- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
Scotland and the defence spending imbalance
21 June 2011Westminster SNP Leader and defence spokesman Angus Robertson MP voices concern over the impact of the SDSR on Scotland's defence infrastructure…
The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) is having major repercussions in Scotland. Whether it is defence footprint, capability, job cuts or future defence contracts, the effects of the SDSR are only now beginning to be understood. However, what is already clear is that the SDSR continues a trend of disproportionate cuts by the MoD in Scotland. It is certain that RAF Kinloss is being closed shortly as an air base, and both RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Leuchars remain under threat. Only a few short years after the last round of controversial cuts and amalgamations of historic Scottish regiments, speculation has resumed about further battalion cuts. While the wasteful and useless Trident system is not being cut, conventional Royal Navy capability is being reduced.
The planned and announced new cuts in personnel and capability have to be viewed in the context of what has happened since the last Strategic Defence Review in 1997. While other parts of the UK saw increases in military related manpower, Scotland suffered the loss of more than 10,500 service and civilian defence jobs. At the time of the 2010 SDSR there were only 12,190 service-personnel left in Scotland. Should two of the three RAF bases in Scotland close as is widely feared, this will reduce uniformed manning levels across the services in Scotland by nearly 25%. It is doubly cruel that the axe is falling in Scotland when service personnel from those bases are serving on the front line over Libya and in Afghanistan.
Jobs, however, are only one part of the picture. MoD spending in Scotland is significantly lower than its population share. According to the MoD's own statistics, the under-spend in Scotland increased from £749m in 2002/03 to £1.259bn in 2007-2008, which represents a 68 per cent increase in six years. The cumulative under-spend between defence reviews is in excess of £5.622bn. Given the embarrassment this must have caused the MoD, they simply stopped producing the official statistics, so it is now impossible to get a clear idea of where taxpayer money is being spent on defence across the UK.
While it is obvious that cuts are happening in all nations and regions in the UK, it is not happening evenly. Before the SDSR the information provided by the MoD showed that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as some English regions, endured significantly disproportionate defence cuts over the preceding decade. All evidence emerging from the SDSR suggests that the MoD is set to continue the trend of concentrating defence manpower, basing and spending in the South of England. Does it genuinely serve a tactical or economical advantage to spend £1,244 per head on defence in the southwest of England, but only £302 per head in Scotland? The UK seems to be alone in its thinking that it is a good idea to mass the majority of its conventional forces and larger facilities in one geographic area.
This is at total variance to countries like Canada or the United States who ensure balance across the country and in addition provide detailed regional spending statistics. The MoD says that this serves no policy purpose. This opaqueness is made worse by the total lack of transparency in offset contracts. Again, other countries make no bones about ensuring significant investments in particular regions to maximise the value to society of their investments on defence equipment. This simply doesn't happen in the UK.
The green paper on Equipment, Support and Technology for UK Defence and Security represents an opportunity for businesses in Scotland to raise their concerns about this concentration of spending. Larger major companies and smaller local businesses alike are facing many challenges as a result of the decisions taken in the SDSR.
I welcome the government's acknowledgement of the importance of promoting small and medium enterprises in procurement and in the support network. I also welcome a focus on cooperating with other countries on joint procurement and memorandums of understanding that could drive down cost while providing new opportunities for export and maintaining vital skills. In line with cost-saving, the openness to procuring 'off-the-shelf' is also welcome.
We await the UK government's announce of the conclusions of its basing review, which will include the return of manpower and equipment from Germany. As a minimum, Scotland should become home to one of the five new mobile army brigades, and is ideally suited for a returning logistics brigade. Both remaining RAF bases should be retained for the air force, and Faslane should remain after the scrapping of Trident as an excellent base for conventional naval capability. Even with these announcements, the UK government would still not make good the chasm that has opened up with its structural defence under-spend in Scotland. It is time for a major rethink.
HAVE YOUR SAY
21 June 2011
I will try and continue to read the rest of the document however the comment "While the wasteful and useless trident..." has made me instantly struggle with regards reading onwards.
Nuclear tensions, are I feel, on the rise again with many nations now developing that particular capability. As such getting rid of our assets in that area seems silly.
Anthony - Bristol, United KIngdom
21 June 2011
When will the SNP realise that the deterrent is an insurance policy. The future will see more states acquire nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear blackmail is very real either by a state directly or non state player given access to such weapons by a state.
The deterrent is to deter a state from doing either, the clues in the name!
I cannot help but believe what really lies behind the SNP's opposition to Trident is that they want to spin it to Scottish nationalists as England wanting to remain some sort of imperial power and needing Trident to enable that. I disagree you wouldn't drive a car without insurance so does that make it useless if you never use it!
The problem now is that the SNP have introduced uncertainty about basing. Why would a UK government put in place long term plans and investment for basing in Scotland with an independence referendum ahead. It puts things on hold, if the union remains intact afterwards then long term planning can go ahead.
My current understanding is that it is likely Lossiemouth will be saved for use by Typhoons while Leuchars is supposed to be the base for British troops returning from Germany from 2015 onwards. However I suspect that spending for such might be put on hold even if it is announced as the proffered solution.
If the SNP got its way the shipyards would soon be closed and the defence industry would move south anyway.
Graham - High Wycombe
21 June 2011
4 trident submarines and 7 astute attack submarines to protect them does not give you a defence policy or strategy Anthony.
Other options to Trident must be considered, such as "cruise" armed Astutes.
Andy - Dartford
21 June 2011
In their election manifesto, I could have sworn the SNP wanted full Devolution for Scotland! If so, why are they getting so upset? They should be happy as it provides clear 'evidence' that London supports their views!
If successful, all moveable assets would be transferred south of the border from Scotland, whose taxpayers would then be left to foot the bill for their own defence. Scottish service personnel would probably be given the opportunity to transfer to the new Scots Defence Force, thus reducing the recruitment & training (and redundancy) costs.
AW Employee - Yeovil
21 June 2011
It really is becoming embarrassing, to watch these people fighting over the crumbs at the table,
No one likes the cuts, no one wants the cuts, but sadly it has to be.
Perhaps in time we will grow again and have the money for bigger forces,, but to fight over the crumbs of defence, must surely put the SNP in retrospect,
As some has suggested, perhaps there is more behind the faceless hints,, just a thought .
criss of herts - london
22 June 2011
4 trident submarines and 7 astute attack submarines to protect them does not give you a defence policy or strategy Anthony.
Other options to Trident must be considered, such as "cruise" armed Astutes.
Andy - Dartford
Hang on a second, I never said those assets alone were policy or strategy. I said they are PART of a defence strategy. Mainly in the form of deterence.
Why does everyone fail to understand what the Admirals have understood since the very beginning. You absolutely need a balanced fleet. That means you need destroyers, frigates, Carriers, RFA, Ampbibious, Sub-surface and Deterence assets. Supported by Marines and a Fleet Air Arm.
As for "Nuclear tipped Cruise missiles", they can be shot down. Furthermore they fly at low altitude meaning if the nuclear reaction is started when they are shot down they can cause HUGE damage to an area that wasn't wanted to be damaged.
Why can't you understand that Trident forms a credible part of the deterence defence policy? With other countries rapidly investing in balistic missiles why would you start to tone that down and invest in other conventional weapons? How would you then deal with the likes of India, China, Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and multiple countries designing nuclear weapons (Iran etc)?
How do you propose we sit as a member of the security council without those Nuclear weapons which is a vital responsibility and one we should be wary of letting go due to our unique experience as a country and generally good morals even if the politicians muck up from time to time?
As for the 7 Astute submarines, yes that is very few hulls. Yes I would love to see 8 SSN's and 12 SSK's, or 10 SSN's. However for the moment that is not going to happen. It does remain that the Astute is a very capable and very credible threat, useful to deploy special forces, gather intel, deter states threatening our Island territories through Maritime action and in the event of war prove to be a dangerous combatant. Would you propose we get rid of the Astutes then?
Anthony - Bristol, United KIngdom
22 June 2011
The UK's nuclear weapons are hugely expensive, have no more of a deterrent effect than the rest of our armed forces, and have no military use. It's quite correct to describe them as wasteful and useless.
As long as politicians and military leaders prefer to spend vast sums of money on vanity projects of this type we will always be short of resources to provide the equipment needed to allow troops on the ground to get on with the job.
Jupiter - London
22 June 2011
The SNP seem to think pork barrel politics is a good idea: the location of our armed forces should be based on strategic need not fairness.
Anyway, I thought they wanted to leave the UK?
Ian Skinner - Enfield
22 June 2011
The UK's nuclear weapons are hugely expensive, have no more of a deterrent effect than the rest of our armed forces, and have no military use. It's quite correct to describe them as wasteful and useless.
As long as politicians and military leaders prefer to spend vast sums of money on vanity projects of this type we will always be short of resources to provide the equipment needed to allow troops on the ground to get on with the job.
Jupiter - London
Stupid me, I thought the expansion of nuclear capable states in the middle east and far east would have been a sign of the deterrent being useful.
Still lets get rid of them and allow those nations who aren't fond of us be capable of blackmail.
Should be fun to be effectively ruled by another country because our conventional forces can't engage the enemy in time....
Good one!
Anthony - Bristol, United KIngdom
28 June 2011
Defence Cuts will this in any way
Effect the Cadet Forses Sea Cadets
Army Cadets and Air Cadets CCF Cadets if so, what happens the Young Cadets when they are put on the Street
A.W.Wallace - West Sussex
29 June 2011
A.W.Wallace - West Sussex
Think you may have to ask Chris Grayling about that one. Interestingly gave a sterling performance in the pixie wee hours of 2 O'clock in the morning to a near deserted Westminster regarding youth unemployment. No doubt another notch on the bedpost of Hansard for the people of tomorrow to read about. Seem to think the last time this much interest was shown on a similar subject for the 'youth of today'. May well have been at a similar hour oddly enough back in the 1980's. I suppose it would make you wonder whether Ministers weren't scripting directly from Hansard themselves, though could just be déjà vu. Still, I'm sure many from all sides of the House of Westminster would feel it deserved a distinguished meddle of honour for outstanding service to the British public.
..altogether now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSaKBCfJnIM
Chris - Keighley
08 July 2011
The scottish want devolution, yet they can afford free prescriptions and education grants. Something we do not enjoy in England. Why not recind these benifits as we have had to do, and pay for thier own forces ready for when we get rid? P.S I have also been made redundant from the Royal navy in these cuts, so yes, I do know what I am talking about. Particularly as I was based at HMS Neptune. We simply cannot afford to commit as much as Nato want which is disproportunate to some europeen countries and the cuts are needed.
philip Brookes
18 July 2011
I support the UK maintaining a nuclear deterent, but not one so costly. There are many other viable options that would be far less costly and enable the funding left over to be re-invested into the armed forces and to ensuring that at a time where the word is unstable we are not stripping our defence, but instead supporting them as we should have been in the first place!
I feel ashamed in the UK for not ensuring that as soon as our lads where put in harms way we didnt provide them with all the equipment they both needed and deserved to ensure that they could do carry out their duties in the best and safest possible manner, this for me is the biggest problem with our forces everything else is second.
John - Aberdeen/United Kingdom
10 March 2012
"It is time for a major rethink."
Yes it is and an independent Scotland is going to get one. When I served in the RN there was capacity in Devonport for submarines, time to recommission it I say.
SavvyBoy - Reading
10 August 2012
Criss this isn't about 'fighting for crumbs at the table' an arrogant comment at the best of times. The fact is that Scotland contributes something like £3.6 Bn a year to the defence budget and yet gets shafted when the money is spent (like so many other budgets for that matter. Couple that with the fact that I have the Uk's entire arsenal of WMD's less than 10 miles from my home, doesn't seem too fair to me somehow.
Iskra - Glasgow