After Scots independence our armed forces will be very different - on both sides of the border

Last year I went to Faslane Naval Base in Argyll - around 8000 people work there at the submarine and naval defence base there. Upon independence this would not stay in Scotland. I spoke to locals in the picturesque seaside town of Helensburgh where 1 in 2 work on the base: they were terrified of the impact of independence. One local put it simply:"it would kill the town" he said.

And so many similar questions need to be asked:
- What would become of RAF Lossiemouth or Leuchars?
- And why would the rest of the UK ever build a ship on the Firth of Clyde again, instead of Portsmouth or the Tyne?
- And the Scottish regiments?
Salmond says he will keep some on but in what role and in what army? And doing what? Are they to be purely ceremonial?
Con Coughlin puts in well recently in an article on this difficult issue:
"An independent Scotland would be required to renegotiate its relationship with Nato, just as it would with the EU. But given the SNP’s deeply ingrained aversion to nuclear weapons, it is unlikely an independent Scotland would be welcomed into the Nato fold, particularly if its total military contribution amounted to a handful of warplanes and the odd frigate. Other small Nato nations, such as Norway and Denmark, which actively participated in the air campaign against Colonel Gaddafi in 2011, boast fleets of 60 F-15 warplanes or more, and have no hang-ups about maintaining a deterrent.

Even so, if the SNP’s defence plans are patently risible, they nevertheless have the potential to inflict enormous damage on the rest of Britain’s military capabilities, with no tangible gains for the Scottish people. How could the rest of the UK hope to protect the Northern Approaches from Russian incursions if it was denied access to vital early-warning systems and bases for quick-reaction sorties? The answers to this and many other questions relating to our security matter as much to the Scottish people as they do the rest of the British Isles, and they are worthy of far deeper consideration before the Scots vote for a potentially tragic break with one of our nation’s most illustrious institutions."
Full story here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10767952/Scotland-is-the-bedrock-of-Britains-defences.html

Law changed to help our armed service men and women

I am proud to have been part of the change in the law last Friday in the House of Commons: the Armed Forces Citizenship Bill will make it easier for Commonwealth-born members of the armed forces to claim British citizenship. Existing rules state overseas applicants for British citizenship must have lived in the UK for five years. But applicants only start working towards that five-year threshold from the first day they arrive in the UK. As Commonwealth-born soldiers, sailors and airmen are often immediately posted overseas after they sign up, they may have to wait for longer than other applicants before they can claim British citizenship.
The new Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill, would allow immigration officials to waive the minimum five-year threshold for citizenship applications from Commonwealth-born servicemen and women, as well as veterans. The legislation would affect around 200 members or former members of the armed forces, many of whom are likely to come from countries such as Fiji, Jamaica, South Africa and Ghana, as well as Nepal.

In my view: this is certainly not going to impact on our immigration or nationalisation numbers to any great extent. But, there is an injustice in the current rules and regulations and that needs to be changed.
I do believe it is wrong for our armed services personnel and former armed services personnel, who fit in to this category, to be discriminated against in this way. It is anomalous and it is something that the Commons and the Lords can, and should, rectify. Every day that members of our armed forces have spent in the service of our country abroad should have the same value in the eyes of the immigration authorities as a day spent in the UK.
This Bill is backed very strongly by Veterans Aid, Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and all other Armed Forces Charities.
My speech on the issue and the short debate is found here 19.50 seconds in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-25776483

Fridays Private Members Bill - Citizenship for Armed Forces personnel

This Friday I am looking forward to helping to guide a Private Members Bill through the House. I have only once done a full Friday session before on the Park Homes Bill, although I also did help on the Antartic Bill. This Bill is short but addresses a specific problem - namely the disadvantage faced by members of HM Forces, who are not British born, but who were overseas on the date five years before their application for citizenship. It is not right that they should have their applications refused when the very reason for their absence was that we had sent them overseas to protect our country.
My boss, Mark Harper MP is responsible for the Bill and is very supportive of what was a priority commitment under the Armed Forces Covenant. This Bill which will ensure service men and women are not disadvantaged and allows the Secretary of State to waive the requirement, in Armed Forces cases, for the applicant to have been in the UK on the date 5 years before an application for naturalisation. This requirement could disadvantage a member of HM Forces who was on an overseas posting at the relevant time.
The Bill is supported by a large number of Army and Military charities. The debate starts at 9.30am on Friday