Defensible defence

The SNP have indicated that, post-independence, the Scottish government would spend £2.5bn annually on defence. The UK government are, predictably, deriding that figure as amateurish and incompetent (ref), and as an indicator of how unsuited Scotland is to full independence. 

In global terms, £2.5bn would place Scotland at No 51 in the military spending table of 154 countries (ref), which seems quite adequate (and rather higher than the similarly sized Ireland & New Zealand), but maybe the UK government knows better. After all, they do maintain  4^th place in the same table. 

Admittedly that level of spending is a hangover from the days when there was an empire to defend, which covered 25% of the planet and 20% of its population (ref). Now that empire is reduced to a few remote outposts, with a total estimated population of around 2 million people and some penguins, but the government apparently still have to appease the captains and shareholders of a highly profitable armaments industry, and some bellicose reactionaries in denial about the world having moved on in the last 100 years. In so doing the UK certainly buys a lot of guns and warplanes, so they should know how much money it takes. Or they would do, were it not for the recent levels of spending excess & waste greater than the entire annual defence budgets of Finland or Austria (ref) (ref) (ref).

However if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that defence spending is simply and accurately aimed at defending a country from invasion, terrorism, and insurrection, then just maybe a peaceful foreign policy and a fair internal distribution of wealth would be a better way of protecting that country than buying loads of weapons. In that case, the modest military ambitions outlined by Alex Salmond would be more of a cause for hope than for concern.