When considering what an independent Scosh defenceforce might look like, Lieutenant Colonel Crawford observedthat a convenient suggeson is that Scotland would havearmed forces around 10% the size of those the UK has atthe moment; or that Scotland’s armed forces would lookthe same as those of roughly equivalent countries, forexample Denmark or Norway; or that Scotland wouldhave a defence budget equivalently proporonal to itsGDP as the current average for EU countries. Whilethese suggesons make sense, or are at least cceptable,from the point of view of a straighorward size or GDPcomparison, this sort of approach actually tackles thequeson from the wrong direcon. A beer way toapproach the queson, he suggested, is to look at thelevel of risk faced by an independent Scotland. This canbe achieved by asking the following quesons:•
What would Scotland need (in terms of military resource)to protect this?
What would this cost?
There are no clear predicons about what an independentScotland’s foreign policy might be, but Lieutenant ColonelCrawford hypothesised that the focus of an independentScotland’s armed forces would be regional and not global,and that this focus would be primarily on defence; althoughan independent Scotland would have the opon of contribung to allied engagements overseas, if it wished to.On the queson of what an independent Scotland wouldwant to protect, he suggested that the main focus would beon territorial integrity, oil and gas revenues and ﬁshinggrounds. He observed that Scotland is not at high risk fromconvenonal military aack, but that a more likely risk isfrom elements such as cyber warfare, terrorism andorganised crime. Taking these interests into consideraon,he suggested a model for what an independent Scotlandmight
in order to best protect its naonal securityand assets from likely threats. This is as opposed to a modelof what Scotland might
in terms of defence structure.Lieutenant Colonel Crawford suggested that Scotland wouldneed something like 60 aircra, 20 to 25 ships and two armybrigades, one deployable and one for reinforcement andhome dues, amounng to between 13,000 and 17,000armed forces personnel across all three services. He sug-gested that an independent Scotland would be very unlikelyto need the sort of hardware used by the UK military, forexample aircra carriers. On the queson of how theseforces might be raised and equipped, he suggested thatmuch of this could be taken from Scotland’s share of UKforces, and indicated that horse-trading might be requiredto facilitate this, including Scotland taking cash in lieu of assets, such as Trident, where appropriate.Lieutenant Colonel Crawford esmated that the cost of themodel proposed would be around £1.84 billion per annum,which is around 1.3% of Scotland’s GDP. This comparesfavourably with the Scosh defence expenditure of £3.3 billion in 2010/11, and the SNP’s recently declareddefence budget of £2.5 billion per annum.Summing up, Lieutenant Colonel Crawford suggestedthat there are three quesons to ask when consideringthe potenal for an independent Scosh armed force:•
Is it necessary? • Is it feasible? • Is it aﬀordable?
On the basis of the model he had proposed, LieutenantColonel Crawford declared that we can answer ‘Yes’ to allthree of these quesons. The evidence, therefore, is thatScotland
have an independent armed force if itwanted to; the queson which remains to be answeredis whether this is an opon that Scotland
Dr Phillips O'Brien, Reader in Modern History, Universityof Glasgow, and Convenor of the Global Security Network
Following on from Lieutenant Colonel Crawford, DrPhillips O’Brien referred to the nature of the debatearound Scotland’s constuonal future, and conducteda brief analysis of what the big issues to feature in thisdebate have so far been. He observed that the quesonof defence has been one of the largest issues to featureso far and that, under the heading of defence, the largestqueson has been around the Faslane nuclear base andwhat would happen to this base in the event of Scoshindependence. Dr O’Brien pointed out that Faslane iscurrently one of the largest employers in the west of Scotland, accounng for around 6.5 thousand Scosh jobs, with current plans to see this rise to eight thousand.The SNP has expressed a desire to maintain all of the jobsat this base; however, Dr O’Brien pointed out that theCampaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has a loud voicein the independence debate and will want an independentScotland to commit to removing all nuclear weapons andbases from Scotland. Dr O’Brien suggested that this mayprove problemac for the SNP if Scotland does becomeindependent.HepointedoutthattheissueofanindependentScotland’s relaonship with NATO is also a large one,especially now that the SNP has declared a change in policyandisnowcommiedtoScotlandbecomingamemberofNATO.Following the quesons around Faslane and Scotland’srelaonship with NATO, Dr O’Brien suggested that the thirdbiggest queson under the defence heading has beenaround whether an independent Scotland would return tothe original Scosh regiment model, with a permanentregimental identy. Quesons that haven’t ﬁgured as highlyin the debate so far are quesons around what wouldhappen to Rosyth and other Scosh bases such as Invernessand Fort St George, or to the shipbuilding yards on the Clyde.