UK Strategic Defence Review in a changing world

 The much-trailed UK Strategic Defence Review (SDR) was published yesterday. It was timely for me as I was participating in a European seminar on how Europe should respond to the new strategic situation.

There is a lot of narrative (some have called it a think piece) in the Defence Review, rather than detailed plans. It's undoubtedly a coherent read, probably the best I have read, and for the critics who focus on detail, the hint is in the title - it’s strategic. It will inform further plans.  The commitments include:

·       £1.5bn to build six new factories to enable an "always on" munitions production capacity.

·       Building up to 7,000 long-range weapons, including missiles or drones.

·       A "cyber and electromagnetic command" to boost the military's defensive and offensive capabilities in cyberspace.

·       £1.5bn to 2029 to fund repairs to military housing.

·       £1bn on technology to speed up the delivery of targeting information to soldiers.

 

There was no commitment to significantly increase the number of full-time soldiers, which is sensible given the need to concentrate on meeting the current targets. The same certainly applies to the Royal Navy, which is struggling to staff the surface fleet. Improvements in pay and conditions, as well as the investment in service housing, are crucial to meeting those targets.

 Unlike previous defence reviews, there was less emphasis on shiny new equipment. Even the headlines, such as the latest attack submarines, are primarily about replacing existing weapon systems. However, there are still some tough decisions to be made if the UK is to bridge the gap between policy rhetoric and strategic reality. For example, as a recent University of Exeter study asks, “Does an aircraft carrier or a defunct amphibious force with limited air and aviation assets really deter adversaries from acting against the UK or its allies?” Ukraine’s Operation Spider Web has rightly been described as “a defining moment in modern warfare.” One of the big ideas in the SDR, the integrated force with a digital targeting web, is a recognition of the need for change.

 Everyone in Europe has woken up to the need for stockpiles, a problem I highlighted last year and one that dates back to the Cold War. Hopefully, the ‘just in time’ era is finally over. The investment in munitions manufacturing is crucial, as at present, we barely produce as much ammunition annually as Russia fires off in Ukraine each day. Strengthening our industrial base is something I highlighted in a paper on defence procurement for Prospect, which has broadly welcomed the SDR. Britain cannot afford to rely on uncertain supply lines during a war. The section on defence procurement is a move in the right direction, but we need to see what this means in practice in the later plans. The detailed emphasis on skills, workforce planning and people is very welcome.

 There is a bit of spin on the concept of ‘military Keynesianism’. Jobs and other economic spin-offs, not least R&D, are a welcome by-product, but other forms of public spending deliver higher economic multipliers. However, not as egregious as the Scottish Government pulling the plug on a high-tech training and research centre, led by Rolls-Royce, which has rightly been described as industrial sabotage. Or the excitable performance from the Tory Shadow Defence Minister in the Commons, who has forgotten that this review is starting to tidy up the mess they left behind.

The SDR gives a credible and detailed breakdown of the threats facing the UK. There is a welcome shift from the imperial strategy of the Johnson Government. It also reflects a much stronger relationship with our European partners. This was evident in the seminar I participated in, where most countries reported similar policy shifts. However, almost everyone indicated that this is not a massive shift – the proposed changes are relatively modest, relying on Russia’s need to rebuild after the Ukraine war. For example, the spending commitments in the UK and Europe are not huge and are spread out over many years. In the UK, 20% of the MoD budget is spent on Defence Nuclear Enterprise, which, whatever position you take on those weapons, is a big chunk out of conventional capacity. Even the much-vaunted German policy is not quite as substantial as the spin. Current and immediate funding plans won’t do much more than paper over the cracks caused by 30 years of underinvestment. Lord Dannatt’s comment may be a little harsh, but he has a point.

 There was a concern at my seminar, particularly from countries in Eastern Europe, that this may be misguided. The Russian economy has been militarised to an extent that is not fully appreciated in the West. If a peace deal is agreed, then they would be in a position to attack the Baltic states reasonably quickly. Putin, like Netanyahu, is in a political cycle that almost requires continuous war. The PM is also doing his best to ‘strengthen our bridge to the US’. However, there are few people in Europe at present who regard the USA as a reliable partner, at least while Trump is in office. The PM’s ‘sovereign warhead programme’ may be a tacit recognition of that reality, along with new delivery options. The SDR is typically vague on these issues for the usual reasons, but it ducks the issue of just how independent our nuclear deterrent is.

The Prime Minister claimed his defence blueprint would deliver “A battle-ready, armour-clad nation with the strongest alliances, and the most advanced capabilities – equipped for the decades to come.” I’m not convinced that the UK, or our European allies, are at that stage, but there has been a welcome and significant gear shift. 

Defence Review

 The new Labour Secretary of State for Defence has announced a defence review. This is not just a routine action for new governments, but a crucial and urgent step given the changes in threats since the last review. The review, with its broad and unsurprising parameters such as NATO, nuclear deterrent, Ukraine, etc., is of utmost importance. The final report is due in the first half of 2025. 

I was recently asked to prepare a briefing for a European client looking at changes in defence policy across the continent. Most of our allies are also reviewing their defence strategies. The most apparent change in threat level relates to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. July's NATO summit showed the extent to which Russia's recent aggression in Ukraine and its transition to a war economy have completely transformed NATO's focus.

The Defence Review should refocus UK defence policy away from Boris Johnson's 'Global Britain' to Europe and the need to ensure our convention forces have the equipment and the supplies to fight a war in Europe. That doesn't mean abandoning the delivery of the AUKUS partnership with the US and Australia or ignoring the Gulf and the Middle East. However, we need to focus on the immediate threats to UK security. This Chatham House paper is a good assessment of Russia's challenges in upgrading each of the main armed services.

This highlights the need to increase defence spending. The Labour Party's Manifesto committed the Government to “set out the path to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence.” That will be addressed in the Autumn Budget Statement. Given the Chancellor's talk about 'black holes' in the budget, which is unhelpful and inaccurate in my view, immediate progress along this path may be challenging. She has already delayed expensive infrastructure projects - a well-travelled Treasury route to balance the books. The IFS ripped into the previous Government's 'smoke and mirrors' on defence spending. The new Government can expect similar treatment.

Our armed forces' problems have remained the same since my last briefing. Britain's defence spending is inflated by a fifth of the defence budget spent on nuclear weapons. If you take nuclear out of the equation, defence spending is about 1.75% of GDP, around the middle of the European league table. This means that the armed forces need help to keep existing equipment running. Even the Royal Navy, seen as a gainer in recent spending rounds, must decommission ships because it doesn't have enough sailors. The Army is in even bigger trouble. When the Tories came to power in 2010, the British Army was over 100,000-strong. It is now due to fall to 72,500. 

Given the resurgent Russian threat, I found it pertinent to revisit Kenton White's book 'Never Ready: Britain's Armed Forces and NATO's Flexible Response Strategy, 1967-1989'. His use of newly available documents from the archives to show the failure of the flexible strategy is a stark reminder of the importance of learning from history. The concept was compromised by the failure of the Alliance members to provide one of the main legs of the conventional deterrent – sustainability. In particular, the highlighted limited ammunition reserves, a problem recently faced by Ukraine. We should learn the lessons from history on this, as they are crucial for a well-informed and effective strategy.

In an uncertain world, the government cannot afford to be weak on defence or create a glossy strategy that doesn’t address the underlying problems. As the head of the army has warned, we must be ready to fight a war in three years. The Defence Review should be comprehensive, including replacing the weapons sent to Ukraine and reversing Tory cuts, laced with more traditional Labour policies on support for veterans and ending failed outsourcing. I have previously set out how defence procurement should be reformed. My German colleague pointed to how the German government might take a stake in arms-makers and defence projects. This also points to the need for a detailed and comprehensive strategy that addresses all aspects of defence and security, including rebuilding our relationships in Europe.

The considerable uncertainty is the US elections. While the Trump campaign is imploding, there is a long way to go, and the result will likely be tight. Trump has said he is likely to be less supportive of funding for NATO and European security. It is reasonable to conclude that European powers will need to ramp up their investment in security. As Robert Dover puts it, “Trump’s tactics should not be seen as a surprise. They need to be planned for, financed, and procured for. Pretending they are surprising because they are uncomfortable is not a plan.”

The Defence Review claims that it will ensure that Defence is central to the security, economic growth, and prosperity of the United Kingdom. It needs to deliver on that commitment.

Ukraine and the 'Johnson thwarted peace' myth

I was involved in a panel discussion about defence expenditure this week. A trade union activist I greatly respect justified his argument against providing military aid to Ukraine by invoking a Putin-propagated myth. The essence of this conspiracy theory is that Boris Johnson thwarted efforts to achieve a negotiated peace in April 2022. There are few politicians that I have more contempt for than Boris Johnson, so I can understand how anyone can believe such a thing was possible. My surprise was that this myth has not only been debunked in mainstream fact-checks but also in left-wing media sources like Novara Media. The Kremlin and their useful idiots propagate it in a few media sources.

Let’s start by remembering that these events happened after the Russian invasion and the initial discovery of Russian war crimes, including the Bucha massacre. It was also after Russian State media, with the explicit support of the regime, including Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of the Security Council of Russia, published the genocidal statement ‘What Russia Should do with Ukraine’. The author argues that Ukraine's existence is "impossible" as a nation-state, and after the war, forced labour, imprisonment, and the death penalty would be used as punishment. None of this sounds like a country seriously interested in peace.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/21/ukraine-russian-forces-trail-death-bucha

And they weren’t even close, as objective analysts closer to the talks confirmed. While the negotiators agreed upon some broad principles, as anyone with negotiating experience knows, deciding on principles is much easier than agreeing on the details. 

These details included a Russian demand that Ukraine cap its armed forces at 85,000 troops, 342 tanks and 519 artillery pieces, which would be around a 60-70 per cent reduction of Ukraine’s military strength. Ukraine was understandably sceptical about signing away its capacity to defend itself, given that it had just been invaded by Russia weeks beforehand. And given Putin’s track record on keeping agreements, feared this would be a temporary pause to reorganise and launch another, better-prepared invasion. The Russian initial plan was disintegrating at this time, and Putin needed a breather.

The other essential requirement was not NATO membership, which wouldn’t happen, but rather that undefined Western nations would provide security guarantees but with no bases in Ukraine. It was this that Boris Johnson rightly pointed out was unrealistic. Few, if any, European countries would give such a guarantee outside the NATO military alliance. The Russians could sweep across Ukraine and sit on the Moldavian, Hungarian and Polish borders. That would require a massive offensive to dislodge the Russians who would dig in, as they have in eastern Ukraine. There is neither the capacity nor the political will to do that. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of history will grasp that Putin is using the Hitler Czechoslovakia playbook.

In simple terms, no credible deal was on the table, so the only option was to fight on. A decision overwhelmingly supported by Ukrainians in polling after the Bucha massacre. Ukrainians understand this is not a manageable conflict in which you can exchange a bit of land for peace. Putin wants nothing less than the obliteration of Ukraine. They are the frontline against the new fascist menace, and the West should support them and prepare for the worst if they fail. There is a respectful exchange of left-wing positions on the war in the Scottish Left Review.

I fully appreciate the desire for peace and the opposition to less than productive defence spending. I just come from a different left-wing political tradition. The most important influence on my teenage political thought was a former Welsh miner who fought in Spain against fascism. He would have recognised Putin as he did Hitler and understood that appeasement is a strategy doomed to failure. 

Defence in an Independent Scotland

The Scottish Government has published the latest policy paper in its Building a New Scotland series, An Independent Scotland’s Place in the World. This paper sets out its vision for an independent Scotland's foreign, defence, and security policy. If you don’t fancy reading the whole paper, SPICe has done a good job of summarising the key points.

In the defence section defence, the key proposals include:

• Joining NATO and keeping defence spending at 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
• Working with neighbouring members in defence of the North Atlantic and High North region, with a likely focus on the strategically important Greenland–Iceland–UK (GIUK) Gap.
• Provide conventional forces to NATO operations in support of Treaty objectives and participate in joint exercises. However, these would need to be in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
• Scotland’s Joint Forces Headquarters would be based at Faslane. 
• Working with the UK for a transitional period and a timetable for UK forces to gradually draw down their presence in Scotland.
• Nuclear weapons should be removed from Scotland in the safest and most expeditious manner possible following independence.

The media headlines predictably focused on removing nuclear weapons and the impact this might have on joining NATO. The Scottish Government reasonably points out that “only a minority of NATO members host nuclear weapons.” I doubt the so-called British independent deterrent worries Putin much, given that it relies on US missiles and has anyway failed its last two tests. However, the timetable for removing nuclear weapons looks optimistic. NATO partners must cooperate, and there is some evidence that the US, in particular, might veto Scotland's application if we disagreed on a reasonable timetable. NATO is, after all, a nuclear alliance, and even non-nuclear armed states can carry battlefield nuclear weapons. 

While I think NATO would eventually welcome Scotland, the idea that we would be essential to protecting the northern flank is fanciful. NATO can do everything from bases in Norway and Iceland. Scotland would add to that, but it's not vital.

My problem with the paper is more with the conventional defence plans, or the lack of them, and the absence of any costings. The paper ignores the practical challenges Scotland would face when establishing a conventional army, navy and air force. These challenges include:

• I have previously highlighted the absence of any recognition of the defence industry in the First Minister's speech on industrial policy. UK ships and other defence equipment will be built in UK sites (the paper is frankly delusional to argue otherwise), and Scotland cannot provide a similar pipeline of work. There is also the issue of access to sensitive electronic equipment, which is crucial to modern armed forces. Some people, opposed to the defence industry in principle, may not regard the loss of a defence industry as a big loss. However, it certainly will be to the 33,500 workers and their families at a time when the post-Indy Scottish economy will face many other challenges. The defence sector contributes £3.2 billion to the Scottish economy.
• The infrastructure and support contracts that keep defence equipment running are linked to the defence sector. Ships need regular refits, aircraft need specialists to keep them running, and a substantial Ministry of Defence to pull all of this together. Scotland will also need munitions stores and specialists to maintain them.
• Ensuring Scotland retains the skilled personnel required to run modern defence forces. At best, Scotland will inherit a random collection of transferring service personnel rather than a coherent military force. 
• Those gaps would need to be filled by a training programme. That would be a long and complex process with new officer and technical training establishments to be established with none of the economies of scale the UK brings.
• The UK will be unlikely to share intelligence with an independent Scotland. Given the approvals required for the most sensitive equipment and software, it will take many years to build up the necessary systems, if at all.  

None of the above are impossible to deliver, albeit with costly investment. My concern is that there is no evidence from this paper that any serious thought has been given to the detail. As others have pointed out, it reads like “some of the pro-Brexit material at the time of the referendum – trying to reassure people that nothing will really change, all will be well and frankly we’re better off without that lot anyway.”

This paper is a political gloss that has rightly not impressed those who understand the defence sector. If the Scottish Government is serious about defending an independent Scotland, it needs to get serious about planning for it.

Defence and security in an uncertain world

Everyone is suddenly talking about defence. Britain’s Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders, discussed a ‘citizen’s army’. This has sparked nostalgia for National Service in some quarters (which Sanders rejected) and a more serious debate about defence spending in an uncertain world elsewhere. The prospect of a Trump presidency adds fuel to the discussion in Europe.

This week, I participated in a research workshop for a European client, building on a briefing note I wrote for them last year. I also presented on international defence procurement policy based on a paper I wrote for Prospect. I always find these discussions fascinating, as getting the countries' perspectives directly is much more helpful.

Colleagues in Poland, Estonia, Sweden and Finland have a genuine focus on the Russian threat, not to mention Putin’s not-so-little helper in Belarus. Other countries are also focused on what is happening in the Red Sea and Gaza, with the associated military and economic impact. With Pakistan and Iran kicking off as well, the Middle East risks a broader conflict, with ten countries now caught up in the fighting. For the first time, a Turkish colleague joined us, bringing another perspective to the discussion. He was more optimistic that the various players in the Middle East could reach a deal which would get the region back from the brink. Others were more sceptical that the Israeli Government would move on freezing settlements on the West Bank, an essential part of any long-term peace deal.

I pointed out that Britain’s defence spending is inflated by the fifth of the defence budget spent on nuclear weapons. If you take nuclear out of the equation, defence spending is about 1.75% of GDP, around the middle of the European league table. This means that the armed forces are struggling to keep existing equipment running. Even the Royal Navy, seen as a gainer in recent spending rounds, must decommission ships because it doesn’t have enough sailors. The Army is in even bigger trouble. When the Tories came to power in 2010, the British Army was over 100,000-strong. It is now due to fall to 72,500. Chatter about a ‘citizen’s army’ is not going to plug that gap anytime soon, and neither is the much-vaunted technology. As the Economist’s defence editor puts it, ‘Far too often, penny-pinching and short-termism have resulted in Britain buying high-end kit and then economising on the things that make it work properly.’

I was asked what a Labour Government might do – a frankly perilous speculation these days! I am impressed with Labour’s defence team’s approach, which appears to have a good grasp of the issues, including the need for procurement reform. The problem is that Rachel Reeves seems no more likely to challenge the Treasury’s short-termism, given her spending caution. Delaying expensive projects is a well-travelled Treasury route to balance the books. While Labour is comfortably ahead in the polls on most issues, they trail the Tories on defence and security by four points (YouGov poll below), although the gap is narrowing. 

I suspect this reflects a traditional view that Labour is not strong on defence. In an uncertain world, this is something Labour cannot afford to be weak on. If European security worsens later this year, the risk is that voters may put this issue at the top of their list of concerns. James Rose has pitched a package of policy ideas to help Labour seize the agenda on defence that I largely agree with. These include replacing the weapons sent to Ukraine and reversing Tory cuts, laced with more traditional Labour policies on support for veterans and ending failed outsourcing. To this, I would add the proposals in my paper for Prospect on defence procurement, a concern reinforced by the Westminster Defence Committee. This package would also have economic spin-offs and would be welcomed by the defence trade unions.

There is an adage that it is the first responsibility of government in a democratic society to protect and safeguard the lives of its citizens. Labour’s leadership would do well to remember that.

Naval Shipbuilding - UK by Default

I was at the Scottish Parliament’s Cross Party Group on Maritime and Shipbuilding this afternoon to present a report I wrote for Prospect, Design, build and maintain: Effective defence procurement. 

The report describes the current defence procurement regulations and my recommendations for a new approach. This is an explicit UK by default strategy linked to an industrial strategy, with workforce planning and social value at its core. Social Value measures the direct, indirect and induced impact of procurement. Around one-third of defence spending returns to the Treasury, so it makes sense to recognise this in bid evaluation. Procurement should also support public policy considerations, including the real living wage, employment standards, and ending tax dodging. My proposals on this mirrors my work on Scottish procurement legislation, so although defence is reserved, the Scottish Government can lead by example. 

 

Defence spending remains a crucial part of the Scottish economy. The latest data shows jobs have increased by one-third to 33,500 - contributing £3.2bn to the Scottish economy. For Scotland, a big chunk of that investment and employment comes from naval shipbuilding on the Clyde and at Rosyth. Babcock has built a new frigate factory in Rosyth, and BAE Systems is expanding its covered building facility in Govan. 

 

While the frigate programme is a solid work programme, the rest of the National Shipbuilding Strategy is vague regarding timescales and funding. Companies need greater certainty if they are to invest in the necessary facilities, equipment and skills. Potential opportunities are not sufficient. This helpful graphic (from Navy Lookout) takes the plan and highlights the capability gaps towards the end of the decade and into the 2030s. 

Other countries across the world build in greater certainly through local production strategies. The UK has the most open procurement regime in the world. The Royal Navy Fleet Solid Support ships have recently been awarded to a Spanish-led consortium, which benefits from the taxation treatment I recommend in my report. Countries like India, USA, Canada and Türkiye have explicit local procurement strategies. An Australian minister put it even more bluntly, 'We make no apologies for deciding to invest in Australian-built ships, creating Australian jobs and using Australian steel.' They point to research that shows that building ships locally has huge flow-on effects and can help underpin other advanced manufacturing. This graphic explains the security and economic benefits of investing in a domestic defence industry.

Having a shipbuilding strategy is a positive start. However, to make the plan a reality, companies must manage technological developments, the ever-changing political climate, economic uncertainties and a war on the continent of Europe. There are opportunities but plenty of pitfalls. What they need is a more stable procurement framework of the sort that is common worldwide. 

Defence Strategy Refresh

All governments have a defence strategy, which typically outlines the threats and how the government proposes to respond to those threats. The current UK strategy claims to be an integrated review of defence, development and foreign policy. However, it actually has a proliferation of strategies, which as a RUSI paper puts it, ‘the Review depends on too many other ‘strategies’ that have not had the same guiding mind, fall short of the lofty ambition in the capping document and do not connect the Integrated Review’s ends with the requisite ways and means. The suite of strategies is weakened as a result.’

I was recently asked to write a briefing note on the UK defence strategy as part of a Europe-wide analysis of how Western European nations are responding to the Ukraine War. I had looked at some of this in a paper I wrote for Prospect on defence procurement earlier this year. I enjoy working with European colleagues as it gives you a different perspective on domestic policy.

Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, has had to publish a revised strategy today. In fairness, defence reviews can often rapidly become outdated. While the Integrated Review recognised the threat of Russia, it probably couldn’t have anticipated the invasion of Ukraine. This means the downgrading of conventional forces (reducing the Army to 72,500 soldiers) and the emphasis on an ill-defined ‘Global Britain’ looked short-sighted when large-scale fighting occurred in European cities. For political reasons, the review also played down the importance of EU cooperation at a time when the EU is strengthening its security and defence policy. 

We now need a more realistic strategy, returning to the continental strategy the UK had for much of the last century. Military mass is still required on land, sea and air, with digital augmenting the strategy, not replacing it. Even the Royal Navy, which arguably did better than the Army in the last review, is stretched painfully thin with new deployments worldwide. The Ukraine War has demonstrated the continued importance of artillery, and while armoured vehicles will evolve, they are not obsolete. Technology matters, but mass still counts on the battlefield.

The Johnson/Truss era included some fanciful commitments to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. RUSI estimates that 3% would cost an extra £157bn by 2030, the equivalent of raising income tax by 5p. That isn't going to happen, whoever wins the next General Election. There is a welcome commitment to increase spending to 2.5% of GDP. This has cross-party support, although the Shadow Defence Secretary, John Healy, has rightly argued that too much of that extra money is needed to plug a £17 billion black hole in the MoD's budget.

Ben Wallace will be leaving the Cabinet at the next reshuffle, which is a pity as he is one of the more respected ministers in a struggling government. He wanted to be the next NATO Secretary-General, but Britain’s reducing post-Brexit influence was unlikely to deliver that. He has said he will speak out if the 2.5% pledge is not delivered. Meanwhile, he is left to unveil an updated defence strategy with no new money. It was evident from the European workshop I attended that other European countries are increasing their spending. While they may have started from behind the UK, they don't have our fanciful global pretensions. 

So, Wallace is left with robbing Peter to pay Paul, and the much-criticised army cuts will go ahead to ensure there is sufficient cash to replenish stocks depleted by supplies to Ukraine. However, the update does at least appear to recognise that the European stage has changed, and lessons need to be learned from Ukraine—the 'battle-lab' as Wallace puts it. 

The three-front war scenario (Russia, Far East and Africa) comes in for some scathing commentary from Simon Jenkins in today’s Guardian. He argues that none of these scenarios is a plausible threat to national security, ‘They emerge from some vague notion about “Britain’s role in the world”, echoed by Boris Johnson down the mustier corridors of Whitehall.’ He won’t be reassured by today’s paper which says, ‘We need to be able to compete, challenge and contest threats globally.’ 

We should also remember that Defence spending remains a crucial part of the Scottish economy. The latest data shows jobs have increased by one-third to 33,500 - contributing £3.2bn to the Scottish economy. The space sector is a big part of that growth. Much-needed meaningful reform of defence procurement still seems a long way off. Today’s paper feels like a rehash of old rhetoric.

The armed forces play a vital role in protecting and safeguarding the UK. At a time when full-scale war has returned to Europe, and external threats are continually changing, that role has never been more critical. It remains to be seen if today’s refresh provides the means to respond to an uncertain world.

Effective defence procurement

I was in Westminster this week at the launch of a paper on defence procurement I wrote for the Prospect trade union. 

The launch included interesting contributions from the Shadow Minster for Defence Procurement, Chris Evans MP, Andrew Kinniburgh (Made in UK) and Prospect’s Bob King. Chris welcomed the report and stressed the importance of a new approach to procurement based on the mutual respect of all the procurement parties. He pledged that a future Labour Government would prioritise sovereign capacity in defence procurement, recognising the sector's importance to local communities. Andrew focused on the role of SMEs in moving away from the increasing reliance on defence imports. Finally, Bob King emphasised the role of Prospect members in delivering for UK defence.

My report starts by looking at the UK defence strategy, or more accurately; it's far too many strategies. The UK Government has published and recently refreshed an Integrated Review, but in my experience, many strategies can lead to confusion. Particularly when they cover more than one department. In fairness, defence strategies often date quickly, and the war in Ukraine has turned much of the 'Global Britain' rhetoric on its head. We are back to war in Europe with tanks, infantry and artillery.

The chatter about a 3% of GDP defence budget has quickly dissolved thanks to Truss economics. 2.5% is now a target ‘when conditions allow', which is unlikely anytime soon. However, as a new analysis shows, Britain still has the biggest defence budget in Europe at a time when just about everyone outside Africa is spending at Cold War levels. 

The UK defence industry supports around 260,000 mostly quality jobs and is a big exporter. These jobs are spread across the regions and nations of the UK, including Scotland. This has a vital economic spin-off, what the Dunne Report called a 'Prosperity premium'. However, there are challenges, with skill shortages and a shortfall in research and development. A staggering fact is that Amazon spends more on R&D than the worldwide defence industry.

Defence procurement, not just in the UK, needs a better record of delivering outcomes. The recent Public Accounts Committee report is brutal. 13 formal reviews in 35 years tell their own story. But, in fairness, purchasing defence equipment is unlike buying cornflakes and paper clips. Military equipment is developed over a long timescale, during which ministers and even governments come and go, domestic priorities change, and external threat assessments are varied. Larger projects often require international collaboration, which brings additional challenges. The MoD also needs help recruiting and retaining staff with the requisite skills to manage often overcomplicated processes.

I also looked at international procurement practices. There has been a noticeable worldwide shift to local production or offset arrangements. The UK has the most open market, while the EU, NATO and countries like Türkiye and India have explicit strategies to support their defence industries. I explain why they do this and why the UK should follow suit.

The report's core describes the current defence procurement regulations and my recommendations for a new approach. This is an explicit UK by default strategy linked to an industrial strategy, with workforce planning and social value at its core. Social Value measures the direct, indirect and induced impact of procurement. Around one-third of defence spending returns to the Treasury, so it makes no sense to recognise this in bid evaluation. This comes through various taxes and public and private sector pay. Procurement should also support public policy considerations, including the real living wage, employment standards, and ending tax dodging. I propose a mix of regulation and guidance to achieve this. Guidance is more flexible but doesn't necessarily deliver the necessary cultural change.

My report concludes:

“Without a thriving defence industry, the UK puts at risk its freedom to act in defence of the country’s interests at home and abroad. And the armed forces risk losing their technological advantage over actual and potential enemies. Achieving these aims requires a commitment to sustain and strengthen national defence design, manufacturing and support capabilities in a partnership between the MoD and industry. The UK by default.”

The case against Trident replacement

The replacement of the Trident missile system cannot be justified on moral, economic or defence grounds. That's the conclusion of a new report launched in the Scottish Parliament today by the Jimmy Reid Foundation.

The moral and philosophical case against renewal is well understood, even by those who support Trident replacement. Inherently indiscriminate nuclear weapons can never satisfy the just war principles of discrimination and proportionality. 

There is also a defence case against renewal; one increasing supported by former defence chiefs and others who recognise that the massive expenditure on Trident is at the expense of conventional defence. Equipment and resources that are needed to address real threats to our security, rather than a vanity project maintained largely to maintain a seat at the UN Security Council.

Important those these arguments are, the strength of today's report is in making the economic case against Trident renewal. The often vastly inflated claims of job losses are carefully debunked and the report calculates that some 600 civilian jobs are dependent on the existing Trident system at Faslane and Coulport.  The replacement of Trident will cost at least £205bn - a figure that is likely to go up with the weaker pound (as much of the spending goes to foreign companies) and the normal cost drift of defence programmes. That means every Trident job costs £18m.

We also need to recognise the opportunity cost of spending £205bn on other public services. With more than 30,000 devolved public sector jobs lost in Scotland since the crash, these resources would provide many more jobs and services that people really need. It could also boost real manufacturing jobs in the UK, rather than transfers to banks and foreign multinationals.

As trade unions we cannot argue the indefensible, simply because it has job implications. What we have to do is to minimise the impact and negotiate a just transition to other work. It might be argued that this is easy for a union with no members linked to Trident replacement to make. However, there are other policy areas where we have taken just such an approach. For example, we are in favour of public ownership of the gas and electricity sectors, a policy that would result in the loss of sales jobs in the industry done by UNISON members. Our approach is not to defend the obvious waste in the current system, but rather to make the case to transition our members into more useful and more satisfying work.

In this context, the report calls on the Scottish Government to establish a Scottish Defence Diversification Agency, whose main focus would be the planning and resourcing of jobs away from Trident. The report outlines how this could be done and points to case studies from other parts of the world.

Spending staggering sums of public money on a useless weapons system cannot be justified at any time. However, given the current state of the public finances it is beyond indefensible. The strength of this report is that it focuses on the economic case against Trident replacement and offers a just transition for those who may be impacted by non-renewal. Their skills are much needed elsewhere.

The report will be available on the Reid Foundation website

http://reidfoundation.org

Why we should vote to scrap Trident today

Trident is an expensive status symbol that has no military value and drains resources from conventional defence and socially useful investment.

Today, the Scottish Labour conference in Perth will debate the replacement of Trident. Having a debate is in itself a huge achievement. It is due to an imaginative members day initiative by the leadership of Scottish Labour and the support of both trade union and CLP sections in the priorities ballot.

The UNISON Labour Link Scotland delegation will be voting for the motion that opposes the replacement of Trident. Here's why.

Firstly, Nuclear weapons have no military rationale. They do not deter and hugely increase the costs of a miscalculation that would have devastating consequences for the planet. A growing number of senior military figures argue that there is no conceivable threat that nuclear weapons provide effective defence against. Instead, resources should be invested in real threats such as terrorism and cyber warfare. It also means that when we send service men and women into danger they are properly equipped.

Secondly, I understand the concerns of trade unions with members in the industry over the impact on jobs. The trade unions in Scotland have addressed this in the STUC report 'Trident and Jobs'. This detailed analysis makes the case for a Scottish Defence Diversification Agency and draws on experience from around world, that shows this can actually be done.

A proper analysis of the relatively small number of jobs associated with Trident, compared to the cost, shows that skills can be transferred to other defence options that are currently closed down because of Trident's burden on the defence budget. The motion debated today offers strong protection for defence workers.

Thirdly, the escalating cost of Trident, now up to £167bn, means that replacement is simply unaffordable. At a time of austerity these resources could also be better used to secure vital public services. This sum is the equivalent of the total devolved Scottish Budget for five years! Scotland's share would make a significant dent in the financial gap caused by Tory austerity.

There are those who object to nuclear weapons in principle. They make the moral argument that ownership of weapons of mass destruction can never be justified. They also argue that Britain has no right to own such weapons under international law. Important though these arguments are, the campaign against Trident has been boosted by pragmatic opponents who emphasis that Trident is 'militarily useless' and cost escalation makes it unaffordable.

I have heard it argued that it is easy for UNISON to take this position because we don't represent workers who could be employed on the Trident programme. I would respond to that by pointing out that we do have other policy positions that impact on our members jobs. Where we do, such as scrapping the crazy energy market, we develop clear policies to protect the members concerned. That is precisely what the unions who are involved in the defence industry have done over Trident.

There are times, when to retain credibility, trade unions have to accept that they can't defend the indefensible, just because it has an impact on our members. Trident replacement is just such a policy. Spending £167bn on a useless defence system is indefensible and that's why we will vote for the motion to scrap it today.

 

Trident Commission fails Best Value test

The idea that there is, 'more than a negligible chance that the possession of nuclear weapons might play a decisive future role in the defence of the United Kingdom' is justification for spending £billions on the Trident replacement is very weak. No other major public spending decision would be made on this basis.

The Trident Commission has published its report and argues that the UK should retain and deploy a nuclear arsenal for reasons of national security and its responsibilities to Nato. It's overall recommendation is of course no surprise, as it was set up by the British American Security Information Council and it's members have previously expressed their support for nuclear weapons. What is a surprise, is the tenuous justification for replacing Trident.

The three main threats identified in the report are, even by their own analysis, somewhat speculative and how Trident would assist in countering these threat is even less clear. Supporting the NATO alliance is also a weak argument, given recent experience shows that we could make a more effective contribution with stronger conventional forces. As the Commission Chair Des Browne himself has previously written, ‘It has become clearer, for example, that a set of long-term threats has emerged, to which deterrence, nuclear or otherwise, is not applicable: not only climate change, which can be addressed only through coordinated international action, but also cyber-attacks and nuclear terrorism.’

I personally, unlike most CND members, don't start this debate from a position of principled opposition to nuclear weapons. Yes, it's a terrible weapon system, but so are many others and unless you are a pacifist, which I am not, you have to accept that many weapons systems fail on that test.

My test would be, is it an effective weapon system that can be justified on a Best Value test? When public spending is being slashed, defence cannot be exempt from scrutiny. In addition, for every Trident Commission expert, there are many former and existing senior members of the armed forces who argue that Trident is the wrong system and poor value for money. This is particular so when we have sent young men and women into combat zones with inadequate weapons and protection.

It is noticeable that the case for Trident is often predicated on the 'seat at the top diplomatic table' argument. In fact the Commission's membership has a strong diplomatic weighting. That's a very expensive seat and it has been argued that Trident should be funded by the Foreign Office, as it has no useful defence function.

As we are in Scotland weeks before the referendum, this report has a special relevance in the independence debate. My own view is that the section on nuclear weapons is one of the better parts of the White Paper, not least because there is less assertion and more deliverable action. Of course, for those who object to nuclear weapons in principle, shifting them a few miles down the road is of limited comfort. I would argue that Faslane could be relocated in rUK, but relocating the weapons handling facility at Coulport is much more challenging. Credible experts say it is not possible and therefore ejecting nuclear weapons from Scotland would have a knock on effect for the rUK.

There is a jobs argument, although those in favour of Trident have a bad habit of quoting the thousands working in the complex, rather than the few hundred working on Trident. The STUC report is the credible read on this issue. The Scottish Government argues that these will be absorbed into the new naval base. However, Scotland's main naval base ought to be nearest the main threat - that points to an East coast base, not Faslane.

The bottom line for me is that the justification for the replacement of Trident in this report fails the best value test. The main security threats to Scotland and the UK would not be countered by Trident and the huge cost comes at the expense of conventional defence and other vital public services. It needs something, 'more than a negligible chance' that nuclear weapons 'might' play a role, to justify this level of spending.

 

Posted with Blogsy