There is an alternative to massive defence spending

The Herald Scotland

2 days ago

The SDR implies that bolstering the UK's nuclear capabilities will bring job growth and prosperity to Scotland, including through investment at Faslane. Yet history tells us otherwise. Defence jobs are precarious, vulnerable to political shifts and budgetary overruns. The delayed Astute-class submarine fleet is a case in point: its costs rose from £4.3bn to over £11bn. Analysis for the Scottish Government showed military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of any public investment. For every pound spent, sectors like care, education and renewable energy produce far more and better-quality employment. At the same time, excess government defence spending comes at the cost of other these other socially necessary jobs.
There are also ongoing safety issues and radioactive air emissions at Coulport, located 8 miles from Faslane, continue to rise. But this militarised approach has even wider environmental impacts. The climate, pollution, resource and biodiversity impacts of defence production and military activity is ignored in the SDR and NATO approaches. A 2020 report by Scientists for Global Responsibility and Declassified UK found that the UK military-industrial sector emits more carbon than 60 entire countries. The Ministry of Defence has acknowledged its carbon footprint but proposed solutions – such as biofuels or nuclear – offer limited gains and potentially new environmental harms.
While the world grapples with rising temperatures, investing billions into weapons systems that drive emissions is not only short-sighted – it is dangerous.
There is no evidence that increasing military spending reduces the likelihood of conflict. In fact, a review on this question indicates that greater defence spending tends to increase the likelihood of conflict. The authors conclude, where tensions already exist, 'arms are not an effective deterrent but rather spark conflict escalation'. The UK already spends more on defence than almost every other country in the world. Just the US and four other countries exceed our amount of spending. More defence spending will not make us any more secure and will, likely, increase our vulnerability to attack.
Read more
The Alternative Defence Review argues for a fundamentally different approach, based on two key principles: human security and common security.
Human security means protecting people from poverty, illness, climate disasters, and systemic inequality and ensuring decent housing, education and infrastructure. Clean air, good jobs, reliable transport, and mental health services are all foundational to a safe society. Common security, meanwhile, recognises that no nation can truly be safe while others suffer.
Security cannot come at someone else's expense. Cutting the aid budget, disability benefits and publics services in order to increase defence spending will bring about misery, deaths and social instability. We are repeating the same mistakes that brought us to the current crisis – with climate breakdown, the cost of living, and public service collapse threatening the fabric of society.
Students at the University of Glasgow have called for divestment from arms-linked investments and continue to campaign for ethical funding in higher education. Their efforts reflect growing public concern that Scottish public funds are quietly underwriting militarism.
Amnesty International recently accused the Scottish Government of 'turning a blind eye' to the role of state support in enabling arms manufacturers to export to Israel – despite calls for an arms embargo amid the Gaza conflict. Freedom of Information requests revealed that Scottish Enterprise had provided hundreds of thousands of pounds to defence firms with known export licences to Israel, including Leonardo, BAE Systems and Raytheon. Though the Government insists this support is for training or innovation – not weapons manufacturing – critics point out that it remains part of the same supply chain. Students, Amnesty and peace campaigners are demanding consistency between Scotland's values and where its money flows.
The overseas aid budget was cut to help finance increased defence spending (Image: PA)
The ADR envisions a Just Transition for defence workers and communities who currently depend on defence contracts. By shifting investment into housing retrofits, green innovation, renewable energy, care services, infrastructure and climate resilience, we can build real security – social, economic and environmental – while creating more jobs than defence ever could. Scotland has the resources, skills and research capacity to lead on this. But it must choose to do so, rather than continuing to echo outdated UK defence strategies.
The Strategic Defence Review expects Scotland to fall in line with a broken model – spiralling procurement costs, misaligned values, and a reliance on militarised spending as a tool of economic policy. In contrast, the Alternative Defence Review charts a different course: one rooted in peace, sustainability, and the real needs of communities.
As we face the converging crises of climate breakdown, deepening inequality, and global insecurity, our responses must reflect the scale and nature of these threats. By reading, debating, and implementing the ADR, Scotland has the opportunity to lead the UK in building a new kind of security – one that truly serves its people.
Karen Bell is Professor of Social and Environmental Justice, University of Glasgow