A constituent recently suggested to me that Scotland pays a ‘Westminster War Tax’, which he defined as additional and wasted costs Scots pay because we are tied to the high defence spending of the United Kingdom. I set out to see if this was true.
How do we compare internationally
The most common measure for comparison of defence expenditure is as a per cent of each country’s total economic activity (Gross Domestic Product or GDP). This measure allows comparison of countries of different sizes and stages of economic development.
Scotland’s GDP, including oil revenues, is 9.1% of the UK total. On this measure, in financial year 2012/13, Scotland contributed £3.3 billion to UK defence expenditure of £36.4 billion.
The table on the right shows that, in 2012, UK/Scotland ranked 31 in the international league table of defence expenditure as a per cent of GDP. Apart from the Cold War superpowers, the vast majority of countries appearing above the UK are affected by conflict or potential conflict, including the ‘Arab Spring’ countries, post-Soviet countries, and the Middle East.
Greece is the only EU member that appears above UK / Scotland in terms of defence expenditure as a per cent of GDP.
Does Scotland get appropriate Defence in return for this extra tax?
Despite the UK being one of the world’s highest spending countries on defence, there is mounting evidence that Scotland does not get appropriate defence arrangements in return for its contribution to the defence budget.
To get an idea of Scotland’s defence needs, it is worth looking at Scotland's combined land and sea area. Clearly, such an area requires effective maritime defences and monitoring, especially with the extensive oil assets located in the North Sea and off Shetland.
 |
| Scotland and UK Continental Shelf |
In August 2011, Angus Robertson MP, the SNP’s defence spokesman submitted
evidence to Westminster‘s Defence Committee. This showed Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as some English regions, enduring significant defence cuts, in some cases from an existing low base.
Subsequent decisions show the MoD continuing to concentrate defence personnel, basing, and spending in the South of England, ignoring Scotland’s defence needs. If anything, recent developments have increased the mismatch between Scotland’s contribution to the UK defence budget and what we get in return:
- After decades of investment, the MOD failed to procure a maritime patrol capability to replace the aging Nimrod aircraft. Nimrod was withdrawn from service as no longer safe to fly after the deaths of all 14 crew on one of the aircraft following years of ‘flawed budgeting and poor management’.
- The absence of a single major ocean going conventional naval vessel based in Scotland meant that, in December 2013, the Navy had to despatch an escort ship from Portsmouth, a 24-hour sail away, to meet the Russian Navy as it entered Scottish waters.
- A reduction of more than twenty-eight percent in the military personnel based in Scotland compared to eleven percent for the UK as a whole, with Scottish-based personnel down to just eleven thousand, a record low. Promises of additional personnel to be based in Scotland as troops return from Germany are in doubt.
- Two of Scotland’s three military airbases, RAF Leuchars and RAF Kinloss, have been axed.
The Scotland Analysis paper produced in connection with the referendum demonstrates that the UK Government is still focused on its status in the world, its ‘reach’, and its relationship with the USA, as opposed to an assessment of the defence needs of the UK working with regional partners. This is reflected in the following quotes from the document:
"key player within the international system"
"extensive international defence engagement"
''UK's global reputation''
In a less jingoistic
assessment of UK defence arrangements, Mark Urban, BBC diplomatic and defence editor, highlighted that basic homeland defence for the UK is sorely lacking:
“The UK has no defence against missile attack (unlike Japan, several Gulf states and Israel); no long range anti-aircraft missiles (they went 30 years ago); no diesel submarines able to protect the home islands (these were scrapped in the 1990s); only enough minesweepers to keep one of its major ports open; no long range maritime patrol aircraft (binned in the SDSR); there is frequently no frigate or destroyer available for home defence; and the number of RAF interceptors that are fully operational is barely adequate.”
Nothing better illustrates the absurdity of the UK's position than, in the absence of such basic homeland security, the UK Government still intends to spend £100 billion renewing the Trident missile system.
The Trident system is largely dependent on American technology, as demonstrated in this
evidence to Westminster's Defence Committee, and represents a major drain on the UK defence budget and economy.
A Yes vote can act as a wakeup call to the rest of the UK that it is time to rein in Westminster’s ambition to remain a global power, swinging on America’s coat tails.
Following a Yes vote, the prospect of spending an additional £25 - £50 billion to relocate Trident out of Scotland would spark a real debate over rUK’s international role post Scottish independence.
How much would Defence cost an independent Scotland
In the White Paper, Scotland’s Future, the Scottish Government proposes a defence budget of £2.5 billion for an independent Scotland. Implementing this change, would result in an independent Scotland having defence spend of approximately 1.8% of GDP.
This represents a saving of approximately £800 million against Scotland’s current share of UK defence expenditure. Even at 1.8% of GDP, Scotland’s defence spending would rank higher than many comparator countries.
Details of current plans for independent Scottish defence arrangements can be found on the Yes Scotland
website.
In the White Paper, the Scottish Government proposes that Faslane become the joint headquarters for Scotland's conventional armed forces as well as the main naval base. While Scotland’s Military HQ will be at Faslane, there will be delivery functions based here in in East Kilbride.
Conclusion
Decisions made by the UK Government do indeed result in Scotland paying a ‘Westminster War Tax’.
Scots pay more towards defence than comparable countries yet this is not used for effective defence of the UK and Scotland; instead, it is used to ‘project power’ across the globe often in dubious circumstances that do more harm than good, as recent developments in Iraq all too tragically demonstrate.
If we benchmark Scotland against directly comparable countries, such as Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the ‘Westminster War Tax’ costs Scots well over £1 billion per annum, approximately £400 per household.
After being in denial for more than 50 years, a Yes vote will finally make Westminster face up to the challenge set down in 1962 by Dean Acheson, then America’s Secretary of state, when he said:
“Great Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a role.”
