Scotland and the Royal Navy win fight for defence cash

• A Trident II D5 missile is launched in a test launch. Picture: Getty

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth announced that new aircraft carriers and the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent – both of which are tied to thousands of Scottish jobs – would not be vulnerable in any major strategic review.

UK government ministers insist the commitment to the two carriers, despite doubts over their spiralling costs of 3 billion, would protect shipbuilding jobs in Scotland. In addition, thousands of jobs connected to the nuclear submarine base in the Clyde would be safeguarded with the replacement of Trident.

But the SNP argued that the Strategic Defence Review unveiled yesterday fails to consider the defence "footprint" in different parts of the UK.

The Nationalists argued that the 10,000 defence jobs lost north of the Border since the last review in 1998 have left Scotland with a small role in defence policy.

SNP Westminster leader and defence spokesman Angus Robertson MP said: "This green paper misses the very critical point – that the Strategic Defence Review must take into account defence footprint and spending in the different nations and regions of the UK.

"The facts are clear: since Labour came to power, over 10,000 MoD jobs have been lost in Scotland, and between 2002 and 2007, according to the MoD's own figures, there has been a massive 4.3bn underspend.

"If the purpose of this green paper is to start a debate ahead of the Strategic Defence Review, then Labour's refusal to discuss scrapping Trident and to conduct a proper review of defence spending in Scotland are obvious omissions."

Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy insisted the announcement was good news, but there is a real possibility of a new government pursuing a different policy on defence, if Labour lost the forthcoming general election.

Mr Murphy said: "Scotland can welcome the government's commitment to the aircraft carriers being built here in Scotland.

"Today's green paper asks key questions about what the shape of our defence capability will be in the future and the types of threat it has to face. Scotland will continue to play a central role in the defence of the UK on land, in the air and at sea.

"There are, undoubtedly, tough decisions to be made as the government supports the current operations of our forces and balances those needs with our aspirations."

The Strategic Defence Review green paper was unveiled by Mr Ainsworth yesterday in the Commons, offering little detail on what the future shape of Britain's armed forces would be.

The paper said: "The review must contribute to decisions about the role we want the UK to play in the world and how much the nation is prepared to pay for security and defence. This green paper does not attempt to answer that fundamental question."

The announcement was made amid allegations by Sir Kevin Tebbit, the former senior civil servant in the Ministry of Defence, that Prime Minister Gordon Brown had "guillotined" defence spending when he was chancellor. This led to angry confrontations and a denial from Mr Brown during Prime Minister's Questions yesterday, where he was tackled on the issue by Conservative leader David Cameron.

The green paper also came against a background of disputes between military chiefs from the three services over which should receive more money, with cuts expected in the coming years to tackle government debts. While the document offered little detail, Mr Ainsworth later said the Trident replacement and proposed aircraft carriers would be protected, suggesting the navy had won the military power struggle.

Mr Ainsworth refused to give a similar guarantee for the strategic joint fighter aircraft. There was also an admission that the future of British defence would rely on more joint work with other countries, and government sources floated the idea of greater co-operation with France to form the nucleus of a European Union force.

But the review was launched amid a political row over future spending geared towards the coming general election. It is understood that Mr Brown had wanted his Mr Ainsworth to challenge the Tories to match Labour's commitment to defence spending. However, the Defence Secretary made few commitments.

Mr Ainsworth said: "Hard choices lie ahead, and it is right they are taken in the context of a full review."

Responding to the green paper, shadow defence secretary Dr Liam Fox said: "Bob Ainsworth deserves genuine praise for his attempts to find a cross-party consensus. This green paper indicates that the MoD is coming out of denial but the Prime Minister is not."

Q&A: Setting out future of defence of the realm

What is the defence green paper?

Both major parties are committed to holding a strategic defence review (SDR) after the next election – the first for more than a decade – to determine Britain's future military strategy.

The green paper will set out the broad challenges in a bid to inform a debate among key players ahead of the full-scale review. "It is intended to shape and inform a discussion – inside the military and the Ministry of Defence and outside – about how best to structure defence for the threats, risks and challenges we face now and in the future," the MoD says.

What sort of issues does it analyse?

Emerging threats, the lessons from recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the exercise of "soft power" to prevent future conflicts, and the impact of technological changes. It has also looked at ways of improving the processes for procuring kit and the modern-day requirements on, and aspirations of, personnel.

A recent government-commissioned review found the current equipment programme was 35bn over budget, with projects running, on average, five years late.

What are its conclusions expected to be?

It is reported to declare that the global nature of threats to national security mean that Britain must continue to operate overseas and not simply devote resources to protecting domestic borders.

However, limited resources will require a rethink of present plans for hardware and other spending, and require more reliance on joint action with allies, such as the US and the EU.

Enemies will adapt tactics to exploit vulnerabilities such as fighting in civilian areas or attacking deployment routes, it will say, warning casualties could rise "markedly".

Will it give concrete examples of what might have to give?

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has indicated that the Trident nuclear deterrent and two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy are safe, but other "big-ticket" projects such as the Joint Strike Fighter is at risk from spending cuts to deal with the UK's record 178bn deficit. The green paper will leave specific recommendations to the SDR.

Why is it politically controversial?

Neither main party has been able to promise to spare the defence budget from cuts and expert analysts predict the MoD could be hit hard by financial constraints.

However, Gordon Brown has also insisted the carriers are safe from the axe and No 10 has indicated armed forces numbers are protected. That has led to Tory complaints that Mr Brown is pre-empting the SDR by making unaffordable commitments in a political manoeuvre to pressure them to follow suit.

The three services, their kit, and the pros and cons of their cases

RAF

FOR: The RAF often seems to be overlooked in the army-navy power struggle but there is a danger of far greater casualties in any future engagements. Senior figures point out that ten times as many men would be required in Afghanistan if the air support was not available.

AGAINST: The RAF has also been asking for big-ticket items.Some 18bn was wasted on the Eurofighter and there have been mistakes with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), to which the MoD is refusing to commit and which may not be suitable for future missions. Focus on helicopters to support troops, not fast jets, say critics.

ARMY

FOR: Army chiefs argue the future of conflict can be seen in Afghanistan and we should target resources at failed states that become havens for terror. So the army needs more cash, particularly for helicopters.

AGAINST: Some believe reconfiguring the military to suit Afghanistan fails to anticipate that future conflicts tend to be different from their predecessors. While there is support for more resources for the army, there is a sense that missions are "becoming more complicated". There is also a lack of public appetite to send soldiers into war zones when the body bags start arriving back.

NAVY

FOR: Navy top brass have argued the service is essential for intervening around the world as well as dealing with new threats such as Somali pirates.

It has also been argued the expensive navy equipment, such as aircraft carriers and Trident, are not exclusively maritime.

AGAINST: Critics point out that big-ticket items which soak up MoD resources are maritime. There are also serious doubts over whether spending billions on a replacement for Trident is appropriate post-Cold War. Some argue the navy needs a "light touch", giving up carriers for smaller ships which would suit its policing role.

Francis Tusa: No wonder Jack Tar's jolly as minister ringfences aircraft carriers and Trident replacement – for now at least