SOLDIERS will be given a 'job for life' under plans for an independent Scottish defence force.

According to the White Paper "all service personnel will have the reassurance that they will not face compulsory redundancy during their service contract".

Ministers also drew a clearer picture of what the potential forces could look like. Significantly, they suggest they could be up and running on day one - as long as the UK Government accepts claims on specific assets, including ships and planes.

Under the plans, Scotland would spend £2.5 billion a year on defence. It would retain Faslane as a naval base and joint headquarters of a Scottish Defence Force, which would be made up of 15,000 full time personnel and 5000 reservists.

A Scottish naval force would include two frigates, four mine counter measure vessels and four to six patrol boats "all from the Royal Navy's current fleet".

At the same time a Quick ­Reaction Alert (QRA) squadron based at Lossiemouth would also include 12 Typhoon fast jets currently operated by the RAF.

Ministers also set out plans for the retention of current military bases as well as the potential to reinstate air operations at Leuchars.

The document also sets out the international relations strategy Scotland would pursue. This would see it retain current cross-border arrangements with the remaining UK, including on health, fighting terrorism and serious and organised crime and administrative arrangements for services "when this makes sense".

On international development Scotland would commit to spending 0.7% of GDP. And an independent Scotland would also have the chance to write into law that it could never go to war unless action was in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and approved by MSPs voting in the Scottish Parliament.

While the document states that Scotland would become a member of a range of international organisations, including the UN, Nato and the EU, Scottish ministers appear to have subtly changed their rationale for the latter organisation,

They point to a part of EU law which allows members states to collectively agree changes to treaties. Such a move would allow the EU to ensure ahead of time that Scotland would automatically become a member of the EU on the point of independence, the White Paper says.

However, opponents argue the new logic still does not tackle the fear that some EU countries, such as Spain, already under pressure from separatist movements, would have no incentive to make Scotland's EU membership easy.

SNP sources insist the proposed defence settlement set out would benefit both Scotland and the remaining UK. Independence, they argue, will come at a time when the Ministry of Defence is under pressure over the reforms it is making to the Armed Forces, including basing changes and shrinking the Army by 20,000 personnel.

They believe that much of their plan, including the offer to operate some bases in Scotland jointly, will be welcomed by the remaining UK Government. And they insist their demands on ships and planes are reasonable.

Angus Roberston, the SNP defence spokesman, said: "The Scottish Defence Force will carry out vital defence and security roles which are to the benefit of the Scotland and the rest of the UK. It would be foolish and wrong to view independence as a zero-sum game. In many respects security arrangements for the rest of the UK will be enhanced by Scotland taking its northern European regional security priorities seriously."

Shadow defence minister Gemma Doyle said: "The SNP have not included any set up costs, or any costed procurement plans.

"There is no mention of what arrangements would be put in place for existing veterans pensions and there are a series of assumptions about what equipment they think the UK will simply hand over. All in all, their proposals on defence and security are weak and full of holes."

Significantly, the paper sets out different reasoning behind Scottish ministers case for why Scotland would remain a member of the European Union (EU).

Sources close to the Conservative defence secretary Philip Hammond described the proposals as "incoherent" and questioned whether they could be funded by a £2.5 bn a year budget.

One added: "There is an assumption they would get certain assets but this would be a matter for negotiation and the rest of the UK may not wish to give them up."