Mutual interests justify defence contracts

I would like to think that the Scotsman debate on 15 May (Defending an Independent Scotland) met that standard, but Eddie Barnes’ conference report in your paper the following day left me wondering.

Professor Trevor Taylor is cited as saying that it is “hard to see” why London would continue to send defence contracts to Scottish firms once Scotland had become “a foreign country”.

But then he is also cited as saying that an option might be for the SNP to make the “painful” decision to keep Trident in Scottish waters in return for retention of defence contracts. I think at this point the argument simply collapses under its own contradictions. Why, then, would London want to keep Trident submarines, warheads and their successors in a “foreign” country?

And doesn’t the UK procure defence equipment from “foreign countries” already? The UK doesn’t make its own Chinook helicopters, for example, and the Typhoon fighter aircraft (formerly the “Eurofighter”) is made by a consortium of five countries.

What about the US-made Joint Strike Fighter which will, at some point, form the strike air wings of the UK’s new aircraft carriers? And so it goes on.

The article also cites Prof Taylor as saying: “It is hard to see why London should support Scottish facilities since there would be no security of supply or economic advantage in so doing.”

Neither point is as compelling as the clear mutuality of interest in making procurement decisions on the basis of best value and practicality.

On the intelligence side, the UK currently has multilateral and bilateral arrangements with many countries in a host of different areas. Again, these exist because of mutual interests.

I don’t think anyone would claim an independent Scotland and a London government would have no mutual interests in defence and security and therefore nothing to gain from co-operation.

Alasdair Rankin

Gillespie Crescent

Edinburgh

“Defending ourselves for half a billion less” – now that’s the kind of post-independence thinking we need.

It’s time for those of us who support independence to look ourselves squarely in the mirror and ask: “How do we want to be in this world?” And that means how, and over what, do we stand up for ourselves?

England is a big country. It is, and has been for a long time, one of the bigger world powers. But Scotland trying to strut around claiming a worldwide muscle… well, it would be embarrassing. Other countries would snigger behind our backs.

We need to be able to defend ourselves. Who knows what trouble is coming our way this century? Things could well get ugly in ways we can only guess at. But get a grip. What do we need tanks for? The Crawford Marsh report recommends 20 ships. Sure, more if things looked like changing.

But look at us – a lovely wee country on the north west shores of Europe. A long coastline, and rich in resources that may well attract envious eyes in the future. But no proactive interests in Germany or Cyprus or anywhere else I can think of.

One caveat I would add, though. I think we should pick up half the bill for any military costs incurred in Northern Ireland. We contributed significantly to the tensions over there. We should face the consequences, and the bill, from our past.

Alex Campbell

Sheriff Park

Edinburgh