Scotland’s Secretary of State has welcomed the King’s Speech, pointing to defence investment and energy security as central to the legislative programme’s relevance for Scotland.

Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for Scotland, said Scotland was “at the very heart” of the government’s drive on energy security, arguing that accelerating the transition to clean, home-grown energy would “protect families from the volatility of global oil and gas prices, and build the energy security our country needs.”

On defence, Alexander was direct about the stakes. “The world we live in is more dangerous and more volatile than at any point in our lifetime,” he said, adding that Scotland’s contribution to national security “through our defence industries, our bases, and our service personnel… has never been more important. We will invest in that security to ensure Britain can stand strong alongside our allies.”

The Scottish Secretary described the broader programme as a long-term undertaking rather than a short-term fix, describing an “unrelenting focus on economic growth, removing the barriers that have held back businesses and workers, and delivering an industrial strategy that creates well-paid jobs and gives young Scots the opportunities they deserve.”

“This is not a quick fix,” Alexander said. “It is a long-term plan to spread opportunity, rebuild public services, and ensure that every family — whether in Glasgow, Inverness or anywhere across the UK — can look to the future with confidence.”

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
X

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

49 COMMENTS

  1. Words, just words, lets see action, governments are good at warm fussy words. Not so which action or orders. Lets hope this will the start of a change for such in action.

    • Totally agree

      Platitudes
      Publish the DIP

      “Oh sorry just can’t do it say the Treasury we have to pay back soverign debt which is twice as big per year £100bn as the Defence budget £50ish bn per year and we have other priorities”
      Our debt is rocketing under Labour which leaves us not able to pay for anything extra and their budget for growth was the opposite

      Out of control welfare not mentioned in the King’s Speech which needs addressing
      Also be honest what about the cost of an exta 10+ million new citizens and their assimilation

      Sorry everyone but please could the Govt get their priorities right
      Honesty about what we face would help

      • Government is not interested in defence apart from sound bites and grand statements, why, because we have no money as a nation we are skint even with all the tax increases.
        You can not spend on defence when yoh have an ever increasing welfare bill that no one wants to tackle.

        • How much would we get from the benefits to put in to defence? I’ve heard lots talking about it usually the right coming out with things so how much would defence benefit or is it an unknown.

          • It’s an unknown, not so much cut welfare as slow it down its gone up by £20 billion under Labour. Not right wing to say control it its simply sucking money from a lot of things and just adding more taxes is not the answer.
            Defence is always good for government to talk about, blame the last lot but its most a paper work exercise saying its going up. Once factor in inflation and all the things added to what defence now covers its no rise at all.

            • I do agree about how much is being spent but they need to give young peeps better ways to get out of it and there needs to be real things done about everyone being nervous about anything going once we sort out some things the welfare bill should come down drastically, I know people on it who worked all their lives but can’t seem to get jobs the now for some reason or another.

              • High NI costs. Higher taxes. More green taxes, green leevies no one seems to be taking people on. Highest business energy costs in the world all stalling the job market. Taxing people do they are skint to pay others to do nothing can not be sustainable. How ever its all the current government knows. What the answer to it all is beyond me but carrying on as is is not the way

                • I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
                  following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> J­o­b­a­t­Ho­m­e­1.C­o­m

          • Yeah but you need to go back over 20 years, the way it was being put out makes it look like it’s not long happened with migration so two very different ways to see it, the wording “new citizens” should show the way.

        • Cj
          Not a fan of Trump (I don’t like playground bullies) but he had a point on defence spending A lot of European countries freeloading at the the US’s expense notably the Germans but this has changed and they are rapidly ramping up investment in defence

          We need good immigration but not open borders
          Over the last couple of decades under all parties in power have not controlled this and don’t seem capable of doing so
          The UK population when I left school in 1970 was 56m and only went up slowly and was 58.5m in 2000
          Since then has accelerated to 70m (that’s new and unsustainable)

          • To be honest illegal migration is only going to get worse the way things are going, personally I think every four boats that come here have a plane waiting to take them away, mind we didn’t have all this shit before Brexit they used to try coming in the back of lorries so it’s farage and Cameron that fucked up to be fair, absolutely agree with trump getting us all to go 5% only thing I’d change is 4% on defence and 1% on infrastructure if that would be enough, I’m waiting to see if farage supporters end up like trump supporters where the guy can do no wrong if we go there were fucked.

      • Smickers.
        Total National Debt / Public sector net debt stands at £2,911 billion …that’s £2.9 trillion.

        A professional economist would suggest that the Conservative Party bears the primary administrative responsibility for the debt accumulated between 2010 and 2024. However, the Labour Party’s management of the 2008 crisis established the high baseline from which the Conservatives started. Economists from the Institute for Fiscal Studies note that while “events” aka Pandemic/Ukraine caused the largest spikes, political choices, such as the Conservative decision to pursue Brexit and the subsequent impact on trade, and Labour’s recent shift in fiscal definitions, have both influenced the UK’s long-term ability to pay the debt down.

        The Conservative Party, initially in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, entered government in May 2010 with the specific goal of eliminating the deficit. At that time, public sector net debt stood at approximately £1,000bn. By the time they left office in July 2024, that figure had risen to approximately £2,700bn.

        This high cost is driven by the fact that roughly 25% of UK gilts are index-linked, meaning payments rise automatically with inflation. This creates a priority trap where the Treasury MUST pay bondholders before it can allocate extra funds to the Ministry of Defence or infrastructure.

        Labour inherited a public sector net debt of 99.5% of GDP in July 2024.

        The current statistics as of March 2026, shows that debt has remained high but has not “rocketed” in a vertical sense; it has largely plateaued as inflation has cooled, reducing the cost of those index-linked gilts. However, the 2025 Budget did include an additional £14.4bn in borrowing for capital investment, which Labour argues is for “growth” but critics view as further fiscal risk.

        “…Also be honest what about the cost of an exta 10+ million new citizens and their assimilation”

        BE HONEST!!! what a bare faced liar you are! Are you stating that since 2024 10+ million new citizens have arrived under labour? that seems to be your accusation.

        Your claim of 10 million new citizens under Labour is factually incorrect when applied to their 1997-2010 term, where the net increase was closer to 2.2 million. However, the UK has experienced a broader demographic transformation over the last 25 years, with over 5 million net arrivals occurring during the Conservative years (2010-2024) alone. The current 2024-2026 Labour administration is actually overseeing a period of rapid contraction in migration figures. Net migration has fallen from nearly one million per year to approximately 200,000 in early 2026, driven by tighter rules on dependants and higher salary thresholds. The focus of the current government has shifted from “mass arrival” to “managed integration,” evidenced by the move towards temporary status and more rigorous language requirements for those seeking to remain in the UK.
        —

        I see a Streeting/Jones PM/Treasury combo as a UK defence power house, we know they want to spend £$£ on defence and we know that Streeting wants to take a razor to the NHS. I would assume that Pollard would remain where he is, Healey is heavily tied to the Kraken package as he’s the architect of the UK’s maritime intervention in the Middle East. If a transition occurs, Healey’s survival is probable only if Streeting decides that the risk of changing Defence Secretaries during an active multinational mission … the Strait of Hormuz operation is too high to upset.

        • Your point is well made. All three major parties have been complicit in the ‘Blair’s Britain’ (and now clearly discredited) consensus.

          550,000 + civil servants now do the same jobs accomplished by 380,000 as recently as 2019.

          Systemic reform is required if we are to make the required enhancements to the defence of this realm.

  2. Yes, all important. But not a word on any extra assets for the military then in said speech.
    Nor any mention of an incoming DIP. Was there even any direct reference to Defence at all in it?
    Nor anything of substance at all to remedy the self inflicted harm HMG have repeatedly inflicted on the armed forces since 1997.
    Same old.

    • It was being trailed that DIP would be out next week as STARMITE’s relaunch but I can see him dithering in the face of trying to get consensus.

      I’ll be interested to see what Gordon Brown actually does. He is the one person who could actually talk about social justice and welfare cuts at the same time without sounding like a hypocrite.

      That said, GB will favour an off balance sheet ploy.

      • I suspect GB coming in will show a focus on shipbuilding.. he’s probably going to be in favour of new ship orders over fancy pie in the sky tec development.

      • You could be right he had the 2 carriers built in his political back yard
        Another 3 to 5 Type 31’s would be welcome

        • And would be genuinely defensively as well as industrially useful.

          The main thing is to keep the Gold Platers and Good Ideas Club well away from specifying them.

          • When you mentioned Gold in your reply it bought back a memory of Brown selling 395 tones gold reserves off at rock bottom price of $275/oz and was derided as Brown Bottom
            He/we got $3.5bn now over $4,000/oz or over $50bn
            Politicians!!!!
            Would have been good for how many frigates GB in your back yard!

      • Jonathan, The aim of the King’s Speech is to outline the legislation HMG intends to introduce in the coming session. In that regard, it was vey helpful.

    • Daniele.
      Treasury won the argument.

      The only defence spending mentioned was Cyber the Security and Resilience Bill, which aims to protect critical infrastructure like data centres, the speech introduced significant measures to tackle foreign state interference and modernise the military’s legal framework. Key announcements included the Tackling State Threats Bill (Very Controversial), the National Security Bill (responding specifically to the Southport attacks), and a statutory reinforcement of the Armed Forces Covenant.
      The Armed Forces Bill legislation is designed to strengthen the domestic “social contract” with the military.
      the Statutory Covenant will for the first time, establish the Armed Forces Covenant in full statute. This means that local authorities and healthcare providers will have a legal, rather than just moral, duty to ensure veterans and service families face no disadvantage. The Bill also includes reforms to the military justice system to improve the handling of serious offences within the ranks, a move aimed at improving retention and morale during the current recruitment crisis.

      As I said Treasury; Reeves won the spending argument, no spending on big metal things.

  3. Ah Scotland.
    That Bit at the top with all the Midges and Iffy Ferry makers.
    Smaller than Iceland but just as Hostile.
    Still smarting after the “Rough Wooing”
    Where all the leaders are named after Fish.

    And what’s with those skirts ?

  4. How about get off your ass and start spending real money on defence I would even go the way of temporary suspending or reducing foreign
    aid till we get defence sorted .

  5. Sounds like Krankie, then all the SNP sound like Salmond or her. Scotland, the land the Emperor decided was too insignificant to include as Roman. Never forget, that place without English taxpayers money would be bankrupt in a day.

  7. ‘accelerating the transition to clean, home-grown energy would “protect families from the volatility of global oil and gas prices, and build the energy security our country needs’

    Complete and utter nonsense.

    ‘In the period 2002 to the present, the total cost to the electricity consumer of those renewable electricity subsidy schemes that we can quantify has amounted to approximately £220 billion (in 2024 prices), equivalent to nearly £8,000 per household.

    The annual subsidy cost is currently £25.8 billion a year, a sum equivalent to nearly fifty per cent of UK annual spending on defence.

    Subsidy to renewable electricity generators now comprises about 40% of the total cost of electricity supply in the United Kingdom.

    The total subsidy cost per unit of renewable electricity generated has risen by nearly 50% in real terms since 2005 and now stands at approximately £200/MWh. This contradicts government and industry claims that renewables are becoming cheaper but is consistent with expectations from the physics of energy flows, the empirical study of the capital and operating costs of both wind and solar, and the grid expansion and reinforcement and system management costs known to be imposed by renewables.’

    Net zero is a major part of the cost of living crisis in Britain. It is also a major recipient of scarce government funding, making any now vital increase in defence expenditure impossible. The whole idea of ‘net zero’ is based on flawed climate modelling incapable of recreating even the recorded climate of the last few years. The very latest research makes it clear that today’s climate variability is entirely consistent with ice core and tree ring records of previous centuries, millenia.

    It is long since time to junk voodoo science based on ‘Mystic Meg’ models and get real; take a serious look at the solid evidence now available and redirect resources from the frankly idiotic pursuit of net zero towards defence of the realm, supposedly the first duty of government.

    • Because of a shortage of domestic generation, we currently import 15% of our electricity from France.

      An increase in renewables generation can replace that 15% only intermittently. Battery storage facilities are a serious fire risk and create significant ecological problems both in the developing world and from domestic recycling, as do wind turbines, solar units

      How is that consistent with environmental and energy security?

      Would someone please stop this complete and total lunacy.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here