Ships and the future of the UK

The debate surrounding the prospects for Scotland's ship building industry in an independent Scotland is (as with so much of our politics) predicable enough: unionists say it will be decimated; nationalists say it will diversify and prosper. Both sides are unconvincing.

The unionist argument fails to factor in the strategic changes that are going to take place in these islands whatever constitutional changes happen (or don't) in the coming decades. At present the UK is the second biggest defence spender on the planet. This is not sustainable, or desirable. Unfortunately our legacy as a world power commits the UK to this level of defence spending but this won't continue indefinitely. Our structural position in the international order will change beyond recognition in the coming half century (including, for example, loss of the permanent seat on the UN Security Council and changes in the UK's role in NATO). When this happens the UK won't be ordering world class aircraft carriers and, arguably, will be able to give up its nuclear deterrent. At that point the impact on what remains of the ship building industry will be dramatic.

The nationalist argument is equally flawed. As a matter of pure fact, an independent Scotland would not be used to build sensitive English defence equipment (and arguments about EU rules on tendering are irrelevant - there are national security exceptions). And nor would a Scottish defence force need (or want) the amount of equipment ordered by UK forces. Diversification would make up some of the lost business but not all of it.

It is a shame that nationalists rely on these arguments rather than seeking to develop a narrative that fits in with the wider strategic choices that the UK is going to have to make in the next few decades. There is a strong case for saying a British isles of several nation-states would be better prepared to deal with the strategic threats (and the domestic political issues) of the twentieth-first century rather than a single British state. Instead they rely on an argument that nothing too much will change other than some constitutional details.

If the nats are going to win this argument, they are going to have to develop their arguments. I'll blog some more on what a convincing nationalist argument could look like in the coming weeks.