"Scotland is a
maritime nation with more than 11,000 miles of coastline, including nearly 800
islands, critical under-sea and offshore infrastructure and an area of
responsibility extending far into the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean"
SNP Resolution
on Defence, published 16 July 2012
SNP: Scotland
needs mutual defence
"While
conventional military threats to Scotland are low, it is important to maintain
appropriate security and defence arrangements and capabilities."
Putting to one
side the talk of in/out NATO, Trident leaving Scotland slowly or quickly, the
facts of Scotland's geography and the nature of the surrounding nations does
not change (quickly anyway).
rUK, Ireland,
Norway, Iceland, Denmark & Faroes & Greenland, Canada as we look out
and North are not likely to cause Scotland problems of state-on-state
aggression. Seabed demarcation lines between us don't move (or shouldn't) - talk of what happens in the High Arctic, with
melting ice-caps and and finding more oil there is not for Scotland directly,
but maybe for Norway, Denmark & Greenland and Canada, and not immediately at that.
In working out
our defence needs, and who we might partner with, we need to separate classic
state-on-state armed aggression from dealing with lower-level disputes on
natural resources sharing, and international terrorism.
Today, as you
read this post, foreigners are
free to come into our territory to take our resources - the fishing fleets of
any other maritime nation: England, Russia, Spain. Rules of course apply, and
are enforced by Marine Scotland, the Royal Navy having withdrawn fishery
protection south of the Border as long ago as 1994.
Whether we are
in/out of NATO though we still need to deal with our own territorial integrity,
and deal with the environmental risks of moving large quantities of oil around
our coasts.
No-one will do
this for us (not even Westminster on fishing rights). Indeed with the recent
Westminster driven cuts (to rescue Coastguard co-ordination centres, emergency
tugs and maritime patrol aircraft) we have a real marine protection problem
today.
SNP: Scotland
will contribute to world peace
"An
independent Scotland will be an outward-looking nation which is open, fair and
tolerant, contributing to peace, justice and equality. By mobilising our assets
and the goodwill and recognition that Scotland enjoys in the world, we will
provide sustainable access to natural resources to tackle need and prevent
insecurity in the world for this and future generations"
NATO
represents a mutual defence pact, it also allows groups of nations to take
collective action, piggybacking on the US, they could not otherwise undertake
on their own, such as in Afghanistan.
Eastwards
expansion is also a running theme with NATO - it effectively increases the size
of the Western bloc by drawing former communist states into the mutual defence
arrangement, and gets them to go fight in NATO's wars.
Costs of
membership of this insurance club are not high (a commitment to spend 0.5% of
GDP on defence), but once you've joined it, you'll be expected to join in the
club's activities.
As a UN
member, but outwith NATO, Ireland has sent peacekeeping troops overseas for
years. Scotland's consideration is: if we are not to be isolationist, which
overseas conflicts and wars will we be involved in? - and if so would we rather
send the Scots Army to fight under NATO command or under UN? Given the higher
levels of professionalism in the former and a duty of care to our troops, we
may not be left with many options.
"The Multi Role Brigade structure and interoperable air and sea assets will provide deployable capabilities for United Nations sanctioned missions and support of humanitarian, peacekeeping and peace-making ‘Petersberg Tasks’'"
"The Multi Role Brigade structure and interoperable air and sea assets will provide deployable capabilities for United Nations sanctioned missions and support of humanitarian, peacekeeping and peace-making ‘Petersberg Tasks’'"
To send troops overseas requires at least the following, beyond combat:
- training facilities pre-deployment
- logistics bridge back to equipment base (to support ever more complex weapons)
- equipment maintenance in theatre (routine and deeper level maintenance)
- HQ base in theatre for communications & accommodation
- medical support (different "echelons" or levels of care)
- post-deployment support
The latest round of UK defence cuts anticipate further outsourcing to contractors - if you count reserve forces as part of the contractor pool, then all of the above can be delivered this way - but the unglamourous basics of foreign wars cost money regardless of how you staff them. In multi-national operations most individual nations don't bring an entire independent base structure - instead they will contribute resources to common-use facilities.
In the list above though, points 3-5 can be addressed by sea-basing: using a large base ship, such as an assault ship or a supply ship with a helipad. Importantly this gives individual nations greater national control over how their forces are employed and sustained. Anything land-based by definition needs the consent of / payment to the land-owner. Check the map for why Afghanistan is a logistical headache. Even Afghanistan though is only 2 hours flight time from a US Navy carrier in the Gulf of Oman, and different studies suggest 40-60% of world population live within 100 miles of the sea.
What is the relevance for Scotland here? If we want to retain a degree of independence when acting overseas then building our forces with a maritime centre makes sense. You need big ships with a hangar for helicopters, workshops and office space for HQ staff. They don't have to be expensive either. Steel is cheap and space is cheap, we don't have to fall into the fallacy that there's such a thing as a ship that's physically "too big for a small country". In terms of soft power and a positive foreign policy influence such vessels don't have to be called warships either.
Independence
"So Whats?"
1) Westminster
doesn't protect our fishermen and is cutting Coastguard protection - we have to
deal with this problem with or without NATO
2) Recognising that Scotland
does not face conventional military attack, SNP want Scots Army to be able
to fight overseas
3) Only from the sea can nations offer truly independent contributions to multi-national efforts - Scotland can govern its degree of involvement in this way
No comments:
Post a Comment