In a recent exchange in the House of Commons, Graham Leadbitter, the SNP MP for Moray West, Nairn, and Strathspey, expressed concern over the government’s lack of a clear timeline for meeting the 2.5% of GDP target for defence spending.
Leadbitter criticised the government’s commitment, particularly in light of the current global security situation. “Defence professionals across Whitehall will have their heads in their hands at this Government’s commitment to 2.5% at some point and when fiscal conditions permit,” Leadbitter said.
“To fail to commit on defence investment with the multiple security threats facing us, from the Ukraine war to the Middle East and a plethora of global cyber-threats, is strategically illiterate.”
He continued, highlighting the urgency of the matter. “Those threats will not wait for the Chancellor to get a grip,” Leadbitter argued. “So what urgent steps will the Secretary of State take with the Chancellor to ensure at least the 2.5% promised by the Labour party on defence is spent when the threat assessment demands it, which is now, and not when the Chancellor feels it to be convenient?”
In response, Defence Secretary John Healey acknowledged the concerns raised by Leadbitter but reaffirmed the government’s position. “Mr Speaker, I am going to take what I can from the hon. Gentleman, which is an SNP welcome and an urging for an increase in defence spending,” Healey replied.
“That will happen under a Labour Government. The Scottish workforce, the Scottish military and the Scottish-based military will play an important part in the defence of this country in the future.”
SNP are making a good point. Wish we could smash in a good 5% but that will never happen.
Binning the triple lock would get us that money overnight.
This obsession with an arbitrary target of 2.5% of GDP diverts attention from 2 things.
First, it wouldn’t represent a budget increase large enough to materially expand all our armed forces. To achieve that we would need to spend much more.
Second, it gets in the way of our defining clearly what we absolutely need to do in order to enhance our own defence. Until that is done, there is little point pushing for more money than is required to keep existing assets functioning and contracted new ones delivered on time.,
I agree, that’s why a proper defence review is needed and we need a proper (national) debate about just what we want and need our armed forces and industry to do. Otherwise, we have no clear view of what we’re trying to achieve (and what we need to achieve it). In the absence of this, we just seem to divide our procurement spend by 3 and hope for the best. I was struck by a suggestion I saw elsewhere – of using increased defence spending to drive the development and growth of the UK’s technological and industrial base. This could… Read more »
The last thing we want is a national debate – that will just waste time trying to engage the public in a debate they are simply not interested in. They espect the UK to be defended adequately – nothing more nothing less. What we need is for the military to dictate their needs and priorities and for the chancellor to fund those priorities. All of them.
Unfortunately, a national debate will only happen if the state of our military is widely accepted and understood. It would take a successful attack on our interests to provoke such a situation. I hope that never happens.
I take the points about a ‘national’ debate leading to more delays. However we get there, I just want us all to understand what we actually need defence-wise, something that is service agnostic. Is the ability to launch strikes on faraway countries necessary for our defence? If it is, is it more or less important than being able to defend the UK from direct conventional attacks (or NBC ones for that matter!)? Russia appears a core threat to us. We all know this but in what way are they they a threat to us and what might be do about… Read more »
I agree. The Integrated Review really failed to focus on the main threats we need to counter. As a result the following Defence Command Paper seemed muddled and incomplete. What we have continued to choose is a bit of everything and always in smaller numbers than before. So there is a palpable sense of continuing decline. The only way to stop this is to make hard choices about what we need. Anything outside the core requirement gets deleted to allow the core to expand. Your point about ASW vs land forces in the Baltic is a good one. I fear… Read more »
Guess I’ll have to re-read IR 2023. I do recall it seemed very vague. Counting an IR plus DCP as not so different from an SDR/SDSR, in what it seeks to achieve, it is quite frustrating that this iteration is the 3rd process since 2021. They do consume a lot of time, especially the current one.
Is the ability to launch strikes on faraway countries necessary for our defence? When you say ‘our’ defence it needs a little unpacking. I contend that we might have to launch strikes against faraway countries or to deploy force over distance to confront those faraway countries….or both. We are a NATO nation and NATO’s remit is to provide deterrence across the Euro-Atlantic region and to fight if deterrence fails, ergo we need to be prepared to fight a distantly located opponent, such as Russia – and engage in the near, deep and rear battle. The 9/11 attack led to calling… Read more »
Increased defence spending needs to provide more things that go bang and kill our enemies more effectively than they can kill our troops. Any benefits to the industrial base is a bonus but should not be prioritised over turning our military into an effective killing machine. When the shit hits the fan all that matters is having the kit available, where its made is irrelevant.
Until you need a spare part. Then it’s very relevant.
Sorry but whole nations win the wars that “matter existentially” not any peacetime army. Peacetime forces really have 4 purposes 1) undertake peacetime related security taskings including training. 2) show deterrent in an attempt to prevent war 3) fight minor wars related to maintaining national interest 3) incase of a full peer war that is an existential threat to the nation, sacrifice itself to give the nation time to fully mobilise. every major war our nation has ever won has not been with the armed forces it started with. Infact pretty much every major war sees the professional peacetime armed… Read more »
Think we all know 2.5% no great shakes really it’s got to be at least 3% even this is to small for the unstable world at the moment.
Increasing spend from 2%to 2.5% achieves very little, far better to look at getting bang for buck.
When you look at our spend we’re up there at the top of the pile, but what we actually get in return is pathetic.
Time for a totally different approach, think outside the box, these are unprecedented times, we can’t just have the spend being a shop window for our defence industry.
Bloody hell, never thought I’d see the day I’m agreeing with the SNP!
Tax doctors and train drivers more ..say 22% more they can afford it .. apparently that’s enough money for 10 more type 26 each year .
By two car ferries as ordered by the SNP should push it through three percent.
Don’t worry, Trump will get it to 3% once he has had his first NATO meeting.
Politicians should define their defence strategy and the services then deliver the force structure to support that vision – Rather than the treasury/ministers dictating you have X £. Currently our forces are in a parlous state. It will take at least five years to rebuild them and the necessary sovereign manufacturing capabilities. The US is rapidly being caught up by China; with one shipyard outproducing the whole of the USA., automated cruise missile factory capable of manufacturing hundreds of thousands of missiles per year.. The question is when, not if China expands its empire. America is a fading empire and… Read more »
Touch of hypocrasy here methinks. SNP want independence, but expect the rest of the UK to provide them with security?