With just over sixteen months to go before the Scottish referendum there are still significant gaps in the Scottish Government's proposed foreign policy, according to a report published today by the Foreign Affairs Committee. There has not been enough analysis on what sort of overseas diplomatic network and external security and intelligence provision Scotland would have to set up. There needs to be a more realistic assessment of the extent to which Scotland could expect the rest of the UK (RUK) to co-operate with, and support it, on security and intelligence. There is a pressing need for official legal advice on a wide range of international legal issues including EU accession, EU opt-outs and membership of international organisations. The Report says that the overwhelming body of law, evidence, practice and precedent supports the view that the RUK would inherit the vast majority of the UK's international rights and obligations whereas Scotland would start anew internationally if it became independent. Having two co-equal states could lead to a level of legal and political insecurity that would not be tolerated by other states. The report disputes the view that Scotland's journey towards membership of the EU and NATO would be straightforward. It is for the EU itself to determine in accordance with its regulations whether and how Scotland would become a member. Scotland may have to make trade-offs to secure the unanimous support it would need from within the EU.

In this report the Defence Committee says the information published so far by the Scottish Government on the defence and security implications of Scottish independence falls far short of requirements. The Committee also cannot currently judge the likely running costs of the proposed Scottish defence force, given the limited information it has so far received. The Committee is, however, unconvinced that the proposed budget of £2.5bn can support both the proposed Scottish defence force and the purchase of new equipment including fast jets and submarines. The report seeks answers to the following questions: how would a sovereign Scottish Government ensure the defence and security of an independent Scotland? For what purposes would Scottish armed forces be used? How would Scottish armed forces be structured and trained, and where would they be based? How much would it cost to equip, support and train an independent Scotland's armed forces and how much of this could be procured and delivered domestically? And how many jobs in the defence sector would be placed at risk? The Committee also raises detailed questions about the proposed Scottish defence force: the numbers and types of aircraft and naval vessels which would be needed and how they would be procured and maintained; the numbers of combat troops the Scottish Government envisages (including its plan to re-instate historic Scottish regiments); and the availability of training facilities to maintain the appropriate professional standards. In the event of independence, the defence industry in Scotland would face a difficult future.

The 2014 Referendum on Scottish independence sparked debate on every dimension of modern statehood. Levels of public interest and engagement were unprecedented, as demonstrated by record-breaking voter turnout. Yet aside from Trident, the issue of security was relatively neglected in the campaigns, and there remains a lack of literature on the topic. In this volume Andrew Neal has collated a variety of interdisciplinary perspectives on security and constitutional change in Scotland and the UK, including writing from experts in foreign policy analysis, intelligence studies, parliamentary studies, and journalism. Security in a Small Nation provides an illuminating analysis of the politics of security. Its authors reflect on a number of related issues including international comparisons, alliances, regional cooperation, terrorism, intelligence sharing, democratic oversight, and media coverage. It has a particular focus on what security means for small states and democratic politics. The book draws on current debates about the extent of intelligence powers and their implications for accountability, privacy, and human rights. It examines the foreign and security policy of other small states through the prism of Scottish independence, providing unique insight into the bureaucratic and political processes associated with multi-level security governance. These contributions provide a detailed picture of the changing landscape of security, including the role of diverse and decentralised agencies, and new security interdependencies within and between states. The analysis presented in this book will inform ongoing constitutional debates in the UK and the study of other secessionist movements around the world. Security in a Small Nation is essential reading for any follower of UK and Scottish politics, and those with an interest in security and nationhood on a global scale.

This reports finds that the Coalition Government has developed in public a more mature and measured relationship with the US, although there has been no fundamental change in the nature of the tie. The Committee declares the relationship to be in good health. In particular, the Committee said that it was not aware of any evidence that the House of Commons vote in August 2013 against potential military action in Syria had damaged the UK's relationship with the US. Rather, the Committee concluded that the episode illustrated general features of the UK-US relationship, namely that developments in the UK could influence US policy; and that the underlying tie was resilient. Today's publication follows up a report produced by the previous Foreign Affairs Committee at the end of the last Parliament, which recommended that the UK Government should adopt a more hard-headed and less deferential approach to the US. The Coalition Government seemed to have taken up this recommendation. The Committee criticises the UK Government's poor provision of information about the UK-US Joint Strategy Board, which was created during President Obama's State Visit to the UK in May 2011. Among strategic issues that it considered, the Committee agreed with the Government that the proposed EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could have significant positive strategic impact for the UK and the transatlantic relationship.

On 18 September 2014, Scotland held a referendum on the question: Should Scotland be an independent country? This is a most unusual event in modern democracies and engaged the political class, civil society, and the general public to an unprecedented degree, leading to an 85 per cent turnout in the final vote. This was an occasion to debate not just the narrow constitutional issue but the future of the nation, including the economy, social welfare, defence and security, and Scotland's place in Europe and the world. Debating Scotland comes from a team of researchers who observed the debates from close-up and engaged with both sides, with the media and with the public in analyzing the issues, while remaining neutral on the independence question. The book examines the main issues at stake, how they were presented, and how they evolved over the course of the campaign. The editors and contributing authors explore the ways both independence and union were framed, the economic issues, the currency, welfare, defence and security, the European Union, and how the example of small independent states was used. The volume concludes with an analysis of voter responses, based upon original survey research, which demonstrates how perceptions of risk and uncertainty on the main issues played a key role in the outcome.

The Scottish Government's White Paper must make absolutely clear the details of both its foreign and defence policies. Much of what has been suggested up to now suffers from a conspiracy of optimism. The most explicit pledges made to date include: that the whole cost of security and defence will be no more than £2.5 billion, that personnel in the armed services will total 15,000 full time and 5,000 reserve personnel, and that the defence force will include "current Scottish raised and restored UK regiments". Will we then have a defence force which is army heavy? An army which is infantry heavy? Or will historic regiments be redesignated as platoons, reserves or non-infantry units? If Faslane is to be kept at its existing workforce, how will people be retrained? What costs will be inccurred in the transition to the new Scottish Defence Force? What are the implications for procurement whether or not Scotland gets the assets it wants? Hanging over all of this is the future of Trident. Will a separate Scotland impose unilateral nuclear disarmament on the UK? Furthermore, membership for Scotland of NATO will require not only the unanimous agreement of all the existing NATO members, but also the resolution of any disputes with the UK. The Scottish Government must spell out what wages and conditions it would propose to offer to compensate those who would leave behind participation in world class armed services. The people of Scotland are entitled to expect that those who propose drastic change can explain what the consequences would be.

On 18 September 2014, Scots will decide their future: should the country quit the United Kingdom and take control of its own destiny, or should it remain part of what advocates call the most successful political and economic union of modern times? Everyone in the country has a stake in this decision. Now, in this fascinating and insightful new book, David Torrance charts the countdown to the big day, weaving his way through a minefield of claim and counterclaim, and knocking down fictions and fallacies from both Nationalists and Unionists. He plunges into the key questions that have shaped an often-fraught argument, from the future of the pound to the shape of an independent Scottish army. With access to the strategists and opinion-makers on both sides of the political divide, this book goes straight to the heart of the great debate, providing an incisive, authoritative, occasionally trenchant guide to the most dramatic constitutional question of our times - the battle for Britain.