Defence review marks a significant turning point

Defence reviews come along quite regularly, mainly because governments struggle to fit their budgets to their ambitious commitments.The UK tends to spend a bit on a lot of capabilities - at sea, in the air and on land, with an increasing effort in cyberspace.In more than 30 years since the end of the Cold War, various governments have deployed the reduced defence spending dividend on other priorities, from tax cuts to the health service.But this announcement marks a turning point. This spending review looks to be far more significant than any we have seen for decades.For a start, ambitions seem to be getting narrower, focussed on the 'Euro Atlantic' area. That is a change from the last review's tilt towards being a power player in waters around Asia.One of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers is currently flying the flag in that arena, as tensions rise between China and Taiwan.
But this review, led by Lord George Robertson, who has served as a Scottish Labour MP, defence secretary and secretary-general of the NATO alliance, is patching up some big gaps much closer to home.The emphasis is on a shift to combat readiness, which means stepping up preparations for war with an estimate that a Russian attack on NATO could come in two or three years.The emphasis is also on the industrial capacity that lies behind that fighting machine. Because of stop-start funding and buying in batches instead of funding private companies to continue production of weapons systems, Britain lacks the ability to sustain its front line operations.
One of two big lessons to come out of the war in Ukraine is that prolonged battles along a front have not been consigned to 20th century history.Russia has attacked and is willing to sustain vast costs, casualties and economic sanctions, turning over much of its manufacturing to the war effort and assuming that Ukraine and its allies will run out weapons or patience before the Kremlin does.The other big lesson points in the opposite direction to old forms of warfare and to new forms of fighting - in particular drones.After the first year or so in the battle over Ukraine, new tactics emerged in which both sides deployed simple drones to devastating effect.It has not been enough to procure them - the next stage is the technological battle to jam them and to overcome that jamming.Ukraine and Russia have reminded us that war drives innovation at a rapid pace.So in preparing for war, the UK's forces need to understand how to use and deter drones, but also how to change tactics and innovate quickly.Some of these lessons are getting a response from the UK Government. It needs to have an 'always-on' industrial capacity for backing up munitions and energetics - the propellants and explosives that go into them.
Perhaps the most important response in the review in the Scottish context is the promise for more attack submarines, which will be nuclear-powered but conventionally armed, to replace the seven current Astute class subs "from the late 2030s".That's on top of the commitment to replace the four Trident missile armed Vanguard fleet with the new Dreadnaught class subs.That could bring more activity to the Clyde, where all the Royal Navy's subs are based.More conventional long-range missiles bring a deterrent far short of nuclear attack and support 800 jobs.The prime minister, defence secretary and Scotland secretary are all emphasising the impact this could have on jobs, the economy and growth, promising tens of thousands of jobs and apprenticeships.Meanwhile, the use of such missiles by an adversary raises questions about the UK's very limited anti-missile defences.Better quality Ministry of Defence housing won't improve fighting capability directly but it helps with recruitment and retention of those in uniform, which is a significant problem in a tight labour market.Lord Robertson's review can be expected to cover much more than the issues so far fed to us by the government, to get the headlines it wants.There are awkward issues around the amount of money that will be required to step up to battle readiness.The plan is for 2.5% of annual national output soon, and 3% by 2034, but that's a long wait and is unlikely to meet expectations.
There are also undiplomatic questions to be asked about the role of the USA as an ally.Can America be relied upon to continue holding a nuclear defence umbrella over Europe? Without it, the UK and France - the other two Nato nuclear powers - would have to step up and fill that vacuum.We're told that a lot of effort and spending is going into stepping up Britain's warhead-making capacity, at Aldermaston in Berkshire.It is not yet clear if this is because the US can no longer be trusted to supply the weapons.It may be that this is because there seem to be moves to deploy nuclear missiles on Royal Air Force aircraft, in addition to Royal Navy subs.Either way, there are controversies there for the Labour government. Its own side includes strong opposition to nuclear weapons, notably in the Scottish party.The SNP has been consistent in its opposition to nuclear weapons, and that has been repeated by John Swinney. The first minister would prefer to spend more on conventional weapons and see a relaxation of spending constraints at the treasury in order to avoid collateral damage to other public spending.The military threat is putting even more pressure on the chancellor to find ways of softening that hard ceiling on borrowing, and to do so in the looming spending review.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

BBC News

17 minutes ago

• BBC News

Housing bill "catastrophic for wildlife"

A new bill which the government says aims to speed up housebuilding has been described as "catastrophic for wildlife" by a nature Wildlife Trust's chief executive Nick Bruce-White has said it will give developers an open door to pay "cash to trash" the environment. Labour says it wants to build 1.5 million homes during this parliament and 150 large infrastructure projects. The government says the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill will deliver a "win-win" for the economy and nature by ensuring builders can meet their environmental obligations faster. Devon Wildlife Trust has said it wants part three of the bill, entitled Nature Restoration Fund, Bruce-White said it would be "catastrophic for wildlife by effectively giving developers licence to trash wildlife habitats". He said it "represents one of the most significant threats to nature that we've faced in decades"."We've worked really hard with government to try and make sure environmental protections are kept within the planning system, so we can both grow the economy and restore nature at the same time. "All our work behind closed doors has been met with platitudes and false reassurances and we feel like we are being completely ignored," he added. 'Environmental improvements' The government says the Nature Restoration Fund "will ensure there is a win-win for both the economy and nature by ensuring builders can meet their environmental obligations faster.""These changes will remove time intensive and costly processes, with payments into the fund allowing building to proceed while wider action is taken to secure the environmental improvements we need."At the bill's third reading, the Minister for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook said: "To those who believe this government might buckle and scrap part three of the bill entirely, I simply say, "You have underestimated the resolve of this government and this minister." "The case for moving to a more strategic approach that will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, is compelling." Devon Wildlife Trust says often great crested newts and bats are blamed for delaying planning developments, but its own research shows they represent just 3% of planning application appeals. The charity says sensitive and protected nature sites could be at high risk of damage or destruction under the new planning framework, with species like curlews, water voles, and the High Brown Fritillary butterfly at risk. Members of the House of Lords will now debate the bill.

Daily Mirror

27 minutes ago

• Daily Mirror

Prince Harry's one major wish as he 'regrets royal rift' after fall out

A royal expert says Prince Harry 'wishes he'd done things differently' as his strained relationships with Prince William and King Charles show little sign of improving Prince Harry recently revealed he "would love a reconciliation" with his UK-based royal relatives, but a royal expert says despite him likely having regrets, it's not looking likely any time soon. The younger royal brother spoke out after losing his High Court battle over state security for his family while in the UK, and said his father, King Charles, "won't speak to me because of this security stuff". Former royal editor Duncan Larcombe, tells the Mirror that he has no doubt Harry wishes "he'd done thing differently", as his with Prince William and the King appear a very long way from being resolved. ‌ ‌ "Harry is a sensitive soul and always wore his heart on his sleeve, so whether he'd admit it publicly or not, I'm sure he's full of regrets and wishes he'd done things differently,' says Duncan, author of Prince Harry: The Inside Story. Duncan continues, "With Trooping the Colour and Father's Day falling on the same weekend, it was bound to make him look back at the happy relationships he once had with his brother and dad, and I'm sure he'd love to be able to rebuild those." Last month, Harry lost his bid to overturn the decision to deny him and Meghan Markle, and their children, state-funded, high level security provided for senior royals while in the UK. As a result, he said he 'couldn't see a world ' in which he would be able to bring Meghan and the children back to his homeland, where he and William grew up. 'By saying he can't bring them here because of the court ruling, Harry has nailed his colours to the mast,' says Duncan. ‌ "Meghan is probably quite reluctant to come to the UK anyway because they'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to realise just how much criticism they've had for their betrayals and truth bombs. But more importantly, there are real and genuine threats.' Duncan says the threats are most likely from "lunatics and radical protestors" who might want to make a name for themselves. And the threat naturally extends to Harry and Meghan children, Archie, six, and Lilibet, four, which makes any trip to the UK incredibly difficult without state-level security, he adds. "At big royal events, the security you actually see is the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of undercover officers and agents working, too,' he says. 'Without the official support and security, Harry and Meghan are left with two or three bodyguards who are pretty blind to what the potential threats are."

Telegraph

34 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Labour's obsession with equality will make us all poorer

We've all had that thought: 'Why is that lazy b------ paid more than me? He seems to spend most of his day browsing Amazon and eBay, then dashes home at the earliest possible moment while I toil on way beyond my contracted hours.' Perhaps even more aggravating than the general feeling that one is not being justly remunerated for one's labour is the feeling that someone else is undeservedly being more richly rewarded. These petty resentments may become much worse under proposals that Labour is considering. Taking a break from wrecking our schools and taxing aspirational parents, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, wearing her other hat as Minister for Women and Equalities, is directing the Office for Equality and Opportunity to come up with plans to tackle pay discrimination. These could include forcing employers to tell their workers how much their colleagues earn. Pay transparency, or so the argument goes, is the elixir to eliminate unfairness in the workplace. The reality is likely to be rather different. Equal pay for equal work may indeed be a worthy cause, but who is to judge what endeavours are equivalent? Basing pay simply on seniority does not acknowledge the different contributions different employees make. In recent decades, the trend has been in the opposite direction. We have been steadily eroding pay transparency in a raft of professions. While the armed forces, the police and to a lesser extent, the civil service, may still have fairly rigid pay grades, they have been eroded in academia and school teaching. Both still have pay spines which apply broadly, but as people are promoted, this becomes much less true. Academy schools, whose freedoms Phillipson is fast eroding, have much more flexibility as to how to reward exceptional staff – professorial pay is now largely a matter of negotiation. Pay differentials in both teaching and academia have vastly increased as a result. This is not happening due to education providers being malignly unfair, but rather because they feel it necessary to attract and retain the best. With Labour's obsession with equality, Phillipson may well believe it is her duty to ensure fairness in the workplace. But greater transparency is likely to have unintended consequences. In thousands of whispered conversations, complaining about what colleagues are paid is a quintessential British, indeed probably global, office pursuit. Nothing is less conducive to office harmony – and indeed less motivating – than someone's undeserved annual salary leaking out. If so-and-so is receiving X, why am I only getting Y? These plans would institutionalise these exasperations and amplify them to previously unknown levels. The UK is facing a productivity crisis, and it is hard to think of anything better designed to worsen it. It would make workplaces across Britain less contented, more antagonistic environments. Pay transparency would also represent a massive and unprecedented invasion of privacy. In certain jobs, especially those paid from taxpayers' money, it is absolutely right that salaries are made public. It is appropriate that we all know that MPs are on £93,904, a London police sergeant receives between £51,408 and £53,943, or that a lieutenant colonel is paid between £92,520 and £106,955. It is also right that charities need to declare how many of their staff receive over £60,000, and that they have to give pay bands for higher-paid employees, or that floated companies need to declare directors' pay. Donors and shareholders should have access to this information. In all these instances, those applying for these roles are fully aware that their pay will be a matter of public record. But this is not the case with the vast majority of jobs. Our fairness commissars would in fact be bringing into life myriad new unfairnesses. Those of us who have entered into a role on the basis that only ourselves, our employer and HMRC are entitled to know our remuneration, would have that understanding ripped up by diktat. Greater transparency in pay is more likely not to result in a pay bonanza, but rather for employers to be more reluctant to offer raises, in case others then also demand a similar increase. There is a more profound flaw in the demands for openness. They assume that fairness is something that is achievable or indeed desirable. But it is in fact a hollow myth. Is it fair that the median pay of a FTSE 100 chief executive (their pay is of course already public) is 113 times that of UK median pay? Almost certainly not. But then very little is fair. It is not fair that some people are much more intelligent than others; nor is it fair that some are beautiful and others are the opposite; nor is it fair that some are born into carefree luxury and others into abject, miserable poverty. But the cure for solving these unfairnesses – an overbearing state that intrudes into every aspect of our lives – would be a dystopian nightmare. Fairness may be the promised land, but we will never reach it. Let us give up on this chimera and carry on with our lives. We might all end up happier.