Tom Miers: Death of military tradition

Leaning against the wall downstairs is my great-great-grandfather’s sword. Thirty-four inches of steel, heavy but well-balanced, from the days when infantry officers were expected to fence in earnest. There’s a picture of him there too (or someone very like him) greeting Queen Victoria when she presented new colours to the Cameron Highlanders on designating them the “Queen’s Own” in 1873.

Mine is the first generation of my family for 150 years not to have a representative in this illustrious regiment or its successors, or indeed in any branch of the armed forces. Times are very different now from the noontide of Victorian Britain. But we still take pride in the achievements of our forebears and the glorious history of the regiment they fought for. Just last month I was telling my seven-year-old son the story of Piper Mackay, and how he stood playing outside the square to inspire his comrades to see off the French cavalry at Waterloo.

That same day I heard the latest political controversy concerning the future of the army in Scotland. My jaw dropped at the sight of nationalist politicians trying to gain political capital posturing as defenders of Scotland’s historic regiments.

For whatever you think of the debate about the Union, one thing is for sure. Independence would kill the Scottish military tradition stone dead.

The debate about how to reform the army to fit modern circumstances is very complex. We need to balance several factors that are often contradictory: The changing nature of modern warfare; the ever shifting geopolitical scene; the need to provide an attractive and rewarding career for soldiers; the desire to maintain an esprit de corps which draws partly on tradition.

Recent campaigns have required multi-functional, all-arms battlegroups in the field. This isn’t necessarily compatible with line infantry regiments in the traditional sense. Soldiers want and need to gain experience working in several different types of unit.

At the same time the UK’s military requirements are changing all the time. This is not just a question of a general decline in British influence. Geopolitical circumstances mean we need to operate more and more in conjunction with allies in complex but limited engagements that need specialised troops and advanced equipment.

All of this makes for some very difficult decision-making. Yesterday, Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, tried to move the debate on in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute. Under government plans, the regular army is set to be cut from 102,000 to 82,000 soldiers. Its position is constrained by the need to save money and get a grip of defence procurement costs. Some critics say that defence policy should not be budget-driven. Security, internal and external, is the primary duty of government, and its requirements should be met whatever the costs.

But military policy is an extension of foreign policy, and foreign policy always has options. Britain can choose to draw in its horns somewhat, relying on allies, luck and circumstance to fill in. So economies at home can be made to fit re-jigged priorities abroad.

According to Hammond the army will have to lose or merge units, but the regimental system will not disappear entirely (it has already been eroded by the realities of modern warfare). No minister wants to damage the historic roots of our armed forces without very good cause. As Hammond says, “history and heritage” provide tangible military benefits. Merging units with a strong heritage can damage their sense of identity and their capacity to attract new recruits. According to many, this is exactly what has happened to the Cameron Highlanders, which has been amalgamated three times since 1945.

This isn’t to say that the government’s proposals are necessarily right. The coalition has already shown lamentable indecision, not just on merging regiments, but on issues such as Trident and procuring the right planes for the new aircraft carriers. Experts are also worried about future over-reliance on reservists.

But the government deserves some sympathy as it faces these military dilemmas. It was not responsible for the financial crisis, nor for the appalling procurement habits that seem to have infected the Ministry of Defence. Responsible opposition should seek to find viable alternatives based on the strategic reality. So it is a shame that the government’s opponents have little to offer except the inevitable complaints about “cuts”.

In particular, the SNP’s plans for the military are a bad joke. It seems to regard the army as a cross between a job creation exercise and a living museum. Neither role is sensible or sustainable, either in the UK or as part of a separate Scotland.

Alex Salmond’s only interest in Scotland’s armed forces seems to be to gain political headlines from them. He vacillates according to circumstances. He opposes their involvement in meaningful alliances, yet offers them up for “humanitarian missions”. He objects to the submarine base, yet complains loudly when an air base closes. He opposed the last round of cuts, but says what we have now is “exactly the configuration” that Scotland needs. He threatens meltdown if Scottish shipyards don’t win UK defence contracts, but pretends they’ll survive under independence. Most ludicrous of all is the claim that, if he had his way, “our servicemen and women would not be dragged into illegal wars”. As if the evil Brits were conscripting them.

The truth is that, on its own, Scotland would have little international influence and no requirement for anything but a few fishery protection vessels and some ceremonial guards. No doubt Salmond would quickly renege on costly joint Anglo-Scottish obligations such as protecting the Falklands or underpinning security in Northern Ireland.

So there would be no need for aircraft carriers, fighter jets or tanks. Maintaining thousands of people in useless infantry regiments and subsidised shipyards would make no sense either strategically or economically. More jobs would be saved by using the money to cut taxes.

There is certainly a dividend to be had from letting other countries shoulder the security burden. Europe does not lack for nations with tiny defence budgets, hiding behind the shields of others.

But even before this remorseless logic took hold, the military would collapse as an effective institution. No serious person would want to pursue a career in such a hollow carapace. The Scottish army would become populated by strange men with moustaches and pony tails, just like the armies of other selfish little neutral countries. Bereft of a meaningful role, the forces would become a petri-dish of politically correct sensitivity.

Enough.

Serving soldiers are too professional to speak out about the disaster that would befall them on independence. But our military forebears must turn in their graves to see Alex Salmond trying to make political capital out of their legacy. My great-grandfather was killed by a German shell in 1914. No doubt “Wee Eck” would have kept us out of the Great War out of spite for the English, and so he might have been saved. But he would have found contemptible the idea that Scotland’s military tradition can be upheld by politicians at Holyrood with their tin-pot plans.

In a democracy it is inevitable that politicians seek to win points through exaggerating the problems of their opponents and glossing over their own flaws. But there has to be a limit. By all means, let us count the pennies saved from leaving defence to others. But nationalist politicians should not demean themselves by trying to claim the mantle of men whose bravery and patriotism puts them to shame.