Here's why the UK Government wants you to feel as if war is coming

The National

2 days ago

In June, Keir Starmer launched the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in an enormous BAE Systems warehouse in Govan. He said the UK would move to a 'war-fighting readiness'. His language was purposeful; we are meant to feel as if we are on the brink of war.
It means more money will go to arms companies, whose profits are already in the billions, while international aid will be cut, and those across the globe who need it most will be left without much-needed support.
Starmer said then that the UK Government will increase defence spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) from April 2027 with an ambition – but no firm commitment – to increase it to 3% during the next parliament.
READ OUR FULL DEFENCE MINI-SERIES:
This was not a surprise – European rearmament has occurred to appease the demands of US President Donald Trump.
Trump set the hares racing when he suggested that he would drop military support to Ukraine and walk away from Nato if other members failed to meet their spending requirements.
To hammer the point home in signature style, Trump summoned Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the White House for a live dressing down in front of the whole world, followed by the suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing. His message: You are nothing to us.
In the rush to placate Trump, the target of spending 2% of GDP on defence jumped to an ambition to spend 5% on defence and related industries by 2035.
This story was told in the context of the threat posed by Russia, which has been unable to conquer a country less than a third of its size in a more than three-year-long war. Realistically, the prospect of the US deserting Nato and perhaps wielding its economic might in the form of tariffs focused minds more than the risk of immediate war with Vladimir Putin (below).
(Image: Vyacheslav Prokofyev) Handily, it also seems it will further cement America's position as the world's largest arms exporter. Between 2015 and 2019, the USA accounted for 35% share of global arms exports; between 2020 to 2024, that shot up to 43%.
With Trump's tariffs throwing world trade into a period of dizzying uncertainty, it seems he at least had a plan to keep the world buying American-made killing machines, with European Nato members now getting around two-thirds of their weapons from the USA.
In the UK, Starmer wanted to paint his defence review as hand in hand with industrial regeneration. We are supposed to believe that to save industry, and create jobs, we must pivot skills and apprentices into industries that make machines for mass killing.
We are supposed to envision family-owned bomb factories boosting the economy with fat order books, but the reality is that arms companies are already raking it in. The supposed industrial renaissance was unable to save the Grangemouth oil refinery or several other manufacturers that have folded since Labour came to power.
They say one thing while doing another. Foreign Secretary David Lammy claimed that the UK is not sending weapons to Israel which could be used in Gaza.
But they are. They continue to export F-35 parts, and they have been documented as being used by Israel in Gaza.
It's complicity in a genocide, but ministers repeat the lie – the UK is not supplying arms to Israel.
Still, BAE System's profit margins are looking healthy.
In Scotland, the SNP have found themselves in a bit of a pickle over defence, with a policy split emerging between those who support the current policy not to invest public money in arms, while others suggest it should be embraced.
READ MORE: Labour defence spending 'one of most inefficient ways' to create jobs
The party has not attacked in principle the 5% Nato target, only the means of getting there.
Too much is being spent on nuclear weapons, they have complained. It mustn't be funded by cuts to international development or by raiding the welfare budget, they have demanded.
But the positive case is not forthcoming. In a recent interview, the party's international affairs spokesperson, Stephen Gethins, suggested the money could come from re-joining the European Union.
At the Holyrood level, First Minister John Swinney has sought to keep a low profile – in contrast with the combative tone Humza Yousaf took on [[Gaza]], Nicola Sturgeon whipping MPs to vote against bombing Syria or even Alex Salmond's criticism of the 'unpardonable folly' of the Nato bombing of Serbia.
(Image: PA) This is evidenced in the disastrous episode where Swinney sanctioned a meeting between his External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson and Israeli deputy ambassador Daniela Grudsky Ekstein.
We saw it too in his calls for 'de-escalation' when America bombed Iran while failing to condemn Trump for doing so.
It's a far cry from the 'bombs not bairns' slogan which captured hearts and minds during the independence referendum. It's clear the SNP has not emerged unscathed from the vicissitudes of a rapidly changing world.
But let's be clear – defence is a reserved matter. The Labour Government would rather accuse the SNP of playing 'student politics' over its policy stance, being dismissive rather than engaging with any substance.
As we revealed, those jobs are not guaranteed, and upping defence spending is 'one of the most inefficient ways' to create them.
Meanwhile, a former adviser to the UN Secretary-General said that Starmer's plan will actually make the country more insecure.
It's a deliberate tactic, they want to look strong, to harken back to a time where the UK was a bigger player on the world stage, to claw back voters who may be considering going over to Reform UK. It ties in with Labour's giddy adoption of the Union Flag before it came to power.
They want to create a perception of strength, while funnelling money to arms firms with no morals, and a desire to keep the war machine running in the pursuit of profit.
Never mind the human cost, or higher taxes, that will come as a result. It certainly won't be the jobs boost that has been promised.