The country the SNP is using as a model for an independent Scottish military could “definitely not” defend itself.
The frank admission of Denmark’s capabilities was made to the Press and Journal by a senior Danish MP and two military analysts with extensive service records.
But they said being an active Nato member ensured the protection of the state.
And they questioned: “Who on earth would attack Scotland?”
The SNP has analysed Denmark’s military and proposed a £2.5billion defence budget for an independent Scotland – about the same as the Scandinavian state spends.
Major Rune Hoffmann, of the Royal Danish Army, described the former Viking homeland as having a “warrior” culture, having been a frontline country in the cold war and played significant roles in military interventions in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Asked if Denmark could defend itself without the support of allies, he said: “Definitely not in a conventional war.”
“But that is not the idea – that’s why we are in Nato,” said Flemming Pradhan-Blach, who served with the Royal Danish Air Force in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq and now works as an analyst alongside Major Hoffmann at Copenhagen University’s Centre of Military Studies. “The alliance is what makes us feel more safe, because you know you have these mutual benefits from being in Nato.”
Major Hoffmann, who served in Croatia and Kosovo, added: “Of course that means as well that we also have to do our part in Nato.”
John Dyrby Paulsen, defence spokesman for the ruling Social Democrats, agreed Denmark could not defend itself.
“The official answer is yes but the real answer is definitely no,” he said.
“It depends obviously on which type of attack you have to defend yourself against but, in the broader terms, we have for many, many years, including during the cold war, not been able to defend ourselves.
“It’s the Nato way of looking at things. We are a small country. We would not be able to defend ourselves if we were attacked.
“The general idea today is that nobody will attack Denmark – not in the old sense of the word.
“But we are in an alliance that means something. We have a sort of defence capability within that alliance that would be sufficient for whatever we might use it for.”
Asked if £2.5billion would be enough to set up armed forces in Scotland after a division of UK assets, Mr Paulsen said: “That would be difficult but, on the other hand, it’s quite a lot of money actually. You would be able to build something.
“For that type of money you can’t build an army that in all circumstances, in cold war thinking, would be able to defend a country for a very long time against any enemy you can imagine.
“So what you have to do is say, ‘Look, we have this kind of money, we need to be part of an alliance, we need to pay our share of the costs to deliver what we can to that alliance, but we need to think of ourselves as part of an alliance’.”
Mr Pradhan-Blach said: “What you need is difficult to say because that depends on your level of ambition or any agreement you do with Britain, and Nato.
“That can change, whether the budget is sufficient or not. You need to put down some strategy for what you want to use your military for. I think that is important.
“It’s a good opportunity actually to get a very streamlined military now, because you start, not from scratch, but you can now form it as you want.”
Major Hoffmann said: “We are here, we are participating in international missions, so it (the budget) must be sufficient. I think we are pretty effective.”
Denmark’s participation in Iraq and Afghanistan, he added, had given it greater global standing. “It has given us a higher voice in Nato and in international staffs that Danish soldiers have been ‘bleeding in the sand’ alongside US and UK soldiers, under the same conditions.
“In that sense it has put a small nation in a more significant political position. I think that matters a great deal for a small nation.”