The defence industry is very important to the Scottish economy, providing more than 15,000 jobs and contributing between £ 1.8 billion-£2 billion annually to the Scottish economy. Those firms or subsidiaries dependent on British Army, RAF or Royal Navy orders under Article 346 of the European Union Treaties (which allow the UK to reserve certain orders to national suppliers) will lose such work, which will be transferred to other parts of the UK. It is also recognised that the market offered to defence suppliers in a separate Scotland will be negligible in size compared to that of the United Kingdom as a whole and the joint projects in which it participates. A separate Scotland, particularly one which has deported the Royal Navy's submarine force and potentially enforced unilateral nuclear disarmament upon the United Kingdom will not necessarily be seen as a reliable ally. Similarly a future separate Scotland's access to secret technology owned elsewhere is unlikely to be automatic. There will not necessarily be the maximum security clearance necessary to allow export to, or collaboration with, US or other suppliers or purchasers. A separate Scotland is unlikely to be able to fund the level of research and development necessary to maintain Scottish companies at the cutting edge of technology. The defence industry in Scotland is designed to meet the needs of its main customer-the Ministry of Defence. It is essential that the Scottish Government spells out, as quickly as possible, its intentions for procurement and research budgets, and foreign and defence policies.
In a report published ahead of the expected White Paper on Separation, the Scottish Affairs Committee says that the Scottish Government must meet high standards of accuracy and openness and avoid any risk of using public money to promote a party political agenda. Any document that is produced as a Government White Paper must meet the highest standards of accuracy and clarity, and must be totally honest about the risks, alternative possible scenarios and costs involved in Separation. The Committee is concerned that the Scottish Government has shown a propensity to mislead Scottish voters on the likely outcome of some of the negotiations that would be needed for the final Separation agreement - as well as the timescale on which this could be achieved. Many important questions - like EU membership or the currency - have to be negotiated with the UK Government and others, and the White Paper cannot simply claim that the SNP will get whatever they want. It must lay out all the alternative scenarios that might actually emerge from these negotiations - and their consequences. Particular uncertainties highlighted by the Committee include membership of the EU, currency, and benefits, public services, taxation and pensions.
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.
Scotland faces its biggest choice since the 1707 union that made the United Kingdom - should Scotland be an independent country? The Yes and No campaigns are well under way but with the vote looming closer the information available to the public is still limited. What will happen after the referendum? What are the international implications? What about the UK's nuclear deterrant, currently housed in Scotland? What happens if the vote is 'No'? Is it even clear what independence will mean? What about the oil? What will the currency be? What will happen to the Old Age Pension pot if the UK splits? Scotland's Choices, now fully revised for the critical last few months before the referendum, does just that. Written by one former civil servant, one academic and one think-tanker - one a resident Scot, one a Scot living in England and one an Englishman - the authors clearly explain the issues you may not have considered and detail how each of the options would be put into place after the referendum.
On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees. On title page: Returns to orders of the House of Commons dated 14 May 2013 (the Chairman of Ways and Means)
Today Scotland's interests in the European Union are represented by the UK which, as one of the largest Member States, has the voting power and leverage to influence decisions to the benefit of Scotland. In leaving the UK, a separate Scotland would lose this advantage. A separate Scotland is likely to have its application to join the EU accepted - but not within the self-imposed timetable of 18 months, nor with the terms, that the Scottish Government is proposing. The proposal that Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union could be used to provide for Scottish membership is not supported by any other EU state; senior EU figures have ruled it out and it is opposed by the United Kingdom Government - which would, under this process, have to initiate it. The additional and exceptional demand for the ability to discriminate against UK students with respect to tuition fees would be voted against by the UK Government and is therefore almost certain not to be met. Furthermore, insufficient attention has been paid to the need to negotiate the UK's retention of VAT zero rating on a wide range of goods. As a separate Member State, not only would Scotland cease to benefit from the UK rebate (currently worth in the region of £300 million per year to Scotland) but it would have to contribute to it. In these circumstances Scottish voters need a more realistic alternative perspective of how joining the EU would be achieved, and what its likely terms and timetable would be.
The Scottish Affairs Committee calls for the repeal of the Bedroom Tax. While this is being considered, the Committee calls on the Government to suspend application of the Bedroom Tax for all those tenants to whom a reasonable alternative offer cannot be made. There are not enough smaller houses available for tenants to transfer into. The lack of any alternative offers means that tenants have no choice but to go into arrears if they simply cannot afford the extra costs. Other amendments proposed for the operation of the tax include: exemptions for those disabled people who require a room to store or use equipment or aids; non application where it would be financially perverse to do so - eg where removing fixed aids and adaptations, and then reinstalling them in a smaller home, would be more expensive than the savings over two years; all children of secondary school age should be allowed a bedroom of their own to allow quiet study; all disabled children, of whatever age, should have a bedroom of their own. The Committee also calls for changes to the system of Discretionary Housing Payments, which have been designed by the Government to mitigate the worst impacts of the Bedroom Tax. There should be a standard nationwide entitlement system, across the UK as a whole, rather than the present postcode lottery. The UK and Scottish Governments should make longer term commitments to the provision of DHP payments in order to allow local authorities to plan and structure their budgets.
The Scottish Government's plan to negate the future effects of the bedroom tax in Scotland is inadequate, and further that the route they have identified - using Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) - is flawed. The Committee has taken evidence in Scotland and Westminster on the impacts of the bedroom tax but also on the best and most effective ways of mitigating those effects. The Committee reiterates its call for the Scottish Government to meet all the bedroom tax charges for Scottish tenants, write off all the arrears, and refund all the payments that have been made, as the only fair and workable way forward.