By Stuart Crawford
Well, what are we to make of the announcement by the GP from East Kilbride – aka defence secretary Dr Liam Fox – on the future of the military bases (and much more besides) in Scotland?
At first glance it appears to be a brave attempt to keep the books balanced, as it were, giving generously with one hand and taking away with the other. RAF bases will close – but will then arise, Phoenix-like, as army bases for troops returning from Germany. A return to home basing is promised, plus a new training area in a yet to be identified area in the Scottish Borders. Plus ça change, c’est plus la même chose?
Not really, actually. As ever, the devil is in the detail. It seems to this naturally quizzical observer that Dr Fox has bravely attempted to walk the tightrope between two conflicting – from the UK government’s point of view – requirements.
The first has been to spike the SNP’s guns by ensuring that the “defence footprint” in Scotland is not diminished by the cuts imposed. The second is to design that footprint in such a way that it does not encourage or support in any way the SNP’s independence aspirations.
In the first of these aspirations he has been partially successful, because it would appear that not only has the defence footprint been preserved, it has also seemingly been enhanced. Are there not to be nearly three times as many army personnel north of the border by 2020? Does this not overcompensate for the loss of a much smaller number of RAF personnel?
Well, maybe. The quantitative argument may hold some water, even although the SNP has pointed out that the plan only sees Scotland return to where it should have been lang syne in terms of proportional “share” of defence assets. But the qualitative argument may not be quite so convincing. I think we must accept that RAF Leuchars was always going to lose out in the battle for survival with RAF Lossiemouth because of the political demographics, but much depends on which army units will occupy the former Fife airbase – or, indeed, if the plan actually comes to pass at all.
Which leads neatly into Dr Fox’s second presumed aspiration, that the SNP is not handed a perfectly formed Scottish Defence Force in time for the independence celebrations. Much has been made of the mobile brigade which, apparently, will be based in Scotland in the fullness of time – but there are mobile brigades and mobile brigades. The term can mean all things to all men.
At one end of the spectrum is a brigade based on an HQ and three infantry battalions equipped on light scales which can be transported by air, sea, rail, bus or taxi to lend its contribution to whatever military operation it is tasked to support. But it can’t do any of this on its own, and has to act in conjunction with other units, or even other countries, assisting with transport, logistics, artillery, engineers, medical staff and so on.
At the other end of the spectrum is a truly independent mobile brigade, which is self sufficient in all of these to allow it to operate in a truly independent manner. In other words, everything it needs to move, supply itself, fight and withdraw is integral to its order of battle. Such a brigade is a truly powerful military asset, one which would be the envy of lesser formations. I wonder which sort of mobile brigade Scotland will be handed?
Forgive me for being a touch cynical and ungrateful, but RAF bases to close more or less immediately and to be reoccupied some time in the future seems a play on the old “jam tomorrow” adage. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Other aspects worthy of comment include the closing of Dreghorn and Redford barracks in Edinburgh, and the closure of HQ 2 Division (formerly HQ Scotland – is there a pattern emerging here?) outside the capital at Craigiehall. Dreghorn in particular is controversial, having undergone a comprehensive and expensive rebuild not that long ago, but it is clear that the military’s long association with the capital city is coming to an end.
And we are told that there is to be a new military training area somewhere in the south of Scotland. This is both good and bad news – good because any training facility will require significant investment and is likely to create both long-term and short-term employment. It is also likely to enhance significantly the infrastructure of the Borders.
On the other hand, training areas tend to bring with them levels of pollution, noise, and environmental damage that you wouldn’t necessarily welcome on your own doorstep. The phrase “train green” may be much spouted in military circles, but it is of course an oxymoron.
Some commentators have already said that this defence restructuring has nothing to do with defence of the realm and everything to do with political posturing. This may seem harsh, but there is obviously an element of truth therein. It is a defence settlement foisted upon Scotland by a unionist politician, albeit a Scottish one, and that is the context in which it should be judged.
The proof of the pudding is always in the eating, but so far we haven’t even seen the ingredients. I’m not holding my breath…
– Stuart Crawford is a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the Royal Tank Regiment.
Donate to us: support independent, intelligent, in-depth Scottish journalism from just 3p a day
Related posts: