Bonds of loyalty in the British military may stop Scots from wanting to join an independent defence force, according the UK Government.
The claim will be contained in an analysis paper launched by Defence Secretary Philip Hammond in Edinburgh next week.
The paper will make the case for retaining the Armed Forces with one year to go until the independence referendum.
It also aims to stress that the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force, as well as intelligence functions, are integrated across the UK and cannot easily be divided into two fully functioning parts.
An extract released by the UK Government states: "An independent Scottish state could not simply co-opt existing units that are primarily recruited or based in Scotland, as these are an integral part of the UK Armed Forces; nor could those units in themselves provide a coherent, credible and balanced force.
"Similarly, individual members of the UK Armed Forces, in whatever units they serve, could not simply be moved into the forces of a separate Scottish state.
"UK Armed Forces personnel can expect varied and interesting careers in one of the most highly regarded, technologically advanced forces in the world, providing rewarding opportunities for international and operational experience, as well as many other benefits such as training and development, and good pay, conditions and pension.
"Personnel might very well not wish to leave the UK Armed Forces to join much smaller forces, not least because of strong bonds of loyalty.
"From a defence perspective, the transition to independence would therefore be extremely complex, raising serious questions over how an operational capability for an independent Scottish state could be managed."
The 86-page report will be published just days after MPs on the Commons Defence Committee said it would be "remiss" of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) not to consider the implications of independence.
The MoD insists it is not making any preparation for a potential Yes vote next year.
While it says the British Armed Forces are deeply integrated, MoD chiefs also agree that picking it apart would not be impossible.
The Commons Defence Committee report, published last month, criticised the Scottish and UK governments for their approach to informing the public. It concluded that the SNP's proposed £2.5 billion budget for a defence force cannot be properly judged at this point.
The Scottish Government intends to publish its formal plan for independence in the coming weeks. A spokesman said: "An independent Scotland will have first-class conventional forces which will play a full role in defending the country and co-operating with international partners - but we will not waste billions of pounds on Trident nuclear weapons.
"Scotland stands to inherit a fair share of existing UK defence assets, as the UK Government has now conceded, and an annual defence and security budget of £2.5 billion will represent an increase of more than £500 million on recent UK levels of defence spending in Scotland but would be nearly £1 billion less than Scottish taxpayers currently contribute to UK defence spending.
"We have also been clear that we will retain all current defence bases, including Faslane - which will be Scotland's main conventional naval facility - and our long-term commitment will ensure continued support for jobs and local economies in all the communities around Scotland that are home to military bases."
Angus Robertson MP, SNP Westminster leader and defence spokesman, added: "At last the UK Government has been forced to concede that an independent Scotland would inherit a fair share of UK defence assets, though Philip Hammond has many questions to answer as the perpetrator of disproportionate defence cuts and redundancies in Scotland.
"Scotland stands to inherit billions of pounds worth of assets - after all, the people of Scotland paid for them. He can take this opportunity to explain why his government promised a super barracks at Kirknewton that never happened and why his predecessor said 7,000 troops would be coming back from Germany to Scotland."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article