AN independent Scotland should have a “triple lock” against going to war, according to a think tank report on a proposed defence policy for a new sovereign state.
The paper, published today by Common Weal, set out three conditions it suggests be met ahead of any intervention – having a clear mandate under international law, a strategy of how military action would support a political resolution and a vote in the Scottish Parliament to secure democratic approval.
Each of the constraints should also be enshrined in the constitution of the new state, argued the document’s author Garry Macdonald, a defence expert and policy consultant.
The UK has no such preconditions with a vote in the Commons a fairly recent convention which can be ignored by the Government.
Macdonald’s analysis follows highly controversial decisions by both the Labour and Conservative/Liberal Democrat UK governments since 2003 to send British troops into war in Iraq and Libya – decisions which security experts have suggested triggered the rise and development of the terror group Daesh.
Macdonald, who is an independent policy consultant with experience advising political groups on defence and security issues, also argued the “triple lock” would ensure an independent Scotland could avoid getting pulled into such military calamities in the Middle East or elsewhere.
His report argues that in the short term the most pressing hostilities faced by an independent Scotland would be from cybercrime and serious organised crime. He says that as a result, the immediate focus of the new state’s defence and security strategy should be to address such hostilities, while ensuring the country is capable of coping with any threat to its territory from a rival state.
But Macdonald also suggested that simply by virtue of becoming independent of the UK and breaking free of its Middle East foreign policy, Scotland could face a lower terror risk.
“As with many European countries, terrorism will likely remain a persistent but low-level threat in an independent Scotland. It is possible, though not certain, that dissociation from UK foreign policy would reduce the threat from terrorism in Scotland,” he wrote in the report.
The Scottish Government’s White Paper ahead of the 2014 independence referendum included sections on defence and security, but Macdonald said the important matters received comparatively little coverage and, three years on, it was time to consider them again.
“As part of Common Weal’s White Paper Project, this discussion paper is an attempt to put some ideas and suggestions on the table to encourage further debate and ultimately to help refine the case for a Scottish defence and security strategy,” he said.
“The intention of the paper is to get people thinking about what we mean by security, what institutions and capabilities Scotland would need and how we go about building them.
“The hope is that this will encourage more people with experience to contribute to the White Paper’s iterative process and build a stronger case for defence and security in a future bid for Scottish independence.”
Common Weal director Robin McAlpine has previously highlighted savings because an independent Scotland would scrap the Trident nuclear weapons system on the Clyde.
“One of the oddest things about defence from Scotland’s point of view is that we pay a disproportionately high amount for defence by internat-ional comparison and yet the actual defence of Scotland is minimal,” he said. “An independent Scottish defence strategy would cost us less, leave us substantially more protected and keep us out of illegal wars. These are great opportunities for Scotland.”
Macdonald highlighted defence co-operation with countries such as the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Denmark as the new state sought to work closely with new allies. He said negotiations between an independent Scotland and the rest of UK would determine which defence assets would be transferred physically and which would be transferred as an asset value instead.
Operating on the basis of zero physical assets transferred, he estimated the asset value of Scotland’s share of the UK’s defence assets would be around £10 billion – and these resources could act as a start-up fund from which to create the new security organisations with an annual operating cost of around £1.8bn to £2.5bn.
New institutions would include a Scottish intelligence agency, an army, air force and navy, an expanded Police Scotland and a Scottish customs agency. A Scottish National Security Centre would act as a co-ordinating body to ensure a joined up approach.
In the interim period following independence, Scotland should pursue associate membership in Nato and the EU, Macdonald added.
Rory Steel, of Young Scots for Independence, said: “The proposals break away from UK defence and foreign policy which has caused conflict in all corners of the world, taking millions of lives and costing billions of pounds.
“Scotland could be a country of peace and cooperation by enshrining those ideals and safeguards into its constitution.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel