an independent Scotland would be very unlikely and is now commi4ed to Scotland becoming a member of NATO. to need the sort of hardware used by the UK military, for example aircra# carriers. On the ques3on of how these Following the ques3ons around Faslane and Scotland’s forces might be raised and equipped, he suggested that rela3onship with NATO, Dr O’Brien suggested that the third much of this could be taken from Scotland’s share of UK biggest ques3on under the defence heading has been forces, and indicated that horse-trading might be required around whether an independent Scotland would return to to facilitate this, including Scotland taking cash in lieu of the original Sco5sh regiment model, with a permanent assets, such as Trident, where appropriate. regimental iden3ty. Ques3ons that haven’t figured as highly in the debate so far are ques3ons around what would Lieutenant Colonel Crawford es3mated that the cost of the happen to Rosyth and other Sco5sh bases such as Inverness model proposed would be around £1.84 billion per annum, and Fort St George, or to the shipbuilding yards on the Clyde. 2 In rela3on to the big ques3ons, Dr O’Brien suggested that crea3vely address this issue. A Transi3on Fund could be used most of these are not debatable, but refer to issues to manage the change. Dr O’Brien also suggested that in an (e.g. NATO and Faslane) where there is not actually much independent Scotland, Glasgow would lose out to Edinburgh to debate. On the issue of an independent Scotland’s on the loca3on of defence bases and the associated jobs. rela3onship with NATO, for example, Dr O’Brien suggested This would also require crea3ve management. The SNP that Scotland has to be a member of NATO because the should accept smaller defence facili3es, but should use the rest of the EU member states would make Sco5sh EU money saved to manage the transi3on to fewer defence jobs membership extremely difficult if Scotland was not a in Scotland, especially on the west coast. member of NATO. Walking away from NATO, he suggested, would damage Scotland’s nego3a3ng posi3on on EU membership. On the ques3on of Sco5sh regiments, he Professor William Walker, Professor of Interna(onal argued that this is not a model that Scotland can return Rela(ons, University of St Andrews to, and that to do so would make no sense.