What would independent Scotland armed forces comprise
Executive summary
An independent Scotland’s armed forces, as outlined by Scottish Government planning documents and party materials, would be a conventional three‑service force — land, sea and air — overseen by a Joint Forces Headquarters and initially sized in government proposals at roughly 15,000 regulars and 5,000 reserves with phased capability development guided by an expert Defence and Security Review [1] [2] [3]. Analysts and think‑tanks warn that the force would start dependent on inherited UK infrastructure and assets and would likely remain closely integrated with UK forces for years, with key capabilities shaped by post‑independence negotiations and NATO/EU aspirations [4] [5].
1. Force structure and headline numbers
Scottish Government papers explicitly propose that the armed forces of an independent Scotland would comprise land, sea and air components under a single Joint Forces Headquarters, and present an ambition for a force roughly numbering 15,000 regulars and 5,000 reservists as an initial target to be refined by a full Defence and Security Review [1] [2] [3]. Party sources and white papers repeat that an independent Scottish Defence Force would inherit a share of current UK‑based units and personnel who chose to transfer, and that historic Scottish regimental identities would be retained in ground forces plans [6] [7].
2. Capabilities envisaged — what the new forces would and would not include
The Scottish proposals stress conventional capabilities: maritime forces based around Faslane as a primary naval base, air assets for airspace security, transport and support, and ground units able to protect territory and contribute to international peace‑keeping; nuclear weapons are explicitly rejected by the Scottish Government’s longstanding policy and would be targeted for removal from Scottish waters [1] [6] [8]. Experts differ on scale: independent analysts have suggested a smaller specialist model — for example a deployable brigade and a modest air component with UAVs — arguing a full spectrum military would be unaffordable and that alliance cooperation should fill capability gaps [9].
3. Bases, infrastructure and the inherited estate
A crucial practical advantage for any nascent Scottish force would be the retention, at least initially, of major military establishments in Scotland; the government says these would be sovereign territory and could host multinational exercises and allied forces subject to agreements, with Faslane singled out as the likely headquarters and main conventional naval facility [1] [6]. Think‑tank voices and commentators caution that while physical bases remain, the legal and operational control of some assets — and the timeline for removal of UK strategic systems such as Trident — would depend on complex negotiations and could mean significant UK military presence for a decade or more [4] [10].
4. Money, NATO ambitions and spending targets
The Scottish Government has signalled an intention to meet NATO defence spending norms, including aiming for two per cent of GDP, and frames its force plans around membership ambitions for NATO and the EU; commentators note that achieving such spending and capability targets would be heavily influenced by the eventual fiscal settlement after separation and wider geopolitical pressures that have driven European defence increases [8] [5] [11]. Financial critics argue the stated ambitions may be optimistic relative to projected public finances and that trade‑offs would be inevitable [2].
5. Dependencies, timelines and geopolitical caveats
Multiple sources concur that the practical shape of an independent Scottish military would be determined less by aspiration than by the post‑independence settlement with the UK — who would likely continue to host significant forces in Scotland for years — and by strategic choices to specialise and rely on allies to plug capability gaps, particularly in high‑end air, maritime and nuclear domains that are costly and politically fraught [4] [5] [9]. The Scottish Government’s own roadmap places heavy emphasis on an expert‑led review to set phased priorities by independence day, acknowledging that initial forces would be an interim posture pending deeper development [1] [6].