On a more serious note, I have been discussing various aspects of Scottish independence elsewhere. One of the issues which seems to exercise many is the question of defense in a post independent country, should we vote for that. This has been quite instructive for me.
Once again it is asserted that Scotland would have to pay to build a facility for trident in england if we should decide we do not want them here, as is the policy of the current Scottish government. This laughable demand is apparently MOD policy, though why anyone thinks it has any force in law or international relations is a complete mystery to me. It is possible it has the same force as a bully demanding your dinner money: but we don't give in to that kind of thing, now do we? At least we don't if we don't believe the bully will beat us up: and I really can't see the residual UK invading us over this: though I could be wrong if Mali fizzles out......
But what intrigued me was the rather unquestioned assumptions which were made by some. It seemed to me that they could not conceive that a reduction in defense capability was not automatically a bad thing: and it was curious to find that this position was supported by reference to a paper which was published by a body called RUSI (though they did the IMF trick of claiming it did not represent their views, but only the authors')
So I read it.
The paper can be found here:
www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Scott...es_Oct_2012.pdfWhat is astonishing is that the paper states:
QUOTE
it is generally acknowledged that potential military threats to an independent Scotland and its strategic assets and national interests would seem to be very low.
<snip>
Most commentators would tend to agree, therefore, that the chances of a credible military threat to an independent Scotland would be close to zero and, if such a threat were to emerge at all, it would likely be limited to
infringements of airspace and coastal integrity, and the security of oil and gas rigs and other economic assets like fishing grounds. It could be argued that such security concerns could be met by enhancements to the police
or by the establishment of some sort of gendarmerie, and the question is frequently asked whether an independent Scotland would actually need any armed forces in the classic sense at all.
So you might think that we don't need the armed forces: and I admire the authors' honesty in making that plain: but of course that CANNOT be the conclusion and I am sure that is completely independent of that fact that one of the authors was a career soldier before he entered politics in the SNP interest
So then they go on to justify having a military establishment in other terms: and guess what: there are a number of functions the military serve which we cannot do without, on the basis of an analysis in 1996 by someone called Chuter.
Let us have a look at those:
1.
QUOTE
e. First, armed forces are required to ensure the survival of the state against internal enemies. They are in effect the state’s ‘ultimate argument’ against non-democratic insurrection and uprising.
So they are to keep down the people of the country when democracy fails. Can't say I am surprised: but that is not a function I can support: because for me the failure of democracy usually means that the government is not representing the people at all, if it gets to that stage: so I can't really see suppression as a legitimate goal. Maybe that is just me
2.
QUOTE
assisting the civilian authorities, like helping with disaster relief, ensuring essential services like refuse collection and ambulance services continue during periods of industrial dispute, and so on
Ok, we might need an army for disaster relief, though I don't really see why: a different kind of body could do the job and need not be armed: which would be cheaper. And strike breaking. Well if that is what they are for then abolish them, is my view. Folk don't strike for nothing and breaking strikes is not a legitimate aim of government and not a justification for keeping a standing army. Not in my view
3.
QUOTE
armed forces protect the state from external aggression, and act as ‘the political affirmation of sovereignty and identity which results from a visible determination to define and patrol frontiers and areas of interest with military forces’.
Umm ....does that not rather fail when they have just said there is no credible threat to our borders? Why, I think it does.
4.
QUOTE
to promote stability in regions of the globe where a state has political, economic or strategic interests.
I just love the phraseology there: but frankly I think this means that we should tell johnny foreigner how to run his affairs: which we are not prepared to let johnny foreigner do to us (see 1 and 3 above). So I don't accept that either.
That point is particularly amusing because it goes on to say that does not necessarily mean sending troops to impose the state's will on another by force but rather
QUOTE
Much more likely is the achievement of political ends by low-level military assistance, exchange training, military links through attendance at foreign staff colleges, and diplomacy – the latter a traditional role of the visiting warship in a foreign port.
Gunboat diplomacy, forsooth ! What century are we in, again?
So every single justification for the existence of armed forces is suppression of the people in the interests of the state (for which read big business): nice, ain't it?
Apart from those roles the authors go on to say that the use of armed forces is a matter of choice. Apparently the state can choose to participate in bodies like NATO or UN peace keeping operations and if they do
QUOTE
Use of armed forces in such voluntary ventures can enhance a state’s standing in the international community and gain it a ‘seat at the conference table’ when international matters are debated or resolved.
What is funny about that is the actual outcome of such ventures: they obviously thought that might be an objection because they go on to say
QUOTE
Notwithstanding protests to the contrary, it is probably fair to say that the UK’s involvement in military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade fall into this category of ‘wars of choice’
I do not think "protests to the contrary" means what they think it means. The protests against involvement in Iraq were massive and the people clearly did not want this: but the government certainly chose to go ahead despite that. As to "enhancing [our] standing in the international community", though: well that is probably true so long as you define the international community so that it excludes everyone who thinks you are a scumbag nation for killing their children or attacking their pals: which is what we do, of course
The authors noticed that as well at least for Scotland: they think that in "the current political climate" an independent Scotland would probably not have been involved in those particular adventures. I would hope not
Then comes the skip for the next paragraph says:
QUOTE
Be that as it may, and if we accept Chuter’s thesis, then there is a clear requirement and purpose for armed forces in an independent Scotland.
Not at all, actually. I do not accept any of Chuter's thesis, and if they think this makes the case for their conclusion I can only shake my head in wonder. Or laugh.
Anyway moving swiftly on: they accept it is unlikely that Scotland will be starting full scale war any time soon (or at all): and that we will not have any dependent territories we need to garrison: and that we are not likely to be required to "show the flag" (yes, they actually use that phrase: I am not making this up) in peace keeping operations or the like: and we are not likely to be invaded. So what is that army for, daddy?
QUOTE
It is much more likely that the SDF would become involved in the full gamut of operations at the lower end of the scale, whilst possibly retaining the potential to become involved at higher levels as part of regional or international military alliances and coalitions.
Why would we want to do that: well because
QUOTE
there is much sense for a new nation in belonging to what has been described as the most successful military alliance the world has known
Orly? Why would that be? We are not told
Leaving that aside they go on to specifically say what a scottish defence force would be for: so that is good
QUOTE
the internal security of Scotland, generally in support of the police, military assistance to the civilian community, and support in tasks given priority by the civilian authorities; defending Scottish territory, assets and possessions on land, at sea and in the air against intrusion, disruption and attack; maintaining Scotland’s political, economic and cultural freedom of action, and generally protecting Scottish rights and interests; and the pursuit of Scotland’s wider security interests and the fulfilment of regional and international defence obligations such as they exist.
Touchingly they then say
QUOTE
These four broad roles are hardly likely to raise eyebrows, and are roughly in line with those of various other nations.
Well I agree that is what states often do: suppressing dissent and all of that: but I find my eyebrows did twitch a little nonetheless: obviously that makes me a very peculiar person and not the kind the authors have met. No matter. Maybe if they had not explained exactly what they mean by each of those broad brush aims I would not have noticed....
Having established to their own satisfaction that we need a scottish defence force they go on to discuss what it should look like. There are options which do not follow a conventional army navy and airforce configuration: they mention that but do not discuss it further, concentrating instead on the conventional structure. This part is quite funny too.
They say we need a navy to protect oil installations and fishing and such; though they rather undermine that when they say in the next sentence:
QUOTE
In the absence of any immediately recognisable threat to these assets, however, it is less easy to make the case for the size of navy that Scotland might require. The best that can be achieved in this ‘threat vacuum’ is an educated guess at what the SN might look like, using a general assessment of likely naval tasks plus comparisons with the navies of countries of similar size and disposition.
I am sorry: that paragraph delayed the production of this post cos I couldn't stop laughing.
The section on the airforce is no better.
QUOTE
Control of airspace, the protection of population and strategic assets from attack or disruption from the air, and the ability to project power regionally and, if need be, internationally are some of the major reasons why an air force
for independent Scotland might be necessary
Cept it isn't, is it? It suffers from the same "threat vacuum" as the navy. They don't let that stop them though: we need an airforce, apparently
Unsurprisingly they take a rather different approach to the army and we get a wee tour of the history of the scottish regiments as far back as 1642: so that is all relevant: not. This is presumably to play to the tradition, which is indeed very strong in this country. But they run up against the same pesky problem
QUOTE
Let us assume that the government of independent Scotland would wish to have at least the option of committing Scottish regular troops to overseas expeditions, generally as part of a coalition or alliance.
Let's not
If we don't then we won't have to pay for
QUOTE
three combat battalions plus supporting arms, allowing it to deploy and sustain itself in a combat zone.
Seems that there will be a problem in training these unnecessary soldiers for we have nowhere to do it: apparently training even lightly armoured soldiers causes a lot of environmental damage and we don't have an existing place for that purpose. It is a nuisance because
QUOTE
There is no such training area in Scotland, although recently there has been some talk about setting one up in the Scottish Borders.
Any attempt to do such a thing would, unless done in times of national emergency or crisis, inevitably lead to a storm of protests from environmentalists and local inhabitants, and it appears that any planning is in abeyance at time of
writing. Most suspect it will not be revived.
Whowuddathunk that the population would not be fully cooperative in training an army specifically designed to break their strikes and suppress their political protests? Ingrates!! But not to worry; they figure that we can train them outside Scotland. There won't be any problem because the uk army already does that: in places like germany and canada. Oh wait: the germans train their tanks in pembrokeshire: so it looks like they don't want their environment damaged either. Still, the authors assure other places will be quite happy to extend their facilities so that is ok...
And on to "special forces". And the same problem:
QUOTE
As previously stated, there will always be a threat of terrorism in an independent Scotland, much as there is in every other state. The risk is low, but it is there nonetheless. Historically, there has been little evidence of terrorist activity in Scotland.
<snip>
Nonetheless, with huge investment in oil and gas rigs off Scotland’s shores, which might prove attractive to terrorists intent on a ‘spectacular’ attack, there seems to be little option but to make contingency plans for
their protection.
There is a lot of force to that "might"in there..... but
QUOTE
Independent Scotland would be well advised to prepare for the worst of threats.
Orly?
From that reasonable sounding, though not wholly persuasive position we then get
QUOTE
So, there will be a need for a well-trained and professional special-forces capability, probably based on an airfield or at a port – or preferably at or near both – and ideally in the northeast within easier travelling distance of the rigs. It will have to be ready at a moment’s notice to take on the worstcase scenarios, probably instigated by highly educated and determined terrorists who may be prepared to lose their lives for whatever their cause or grievance might be. One should expect potential attackers also to have done their homework.
Scary, huh? I always find words like"might" and "probably" carry a lot of weight and I am particularly terrified by "highly educated" because it was doctors who had a go at Glasgow airport and they were prepared to lose their lives: the fact that they were disabled by a couple of angry glaswegians who were going on holiday is, of course, irrelevant
Edited by FionaK - 9/2/2013, 03:12
