Ex-army chief in attack on SNP’s defence plans
Sir Richard Dannatt says building an army from scratch in independent Scotland is verging on impossible. Picture: Fiona Hanson/PA Wire
THE former head of the army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, has called on Alex Salmond to be “honest and transparent”, in a strongly worded attack on the SNP leader’s plans to examine the shape of Scotland’s armed forces only if voters back independence.
Sir Richard, chief of the general staff between 2006 and 2009, said that putting together Scotland’s armed forces from scratch following a split from the UK would be “difficult, verging on completely impossible” and would depend on whether the First Minister wants a “ceremonial”, “passive” or “interventionist” force.
The stark warning came as Sir Richard called on the SNP administration to hold urgent talks with the Conservative-led coalition government at Westminster about the military presence in an independent Scotland.
His predecessor as head of the army, Sir Mike Jackson, has previously said there was a wide range of questions to be answered, including what would happen to Scotland’s military bases and the Faslane home of the Trident submarines Mr Salmond wants to remove.
Sir Richard’s intervention sparked a call from Labour MP Thomas Docherty, a senior member of the Commons defence committee, for the SNP to spell out its plans for the “footprint” of Scotland’s army, as well as the country’s naval strength and number of air bases.
Sir Richard said Mr Salmond must come up with a blueprint that detailed his security and foreign policy plans, as well as the military resources his government needed to fulfil them if Scottish voters were to be given an informed choice about the SNP’s military plans ahead of a vote on independence.
He said: “That’s the only honest and transparent way to go about it.
“He [Salmond] needs to be open about what the size of the armed forces would be. There should be an initial discussion [with Westminster] ahead of the referendum so Scotland would know what they are likely to get.”
Scottish Labour MP Mr Docherty accused the Scottish Government of hiding its defence plans, which the party has previously hinted could see independent Scotland and the rest of the UK sharing military bases.
Mr Docherty said: “The SNP can’t hide behind the point they keep making, that they don’t know what the exact numbers would be under independence.
“They need to spell out how many RAF bases there would be in an independent Scotland, what the footprint of the army would be and what type of navy there would be. Also, they must say whether there would be any aircraft carriers.”
A Scotland Office spokesman said the Scottish Government “has a duty to spell out what independence would mean” for the country’s armed forces.
Mr Salmond was reported to have said that “the second thing” he would do following independence was to decide on a defence policy. He referred to a white paper published two years ago, which said a “strategic review” would be conducted at that point.
He said any further information on independence would appear in due course, but only the Scottish Parliament, not Westminster, had the “legitimacy” to question him.
However, a spokesman for the First Minister yesterday insisted Mr Salmond would promote “more discussion” about the SNP’s plans for the armed forces in an independent Scotland.
The spokesman said: “As the First Minister said, this government is committed to Trident nuclear weapons being removed from Scotland ‘as quickly as possible’, and independence is the only constitutional option that gives Scotland this power and this choice – no doubt that is one reason why independence has moved into the lead in recent polls, as we build towards the referendum.
“These matters of defence policy, along with all the other aspects of independence, were set out in detail in the 198-page Your Scotland Your Voice white paper published in November 2009 – and it is clear that the more discussion there is of all these issues, the more popular the Scottish Government and independence are becoming.”
Angus Robertson, SNP defence spokesman at Westminster, said: “Given the cuts that have just been announced as part of the basing review, as well as the historic decline in Scotland’s defence footprint – which has seen 10,500 defence job losses and a £5.6 billion underspend over the last decade – the question is really over the commitment of the UK parties to a defence presence in Scotland at all.”
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 655 comments to this article
Page 1 of 44
Phil C
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 05:56 AMThis is not an "attack on SNP defence plans". It is a request for more information. Come the referendum all will be made clear. Until then dear unionist friends, patience. There are other pressing matters to be getting on with.
Dave C.
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 01:10 AMDanielrober2 @ 622, you sound like a party politician. Like a LibDem party politician, to be precise. The referendum isn’t about party politics. It’s a non-party-political thing in which you don’t have to support any party, you don’t have to vote for any politician, you just have to answer a question, yes or no. My bet is (and yes, I would place money on it), the vast majority of folk in Scotland are going to answer “yes”. Then, after we have taken that non-party-political decision, it will be time for party politics. There will be a general election immediately after independence. Your LibDem “Scottish Secretary” will be free to contest that (although he may, of course, first have to convince his fellow LibDems to choose him as a candidate, instead of one of the existing LibDem MSPs or candidates). He will be free to advocate his ToryLibDem coalition politics and see how many people vote for him. If he and enough others who think like him win that election, then they will presumably form the government of an independent Scotland and seek to implement the policies which were in their manifesto.
deliverus
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 12:16 AM652 I`m off to bed too or do you have to go to the loo first?
Peripatetic Pensioner
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 12:13 AMI have just given up reading this load of junk, no entertainment value at all.
deliverus
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 12:13 AM648He must have been in somebody`s pocket to intervene in a debate about the way Scotland would arrange it`s defence policy after independence.
Electric Hermit
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 12:11 AM649 Cynicus "That is a lie. He was NEVER in the pay of the Tories." - Dannatt was a Tory "adviser". Dannatt received a peerage courtesy of the Tories. But Blue Tory or Red Tory it makes no difference to me. He's chosen to be a British nationalist mouthpiece and so he is not to be trusted.
Cynicus
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 12:05 AM"[Lord Dannatt]'s been in the pay of the Tories...."-#647, Electric Hermit _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ That is a lie. He was NEVER in the pay of the Tories.
Cynicus
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 12:01 AM"Russia is on the rise again........"-#645, Moniker Lewinsky ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ GAS
Electric Hermit
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 12:00 AM644 deliverus "Who do you think put Lord Dannatt up to this?" - Dannatt is a minor celebrity in a uniform. A mouth-for-hire. He's been in the pay of the Tories. So it might have been them. But as they and the British Labour & Unionist Party are in it together as far as anti-SNP propagandising is concerned, it could just as easily have been somebody like Jim Murphy - who is known to have worked closely with the Tories in the past. Who knows? Maybe the little favour from Dannatt was a quid pro quo for Murphy letting Liam Fox off the hook last week. That's the old politics for you!
deliverus
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 12:00 AMThe headline is an utter nonsense.It claims that the man is attacking the S.N.P.defence policy then proclaims they don`t have one.Will they ever learn?
Moniker Lewinsky
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:57 PM639 Russia is on the rise again, you can't keep a good KGB man down, but I doubt we are going to see a new cold war Libra.
deliverus
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:51 PMWho do you think put Lord Dannatt up to this? This is not a subject he would naturally gravitate to and must have been prompted to make a contribution.Why? Do the unionistas know why a man of such distinction would involve himself in the politics of Scotland without some prompting from elsewhere ?They must be getting afraid very afraid.
The License Of The Balms
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:49 PMThe doppelgangers have had a good day, I see!
Cynicus
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:41 PMObserver -I see you have a new admirer.
Cynicus
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 11:39 PM"[Nato] have taken the whole Manichaean view of the world that was built up in the Cold War era & are now applying it to other parts of the world " -#, 636, Moniker Lewinsky -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________ It is surely more basic than that. NATO has lost its enemy and has yet to find a role. Should it have one?
Page 1 of 44
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.