Airstrip One

Sea Lanes

It wasn't my fault, honest guv.

A poor correspondant managed to stumble on to one of my armchair strategist's obsessions :

Dear Sir,

As a university student studying Britain and Europe i would be interested to hear of your views on Britain and Europe. In your article, Britain's Death Wish, you proclaim that the union is dead. The union has certainly changed, but i disagree that it is dead. The West Lothian question must be resolved to make the union fair, but why do you believe that England will eventually be independent?

You proudly proclaim that England has the highest perecent of GDP and resources, which is undoubtedly correct, but Britain benefitted in the 19th century and still does today from Scottish science and engineering, to name but a few.

Towards the end of your article it seems that you are still living in the 18th and 19th century. So what if scotland gained control of the
northern sea lanes. France is not our enemy anymore and Scotland is no longer strategically important. What exactly do you mean when you say that "The last thing that the English need is a French or European base to their north". 'French', what are you talking about?

From your article, and others, it is clear that you are anti-Europe and strongly pro-English. Do you not think it is possible to be
pro-English, pro-British and pro-European? It is clear when examing the world power balances that economic and, to some extent, military blocs are emerging. Britain, or England, is no longer a great power and it seems that she is only just hanging on the 'middle' power level. Just look at the state of British manufacturing today. Integration in Europe will not just bring economic benefits, but also military and political. By military and political i don't just mean integration, but the prevention of European wars that have been so damaging in the past.

Please write back and explains exactly what you mean by a 'French or European' base.

Well it seems innocent, I'm rarely bothered with hostile tones in my e-mails. Hell, the fact they write to you (and read a number of your columns) is flattery enough. Well, I started boring him, especially around the part that said "So what if scotland gained control of the northern sea lanes." Poor thing:

"In your article, Britain's Death Wish, you proclaim
that the union is dead. The union has certainly
changed, but i disagree that it is dead."

OK, how about in its last stages?

"The West Lothian question must be
resolved to make the union fair,"

How? Except by an equally federal structure, or
independence, this is impossible. What is the point
of an equally federal structure if England is a
component part (85% of the population sort of rules
out equality)? If the federation is to include the
new Euro regions it would cause massive resentment.
Are there really people out there who view themselves
as "South Easterners" or "East Midlanders"?

"but why do you believe that England will eventually
be independent?"

Because England has less control but pays a larger
proportion of the bill. This does not matter when the
majority party in both England and the UK are the same
but it could change even (and I know that this is
unlikely) in the next few months.

"You proudly proclaim that England has the highest
perecent of GDP and resources, which is undoubtedly
correct,"

Not pride, but fact.

"but Britain benefitted in the 19th century and still
does today from Scottish science and engineering, to
name but a few."

Yes, but this is not a compelling reason for keeping
paying for Easterside or Highland agricultural
subsidies. Some of the brightest Scots come to London
because the wages are higher, the prospects are better
and everyone speaks English. With the disolution of
the union these facts will not change.

"Towards the end of your article it seems that you
are still living in the 18th and 19th century."

If only! Seriously, many of the strategic problems of
the 18th and 19th centuries are still with us.

"So what if scotland gained control of the northern
sea lanes."

Ah, the crux of the matter. You really should not ask
this question if you do not wish to be bored rigid.

Basically England is on an island, and England's
various geographical advantages mean that she has a
larger and more prosperous population than Scotland
and Wales (and Ireland - but we won't go into that) -
a population that in strategic terms she can fairly
easily dominate. That is until you put other big
European powers into the picture, hence the eternal
Scotish obsession with the French alliance.

Anyway back to the island nation stuff. As England is
essentially an island nation, she is rather well
placed in any war because of the sea. It's all the
stuff about sieges. Before gunpowder a castle or a
city could withstand a siege for years if necesary,
the only things that could stop it would be treachery
or starvation (I include disease in this as this was
often exarcabated by malnutrition). So in effect any
war which England is involved in usually becomes a
siege of sorts.

Now Britain long ago stopped being able to feed
itself. So if the country is under siege, it will
need to be able to keep starvation at bay through
massive food imports (war materials are also needed as
well). Here come in the sea lanes. If these are
blocked for whatever reason then England quickly goes
to its knees. Hence the need for the sea lanes. It
must also be pointed out that any invasion will come
through the sea, so the sea lanes need to be kept
clear for that obvious reason.

So which sea lanes are important? The English Channel
for obvious reasons, that's what the Battle of Britain
was about, but this is hardly going to be a supply
route. The Atlantic as far as it leads to South West
England, but this is at the mercy of any continental
foe. Then there are the "Northern sea lanes", which
in any war would be vital for feeding England.

Do you know understand why these are so important in
British strategic thinking? Don't take my word for
it, just look at the enormous amount of naval bases in
Scotland. I can assure you that they are not there to
take advantage of the spectacular scenery, cheap land
or skilled workforce.

"France is not our enemy anymore"

Not today. But this is a long term game, and if one
wants peace one must be prepared for war. We must
assume no permanent friends or enemies.

Think back sixty years, and how different things on
the international stage were then. Also think about
how the pace of change is hotting up. Now think
forward sixty years, are you sure that the basics of
the alliance system will be in place?

France MAY not be hostile over the next century, but
neither you nor I can guarantee that with utter
certainty that they will not be hostile.

"Scotland is no longer strategically important."

See above. You can take it I disagree with this.

"What exactly do you mean when you say that
"The last thing that the English need is a French or
European base to their north". 'French', what are you
talking about?"

It's back to being an island. If Scotland were
independent and there was no contintental involvement
in Great Britain then England would have little to
worry about. If France (or any other power - I am
using France because of the close historical
relationship with Scotland) was hostile to the UK,
then we would not want them to set foot in Scotland.

"it is clear that you are anti-Europe"

I prefer anti-EU. I quite like the continent of
Europe.

"and strongly pro-English."

Culturally, I am mildly pro-English. I am just a
strong believer that nations should act in their own
interests.

"Do you not think it is possible to be pro-English,
pro-British and pro-European?"

I believe that this is a position that is harder to
hold consistently and honestly. It used to be
perfectly plausible, but with changing world
circumstances it is becoming more and more threadbare.

"It is clear when examing the world power balances
that economic and, to some extent, military blocs are
emerging."

And disolving. The common threat that held NATO
together has disapeared. And this, to some extent,
was also the threat that held the UK in the EEC (as
was).

On the economic front, I believe that a system of
unilateral free trade would do more to lift living
standards and encourage efficiency than any number of
trade blocs. This may mean that some of our exports
are penalised but the cheaper goods (and the ability
to set our own economic policy) would benefit us far
more than any lowering of tarrifs to the French
market.

"Britain, or England, is no longer a great power and
it seems that she is only just hanging on the 'middle'
power level."

True, but this does not preclude an independent
foreign or economic policy.


"Just look at the state of British manufacturing
today."

So?

"Integration in Europe will not just bring economic
benefits, but also military and political. By military
and political i don't just mean integration, but the
prevention of European wars that have been so damaging
in the past."

Most European wars in the last 200 years seem to have
been fought to further European union.

I actually think that a federated Europe will be more
of a threat to peace. An interesting exercise would
be to try and look back at all the cases of voluntary
political union among various previously independent
nations, and try to find one where there was not a
civil war that followed on from it (voluntary
disolutions are obviously not allowed).

There is one example, which I'll let you find for
yourself, but every other federation has ended up in a
civil or pseudo-civil war as the union aims to exert
its influence over the still powerful constituent
states.

>Please write back and explains exactly what you mean
by a 'French or European' base."

I hope I've done that

So the poor sap wrote back:

Dear Sir,

Thankyou for your reply, it makes interesting reading.

Although one day you may be right, and England will become independent, i just can't help but refuse to accept your sea lanes arguement. You don't have to reply to this again by the way if you don't want to.

Let's just say for arguements sake that England was at war with some continental power, or even Scotland. (This is to say that the EU, Nato, and the 'Special Relationship' with the US would all have had to have dissapeared to make this possible; not to mention the lessons learnt from two devastating world wars).

For the northern sea lanes to be inaccessable to us, Scotland would have to be hostile or unfriendly to say the least. If Scotland refused to allow passage of English ships then surely our Navy would force the issue. If not the navy then English land forces and nuclear weapons would certainly persuade access. On the possibility of a foreign power 'setting foot' in Scotland, surely English troops would quickly secure Scotland before this happened.

But this scenario just seems so implausable. Britain and France were enemies because we were both world powers in the 18th and 19th centuries, both scrambling for empire. At that time we had the resources to remain world powers and to go to war with each other. Today this is just not possible, and don't forget the nuclear deterrent which both countries posess. Economic trends suggest that the future economic and military powers are Asian countries, Japan and China. Indeed, conflict with China is the real possibility, not from France.

Why would France and Britain want to go to war with each other anyway, there is absolutely no reason for it. There is just no economic or strategic reason for it.

Having studied in depth the Napoleonic wars, the First World War and Second World war; i fully understand the importance of sea lanes and the Scottish naval bases. We still have naval bases in scotland, although their size and strength has been reduced considerably, because of the possible threat from Russia. That is why they are there. They are part of NATO, guarding the northern flank. And why do you think our Navy is being reduced considerably, because it is not really needed.

I seriously suggest that you read Paul Kennedy's Rise and fall of the Great Powers which lays out the real military and economic concerns of the 21st century.

Well, I did write back:

"Thankyou for your reply, it makes interesting reading."

I can but try.

"Although one day you may be right, and England will become independent, i just can't help but refuse to accept your sea lanes arguement. You don't have to reply to this again by the way if you don't want to.

Let's just say for arguements sake that England was at war with some continental power, or even Scotland. "

Good, you are arguing from the assumptions of the article, which you obviously understand.

"(This is to say that the EU, Nato, and the 'Special Relationship' with the US would all have had to have dissapeared to make this possible; not to mention the lessons learnt from two devastating world wars)."

These things may happen.

"For the northern sea lanes to be inaccessable to us, Scotland would have to be hostile or unfriendly to say the least. "

Yes, and this is a very big threat to England during a war (although Ireland's neutrality during the war caused its own headaches). It is the biggest argument against letting Scotland going independent. But you know my views on that.

"If Scotland refused to allow passage of English ships then surely our Navy would force the issue. If not the navy then English land forces and nuclear weapons would certainly persuade access."

2 Points.

1 - This is not really a welcome distraction (the US and UK thought about invading Ireland during WWII but held back.

2 - What if the other power had naval, land or nuclear forces?

"On the possibility of a foreign power 'setting foot' in Scotland, surely English troops would quickly secure Scotland before this happened."

One would hope so. But if England and Scotland were at peace what would the English be able to do about foreign bases - especially if they were built gradually and innofensively?

It is for this reason that we have to state publicly that foreign forces in Scotland (or Wales, or Ireland) would be a threat to our security and dealt with as such.

"But this scenario just seems so implausable. Britain and France were enemies because we were both world powers in the 18th and 19th centuries, both scrambling for empire."

True to a point. But England and France were also enemies because they were in such close proximity and also because France wanted to control Europe which Britain (unwisely in my opinion) oposed.

"At that time we had the resources to remain world powers and to go to war with each other. Today this is just not possible, "

War can be fought between very poor 3rd world countries (look at Eritrea and Ethiopia), so resources are not really the issue.

But what if Europe federated and for whatever reason Britain refused? Is that so implausible? Could there be a replay of an American Civil War?

"and don't forget the nuclear deterrent which both countries posess. "

Which sort of lays the lie to neither side possessing the resources necesary to wage war.

"Economic trends suggest that the future economic and military powers are Asian countries, Japan and China. "

Fair enough, but these countries hardly affect any of our vital national interests, or we their's. The same can not be said of our neighbours.

"Indeed, conflict with China is the real possibility, not from France."

Distance, dear boy, distance. It is a possibility, but as long as we keep a sense of proportion we will not end up in a scrap with these guys. Of course nothing is certain, and we may get embroiled through our alliance with the USA but it is far less likely than a war with a European power.

"Why would France and Britain want to go to war with each other anyway, there is absolutely no reason for it. There is just no economic or strategic reason for it."

An independent Britain or England could be an incredibly irritating presence to a United Europe.

"Having studied in depth the Napoleonic wars, the First World War and Second World war; i fully understand the importance of sea lanes and the Scottish naval bases. We still have naval bases in scotland, although their size and strength has been reduced considerably, because of the possible threat from Russia. That is why they are there. They are part of NATO, guarding the northern flank. "

They are important, then?

"And why do you think our Navy is being reduced considerably, because it is not really needed."

I think the naval reductions, especially with the disproportionate effect they are having on protecting British sea lanes, are remarkably short sighted. We should have cut the long term offensive capacity before cutting closer to home. Instead they are increasing our offensive fleet at the expense of our defensive capacity.

As you may expect, I oppose this.

"I seriously suggest that you read Paul Kennedy's Rise and fall of the Great Powers which lays out the real military and economic concerns of the 21st century."

I read it quite a while ago. While it is quite good on the need for economic vitality, I believe that it seriously underestimates the strategic questions like Sea Lanes. It also assumes that the future will be global, as it had been since the second world war, and gives no convincing reason for why the East Asian powers should come to Europe (this is especially so if China and Japan renew their rivalry in earnest).

I would suggest that you read Correlli Barnet (although you have probably done this already) especially the Collapse of British Power. Although I strongly disagree on his Europhile tendancies - or his belief that we need to take a pro-active view of the European balance of power, he looks at British decision through the unforgiving angle of national interest.

"Thankyou for your time taken to discuss this issue with me, and happy new year."

Happy new year.

To date my poor correspondant has not written back, my e-mails obviously bored him to death.

The question is, am I wrong? Is my obsession with the sea lanes really out of date?