THE SNP should abandon proposals to emulate the UK's security and intelligence services if Scotland becomes independent, a highly critical report argues.
Plans to replace MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, the UK's secret communications base, with a security agency are unaffordable and unrealistic, warned a briefing from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).
Instead, said analysts from the defence and security think tank, an independent Scotland should follow Denmark's example and put the police in charge of a limited intelligence-gathering operation.
They concluded: "An independent Scotland is unlikely to face the severity of threats faced by the UK. Given this more benign threat picture, the creation of a Scottish Security and Intelligence Agency seems unnecessary, with more promising avenues including developing and expanding an intelligence division within Police Scotland."
The assessment provoked angry clashes between campaigners in the referendum battle.
Scots Tory leader Ruth Davidson claimed RUSI's report proved Scotland was safer within the UK.
But Allan Burnett, a former senior police officer and Yes Scotland spokesman, insisted a new intelligence service would be a trusted ally of the UK and other countries.
The briefing, whose lead author Charlie Edwards is RUSI's director of national security studies, said the feasibility of the SNP's plans, set out in its White Paper independence blueprint, was "problematic" and "raises serious concerns for Scottish national security". It says the estimated £206 million annual running costs - based on the country's share of UK intelligence spending - was "entirely meaningless" as it was unrelated to an independent Scotland's security needs.
Ignoring set-up costs - particularly the expense of replicating the GCHQ listening centre - "seems a fundamental flaw" in the SNP plans, it added. The report said it was questionable whether a service "of any quality" could be established in time to protect the country from day one of independence, as promised by the SNP.
More seriously, it said the Scottish Government should "not assume co-operation" from the UK on the highly sensitive issue of intelligence-sharing.
It warned an independent Scotland would also not gain automatic entry into the "Five Eyes Agreement", the long-established security pact comprising the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Raising further doubts over the plans, it added: "An independent Scotland's potentially anti-nuclear policy would likely cause ructions between the Holyrood and Westminster governments."
But it said the danger of Scotland becoming a weak link in the battle against terrorism, organised crime and cyber-espionage would encourage the UK to co-operate with an independent Scotland.
The report said an independent Scotland "could have a first-class security service", but concluded that "economic, diplomatic and technical realities" would dictate a different course.
It recommended "a more modest" model based on Denmark's police-run security service. The service would be run by a deputy chief constable in charge of a new division of Police Scotland and employ 700 to 800 people, the report added.
Ms Davidson said: "The experts at RUSI have confirmed what we already know: that Scotland is safer as part of the UK. Each of the four home nations would be less secure if there was to be an independent Scotland. The safety and security of a nation is the first responsibility of a government, but Alex Salmond is willing to risk that security for his obsession with independence."
Speaking on behalf of Yes Scotland, Mr Burnett, a retired police head of counter-terrorism, said: "An excellent Scottish intelligence organisation could be developed in an independent country. Based upon my experience, I simply do not accept these criticisms of Scotland's abilities to have effective security arrangements.
"Our friends, including those south of the Border, will want Scotland as allies as much as we want them. Our Scottish intelligence service will be welcomed as a professional, trusted ally."
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