The Labour Government has announced a £250 million investment in HM Naval Base Clyde, better known as Faslane, as part of its broader defence and security spending plans.
The funding is included in Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ latest spending review, which prioritises national defence amid what she described as a deteriorating global security environment.
“As I said in my Spring Statement, the world is changing before our eyes,” Reeves told MPs. “We are acting on plans to change. Building renewal on foundations of national security, border security and economic security.”
The Chancellor confirmed that defence spending will rise to 2.6% of GDP by April 2027, a figure that includes contributions from the UK’s intelligence agencies.
“That uplift provides funding for my right honourable friend, the Defence Secretary, with £11 billion increased in defence spending. In £600 million uplift for our Security and Intelligence Agencies,” she added. “That investment will deliver not only security but also renewal. In Lincoln, Portsmouth, on the Clyde, investment in Scotland, jobs in Scotland, defence for the United Kingdom, opposed by the Scottish National Party, delivered by this Labour government.”
The investment in Faslane is intended to bolster support infrastructure for the UK’s fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, which form the backbone of the Continuous At-Sea Deterrent.
Defence Secretary John Healey said the funding demonstrates long-term commitment to the UK’s nuclear capability.
“We have an unwavering commitment to our nuclear-powered submarines. The long-term, sustained investment for HMNB Clyde will provide the infrastructure necessary to keep our submarines maintained and at sea — continuing to protect us around the clock,” said Healey.
“This funding, and the continued dedication and skill of the men and women that help build and operate our submarines, will ensure we are able to meet the threats we face, while supporting the Plan for Change and showing how defence is an engine for growth, creating good jobs across Scotland.”
Hopefully Project Euston will now be pushed forward.
this typical labour government is a disgrace already wrong cheques that the nation cannot afford. I bet my hat that all the talk in the SDR won’t make one jot of difference to where we are today.
Agree. They are all words.
someone has had a new dictionary for their birthday
Who would you suggest in their place? The last shambles that slashed everything to the bone and beyond?
“In Lincoln.” Where and what?
Waddington. Digby. Cranwell. Coningsby?
“We are acting on plans to change. Building renewal on foundations of national security, border security and economic security.”
Gordon Brown used to bang on about “change” – political word in vogue again, while he was busy dismantling the military, before the blasted Tories came in and carried on with the job.
Border Security? You must be joking!
well it seems on the comments so far that the tories never did and labour won’t spend more on defence. so who will?
To counter all the negative comments, I will simply say that this is very GOOD NEWS.
In other news, David Lammy is heading for talks about Gibraltars future.
Let’s hope he gets another fantastic deal after the spectacular success in the Indian Ocean.
Apples and pears are different fruit
Thats the spirit.
The make completely different spirits.. Calvados vs poireau
It is muddled but then who ever typed this missed bits out. It’s actually “in Aldermaston and Lincoln, Filton and Portsmouth, the Clyde and Rosyth”, so where is Guz !
But she is actually 100% correct as Digby, Conningsby and Waddington are all in the “City of Lincoln District Council”. Cranwell isn’t it’s in South Kesteven District.
As for Filton it’s Abbey Wood.
Every days a school day
I have a sneaky feeling she will be doing a fairly rapid U turn. That headline 2.6% includes all non direct defence spending such as the money being spent on defence industry and infrastructure.
It isn’t going to impress anyone as it’s no where near the 3.5 + 1.5 NATO want (I reckon it’s 2.0 + 0.6), there is zero chance of France and Germany agreeing to the max, so the Target will be lower.
She has however left herself 2 easy targets by sticking a massive amount of money in affordable housing and HS2 which is £39 and £25 Billion. Neither are going to be spent in the next month or so and if Starmer has to commit to a new NATO target that’s where the plunder is to pay for it all.
Clever Politics by Starmer as it keeps Healey at bay, panders to the left of his party and when push comes to shove it’s a shrug of the shoulders, “we have no choice” and blames Trump, NATO and its the price we pay for getting a better relationship with both the EU and US !
i suggest you all read the new FT article about Aukus : The review to determine whether the US should scrap the project is being led by Elbridge Colby, a top defence department official who previously expressed scepticism about Aukus, according to six people familiar with the matter.
“according to six people familiar with the matter” eh ?
“What a Palava”.
‘2.6% of GDP including intelligence services’. Does anyone know if Intelligence services were included in the numbers for the previous 2.5% commitment? Judging by the SecDef’s stony face during the statement, I suspect creative accounting rather than any more actual money. Please tell me I’m wrong!
I think the Tories under Osbourne (? Happy to be corrected?) included it in the total under the NATO table of expenditure that counts; that was a sleigh of hand of epic proportions.
Looks like the US will ditch AUKUS.
Rather than being negative there is another way to think of this:
NATO and Dumpf are going to be asking 3.%+1.5% – that latter figure is infrastructure and as for Con sleigh of hands – Nuclear power investment and infrastructure investment at Barrow, Rothsyth (Sp), Faslane et al, would have a serious impact on hitting the 1.5% mark, just saying.
I think it is prudent we wait for how the main defence investment will come about because until they reform, don’t laugh, equipment purchases and management of the Defence Estate (see above and think Accommodation of what £7Bn !!!) it may be wasted money, and as Rodders tells us, reactors for subs are long lead items and therefore can be profiled into that increased defence spend.
There may have been some VERY creative management accounting on this one and we actually do make the 5%; and pigs have flown 🙂
(Be happy Daniele!)
😬
I think they could shove all sorts into the 1.5.
Euston. More dry docks. More HAS and bunkers built all over and pork for the building industry, RR, and BAES.
It’s the military expansion that I doubt. They do not believe in it none of them.
These people were trying to get Corbyn in a few years ago.
I’ll buy you a pint with automatic refil… you might become a gent with a pint half full 😉
We’ll hit the 1.5% quite easily, as written earlier, lead long, expensive items like nuclear reactors and bespoke parts would see us getting to 3.5%, so hitting the new target.
The only problem is that there is not enough forces personnel to operate the kit; it’s a disgrace.
The vast majority of Labour MP didn’t want Jeremy Corbyn in.
So they had no power then. Worrying.
The Labour Party Membership/Momentum had primacy.
Young Labour a few years ago was voting against NATO.
In other news Trump has ordered a review of Aukus.