Scottish defence policy 6.1: If we'd voted for indy in 2014
what might the Scottish armed forces look like today?
On 18 September 2014, Scotland voted to answer the question Should Scotland be an independent country?.
Sadly, Scots didn't vote to become independent. Many were mislead by Westminster lies, such as "vote NO to stay in the EU", "the oil will run out in 5 years", or the biggest lie of all "we'll treat Scotland with respect".
Even so, and despite the media being against us, support for independence rose a massive 18 points (from 27% to 45%) during the referendum campaign.
If we'd voted for independence
But what if we had voted for independence? In particular, what might the Scottish armed forces look like today? In these articles I'll try to set out what the Scottish armed forces would look like in 2024, 10 years after the independence vote, if they'd been set up in accordance with my views as recounted in my Scottish Defence Policy series and elsewhere.
One country with a similar population and GDP to Scotland is Finland, so I'll be comparing my plan for the Scottish armed forces with what Finland actually does. If Finland can afford something, then Scotland, with approximately equal resources, can too.
Note that I am not arguing that an independent Scotland would have set up its armed forces like this, merely that:
it could have, if it wanted to
doing so would leave it strongly defended (which is after all the whole point of having armed forces)
and that this could be done on a budget of 2% of GDP (similar to what Finland spends on defence)
I will be framing this series as an alternate history scenario, with a point of divergence from our time line of 18 September 2014, when Scotland surprisingly votes to become an independent country. In the scenario it is the year 2024, and the writer is recounting events of the last 10 years.
This is the first part of a three part series, and discusses the threat assessment and capabilities needed by Scotland's armed forces. The second part will discuss the Scottish army. The third part will discuss other parts of the Scottish armed forces including the air force and navy.
The independence referendum
When the votes were counted in the wee small hours, YES won by a margin of 55% to 45%. Many were surprised by this outcome, not least Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. Sizing up the situation, the mood both north and south of the border was one of co-operation, because:
Scotland and the residual UK share an island
they are going to be neighbours whether they get on or not
it's in both countries' interests that they do get on
both countries have a lot in common, such as shared language and culture, which means they will find it easy to co-operate should they choose to do so
all the above points are obvious to everyone
Consequently, Scotland's independence day was set at 24 March 2016, and both sides got busy negotiating the terms of what they hoped would be an amicable divorce.
Planning for Scotland's new armed forces started immediately the independence referendum was won. Two things had to be decided: what threats Scotland faced, and what capabilities it needed to face those threats.
Threat assessment
The largest threat was of Russia invading eastern Europe. While this wouldn't immediately affect Scotland, it was clear that if the West became weaker and the forces of revisionist autocracy (i.e. Russia and China) stronger, then in the long term we could be invaded or otherwise dominated by them.
Furthermore, independent Scotland wanted to join NATO and the EU, and to achieve this it would help to have defence policies that contributed to European defence.
The second threat was one that wasn't much talked about in public but was recognised in private by Scottish defence planners: that a future revanchist England might attempt to invade Scotland, either all of it or just the parts that had voted to stay with the UK in the recent referendum, which included Orkney, Shetland and the Borders. While England wasn't hostile right now, who knows what their attitude would be under a future government? Threat assessments have to be informed by capabilities more than intentions, as intentions can change with every new leader.
Capabilities needed
To defeat an English invasion, large ground forces were needed. There would also need to be military bases and peacetime garrisons on Orkney and Shetland, to prevent England from taking over and declaring a fait accompli (as Russia did in Crimea in 2014). These bases would also help the economy in those areas and bring in new people who might be more pro-Scotland than existing islanders.
Because England is a bigger country than Scotland it's likely that if they really wanted to they could conquer us. However Scotland could inflict enough damage on them to make it not worth their while. For example Scottish submarines could mine English ports preventing their trade. it would not make sense for Scotland to have a large air force, as England could always afford a larger one, therefore it made more sense for Scotland to invest in land forces, asymmetric naval forces (i.e. submarines), and cheap cruise missiles (what're typically now described as long range suicide drones) to destroy military and infrastructure targets. And that's before even getting into the diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions that Europe and the USA would likely enforce on England.
England in 2014 had an army that on mobilisation was smaller and less well equipped than Finland's, so Scotland decided they would build an army like Finland's, designed to resist aggression from a larger neighbour.
Against Russia, Scotland needed three things:
A large army, capable of fighting Russia in eastern Europe.
Fighter aircraft to intercept Russian bombers coming our way.
Air and naval forces to intercept Russian submarines and surface warships coming from the Arctic sea, either into the Atlantic, or to damage Scotland's oil infrastructure.