As part of a UK Defence Journal series examining how Scottish public sector organisations support staff with links to the Armed Forces, ScotRail provides an example of how those commitments operate within a national transport operator whose workforce spans roles, depots and regions.
In response to a Freedom of Information request, ScotRail said it currently records two employees who have voluntarily disclosed that they are reservists. The company confirmed that disclosure of Armed Forces status is optional and based on staff choosing to self-identify, rather than a mandatory reporting requirement.
The response forms part of a wider effort to understand how public bodies identify and support members of the Armed Forces Community in practice, and how commitments under the Armed Forces Covenant are reflected across different organisational settings.
ScotRail said it does not hold central records identifying veterans, service leavers, cadet force adult volunteers or family members of serving personnel as distinct workforce categories. As a result, the data it is able to provide relates specifically to reservists who have chosen to disclose their status through internal processes.
Recorded activity and practical support
Although ScotRail does not hold wider central workforce figures, it confirmed that two employees have taken reservist training leave on three occasions over the past three years. The figures offer a snapshot of how military commitments intersect with day-to-day employment when staff require formal support.
The company also released internal guidance covering how reservist call-ups are handled in practice. The documents set out what happens when an employee is mobilised, including how contracts are managed during periods of service and the rights staff have to return to their roles once duty ends, in line with the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985.
Further guidance explains the practical arrangements around pay, pensions and benefits during whole-time service. This includes options for maintaining pension contributions either through Ministry of Defence schemes or through repayment on return, reflecting the additional administrative complexity faced by employees balancing civilian work with military service.
The material released through the FOI suggests ScotRail’s approach is centred on having clear processes in place for when staff need support, even if the organisation does not maintain detailed central records on Armed Forces Community employees. As a large operational employer, much of ScotRail’s workforce management is built around safety-critical roles, shift patterns and service delivery. In that environment, support linked to military service is typically handled through existing HR arrangements and line management, rather than through standalone reporting systems or formal staff networks.
The company confirmed that it does not hold information on employees registered with an Armed Forces Community contact in recent years, indicating that engagement is generally managed through day-to-day people services channels instead. Some personal information contained within the released documents, including names and contact details, was redacted under section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act. The underlying policy guidance was provided in full, however.
Organisational perspective
In a statement to UK Defence Journal, ScotRail pointed to its wider involvement with the Armed Forces community, both internally and through public-facing activity. Paul McKay, ScotRail Communications Director, said: “The railway has a long and proud history of supporting the Armed Forces, with many colleagues being veterans who continue to serve their communities through their work on Scotland’s Railway. Through fundraising for Poppyscotland, travel passes for fundraisers, and providing access to stations for fundraising activity, we are proud to recognise the service and sacrifice of the Armed Forces community.”
The company also highlighted its ongoing support for Armed Forces charities and remembrance activity as part of its broader commitment. ScotRail’s FOI response highlights how support for Armed Forces staff can be structured around policy and practical safeguards rather than comprehensive workforce data.
While the organisation does not maintain a full central picture of Armed Forces Community representation, the existence of clear guidance on reservist mobilisation and training leave provides a framework intended to ensure staff are supported when required. This balance between procedural support and limited central visibility is likely to be common among operational public bodies, where employment systems prioritise continuity of service and statutory compliance.
A case study within the series
This article forms part of Armed Forces at Work in Scotland, a UK Defence Journal reporting series examining how public sector organisations support members of the Armed Forces Community within their workforce. Drawing on Freedom of Information disclosures, internal guidance and organisational comment, the series aims to present a balanced picture of how support operates across different sectors, recognising that organisational context plays a significant role in shaping approach. ScotRail’s response provides a case study of a policy-led model focused on practical protections for reservists, set within the realities of a nationally critical transport operator.
Future articles will explore how other public bodies address similar challenges, including organisations that place greater emphasis on central data collection or staff-led networks. Together, the series seeks to show how different models contribute to supporting the Armed Forces Community across Scotland’s public sector.
Should be a campaign to get companies and professional bodies to voice support for reservists and to enact a reservist service support standard in the whole of the UK….
I was only aware of one Reservist in my region when I was with Network Rail, as a MOM he was no doubt a fine asset for the reservist RLC railway capability.
UKDJ is a fantastic site reporting on defence matters on a P5 member. That the top story is the reservist policies of one of the UKs smallest TOCs shows the total lack of urgency and focus on defence at a time of heightening threats. Where is the DIP? Why wait for a DIP to fill the immediate gaps in GBAD and AirPower? Simply put – like economic growth labour doesn’t do defence.
DIP should be ready in the 2030’s. 🤔😱
The website just orders them by the most recently published (for better or worse), it isn’t a top story as such.
But the complete lack of pre-DIP news has certainly impacted their ability to produce news.
Isn’t it relevant to look at public sector support for reservists?
Isn’t it rather important to start that dialogue if building reserves is to become a thing?
Where is the DIP?
The Defence Investment Plan (DIP) which was intended to be the “roadmap” for how the UK will actually spend its increased 2.5% of GDP budget, is currently stuck in a cycle of “dither and delay.”
While it was originally promised for Summer 2025, and then pushed to “before Christmas 2025,” it is now officially overdue. As of late January 2026, the government is indicating it may not appear until March 2026 at the earliest.
The reasons for this delay are a mix of cold financial reality, internal power struggles, and global political shifts.
The “£28 Billion Black Hole” the most significant reason is a massive funding gap. While the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) set out a bold vision for a “Hybrid Navy” and increased drones, it didn’t include a detailed price tag.
The Gap, analysts and the National Audit Office (NAO) have identified an estimated £28.5 billion shortfall between the ambitions of the SDR and the actual cash available.
The SDR hangover, because the government accepted all 62 recommendations of the SDR without a costing plan, the MoD is now frantically trying to figure out which existing “heavy metal” programs (like older frigates or tanks) must be cut to pay for new tech like the Atlantic NET sensors.
The “Trump Effect” and US Relations. The geopolitical landscape changed significantly in January 2025. The delay is partly a tactical “wait and see” approach regarding the US administration.
Sovereign Capability vs. “Buying American”. There is a fierce internal debate. Downing Street wants the DIP to focus on British jobs (e.g., buying more Typhoons and Leonardo helicopters). However, some military chiefs argue that to appease US demands for NATO members to “upscale,” the UK might need to buy “off-the-shelf” American equipment that is ready now, rather than waiting for UK-developed tech.
Strategic hedging, by delaying the DIP, the UK avoids making firm commitments that might conflict with new US-UK trade or security pressures.
The “Service Model” (COCONO) hesitation, the Atlantic NET programme is a primary victim of this delay. The Treasury is currently “stress-testing” the COCONO (Contractor Owned, Contractor Operated) model.
The accountability trap, while COCONO looks cheaper on paper, the Treasury is worried about long-term “subscription” costs. They are delaying the DIP to negotiate “availability floors” and ensure that if they sign a 10-year deal for a “data stream” from companies like Anduril or BAE, they aren’t locked into a price they can’t afford if the economy dips.
Internal Ministry “Trade-offs”, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, recently admitted to Parliament that “difficult choices” are being made.
The “Steel” vs. “Digital” War, the delay represents a deadlock between traditionalists who want to keep a large fleet of manned ships and reformers who want to pivot to the uncrewed sensor nets like Atlantic Bastion. Until one side wins, the DIP cannot be published.
Current Status as of Jan 2026 the Chairs of the Defence and Public Accounts Committees wrote a joint letter warning that the delay “risks sending damaging signals to adversaries” and creates an “unacceptable gap” in scrutiny.
Industry Impact, unions like Unite are warning that thousands of jobs at sites like Yeovil (Leonardo) and Lancashire (BAE) are in “limbo” because the government hasn’t signed the “call-off” contracts that the DIP would authorise.